4th International Teachers’ Conference
Transcript of 4th International Teachers’ Conference
4th International Teachers’ Conference12 - 13 NOVEMBER 2017
MALE', MALDIVES
CURRICULUM, PEDAGOGY & ASSESSMENT: INNOVATIVE
VISIONS TO FOSTER EFFECTIVE LEARNING
BOOK OF PROCEEDINGS
National Institute of EducationMale’, Maldives
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the copyright owner. By submitting this article the authors agree that the copyright of their articles are transferred to their publisher. It is a condition of the publisher that an article already published by NIE cannot be sent for publication elsewhere.
Editorial Board:
Shuhudha RizwanEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education
Fathimath AzeemaEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education
Aishath NaseerEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education
Wafa Waheed MohamedEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education
Abdulla HameedEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education
Lizna Abdulla SaeedEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education
Fathimath IreneEducation Development OfficerNational Institute of Education
Cover Design:
Abdulla ZakiSenior Media OfficerNational Institute of Education
Layout Design:
Mariyam ThiseenaAssistant IllustratorNational Institute of Education
National Institute of EducationGhaazee BuildingAmeer Ahmed Magu Male’ 20125Maldiveshttp://www.nie.edu.mv
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of EducationAll rights reserved.Printed in the MaldivesISBN: 978-99915-0-842-9Foi faaskuri card no: 178-LBK/2019/096
PREFACE This proceedings book contains papers presented at the 4th International Teachers’
Conference (ITC 2017), which was held in Male’ during 12-13 November,
2017. ITC 2017 was a collaborative effort of the National Institute of Education
(NIE) and Cambridge University Press (CUP). Being partners of the National
Curriculum development in the Maldives, NIE and CUP themed the conference as
“Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment: Innovative Visions to Foster Effective
Learning”, to purposefully bring together local and international professionals,
to share their experiences and practices of curriculum implementation in an
academic environment.
From the year 2012, International Teachers’ Conference continues a tradition
of bringing together teachers, researchers and professionals from all over the
Maldives and abroad to share experiences and learn from one another in a context
of research and practice.
This issue includes 10 selected papers which were submitted to the conference
by the participants of ITC 2017. Each of these papers have gone through a
rigorous blind peer-review process by two or more experts, qualified in the field
of education. These reviewers have put tremendous effort, within their given time
to ensure quality of papers published. Hence on behalf of the editorial board, I
would like to express my sincere appreciation to all the reviewers and authors,
whose contributions made this book a reality.
These Proceedings will provide educators with an excellent reference book. I
sincerely hope that this issue will be an impetus to stimulate further research in
these areas.
Shuhudha Rizwan
Editorial Board Member
Table of Contents
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY IN THREE SELECTED SCHOOLS IN
NOONU ATOLLNiuma Mohamed
08
MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A SURVEY OF
TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSIONShuhudha Rizwan
29
IMPLEMENTING PROBLEM-BASED-LEARNING IN PRIMARY
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE MALDIVESFathimath Shafeeqa and Aminath Shiyama
40
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF KEY STAGE 1 CURRICULUM IN
MALDIVES: CHANGES AND CHALLENGESAishath Shibana, Adhila Rushdhee and Fathimath Naseer
61
EXPLORING THE ISSUES TO PRACTICE EFFECTIVE FORMATIVE
ASSESSMENTS IN A MALDIVIAN EDUCATION CONTEXTKhadheeja Mohamed Sameer
74
EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF PARENTS TOWARDS
MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDSHawwa Zuhaira, Shiyama Hilmy, Asma Mohamed and Arifa Abdul Majeed
88
KEY STAGE 1 AND KEY STAGE 2 ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS' UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION APPROACH: A CASE STUDYAishath Shoozan
99
DO MALDIVIAN TEACHERS' INTEGRATE ICT IN TEACHING?Mohamed Shihab, Roza Ibrahim and Somnath Chaudhuri
115
ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތައް ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލެއް
ޢާއިޝަތު ޒިދްނާ
131
ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ މައިގައަޛްރާ ތައުފީޤް
141
9
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
978-99915-0-842-9/01
INTRODUCTION The need for a link between assessment and meaningful instruction is emphasized with the implementation of new curriculum in the Maldives in 2015. Teachers need to find ways to assess student strengths and weaknesses in daily classroom learning and to capture each student’s development in relation to standards. An assessment
cycle should be embedded in instruction, and instruction should begin with a diagnostic assessment that can determine what students already know, followed by instruction, periodic formative assessments that monitor student progress, and continued instruction, and should conclude with summative assessments
The Relationship between Formative Assessment and Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Three Selected Schools in Noonu Atoll
NIUMA MOHAMEDThe Maldives National University
This empirical study examined the relationship between teachers’ use of formative assessment and their self-efficacy beliefs. This study involved a quantitative analysis of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and the use of formative assessment to change and modify their classroom instruction and their perceptions of self-efficacy. A survey, which included demographic, assessment, and self-efficacy questions, was administered to examine how key stage 1 & 2 teachers (n = 50) in three selected schools in Noonu Atoll rate their assessment knowledge and practices and how their knowledge and beliefs regarding formative assessment relate to their sense of self-efficacy. Convenience sampling was employed, and data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings indicate that teachers frequently use formative assessments to change and modify their classroom instruction and that they perceive these changes to be effective in raising mathematics achievement. Further, the findings show that the respondents are comfortable with their level of assessment knowledge and, overall, have a high sense of teacher efficacy. Finally, teachers’ use of formative assessment to change and modify their classroom instruction in key stage 1 & 2 is positively correlated with their self-efficacy in relationship to assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness of assessments. Overall, the results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of teachers’ beliefs in shaping a new culture for their use of formative assessment to inform day-to-day classroom instruction.
Keywords: Formative assessments, self-efficacy, assessment knowledge, mathematics achievement
10
to determine what the students have learned (Wylie, 2008). Along with the implementation of new curriculum, a new Assessment Policy was circulated by the Ministry of Education. The attention which was previously placed on testing has led to a new emphasis on academic performance in the new assessment policy. This change has caused the teachers to search for better methods to meet the demands in order to increase student achievement, adjust instruction and assess individual learners. The researcher’s interest in assessment has developed as part of her role as the subject coordinator, the author of the study guide used at the Centre for Open Learning and as a lecturer teaching the modules EST207 Assessment and Evaluation at The Maldives National University. Throughout the teaching process, the researcher has become curious about how much and how well teachers understand formative assessment results, whether they believe that they can be used to make a difference in achievement test scores, and how much they can use these results to guide classroom instruction. The change in curriculum and the assessment policy requires teachers to use assessment as a way of determining what to teach. In order to gauge the students’ learning, teachers are required to give periodic benchmark tests, work in professional learning communities to develop common assessments, and document instruction and learning through analyzing benchmark data. When testing is approached as assessment for learning, learning can be intensified through effective feedback and peer and self-assessments. For this reason, it is important to determine whether and
how teachers use assessment data to select instructional strategies that support and enhance student learning.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a relationship between key stage 2 (fourth, fifth and sixth grade) teachers’ assessment literacy, their instructional use of assessment data, and their sense of self-efficacy. The researcher used a survey pertaining to assessment to ascertain the types of formative assessments that teachers administer the frequency of their administration, how these assessments are used, and the perceived effectiveness of using formative assessment data to inform instruction. Additionally, the researcher determined teachers’ understanding of formative assessment and the extent to which they believed that their use of student assessment data had an impact on student learning and achievement in mathematics. The results of this study may help educators understand the impact of teachers’ use of formative assessment data on student mathematics achievement as well as their own self-efficacy. Examining assessment practices, understanding how results are used, and showing that there is a positive relationship between these activities and increased student achievement may provide insight into how to develop interventions to guide instructional practices for unsuccessful students. Specifically, the findings of this study will inform teachers of the perceptions, beliefs, and practices related to formative assessment as held by their colleagues. Describing other teachers’ beliefs and their use of formative assessments may
11
affect individual teachers’ beliefs about the role of assessment in the classroom and guide the district’s choice of professional development activities. The results may influence teachers’ beliefs about the value of dedicating time to formative assessments as well as their understanding of the use of assessment in general. Overall, the results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of teachers’ beliefs in shaping a new culture for their use of formative assessment to inform day-to-day classroom instruction.
Formative Assessments and Self-Efficacy
To use assessment effectively, researchers believe that educators must possess knowledge of how to assess what students know and can, interpret the results of these assessments, and apply these results to improve student learning and program effectiveness. Educators who have assessment literacy have the knowledge and skills related to the basic principles of assessment knowledge. Ayalla et al. (2008) found that assessment literacy and assessment reform require significant preparatory measures. Researchers note the need to gather information from practicing educators about their beliefs about and conceptions of assessment, their use of classroom assessment practices, and the relationship between these variables (Winterbottom et al., 2008). The current emphasis on assessment is challenging because many teachers lack the necessary skills or tools to utilize data effectively (Bernhardt, 2005). Training and professional development
have not provided teachers with the instructional strategies that promote a move in assessment practices from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Frequently, teacher use of assessment methods does not promote learning and can have a negative effect on low-achieving students (Denton, 2014). According to the assessment policy, school goals usually focus on improving student learning while maintaining high standards (Voelkel & Mello, 2011). As Klappa (2015) states, Ontario is an example where mathematics curricula and teacher resources demonstrate reformed views of assessment which has shifted from a view of assessment as a series of events that objectively measure the acquisition of knowledge toward a view of assessment as a social practice that provides continual insights and information to support student learning and influence teaching practice.
According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is a belief in one’s competence and ability to successfully complete a task. In social cognitive theory, human functioning is based on intrapersonal influences, the environment, and behaviours in which individuals take part (Bandura, 2012). Since self-efficacy is part of the intrapersonal influences that impact human functioning, individuals influence events and the path of their lives. Social cognitive theory is founded on this agentic perspective, which holds that individuals have influence over their own functioning and the events in their life through the actions they take (Bandura, 2012). Furthermore, it is necessary that learners are able to deal with failure
12
by using the experience as a learning opportunity rather than being demoralized (Bandura, 2012). Positive self-efficacy can be fostered through verbal persuasion that involves encouraging learners to determine success by self-improvement rather than by comparing themselves to others. The way individuals interpret their physical and emotional states influences how they perceive their self-efficacy. As a result, self-efficacy can be improved by reducing anxiety and depression, developing physical strength, and learning to correctly interpret physical and emotion states (Bandurah, 2012).
Research Questions
1. How often do teachers use formative assessments?
2. How often do teachers change their instructional strategies based on formative assessment data?
3. Does the assessment knowledge of teachers have an effect on the teachers’ self-efficacy?
4. Does the teachers’ belief on using effective formative assessments influence the students’ mathematics achievement?
5. Is there a relationship between the use of teachers’ formative assessment data to inform instruction and their self-efficacy?
METHOD
A survey approach was used to gather data from participating teachers with regard to the frequency of their use of
formative assessment, how they used formative assessments, their beliefs about how effective formative assessment data informs mathematics instruction, their knowledge of formative assessment practice, and their self-efficacy. This research was based on the idea that student motivation and self-efficacy are important aspects of an effective learning environment which is informed by two conceptual frameworks. Self-efficacy theory and the achievement goal theory were used as a framework for this study in order to investigate the impact of formative assessment strategies on student self-efficacy and motivation in mathematics. The first framework is based on Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory on self-efficacy, which holds that self-efficacy beliefs influence how one feels, thinks, behaves, and is motivated. The second framework is based on the achievement goal theory, also known as goal orientation theory, which conceptualizes motivation through the types of goals that one pursues when in a situation involving achievement (Mohamadi & Asadzaheh, 2006).
A quantitative methodology was selected as a means to collect data that could be analyzed. Statistical analysis allows researchers to examine how variables relate to other variables. Survey design is appropriate when a researcher seeks to explore a relationship and that was the case in this investigation. In quantitative research, surveys are administered to the participants to gather data about their perceptions, attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics of a sample as representative of population, and these
13
data are considered primary data. A survey design also was selected for this study because it is considered an efficient and economical method of data collection. In cross-sectional survey research, data are collected at one point in time. For this study, data were collected from the sample of elementary teachers once during the second term 2016. This study sought to explore the relationship among teachers’ assessment knowledge, frequency and type of assessments given, frequency of using assessment data to inform instruction, and teachers’ self-efficacy.
Population and Sample
The target population in this study included key stage 2 teachers working in 3 schools in Noonu Atoll. Participants included 45 females and 5 males which consist of 17
teachers from school A, 16 teachers from school B and 17 teachers from school C. Table 1. provides the demographic information for the sample.
Data Collection Procedures and Instruments
Survey form was created via google form and administered through online. The survey consisted of three parts: Part 1 contains demographic questions about the participants’ background (gender, years of teaching experience, the school he/she works, and educational level); Part 2 is The Survey on Classroom Assessment. It contains 12 Likert-type items scored on a scale from 0 to 8 (0 = never/not used to 8 = always/ daily/ highly effective), designed to address conceptions of assessment (types of assessments, assessment practices, and assessment knowledge). Part 3 consists of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale. It contains 12 Likert-type items, on a scale from 0 to 8 (0 = nothing to 8 = a great deal), that ask teachers to judge their ability to influence outcomes.
Access to Study Participants
Principals were provided with an overview of the study. Then teachers were sent the survey via email. Surveys were completed anonymously. The survey is found in Appendix A, along with the initial email to principals and email to teachers.
Pilot Study
The researcher conducted a pilot survey with 15 teachers of key stage 2 at one primary school to ensure that the items
Gender n %Female 45 90
Male 5 10
Schools
School A 17 34
School B 16 32
School C 17 34
Educational Level
Diploma 38 76
Bachelor’s Degree 12 24
Master’s Degree 0 0
Years of Teaching Experience
0 - 3 2 4
4 - 10 16 32
11 - 20 27 54
More than 20 years 5 10
Table 1:. Demographics for the Sample
Demographic Variable
14
on the questionnaire were understandable and that the responses provided by the participants accurately reflected their perceptions. The teachers were asked to evaluate the overall length and clarity of the survey questions. Participants in the pilot study expressed concern about the wording of a few questions, and these questions were streamlined and reworded.
Data Analysis
Prior to actual data collection, the reliability coefficient alpha was used to measure the reliability of the constructs in the pilot study. The sample for the pilot study comprised of 7 respondents. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each variable respectively are all at acceptable levels.
The participants’ responses to the survey were entered into the statistical software program, SPSS Version 22. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and organize participants’ demographic information and the responses from the questionnaires. Specifically, the data pertaining to research questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, means, standard deviations, and percentages. Research question 5 concerned whether teachers’ use of formative assessment related to self-efficacy. Inferential statistics were run to examine the variables of types of assessment, assessment knowledge, effectiveness of assessment, and years of teaching experience for possible correlation. Spearman correlation test was used to more closely analyze
the correlation among variables. The researcher determined whether a positive, zero, or negative correlation existed between the formative assessment variables and self-efficacy by using the results of the statistical analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Research Question 1
Research question 1 indicated how often teachers used formative assessments. The researcher used descriptive statistics to determine the overall percentage of the frequency of use of formative assessment for three categories: daily, weekly, and monthly.
Table 2. Frequency of Teachers’ Use of Formative
Assessment Frequency
n %
Daily 21 42
Weekly 17 34
Monthly 12 24
To address research question 1 in more depth, the researcher analyzed the data to determine the frequency with which specific types of mathematics formative assessments were used. Table 3. presents the frequency of distribution for each type of assessment and a summary of a total use for each assessment type.
15
Table 3. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Specific Types of Formative Assessments
Type of assessment Never Daily Weekly Monthly Total
Performance based assessment
%
n
14
7
36
18
30
15
20
10
86
43
Observation (checklist & anecdotal records)
%
n
0
0
48
24
36
18
16
8
100
50
Oral questioning %
n
0
0
60
30
32
16
8
4
100
50
Rubrics %
n
4
2
20
10
42
21
32
16
96
48
Student self-rating %
n
56
28
6
3
14
7
24
12
44
22
Figure 1. Most Frequently Administered Assessments by 3 Selected Schools.
16
All the respondents used observation and oral questioning as formative assessments either daily, weekly or monthly. Ninety six percent of the respondents used rubrics, while 86% of respondents use PBA. Whereas, 44% of respondents use Student self-rating as a formative assessment, which means more than half of the respondents never used Student self-rating as a formative assessment.
Research Question 2Research question 2 focused on how often teachers change their instructional strategies based on formative assessment data. The researcher used descriptive statistics to make this determination.
Table 4. Teachers’ Instructional Changes Based on their Use of Formative
Assessment by Number and Percentage
Frequency n %
Daily 18 36
Weekly 25 50
Monthly 7 14
To address this research question in greater depth, respondents were asked to report how frequently they made specific instructional changes based on formative assessment data.
Table 5. Frequency Distribution for Changes Made in Instructional Practice
Instructional Change Never Daily Weekly Monthly Total
Diagnosing individual student’s strengths and weaknesses
%n
21
46 23
4422
8 4
9849
Diagnosing the class as a whole %n
42
3819
4623
126
9648
Grouping Students %n
42
3216
3015
3217
9648
Communicating academic expectations %n
42
5025
3618
105
9648
Motivating or controlling students %n
126
4623
3015
126
8844
Re-teaching the information %n
00
5427
3618
105
10050
Changing instructional strategies %n
00
5427
3819
84
10050
Providing extra help %n
0 0
6030
3618
42
10050
Other %n
5226
2613
189
42
4824
17
The bar graph above shows that all respondents bring changes in re-teaching the information, changing instructional strategies, and provide extra help. Ninety eight percent of respondents bring changes in diagnosing individual students’ strengths and weaknesses, while 96% of respondents bring changes in grouping students, and communicating academic expectations, and 88% of respondents change the way of motivating or controlling students. Forty eight percent, which is more than half of the respondents, bring changes in the other areas which are not specified in the questionnaire.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 indicated that the assessment knowledge of teachers affects the teachers’ self-efficacy. Descriptive statistics were used to make this determination. Table 6. shows respondents’ ratings of their level of assessment knowledge that leads to self-efficacy when
Figure 2. Frequency Distribution for Changes Made in Instructional Practice
compared to their knowledge of other aspects of teaching and learning.
Table 6. Knowledge of Formative Assessment by
Frequency and Percentage Knowledge
n %
Less 5 10 Equal 37 74 More 8 16
Figure 3. shows assessment knowledge by 3 selected schools. As the figure shows, there were no significant differences between level of assessment knowledge among 3 selected schools.
18
Figure 4. presents the relationship between assessment knowledge and Education Level. There were no significant differences between respondents with diploma and bachelor’s degrees.
Figure 3. Assessment Knowledge by Selected Schools.
Figure 4. Teachers’ Assessment Knowledge by Education Level.
19
None Some Much Almost All
Pre-service education %n
147
60 30
16 8
10 5
Programs completed %n
3417
2613
2613
147
Colleagues %n
63
3015
4824
168
Other %n
3015
4221
2010
84
In addition, of interest to the researcher was respondents’ understanding of how they acquired their assessment knowledge.
The result in Table 7 shows that 94% of the respondents reported that their assessment knowledge was gained through their colleagues, while 86% of the respondents acquired this knowledge from pre-service education, and 66% of the respondents gained it from the programs they completed. It also shows that 70% of the respondents gained the assessment knowledge from other means which are not specified in the questionnaire.
The numeric variable (sum of assessment literacy) and the categorical variables frequency (daily, weekly, and monthly) were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Table 8. Relationship Between Assessment Knowledge and Frequency of Use of Formative Assessments
Frequency n Mean SD p Daily 21 2.07 1.10
Weekly 17 2.13 0.65
Monthly 12 2.18 0.60 .94
Table 7. Teachers’ Knowledge Sources by Percentage and Frequency Knowledge Sources
Variables n Mean Standard Deviation p
Education Level
Diploma 38 31.8 7.6
Bachelor’s degree 12 27.4 6.9 *0.01
Schools
School A 17 30.2 6.6
School B 16 29.2 7.8
School C 17 30.2 8.4 0.67
Table 9. Variables Affecting Use of Formative Assessment
20
The p-value generated from Kruskal-Wallis test shown in the table above is not less than .05, hence the relationship between teachers’ level of assessment literacy and the use of formative assessment was not statistically significant
The researcher wants to see the significance difference between sum of all types of formative assessments used by the teachers and the sum of each variable given in the table (education level, Schools, professional development, programs completed, and colleagues). There was no statistical significance for the variables, schools, professional development, and programs completed. There was a statistically significant relationship for education level and colleagues.
Professional Development
None 6 21.8 10.5
Some 28 29.9 6.2
Much 12 31.0 8.4
All 4 33.3 6.0 0.17
Programs completed
None 21 29.8 6.8
Some 14 29.0 5.7
Much 13 29.4 9.3
All 2 31.6 9.2 0.07
Colleagues
None 4 19.5 3.7
Some 14 31.1 5.7
Much 28 29.2 8.3
All 4 31.9 6.3 *0.03
Research Question 4Research question 4 was to ascertain
that whether using effective formative assessments influence the students’ mathematics achievement.
Table 10. Teachers’ Beliefs about the Effectiveness of Formative Assessment by Frequency and Percentage
Frequency and Percentage Effectiveness n %
Not effective 7 14
Somewhat effective 30 60
Highly effective 13 26
A closer look at the data is presented in Table 11, which presents how teachers rated the degree of effectiveness for each type of formative assessment and the total effectiveness for each type.
21
Table 11. Effectiveness of Formative Assessment Types by Percentage and Number Type of Assessment
Notused
Noteffective
Somewhateffective
Highlyeffective
Total: Somewhat/Highly effective
Performance basedassessment
%
n
8
4
8
4
34
17
50
25
84
42
Observation (Checklists (& anecdotal records
%
n
14
7
2
1
38
19
46
23
84
42
Oral questioning %
n
0
0
4
2
34
17
62
31
96
48
Student self-reflection %
n
18
9
18
9
60
30
22
11
82
41
Rubrics %
n
0
0
4
2
38
19
58
29
96
48
Other %
n
40
20
16
8
26
13
18
9
44
22
The Table 11 shows that 96% of the respondents rated oral questioning and rubrics as the most effective formative assessment type, and 84% of the respondents rated PBA and observation as the most effective type. It also shows that 82% of the respondents rated student self-reflection as the most effective type of formative assessment while 44% of the respondents rated other types as most effective.
Research Question 5
Research question 5 focused on the relationship between the use of teachers’ formative assessment data to inform their classroom instruction and their self-efficacy. This was determined through the use of descriptive statistics by considering the respondents’ ratings of their use of formative assessments data to inform
the classroom instruction that leads to self-efficacy. The results indicated that respondents had high levels of perceived self-efficacy. Table 12. represents the mean scores, standard deviations, and percentage of participants reporting very little/some (scores of 2 or 4), quite a bit (score of 6), and a great deal (score of 8). In the areas of classroom management and behavior, the teachers’ mean scores were highest, at 7.20 and 7.30, respectively. Their mean score for assessment strategies and motivating students to do well was 6.90. The mean score in the area of motivating low interest students was 6.20. The lowest mean score, 5.30, was in the area of assisting families.
22
Table 12. Descriptive Teacher Efficacy Statistics Survey Questions
MeanStandard Deviation
Very little/some
Quite a bitA great
deal
1. Control disruptive behavior 7.20 1.30 6.40 27.80 65.80
2. Motivate low interest students 6.30 1.43 16.50 50.60 32.90
3. Motivate students to do well 6.90 1.22 6.30 41.80 51.90
4. Help Students value learning 6.60 1.36 12.70 44.30 43.00
5. Craft good questions 6.80 1.12 3.80 53.20 43.00
6. Follow classroom rules 7.20 1.13 3.80 34.20 62.00
7. Establish classroom management 7.30 1.05 2.50 29.10 68.40
8. Use a variety of assessment strategies 6.90 1.32 6.30 46.80 46.80
9. Provide alternative explanations 7.10 1.14 3.80 36.70 59.50
10. Assist families 5.30 1.91 46.80 30.40 22.80
The researcher also determined an overall mean sum self-efficacy score for the entire sample. This score was calculated by averaging each mean score recorded. The overall self-efficacy mean for this survey population was quite a bit at 7.35, but not a great deal (a score of eight or higher), this indicating that the participants had a moderate belief in their ability to affect student achievement.
The Spearman correlation coefficient and the Kruskal-Wallis test were performed to determine whether there was a relationship between formative assessment variables and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Table 13. shows that the relationship between teacher efficacy and the formative assessment variables of types of assessments, assessment knowledge, perceived effectiveness of formative assessment was statistically significant: types of assessments (p = 0.02), assessment knowledge (p = 0.02), and perceived effectiveness of formative assessment (p = 0.02). The table 13 also shows that the relationship between years of teaching experience and self-efficacy was not statistically significant.
Table 13. Self-efficacy and Formative
Assessments Variable
rs p
Assessment Type 0.27 *0.02
Assessment Knowledge 0.27 *0.02
Effectiveness 0.25 *0.02
Years of Teaching Experience
0.21 0.06
Note. * p ≤ .05
23
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Research Question 1
Research question 1 is concerned about how often teachers use formative assessments
More than two-thirds of the teachers reported that they used formative assessments on a daily & weekly basis. The types of mathematics assessments used varied, indicating that teachers’ formative assessment practices may be aligned with Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) categorization of formative assessment types as on-the-fly, planned for, and curriculum-embedded. Among the 5 types of mathematics formative assessments, oral questioning, an on-the-fly assessment, was used the most frequently. Over three quarters of the teachers reported its use on a daily basis. Almost the same percentage of the teachers reported that they never use student self-rating.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 focused on how often teachers changed their instructional strategies based on formative assessment data. Regardless of the technology available or the existence of a collaborative culture, if teachers do not examine data and make instructional decisions based on data, little benefit from any model of data-driven decision making will be fully realized (Boudette et al., 2005). The survey data indicated that over half of the teachers changed their instructional strategies on a weekly basis. As indicated by Heritage
(2007), there are four core elements of formative assessments: identifying the gap, providing feedback, involving students, and tracking learning progressions.
Research question 3
Research question 3 discussed whether the assessment knowledge of teachers have an effect on the teachers’ self-efficacy. Much of the literature about teacher assessment literacy indicates that teachers do not have sufficient knowledge to make an impact on student achievement outcomes (Mertler, 2003; Murnane et al., 2005; Plake, 1993; Warren & Nisbet, 2001). In this study, however, the majority of participants reported that their level of assessment knowledge was equal to that of other aspects of learning. Which means that the assessment knowledge of teachers affects the teachers’ self-efficacy
The teachers in this study reported that they are knowledgeable about assessment. Particularly, teachers must be assessment literate to support learning in their classroom (Bol, 2004; Bol et al., 2002; Lukin et al., 2004). Nearly 15% felt that their assessment knowledge was greater than that of other aspects of learning. There were no significant differences between the schools.
Teachers from all three school were at or slightly above the 70% level in reporting that their assessment knowledge was equal to that of other aspects of education.
A question focused on whether the variable educational qualification they possessed had an effect on teacher use of formative assessment to inform instruction. There
24
were no significant differences between respondents with diploma and bachelor’s degrees. Over 70% of respondents with either a diploma (n = 38) and bachelor’s degree (n = 12) indicated that their assessment knowledge is equal to their knowledge of other aspects of teaching and learning. None of the respondents held a Master’s degree.
The findings indicated a statistically significant relationship between knowledge gained from colleagues and the use of formative assessments to inform instruction. Tomlinson (2008) stated that the greatest power of assessment information is its capacity to help educators become better teachers. By working in professional learning communities (PLC), colleagues are able to discuss data, reflect on teaching practice, and refine strategies. Through these collaborative discussions, teachers collect the tools that they need to scaffold learning experiences for all children and, ultimately, to improve student progress. Arter (2001) also emphasized the importance of colleagues and assessment literacy by advocating for the use of assessment literacy learning teams that study and practice high-quality, student-involved classroom assessment.
Research question 4
The findings show that teachers perceived oral questioning and rubrics (96%, n = 48) to be the most effective types of formative assessments used in their classrooms. Observation (84%, n = 42), student self reflection (82%, n = 41), also were perceived to be quite effective in informing mathematics instruction.
Teachers perceived the “other” category (44%, n = 22), to be the least effective types of formative assessments used in the classroom. Research question 4 discussed the extent to which teachers believe that the formative assessments that they use are effective in raising mathematics achievement for their students. Most of the teachers surveyed felt that formative assessments are useful for raising mathematics achievement. These data are in keeping with those of researchers who found that the use of assessments to inform instruction had a positive impact on student achievement (Ayalla et al., 2008; Brunner et al., 2005; Fontana & Fernandes, 1994; Guskey, 2003; Vogel et al., 2006).
Research Question 5
Research question 5 focused on the relationship between teachers’ use of formative assessments to inform instruction and their self-efficacy. Firstly, researcher discussed the level of teacher efficacy in the study sample, which was determined through the use of descriptive statistics. The results indicated that respondents had high levels of perceived self-efficacy.
The researcher also determined an overall mean sum self-efficacy score for the entire sample. This score was calculated by averaging each mean score recorded. The overall self-efficacy mean for this survey population was quite a bit at 7.35, but not a great deal (a score of eight or higher). This indicates that the participants had a moderate belief in their ability to affect student achievement.
The Spearman correlation coefficient and the Kruskal-Wallis test were
25
performed to determine whether there was a relationship between formative assessment variables and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. The result shows that the relationship between teacher efficacy and the formative assessment variables of types of assessments, assessment knowledge, perceived effectiveness of formative assessment was statistically significant for: types of assessments (p = 0.02), assessment knowledge (p = 0.02), and perceived effectiveness of formative assessment (p = 0.02). The table 13 also shows that the relationship between years of teaching experience and self-efficacy was not statistically significant.
Denton (2014), stated that the teacher use of assessment methods does not promote learning, and can have a negative effect on low-achieving students. As the main focus of the study was the relationship between the teacher use of formative assessment and teachers’ self-efficacy, the researcher did not specifically look at the impact of the students. Hence this can be an area to further study. None of the responses given by the teachers in this study depict that formative assessment hinders low-aching students’ performance. Contrasting Denton’s finding, Klappa (2015), view assessment as a series of events that provides continual insights and information to support learning and influence teaching practice. The study agreed to this as it reveals that all the respondents bring changes in re-teaching the information, changing instructional strategies and providing extra help. Bandura (2012), stated self-efficacy as a part of intrapersonal influence that input human functioning. Dissimilar to this,
the study found that, 94% of respondents acquired the assessment knowledge from their colleagues, which means the knowledge was gained by interacting with the colleagues, which is considered as interpersonal rather than intrapersonal. Bandura (2012), also stated that self-efficacy can be fostered through verbal persuasion that involves encouraging learners to determine success. Similar to this, the study revealed that 96% of the respondents communicate academic expectations with their students.
Implications of the Findings
To utilize assessment as a tool for learning, it is essential that teachers conceptualize the purpose of assessment in a more meaningful manner and use it to guide instruction. The results of this study indicate that the majority of the teachers reported using formative assessments on a frequent basis and felt that the use of formative assessment to inform instructional practice has a positive impact on student achievement in mathematics. The results of this study also indicated that the sources of teachers’ assessment knowledge were limited. The findings indicated that teachers frequently used formative assessments to make informed changes to classroom instruction and that they perceived these changes to be effective in raising mathematics achievement. Respondents were comfortable with their level of assessment knowledge and had high self-efficacy. Finally, their use of formative assessment to inform mathematics instruction in key stage 1 and 2 was statistically significant and positively related to teachers’ self-
26
efficacy in the area of assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness of assessments.
Recommendations for Further Research
Within the context of this study, the researcher considered assessment practices, assessment literacy, perceived assessment effectiveness, and the relationship between assessment practices and teacher self-efficacy in a sample of 50 teachers in 3 selected schools in Noonu Atoll. To move this research toward more practical applications, further research related to how assessment beliefs and the importance of assessment practices directly affect the selection and implementation of assessments within the classroom must be conducted with larger, randomized samples, across the schools in a variety of locations. Future research could examine the impact of professional development in assessment practices by comparing the teachers’ use of formative assessment practices prior to and after receiving the professional development. To address how teachers facilitate assessment for learning practices in their classroom, a study that compares achievement outcomes among students who monitor and self-assess their progress as a component of formative assessment with that of a group who does not self-assess their progress could be conducted. For this purpose a study that compares teachers’ beliefs about formative assessment, and observations during classroom instruction is necessary. A study design, utilizing not just survey measures, but focus groups and interviews as well, would provide the richer details that this
study could not. This study relied on the use of self-report data; hence it is subject to social desirability bias. The use of a convenience sample does not permit the results to be generalized
The results reflect teachers’ self-reports of assessment beliefs, practices, and self-efficacy. No data were gathered to validate whether self-reports were consistent with actual practice in the classrooms. In a self-administered survey, there is no opportunity to ask for clarification or conduct further exploration of a response, which leaves some responses either inaccurate due to a misunderstanding or the survey item’s failure to elicit an accurate response. Despite these limitations, in this study, a positive relationship was found between teachers’ self-efficacy and assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness of assessments.
CONCLUSION
Formative assessment practices can provide a mechanism to provide feedback about the effectiveness of instruction and student progress. The results of these assessments provide feedback to students and offer guidance to instructors in subsequent teaching and learning activities. The findings indicated that teachers had a high sense of self-efficacy, frequently used formative assessments to make informed instructional decisions, and were comfortable with their level of assessment knowledge but attributed this knowledge to one overwhelming source, their colleagues. The respondents’ use of formative assessment to inform mathematics instruction positively correlated with self-
27
efficacy in relationship to assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness assessments. The results of this study, however, show that there is still progress to be made. Promoting assessment literacy, while giving teachers the knowledge and tools that they need to effectively organize and analyze assessment data, will help all interested parties acquire the full benefit of assessments. Educational leaders must understand the relationship between the belief in the value of using formative assessments and teacher self-efficacy to enable the teachers to effectively select and implement assessments within the classroom. As teachers develop greater assessment literacy, and become even more confident in their ability to utilize assessments to inform instruction, their sense of self-efficacy will increase, so that they will believe, they can make a difference in their classroom, and once this is accomplished, the school and students, will gain enormous instructional and learning benefits.
REFERENCESArter, J. (2001). Learning teams for classroom
assessment literacy. NASSP Bulletin, 85(621), 53-66.
Ayalla, C., Shavelson, R., Ruiz-Primo, M., Brandon, P., Yin, Y., Furtak, E., & Young, D. (2008). From formal embedded assessments to reflective lessons: The development of formative assessment studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 315-334.
Bandura A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited Journal of Management. 38: 9-44. DOI: 10.1177/0149206311410606
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Bol, L. (2004). Teachers’ assessment practices in a high-stakes testing environment. Teacher Education and Practice, 17(2), 162-181.
Bol, L., Ross, S., Nunnery, J., & Alberg, M. (2002). A comparison of teachers’ assessment practices in school restructuring models by year of implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7(4), 407-423
Borup, J., R. E. West, and R. Thomas. 2015. “The Impact of Text Versus Video Communication on Instructor Feedback in Blended Courses.” Educational Technology Research and Development 63 (2): 161–184.
Boudette, K., City, E., & Murnane, R. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing Group.
Brookhart, S., Moss, C., & Long, B. (2008, November). Formative assessment that empowers. Educational Leadership, 52-57.
Brunner, C., Fasca, C., Heinze, J., Honey, M., Light, D., Mandinach, E., & Wexler, D. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Network Study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 214-267.
28
Carless, D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79-89. doi:10.1080/02602930801895786
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Crockett, M., Chen, C., Namikawa, T., & Zilimu, J. (2009). Exploring discourse-based assessment practice and its role in mathematics professional development. Professional Development in Education, 35(4), 677-680.
Denton, D. W. (2014). “Using Screen Capture Feedback to Improve Academic Performance.” TechTrends 58 (6): 51–56. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0803-0.
Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. In P. Black & D. Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Guskey, T. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-12. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.
Klappa, P. 2015. Innovative Pedagogies Series: Videos for Learning and Teaching. York: Higher Education Academy. Higher Education Academy website, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/peter_klappa_final2.pdf.
Ladd, J., & Linderholm, T. (2008). A consequence of school grade labels: Preservice teachers’ interpretations and recall of children’s classroom behavior. Social Psychological Education, 11, 229-241.
Mertler, C. (2003). Patterns of response and non-response from teachers to traditional and web surveys. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(22). Retrieved from http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=22
Mohamadi, F. S., & Asadzadeh, H. (2012). Testing the Mediating Role of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in the Relationship between Sources of Efficacy Information and Students’ Achievement. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 13, 427-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9203-8
Murnane, R., Sharkey, N., & Boudett, K. (2005). Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 269-280.
Olah, L., Lawrence, N., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: how teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226-245.
Plake, B. (1993). Teacher assessment literacy: Teachers’ competencies in the educational assessment of students. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 6, 21-27.
Popham, W. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory into Practice, 48, 4-11.
Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Portland, OR: ETS Assessment Training Institute.
29
Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Learning to love assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 8-13.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VII—Title 1 school choice and supplemental educational services: Final report. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/nclb-choice-ses-final/choice-ses-final.pdf
Voelkel, S., and L. V. Mello. 2014. “Audio Feedback – Better Feedback?” Bioscience Education 22 (1): 16–30. doi:10.11120/beej.2014.00022.
Vogel, L., Rau, W., Baker, P., & Ashby, D. (2006). Bringing assessment literacy to the local school: A decade of reform initiatives in Illinois. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(1), 39-55. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1101_3
Vogler, K. (2008). Comparing the impact of accountability examinations on Mississippi and Tennessee social studies teachers’ instructional practices. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 1-32.
Warren, E., & Nisbet, S. (2001). How grades 1-7 teachers assess mathematics and how they use the assessment data. School Science and Mathematics, 101(7), 348-355.
Winterbottom, M., Brindley, S., Taber, K. S., Fisher, D., Finney, J., & Riga, F. (2008). Conceptions of assessment: Trainee teachers’ practice and values. Curriculum Journal, 19(3), 193-213.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgment practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education, 17(1), 59-75.
Wylie, C. (2008). Formative assessment examples of practice. Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Formative_Assessment_Examples_2008.pdf
Yeh, S. (2006). High-stakes testing: Can rapid assessment reduce the pressure? Teachers College
30
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
INTRODUCTION
The opportunity for quality education
is a right ensured by the constitution of
the Maldives for every child to grow to
his/her full potential and be a successful
978-99915-0-842-9/02
MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A
SURVEY OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSION
SHUHUDHA RIZWAN
National Institute of Education [email protected]
The adoption of inclusive education policies and procedures has been a trending paradigm shift all over the world including the Maldives during the recent years. However, teachers still have varying attitudes, anxieties, and misconceptions related to inclusivity and inclusion. The purpose of this study was to assess teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities in the mainstream classrooms in the Maldives. Inclusion is defined in this study as the process of educating students with disabilities in the same classroom with other students, making necessary adaptations to provide an appropriate education for all. The participants included a combination of special education teachers, primary teachers, secondary teachers and leading teachers from public schools across the country. The online “Inclusive Education Survey” form was sent to all the public schools in the country for teachers to fill it. 430 accurate responses were received and used for data analysis. The results indicate several discrepancies in teacher attitudes towards mainstreaming students with disabilities. More than 50% of the teachers are not ready to include children with mild to moderate disabilities in their classrooms. More than 2/3 of the teachers see mainstreaming as a disadvantage for both children with disabilities and other children. An ANOVA conducted to test the existence of any differences among groups of teachers and their attitudes based on their education levels, designations and years of experience indicated that there are no significant statistical differences. The acknowledgement of teacher attitudes towards mainstreaming children with disabilities indicate a rationale for policy formulation and teacher professional development in order to make teachers be more prepared in supporting and educating children with disabilities in their classrooms.
Keywords: Inclusive education, mainstreaming, children with disabilities, teachers’ attitudes
citizen. Since the formal introduction
of education for children with Special
Educational Needs (SEN) in the early
1980s, several efforts have been initiated
and there have been many developments
31
in the education system for including
children with disabilities. The “Inclusive
Education Policy” implemented in 2013,
the competency-based curriculum with
inclusivity as a main principle implemented
in 2015, the creation of a SEN Teachers’
job in every school across the nation and
training people for these jobs are some
of the significant developments that have
taken place during the past few years. All
this work is geared towards mainstreaming
children with disabilities which according
to Bhatnagar & Das (2014) is the trend
all over the world during the past three
decades. However, in order to establish
an inclusive education system a number
of factors need to be in place such
as careful thought and preparation,
proper attitudes, accommodations and
adaptations (Bhatnagar & Das, 2014).
According to MacFarlane & Woolfson
(2013) and deBoer, Pijl, & Minnaert
(2011), one of the most critical of these
factors for the successful implementation
of mainstreaming is the positive attitudes
or acceptance of inclusive education by
general education teachers. As the Ministry
of Education strives to mainstream
inclusive education across the country,
it is critical to know how positively is
inclusive education perceived by the
teachers in the system. Since there are no
formal evaluations or studies published
in the Maldives which might support
anecdotal findings with empirical data on
teachers’ attitudes towards mainstreaming,
this study is designed to explore teachers’
attitudes and to gain more knowledge
about the factors that may influence the
implementation of inclusive practices in a
school system. The results of the study can
be used as a guideline to enhance inclusive
education services in the Maldives.
Therefore the study focused on answering
the following research questions.
1. How ready are teachers in the education system to include children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms?
2. What are the teachers’ opinions about inclusion of students with disabilities in the mainstream classrooms?
3. Are there any differences in teachers attitudes based on their responsibilities in the schools, qualifications and years of experience?
METHOD
Participants
To collect data for the study, an online
survey instrument was sent to all the
public schools of the country together
with a cover email specifying directions,
asking for randomly selected 4 teachers to
fill the form. After eliminating responses
with errors and incomplete responses,
430 accurate responses were used for
data analysis. This included 60 Leading
Teachers, 22 SEN Teachers, 156 Secondary
Teachers, 173 Primary Teachers and
19 Preschool Teachers. Since the same
instructions was given to all the schools of
32
the country, responses came from all the 20 atolls indicating that the random sample was
representative to the teacher population across the country.
Instrument
A two-part survey instrument was employed to collect data for this study. Part one sought
general demographic information about the participants and part two involved the attitudes
towards inclusive education, which comprised of 18-statements with a five point Likert
scale of agreement (0 = strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). These statements were
adapted from the Scale of Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC),
which is a standardized and psychometrically sound instrument for measuring teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion (Martin, 2010). The statements addressed 4 different areas
that may affect teacher attitudes towards inclusion; (1) readiness, (2) inclusion as an
advantage, (3) inclusion as a disadvantage and (4) generic attitude towards the concept
of inclusion (see Table 1).
Table 1: Content of the Survey Instrument by Area of Attitude
Area 1: Readiness
Item No. Statement 1 Children with disabilities will benefit better if they are taught in special classes
with specially trained teachers
4 I can teach a child with a mild disability in my regular classroom
5 I can teach a child with a moderate disability in my regular classroom
6 I can teach a child with a profound disability in my regular classroom
15 I do not mind making special physical arrangements in my classroom, to meet the needs of a student with a disability
Area 2: Inclusion as an advantage
Item No. Statement 7 Students with special needs learn social skills that are modeled by regular
education students.
8 Students with disabilities can have higher academic achievements when included in the regular classrooms.
10 Self-esteem of children with disabilities is increased when included in the regular education classroom
12 Other students in the regular classroom can benefit a lot from a child with a disability in their class
Area 3: Inclusion as a disadvantage
Item No. Statement 9 It is difficult for children with disabilities to make progress academically in the
regular classrooms
33
11 Students with disabilities in the regular classrooms hinder the academic progress of other students
13 We are violating the rights of other children in the regular classroom by including children with disabilities in their classrooms
14 It is unfair on children with disabilities when they are included in the regular classrooms because it will always remind them how incapable they are.
Area 4: Generic attitude towards the concept of inclusion
Item No. Statement 2 Although children differ intellectually, physically, and psychologically, I believe
that all children can learn in most environments
3 I believe that children with disabilities also can learn and progress academically
16 The main challenge for including children with disabilities in the regular classroom is the lack of special resources needed to meet their needs
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
It is of no question of doubt based on
literature, that teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion is critical in implementing the
challenging but essential goal of inclusive
education. Hence, results from the current
study will contribute to the knowledge base
that can unpack some trends and factors that
should be considered to promote positive
attitudes towards inclusive education.
Generic attitude towards the concept of
inclusion
Based on descriptive statistics, the
histogram analysis (see Figure 1) shows
that it is 64% of the teachers who confirm a
generic positive attitude towards inclusion.
Although it is only 6% (n=25) who have
bluntly said that they have a negative
attitude, the rest of the 30% of teachers
could not state that they agree with the
general concept of inclusion.
Figure 1: Descriptive statistics of generic attitude towards inclusion
This result was generated from a
combination of responses to the 3
statements under “Generic attitude towards
the concept of inclusion” in Table 1, where
teachers had to rate their level of agreement
for whether children with disabilities can
learn in most environments, whether they
can learn and progress academically and
whether it is special resources that is the
most necessary
34
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of generic attitude towards inclusion
A
ltho
ugh
chil
dren
dif
fer
inte
llec
tual
ly,
phy
sica
lly,
and
psy
chol
ogic
ally
, I
bel
ieve
that
all
chi
ldre
n ca
n le
arn
inm
ost e
nvir
onm
ents
I b
elie
ve th
at c
hild
ren
wit
h di
sabi
liti
es a
lso
can
lear
n an
d pr
ogre
ssac
adem
ical
ly
The
mai
n ch
alle
nge
for
incl
udin
g ch
ildr
en w
ith
disa
bili
ties
in th
e re
gula
r cl
assr
oom
is th
e la
ck o
f sp
ecia
l r
esou
rces
nee
ded
tom
eet t
heir
nee
ds
Level of agreement Frequency ValidPercent
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Valid 1 19 4 7 1.6 19 4.4
2 51 12 10 2.3 26 6.0
3 121 29 59 13.7 44 10.2
4 126 29 138 32.1 101 23.5
5 113 26 216 50.2 240 55.8
Total 430 100 430 100.0 430 100.0
Further analysis of how teachers have rated
the 3 critical statements revealed that 45%
or close to half of the teacher population do
not believe that children with differences
can have the ability to learn in different
environments. Also more seriously, 18%
of the teachers in this study do not believe
that a child with a disability can progress
academically, which means one in every
5 or 6 teachers in the Maldivian schools
have the same outlook. This indicates
the necessity for urgent but strategic
intervention activities to change these
attitudes as according to Cassady (2011)
when teachers have negative attitudes
towards inclusion and are unwilling to
have students with disabilities in their
classroom, there is the risk that they may
not provide the necessary learning support
for children.
Teacher readiness to include children with
disabilities in mainstream classrooms
The implementation of inclusive education
policies in schools can be of a major
challenge if the teaching staff are not
ready with the right mindset and attitude
towards those policies (Pasha, 2012).
Teachers’ readiness in attitude towards
including children with disabilities in
mainstream classrooms were tested in this
study through items 1, 4, 5, 6 and 15 in the
survey instrument as described in Table 1.
However, since this survey is applied on
the general education system, data was
analysed after eliminating item number 6
as this item is about including children with
profound disabilities and specialist training
and experience is most of the time required
to teach these children. Teacher readiness
was referred to and tested for the purpose
35
of this study through their level agreement
for the statements that asked whether
children with disabilities will better benefit
in segregated settings, whether they mind
in making special arrangements to meet
these children’s needs and whether they
can teach one child with mild to moderate
disability.
Figure 2: Descriptive statistics of teacher readiness to include children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms
Descriptive statistics based on histogram
analysis (see Figure 2) demonstrate that
it is just 63% of teachers who confirm
that they are ready to include these
children in their mainstream classes and
bring necessary accommodations. The
rest of the 37%, which is close to 1/3 of
whole population are not ready embrace
inclusivity. A further exploration into the
data on teacher readiness demonstrate
more deplorable results regarding where
these children must be placed. According
to the data, 67% (n=288) of the teachers
strongly believe and 15% (n=64) believe
that children with disabilities are better
off in a segregated setting with specialized
teachers (see Table 3). It is only 6% (n=25)
teachers who are against this view. This
is really an issue of great concern when
inclusivity is considered one of the main
principles of the National Curriculum.
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ view regarding whether children will benefit better in special classes with specially trained teachers
Children with disabilities will benefit better if they are taught in special classes with speciallytrained teachers
Level of agreement Frequency Percentage
1 11 2.6
2 14 3.3
3 53 12.3
4 64 14.9
5 288 67.0
Total 430 100.0
Furthermore, the reality of any classroom
in the general education system is that there
is always the likelihood of having a child or
children with mild or moderate disabilities
(who may or may not be diagnosed) at
enrollment. However, when one out of
every 3 teachers is not ready to accept this
reality, the effectiveness of the teaching
strategies used in the classrooms need to
be questioned. According to Romi and
Leyser (2006) teachers who have positive
attitudes towards the inclusion of students
with disabilities in regular classrooms use
more effective instructional strategies than
those with negative attitudes. Ross-Hill
(2009) also argued that there is a positive
correlation between positive attitudes of
36
teachers and increased performance of
students with disabilities in the mainstream
classrooms due to the effectiveness of
teaching strategies employed.
Inclusion as an advantage or disadvantage
Inclusion is seen by some people as
an advantage while others see it as a
disadvantage. According to Dukmak
(2013) there have been several studies that
reports that regular classroom teachers
have negative attitudes towards inclusion
while other studies show more favorable
and positive attitudes. According to Florian
(2012), many general education teachers
in Scotland have the attitude that inclusion
interferes with effective education of other
students and hence they show resistance
towards inclusion of children with
disabilities in their classrooms.
In the current study the two dimensions,
whether inclusion is seen as an advantage
or as a disadvantage were looked at
separately. The statements 7, 8, 10 and
12 in the survey instrument were focused
on assessing whether teachers view
inclusion as an advantage by asking if
they believe if children with disabilities
learn social skills, enhance self-esteem
and academic skills through other children
and whether students in the classroom
without disabilities benefit from peers with
disabilities (see Table 1).
Figure 3: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ view towards inclusion as an advantage
Histogram analysis (see Figure 3)
demonstrates that it is only 46% of teachers
who see inclusion as an advantage. More
than ½ of the population cannot agree that
inclusion will facilitate the enhancement
of social skills, self-esteem and academic
skills for both children with disabilities
and without disabilities.
Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive
education as a disadvantage were assessed
through statement number 9, 11, 13 and
14. These statements focused on finding
out if teachers see that inclusion hinders or
makes it difficult for children to perform
well and it violates other children’s rights.
The histogram analysis from Figure 4
demonstrate that only less than 30% of
the teachers would disagree with negative
statements stating the disadvantages
of inclusion. This explains that 2 out
of every 3 teachers view inclusion as a
disadvantage. However, this point of view
is not uncommon among teachers in other
37
countries too. A study by Zoniou-Sidri & Vlachou (2006) on Greek teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion revealed that regular education teachers have a number of restrictive
and conflicting beliefs towards disability and inclusion. According to this study, although
the teachers believed that inclusion is necessary as a means of improving the quality
of education and reducing the marginalization of students with disabilities, segregated
education would provide the children with a more secure and protective environment for
them to learn and develop.
Figure 4: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ view towards inclusion as a disadvantage
Are there any differences in teachers’ attitudes based on their responsibilities in the schools,
qualifications and years of experience?
Since the survey was done on teachers with varying demographic characteristics, ANOVA
was conducted to test the existence of any differences among groups of teachers and their
attitudes based on education levels, designations and years of experience (see Table 4)
Table 4: Results of ANOVA for the independent variables
Generic PositiveAttitude
Sum
of
Squa
res
df
Mea
n Sq
uare
F Sig.
Highest QualificationBetween Groups 17.489 10 1.749 .752 .675Within Groups 974.671 419 2.326 Total 992.160 429
DesignationBetween Groups 24.100 10 2.410 1.740 .070Within Groups 580.328 419 1.385 Total 604.428 429
38
Experience
Between Groups 23.475 10 2.347 1.155 .320Within Groups 851.504 419 2.032
Total 874.979 429
Readiness
Highest QualificationBetween Groups 54.548 16 3.409 1.502 .095Within Groups 937.612 413 2.270 Total 992.160 429
DesignationBetween Groups 24.217 16 1.514 1.077 .375Within Groups 580.211 413 1.405 Total 604.428 429
Experience
Between Groups 37.273 16 2.330 1.148 .308
Within Groups 837.707 413 2.028
Total 874.979 429 Inclusion as an advantage
Highest Qualification
Between Groups 22.702 16 1.419 0.604 0.881
Within Groups 969.459 413 2.347 Total 992.16 429
Designation
Between Groups 35.975 16 2.248 1.634 0.057
Within Groups 568.453 413 1.376 Total 604.428 429
Experience
Between Groups 29.085 16 1.818 0.888 0.584
Within Groups 845.894 413 2.048 Total 874.979 429
Inclusion as a disadvantage
Highest Qualification
Between Groups 38.174 16 2.386 1.033 0.42
Within Groups 953.987 413 2.31 Total 992.16 429
Designation
Between Groups 36.022 16 2.251 1.636 0.057
Within Groups 568.406 413 1.376 Total 604.428 429
Experience
Between Groups 36.297 16 2.269 1.117 0.336
Within Groups 838.682 413 2.031 Total 874.979 429
39
As demonstrated in the Table 4, there
are no significant statistical differences
in teachers’ attitudes based on their
education levels, designations and years of
experience. This demonstrates that school
teachers, though they are at different
levels of educational qualifications, with
differing number of years of experience
and have different responsibilities at
school, their attitudes towards inclusion
have no significant statistical differences.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to assess
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of
children with disabilities in the mainstream
classrooms. Although most teachers in the
school system demonstrated generally
a positive attitude towards inclusion,
there is a significant number of teachers
who displayed serious levels of negative
attitudes towards the model. The most
serious issue found in the study was that
94% of teachers agreed or were neutral
with the idea that children with disabilities
will benefit most when taught in
segregated settings. This demonstrates that
almost the whole teacher population prefer
segregation over inclusion. Among other
concerning findings of the study include
one in every 5 or 6 teachers not believing
that children with disabilities have the
capability of academic progress and then a
large fraction of teachers see disadvantages
of inclusion very prominently while
not recognizing the numerous benefits
of inclusion for both children with and
without disabilities. These findings provide
valuable insights into the significance of
facilitating effective inclusive education
support programmes and policies that
promote changes in attitudes, beliefs,
values and habits (Wilkins & Nietfield,
2004). Although there are existing policies
in the system to promote inclusivity,
this study indicates the critical need for
incorporating continuing professional
development support direction for
mainstreaming children. Also it necessary
to re-evaluate both pre-service and in-
service teacher training programmes
in order to develop specific capacity in
teachers for them to effectively respond to
the needs of all students.
REFERENCESBhatnagar, N., & Das, A. (2014). Attitues
of Secondary School Teachers Towards Inclusive Education in New Delhi, India. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 255-263.
Cassady, J. M. (2011). Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Inclusion of Students with Autism and Emotional Behavioral Disorder. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 01-23.
De Boer, A., Pijl, S.-J., & Minnaert. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 331-353.
40
Dukmak, S. J. (2013). Regular Classroom Teachers’ Attitudes towards Including Students with Disabilities in the Regular Classroom in the United Arab Emirates. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 9(1).
Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: key lessons for the professional development of teacher educators from Scotland’s Inclusive Practice Project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275-285. Journal of Teacher Education,, 63(4), 275-285.
MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson. (2013). eacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46-52.
Martin, G. (2010, February). Inclusive Classrooms: An Examination of the Attitudes and Perspectives of K-5 General Education Teachers. PhD Dissertation. Prescott Valley, Arizona: UMI Dissertation Publishing.
Pasha, S. (2012). Readiness of urban primary schools for inclusive education in Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 113-128.
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study of variables associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 85-105.
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students. Journal of research in Special Needs education , 188-198.
Zoniou-Sidri, A., & Vlachou, A. (2006). Greek teachers’ belief systems about disability and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 379-394.
41
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
978-99915-0-842-9/03
IMPLEMENTING PROBLEM-BASED-LEARNING IN PRIMARY
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE MALDIVES
FATHIMATH SHAFEEQA Institute of Research and Development
AMINATH SHIYAMA
Institute of Research and [email protected]
The science curriculum in Maldives envisions developing science process skills in the students through inquiry-based pedagogies to teaching that emphasizes on Problem-Based-Learning (PBL) approaches. This research aims to explore primary school teacher’s perceptions of the PBL approach and students’ reactions to such an approach to teaching science. The premise of the research is based on the authors’ development of Problem-Based-Learning Teachers’ Guides for Key-Stage 2 of the science curriculum. Following a case-study methodology, in this descriptive explorative research, we report on data collected from a classroom where a PBL lesson was implemented upon co-planning the lesson with the researchers. Classroom observations and interviews with the teacher and students were the main data collection methods. Findings indicate that teachers believe that PBL approach is ideal for teaching the science curriculum but seeks more training and support to develop their competence in implementing it. Further, students enjoy such an open-ended and collaborative learning atmosphere that is facilitated through the PBL approach to learning science. Additionally, school management and leadership’s support and valorization of this approach to teaching science is critical in ensuring its successful implementation in the schools. For these reasons we recommend various forms of collaboration between teachers, researchers, curriculum developers and school management that maintains on-going dialogue for research and practice. Rather than making this a policy imperative, contextual and grassroots measures are critical to bringing PBL approaches to mainstream science teaching.
Keywords: Problem-Based-Learning, science education, inquiry learning
INTRODUCTIONProblem-Based Learning (PBL) is
an instructional approach originally
developed in medical school programs
in 1960s. The success of this approach
to teaching and learning has led to
its adoption in school curriculum
42
and instructional approaches across
disciplines such as the natural
sciences and social sciences and
economics (Mong, 2013; Strobel &
van Barneveld, 2009). PBL approach
is a ‘learner-centered approach that
empowers learners to conduct research,
integrate theory and practice, and apply
knowledge and skills to develop a
viable solution to a defined problem’
(Savery, 2006 p.10).
Akçay (2009) propose that PBL is one
of the best exemplars of a constructivist-
based learning approach. In particular,
from a socio-constructivist paradigm it
has a dual emphasis on helping learners
develop strategies and construct
knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
According to socio-constructivist
learning theories, learning is a
social and collaborative activity
(Vasconcelos, 2012) that is heavily
student-centered, focusing on skills
in communication and collaboration
(Etherington, 2011). In PBL, students
learn these skills by solving problems
and reflecting on their experiences. As
such, in these types of learning and the
associated strategies, students’ learning
is meaningful because the learning is
transferable (Akçay, 2009) and is based
on solving a real-life problem. At the
center of this approach to learning is the
recognition that the learning situation
(or the problem posed) activates prior
knowledge, which in turn facilitate new
learning through social interactions
such as collaboration. The process
of collaborative problem-solving
increases the probability that the
learner can recall and be able to apply
the new learning in different contexts
(Etherington, 2011).
In science education, PBL methods
are situated in the broad approaches
of constructivist oriented inquiry-
based learning (Barell, 2007; Barron &
Darling-Hammond, 2010; Vasconcelos,
2012) and has similarities to that of
project-based learning, discovery-
learning and case-based teaching
(Prince & Felder, 2006). However,
the key defining and unique feature of
PBL and how this approach to learning
distinguishes it from the other methods,
are the nature of the problem that is
used in the learning experience (Barron
& Darling-Hammond, 2010; Savery &
Duffy, 2001) Further, the PBL approach
is an interesting and fun way to learn
science because it involves the students
in solving an authentic, contextualized
real-life problem, that they can relate
to. The nature of the problem promotes
students’ engagement with the content
of science and promotes development
43
of the science process skills together
with general skills such as critical
thinking and abstract reasoning. PBL
is often used as a way for students to
develop experience in the process of
solving a problem, rather than simply
seeking a ‘correct’ solution. In teaching
science, such an approach reflects the
true nature of science as scientific facts
and knowledge has been built through
such a problem-based approach by the
scientific community. Thus, a PBL
environment emulates the workplace
and develops self-directed learners.
These kinds of learning environments is
preferable over learning environments
in which students watch, memorize
and regurgitates scientific content
knowledge without understanding
them.
The characteristics of the PBL approach
are in harmony with the learning
process advocated in the new National
Curriculum introduced in 2014 and is
a common pedagogical approach for
all the subject areas under it. As such,
the Maldivian science curriculum
articulates its aims as ‘developing
attitudes, skills, and knowledge
students need to develop inquiry,
problem-solving, and decision-making
abilities, to become lifelong learners;
and to maintain a sense of wonder about
the world around them’ (NIE, 2011
p.6). Akınoğlu and Tandoğan (2007)
argue that when such aims of science
education are examined, PBL approach
is seen quite fitting for realization
of these aims. In fact, many science
educators advocate for using PBL
approach in science education (Akçay,
2009; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn,
2007; Keil, Haney, & Zoffel, 2009;
Peterson & Treagust, 1998; Savery &
Duffy, 2001). Thus, science teachers
need to be able to use this approach
competently in their classroom so that
they can provide a richer and fuller
science learning experience to their
students.
However, science teaching in most of
the primary grades in Maldives follows
traditional approaches that are passive
and heavily rely on rote-learning of
the content of science (Shareef, 2010).
Llewellyn (2005) observes that most
of the science teaching undertaken
in primary schools are not inquiry-
based, instead students are passive
receivers of the content-knowledge.
Such an approach defeats the whole
purpose of learning science, as it
ignores the nature of science and its
epistemological foundations. Further,
such traditional approaches of teaching
science do not cater for higher order
44
cognitive skills (Hackling, 2005;
Ronis, 2008). These ill-fit approaches
have resulted in broadening the gap
between the expectation of teachers
and the comprehension level of the
students (Kain, 2003; Sahin & Yorek,
2009). As a consequence, students
misinterpret scientific concepts and
poorly apply them in various contexts.
In fact, it has been reported that
Maldivian primary students though
are good at comprehending scientific
facts, they cannot apply their science
learning in varying contexts (UNICEF
& NIE, 2014).
Thus, it is time to revisit the teaching
and learning of science so as to
improve students’ comprehension and
application of the science-content.
To this end, it is also time to revisit
teacher professional development so
as to provide constructive support for
the teachers to be able to teach science
using more active-learning approaches
such as that of PBL. Often, teachers
are afraid of bringing in these changes
and bringing in critical thinking and
discussion into the classroom, so they
seek effective guidance and support in
implementing more accommodating
pedagogies such as PBL (Goodnough,
2003). Further we need to explore to
see the realities of classroom teaching
of science and provide the teachers
support and guidance in shifting
their pedagogical practices from
passive approaches to active-learning
approaches as that advocated in PBL.
This research sought to explore the
place of PBL approach to science
teaching from the perspectives of a
practicing science teacher in a primary
science classroom in the Maldives.
Such exploration provides researcher
in-depth and rich data on the contexts
in which such pedagogical innovations
and transformations takes place and
thereby provides us an understanding
of the implications of such changes
in pedagogical praxis (Loughran,
2003). Further, this research was also
conducted to inform the authors on the
development of curricular materials of
PBL teacher guides for Key Stage 2. To
achieve this broad objective, and from
a pragmatic approach, a qualitative
case-study approach was adopted in
this research.
Thus, the specific research questions
were: y How do science teachers modify
and enact the PBL instruction materials from the science curriculum, to suit their teaching and learning style?
y How do students respond to PBL based science lessons?
45
y What form of school-based support facilitate the implementation of PBL approach
to science teaching?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Principles of PBL and how it enhances students’ learning
The principles of PBL conceptualizes
the learning environment differently
than that in the traditional classroom.
These differences are briefly discussed
below:
The role of the problem
The problem is vital in this approach
to learning. Students first encounter the
problem and the learning takes place
in response to the development of the
solution(s) to the problem (Peterson &
Treagust, 1998). The problems are based
on real-life scenarios (Etherington,
2011; Hmelo-Silver, 2004), are ill-
structured (Akçay, 2009; Barrows,
1986; Peterson & Treagust, 1998),
complex and authentic (Barell, 2007;
Savery & Duffy, 2001) and provides
multiple perspectives (Dahlgren &
Öberg, 2001). As students engage in
collaborative problem-solving, the
problem gets further developed and
clarified, thereby making students
responsible for their own learning
as well as giving them ownership of
the problem itself (Savery & Duffy,
2001) and the solutions (Newman,
2005). Such active learning methods
are essential for generating questions
that lead to explorations (Dahlgren &
Öberg, 2001) of how science content
and science process skills interact,
thereby learning them in context.
The role of the teacher
The teacher’s role is in facilitating
and modeling the process of reasoning
(Hmelo-Silver, 2004), such as that
of reflective thinking skills that
would enhance the students’ learning
experience (Newman, 2005). According
to Akçay (2009) the teacher act as a
coach, a mentor, a guide and a facilitator.
Teachers are also required to plan and
design these real-world problems based
on the curricular outcomes, paying
attention to the learners’ needs and
interests. The problem created and the
resulting learning environment that the
teacher creates “provide students with
opportunities to engage in the scientific
practices of questioning, investigation,
and argumentation as well as learning
content in a relevant and motivating
context” (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, &
Chinn, 2007, p.105).
Additionally, in PBL teacher has an
important role in scaffolding that is
provided to the students during the
46
learning process. Scaffolding guide
instruction thereby decreasing the
cognitive load on the students (Hmelo-
Silver et al., 2007). They argue that,
for this to happen, the teacher needs to
structure the tasks in ways that allow
the learner to focus on aspects of the
task that are relevant to the learning
goals.
The role of the students
Students develop self-directed learning
skills (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Newman,
2005) as they become active learners,
investigators and problem-solvers
(Akçay, 2009). Students are active
creators of knowledge and in this
process they construct a broad and
flexible knowledge base, develop
effective problem solving skills,
develop self-directed, lifelong learning
skills, become effective collaborators
and become motivated to learn (Hmelo-
Silver, 2004; Peterson & Treagust,
1998)
The role of thinking skills and social
interaction
In PBL, students participate in
complex, life-like learning situations
where they take initiatives in collecting
data, drawing conclusions, decision-
making and simulating the processes
of the world beyond their classrooms.
Through such activities, critical
thinking are encouraged (Akçay,
2009). Broader science-specific
skills such as of problem solving,
hypothesizing and investigating are
developed in conjunction with personal
skills and interpersonal skills, such as
self-directed learning and collaborative
teamwork, respectively. PBL in fact,
enhances the acquisition of the skills-
set referred to as 21st century skills
(Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Mong, 2013).
PBL is conducted within small groups
(5-10 students) so that within the
group a learning environment that
supports and promotes both cognitive
and metacognitive skills are developed
(Newman, 2005). Akçay (2009)
concludes that nature of the problem-
solving process requires the groups to
collaborate both within and between
groups engaging students in reflective
thinking on their peers’ and their own
problem solving.
The role of assessment
Newman (2005) contends that ideally assessment should drive learning and that there should be alignment between the goals of a PBL program and what is assessed, but in practice this may be difficult to achieve. However, using authentic assessment methods such
47
as using student-developed discussion criteria, journal writing, lab notebooks, self-rating scales, peer interviews, and conferences with teachers as formative assessment methods can achieve the goal of assessment (Akçay, 2009). The PBL method
The sequence of teaching and learning activities in the PBL method are; Define the problem, Explore the problem, Narrow down to possible solutions, and Test these solutions on its viability as potential solutions to the problem (Figure 1). Though there are wide array of this sequence of activities in PBL, we followed this version because when exploring a change in practices, it is always best to take
small incremental steps rather than a leap (Schweisfurth, 2015).
DEFINEWhat is the problem here?What are we trying to study?Try rephrasing the question so that it will be understood properly.
EXPLOREBrainstorm ideas that may contribute to a solution.Ask individuals to justify the ideas to the group. Clarify for them the science process skills in solving the problem.Have them rephrase the ideas. Listen carefully and guide the group by providing cues and ideas to the group.
NARROWLists down the possible solution/hypothessis.Sort them and rank them according to the priority the group members give to each solution.Give priority to the simplese and the easiest solutions in terms of find ing the necessary resources to arrice at the solution or solutions.
TESTTest the first 3-5 hypotheses or possible solutions that you have listed and ranked.If all your first 5 possible solutions are eliminates, begin the cycle again. When you come across information that confirm one of your hypothesis you may be asked to write a scientific explanation of your solution and justify it using the available evidence or information collected.
Figure 1: The PBL process
48
METHODTo most effectively explore the place of PBL approaches to teaching and learning of science, and to gain a deeper insight into classroom practice from the voice of teachers and students, a qualitative case study approach was adopted for this study. The definition by Creswell (2007) best captures the full-depth and breadth of the case-study concepts and descriptions we adopt in this research.
Case-study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports) and reports a case description and case-based themes
(p.33).
Furthermore, this approach was appropriate for this study because, one of the aims of this study is also , to ‘understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it’ (Mertens, 2005, p.12). Yin (2003) advocates for such, case-study methods because it allows one to investigate ‘contemporary phenomena in real-life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (p.13) without sacrificing ‘holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life
events’ (p. 2).
Under the case-study methodology, a holistic single case-study approach was used in this study in order to deeply understand the phenomena or the area of research interest (Yin, 2003). In particular, this research opted to use an instrumental case study approach (Frankel & Wallen, 2009; Silverman, 2013). In this approach to case study, the researcher’s goal is more global and less focused on the particular individual school being studied because they are more interested in drawing conclusions that apply beyond a particular case than they are in case-specific conclusions (Frankel & Wallen, 2009). This method seems fit our research aim because our goal was to explore the applicability of PBL approaches to the broad area of science education pedagogies practiced in Maldives by studying the practices from the angle of its implementation in a classroom. Furthermore, as this research reported here is a part of several research conducted by the author on this broad goal, this single research here is conducted to gain an in-depth context rich description of how PBL is practiced in a Maldivian
primary classroom.
Validity and reliabilityStrauss and Corbin (1990) explain that the usual canons of ‘good research’ require redefinition in order to fit the realities of qualitative research. As
49
such, Stenbacka (2001) puts forth the argument that since reliability issue concerns quantitative measurements, it has no relevance in qualitative research. She further states that reliability is an irrelevant matter in the judgment of quality of qualitative research. Hence in qualitative research reliability and validity is established as trustworthiness of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tracy, 2010). Along these lines, Lincoln and Guba (1985) further explain that the pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research are: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.
In this research we ensured credibility of our data by using direct quotes from the participants and thus bringing their voice to the reader. We encourage transferability of this research through explaining the context of the research in detail where applicable and through abstracting our findings into theory so that readers can either resonate with the contexts or relate to the theoretical implications of this research. We explain the research process in detail while being reflexive in how we made our decisions so that we are transparent and thus ensures dependability of our findings to the readers. Furthermore, we have shared these findings with the school and the participating teacher for member-check purposes and to confirm our findings based on the data.
Ethical considerationsWe accessed the school via NIE, Ministry of Education. We approached the school, shared our purposes of the research in seeking their voluntary participation in the research. As such informed consent from the school and the participating teacher and her students were sought prior to the undertaking of the research. At all points we ensured that all participants, the teacher and her students were in this research voluntarily. We shared the aims, methods and dissemination of the research both orally and via information-sheets. All the materials the teacher used was targeted towards the respective age group and all the materials utilized in this study were shared with all the stakeholders prior to the study. Sufficient time was provided for the management to select a volunteer teacher and class the school wanted to involve in this study. No sensitive information was collected, and for student interviews, only those who volunteered were interviewed. Though photographs and videos were taken as data, they are not used in any
dissemination of the research.
Data CollectionData for the study were gathered over the course of 8 weeks during May-June of 2015 in one of the schools in the greater Male’ region. For ethical purposes, we will refer to this school as
50
Vidha Schoo l. The researchers with support from National Institute of Education (NIE) organized the planning and implementation of the lesson in collaboration with the school management. The school management provided administrative support and based on our request sought a voluntary teacher to participate in this research. Thus Saleema2, a generalist primary teacher specializing in teaching science was appointed as our teacher participant. Saleema has been teaching at primary grades for over 18 years and was keen on contributing to the research and also trialing out the PBL approach to enhance her pedagogical praxis. She in turn sought informed consent and voluntary participation from one of her grade 4 class students of grade 4 (age 9-10 year-old) consisted of 30 students with a mix of boys and girls.
Due to the nature of the work associated in this research, that is, trialing out the curriculum materials in its design phase, data was collected in four different
stages and they are described below and summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The research process
1, 2 Pseudonym
51
Stage 1
The aim of stage one was to comprehend the system of the teaching and learning context better with the assistance of the secondary and primary data to lay the foundation for the other stages. This involved searching for the objectives, assumptions, and expectations that have underpinned policy, curriculum development, teacher education, school management and teachers’ support for PBL in the Maldives. Documents referred were curriculum documents such as the science syllabuses related to the new curriculum. For example, the curricular documents of Pedagogy and Assessment Guide was studied in detail to match the PBL approaches to those that are advocated in the national curriculum. This was done to find the ideal and appropriate space for PBL in the new curriculum. This was documented and further verified by discussing this with the curriculum developers in the initial design of the PBL lesson and its associated resources. This was in turn modified for the implementation upon discussing it with Vidha School management. For the lesson materials see Shafeeqa and Shiyama, (2015) Problem Based Learning for Grade 4 - Teacher’s Guide.
Stage 2
The aim of this stage was to familiarize the school and the teachers involved
in the PBL approach so that the school would be informed about this approach to teaching science. Apart from explaining the school management about the PBL approach, this stage also involved orientating Saleema to the PBL approach. In the orientation we shared the PBL lesson materials which were developed as part of their PBL teachers’ guide. We stressed here that these materials were a guide, so she could modify them to fit to her pedagogical repertoire and students’ backgrounds and interest. Option was provided to speak in Divehi although the lesson was designed in English language. Modification of the curricular material and usage of language familiar to the teacher and students were factors that we were keen to explore because such contextualization was necessary in teacher’s uptake of any pedagogic innovation and change (Schweisfurth, 2013).
It was also given up to her to decide on a day and time in which she was comfortable to implement the lesson and she decided a Saturday afternoon, where she can request the students to come as an extra-science lesson that would be ideal for herself as well as the school management. This was seen agreeable as the lesson involved doing a beach-walk and doing so would be ideal on a Saturday afternoon.
52
Stage 3
The aim of this stage was to observe how the teacher and students were involved in the classroom implementation of this pedagogy. This paper predominantly focusses on the data from this stage.
We focused on classroom observations, pre-post interviews with Saleema and three of her students. Classroom observations was undertaken to explore how Saleema was adopting the curricular materials and the lesson resources to the needs of her classroom. Further the observations also focused on how students were engaging the resources, the lesson instructions and the associated activities. This involved observing every step of the lesson. Researchers used a wide variety of classroom-observation methods. In this case observation notes were recorded using common templates that described what observers were looking for. In particular, the researcher paid attention to how the PBL steps were implemented and how the teacher modified the pre-provided lesson materials to suit the class. Some observations were also video recorded and photographed.
Audio-recorded interviews with Saleema was done at the beginning of the class to identify how she had planned for the lesson. Another interview was done at the end of the lesson for Saleema to reflect on her
teaching and explore her future plans to use PBL approach in her teaching. Three students were selected on basis of voluntary participation. These were conducted at the end of the lesson to explore their reactions to a PBL lesson and how they experienced it. All these interviews were open-ended and kept informal with a key guiding question, which was the aim of the interview paraphrased.
Data Analysis
As this paper explores the data collected in the stage 3 discussed above, we will explain the data analysis procedures we used on the data obtained during this stage. This was classroom observation data in the form of videos, photographs and observation notes by the two researchers. The interview data was in the form of audio recordings.
The observation videos and photographs were cross-checked with both researcher’s observation notes and interesting features of the lesson were identified. These features were discussed with the members from NIE and the school management to identify their reactions and as a form of member-checking and researcher triangulation. The audio recording were transcribed and thematically analysed (Braun & Clarke, 2013). A key lens we used on the data was the research questions we had identified previously and in
53
the next section we report our findings based on these research questions.
FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
PBL is being promoted as a tool for teachers to explore the values systems underlying the key competences in the new national curriculum. Often the fear in introducing any pedagogic innovation is that teachers adopt the teaching strategy in form but not in substance (Di Biase, 2019). Such a superficial uptake of pedagogical innovation is often due to the lack of comprehension associated with the values and rationale behind the specific teaching approaches ,as well as poor support and guidance with the pedagogies being introduced (Di Biase, 2019; Schweisfurth, 2013). As such in this research we have explored the guided uptake of a PBL approach to teaching a primary science lesson and the associated students’ engagement and the school management factors that facilitate the PBL approach to teaching science.
How do science teachers modify and enact PBL instruction materials from the science curriculum, to suit their teaching and learning style?
A critical feature of the inquiry-based approach in active-learning pedagogies is the change in role of teacher from ‘custodian of knowledge’ to the facilitator of knowledge construction
by the students (Di Biase, 2019). For PBL this feature lays in the authenticity of the problem that is explored and on which the learning is centered on (Etherington, 2011). In this research the problem was pre-developed by the researchers, but teacher-input on its reliability to her students showed that students would be quite keen to learn about ghost crabs as they are familiar with these animals. The classroom resources too were pre-developed, but Saleema was given the choice to use any of them she preferred. She decided to use all the three activity sheets but condensed two of them into one activity. In her interview she expressed that she did that simply due to time constraints and she believed that students would be able to quickly complete these tasks. Such autonomy in teacher-decisions on using curricular materials are crucial in any pedagogic innovations because these are ways in which teacher adapt and adopt these innovations into their pedagogical repertoire (Schwartz & Sadler, 2007).
One of the interesting features we observed from Saleema’s teaching was her focus on managing the lesson time. Time management is a critical feature that teachers adhere to in their classroom teaching, however such administrative matters often subdues any opportunities for creative learning opportunities in the classroom. For
54
example, in the problem exploration stage students had several questions and suggestions to input, but all of them could not be entertained, because Saleema had fixed the discussion time to 10 minutes and had to move onto the next stage of moving the students out of the classroom and preparing them to walk to the beach. In the post-interview Saleema pointed out that she was focused on following the lesson plan and adhering to the time allocations because she feared that she may not be able to complete the lesson. This stress is likely to be on Saleema because we were present in the lesson, but this ‘completing the lesson’ is a common feature of teaching in the Maldivian classroom the content-focused nature of teaching.
In the post-interview Saleema pointed out her surprise in how the group work was managed well and that there were no discipline issues as she had expected. This contradicts Vasconcelos (2012) finding where most of the teachers in her study who implemented the PBL approach in the classroom experienced difficulty in managing the students’ discipline and group interactions. One possible reason for our finding could be because that these students in our research were there voluntarily and thus were keen to explore an innovative pedagogy.
Saleema expressed her professional learning in planning and implementing the PBL approach and reflected that this learning has been highly facilitated by the professional development support from the researchers. She pointed out that the close association with us in discussing the lesson, being able to modify the lesson and communicate her plans in its development stage was supportive in developing her confidence in the PBL approach. Although she has never used PBL in her science teaching, based on this experience she had developed a positive attitude towards using PBL in her science teaching. These positive attitudes are a result of supportive professional learning in implementing this pedagogical innovations and similar findings have been reported by Etherington, (2011; Strobel and van Barneveld, (2009); Vasconcelos, (2012).
How do students respond to PBL based science lessons?
Motivation to learning science
The students who were interviewed after the session stated that the PBL approach was very motivating because they were taken out of the classroom and they had firsthand experience of the subject they were studying. In particular, the problem used in the lesson, was perceived as motivating and exciting. In general, students
55
were positive about the problem used in PBL relating to ghost crabs. Similar findings have been reported by Etherington (2011) ; Hmelo-Silver, (2004) ; Vasconcelos, (2012), where they all reported on postive learning outcomes associated with high levels of motivation towards learning when PBL was used in the classroom.
In this study, the students indicated that, they enjoyed being able to apply their acquired knowledge from the field-observations into the initial problem. They expressed:
I think it is motivating in PBL because our group all participated, and we finished first [the problem/case] created an interest in the lesson at the beginning (Student A)
That is motivating to me, because we all were working together and also got new information regarding the ghost crabs (Student B)
The novelty of practicing science in its natural setting can also make science more fun and thereby a motivating factor for many students. Student C pointed:
It is motivating and it was fun… we got to go to the beach (Student C)
This reinforces the role of the problem in facilitating students’ learning in the PBL approach and the need to make it ‘real’ so that the learning is situated
in an authentic and real-life situation (Savery & Duffy, 2001).
Enhancing autonomy, team-working and problem-solving skills
PBL encourages student autonomy (Akçay, 2009; Etherington, 2011; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Vasconcelos, 2012). Student-centered learning is enhanced where the students take charge of their learning trajectories. In this research the teacher stepped down from the traditional custodian of knowledge to provide the students with the space to learn by structuring and developing a learning environment built on inquiry. This developed students’ autonomy in learning and promoted learning at a pace that was comfortable to them (Vasconcelos, 2012). This was evident when different groups were at different points and directions in learning whenever the teacher asked them questions regarding their learning.
One of the skills that are developed in PBL is team work skills (Etherington, 2011; Savery & Duffy, 2001). From the classroom observations we noticed students’ positive attitudes and an overall excitement in working together groups. We also observed that there was a team-spirit and comradeship set-up in the groups. When one student re-explained the problem both in English and in Divehi it was clear that
56
the students had a collective learning attitude set-up. Student A expressed in the interview:
We spent a lot of time with each other, trying to do the resource sheets the teacher provided before the field trip. Though sometimes there were some differences in views and opinions, we never had big fight. We always tried to analyze the solutions and reach a consensus to choose the best one. At first, we were just like any other group. But as time goes by, we improved and performed better, and were more like a cooperative team. We shared with each other and worked with each other. From there, we learnt from each other. Though we are all of different backgrounds, we still worked together very well. My friends helped me when I did not know something. We were able to finish the work because all our team members helped each other. Luckily enough, I have other helpful teammates to help me to lead the team. From here, I learnt that I need to be more independent and be bold to make decisions, especially when I am leading a team. I am glad to be given the chance to be the leader. This definitely helps to boost my confidence to be a leader (Student A).
Comments such as these and our notes of classroom observation highlighted the powerful nature of these collaborative skills students were employing as
they attempted to solve the problem. Such positive students’ outcomes were reported by Duit and Treagust, (2003); Etherington, 2011;Keil et al., (2009); Mong, (2013); Vasconcelos, (2012).
What form of school-based support facilitate the implementation of PBL approach to science teaching?
Just as motivation of teachers and students are critical in the implementation of PBL approaches in the classroom, so is that of the school management such as grade leading teacher and the supervisors. When we first approached Vidha School with our research proposal and met with school principal and deputy principal in explaining our request for the research work, they immediately welcomed our research and connected us with the grade 4 leading teacher and gave her all autonomy in working with us and managing the school-based administrative matters regarding our research. Such an attitude of distributive leadership and providing autonomy facilitates agency among teachers, especially when it comes to teacher professional learning (Hallinger, Liu, & Piyaman, 2019). Further, participating in research related work also creates an atmosphere of flexibility that fosters learning-centered leadership and build trust on teacher professional learning that is non-restrictive but is about exploring
57
teachers’ strengths and professionalism (ibid). Another important feature of the school leadership was their attitude towards active learning both for their teachers and students. The leading teacher expressed her desire to be part of this work because for her it was going to be an interesting professional learning experience seeing a PBL lesson being implemented. Further as this PBL lesson was collectively planned this is an example of a case where shoots of collaborative practices could grow with exchange of ideas and sharing feedback on practice and improvements on the PBL lessons we were designing (King, 2012). Ultimately school leadership plays a key role in supporting and encouraging teachers to trial out and experiment with innovative pedagogies as part of their professional development and learning.
CONCLUSION
This study has showed us that school management and science teachers have a positive attitude towards learning new pedagogical approaches of teaching science such as that of PBL. PBL approach to teaching science is flexible, adaptable to the Maldivian classroom setting as well as into the teachers existing pedagogical repertoire. The students respond positively in PBL methods of instruction and engage more in learning. PBL approaches
provide a fun and enjoyable science learning experience to the students. Furthermore, as this PBL lesson was based on a fieldtrip to the beach and its success in engaging students in the learning process demonstrates the viability of using PBL approach to teaching environmental education integrated with science education (Vasconcelos, 2012).
However, in a recourse-limited context such as the Maldives, there are practical and systemic limitations to using this approach. Despite the resource limitations (Shiyama, 2013), large classroom populations, limited access to online databases inside the classroom, that are beyond the control of the teacher and the school management, teachers and schools are willing to try innovative methods of teaching and improvise within the available resources. Making use of time during the weekend, promoting out-side school learning opportunities and the open-mindedness to allow teachers to experiment on new methods that will benefit and enhance students learning, are some ways to mitigate these challenges. This goes to show that schools which capitalises on both time and resources on teacher professional development that focus on content specific pedagogy development of teachers are conducive platforms for teachers to learn and implement PBL.
58
Hence the authors strongly feel that an interactive online resource platform using viable social media would assist teachers in getting their queries answered while implementing this approach.
We conclude that though these results are only from a case study, a deeper large-scale study will illuminate more about teacher perceptions and thus ways in which teachers can be supported for the proper implementation of PBL. The implication from this study is that we can empirically say that there is promise in the findings of this research that PBL indeed does not only have a place in the formal curriculum, but in the enacted curriculum as well.
REFERENCES Akçay, B. (2009). Problem-based learning
in science education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 26–36.
Akınoğlu, O., & Tandoğan, R. Ö. (2007). The Effects of Problem-Based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 71–81.
Barell, J. F. (2007). Problem-Based Learning: An Inquiry Approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The Nature
of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice (Educationa). OECD Publishing.
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research design: Choosing among five appraoches. London, UK: Sage.
Dahlgren, M. A., & Öberg, G. (2001). Questioning to learn and learning to question: Structure and function of problem-based learning scenarios in environmental science education. Higher Education, 41(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004138810465
Di Biase, R. (2019). Moving beyond the teacher-centred/learner-centred dichotomy: implementing a structured model of active learning in the Maldives. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(4), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1435261
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
Etherington, M. (2011). Investigative primary science: A problem-based learning approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(9), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n9.2
Frankel, J. ., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
59
Goodnough, K. (2003). Issues in modified problem-based learning: A study in pre-service teacher education: In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL: AERA.
Hackling, M. W. (2005). Working scientifically: Implementing and accessing open investigation work in science. A resources book for teachers of primary and secondary science. Western Australia.: Department of Education and Training.
Hallinger, P., Liu, S., & Piyaman, P. (2019). Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional learning ? A comparative study China and Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 7925, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1407237
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Kain, D. . (2003). Problem-based leaning for teachers, grades 6-12. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Keil, C., Haney, J., & Zoffel, J. (2009). Improvements in student achievement and science process skills using environmental health science problem-based learning curricula. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1–18.
King, F. (2012). Developing and Sustaining Teachers’ Professional Learning: A Case Study of Collaborative Professional Development. PhD thesis, University of Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. Retrieved from http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/6805/
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. California: USA: Sage Publication Inc.
Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry: A case study approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press & NTA Press.
Loughran, J. (2003). Leading with a focus on science teaching and learning. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and Professional Development in Science Education: New Possibilities for Enhancing Teacher Learning (pp. 237–243). London: RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447864
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Sage.
Mong, C. (2013). Examining the Impact Of A Professional Development Course on Stem Teachers’ Acceptance of and Intent to Implement Problem- Based Learning. Purdue University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Newman, M. J. (2005). Problem Based Learning: an introduction and overview of the key features of the approach. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.32.1.12
NIE. (2011). Science in the National Curriculum. National Institute of Education, Ministry of Education, Maldives.
60
Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215–237.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisions, and reserach bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
Ronis, D. L. (2008). Problem-based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and the Internet (2nd ed.). California: USA: Corwin Press.
Sahin, M., & Yorek, N. (2009). A comparison of problem-based learning and traditional lecture students’ expectations and course grades in an introductory physics classroom.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01. Bloomington. https://doi.org/47405-1006
Schwartz, M. S., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Empowerment in Science Curriculum Development: A microdevelopmental approach. International Journal of Science Education, 29(January 2015), 987–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600931053
Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred education in international perspective: Whose pedagogy for whose development? London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817438
Schweisfurth, M. (2015). Learner-centred pedagogy: Towards a post-2015 agenda for teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.10.011
Shafeeqa, F., & Shiyama, A. (2015). Problem Based Learning for Grade 4 - Teacher’s Guide. Male’, Maldives: IUCN.
Shareef, M. (2010). Environmental education in the Maldives: The implementation of inquiry-based learning at the primary level. M.Ed. dissertation: Unitec Institute of Technology; New Zealand.
Shiyama, A. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the new primary science curriculum implementation in the Maldives: A case study. In Procedings of: Multidisciplinary Research 2016 Colombo, Sri Lanka 02-03 February 2016 (pp. 109–115).
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005801
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality : Eight “ Big-Tent ” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
UNICEF, & NIE. (2014). Longitudinal study on the impact of curriculum reform (2012-2013). Male’, Maldives.
61
Vasconcelos, C. (2012). Teaching Environmental Education through PBL: Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention Program. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9192-3
Yin, K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
978-99915-0-842-9/04
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF KEY STAGE 1 CURRICULUM IN
MALDIVES: CHANGES AND CHALLENGES
AISHATH SHIBANA
ADHILA RUSHDHEE [email protected]
FATHIMATH NASEER [email protected]
National Institute of Education
The introduction of a new curriculum brings a significant educational change which requires more than an alteration of the curricula. It requires institutionalization of a new pattern of behaviour. Therefore, this paper investigates whether the new curriculum of Key Stage 1 has been institutionalized and integrated into the ordinary structure and procedure of the school setting in the Maldives.
It is a qualitative study consisting of 18 schools from two different atolls. The data collection includes classroom observation of the Key Stage 1, focus group interviews of teachers, SMT, parents and observations of extra-curricular activities, interval and assembly procedures.
The data was compared with 4 patterns of Micro-level implementation: (1) technological learning, (2) non- implementation, (3) cooptation and (4) mutual adaptation. This explores the interplay between the curriculum adaptation and the institutional setting in which the curriculum may adapt to the setting or the setting to the curriculum.
The findings showed that the schools are at the cooptation phase of the micro implementation level, where the curriculum is adapted to the setting but teachers do not alter their usual behaviour or practice.
The study also have identified ways to address these challenges and recommended professional development areas for the schools and NIE. It includes, conducting programs to reduce the differences between teachers’ beliefs and the vision of the proposed curriculum, defining learner and parental expectations, documenting best practices of assessment and classroom teaching and disseminating it among the teachers. Also attempts have to be made to upgrade teachers’ content knowledge which is found to be crucial.
Keywords: Curriculum changes, Challenges, Institutionalization, Curriculum implementation, Key Stage
63
INTRODUCTION
Curriculum implementation is a
process in which an officially endorsed
educational policy of activities that are
expected to happen in a school is put
into practice. Maldives began its staged
implementation of the new curriculum
in 2015 making schools and teachers
leave behind the traditional curriculum,
introducing a totally new educational
structure. The Maldives National
Curriculum reflects the contemporary
thinking skills needed for the students
to succeed in the 21st century, and
how schools can effectively help the
students achieve these desired goals.
It envisions a learner who is prepared for
life, hence emphasizes on inculcating
more on quality and skills rather than
content. Therefore, it is described in
terms of outcomes, characterized by
new concepts which were too much
for schools and teachers to digest.
Terms such as learning outcomes,
assessment, success criteria, key
competencies, principles and values
are all new concepts that teachers had
to experiment and experience with
the students. This led to a completely
new educational reform bringing with
it a lot of frustrations and criticism.
Therefore, it is of uttermost importance
to carry out a formative review of the
implementation across the key stages.
Background of the study
According to McLaughlin & Berman,
(1975) and Berman, (1978) the
implementation of curriculum starts
at macro level. In Maldives this is
in the mandate of National Institute
of Education (NIE). There are four
passages of Macro implementation
process namely administration,
adoption, micro-implementation and
technical validity.
Administration
Administration in this context is
referred as the translation of the
educational policy into the curriculum.
This is under the mandate of NIE.
With the help of UNICEF the NIE
then EDC developed a new curriculum
framework. Since then the process of
data collection and revision has started
off and was in full swing. In 2015 the
new curriculum was officially rolled
out to Key stage 1. NIE had the role
of developing and training the school
community for the changes that the
new curriculum calls for.
AdaptationBefore it was officially endorsed, it
went through a two year pilot phase. Six
64
schools from different regions of the
Maldives were selected for this phase.
The necessary training was provided
with follow up visits. The program
was revised many times to cater for
the normal school setting. During
these days, awareness programs were
conducted throughout the country on
the BIG PICTURE of the curriculum.
Schools started practicing the elements
of the big picture. According to TRC
reports, teachers were not ready to
accept the new curriculum (NIE, TRC
Anual report, 2013); moreover, they
took it as a burden.
Implementation
In the year 2014 training for
implementation of new curriculum
started through the cascade model.
Training of Trainers (TOTs), who
were supposed to work with TRC
coordinators were selected at regional
level. This training was followed by 6
days of intensive training program for
all the teachers in Key Stage 1 (NIE,
Curriculum Training for the TOT,
2014) . These teacher training programs
were conducted at regional level by the
TOTs, organized by TRC coordinators.
A need analysis was done at the end
of the training to identify the teacher’s
perception on the training and also
to find out the future training needs.
According to S.TRC, (2014) more than
70% of the teachers believed that the
workshop was conducted well, 80 % of
the teachers rated the syllabus as user
friendly while English, Dhivehi, Math
and PE showed a lower percentage of
70%. All the teachers agreed that they
are familiar with the new curriculum
while, 70% of the teachers agreed that
they are confident to teach the new
curriculum in the year 2015.
From January to April 2015, specific
training was conducted by TRC
coordinators and by schools as School
Based Professional Development
programs. Experiential period of 8
months were given to the schools and
a country wide analysis was conducted
out through class observation of Key
Stage 1 teachers. These observations
were carried out by special teams
organized by the TRC coordinators at
regional level.
Micro Implementation
The micro-implementation is referred to
the process whereby, a locally adopted
curriculum leads to an implemented
practice. Taylor (1988) believes that
micro-implementation implies the need
for local institutional changes and such
changes take effort and time. They
65
described the implementation process
as the interplay between the curriculum
adaptation and the institutional setting
in which the curriculum may adapt to the
setting or the setting to the curriculum.
They proposed four patterns of micro-
level implementation: (1) technological
learning, (2) non- implementation, (3)
cooptation and (4) mutual adaptation.
1) Technological Learning: in which participants adapt to the new technology but the technology is not adapted to the setting.
2) Non- implantation: in which new project practices are not implanted at all, or only implemented symbolically
3) Cooptation: in which the project is adapted to the setting but participants do not alter their usual behaviour or practice
4) Mutual adaptation: in which the innovative project and institutional setting adapt to each other.
Purpose of the Study
A key challenge for the schools
and education system as a whole in
a transition process of curriculum
implementation can be fully understood
based on how it is translated in a
school setting. The efforts schools go,
throughout the process of routinizing
a program into their existing structure
and procedures measures the
effectiveness of the program (Taylor,
1988)). The attitude of the school
community and how seriously they
take the ownership of the program will
bring positive results for the successful
implementation. When the program
becomes a high priority for the school
community, it would be more likely to
implement without significant change.
The receptiveness of the institutional
setting to the change is considered as a
positive factor for institutionalization,
while a hostile environment would
hinder this.
Therefore, this paper investigates
whether the new curriculum of Key
Stage 1 has institutionalized and
integrated into the ordinary structure
and procedure of school setting in
the Maldives. The study focus on the
following questions:
Q 1: Do the teachers have enough
Figure 1: Patterns of Micro-Level Implementation
66
technological knowledge to institutionalize the new curriculum?
Q 2: What are the key shifts that have taken place to engage and empower students in their learning?
Q3: What impact is being seen on student achievement as a result of shifts in schools and classroom practice?
Q 4: Have the school community accepted the new curriculum?
Q5: Which form of curriculum adaptation
is seen at the macro implementation level?
Significance of the study
The intent of this study is to add
to the growing knowledge base of
the institutionalization of change in
educational reform. The result will
assist schools to identify the changes
and challenges they face in the process
of curriculum implementation. The
fact that the parents and teachers
believe that the curriculum for the
key stage 1 is useful and appealing
for the students is a motivational
factor for the policy developers. The
recommendation can help the schools
to further plan their School Based
Professional Development Programs,
and bring necessary changes to their
daily school structure. Also it will pave
way for further studies to identify the
challenges teachers face in bringing the
necessary change.
This study included 9% of the schools
of Maldives; hence the findings cannot
be generalized. However, the study can
be expanded into an exploratory study
in future.
METHOD
This study employed case study as
the main methodology. It included 18
schools from two different atolls. It
used a qualitative design involving
classroom observations of all the
key stage 1 teachers and focus group
meeting with the parents of those
grades. A total number of 172 teachers
(classroom observations) and 209
parents were involved in this study.
Data was collected by a selected group
of people in each atoll, including
TRC coordinators and Curriculum
Ambassadors who have been trained as
TOTs and participated in the Key stage
1 training programs conducted for the
teachers in the year 2014. The field
visit team consists of TOTs who are
from different subject backgrounds and
were assigned a particular subject. In
every school one or two teachers were
observed from 6 different subject areas.
All the teachers from the who were
present on the day of field visits were
included in the classroom observations.
67
Focused group interview were carried
out for the parents. A total number
of 15 parents from each school were
randomly selected from Key stage 1 and
invited for the focus group meetings.
Interviews were semi structured and
lasted from 30–90 minutes. This semi
structured format offered researchers
the opportunity to follow up unique
aspects of practices at each school.
In-depth and reflective conversation
was carried out with SMT members.
Information from the SMT was used
only to validate the collected data. The
team spent two days in every school.
At the end of the field visit each observer
submitted a report for the assigned
subject based on their observations.
A template was used for guidance in
the analysis and writing of a narrative
account of each school’s visit report.
A template was used to record insights
from each school in relation to each of
the 4 research questions. The template
was designed to highlight both the
similarities and differences between
schools, and to show how the various
actions in each school contributed to
the whole.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Technological Knowledge of the Teachers
Chen, et al., (2006) defines technological
learning as the knowledge, technology
and information sources that enable
an institute to initiate technological
learning. It includes scientific
knowledge, technologic knowledge,
experiential knowledge, and know-
how. Scientific knowledge refers to
systematical-theoretical knowledge,
which is the infrastructure. Technologic
knowledge refers to knowledge that
is related to technology, that focuses
on the application of knowledge.
Experiential knowledge and know-
how are tacit knowledge derived from
practice.
Scientific knowledge: Teachers in the
Key stage 1 were trained for the new
curriculum. The Leading Teachers
received training on how to carry out
observations for the new curriculum.
According to the workshop analysis all
the teachers agreed that they were well
familiar with the curriculum while 70%
of the teachers agreed that they are
confident to teach the new curriculum
in the year 2015.
Technological knowledge: The lessons
68
plans developed by the teachers showed
that they have the necessary knowledge
to deliver the new curriculum. They
are aware of key elements and have in
the lesson plans as well. Teachers put
maximum effort to include activities
in the lessons, making it more student
centered.
Experiential knowledge and Know-how:
y A focus on effective Pedagogy: The classroom environment was found to be conducive for learning and appropriate for the age group in almost all the classes. Teachers were very caring and supportive and had a good rapport with the students. Key elements of the curriculum such as, learning intention, success criteria, and shared values were mentioned in the lesson plan and majority of the teachers displayed learning intention and success criteria in the classroom. However, learning intentions and activities were not focused to instill values and achieve key competencies addressed in the curriculum. Key competencies were not at all shared with the students nor included in the success criteria. Activity based lessons were observed in 70% of the classrooms and most of the lessons focused on collaborative and individual tasks for the
students. However, all the activities were focused on delivering and assessing the content, rather than skills and attitude. Activities did not encourage students to explore further learning and develop critical thinking. Process skills were not found at all. Linking of prior learning to new learning was poorly demonstrated in the lessons.
y Differentiation: Teachers attended to the needs of all the students in the classroom. Students were helped in developing the concepts taught based on individual needs. Students were also encouraged to ask questions by restating and
rephrasing whenever necessary.
Differentiated activities which catered to different learning abilities need to be included. Majority of the questions asked by teachers were structured to assess the comprehension of what has been transmitted and they were mostly closed. Questions of different cognitive levels and probing questions need to be
included.
y Reflective practices: it was observed that students worked in groups, collaborating with their peers and teachers. Students were found to have a sense of responsibility for the tasks assigned to them. Examples related to the content delivered
69
were given and hence some degree of meaningful learning was demonstrated in some classes. Time should be allocated to reflect more on what they have learnt.
y Assessment: Assessment for learning techniques was evident in some classes. Teachers have used variety of assessment tools to encourage group dynamics and also for self- assessment. Assessment tools were used to assess student’s understanding of the content taught. However, more focus need to be given to implement the use of success criteria for assessing students.
Teachers need intensive help in how to incorporate AFL tools to assess student learning, addressing all elements of the curriculum rather than content alone. A meaningful feedback for the students is necessary to improve learning. It is necessary to apply reward system as a part of behavior management and learner
accountability.
According to McLaughlin & Berman, (1975) technological learning is not simply becoming mastery of new knowledge, but requirs new role relationships and new ways of seeing oneself in relationship to others and to the job. He further explains that for a significant edcuational change, its important for the teachers
to be motivated to change their traditional behaviour. He identified three reasons how teachers might be willing to change. (1) complying with an order: they generally do so in a symbolic way that results in non-implementaion. (2) when behaviour is in their own self-interest; they will be willing to follow a plan if they receive incentives. (3) the value of the new practice leads people to devote themeselves; when teachers develop a sense of “owner-ship” about the proposed change.
The findings showed that the teachers have the generic knowledge of “know how” however, their practice is at surface elevel. This is in agreement with Hollins, (2011) who says that longterm and short term learning outcomes is achieved by a combination of learning experiences embeded within a particular perspective and personal stance. This belief is a deliberate process constructed when the belief is operationalised. The classroom observation showed transmition of knowledge which emphasis on drills and practices for comprehending a concept rather than engaging learner in active participation to construct knowledge, wherelse, the new curriculum emphasises on classroom practices that engages the learner in inquiry-based
70
learning through interpreting, analysing, reasoning and communicating. Therfore, it is clearly evident that though teachers have the necessry knowledge, they have challenges which prevents them from practicing them at their
optimum.
Key shifts and Changes
Classroom observation reports were
analyzed to see the impact of classroom
practice and this was compared to
the 5 pedagogical dimension of the
curriculum. Focus group interviews
were analyzed to see the student’s
engagement and involvement in their
learning.Creating a positive learning atmosphere:
y The classroom environment was found to be conducive for learning and appropriate for the age group in almost all the classes.
y Teachers were very caring and supportive and has a good rapport with the students.
y Activity based lessons were seen.
y Collaborative and individual tasks
were evident in almost all the lessons.
Making learning meaningful
y It was found that teachers develop
lessons with activities that promote active learning.
y Students were found to sit in groups and collaborative work are carried to a certain extent. However, group protocols were missing and assessment and feedback for the tasks were not evident.
y Students were assigned classroom jobs and were found to have a sense of responsibility for the tasks assigned to them.
y Examples related to the content delivered were given and hence some degree of meaningful learning was
demonstrated in some classes.
Catering for individual differences
y Teachers were found to attend all the students in the classroom. The students were helped in developing the concepts taught by focusing on the individual level.
y Students are also exposed to ask questions by restating and rephrasing whenever necessary.
y Individual learning goals and different level of learning material,
activities were missing.
Reflective practices
y Key elements of the curriculum like, learning intention, success criteria, and shared values are mentioned in the lesson plan.
y Some self-assessment tools and peer assessment strategies were seen in
71
the classroom.
y Random questions at the end of the lesson were seen as the main form of reflective practice seen.
y Connecting prior learning to new learning
y Majority of the teachers displayed or shared Learning Intention & Success criteria before the lesson starts.
y Assessment for learning techniques were used to a certain amount to check prior learning.
School Management, teachers and
parents agreed that they see many
positive changes in children
The main themes identified from the
focused group interviews were:
More engagement in learning activities and fieldtrips: Students have an active role in learning. Fieldtrips have increased as well as hands-on activities. A wide range of achievements and important days are celebrated. The students have roles in most of these celebrations. Parents have observed that students are more eager to find why things happen, rather than writing or reading books.
Cultural awareness: Students are more aware of their tradition and culture. They talk about past events, traditional food and clothing.
Attendance: Students attendance became much better compared to early days. Students are more excited
to come to schools and it was noted that they look forward to the day’s activities.
Responsible: students are found to be more responsible in the class as well at home. According to the parents, students take responsibility of their own learning and complete their homework without a reminder. In the classroom, they have scheduled class jobs, such as line leader, class mechanic, interval leader, teacher assistant etc. these jobs makes them more responsible and important.
Healthy intervals: Most of the students bring healthy food and it was encouraged in all the schools except very few. Students enjoy the interval time and discipline was maintained in all the schools.
Extra activities: Equal importance is given to extra-curricular activities as to academics. There are class level events as well as age level events. Therefore all the students are given opportunity to participate and excel.
Creativity: Most of the parents have observed a positive change in student’s creativity and Creative Art became one of the student’s favorite subjects of the students.
Tuition: Almost all agreed that children know the content and tasks well and do not require tuition. However, they send their children to tuition, to make them occupied or make them do better.
72
These evidence showed that there is
definitely a better positive learning
environment which is more appealing
for the learners. Infrastructural
changes which resulted in better
classrooms, better facilities, and
leaning environments are evident.
However, there is limitation in
adapting the other four pedagogical
dimensions; Connecting prior learning
to new learning catering individual
differences, making learning
meaningful and reflective practices.
McLaug (Palthe, 2014)hlin & Berman,
(1975) believes that the resources
spent on planning has little effect on
project outcomes, however, the nature
of planning process have major effects.
The stage during which the reform is
implemented involves considerable
conflicts as different groups try to
ensure their interests are addressed.
He mentions that the implementation
is a trial process where everyone tries
to adjust to the reform and finally
when the reform becomes part of
every day procedure, it will be called
as internalization or intitutionalisation.
Therefore, it can be ruled out that it
is too quick to look for a contextual
change.
The focused group interviews
showed that there was a positive
outcome since the introduction of the
new curriculum. It mainly showed
structural changes than contextual
changes. This included modification
of ongoing activities, adoption of new
procedures, introducing new concepts
and modification of teaching strategies.
The structual changes showed that
the schools are trying to adopt to the
new curriculum and the reform has
begun. From the rational perspective,
a program is institutionalised when the
members in the institution starts valuing
the project and they develop a culture
based on a common understanding
and an individual comes to accept the
shared definition of reality (Palthe,
2014). He states that this process is
highly influenced by expectations and
norms. He suggests that the impact of
this dissatisfaction with the existing
methods and systems on change
is controlled by the organization’s
capacity for change, and the level of
resistance to the change.
The literatures show the importance of
listening to teachers’ voice, challenges,
and capacity which controls the
changes.
Acceptance of the new curriculum
Teachers: Teachers believe that the new curriculum is a good policy
73
which caters to the need of the society. It provides a lot of opportunities for the students to explore and experience things rather than learning from books. It focuses on values and key competencies which are important for a good community. It highlights a wide range of positive behaviour and achievements and caters for different learning abilities.
Parents: Parents believe that a lot of good things are happening along with the new curriculum. Though they observe less work in exercise books, most of the parents find that their kids are more active in the class and are able to talk about their learning at home. The parents mentioned that the new text books look interesting and colorful; however, they believe that the knowledge given in the text books are not enough.
Most of the parents are not well aware of what key competencies are, but they think that it is an important component to be included in the curriculum. They are not happy with the way assessment is proceeding nor are they happy with the reporting procedure. They believe that a better communication system between teachers and parents is important. Most of the parents complained for the fact that their role has been smaller in their students learning as students have no homework and no unit tests.
The stakeholders’ views on the
implementation of the curriculum are an important factor for the institutionalization of the curriculum. As McLaughlin & Berman, (1975) mention that the project participants’ morale and support are necessary in order to make the project successful. This is agreed by Colbeck, (2002) saying that when the stakeholders encourage the establishment of a norm for a change, the teachers are more likely to take risks without feeling deviant. Therefore the view of the stakeholders on the new curriculum is positive. The schools need to be more cooperative with the teachers and parents and involve them in school activities. Adaptive planning, staff training, development of teaching and learning material and the establishment of community involvement are key elements of an implementation strategy that promotes mutual adaptation.
CONCLUSION
The findings showed that the teachers
are familiar with the new curriculum
and have the technological knowledge
of the curriculum. Some of the concepts
are incorporated into the lesson
planning and structure of the school.
A structural change is evident while
a contextual change is inadequate.
The community is happy with the
74
curriculum, however agreed that there
are a number of challenges which
need to be addressed. Based on the 4
patterns of macro implementation, the
results fall into the cooptation phase;
which means the curriculum is adapted
to the normal setting of the school, but
teachers do not alter their classroom
behaviour. Although teaching is more
activity based, the focus is on the
delivery of content than the skills and
attitude.
The study also have identified ways
to address these challenges and
recommends professional development
areas for the schools and NIE. It
includes, conducting programs to
reduce the differences between parents
/ teachers’ beliefs and the vision of the
proposed curriculum, defining learner
and parental expectations, documenting
best practices of assessment and
classroom teaching and disseminating
it among the teachers. Also attempts
have to be made to upgrade teachers’
content knowledge which is found to
be crucial.
REFERENCES
Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro and micro-implementation: Public policy. Springs, 26(2), 157-184.
Center, S. R. (2014). TRC anual Report. Addu City: unpublished.
Chen, J., Pu, X., & Shen, H. (2006). A comprehensive Model of Technological Learning: Empirical Research on Chinese Manufacturing Sector. Zhejiang University.
Colbeck, C. L. (2002). ASSESSING INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CURRICULAR AND PEDAGOGICAL REFORMS. Research in Higher Education, 43(4).
Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 395- 407.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Berman, P. (1975). Macro and Micro Implentation. California: The Rand Corporation.
NIE. (2013). TRC Anual report. Male.
NIE. (2014). Curriculum Training for the TOT. Male.
Palthe, J. (2014). Regulative, Normative, and Cognitive Elements of Organizations: Implications for Managing Change . Management and Organizational Studies , 1(2).
Taylor, C. (1988). The Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in schools with special reference to gifted education. Human services research council.
75
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
INTRODUCTION
Assessment and evaluation are essential
components in the practice of teaching
and learning. Among the many forms of
Assessment, Assessment for learning,
also known as Formative Assessment
has been gaining much attention due
978-99915-0-842-9/05
Exploring the Issues to Practice Effective Formative Assessments in
a Maldivian Education Contexts
KHADHEEJA MOHAMED SAMEERThe Maldives National University
Despite the number of top achievers in Maldivian secondary school terminal examinations, the number of students failing in all the subjects after years of formal education is rather disheartening. In 2011, 16% of students did not pass a single subject, indicating the persistence of issues (Shiuna & Sodiq, 2013). It can be presumed that disregard for formative assessment, is to some extent, the underlying reason. Focus on summative assessments has led many educational institutes to disregard the benefits of formative assessment. Sadler (1998) argues that this could be detrimental, especially to the low ability learners, as marks and grades simply cannot provide the formative effectiveness of customised feedback. This paper explores the issues to practice formative assessment in a Maldivian education context. The study uses a case-study design to collect information from students, teachers and the school management, about the issues faced regarding the subject. The study explains that students faced issues due to their disregard for formative assessment, language barriers, lack of co-operation amongst students, and students’ integrity. Moreover, teacher-level factors such as pressure to complete the syllabus, teacher burnout, and even their nationality, were found to be barriers. The management faced issues due to the inflexibility of the syllabus, and pressure from parents. Also, the exam-oriented culture in our society was raised as an outstanding issue. Therefore, stakeholders must find ways to overcome these issues that restrict the effective practice of formative assessment. Only then, can the learning experience be fruitful, holistic, and more meaningful for all the students.
Keywords: Formative assessment, summative assessment, feedback, evaluation.
to its benefits for students. If used
effectively, this method of assessment
is believed to enhance student learning
holistically.
For almost longer than a decade,
Maldivian secondary schools have
76
been preparing students for the
Cambridge IGCSE and GCE ordinary
examinations. However, despite years
of preparing for the same syllabus,
the achievement of the students is
rather concerning. Shiuna and Sodiq
(2013) found that only 27% students
achieve a pass in five or more subjects
in 2008, even though there had been
improvements in the pass rates since
2008 till 2011. It was also found that
16% of students did not pass in a
single subject in 2011, despite an 8%
improvement since 2008 (Shiuna &
Sodiq, 2013).
As a significant number of students
nationwide are underperforming, it is
surmised that the types of assessments
and how they are conducted are, to
some extent, responsible for this.
Because schools are more focused
on the marks and grades of terminal
examinations, the benefits of ongoing
assessment and feedback are often
disregarded. Sadler (1998) claims that
marks and grades would not provide
the formative effectiveness as tailored
comments. It could even prove to be
counterproductive for learners of low
ability (Sadler, 1998).
Therefore, this study was to explore the
issues to the best practice of Formative
Assessment in a Maldivian education
institution. The findings of the study
shall assist the related authorities to
find solutions to the issues.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Assessment, in the educational
context, is for supporting the learning
of students (Black & Wiliam, 2012).
Therefore, any assessment conducted
during or after a lesson must be aimed
to improve the students’ knowledge
and skills. One very efficacious method
of assessment is Formative Assessment
– a type of assessment that values the
role of feedback in learning (Andrade
& Valtcheva, 2009).
Feedback on learning holds much
significance in Formative Assessment.
There is much research to support
the fact that feedback promotes the
learning and achievement of students,
thereby, making Formative Assessment
a crucial component of classroom
teaching. The feedback given as
Formative Assessment can help the
learners to identify the gaps in their
learning and their desired goals, as
well as help them to formulate plans to
take the necessary actions to reach their
goals (Sadler as cited in Boston, 2002).
Furthermore, conducting Formative
77
Assessments can help teachers to adapt
the classroom teaching and learning
to meet student needs more efficiently
(Boston, 2002).
Among the different types of Formative
Assessment includes Assessment
As Learning, or in other words, self-
assessment – a widely used form of
assessment in which “students reflect
on the quality of their work, judge the
degree to which it reflects explicitly
stated goals or criteria, and revise
accordingly” (Andrade & Valtcheva,
2009, p.13). According to Schunk (as
cited in Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009),
the purpose of Self-assessment is to
promote self-regulation and improve
students’ ability to monitor and manage
their learning. It emphasises on students
to set goals and develop plans to meet
the goals and track their progress.
The benefits of self-assessment are
highly regarded by many educational
researchers. Schunk (2003) believes
that self-assessment is a core element in
self-regulation as it makes the student
aware of the task objectives and checks
their progress towards it. He further
states that it can lead to better self-
regulation and achievement (Schunk,
2003). Overall, the idea of Formative
Assessment is based on the primary
belief that all students can learn to high
levels and “lessens the cycle in which
students attribute poor performance to
lack of ability” (Boston, 2002, p.2).
Hence, self-assessments, when practice
efficiently, can result in higher levels of
motivation in students.
Although there are a number of
researches advocating formative
approaches in teaching and learning,
there are limitations when putting
theory into practice. The most
evident reason for educators to
neglect formative assessments is the
pressure on educational institutes
due to league table competitions.
Schools often depend on summative
tests due to their high visibility as a
means to hold teachers accountable
for their students’ achievements
(Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development [OECD],
2005). According the Center for
Educational Research and Innovation
(CERI), schools are pressured to meet
student achievement standards that
are often decided based on national or
international summative assessments
(2008). Therefore, the extreme priority
given to summative assessments has
led to the shift in classroom teaching
objectives, resulting in more focus
78
on preparing students for such tests,
and therefore less regard to formative
assessments (CERI, 2008).
The lack of school-level policies to
support formative assessments in
classroom teaching is also a factor that
limits its practice. CERI (2008) found
that the lack of importance given by
the school management to formative
assessment during formulation and
enactment of school policies could have
resulted in the significantly less regard
to conducting formative assessments in
classroom teaching.
Moreover, there are reservations to
conduct formative assessments based
on the belief that it unpractical due
to constraint in time and resources.
Formative assessments are considered
unfeasible by teachers, given the
extensive curriculum that needs to be
delivered (CERI, 2008). Furthermore,
due to large class sizes and limited
class hours, teachers are compelled to
only preparing students for summative
assessments (CERI, 2008).
One of the fundamental factors that
inhibit students from self-assessment
is their lack of awareness of lesson
objectives. Black and William (2012)
claim that students can only assess
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of barriers to forma-tive assessment.
their performance on the condition that
they have a clear image of what they
are expected to achieve because of
learning. Unfortunately, many students
are left to believe classroom teaching
is a random allocation of tasks with
no predefined rationale, and assuming
assessment to be a trivial part of their
education (Black & William, 2012).
Illustrated in Figure 1 is the conceptual
framework that would base the
study. The main concepts that govern
formative assessment, according to
the literature reviewed, is feedback
and self-assessment. It is believed that
the issues to the effective practice of
79
these aspects of formative assessment
can be categorised into three concepts;
namely, school level, teacher level and
student level.
Research Question
What are the issues to practice effective
formative assessments in a Maldivian
education context?
METHOD
A qualitative research method was
used in the study to help focus on
the naturally emerging context of the
study (Berg, 2001; Cohen, Manion
& Morrison, 2011). A case study is
“holistic”, “empirical”, “interpretive”
and “emphatic” (as cited in Yazan,
2015, p.139). Thus, a case study
design was used for this study as the
research question requires an in-depth
understanding of the issues that are
faced by individual participants of
the study (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun,
2012).
The sample for the study was taken from
a Maldivian Secondary School located
in the capital city. This is to ensure that
the school selected would have a fewer
disadvantage regarding resources such
as allocation of teachers.
To ensure a similar pattern from the data
collected for the study and for validity
and reliability, data triangulation
was used to collect information from
different perspectives (Flick, 2009).
Therefore, students, subject teachers,
as well as the grade leading teacher
was interviewed for the study.
The students were selected based
on convenience. The focus group
consisted of two students of average
performance and two below-average
performers in academics from 9th
standard. This was a particularly
typical case and hence, would allow
transferability of the data (Flick,
2009). The sample size for student-
focus-group was kept small, as Bryman
(2012) believes that large group size
does not necessarily guarantee deeper
stimulation of discussion. Moreover,
Morgan (as cited in Bryman, 2012)
recommends a smaller group size for
more participants to contribute to the
discussion.
The sample of teachers is different
from that of the students because their
methods, believes, knowledge and
experience would vary due to their
different subject backgrounds. In
such a case, Borg and Gall (as cited in
Cohen et al., 2011) stress expanding the
sample size as the number of variables
80
is more. Therefore, four teachers who
taught International General Certificate
of Secondary Education (IGCSE)
subjects, as well as two teachers of
Secondary School Certificate (SSC)
subjects were selected.
The leading teacher for the grade was
also be interviewed in the study. The
leading teacher’s interview was one-to-
one because there was only one leading
teacher allocated by the school for the
grade.
Focus group interviews would help
generate discussions amongst the
participants, which would thereby
result in the rise of “conscious,
semiconscious and unconscious
psychological and socio-cultural
characteristics and processes” among
various groups (Basch as cited in
Berg, 2001, p.111). Furthermore,
this method of data collection would
allow access to the essential content of
verbally expressed views, their beliefs
and experiences of the participants,
as well as their attitudes in a one-shot
collection (Berg, 2001).
A semi-structured interview was
used as an instrument to generate
information from all the participants.
Semi-structured interviews do not have
set questions or answers anticipated
(Takona, 2002). Instead, it has a fixed
topic towards which the questions
are directed, and it can allow the
participants to discuss the questions
and elaborate (Takona, 2002).
The data collection was conducted
between October 15, 2015, and
November 1, 2015. The interviews
took approximately 40 minutes. The
audio recordings of the interviews were
saved as a confidential file until the end
of the study and were destroyed after
the report was finalised.
Transcription process was from
October 16, 2015, after the first focus
group discussion, until November 5,
2015. The transcripts, once prepared,
were reviewed twice after listening to
the audio recordings, to improve the
accuracy and dependability of the data.
Qualitative analysis is one that demands
the researcher to submerge into the
thick data collected. Moreover, it is a
continuous back-and-forth process of
data collecting and analyzing. The data
analysis process was conducted as six
steps prescribed by Creswell (2012)
that including steps to prepare the data
for analysis and steps to follow in the
analysis process as well.
81
RESULTS
Four major themes emerged from the
study. The results of the study implied
that the issues in conducting formative
assessment efficiently in the Maldivian
institute could be categorized as Student
Level Factors, Teacher Level Factors,
School Level factors, and Community
Level Factors. Although the themes
are discussed as discrete, there is
much overlapping and interconnection
between the themes in reality.
Student Level Factors
Disregard for Formative Assessment
In general, student participants agreed
that the current system of assessment
is not fruitful. The reason, according
to the students, was the lack of regard
to the implications of formative
assessments. They believed, since
formative assessments were not used
to evaluate student performance, they
were not able to give much importance
to formative assessment.
Student A said that “Projects are
useless because they don’t give marks
for those [sic]”. There was a series
of nodding to this by the rest of the
students, and Student B explained that
“They take unit tests, but don’t look at
it much… the final test is only counted
[sic]”. This means when school
does not value formative assessment
methods in the first place, students, as
a result, do not have a positive attitude
towards formative assessment.
Language as a Barrier
Students reported that language became
a barrier in the teaching and learning
process, especially when the teacher did
not speak the students’ mother tongue.
This meant that students were not able
to clarify doubts, and the teacher was
not able to elaborate on their lessons
for students who needed extra help
either. Student A explained this,
Then comes an expatriate teacher,
so she won’t understand what the
students say if we talk in Dhivehi.
So, we have to ask in English if
we don’t know. If we ask they will
answer. But if we ask more, then
sometimes she gets irritated and
would not respond anymore [sic].
In such cases, the assessment would
not be easy, and even if conducted,
would not provide an accurate measure
of students’ level of understanding of
the lesson.
82
Questionable Level of Student
Integrity
One perturbing issue that inhibits
formative assessment is that some
students tend to plagiarise when
assigned projects. According to the
leading teacher,
Now what happens is that students
won’t do the work themselves.
Instead, they get these tasks done
by other people. They bring work
done by other people. So we
have to assess on the project they
present to us [sic].
According to her, the management
proscribed assessing students on project
words because students’ integrity is
dubious nowadays.
Restricted Cooperation Amongst
Students
Students claimed the lack of unity
amongst students was a barrier
as well. For example, student C
explained group work dynamics,
“Some students will talk. Some will
keep quiet”. Student A explained that
this was because when the teacher
assigns students into groups, the
groups often consist of incompatible
students. She said, “…they always
divide the groups according to
what the teacher wants. So, it’s
not always students who connect
[sic]”.
The teachers expressed concerns about
unhealthy competition amid students
to be the reason for this. According
to teacher A, “They don’t really focus
on their own progress. They are more
worried about the other student’s
performance [sic]. Teacher B added,
“Competitions are there so much.
Especially in my class [sic]”. Teacher
C further explained that students were
more worried about other student
earning marks than their own learning.
In my class too. Especially to
improve their marks than the other
for the next term. They would
compare each other’s marks and
papers. To see where she got
marks that I did. Something like
that [sic].
Multiple Subjects Overburden
Students
One very interesting issue that was
raised by Student A was the number of
subjects taught per day.
Actually each teacher gets a very
short time. They have 30 minutes.
83
And every day we have 7 subjects.
So every day they have to finish
7 subjects, each subject in 30
minutes. I think it would be much
better if we have 3 subjects per
day, so the teacher can be creative
and make it interesting for the
class. I think we should focus on
that more [sic].
This student, who had struggled in
studies and failed a few subjects in the
past, believed that too many subjects
content is shoved into a single school
day. Due to this, students were not able
to reflect on their learning.
Teacher Level Factors
Lack of Time
The biggest constraint to practice
formative assessment efficiently was
due to limited time, according to all the
teachers. They believed thirty minutes
per period was not enough. Teacher
C stated that “We have to cover the
syllabus. We are always under that
pressure [sic]”. Teacher B agreed to
this, “We have given time for each
topic. If we don’t give that time for that
portion, then we won’t have time for
another topic [sic].”
Another fact that contributed to this
issue was the unscheduled holidays.
The leading teacher stressed on this
point as she explained,
Those breaks we can’t control. It
comes suddenly. A lot of time is
wasted on it. We have to cover the
lessons lost. This is to be done in
a limited time. So in this little time
we have to do everything. So how
can we assess the way we want to?
I’m not saying this happens like
every year. But recent two years
this has been happening [sic].
The leading teacher gave recent
examples. Schools were closed for
Ramadan holidays and during Dengue
outbreak, resulting in more stress on the
already pressured teachers to complete
the syllabus.
Teachers Overloaded
An issue that was raised by the leading
teacher was that teachers were burning
out due to an overload of work.
When you look at the situation
now, Dhivehi teachers they are
taking secondary and primary
classes. After teaching a grade 10
class, the next period they have to
enter a grade 2 class. The whole
person will change a lot, isn’t it?
84
The whole person has to change
because the content and the way
you talk to little kids, everything.
They don’t get three minutes in
between the two classes [sic].
Teachers, too, had similar complains.
There was a common consensus among
teachers as they took turns to explain
how their busy schedules affect their
productivity. For example, teacher E
stated that,
Teachers are overloaded. We have
so much to do that we can’t give
special attention to the students.
So if they can find a way to solve
this issue, then teachers can sit
down with individual students to
help improve them.
Teachers’ Nationality as a Barrier
Occasionally, expatriate teachers
showed less enthusiasm in helping
students. Thus the lack of interest in
formative assessment was evident in
their pedagogy. The leading teacher
explained this to be a covert happening,
yet she believed this had occurred. She
explained the reason for this,
…the love and the affection and
the extra concern will be there by
Maldivian teachers. It’s a natural
thing. We will love our own kids
more than others. We will love
other people’s kids too, but that
love will be different. Their views
also will be different. I’m not
saying expatriates are bad people.
But the genuine concern will be
different. It’s human nature [sic].
Judgmental Teachers
Another factor that contributed to the
issues to effective practice of formative
assessment is because teachers judged
students based on past summative
assessments. Sometimes, teachers
have underrated students, resulting in
discouragement and demotivation of
students. According to student D, “…
teachers looks down on the student.
Will say harsh things also. If the student
can’t perform. They will say to drop
the subject. That we don’t have the
potential [sic]”. Student A explained
the reason for this is “…because in
some tests the marks are a bit low …
due to circumstances that the student
had to go through … But the teacher
can’t say that after looking at just one
test [sic]”. And hence, these teachers
had not attempted to learn the students’
potential through formative assessment
techniques.
85
School Level Factors
Unreasonable Parental Pressure
The demands of parents play a
crucial role in the way assessment is
practised by the institute. According
to student A, the parental pressure was
the core of the issue. She stated that
“…because of parent’s pressure, the
school management will pressure the
teacher. So, the teacher will always
try to complete the syllabus [sic]”.
Teacher B explained that parents are
more concerned about the students’
performance in summative pen-paper
exams. She said, “We always prepare
students for the exam …Parents also
want marks. So, we also focus on
teaching for the exam [sic]”. Hence
conducting formative assessment is an
approach overlooked most of the time.
Following an Outdated Syllabus
Despite the many positive changes
in different aspects of the country’s
education system, secondary school
students follow the same syllabus as
they did a decade ago. This causes
many constrains to educators,
especially in adopting contemporary
methods. According to the leading
teacher, “…for the secondary grades,
the syllabus is the same. So, in the end,
ultimately their future depends on the
secondary syllabus. If we can’t change
the syllabus, then we will have to keep
teaching the same structure. The way
of teaching cannot be changed [sic]”.
Community Level Factors
Unhealthy Competition Among Society
According to the student D, the
community plays a vital role in
promoting a summative exam-oriented
culture. She explains that “Everyone
wants their kid to be the best. Like if
the neighbours kid is good, then will
make us work to get a better grade
than her. It’s all about competition.
It’s in our culture [sic]”. There was a
consensus among all the participants
that this has contributed to a teaching-
for-exam culture, and thereby not
allowing formative assessments to
evaluate student performance.
Apathy Towards Formative Evaluation
Students expressed their concerns
about the indifference of employers
towards evaluations based on formative
assessments. They explained that
the country’s job market considers a
report on summative assessments, not
the candidate’s actual potential that
86
would only be portrayed by means
of formative assessment. Student C
elaborated,
…if we apply for a job also, they
will first check our O’ Levels. That
would be the first thing to check.
They won’t look at the student’s
qualities. First will check our
grades. Then comes everything
else [sic].
According to Student B, employers
only considered interviewing potential
candidates based on the results of their
terminal exams. Hence, she explained
that the community believes that “…
certificate is the only thing that can
be used in our future [sic].” Hence,
formative assessments are discouraged
in most educational institutions, such
as the one studied.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The study confirmed that the participants
were aware of the implications of
formative assessments. However, due
to the student level barriers, students
were neither encouraged to reflect of
their learning nor revise according
to their own set goals, which is a
fundamental component of formative
assessment (Sadler as cited in Boston,
2002). This outlook by students
towards formative evaluations may be
the reason they were not interested in
setting learning goals, except to score
in summative tests. Black and William
(2012) explain that the lack of goal
setting means students are not aware of
learning objectives either.
To make formative assessments work,
the teachers’ role is not to bestow subject
content, but to guide the students’
learning experience, by constructing
a model of their knowledge to direct
their learning (Hall & Burke, 2004;
Bitchener & Storch, 2016). This was
not seen to be practised in the context
of the study, generally due to lack
of time. Large class size, short time
allocation per period, and an extensive
curriculum that needs to be covered
during the academic year were issues
that teachers were typically faced within
the context of the study. In addition to
this, unscheduled holidays contributed
to the lack-of-time factor in the context
studied. In such a situation, formative
assessment would be impracticable
(CERI, 2008).
School Level and Community
Level barriers such as the attitude
towards formative assessments and
evaluations were also issues raised
87
by the participants of the study. Hall
and Burke (2004) state that often,
policies and cultures underestimate the
implications of formative assessment.
This was evident in the case study as
well. The lack of regard to formative
assessments by the community,
especially parents, has led to the undue
focus on summative assessments.
Hence, the school had been trying to
cater to the needs of the community by
following exam-oriented pedagogies to
teach an outdated syllabus.
In order to improve the current practice,
it is imperative to attend to these issues
at the different levels of education.
To begin with, the attitude of the
most important stake holders, i.e. the
students, must be addressed. Galbraith
(2015) suggests that students can be
encouraged to practice self-assessment
more in their learning, as it will increase
learner autonomy and hence, promote
a positive attitude towards formative
assessments. Moreover, educational
policies must be revised to enable the
teachers’ role as a facilitator instead
of a transmitter (CERI, 2008). Once
such changes begins to take form, there
would be gradual improvements the
attitudes of other stakeholders in the
education system, including the parents
and community (Ellis, 2008).
CONCLUSION
While assessment is appraised as one of
the most important activities in teaching
and learning, we must understand that
the actual purpose of assessment is not
to judge students’ learning, but rather
to enhance their learning. According to
Black and William (1998a, p. 5), “there
is a wealth of research evidence that
the everyday practice of assessment
in classrooms is beset with problems
and short-comings”. These were
evident in this case study conducted
by means of focus group discussions
and an interview to stakeholders in
a Maldivian education context. The
study found issues that persist at
the student, teacher, school level, as
predicted by the reviewed literature.
In addition, issues were apparent at a
community level in the context of the
study. Unless these issues are addressed
by relevant authorities, teaching and
learning cannot be made a rewarding
experience.
REFERENCESAndrade, H. & Valtcheva, A. (2009).
Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 12–19.
Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
88
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). USA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. UK: Short Run Press Ltd.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
Black, P. & William, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Retrieved from: https://weaeducation.typepad.co.uk/files/blackbox-1.pdf
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2012). Assessment and Learning. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment: ERIC Digest. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470206.pdf
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). NY: OUP.
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2008). Assessment for learning: Formative assessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). Roultledge: USA.
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). USA: Sage Publications.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97 – 107.
Flick, O. (2009). An introduction to
qualitative research (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Galbraith, M. W. (2015). Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (3rd ed.). Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
Hall, K. & Burke, W. M. (2004). Making formative assessment work: Effective practice in the primary classroom. England: OUP.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/35661078.pdf
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77-84.
Schunk, D. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal-setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.
Shiuna, M., Sodiq, A. (2013). Improving education in the Maldives: Stake holder perspectives in the Maldivian education sector. Maldives: MaldivesResearch.
Takona, J.P. (2002). Educational research: Principles and practice. USA: Writers Club Press.
Yarzan, B. (2015). Teaching and learning article 1. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152.
89
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
978-99915-0-842-9/06
EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF PARENTS TOWARDS
MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
HAWWA [email protected]
SHIYAMA [email protected]
ASMA [email protected]
ARIFA ABDUL MAJEED
Mohamed Jamaaludheen School (MJS)Gn. Fuvahmulah City
Despite the number of top achievers in Maldivian secondary school terminal examinations, the number of students failing in all the subjects after years of formal education is rather disheartening. In 2011, 16% of students did not pass a single subject, indicating the persistence of issues (Shiuna & Sodiq, 2013). It can be presumed that disregard for formative assessment, is to some extent, the underlying reason. Focus on summative assessments has led many educational institutes to disregard the benefits of formative assessment. Sadler (1998) argues that this could be detrimental, especially to the low ability learners, as marks and grades simply cannot provide the formative effectiveness of customised feedback. This paper explores the issues to practice formative assessment in a Maldivian education context. The study uses a case-study design to collect information from students, teachers and the school management, about the issues faced regarding the subject. The study explains that students faced issues due to their disregard for formative assessment, language barriers, lack of co-operation amongst students, and students’ integrity. Moreover, teacher-level factors such as pressure to complete the syllabus, teacher burnout, and even their nationality, were found to be barriers. The management faced issues due to the inflexibility of the syllabus, and pressure from parents. Also, the exam-oriented culture in our society was raised as an outstanding issue. Therefore, stakeholders must find ways to overcome these issues that restrict the effective practice of formative assessment. Only then, can the learning experience be fruitful, holistic, and more meaningful for all the students.
Keywords: Perception, parents, mainstreaming, special needs
90
INTRODUCTION
The first ever disability screening in the
Maldives was in 1981 which showed
that 0.9 percent of the population was
comprised of people with disabilities
(Saleem, 2010). By referring to the
population and housing census, the
report indicates that the disability rate is
increasing year by year. According to the
constitution of the Maldives, everyone
has the right to education without
discrimination of any kind (Hussain,
2008). Moreover, the primary principle of
the National Inclusive Education policy is
to “provide equal learning opportunities
for all children within the formal education
system as every child has the right to
learn” (Hussain, 2008). In addition to this,
people with disabilities have the same set
of rights, obligations and opportunities
that other Maldivians also have. A
stable and efficient society emerges with
excellent education which is considered as
the lifeline of working communities with
developed individual personalities. This
helps to produce knowledgeable, capable,
competent and skilful people for the society.
Nevertheless, there are many factors which
affects individual’s education starting from
the role of the school to parent perception
and their involvement.
Every child has the ability to learn,
but the way children learn and how
much knowledge they absorb is varied,
especially a child with special need
acquire these differently. Yet, as a society,
we owe all children a chance to reach their
potential. So, it is important to create the
best possible learning environment for
that to happen. In order to create a better
learning enviorment mainstreaming the
children with special needs (CSN) into
regular classrooms is important rather
than assigning them exclusively in special
education classes. Mainstreaming is
providing the opportunities to children
with special needs in general education
classrooms (Mallick & Sheesh, 2013).
Furthermore Researches have shown
that parent’s involvement and perception
differs from society to society and the more
concerned they are the more significant is
the quality of education (Saleem, 2010 &
Hussain, 2008; Kondakci, Orucu, Oguz,
& Beycioglu, 2016). This means getting
parents’ opinion about mainstreaming
is unavoidable as their perceptions are
beneficial to the whole education system in
order to secure the rights of varied ability
students which is stated in curriculum
standards.
By reviewing the importance of
mainstreaming and the rights of children
with special needs, it seems that there is a
huge necessity for exploring the perception
of parents of children with and without
special needs (CWSN). Hence, the research
focuses on exploring the perception of
parents towards mainstreaming children
with special needs which is one of
91
the fundamental areas that need to be
investigated in the educational system
of Maldives. Hence the main question of
this study is “what are the perceptions of
parents towards mainstreaming children
with special needs”. The following
sub questions are formed based on this
question.
1. What are the perceptions of parents of children with special needs about mainstreaming?
2. What are the perceptions of parents of children without special needs about mainstreaming?
METHOD
The study adopted a qualitative approach
as it would help to clarify and undersatand
the perception of parents in mainstreaming
students with special needs which requires
literal data. A phenomenological study was
chosen and eight parents were purposefully
selected as participants from one of the
primary schools in the city. From the
selected parents, first four were, parents of
students with special needs and the other
four were, parents of students without
special needs.
Consent of participants were secured before
the research proceeded and participants
were assured that the researcher will not
deceive in any condition in order to collect
the appropriate data. Participants were
also informed that they have the right to
withdraw from the study in any stage of
the research process before the final write-
up was compiled. A good relationship was
built with the participants to gain their trust
and openness.
Semi-structured one to one interviews were
conducted with the parents to understand
their perception. Field notes were collected
including the non-verbal cues to better
understand their responses and to verify
those responses with the voice recording
of the interview. Subsequently, the audio
recordings were saved in personal lap
top with pseudonyms for each interview
for the purpose of transcribing in order
to analyse. These semi-structured, open-
ended, one to one interviews allowed the
researcher to focus on the topic during the
interview by omitting or adding questions
to get relevant and rich data based on past
facts. As a result, unbiased data which
align with the objective was collected to
get the overall picture of the study.
To analyze the data, collected data was
scanned and untied into separate ideas to
get the real message of the interviewee.
For effective coding, the researcher read
and got the meaning of the thick and
opulent data to select important data and
to leave out the insignificant ideas of the
transcriptions. Codes were selected from
every transcription and along with that,
sub-themes were catergorized. After that
the broad themes based on the sub-themes
were fainalized. All ideas that comes under
the finalized themes were listed down and
92
analyzed data displayed the results.
RESULTS
With regards to the research topic,
the developed themes and sub themes
are illustrated in figure 1 and 2. As
displayed in both, the two main themes
are perception of parents of children
with special needs and perception of
parents of children without special
needs. The following provides the
findings for each theme in detail in
relation to the research topic.
Theme 1: Perception of Parents of Children with Special Needs
This is the theme where more sub themes
emerged from the data analysis. From this
theme, six sub themes were recognized.
The following diagram shows the sub
themes based on the perception of parents
of children with special needs.
Academic Development
Parents of children with special needs
shared that children with special needs
increase their academic performance
gradually from subjects like Islam, Math
and Science due to mainstreaming. They
also expressed that, before mainstreaming
their children faced difficulty in writing
and they were not able to copy a single
sentence from the board. But now they are
doing it much better. A comment regarding
this includes;
My child is improving little by little. It
is very difficult for him to copy the work
from the board before mainstreaming.
Now he does a lot [Parent 1]
Parents of children with special needs
believed that their children are improving
academically due to mainstreaming.
Child’s Daily Work
Another perception revealed from parents
of children with special needs is about
the level of daily work done by their
children during class hours. Some parents
of children with special needs were happy
about the extent where their children
completed the daily classwork during class
hours while the other parents were not
agreeing the idea. The following comments
Figure 1:-Perception of Parents of Children with Special
Needs about Mainstreaming
93
evident individual parents’ view about the
level of daily work done by their children.
I believe my child is doing all the work
during class hours as no complaints
from the teacher came to me regarding
incompletion of work [Parent 4]
I am not happy about the daily work
completed by my child according to his
level during class hours [Parent 1]
Hence, from the views of some parents of
children with special needs evident that
they were happy about the level of their
children’s daily class work completion
while the others were not.
Change in Behaviour
In addition to this, change in behaviour
is also a perception discovered from the
data analysis. Majority of the parents
of children with special needs believed
that positive changes are seen from their
children’s behaviour after mainstreaming.
After mainstreaming children with special
needs participate in class activities, speaks
in the class, spend time and share ideas
with peers and do class work and home
work well. The following quote gives a
clear meaning of parents’ perception.
Before mainstreaming my child did
not speak often but now he speaks
frequently [Parent 2]
Parents believed that mainstreaming
changes the behaviour of children with
special needs.
Cater Child’s Needs
Some parents of children with special
needs believed that their children did not
get enough individual guidance. Their
children are not been addressed with
suitable learning materials while the
other parents believed that their children
get enough support and guidance from
the teachers. The following statements of
parents evident the ideas presented above;
My child did not get help from the
teacher to do the work given during
class hours [Parent 2]
My child gets different levelled
worksheets and assessments and also
gets enough support from teacher
[Parent 3]
Parents of children with special needs were
happy about the level of their children’s
daily class work completion while the
others were not.
Appropriate therapies
Another important result revealed from
the data analysis is the therapies received
by students with special needs. Parents of
children with special needs agreed that no
therapy for the disability is provided to
their children though they have provided
all the medical reports to the school.
94
My child has writing, reading and
intellectual disability. Sadly I have to
tell that no specific therapy or special
attention is given to him from the
mainstreaming process [Parent 1]
Parents agreed that appropriate therapies
were not provided to children with special
needs.
Accepted by peers
Being accepted by the peers is one of the
major aspects necessary for a child with
special needs. Most of the parents have
shared that their children with special needs
receive enough support and help from the
classmates like sharing things, involve
in activities and so on. On the contrary,
a parent viewed that there are instances
where his/ her child is being mistreated
by the peer saying autism, stupid and
mad child. The following statements give
meaning to those views.
His peers are very good. They accept
him. If he does not have a pen or a
ruler, his friends share it [Parent 4]
They do not share things during the
class and in the sports hours they
sometimes fight with him [Parent 2]
Finding revealed that children with special
needs are accepted by their peers though
there are few difficult cases.
Theme 2: Perception of Parents of Children without Special Needs
This is the second and the last theme
identified from the data analysis. From this
theme, three sub themes are recognised
which is similar as the first theme. Though
the subthemes are similar, their perceptions
are varied. The following diagram shows
the sub themes based on the perception of
parents of children without special needs.
Figure 2: Perception of Parents of Children without Special
Needs about Mainstreaming
Academic development
Parents expect for a positive learning
environment to be created in the school
where their children are benefit from one
another. Therefore, it is crucial to find
the opinion of parents of children without
special needs about mainstreaming. The
findings of the study demonstrated the
views of parents of children without special
needs on academic development of their
children in mainstreamed classes. Most of
the interviewed parents believed that due to
mainstreaming, there is no negative impact
on their children’s academic performance
though they feel uncomfortable due to
some reasons. In contrast, a parent viewed
95
that mainstreaming impact her child
negatively. Some comments regarding
these are;
I am happy about my child’s academic
performances though my child gets
disturbed due to the shouting and
spitting [Parent 1]
When children with special needs get
benefits, children without special needs
get disturbed and miss the lessons
[Parent 4]
In the view of most of the parents of children
without special needs, mainstreaming does
not affect their children’s study though
they get disturbed.
Change in Behaviour
Change in behaviour is also a perception
revealed from the interview of parents of
children without special needs. All the
parents of children without special needs
agreed that mainstreaming does not change
their children’s behaviour.
My child’s behaviour has not changed.
Instead, my child gives help and advice
to mainstreamed students [Parent 3]
Accepted by Peers
Most of the parents of children without
special needs agreed that their children
have concerns regarding mainstreamed
students as they usually share about their
disability at home. The following statement
gives meaning to those views.
My child accepts mainstreamed students
in the class as he tries to control the
child during aggressive situations and
advise them [Parent 4]
It was evident from parents view that
children without special needs accept
mainstreamed children and help them to
survive in the inclusive classroom.
DISCUSSION
Finding of the study revealed two main
categories; perception of parents of
children with special needs and perception
of parents of children without special
needs about mainstreaming. Therefore,
the opinions revealed under both themes
are discussed in the lights of literatures,
empirical studies and theories.
From the perspectives of parents of CSN
and CWSN, mainstreaming increases
academic performances, behaviour and
catering individual differences though
disagreements are marked on some aspects
of few parents. The finding is almost in
line with Church & Synod (2012) who
expressed that children with special
needs improve educational performance,
increase confidence and communicate
with others through mainstreaming. By
reflecting the perceptions of parents and
literature cohesions like improvement
96
in academic performance and social
relationship of CSN by mainstreaming
is identified without much complication.
(Kondakci, Orucu, Oguz, & Beycioglu,
2016). Thus, this finding is a possible
reflection of parents’ recognition of lots
of benefits to their children both CSN and
CWSN. Children with disabilities benefit
more from participating in mainstream
educational settings. Generally, parents
who favour mainstreaming believe that it
would increase child’s learning ability due
to higher standards in a regular class, and
would provide a stimulating environment
for learning. Indeed, mainstreaming in
the national curriculum is for the purpose
of “education for all”. Some of the
favourable education systems like Finland
and Australia practice inclusion for the
purpose of improving academic levels and
other learning outcomes of CSN in full
classrooms in relation to education for all
(Forlin, Chambers, Loreman, Deppeler, &
Sharma, 2013).
Another aspect that emerged from the
study is acception CSN by their peers.
Likewise, CWSN accept mainstreamed
children by helping them to survive in the
inclusive classroom though differences are
recognised from few parents as concerns.
This finding is consistent with the study by
Mwanza (2010). It says that inclusion does
not only allow disability. Rather, it gives
the opportunity to understand and accept
each other and learn from their differences.
Pawlowicz (2001) also agreed that general
education students benefit by getting
the chance to stay together with socially
mixed groups, create a safe and structured
learning environment and expand their
comfort zone. Congruently, a result of a
study by Narumanci & Bhargauva (2011)
stated that majority the parents show
favourable attitude towards inclusion in
terms of promoting positive role models,
friendships, facilitating acquisition of
pre-academic, social, language, and
motor skills. By evaluating these finding
from other studies, it is known that
mainstreaming benefits CSN and CWSN
like increase knowledge of diverse cultures,
customs, life styles and help teachers to
create positive learning. Equally, general
education students understand to change
situations where they feel safe and at ease
in critical conditions. For these reasons,
perceptions of parents need to be identified
to address the concerns they have with
regards to the mainstreaming children in
the special education classroom for the
benefit of education for all.
Furthermore, from the perspectives of
parents of CSN, appropriate therapies
according to the need area is not provided
to CSN. A supportive literature regarding
the issue is “In an inclusion classroom,
the general education teacher and special
education teacher work together to meet
your child’s needs” (Understood, 2017).
In addition to this, occupational therapy is
97
effective to address difficulties encountered
by a child with special need (NurseRegistry,
2017). This shows the importance of
providing suitable therapies needed for
children with special needs during class
hours according to their disabilities. It is
also evident that teachers need to have a
good relationship with special education
teacher and other professionals in order
to cater their needs which they currently
could not attend properly.
The findings would be helpful for the
school management to improve the
condition of mainstreaming. Further
training on special education should be
considered for teachers so they can carter
to children with special needs accordingly
and which will be a great encouragement
to mainstream. Strategies proposed by the
report of Forlin et al. (2013) are guidance
to teachers for good practice of inclusion
in-class level. The good practices include
“differentiating or introducing alternative
curricula, the application of universal
design, use of technologies, individual
planning through the IEP, and a focus on
quality teaching for all students” (p.30).
School should also monitor and evaluate
the work of the teachers and students
for better understanding of the situation.
Additionally projects like, action researche
will directly emphasizes learning
organizations to understand the areas to
be improved regarding inclusive education
and emphasizes to minimize the issues
within the organizations. Such studies
have to be conducted in other schools in
Maldives also to understand the situation.
It is also important to explore the schools
which are not willing to mainstream the
children with special needs in order to
understand the reasons behind them.
Sample of the study was limited to one
school only. In order to widely generalize,
the perception of parents in mainstreaming
has to be studied in a similar manner
by expanding the samples to draw a
conclusion to wider popularion. However,
the fact that phenomenological studies,
allows the researcher to define the context
being studied comprehensively and offers
opportunities to apply the findings to
similar situation. Henceforth; in spite of
the limitation, the researcher ensures that
this methodology could be applicable
to study the perception of the parents in
mainstreaming children with special needs
in other schools too.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study aimed to explore the
perception of the parents in mainstreaming
children with special needs. Findings from
the study revealed parents of children
with special needs observed a gradual
improvement in children’s academic
performance and positive changes in
children’s behaviour. Likewise, the study
identified that children with special needs
98
are accepted by their peers to some extent
and some of the mainstreamed students do
complete the work allocated while others
do not. Similarly, it is evident that the needs
of some of the mainstreamed students
are catered though there are cases which
suggests some are not catered accordingly.
Furthermore study showed that, the
parents of children without special needs
accepted that there is no negative impact
on children’s academic performance
and behaviour due to mainstreaming. In
addition, the students without special needs
do provide support to the mainstreamed
students by explaining and encouraging
them to complete the work.
REFERENCESChurch, L., & Synod, M. (2012, October
25). Mainstreaming Special Education in the Classroom. Retrieved from https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/special-ed/mainstreaming-special-education-in-the-classroom/
Forlin, C., Chambers, D., Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Sharma, U. (2013). Inclusive Education for Students with Disability A review of the best evidence in relation to theory and practice. Retrieved from The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) website: https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/246/filename/Inclusive_education_for_students_with_disability_-_A_review_of_the_best_evidence_in_relation_to_theory_and_practice.pdf
Hussain, D. (2008). Functional Translation of the Constitution of the Republic of
Maldives. Retrieved from Ministry of Legal Reform, Information and Arts website: http://www.majlis.gov.mv/en/wp-content/uploads/Constitution-english.pdf://
Kondakci, Y., Orucu, D., Oguz, E., & Beycioglu, K. (2016). Current issues on parental involvement in schools: a multicultural perspective. International Journals of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(3), 89-90.
Mallick, U., & Sheesh, K. M. (2013). Perspectives of students and parents about mainstreaming education for children with special needs in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 17-30.
Mwanza, H. (2010). Views of Parents on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities: A Gender Dimension Case Study of ST. Lawrence Basic School Iin Lusaka Urban Districk Doctoral dissertation, The University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zimba). Retrieved from http://dspace.unza.zm:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1078/mwanza%20Helen.pdf?sequence=1://
Narumanchi, A., & Bhargava, S. (2011). Perceptions of Parents of Typical Children towards Inclusive Education. Disability, CBR and Inclusive Development,, 22(1), 120-129.
NurseRegistry. (2017). 9 Occupational Therapy Tips for Children with Special Needs [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.nurseregistry.com/blog/occupational-therapy-for-special-needs-children/
Pawlowicz, B. (2001). The Effects of Inclusion on General Education Students (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2001/2001pawlowiczb.pdf
Saleem, A. (2010). Activities addressing rights of persons with disabilities. A baselie assessment(13). Retrieved from
99
Human Rights Commission of the Maldives website: http://www.searo.who.int/maldives/documents/Maldives_DisabilityReport13April2010.pdf?ua=1://
Understood. (2017). 5 Benefits of Inclusion Classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/learning-attention-issues/treatments-approaches/educational-strategies/5-benefits-of-inclusion-classrooms
Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider research while conducting case study research. The Qualitative Report, 17(58), 1-14.
100
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
978-99915-0-842-9/07
KEY STAGE 1 AND KEY STAGE 2 ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION APPROACH: A CASE
STUDY
AISHATH SHOOZANThe Maldives National University
The current case study explores understanding of Differentiated Instruction (DI) of three English language teachers’ from Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2. It looks at their practices in implementing differentiated instruction, and the enablers and roadblocks of implementing differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction is a teaching philosophy that emphasizes the importance of addressing learner differences. This study is conducted by collecting and analyzing data qualitatively. It investigated three important aspects of differentiated instruction, namely, content, process, and assessment. Findings from the analysis of data gathered by interviewing three teachers and analyzing their lesson plans showed that these teachers comprehend differentiated instruction as an approach that makes teachers vary the lesson as per the ability level of learners. The teachers understand the presence of learners of different ability levels and learning styles in their classrooms and recognize the importance of changing the content, process, and assessments to cater the learners. However, the lesson plans of these teachers do not show that teachers plan differently for different learners, indicating that the implementation is an area that needs attention. It is also revealed that enablers of differentiated instruction approach include the facilities available for teachers to use in the classrooms and the support teachers get from the school. It is identified that how parents view such differences, lack of parents’ support and lack of training on differentiated instruction for teachers are the main challenges in implementing the approach. The findings have implications for the provision of information for teachers to understand differentiated instruction in-depth, giving adequate support and training to plan and practice the approach, and to make
parents aware of the method.
Keywords: Differentiated instruction, implementation, instructional strategies, learner differences
101
INTRODUCTION
Every learner is a unique being with
diverse individualities who recognizes
and experiences the world differently
and prefers varied styles of learning at
different levels. Thus, student diversity
is an important aspect that must be
considered by teachers. This would help
them cater to individual differences
and learning styles to achieve greater
success in teaching and learning. Since
learners come from different biological,
intellectual and social backgrounds it
is essential for teachers to understand
these differences in order to provide
a supportive learning environment
for every child. The identification
of students’ learning needs allows
the teachers to differentiate their
instructional strategies and vary
learning materials.
With regulations governing the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy
all around the world in the past few
decades, Differentiated Instruction (DI)
has become an important philosophy in
the contexts of teaching and learning.
This has made teachers more aware
of the concept of learner diversity
and different learning methods, thus,
implementing differentiated instruction
in classrooms. As stated by Tomlinson
et al (2003), differentiated instruction
is a philosophy of teaching purporting
that pupils learn best when their teachers
effectively address the variance in
learners’ readiness level, interests, and
learning profile. It is important for
educators to have knowledge about
this approach, various learning styles
and learning needs in the classroom,
and how to cater to those needs. It is
also essential to know the factors that
help in implementing the approach
as well as the challenges faced in the
implementation process.
This study aims to investigate English
language teachers’ understanding
of differentiated instruction, their
practices, and obstacles and enablers of
differentiated instruction in practising
the approach. More specifically, it
explores the experiences of primary
teachers who are currently teaching the
English language in the Maldives. Since
the introduction of NCLB policy in the
Maldives, the Ministry of Education
pays particular attention to cater every
learner so that no child is left behind.
Today, teachers are encouraged to
bring variations in their instructional
practices so that every learner is
acknowledged in their teaching process
through differentiated instruction.
102
However, schools face challenges in
differentiating instruction due to lack
of expertise, facilities, and teachers’
perception. Moreover, general teacher
training programmes do not focus
on training student-teachers to use
differentiated instruction in classrooms,
while training programmes for special
educational needs (SEN) focus on
individual differences and differentiated
instruction. Hence, many teachers
perceive differentiated instruction as
an instructional methodology specific
to and used in SEN classes only.
However, the presence of student
diversity in mainstream classrooms is
an accepted reality by many teachers.
With NCLB policy and the importance
given on inclusive education, DI has
been a commonly pronounced approach
in the schools of the Maldives in the past
decade. However, the teacher’s practice
and implementation of differentiated
instruction in the Maldives is not
recorded in the literature due to lack of
research on this matter, in the Maldives.
This study aims to fill this research
gap by uncovering the experiences of
teachers in implementing differentiated
instruction and acknowledging their
understanding. It also highlights the
promoters and enablers of the approach.
Since teachers must be well aware
of students’ learning abilities, their
learning interests and styles to
adequately help learners in their journey
of education, it is very important for
teachers to know these aspects and cater
learning needs. Since differentiated
instruction in the main method used
to acknowledge individual differences
and to cater to different learning needs
of pupils, differentiated instruction
approach is an extremely necessary
approach in educating children. Thus,
this research is highly important as
it includes teachers’ understanding
and practices, and the facilitators
and challenges in implementing the
approach. The investigation can
help the educational policymakers
in developing necessary policies,
schools in organizing and facilitating
required facilities and environment for
differentiated instruction, and teachers
to professionally grow in understanding
differentiated instruction. Moreover, it
enriches the literature with an additional
study in a new context, the Maldives.
Differentiated instruction is an
approach where students are given the
focus of attention, and their learning
preferences are cared for, through
different instructional strategies
103
instigated by the teachers. In practising
differentiated instruction, teachers
allow flexibility in classrooms to help
learners adapt to the context as learners
come from different backgrounds,
various learning needs and preferences.
Differentiated instruction is an
approach teachers employ to attend
the needs of learners in a classroom
for more effective planning to
transfer knowledge effectively (Grafi-
Sharabi, 2009). According to Grafi-
Sharabi (2009), content and process
are key elements of effectiveness of
differentiated instruction, it is essential
that teachers plan their lessons to
effectively deliver the content through
diverse instructional strategies. He also
stated that though most of the contents
are available to teachers, establishing
an appropriate method for students
to engage in the content is important.
This shows the importance of varying
the instructional strategy to deliver
the content as the content becomes
meaningful when delivered through a
strategy that suits the learners’ interest,
learning style and learning need.
In classrooms, it is usual that all pupils
do not understand the content and
concepts at the same level, and some
individuals do not perform at their
level best in certain topics. Anderson
(2007) stated that students commonly
work in the classroom without reaching
full potential and suggested that
employing differentiated instruction
encourages every student to be
effective and engaged participants in
the learning process. This suggests that
the use of differentiated instruction
help individual learners to perform
better. When practising differentiated
instruction approach, the teacher pays
attention to understand the learners
and their background. This is mainly
achieved by maintaining learner
profiles and regular parent-teacher
meetings. In recent years, teachers’
create an educational plan to suit
earners and assess them continuously
to bring variations in assessments,
teaching materials and the teaching
methods. This practice is supported
by Rodriguez (2012) who advocated
that differentiated instruction requires
teachers to consider differentiating
contexts, assessment tools,
performance tasks, and instructional
strategies. Hence, it is crucial that
those who implement differentiated
instruction must have the proper
knowledge as it requires them to make
conscious decisions on choosing the
combination of tools and planning their
104
lessons in the most beneficial way for
the learners.
The principles of differentiated
instruction revolve around the proposed
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Theory (Vygostky, 1987), Multiple
Intelligence Theory (Gardner, 1983),
and the Curriculum flexibility propose
by Dewey (1897). The idea of
flexibility, providing choice, allowing
creativity, catering different learning
styles, modifying the content are
important aspects of DI that coincide
with these theories.
In order to respond to individual
differences in classrooms and to cater
diverse learning needs, it is important
to adapt the content, process and
product as per the students’ interest
and readiness level (Tomlinson, 2001).
Content is the elements and materials
used in reaching the set learning goals
and the skills that students will learn.
The process indicates how the content
will be delivered to students and the
product as allowing choices in the
products or final assessment which
should allow a variety of ways for
experiencing a degree of difficulty and
types of evaluation.
In 1987, Vygotsky proposed ZPD and
suggested that what the child is able to
do in collaboration today, will be done
on his own tomorrow. He speculated
the importance of assessment and
scaffolding and highlights that
teachers can provide developmentally
appropriate teaching strategies by
assessing students’ readiness level and
scaffolding the curriculum (Miller,
2002). Scaffolding acts as a support
for the child to progress by providing
challenging learning environments
and tasks, and by adjusting the level
of teacher intervention in response to
students’ needs (Miller, 2002).
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory
is one of the earliest recognition of
diverse intellectual abilities and diverse
learning styles. It suggests that there
are eight different intelligences present
in each person which people are able
to stimulate in diverse situations
(Gardener, 1983). Therefore, DI can
create diverse contexts to activate
intelligence and also to cater to the
most preferred style of learning. Dewey
(1897) believed in making curriculum
relate to real life and using children’s
interest as a basis for learning (Wilson,
2010).
Even though differentiated instruction
is largely articulated in educational
105
settings, the uncommon use of this
approach suggests there is resistance
among teachers in adopting this
approach. Thus, considerations of the
reasons are inevitable. Kapunsnick and
Hauslein (2001) found that teachers
abandoned differentiated instruction
as they are not comfortable with the
framework of differentiated instruction,
and are not confident to manage it.
King-Shaver (2008) concluded that
teachers see differentiated instruction
negatively. This means that teachers
perceive the approach in a negative
manner. This affects their readiness to
use the approach. Levy (2008) claimed
that teachers are so concerned about
test scores and efforts to teach beyond
testing objectives have ceased. Mulder
(2014) showed that differentiated
instruction correlates high achievement
in mathematics, and emphasized the
usefulness of the approach. These
studies show that there are concerns
among teachers in the implementation
of differentiated instruction in the
classroom contexts as it may involve in
many aspects that are associated with
leaners.
METHOD
This research is a case study that
collects and analyzes data qualitatively.
A case study method involves an
intensive analysis of an individual unit
(a case) and is appropriate to study a
small group (Baskarada, 2013). This
research is based on a small group of
teachers. The participation of three
teachers avails the opportunity to
explore the similarities and differences
in their understanding and practices and
allows a deeper understanding. Such
in-depth understanding is highlighted
as an important aspect by Baxter and
Jack (2008) and is said to increase its
trustworthiness.
Participants and sampling
Since the research focuses on a
particular group of teachers to rationally
obtain responses to the expressed issue
under investigation, it uses purposive
sampling method, which helps to
achieve a greater understanding
by purposefully selecting samples
relevant to the study (Etikan, Musa
and Alkassim, 2016). This study also
ensures variations by selecting teachers
from different grades of key stages 1
and 2. The investigation is carried
out in a public school in the Maldives
and the criteria for selection is that
the participant teaches the English
language at Key stage 1 or key stage 2.
106
Data collection and analysis
The primary methods of data collection
are interviews and document analysis. A
face-to-face semi-structured interview
was conducted with each participant.
The interview guide includes questions
about their knowledge of differentiated
instruction, their practices and what
helps them to implement it and the
challenges they face. The questions
cover the main focus of the study, the
content, the process, and the product
(assessment). These interviews were
recorded digitally as well as on paper.
The second method of data collection
is document analysis, which is also
commonly used in qualitative research.
An electronic copy of the lesson
plans of 1 week (the week before the
interview) was collected from each
participant. Collecting data by these
two methods allow triangulation of
data and creates a more complete and
multilayered description (Friedman,
2012). The recorded interviews were
transcribed and coded manually. The
data sets were organized to look for
patterns and themes. Similarly, the
patterns in lesson plans were analyzed
and recorded for the themes covering
content, process and product.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The findings are presented in three
categories, that is; how teachers
understand differentiated instruction,
how they implement it and the enablers
and obstacles in practicing it.
Teachers’ understanding of differentiated instruction approach
Based on the participants’ answers
to the questions, it is clear that the
three teachers who were interviewed
have the knowledge of the existence
of an approach where differences are
brought into a teaching lesson. The
teachers believe in the presence of
different learners in a group of students
and the necessity of considering learner
differences in teaching.
Three teachers defined differentiated
instruction differently. While teacher
A defined differentiated instruction as
“each and every student is different
and they have their own ways to
learn”, teachers B and C defined it as
“differentiated learning means teaching
and giving work according to their
level”, and “using different methods
in teaching in one lesson, teaching
approaches in one lesson, for different
students”, respectively. Though their
definitions reflect the features of
107
differentiated instruction like ‘different
learning styles of students’, ‘teaching
and assigning work according to the
level of learners’, and ‘using different
methods in teaching’, they do not talk
about the features of the approach
in-depth. They do not talk about the
variation of content or the curriculum
or the assessment of students. In other
words, the teachers focused more on
the process rather than the content and
the product.
All the teachers acknowledge the
presence of different learners in their
corresponding classes. Participant A
claims that “each and every student
is different, and they have their
own learning styles”. She further
acknowledges that some of her
students are visual learners and some
of them like audio while there are
kinesthetic. She adds that in addition
to the differences in learning style,
they are different in ‘abilities as well’.
Participant B also have similar beliefs
in her understanding of differentiated
instruction. She seems to have divided
her class into categories and states
that “there are students who are very
brilliant, intelligent, and average and
below average, and there are some
students having hesitation and some
problems like that”. She further clarifies
the broader divisions of her class as
“In my class, there are students very
good in English, and there are students
who are very weak”. The third teacher
claims that “there are students who love
to do experiments, means they want
to do certain things practically, and
there are students who can understand
through presentations, or by doing
group work or group discussions”. She
further stands with the understanding
that “there are some students who are
intelligent and they need more about
it”. With this information from the
participants, it is clear that teachers
understand the presence of learners
with different learning styles but mostly
relate it to the ability level of students.
Implementing differentiated instruction approach
All three teachers seem to believe that
instruction should suit their learners.
With the understanding previously
mentioned, they claim to make changes
to the teaching and learning process
based on the level of learners.
In this regard, teacher A thinks that
students are different and to make them
successful, ‘we need to cater them
differently’ and claims that she plans
108
her lessons in a way that different needs
of the learners are met. She mentions
that she prepares different worksheets
based on the level of students. She also
accepts that ‘teaching methods should
be different’ for all those students.
Teacher B seems to take responsibility
for an individual’s learning on her
own. She states, “if there is a student
different from other students, it is
my responsibility to take care of that
student during my teaching”. She
reflects that when she teaches she
spends more time on weaker students
as they need more help. She also
describes her changes in lessons as
varying the type of activity she assigns
to different levels of learners. Teacher
C also agrees that different students
need different ways of teaching. Her
explanations in the class are enhanced
by pictures and other materials. She
uses practical tasks and gives groups
work (predefined groups) based on
student abilities.
From the interviews, it is understood
that all the teachers bring a certain
level of changes to their lessons in
terms of the teaching strategies, and the
activities they conduct. Here also, it is
noticed that teachers focus on the level
of students rather than their diverse
learning styles, preferences, or their
readiness level.
The analysis of teachers’ lesson
plans shows that teachers plan of
work for the week was simple and do
not show any particular features of
differentiated instruction. Teacher A
taught one reading lesson and three
grammar lessons during the week.
It was identified that the teacher
completely relies on the textbook for
each lesson and the students were
asked to do the exercises on the
textbook only. The teaching materials
used for all the lessons are identical
throughout the week (textbook, picture
cards, whiteboard and the marker,
and vocabulary card). Moreover, it
is evident that the teacher’s plan of
teaching always followed a similar
pattern of teacher explanation, a
student working on the exercise in the
textbook, and at the end practice an
individual writing task. The writing
tasks given includes writing a summary
of the reading comprehension, a short
narrative, a short paragraph in the next
two lessons. The teacher allowed group
work in one lesson, however, how the
groups were formed was not given.
Also, the teacher has not indicated
any differences brought to the lesson
109
in terms of the content planned to
deliver, and does not include any
specific differences in strategies to
cater individual differences, and
does not mention any differences in
assessments, in any of these lessons.
Teacher B conducted one topic in the
given week, that is grammar (article:
‘a’ and ‘an’). There was no evidence
of change in the content for different
learners and teacher follows the
textbook. The teacher read a story for
the learners and later explained the
topic and asked to do the exercise on
page 8 of their textbook. This exercise
was also used as the assessment for
this lesson, meaning that there were
no differences brought to the content,
process, and the assessment. However,
in the continuing lesson teacher brought
variation by involving students to name
some objects the teacher shows which
makes students more engaged in the
lesson. In this lesson, some differences
were brought to the lesson in terms
of student work as weaker students
were asked to draw the object instead
of writing them down. However, all
the students were assessed based on
a specific worksheet given. Hence,
it is seen that the teacher delivers the
content without modifying for students’
interests and needs, conducts the lesson
in the same process, and assess the
students similarly.
Teacher C, follow a similar pattern as
the teacher A and conducted a reading
lesson and two grammar lessons. She
also used the textbook as the main
material in all her lessons and her lesson
plans do not show any differences
brought to the content delivered to
students, and the procedures followed
in the classroom were the same
throughout the week where the teacher
explains the lessons and students do the
specified excises from the textbook. In
her lesson plans, there is no indication
of student assessment.
From all, the lesson plans analyzed it
is evident that teachers do not plan the
lessons for specific groups of learners,
different learning styles or different
levels of learners. They heavily depend
on the textbook and do not indicate
any changes they bring to the content,
process and assessments.
Enablers and obstacles of the approach
The teachers seem to talk positively
about the facilities available for them
to use in the classrooms and about
the support they get from school.
110
Among the enablers, they mention
the availability of ICT facilities for
them in the class and the access to the
internet and smart board in the school.
They regard the school to be supportive
in their effort and mention that the
assigned leader teacher in charge of
them, is very helpful. Participant A
mentions the availability of projectors
in the classroom as an important facility
and states “they prepare timetable
so that we can use smartboard” as
support from the senior staff. Teacher
B comments the support from some
parents too as facilities for them to go
on with their teaching.
The implementation of differentiated
instruction is a challenge for many
teachers due to various reasons. All
the participants seem to have a lack
of parental support as a challenge in
implementing the approach. Teacher
A claims that it is difficult when it
comes to parents and says “they don’t
help at all”. She also claims the need
for training on inclusive education.
Teacher B also agrees with teacher A
in the ideas of parental support and
add “sometimes I feel this content is
a little bit higher” and teacher C say
that “parents do not understand the
curriculum”.
In general, teachers are happy with the
support they get from school. It is also
noticed that the school has provided
good facilities like IT facilities for them
to use in the classrooms. These are the
factors that help them to differentiate
in their lessons. Nevertheless, they
all mentioned the lack of parental
support in implementing the approach
in classrooms. Parents are not aware
of such approaches and do not see the
differentiation in teachers’ teaching
strategies positively. Moreover,
parents’ limited knowledge about
such teaching strategies and the
curriculum also hinders the teachers’
practice as they are pressured to treat
students ‘identically’ to reduce the
complaints from parents. Lastly, the
lack of expertise in teachers to practice
the approach most appropriately and
effectively is also a challenge identified.
OVERALL DISCUSSION
In the literature, differentiated instruction
is given as an approach where learners
are given the most importance, and
their style and preferences are given
significant attention in the teaching
and learning process which are catered
for by the teachers through their
instructional design. This definition
has commonality with what teachers
111
said in their interviews. For example,
A defines differentiated instruction as
‘each and every student is different
and they have their own ways to learn’,
and B and C define it as ‘differentiated
learning means teaching and giving
work according to their level’, and
‘using different methods in teaching
in one lesson, teaching approaches
in one lesson, for different students’,
respectively. From these definitions
given by the teachers, it is clear that
teachers believe differentiated instruction
as an approach where different methods
of teaching are important to cater to
differences in learners in a classroom.
Hence, it is evident that these teachers
understand there are differences among
learners and teachers need to cater to
them. Their understanding also aligns
with what is given in the literature
which means students are the focus of
attention, and their learning preferences
are cared for, through different
instructional strategies instigated by
the teachers. This also supports the
definition of differentiated instruction
given by (Grafi-Sharabi, 2009) which
states differentiated instruction is an
approach teachers employ different
methods to attend needs of learners
in a classroom for more effective
planning to transfer knowledge
effectively. This is also in agreement
with Smit and Humpert (2012) who
state differentiated instruction is rooted
in the belief that there is variability
among any group of learners.
All of the three teachers have a common
understanding of the differences as
weaker and brighter students and do
not bring in the fact that learners come
from different backgrounds, various
learning needs and preferences. They
were more on the understanding that
the ability of learners and the level of
intelligence define the differences rather
than the background or the learning
preferences. Since they mainly talked
about students’ abilities and divide
them into three categories of bright,
average and weak, it is evident that they
do not fully understand the concept of
‘learner differences’, and hence do
not fully understand ‘differentiated
instruction’ as teachers must be fully
aware of learner differences in order
to carry out differentiated instruction.
For example, there might be bright
students who come from various
backgrounds with different prior
knowledge and learning styles which
would change their demands in the
classroom and hence, the teacher
needs to meet different demands in
112
the teaching process. Anderson (2007)
suggested that employing differentiated
instruction encourages every student to
be effective, engaged participants in the
learning process. This idea is supported
by one teacher who claims that weak
students get motivated through
differentiation and she practices it with
weaker ones.
Differentiated instruction consists
of several tools including climate,
knowing the learner, assessing the
learner, and adjusting assignments,
teaching strategies and curriculum,
for designing a classroom for
learners (Gregory and Chapman,
2002). However, these teachers did
not explicitly talk about classroom
climate. They claim that they know
their learners, and one teacher was
very definite about the presence of only
three types of learners, auditory, visual,
and kinesthetic. This idea is brought
in the literature of differentiated
instruction as Gardeners Multiple
Intelligence Theory is considered to be
one of the widely spoken theories in
the differentiated instruction approach.
Moreover, all the teachers categorize
learners into bright and weak, which
denotes the linguistic differences in the
class. Thus, it is evident that teachers
are aware of multiple intelligences to
some extent. Upon asking specifically
about their approach in assessing
learners, they state that learners are
assessed based on their differences,
and again justified it using examples
of weak and bright students, meaning
that differences are brought based on
the abilities. However, teachers’ lesson
plans do not depict the same picture
as their lesson plans mention only
one way of assessing students, which
means they assess students based on
the product students produce in doing
the given exercise or the worksheet.
Though the idea that differentiated
instruction requires teachers to
consider differentiating contexts,
assessment tools, performance tasks,
and instructional strategies (Rodriguez,
2012) these teachers do not recognize
these aspects of the approach.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Theory (Vygostky, 1987), emphasizes
the importance of collaboration
and the importance of assessment
and scaffolding and highlights that
teachers can provide developmentally
appropriate teaching strategies by
assessing students’ readiness level and
scaffolding the curriculum (Miller,
2002). However, the participants did
113
not mention this scaffolding of the
curriculum to meet learners’ needs. This
is also not evident in their lesson plans.
Moreover, only one teacher mentions
the planned collaboration based on
the ability level of students. This
collaboration is also not evident in their
lesson plans. Tomlinson et al (2003) in
making curriculum relate to real life
and using children’s interest as a basis
for learning. However, teachers did not
talk about the changes they bring to the
curriculum or the plan for individuals.
Upon asking, one teacher revealed
that the content will be the same for
all the students, it is only the task
that generally differs. For example, a
teacher mentions the practice of videos,
presentations and some practical work
as well. This means they practice some
differences in their teaching methods
and the process, however, the analyzed
lessons do not have this specified.
Teachers who participate in the study
see differentiated instruction positively
and as something very important
to make students perform better in
their studies. This is contrary to some
findings in the history of differentiated
instruction like Wormeli (2005) and
King-Shaker (2008) who state that
teachers see differentiated instruction
negatively and this affects their
readiness to use the approach.
When teachers were asked about
the facilities and support they get to
implement the differentiated instruction
approach, they all mentioned the
availability of ICT facilities and
specified internet and projector as
important support. This suggests that
they consider ICT as an important
element in their instructional approach.
However, this does not mean that they
could bring differences desired by all
the learners. Since teachers regard
ICT as an enabler, it was seen that this
enabler helps teachers in bringing a
lot of changes in their teaching, which
they believe caters learner needs. On
the other hand, as an obstacle, all the
teachers mention lack of parental
support. This limits them from
implementing as parents are not aware
of the differences in students’ styles as
well as the differences teachers’ bring.
Since they believe all learners should
be treated similar and equal, it is a
challenge for teachers.
CONCLUSION
From the investigation, it is revealed
that teachers understand differentiated
instruction as an approach where
114
different methods of teaching are
used in catering learners of different
needs and different learning styles.
They believe in the importance of
varying teaching strategies to focus on
individual differences. However, their
understanding of individual differences
and learning preferences or styles is
limited to the learner’s intelligence
level. Teachers tend to divide learners
into ‘bright’ and ‘weak’ as the main
groups. Though this reflects the idea
of Multiple Intelligence theory, it is
a very small share of the concept of
differentiated instruction. Moreover,
it is identified that teachers do not
bring changes to the curriculum
or the content to deliver the most
appropriate content and lessons for
each individual depending on their
level of understanding, background and
learning needs. Similarly, the lesson
plans do not show changes brought
to teaching strategies in order to meet
individual needs or to cater to different
learning needs. Additionally, teachers
do not understand and practice different
assessment procedures to assess
students differently. This indicates that
though teachers have some knowledge
of differentiated instruction, they lack
the in-depth theoretical knowledge
about differentiated instruction and the
implementation of the approach is a
problematic area.
It is also revealed that enablers of the
approach include the facilities available
for them to use in the classrooms and
the support they get from the school.
Parents’ perception of such differences,
lack of their support, their limited
knowledge of the curriculum and
the content, and lack of training for
teachers on implementing differentiated
instruction are the main challenges in
implementing the approach.
The findings have implications for the
provision of information for teachers
to understand differentiated instruction
in-depth, giving adequate support and
training to plan and implement it, and
to make parents aware of the approach.
Teachers’ understanding and practices
of differentiated instruction can be
further explored with a component to
observe the teachers’ lessons to further
understand their practices beyond
the lesson plan. Moreover, it can be
conducted with more teachers from
other Key Stages, other schools or other
subject teachers to get a more general
view of teachers’ understanding,
practices and to know the enablers and
obstacles in depth.
115
REFERENCES
Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing
School Failure, 51(3), 49-54
Baškarada, S. (2014). Qualitative Case Study Guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19(40), 1-25.
Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report. 13(4). pp 544-559.
Dewey, J. (1897) The Psychological Aspect of the School Curriculum; EW5.164-176.
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. & Alkassim, S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 5(1).
Friedman, D.A. (2012) How to collect and analyze qualitative data. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S.M. (2012) Research methods in second language acquisition: a practical guide. UK. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
Grafi-Sharabi, G. (2009). A phenomenological study of teacher perceptions of implementing the differentiated instruction approach. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3393495).
Karadag, R. & Yasar, S. (2010). Effects of differentiated instruction on students’ attitudes towards Turkish courses: an action research. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences. 9. 1394-1399.
King-Shaver, B. (2008). Differentiated instruction: the new and not so new. California English, 13(4), 6-8
Levy, H. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction:
Helping very child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81(4) 161
Miller, P.A. (2002). Theories of development psychology. (4th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Mulder, Q. (2014). The Effect of differentiated Instruction on student achievement in primary school classrooms. Retrieved on 22nd March 2017 from http://essay.utwente.nl/66645/1/ Mulder%20Q.%20-%20S1199315%20-%20masterscriptie.pdf
Rodriguez, A. (2012). An Analysis of Elementary School Teachers’ Knowledge and Use of Differentiated Instruction. Olivet Nazarene University.
Smit, R. & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1152 - 1162
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C.A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, A. L. & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 27(2-3). 119–145.
Wilson, T. (2010). John Dewey, interests, and distinctive schools of choice. Philosophy of Education. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
116
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
978-99915-0-842-9/08
DO MALDIVIAN TEACHERS’ INTEGRATE ICT IN
TEACHING?
MOHAMED SHIHABFaculty of Education
ROZA IBRAHIM Center for Open Learning
SOMNATH CHAUDHURIFaculty of Science
The Maldives National University
Integrating ICT (Information Communication Technology) in teaching is a core requirement of the National Curriculum of Maldives. It is prescribed as one of the Key Competencies to be acquired within each learning area. Dedicating ICT as a Key Competency, it aspires to prepare learners as ICT sensitive consumers and creative producers of information for the 21st century workforce (NCF, 2015). Hence, integration of ICT is vital in today’s classrooms in order to enhance learners to acquire the required skills, knowledge, values and attitudes. However, integrating ICT and converting the classrooms into effective teaching and learning environments is a challenging task. Teachers are the agents that takes on this task and the way they integrate ICT in teaching and learning is crucial to develop ICT competent learners’. Hence this paper explores the practices of Maldivian in-service teachers in integrating ICT for teaching and learning. This quantitative study encompasses surveying of 52, teachers using purposive sampling. The findings reveal that most of the teachers (70%) use ICT to preset learning contents. However, the NCF aspires a deeper student engagement of ICT rather than the current surface level usage. Regardless of the limited ICT usage, the findings also disclose the lack of ‘know-how’ in appropriate integration of ICT skills within the subject they teach. Additionally, this paper provides some recommendations for changing the current status of integrating ICT in teaching in Maldivian schools.
Keywords: ICT integration Educational Technology, Key Competency, Teaching.
117
INTRODUCTION
Information communication technology
(ICT) has the power to transform the
process of teaching and learning in the
21st century. Along with the possibility
of supporting students learning using
varieties of ICT tools and technologies.
Also, as Bransford, Brown, & Cocking
(2000) has stressed, the possibility of
ICT has enhanced students learning
process through communication with
experts. In addition, ICT plays a
significant role in preparing students
for their life through education (Wilson,
Scalise, & Gochyyev, 2015) and acts
as a sustainable development tool to
develop learner skills in the classroom,
(Gorghiu, Gorghiu, Brezeanu, Suduc,
& Bîzoi, 2012). According to OECD
(2016), innovative use of ICT is required
in education to support active learning
in classrooms. Hence, integration of
ICT is vital in today’s classrooms in
order to enhance learners to acquire the
required skills, knowledge, values and
attitudes. However, integrating ICT and
converting the classrooms into effective
teaching and learning environments is a
challenging task.
Integrating ICT in teaching and learning is
an essential requirement of the Maldives
National Curriculum Framework (NCF)
as well, which was implemented in
2015. It is one of the Key Competencies
and has to be incorporated within each
learning area. NCF encourages the use
of varieties of technological tools for
learning and communication aiming
to prepare learners as ICT ‘sensitive
consumers and creative producers of
information’ (NCF, 2015, p 20) for the
21st century workforce. Effective and
appropriate integration of ICT will also
be a crucial support to develop learners
with required skills, knowledge, values
and attitudes as intended in the National
Curriculum Framework. Hence it is
necessary to examine whether ICT
integration is being implemented as
intended in the NCF.
This research paper investigated the
practices of ICT integration by Maldivian
in-service teachers that would help to
implement Key Competency, Using
Technology and the Media, in every day
teaching.
What is ICT Integration?
The word integrate and incorporate
are interchangeably used in various
literature. However, in the context of
curriculum, the word integrate refers to
give equal membership in the context (as
in Meriam Webster Dictionary, 2017). It
refers not segregating ICT in teaching.
According to Suchetanapawar (2012),
118
ICT integration is the ability to work with
ICT. Also, it is the use of ICT gadgets in the
teaching and learning (Khosroco-Pour,
2005). Integration of ICT in teaching is,
an autonomous, active, and collaborative
learning through student engagement in
ICT-based learning environments and
shared learning resources (Garegae &
Moalosi, 2011).
In this context, can ICT integration
mean teachers using PowerPoint
presentations, videos and pictures while
explaining their lessons? Or can it be
referred as students using Internet for
searching information? Here, there are
many factors that need to be considered.
Teachers’ knowledge, motivation and
accessibility of resources influence their
use of digital technologies productively
and interactively. Sometimes, the use
of ICT in classroom rests upon the type
of teachers or teaching. According to
Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck (2001) some
teachers use computers in the classroom
which is considered as low level and
others use it for multimedia presentations.
The use of ICT for analyzing data and
creating information is considered as
high level.
ICT in Maldivian Schools
The school statistics of 2016 shows
that there are 220 schools in Maldives
in which 77 have a population of 300
and above (MOE, 2017). Schools have
been spending on the upgrading of the
facilities including computer facilities.
Generally, in all schools’ computers and
some other ICT tools are available for
teachers, administrators and students with
Internet services. Teachers commonly
use computers in their administrative
work such as, timetabling, preparing
work schedules, scheme of work, lesson
plans, worksheets, formulating exam
papers and keeping student records. As
the increasing nature of technological
awareness, schools have facilities such
as TVs, projectors and smartboards.
Teachers use PowerPoint presentations
for classroom teaching. According to
the then Education Minister Dr. Ahmed
Asim (2013), the acceptance of the
new technologies is so high among the
Maldivians, internet based learning is
promoted by the parents in most schools.
Since 2015, students’ report cards or
final mark sheets are being uploaded to
an online system, RepCar, and the other
administrative information of schools to
another online system called EMIS, so
that Ministry of Education and schools
can access those data online.
With the effort to restructure education,
Ministry of Education has formulated
and implemented a new curriculum
in the Maldivian schools from 2015.
119
One of the eight Key Competencies
in the new curriculum include ‘Using
Technology and the Media’. The
curriculum documents state that “this
key competency should enhance
students with the ability to use varieties
of technology as a tool for learning
communication and enjoyment” (NIE,
2015, p.20). Students are required to
achieve the skills, knowledge, values
and attitudes to practice ICT in everyday
life to use technology and the media
productively, safely and confidently.
In order to guide through this teachers
must integrate ICT in teaching and
learning Initially, ICT targets were
aimed to achieve via a standalone subject
and through other subjects. The ICT
subject was under the key learning area
‘entrepreneurship’. However, later this
was revoked back by eliminating the
ICT subject from school timetables and
taking back the issued ICT text book to
students. The new approach to instill ICT
skill was via integrating ICT through all
subjects.
ICT Integration in Schools
Although the integration of ICT has been
approved in the national curriculum
as one of the key competencies, it is a
difficult and complex task to accomplish
with limited teacher competencies.
According to Lim (2002), ICT integration
is a complex multidimensional task
which includes many dynamics such
as ICT tools, teachers, students, school
administration, educational programs
and school culture. In the same accord
Douglas (2009) noted that classroom
instruction is a complex enterprise
that occurs at the juncture of teachers,
students, and texts within the surrounding
classroom, school, and community
environments.
There are many factors which will enable
teachers to fully integrate ICT in the
classrooms. It includes the availability
and accessibility of technological tools
in the schools, provision of knowledge
and information for both students and
teachers regarding the tools, technical
support and sufficient in-service training
for the teachers. It is also important for
teachers to be competent with various
technological tools and are ready for
appropriate planning of lessons in order
to integrate ICT skills within the subjects
they teach. According to Price (2015),
it is a critical concern if teachers does
not understand how technology could
be used in their classrooms to support
the instructions. The integration process
emerges in Maldives with similar
concerns in the public.
Sometimes teachers feel that mere use of
ICT will suffice the expected integration
120
in the curriculum. However, the real ICT
integration does not seem to be truly
happening in the learning process. This
is evident from some other studies. As
Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck (2001) states
that although teachers have claimed that
they have changed their practice, they are
simply using the technology to do what
they have always done. Also, Martins,
Steil & Todesco, (2004) believe that
although teachers’ have been using ICT,
it is not enough for instructional purpose.
Researchers such as Galanouli, Murphy
& Gardner (2004), Jedeskog & Nissen
(2004) points out that teachers should be
equipped with the required knowledge
and skills so that they can determine
the best tools and strategies to motivate
and achieve the objectives of the lesson.
Demiraslan & Usluel (2008) have
emphasized importance of designing
learning activities and in determining the
most appropriate equipment that suits to
the activities and students. In addition,
innovators require to recognize and
discuss with teachers about their work
culture, appropriate technologies and
new approaches and pedagogies for those
technologies’ (Olson 2000), which will
help teachers to go for real integration of
technology.
Significance of the Research
The Maldives NCF states integrating ICT
as a requirement and it transcribe ICT as a
Key competency stated using technology
and media. As evident from the above
literature, integration of ICT is a complex
and tough task. It is demanding due to
factors like technological resources,
support and training etc. The integration
process may not go as expected during
the first few years of its implementation.
Therefore, it is important to investigate
and find out the areas in need for further
development, where changes are urgent,
and where changes can be slowed down.
Similarly, for anticipated end-results, it
is important to monitor academic process
closely and keep on moving closer to the
targets of the NCF by guiding teachers.
This research is aimed to investigate
the current practice of ICT integration
by Maldivian teachers in the context of
very day teaching. To understand the
general practice participants responses
were taken under the following research
questions.
1. What do Maldivian teachers’ do
to integrate ICT in teaching?
2. To what extent do teachers
integrate ICT in Teaching?
3. Do Maldivian teachers integrate
ICT as it aspires in the NCF?
121
METHOD
A quantitative research approach was
adopted to gain large enough data for
representing the ICT integration in
teaching and learning at Maldivian
schools. Quantitative studies offer the
researchers a wider approach to gain
accurate and complete view of the
population. It also allows the participants
to provide more focused responses of the
true situation.
Data collection was using a survey
questionnaire developed and based
on the literature. The questionnaire
was validated by co-researchers and
pilot tested with 18 teachers of similar
background. The reliability score of the
pilot test was maintained to acceptable
level, 0.78 (above 0.70 Cronbach’s
alpha) by eliminating the intruding items
from the questionnaire.
The self-administered survey
questionnaire consists of 10 items in two
sections. Section 1 as the demographic
details of the participants and section 2
with research questions based on a Likert
scale of 4 or 5 degrees.
Sampling
Purposive sampling was used in this
study as it allows the researcher to get
enough participants in the limited time
for a quantitative study. 52 participants
were chosen from local teachers
teaching in the primary grades (Year
1 to 7) and have completed a teacher
training program of diploma level or
higher. Most of the participants were
females due to their high representation
in the teaching profession at Maldivian
schools. However, this study was aimed
to investigate the practice of Maldivian
in-service teachers in integrating ICT and
not to find the gender gaps, the chosen
volunteers will provide significant data
to the studies.
When selecting samples, both large
schools (student population greater
than 300 by 2016) and small schools
(less than 300) were selected to gain an
overall picture of all schools. Similarly,
schools from the capital Male’ City,
northern atolls, central and southern
atolls are included in this research aiming
to represent various socioeconomic
backgrounds of Maldives. The teachers’
composition includes teachers teaching
almost all the subject areas, namely
Math, English, Dhivehi Islam Science,
Social Studies, Quran and Health &
PE. Geographical representation of the
schools surveyed are shown in figure 1
(below).
122
Figure 1: Geographical areas of schools surveyed.
The survey data was analyzed using a
statistical software SPSS, version 20.0
and MS excel.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The study looks at some of the trends in
ICT usage at Maldivian schools. As seen
in Figure 2, Microsoft PowerPoint is the
most frequently used software application
among the three most commonly used
applications. MS PowerPoint is so
common as teachers break down the
learning concepts into smaller bullet
points and present them on slides.
Sometimes videos are presented within
the slideshows. Some other software are
also used, but not significantly common
among teachers.
Figure 2: Most Commonly used ICT Application
(Software) in Maldivian schools, 2017
Similarly, Figure 3 shows the four
most frequently used ICT hardware
tools. Among them laptop is mostly
used in classroom teachings. This high
frequency of laptop usage is possibly
due to the government’s loan scheme
“A laptop for every Teacher” in 2010
and the Bank of Maldives loan scheme
in 2015 (Minivan Archive, 2015;
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010). Also,
this may be due to the limited availability
of PCs at schools during the time of the
survey. It was noticed that smart phones
are the 4th most commonly used ICT tool
among teachers. Due to the novelty of
smartphones, and the widening coverage
of Internet services to mobiles phones,
its usage is expected to grow rapidly.
Figure 3: Most Commonly used ICT (Hardware tools) in
Maldivian schools, 2017
The survey tool was designed to gain
various perspectives of ICT usage in
teaching and learning context.
Research Question 1: What do
Maldivian teachers do to integrate ICT
in teaching?
123
Integrating ICT in teaching refers to the
use of ICT in all teaching and learning
related activities, at school, home as well
as in classrooms. This research question
(research question One) presents those
various uses of ICT.
The results revealed that Maldivian
teachers use ICT for teaching related
admin work (17.3%), such as timetabling
and students’ record keeping. Teachers
use their laptop, school PC and other
ICT tools for information searching and
creating learning activities while they
plan lessons (53.9%). The use of ICT in
classroom teaching is 29.9% as shown in
figure 4.
Figure 4: Teachers’ ICT Integration
When looked at the purpose of teachers’
ICT usage, the survey results in Figure
5 show that teachers’ mostly use ICT
to present information via PowerPoint
slides and videos. PowerPoint slides are
preferred over video clips for explaining
learning contents, hence they allow
greater flexibility in customization. The
video links they use are either through
slides, direct link from World Wide Web
resource or pre-downloaded videos in
standalone devices, such as laptops,
PCs, flash-drives. The high frequency of
video usage is possibly due to the ease
of availability of ready-made content
regardless of its appropriateness.
Figure 5: Common purposes of ICT use by the teachers
The use of ICT in classroom varies a
lot, mostly it depends on the teachers’
ICT competency, perception about
ICT and the availability of time and
resources. According to Hatlevik and
Arnseth (2012), teachers’ perception
will influence the integration of ICT
in their teaching and this is seen from
their research results and Ghavifekr et
al. (2015) work. Also, Ghavifekr and
Rosdy (2015) stresses positive attitude is
necessary in ICT integration to improve
students learning. This study looked in
to teahcers perception of ICT and most
commonly used ICT softwares. As shown
in Figure 6, the most frequently used
software tool is PowerPoint presentation
124
irrespective of teachers’ perception (low,
strong or, very strong) on ICT usage in
teaching.
Figure 6: Teachers’ Perception of ICT and most
commonly used ICT software
In contrast to the general trend, teachers
having a low positive perception about
ICT usage in teaching are more than
half of the of sampled population
(count 30/52) as depicted from figure 6.
This result is may be due to the heavy
emphasis of ICT usage in teaching by the
authorities. This effect could be further
investigated in another study as it is out
of the scope of in this research.
However, among all the perception
categories except the average, (low, strong
and very strong) the most commonly
used software was PowerPoint. This
result may be due to the convenience of
PowerPoint usage and to the continuity
of other teachers slides (slide sharing) in
teaching.
48.07%
Research Question 2: To what extent
do teachers integrate ICT in Teaching?
Research question two focuses on the
level of ICT integration in the teaching
and learning process. In other words,
this question will attempt to find out
the level of ICT integration that takes
place in classrooms. The ICT usage
level was categorized into 5 levels, in
the questionnaire, as ‘not using at all’,
‘low level usage’, ‘average usage’, ‘high
level usage’ and ‘extensive use’. The
results (Figure 7) show that about half
(48.07%) of the teachers are high level
users of ICT and 32. 69% are average
users while there are few teachers who
do not take the ICT integration seriously.
They are 13.46% which are considered
as low level and 3.85% who do not use
ICT at all.
Figure 7: Level of ICT usage by the teachers
The results (figure 7) demonstrate that
most teachers use ICT as a part of their
teaching-learning methods. However,
125
Figure 6: Teachers’ Perception of ICT and most
commonly used ICT software
In contrast to the general trend, teachers
having a low positive perception about
ICT usage in teaching are more than
half of the of sampled population
(count 30/52) as depicted from figure 6.
This result is may be due to the heavy
emphasis of ICT usage in teaching by the
authorities. This effect could be further
investigated in another study as it is out
of the scope of in this research.
However, among all the perception
categories except the average, (low, strong
and very strong) the most commonly
used software was PowerPoint. This
result may be due to the convenience of
PowerPoint usage and to the continuity
of other teachers slides (slide sharing) in
teaching.
48.07%
this high usage does not mean that
teachers are integrating ICT appropriately
to instill the ICT skills required as stated
by Cuban (2001) and Martins, Steil &
Todesco (2004). It shows the frequency
of ICT usage in classrooms. As stated
earlier, ICT integration is not just mere
use of ICT.
If teachers have the intention of instilling
ICT skills while they teach the subject
content, they should have the ICT skill
objective in the lesson plan. In addition,
they could have carefully developed
the learning activities based on a
specific ICT skill to inculcate it during
the learning process (Sutherland et al.,
2004). However, this was not evident
from teachers’ responses to the survey.
The question targeted to that was, “do
you include a specific learning outcome
(target) in the lesson plan for specific
ICT skill(s) targeted in the national
curriculum?” The results are in Table 1.
It shows that, about half of the teachers
(46.2%) did not include ICT learning
objective in the lesson plan for instilling
ICT skill. This indicates that they do not
have a target of ICT integration even
though they use ICT in teaching.
Table 1: Teachers inclusion of a specific learning
outcome in the lesson plan.
Do you include specific objective/target in the lesson plan to address ICT skill area(s)?
Fre
quen
cy
Per
cent
Val
id
Per
cent
Cum
ulat
ive
Per
cent
Val
id
No. 24 46.2 46.2 46.2
Yes 28 53.8 53.8 100.0
Total 52 100.0 100.0
Another question targeting to understand
the extent of ICT integration was the
purpose of teachers’ ICT usage, this
was responded (under research question
1) that mainly for presenting learning
content to students (via PowerPoint
Slides and videos). This shows that there
is lack of chance for students to interact
with ICT in classrooms and at school.
This leads them to be passive listeners
of subject content rather than active
producers of content using ICT.
Based on the findings it can be
concluded that Maldivian teachers use
ICT in classrooms, but the actual ICT
integration is not taking place. The ICT
usage is merely at surface level, students
are not given time to engage with ICT
tools in classroom.
126
Research Question 3: Do Maldivian
teachers integrate ICT as it aspires in
the NCF?
The Maldives NCF aims to prepare
learners as ICT sensitive consumers
and creative producers of information
for the 21st century workforce aiming
to encourage the use of varieties of
technological tools for learning and
communication (NCF, 2015). As stated
in the literature, the integration of ICT
is a complex and demanding task (Lim,
2002; Douglas, 2009) due to factors like
technological resources, support and
training. The survey results stated earlier
(under research question 1 discussion),
depicts that only a limited number of
technological tools are used in teaching
and learning. If teachers are not using
variety of ICT tools in teaching, students
would not be expected to learn variety
of technological tools. This may be due
to the limited ICT resources at schools.
However, this is not the expectation of
the NCF.
In order to explore whether learners are
prepared as ICT sensitive consumers and
creative producers, the first two questions
of this research produced important
data. The results of the data for those
questions revealed that 53.9% (Figure 4)
teachers use ICT in their lesson planning
stage and 53.8% also include specific
learning objectives in their plan (table 1).
However, only 29.9% (Figure 4) use ICT
in their classroom teaching. When the
purpose of the ICT usage is investigated
it was found that ICT is mostly used for
presenting information (Figure 5) but not
to inculcate the ICT skills of creating and
producing information through activities
and practical work.
One of the important factors that could
affect ICT integration, according
to literature is training given to the
teachers. It is crucial for teachers to be
prepared with ICT skills (Buza & Mula,
2017) with adequate training so that
they can use variety of tools effectively
and efficiently (Ziden, Ismail, Spian, &
Kumutha, 2011). Such a training will
build their trust and confidence making
them competent ICT users (Ghavifekr
& Rosdy, 2015), without which ICT
integration will not facilitate effective
instructional delivery (Ghavifekr &
Rosdy, 2015) as expected in the NCF. It
was found that well-equipped preparation
and training with ICT tools plays a key
role in enhancing students learning
(Becker, 2001; Ghavifekr & Rosdy,
2015;”container-title”:”International
Journal of Research in Education and
lume”:”1”,”issue”:”2”,”source”:”DOI.
org (Crossref Simin & Sani, 2015)
Communication, and Technology. Hence,
the training opportunities conducted to
127
the teachers were investigated. More than
half (57.7%) of the teachers responded
that they have not followed any kind of
ICT integration training, while 42.3% of
the teachers have completed some form
of ICT integration training as shown in
the Table 2. These trainings duration
ranges from 3 months to 2 hours of
professional development sessions.
Table 2: Trained on ICT integration and Taught ICT Skills.
YES/
NO
Freq
uenc
y
Perc
ent
Trained for ICT
integration?
No 30 57.7
Yes 22 42.3
Total 52 100
Taught ICT Skills to
Students?
No 20 38.5
Yes 30 61.5
Total 52 100
Where do students’ use ICT?
Don’t use 7 13.5
at Home 15 28.8
At School 30 57.7
Total 52 100
In order to identify whether there is any
difference between the trained and non-
trained teachers in their ICT integration.
The question whether they have taught
ICT skill(s) to their students was
included. The results showed (Table 2) a
high percentage of the teachers (61.5%)
responded that they teach ICT skills
to their students through their subject
contents.
Hence the training is an important aspect
of achieving the aims of NCF, the study
tried to find out whether trained teachers
are taking more initiative to develop ICT
skills in their students. A Chi-square
and Phi-Cramer’s symmetric tests were
conducted to learn the significance of
the results. Pearson Chi-square value
and both Phi and Cramer’s significance
value (p-value =0.790) are insignificant
(p-value greater than 0.05). Both these
results indicated that, the teachers’
training on ICT integration is not playing
a significant role, in developing their
students’ ICT skills. In other words, the
ICT integration trainings given were
insufficient for a meaningful result in
teachers teaching. This reflects that
further training on ICT integration is
required for an effective implementation.
Figure 8: Purpose of Student’s ICT usage
128
From the survey it was evident that
34.6% of students utilize ICT tools to do
their school project works, and 17.3%
use ICT for general information over
Internet. Table 2 shows students’ ICT
usage at school and homes. This data
indicates that students engage in some
level of information creation at school
and home. However, this reported usage
is very much limited. Still there is no
appropriate ICT engagement as it is
expected in the NCF.
Based on the data it can be said that
the real ICT integration expected in the
NCF is not being practiced appropriately
in the Maldivian classrooms. Based
on the type of ICT integration reported
in classrooms, there is no evidence of
impact on developing for 21st century
ICT skills as aspired in the National
Curriculum.
However, the encouraging phenomenon
observed are that the ICT usage is
increasing in various stages of teaching
and learning process. Currently the usage
is higher at planning stage of teaching
than in the teaching and learning process.
It is evident that there is a knowledge gap
in teachers’ understanding of appropriate
ICT integration in subjects. So, further
training is highly required for teachers
via professional development or by other
means.
These findings are limited to survey
results of teachers. Further research using
students and qualitative dimensions can
reveal additional in depths of classroom
ICT usage and the challenges in ICT
integration process.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From this quantitative study it was
evident that the ICT integration in
Maldivian schools are just in a surface
level. Teachers use ICT in teaching
related-activities and present information
using ICT in classrooms, but this usage
does not reach appropriate limits in
the learning contexts. When ICT is
integrated appropriately, students will be
using ICT in the learning process to gain
new information, to create ICT related
products and show the confidence
and competency in ICT tools usage in
classrooms as well as at homes. This was
not seen from teachers’ responses.
Teachers’ use of ICT is limited to just
hand-full of ICT tools and applications.
The required ICT skills development for
21st century is not evident in classrooms.
Teachers lack in appropriate know-how
to integrate ICT in teaching and learning.
As stated in the literature ICT integration
is not an easy task. Teachers need to be
competent to work for dual objectives of
129
the teaching subject contents and the ICT
skills objectives. A well-rounded teacher
of both the teaching subject area and ICT
can reach to the expected level of the
NCF. Therefore, for and effective ICT
integration, further training is required
for teachers to fulfill the expected end
results from their work. Schools required
to be ICT resourced and establish support
services for teachers in integrating ICT
in the teaching and learning process.
This research recommends that, for an
effective integration of ICT as prescribed
in the NCF, teacher need to have
continuous periodic training, capacity
building workshops and seminars. In
addition to the training, model ICT
integration lessons on all the subject areas
could be developed and video recorded
and distributed for references. Such an
activity would be a great help for the
teachers to learn from the best practices.
Similarly, a mechanism of continuous
expert support for teachers in developing
and implementing ICT integrated lesson
would be of utmost importance for the
time being. This research also suggests
that schools need to be ICT resourced
and continuous budget for upgrading and
maintenance of ICT products are vital
for effective ICT integration.
REFERENCESAsim, A. (2013). In Maldives, Parents
Promote ICT in Education. Digital Learning. Innovating for a better future. Retrieved on 30th October 2017 from:
http://digitallearning.eletsonline.com/2013/04/in-maldives-parents-promote-ict-in-education/
Buza, A. D. K., & Mula, M. F. (2017). The role of the Teachers in the integration of ICT in Teaching in Secondary Low Education. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 4(4), 240-247.
by Merriam-Webster, D. (2018). America's most-trusted online dictionary.(2017). Merriam-webster. com.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and Low use of technology in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Douglas, K. (2009). Sharpening our focus in measuring classroom instruction. Educ. Res. 38(7), 518–521
Demiraslan and Usluel (2008). ICT integration processes in Turkish schools: Using activity theory to study issues and contradictions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 458-474
Garegae, K. G., & Moalosi, S. S. (2011). Botswana ICT Policy and Curriculum Concerns: Does School Connectivity Guarantee Technology Integration into Mathematics Classrooms?. In Handbook of Research on Information Communication Technology Policy: Trends, Issues and Advancements (pp. 15-32). IGI Global
Galanouli, D., Murphy, C. & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT competence training. Computers & Education, 43, 63-79.
130
Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191.
Gorghiu, G., Gorghiu, L. M., Brezeanu, I., Suduc, A. M., & Bîzoi, M. (2012). Promoting the effective use of ict in Romanian primary and secondary education-steps made in the frame of edutic project. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4136-4140.
Hatlevik, O. E., & Arnseth, H. C. (2012). ICT, teaching and leadership: How do teachers experience the importance of ICT-Supportive school leaders?. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(01), 55-69.
Jedeskog, G. & Nissen, J. (2004). ICT in the classroom: Is doing more ımportant than knowing? Education and Information Technologies, 9(1), 37-45.
Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of information science and technology. IGI Global.
Lim, C. P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: A proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 411-421.
Martins, C. B. M. J., Steil, A. V. & Todesco, J. L. (2004). Factors influencing the adoption of the Internet as a teaching tool at foreign language schools. Computers & Education, 42, 353-374.
Ministry of Education (2017). School Statistics 2016. Ministry of Education, Republic of Maldives. Retrieved on 3rd November 2017 from: https://www.moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/Stat_Book_2016.pdf
Minivan News Archive (2015). Bank of Maldives introduces new loan scheme for teachers. Male’, Maldives. Retrieved from https://minivannewsarchive.com/tag/teachers.
National Institute of Education, (2015). National Curriculum Framework, Ministry of Education, Male. Retrieved on 30th October 2017 from https://moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/National_Curriculum_Framework_English.pdf
National Institute of Education, (2015). Turning the Key Competencies into Reality: a practical guide for teachers, Ministry of Education, Male. Retrieved on 30th October 2017 https://www.moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/KEY_COMPETENCIES_GUIDE.pdf
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Survey of ICTs for Education in India and South Asia, Country Studies. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/infodev-files/resource/InfodevDocuments_880.pdf
OECD. (2016). Education at a Glance 3(510)- Indicators. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/education-at-a-glance-2016-indicators.htm
Olson, J. (2000) Trojan horse or teacher's pet? Computers and the culture of the school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32 (1), 1-8.
Price, J. K. (2015). Transforming learning for the smart learning environment: lessons learned from the Intel education initiatives. Smart Learning Environments, 2(1), 16.
Simin, G., & Sani, I. M. (2015). Effectiveness of ICT Integration in Malaysian Schools: A Quantitative Analysis. International Research Journal for Quality in Education, 2, 12.
Sutherland, R., V. Armstrong, S. Barnes, R. Brawn, N. Breeze, M. Gall, S. Matthewman, F. Olivero, A. Taylor, P. Triggs, J. Wishart, and P. John. 2004. Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20: 413–425.
131
Wilson, M., Scalise, K., & Gochyyev, P. (2015). Rethinking ICT literacy: From computer skills to social network settings. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18, 65-80.
Ziden, A. A., Ismail, I., Spian, R., & Kumutha, K. (2011). The Effects of ICT Use in Teaching and Learning on Students’ Achievement in Science Subject in a Primary School in Malaysia. Malaysia Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 19–32.
132
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
ތަޢާރަފު
ޤާނޫނީގޮތުން އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް، ދިވެހިބަހަކީ މާއްދާއެކެވެ. މަޖުބޫރު ލާޒިމުކުރެވިފައިވާ އެހެންކަމުން މުޅި ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ހުރިހާ ސްކޫލެއްގައި
978-99915-0-842-9/09
ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތައް ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލެއް
ޢާއިޝަތު ޒިދްނާ[email protected]
ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންނަކީ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ގޮތުން މަޒުމޫނާއި ވާހަކަ ފަދަ އެކި ވައްތަރުގެ ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔަން ދަސްކުރާ ބައެކެވެ. ލިޔުމުގެ ހުނަރު ކުރިއެރުވުމަކީ އުނދަގޫކަމެއްކަމަށް ގިނަބަޔަކު ދެކެމުންދާއިރު، މި ހުނަރު ފޯރުކޮށް ދެވޭނީ ވަނީ ޚާއްޞަކޮށްފައި ކަރުދާސް ދިރާސީ މި އެގޮތުން ކަމެކެވެ. މުހިންމު ބެލުމަކީ ގޮތުގައިތޯ އެކަށޭނަ އެންމެ ކިލާސްރޫމްތަކުގައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ގޮތުން ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔާ މަޒުމޫނު ފަދަ ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން އެލިޔުމެއް ލިޔާނެ ގޮތާ މެދު ރޭވުމަށްޓަކައި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދަރިވަރުންގެ މާދަރީބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ހުނަރަށް ކިޔަވާ ދިވެހިބަސް ސާނަވީގައި އަމާޒުކޮށްފައިވަނީ ދިރާސާ މި މިގޮތުން ދެނެގަތުމަށެވެ. ކޮބައިތޯ ބަދަލަކީ އަންނަ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ކަމަށްވާތީ، ދިރާސާގައި ބައިވެރިކޮށްފައި ވަނީ އޭގެތެރެއިން 20 ދަރިވަރުންވެ. ކުއެންޓިޓޭޓިވްކޮށް ކުރި މި ދިރާސާއިން، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެންނާއި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި، މި ދަރިވަރުން ހެދި ދެ ޓެސްޓުގައި ލިޔުނު މަޒުމޫނުތަކުން ދައްކައިދިނީ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބުމުން، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން މާ ބޮޑު ތަން ރަނގަޅުވާކަމެވެ. މިކަން މި ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް ޓެސްޓުތަކުންނާއި ޓީޓެސްޓުތަކުގެ ނަތީޖާއިން ކަށަވަރުކޮށްދެއެވެ. އެގޮތުން ދިރާސާގެ ޕެއަޓެސްޓުކުރި ބެލުމުން، ބެލި ބައަކަށް ހުރިހާ ހިމެނޭ ނޑުތަކުގައި މިންގަ ވަޒަންކުރާ އިމްތިހާނުގައި އެސް.އެސް.ސީ ވޭރިއޭބަލްތަކުގެ މެދުގައި ވަރަށް ވަރުގަދަ ގުޅުން )ސްޓްރޯންގ ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ގުޅުން( ވާކަން ފާހަގަކުރަމެވެ. މި ހޯދުންތަކަށް ބުރަވާ އިރު، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ދަރިވަރުން ލައްވާ މަސައްކަތް ކުރުވާނަމަ، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ހުނަރު ކުރިއެރުމުގައި ހުރަސްތަކަކާ ދިމާވާނެކަމީ ކަށަވަރު ކަމެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން މިއީ، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ކިލާސްތައް ކުރިއަށް
ގެންދާ ފާރާތްތަކުގެ ސަމާލުކަމަށް ގެނެސް ރަނގަޅުކުރުމަށް މަސައްކަތްކުރަންޖެހޭ ދާއިރާއެކެވެ.
މުހިންމު ލަފްޒުތައް: ބަހުގެ އިލްމު، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ހުނަރު، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ މަރުހަލާތައް، ވަގުރު ރޭވުން
މިއަދު މިދަނީ މާދަރީ ބަހެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް ނޑު މައިގަ ބަހުގެ އުނގަންނައިދެމުންނެވެ. ހުނަރުތަކުގެ ތެރެއިން ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަކީ ދަސްކޮށްދޭން ކަން ދެކެއެވެ. ގިނަބަޔަކު ހުނަރެއްކަމަށް އުނދަގޫ
133
ކުރާ ކުރިއެރުވުމަށް ހުނަރު މި ހުރިއިރު މިހެން މަސައްކަތުން ނެރެވެނީ އެންމެ އެކަށީގެންވާ ނަތީޖާތޯ، މިއީ ކުރަން ޖެހިފައިވާ ސުވާލެކެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން ލައްވާ މަޒުމޫނެއް ލިޔުއްވަން ފެށުމުގެ ކުރިން އެ މަޒުމޫނެއް ރޭވުމަށް ދެވޭ ވަގުތަކީ މުހިންމު ވަގުތެއްކަން ރޮޑް އެލިސް )2003(، ޖޭން ވިލިސް އަދި ޑޭވް ވިލިސް )2007( ގެ އިތުރުން، މެހްރާންގ އަދި ރަހިމްޕޫރު )2010( ގެ ދިރާސާތަކުން ފެންނަން އެބަހުއްޓެވެ. ނަމަވެސް ދެވަނަ ބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ އެކިއުރިސީ އަސްޣަރް ބެލުމަށް ކޮމްޕްލެކްސިޓީ ޓާސްކް އާއި ހޮސެއިނީ ޕަރްވިން އަލާވިނި، ޕްރްވިޒް ސާލިމީ، ސާމްޕަލް ސިމްޕަލް ދިރާސާގެ ކުރެއްވި )2012(ވުރެ ގުރޫޕަށް ލިބުނު ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ޓެސްޓުން، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ގުރޫޕުގެ ނުލިބޭ ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ވެއެވެ. ހޯދިފައި ކަމަށް ވެފައިވާ 'އެކިއުރޭޓް' މާ ޚާއްޞަކޮށްފައި ދިރާސާ މި ހުރީތީ މިހެން ކަން ގޮތުން ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ކިލާސްރޫމްތަކުގައި ވަނީ ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔާ މަޒުމޫނު ފަދަ ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން، އެ ލިޔުމެއް ލިޔާނެ ގޮތާ މެދު ރޭވުމަށްޓަކައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިނުމުން، ވަގުތު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އަންނަ ހުނަރަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ މާދަރީބަހުގެ
ދެނެގަތުމަށެވެ. ބަދަލުތައް
ބަހުގައި ދިވެހި ބޭނުމަކީ ނޑު މައިގަ ދިރާސާގެ މި ނުވުމާއި ހެދިފައި ދިރާސާއެއް މިފަދަ މިހާތަނަށް ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުން ރަނގަޅު ނަތީޖާ ނެރެވޭ ތަން ފެންނަމުން ނުދާތީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ކުދިންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ދަށްވާ ސަބަބުތައް ދެނެގަތުމެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ މިއާއެކު ޤައުމީ މަންހަޖުގައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް މެދުވެރިކޮށް ދިރާސާ މި ނޑައެޅުމަށް، ކަ ވަގުތު
އެހީވެދިނުމެވެ.
މި ދިރާސާގެ ސުވާލަކީ "ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތައް
ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ
އަންނަ ހުނަރަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ބަދަލަކީ ކޮބައިހެއްޔެވެ؟" މިއެވެ. މި ސުވާލަށް ޖަވާބު
ނޑައަޅައިފައި ހޯދުމަށްޓަކައި 2 ހައިޕޮތެސިސްއެއް ކަ
ވާނެއެވެ. އެއީ:
މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު . 1
ލިބުމަކުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ
ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅެއް ނުވެއެވެ. )ނަލް
ހައިޕޮތެސިސް(
މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު . 2
ލިބިގެން މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅުވެއެވެ.
)އޯލްޓަނޭޓިވް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް(
ލިޓްރޭޗަރ ރިވިއު
ބަހެއް އުނގެނުމުގެ ތެރެއިން ލިބިދޭ އެންމެ މުހިންމު
ލިޔުންތެރިކަމެވެ. އެބަހެއްގެ ޤާބިލުކަމަކީ އެއް
މަޒުމޫނު ތެރެއިން ފިލާވަޅުތަކުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ
ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން ދަރިވަރުން އެ ލިޔުމެއް ބައްޓަންކުރާނެ
ދިނުމަކީ ފުރުޞަތުތަކެއް ވިސްނާލަން ގޮތަކާމެދު
މުހިންމު ކުރުން ކުރިއެރުވުމުގައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަން
)2002( ޓޮމްކިންސް އީ. ގެއިލް، ކަމަށް ކަމެއް
ވިދާޅުވެއެވެ. މި ވަގުތުކޮޅުގެ ސަބަބުން މުޅި މަޒުމޫނު
ޕޮއިންޓްތަކާއި ނޑު މައިގަ ބޭނުންވާ ހުށެހެޅުމަށް
)ޖެރެމީ ދެނެގަނެވެއެވެ އުސްލޫބު ހުށަހަޅާނެ
.)2004 ހާރމަރ،
އާރް. އޭ. ކެލޮގް )1996( ކުރި ދިރާސާއިން ދެއްކި
134
ރޭވުމުގެ ރޭވި ގޮތުގައި ގެ ޕްރީޓާސްކް ގޮތުގައި،
ރަނގަޅުވެ، ފެންވަރު ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ސަބަބުން
ފުރިހަމަވެގެންދެއެވެ. އިތުރަށް ލިޔުމުންތެރިކަން
ނަމަވެސް މެހްރާންގ އަދި ރަހިމްޕޫރު )2010( ކުރި
ދިރާސާއިން ދައްކަނީ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމަކުން ބަހުގެ
ހަމަތަކަށް ފައްތައިގެން އަދި ޖުމުލަތަކުގެ ފަށުވިކަމާއި
ލިޔުމަށް ބާރުދޭ ޖުމުލަތައް ލިޔުމަށް)އެކިއުރެސީއަށް(
ބަޔާންކުރެވުނު މި ނުކުރާކަމަށެވެ. އަސަރެއް ވަކި
ތަފާތުތަކެއް ނަތީޖާއިން ދިރާސާގެ ބޭފުޅުންގެ ދެ
)ޓާސްކްތަކަށް( ޙަރަކާތްތަކަށް ހިނދު، ފެންނަ
ޢާންމުކޮށް މިވަނީ، ކިޔަވައިދިނުން ބަސް ބިނާކޮށް
ގެންގުޅެމުން މީހުން މެދު ގޮތާ ކިޔަވައިދޭ ބަސް
އެލިސް ރޮޑް ގޮންޖަހާފައިކަމަށް ޚިޔާލުތަކަށް އައި
ޓާސްކުތަކަށް އަދި ލިޔުއްވައެވެ. )2003(
ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ސަބަބުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ބައިވެރިވުން
މުއްސަނދިވެއެވެ. އިތުރަށް ބަސްކޮށާރު އިތުރުވެ،
ލިޔުއްވާ ނުދެވި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް މިހެންވުމުން
ނޑައެޅި ކަ އިންތަކެއް ކުރެވެނީ އެކަން ނަމަ
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން މީގެ ހިފެހެއްޓިގެންނެވެ.
ހިފެހެއްޓިގެންނެވެ. ވެސް ހުޅުވައިލެވޭނީ ވިސްނުން
.)2007 ވިލިސް، ޑޭވް އާއި ވިލިސް )ޖޭން
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ބަސް މިއީ އެހެންކަމުން
މުހިންމުކަމެކެވެ. ބަލައިލުން އިތުރަށް
ދިރާސާ ކުރިއަށް ގެންދެވުނު ގޮތް
ޙަރަކާތްތައް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ދިރާސާއަކީ މި
ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ
އަންނަ ހުނަރަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ބަދަލަކީ ކޮބައިތޯ ބެލުމަށްޓަކައި ކުރި ދިރާސާއެކެވެ.
ވަނީ ގެންގޮސްފައި ކުރިއަށް ދިރާސާ މި
ޕޮޒިޓިވިސްޓް ފެރެޑައިމްގެ ކުއެންޓިޓޭޓިވް ޑިޒައިންގެ
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ. ޑިޒައިން އެކްސްޕެރިމެންޓަލް
ޑިޒައިންތައް ތަފާތު ޑިޒައިންގެ އެކްސްޕެރިމެންޓަލް
ހަދާފައިވަނީ ދިރާސާ މި އޭގެތެރެއިން ހުރުމާއެކު
ޕޯސްޓް ޓެސްޓް އޮންލީ ކޮންޓްރޯލް ގްރޫޕް ޑިޒައިން
ދިރާސާގައި މި އެގޮތުން ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ.
ކުދިން 20 ނެގި ރެންޑަމްކޮށް ބޭނުންކޮށްފައިވަނީ
ގެ ގުރޫޕެކެވެ. މި ޑިޒައިން ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ކުރީ ދެ
ޕޯސްޓް ޓެސްޓެވެ. އެއީ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި
ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ކުރި ޓެސްޓެވެ. މި ގޮތުން ނެގި
ބޭނުންކުރާ އިމްތިހާނުގައި އެސް.އެސް.ސީ ޑާޓާތައް
މާކުކުރެވި، އެހީގައި )ރުބްރިކް(ގެ ނޑު މިންގަ
ޕޮރޮގްރާމްގެ އެސް.ޕީ.އެސް.އެސް ޑާޓާތައް އެ
އިފެކްޓް އެންޑް ކޯސް އެނަލައިޒްކޮށްގެން އެހީގައި
އިންޑެޕެންޑެންޓް ބެލީ މިގޮތުން ވާނެއެވެ. ބަލާފައި
ވޭރިއޭބަލްއަށް ޑިޕެންޑެންޓް ވޭރިއޭބަލްތަކުން
މިންވަރެވެ. އަސަރުކޮށްފައިވާ
ބޭނުންކުރި ޓެސްޓުކުރުމުގައި ދިރާސާގައި މި
ލިޔުމުގެ އަކީމަޒުމޫނު ވޭރިއޭބަލް އިންޑިޕެނެޑެންޓް
ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ދިނުމާއި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ކުރިން
ނުދިނުމެވެ. ޑިޕެންޑެންޓް ވޭރިއޭބަލްއަކީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ބަދަލެވެ. އަންނަ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް
ފޯން "މޮބައިލް ބޭނުންކުރީ ޓެސްޓަށް ކުރި ނުދީ
ބޭނުންކުރެވެނީ އެއްމެ އެދެވޭ ގޮތުގައި ހެއްޔެވެ؟"މި
ކުރި ދީގެން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް އަދި ސުރުޚީއެވެ.
ސަބަބުން "ޓެކްނޮލޮޖީގެ ބޭނުންކުރީ ޓެސްޓަށް
މި ސުރުޚީއެވެ. ފައިދާއެވެ" ވަނީ ކިޔަވާކުދިންނަށް
ބަޔާންކުރެވުނު ކަންކަމުގެ ތެރެއިން މި ދިރާސާއިން
135
ހޯދުނު ހުރިހާ ހޯދުމެއް ބިނާވެގެންވަނީ ދިރާސާގައި
މައްޗަށެވެ. އެކްސްޕެރިމެންޓްގެ ހެދި
ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދުންތައް އަދި ދިރާސާގެ ބަހުސް
މި ހޯދާފައިވަނީ، ހޯދުންތައް ހޯދި ދިރާސާއަށް މި
ޕޯސްޓް ދެ ލިޔުމުގެ މަޒުމޫނު ކުރި ދިރާސާގައި
ނަތީޖާ ހޯދި މިގޮތުން އެހީގައެވެ. ޓެސްޓުގެ
އެކްސެލް ޝީޓަށް ނެގުމަށް ފަހު، އެނެލައިޒްކޮށްފައި
ދިރާސާތައް ޑިޒައިނުގެ ކުއެންޓީޓޭޓިވް ވަނީ
އެނެލައިޒްކުރުމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ ޚާއްޞަ ޕްރޮގްރާމެއް
ކަމަށްވާ އެސް.ޕީ.އެސް.އެސް ޕްރޮގްރާމްގެ އެހީގައެވެ.
މި ދެ ޓެސްޓުގެ ނަތީޖާ ތަހުލީލުކޮށްފައި ވަނީ އެސް.
އެނަލިޒިސްއެއްގެ ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް ޕީ.އެސް.އެސްގެ
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް އެހީގައެވެ. މި ގޮތުން ހަދާފައިވާ ޕެއަ
ރޑް ޕެއަ އަދި ސްޓެޓިސްޓިކްސް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް
ނަތީޖާތައް ފެނުނު ޓެސްޓުން ޓީ ސާމްޕަލް
އެވަނީއެވެ. ތާވަލުތަކުގައި
ދީގެންނާއި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް :1 ތާވަލު ޚިޔާލުތައް ޓެސްޓުގެ ހެދި ނުދީ ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ވުމާއި، ބަހައިފައި ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ގުޅުވައިގެން ހުށަހަޅާފައިވާ ގޮތް އަދި ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ރޑް ޕެއަ ގޮތުގެ ތަރުތީބުކޮށްފައިވާ
. ސް ވް ޓި ޕް ރި ކް ޑިސް
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސް ޕެއަOrganization Mean N Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Pair
1 ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.1500 20 2.23077 49881.
ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.5500 20 1.60509 35891.
Pair
2 ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.3000 20 2.51522 56242.
ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.5000 20 1.39548 31204.
Pair 3 ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.6500 20 2.30046 51440.
ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.5000 20 1.39548 31204.
ރޭވުމަށް ގޮތުގައި، ދައްކާ މީންއިން ގެ 1 ތާވަލު ވަގުތު ނުދީ މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުއްވުމަށް ވުރެ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެން މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުއްވުމުން ދަރިވަރުން މާ ރަނގަޅަށް ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައެވެ. ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި މީންގެ ޓެސްޓުގެ ހެދި ދީގެން ވަގުތު ޓެސްޓަށްވުރެ ޢަދަދު ވަނީ މަތިވެފައެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް
ތަރުތީބު މާބޮޑަށް ވެސް ހުށަހެޅުމުގައި ގުޅިގެން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ކުރެވިފައިވާކަން )އޮގަނައިޒް( އެގޮތުން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުން، ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުމާއި ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ތަރުތީބުކޮށްފައިވާ ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ގޮތާއި ގުޅިފައިވާ
ގޮތުގެ މީން އަކީ 5.5 އެވެ.
136
ތާވަލު 2: ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި ޓެސްޓްގައި ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ބަހައިފައި ވުމާއި، ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން އަދި ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ތަރުތީބުކޮށްފައިވާ ގޮތުގެ ޕެއަ
ޓީ ޓެސްޓް.
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޓީ ޓެސްޓް ޕެއަ
Org
aniz
atio
n
Paired Differences
t df
Sig.
(2-ta
iled)
Mea
n
Std.
Dev
iatio
n
Std.
Erro
r Mea
n
95%
C
onfid
ence
In
terv
al o
f the
D
iffer
ence
Low
er
Upp
er
Pair
1 ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދި ޚިޔާލުތައް
ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( -2.4
0000
1.87
504
.419
27
-3.2
7755
-1.5
2245
-5.7
24
19
Pair
2 ޕެރެގްރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )އަން ޕްލޭންޑް( އަދި ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( -2
.200
00
2.01
573
.450
73
-3.1
4339
-1.2
5661
-4.8
81
19
Pair
3 ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދިޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )ޕްލޭންޑް( -1
.850
00
1.66
307
.371
87
-2.6
2834
-1.0
7166
-4.9
75
19
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ޓީ ޓެސްޓްގެ ތާވަލު 2 ގައި ވާ ޕެއަ
ރޑް ޑީވިއޭޝަނަށް ބަލާއިރު، އެއްޕެރެގުރާފު ސްޓޭންޑަ
އަނެއް ޕެރެގުރާފެއްގެ ގުޅުން ބެހެއްޓުމުގެ އެވްރެޖް
މީންއާ ކޮންމެ ދަރިވަރަކާ ދެމެދުގައި ތަފާތު ހުރިކަން
ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ޓީ ޓެސްޓްގައި ވާ ތިން ބައިގެ
P = ީވެސް، ރެލެވަންޓް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ލެވެލްއަކ
0.05>( 000.( އެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން ޓެސްޓުކުރެވުނު
މި ދެ ވޭރިއޭބަލްގެ ދެމެދުގައި ވަނީ ސްޓްރޯންގ
ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ގުޅުމަކަށް ވާތީ، ނަލް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް
މިވަނީ ރިޖެކެޓްވެފައެވެ.
ތާވަލު 3: ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި ވަގުތު ނުދީ
ހެދި ޓެސްޓުގައި މައުޟޫ އޯޑިއަންސަށް އަމާޒުކުރުމާއި
ރޑް ޕެއަ ގޮތުގެ ގެނެސްފައިވާ ނިންމުން ފެށުމާއި
ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސް. ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ
137
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސް ޕެއަ
Organization Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair
1 އޯޑިއެންސް )އަންޕްލޭން( 4.4500 20 2.06410 .46155
އޯޑިއެންސް )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.7500 20 1.65036 .36903
Pair
2 ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.2500 20 1.99671 .44648
ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( 4.8000 20 1.64157 .36707
ރޑް ޑީވިއޭޝަންތަކުގެ ތެރެއިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި ޓެސްޓުގެ ތާވަލު 3 އަށް ބަލާ އިރު، ސްޓޭންޑަމިއިން ފެތުރިފައެވެ. މާބޮޑަށް ވަނީ ޑީވިއޭޝަން ރޑް ސްޓޭންޑަ ގޮތުގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްފައިވާ އޯޑިއެންސަށް
ދައްކުވައިދެނީ ކޮންމެ ދަރިވަރަކާ އެވްރެޖް މީންއާ ހުރި ތަފާތު ބޮޑުވެފައިވާ ކަމެވެ.
ތާވަލު 4: ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި ޓެސްޓުގައި މަޒުމޫނުގެ މައުޟޫ އޯޑިއަންސަށް ރޑް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ޓީ ޓެސްޓް އަމާޒުކުރުމާއި ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން ގެނެސްފައިވާ ގޮތުގެ ޕެއަ
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޓީ ޓެސްޓް ޕެއަ
Org
aniz
atio
n
Paired Differencest df
(Sig
. (2-
taile
d
Mea
n
Std.
Dev
iatio
n
Std.
Erro
r Mea
n
95%
Con
fiden
ce
Inte
rval
of th
e
Diff
eren
ce
Low
er
Upp
er
Pair
1 އޯޑިއެންސަށް އަމާޒުކުރުން )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދި އޯޑިއެންސަށް އަމާޒުކުރުން
)ޕްލޭންޑް( -1.3
0000
1.52
523
.341
05
-2.0
1383
-.586
17
-3.8
12
19 .001
Pair
2 ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދި ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( -1
.550
00
1.31
689
.294
47
-2.1
6633
-.933
67
-5.2
64
19 .000
138
ތާވަލު 4 އަށް ބަލާއިރު ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން މާބޮޑަށް މަޒުމޫނު ކިޔާ މީހުންނަށް )އޯޑިއެންސަށް( އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން ލިޔެފައިވާކަން މި ދިރާސާއިން ހޯދިފައި ވެއެވެ. ޓީ ޓެސްޓުން ދައްކާ ގޮތުގައި އޯޑިއެންސަށް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ރެލެވަންޓް ގޮތުގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްފައިވާ ލެވެލްއަކީ P = .001 )<0.05( އެވެ. ފެށުމާއި ކުރި ބެލުމަށްޓަކައި ގޮތް ގެނެސްފައިވާ ނިންމުން ރޑް ސާމަޕަލް ޓީ ދެ ޓެސްޓަށް ބިނާކޮށް ހެދި ޕެއަ p ީޓެސްޓުގެ ރެލެވަންޓް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ލެވެލްއަކ
0.05 >( 000. =( އެވެ.
މި ދިރާސާގައި ކުރި ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް ޓެސްޓުތަކުންނާއި ލިޔަން ލިޔުމެއް ގޮތުގައި ހޯދުނު ޓީޓެސްޓުތަކުން ފެށުމުގެ ކުރިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބުމުން، ސާނަވީ ބަދަލުތަކެއް ބޮޑު ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ ހޯދުންތަކުން މިދިރާސާގެ ވެއެވެ. އައިސްފައި ފެނުނުގޮތުގައި ރޭވުމަށް ދެވޭ ވަގުތުގައި، މައުޟޫއާ މެދު ޕޮއިންޓުތަކާ ނޑު މައިގަ ހުރި ގުޅުން ގުޅޭ މައުޟޫއާ ދިނުމުން ވަގުތު މަޝްވަރާކުރުމަށް ނޑު ޕޮއިންޓުތައް އެކުލަވާކަމަށް ރޮޑް އެލިސް މައިގަވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ފަދައިން ލިޔުއްވާފައިވާ )2005(މިކަން ލިޔުންތަކުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުނު ލިބިގެން ލިޔުނު ނުލިބި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ފާހަގަވެފައިވެއެވެ. ވަކި ނޑު މައިގަ ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގައި މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގެ ގުޅިގެން ކަމަކާ އެތައް ނުކުރެވި، ފާހަގަ ޚިޔާލެއް އެއް ޕެރެގުރާފުގައި ޚިޔާލުތައް ފާޅުކޮށްފައި ހުރުމުގެ ވެސް ކޮބައިކަން ޚިޔާލަކީ ނޑު މައިގަ ސަބަބުން ވަކިކުރަން އުނދަގޫވެފައި ވެއެވެ. އަދި ހަމައެއާއެކު ނޑު މައިގަ އެ ހިމެނުމަށްފަހު ޚިޔާލެއް ނޑު މައިގަޚިޔާލަށް ބާރުދޭ ޕޮއިންޓުތައް އެކަށީގެންވާ މިންވަރަށް ހިމަނާ ނުލެވިފައި ހުއްޓެވެ. މި ބަޔާންކުރި ކަންކަމަށް ބަލާއިރު، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް
ހެޔޮ ބަދަލު އައިސްފައި ވާތީ، މި ދެ ވޭރިއޭބަލްގެ )ސްޓްރޯންގ ވަރުގަދަ ހަރުދަނާ ވަނީ ދެމެދުގައި ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް( ގުޅުމެއް ކަމުގައި ޤަބޫލުކުރެވެއެވެ.
ލިޔުމުން، މަޒުމޫނު ލިބިގެން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް )އޯޑިއެންސަކީ( ބަޔަކީ އަމާޒުކުރާނެ މައުޟޫއު ލިޔުމުގެ ޚިޔާލުތަކަކީ ބަދަލުކުރެވޭ މެދު ކޮބައިކަމާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވާސިލުވުމަށްޓަކައި ތެރެއަށް ލިބިގެންދާ އަގުހުރި ވަގުތުކޮޅެއް ކަމަށް ރޮޑް އެލިސް )2003(، ޖޭން ވިލިސް އަދި ޑޭވް ވިލިސް )2007( ދިރާސާގެ މި މިކަން ވާފަދައިން ވިދާޅުވެފައި ހޯދުންތަކުން ފެނިފައިވެއެވެ. ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ލިޔުނު ބައެއް ލިޔުންތަކުން ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު ގޮތުގައި ބުނަން ބޭނުންވާ ވާހަކަ އަމިއްލަ ނަފުސަށް އަމާޒުކޮށް ވެއެވެ. ހުށަހަޅާފައި ގޮތުގައި ވާހަކައިގެ ދެކެވޭ
ލިޔުމެއް އެ މީހާ ކިޔާ ފެށުމަކީ ލިޔުމެއްގެ މަރުޙަލާއެވެ. ފުރަތަމަ ޝައުޤުވެރިކުރުވާ ކިޔުމަށް ގިނަ ލިޔުނު ނުލިބި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ނަމަވެސް )2007( އެސް.ކޭން ތޯމަސް، މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގައި ވިދާޅުވާ ފަދައިން، ކިޔާ މީހާ އެ ލިޔުމެއް ކިޔުމަށް ގެނެސްފައި ފެށުމެއް ފަދަ ޝައުޤުވެރިކުރުވާ މީހާ ކިޔާ ފެށުމުން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ނުވާކަން މަސައްކަތް ކޮށްފައިވާ ވެއްދުމަށް މަޒުމޫނަކަށް އެ ފެނިފައިވަނީ މަދު މިންވަރަކަށެވެ. ނަމަވެސް ރޭވުމަށް މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގައި، ލިޔެފައިވާ ލިބިގެން ވަގުތު ނޑު ސުރުޚީގައި ހަރުބަހެއް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނާއި މައިގަބުނާ އެއްޗެއް ތަފުސީލުކޮށްގެން ކިޔާ މީހާ މަޒުމޫނުގެ މަސައްކަތް ކޮށްފައިވާ ވެއްދުމަށް ތެރެއަށް
. ވެ އެ ވެ ލެ ށް ކޮ ގަ ހަ ފާ
ލިޔުންތަކުން ލިޔުނު ނުލިބި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ލިޔުމަށް މަޒުމޫނު އެއްކަމަކީ ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު
139
ބައެއް އިރު، ހަމަވި ވަގުތު ނޑައެޅިފައިވާ ކަހަމައަށް ނިންމުމާ މަޒުމޫނުގެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ނުދެވޭކަމެވެ. ނަމަވެސް މިއާ ޚިލާފަށް ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން ލިޔެފައިވާ މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގެ ގިނަ ނިންމުންތައް ހަރުދަނާ ވެފައި، މާ ފުރިހަމަކަން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ރޭވުމަށް ކުރިން ލިޔުމުގެ ސަބަބުތަކަށްޓަކައި މި ވަގުތު ލިބުމުން މާދަރީބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލު އަންނަކަމުގައި ޤަބޫލުކުރެވެއެވެ. އަދި ރޭވުމަށް މެދު އަސަރާ ކުރާ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ވަގުތާއި ދެވޭ
ގުޅުމެކެވެ. ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ސްޓްރޯންގ ވަނީ
މި ދިރާސާގައި ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން ލިޔުނު ލިޔުންތަކަށް ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު ބެލުމުން ބެލި ވަކިވަކިން ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުމާ އެކު ޖުމުލަ 5 ޕެރެގުރާފު ހަމަނުވާ ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވޭ ނެތްކަން ވެސް މަޒުމޫނެއް އެންމެ އިރު، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ލިޔުނު ލިޔުންތަކުގައި ލިޔުނު ހަމަނުކޮށް ވެސް ޕެރެގުރާ ދެ ނޑު މައިގަދަރިވަރުން، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން ލިޔަން ޖެހުމުން މާ ރަނގަޅަށް ލިޔެފައި ވާކަން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. މި ނަތީޖާއަށް ބަލާއިރު، ދެވަނަ ބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ބެލުމަށް ކޮމްޕްލެކްސިޓީ ޓާސްކް އާއި އެކިއުރިސީ ޕަރްވިން އަލާވިނި، ޕްރްވިޒް ސާލިމީ، އަސްޣަރް ސިމްޕަލް ދިރާސާގެ ކުރެއްވި )2012( ހޮސެއިނީ ލިބުނު ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ޓެސްޓުން ސާމްޕަލް ގުރޫޕުގެ ނުލިބޭ ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ވުރެ ގުރޫޕަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަން މާ 'އެކިއުރޭޓް' ވެފައިވާ ކަމަށް ހޯދުނު ހޯދުމާ ތަފާތުކޮށް، މި ދިރާސާގައި ބޮޑަށް 'އެކިއުރޭޓް' ލިޔުނު ލިބިގެން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް މިވަނީ ވެފައި ފެންވަރެވެ. ލިޔުމުގެ މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ މި ގުޅުން ގޮތުން ސްޓްރޯންގ ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް މި ވެސް ވާކަން ދައްކުވައިދީފައި ވޭރިއޭބަލްތަކުން ދެ
ފާހަގަކޮށްލަމެވެ.
ދިރާސާއިން ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު ގޮތުގައި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމަށްފަހު މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުއްވުމުން ދަރިވަރުން، މާ ބޮޑަށް ބަހުގެ ޤަވާޢިދާއި ހަމަތަކުގައި ހިފަހައްޓައެވެ. މިގޮތުން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ލިޔުނު މަޒުމޫނުތަކުން ބޮޑަށް ފާހަގަކުރެވިފައިވާ ޤަވާޢިދުކުށްތަކަށް ބަލާއިރު، ނުކުރަންޖެހޭ ތަންތަނާއި ބޭނުންކުރަންވީ ހުސްނޫނު ބައެއް ތަންތަން އޮޅުވާފައި ވެއެވެ. މިސާލަކަށް، 'ބޮޑު' ނޑި' ނޑު' އަދި 'ގޮ ބޭނުންކުރަންޖެހޭ ތަންތަނަށް 'ބޮބޭނުންކޮށްފައި 'ގޮޑި' ތަނަކަށް ބޭނުންކުރަންޖެހޭ ވާކަން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ ދަރަޖަކުރުމުގެ ބޭނުންކުރުމުގައި ހުރުން އިނުން، އޮޅުންތަކާއި، އެހެންކަމުން ފާހަގަވިއެވެ. ހުރިކަން މައްސަލަތަކެއް މި ދިރާސާގައި ކުރި ޓެސްޓުތަކުން ފެނުނު ނަތީޖާއަށް ގޮތުގެ ހިފަހައްޓާފައިވާ ހަމަ ޤަވާޢިދާއި ބަލާއިރު، )P = .001 )<0.05 ީސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ލެވެލްއަކޓެސްޓުކުރި ޕޯސްޓްޓެސްޓުތަކުގައި ވާތީ، ކަމަށް ސްޓްރޯންގ ވަނީ ދެމެދުގައި ވޭރިއޭބަލްގެ ދެ ބަޔާންކުރެވުނު މި ގުޅުމެކެވެ. ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ކަންކަމަށް ބަލާއިރު މި ދިރާސާގެ ސުވާލާ ގުޅިގެން ޓެސްޓުކުރި ހައިޕޮތެސިސްތަކުން ނަލް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް
ރިޖެކްޓްވެފައެވެ. ވަނީ
ދިރާސާގެ ނިންމުން
ކުރިން ލިޔުމުގެ ހޯދުނުގޮތުގައި ދިރާސާއިން މި
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސާނަވީ ދިނުމުން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް
ބަދަލުތަކެއް ހެޔޮ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް މާދަރީބަހުގެ
ނޑު އައިސްފައި ވެއެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ އެއާއެކު މައިގަ
ހުށަހެޅުމާއެކު ޚިޔާލު ހަރުދަނާ ބާރުދޭ ޚިޔާލަށް
މަޢުލޫމާތު މުއްސަނދިކަން ވެސް ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ.
އަދި މަޒުމޫނުގެ ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން ހަރުދަނާކަމާއެކު
140
މަޒުމޫނު އިންތިޒާމްކުރުމާއި، އިތުރަށް ހުށަހެޅުމުގެ
ބޮޑަށް މާ )އޯޑިއެންސަށް( ފަރާތްތަކަށް ކިޔާ
ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ވާކަން އަމާޒުކޮށްފައި
ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސްގެ ޓެސްޓުތަކުގެ ޕެއަ
ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު މީންއިން
ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ރޭވުމަށް މީން'، 'އެވަރެޖް ދިނުމުން
އަދި މައްޗެވެ. މާ ވުރެ ލިޔުންތަކަށް ލިޔުނު
ރޑް ސްޓޭންޑަ ބައިތަކުގެ ގިނަ ބަލާއިރު، މީންއަށް
ޑީވިއޭޝަންއާ ކޮންމެ ދަރިވަރަކާ ދެމެދުގައިވާ ތަފާތު
ހަނިކަން )ކްލޯސް( ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ޓީޓެސްޓުތަކުގެ
ދިރާސާގައި ބަލާއިރު، ގުޅުންތަކަށް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް
ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ވެސް ބައިތަކެއްގައި ހުރިހާ ބެލި
އަށްވުރެ P = 0.05 ވެލިޔު P ނުވަތަ ލެވެލް
އެހެންކަމުން ފާހަގަކޮށްލަމެވެ. ހުރިކަން ދަށްކޮށް
ކުރާ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ދިނުމުން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް
ގުޅުމެއް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ސްޓްރޯންގ އަސަރާމެދު
ވާކަން ކަށަވަރުކޮށްދެއެވެ. މިހެންވުމުން މި ދިރާސާގެ
ހައިޕޮތެސިސްގެ ދެ ޓެސްޓުކުރި ގުޅިގެން ސުވާލާ
ތެރެއިން ނަލް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް މިވަނީ ރިޖެކްޓްވެފައެވެ.
ދިވެހިބަހުގެ މަންޙަޖުގައި ޤައުމީ އެހެންކަމުން
ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް އެކުލަވާލުމުގައި، މުޤައްރަރު
ވިސްނާލަންޖެހިފައެވެ. މިވަނީ ވަގުތާމެދު ދީފައިވާ
ރިފަރެންސްރޮޑް އެލިސް. )2005(. ޕްލޭނިންގ އެންޑް ޓާސްކް
ޕާރފޯމަންސް އިން އަ ސެކަންޑް ލޭންގްއޭޖް. ފިލަޑެލްފިއާ: ޖޯން ބެންޖަމިންސް ޕަބްލިޝިންގ
ކޮމްޕެނީ.
ރޮޑް އެލިސް. )2003(. ޓާސްކް - ބޭސްޑް ލޭންގްއޭޖް ލާރނިންގ އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ. އޮކްސްފޯޑް:
އޮކްސްފޯޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.
ކެލޮގް، އާ.އޭ. )1996(. އަ މޮޑެލް އޮފް ވޯކިންގ މެމޮރީ: ދަ ސައިންސް އޮފް ރައިޓިންގ.
ނައިޖީރިޔާ: މަހުވާ.
ކެމްބްރިޖް އެންޑް ލެޓިން ސްކޫލް. )2012(. ކާލްސް ރިސަރޗް ގައިޑް. ޔޫ.އެސް.އޭ: ކެމްބްރިޖް އެންޑް
ލެޓިން ސްކޫލް.
އަސްޣަރް ސާލިމީ، ޕްރްވިޒް އަލާވިނި، ޕަރްވިން ހޮސެއިނީ. )2012(. ތިޔަރީ އެންޑް ޕްރެކްޓިސް
އިން ލޭންގްއޭޖް ސްޓަޑީސް. ފިންގލޭންޑް: އެކަޑަމީ ޕަބްލިޝަރ.
އެޑްވަޑް ފިނެގަން. )2012(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އިޓްސް ސްޓްރަކްޗަރ އެންޑް ޔޫޒް. )6 ވަނަ
ރޑްސްވަރތް އިސްދާރު(. ޔޫ. އެސް. އޭ: މަސެންގޭޖް ލަރނިންގ.
އާރ. ޝެމިޑް. )2001(. އެޓޭންޝަން އިން ރޮބިންސަން، ކޮގްނިޝަން އެންޑް ސެކަންޑް ލޭންގްއޭޖް އިންސްޓްރަކްޝަން. ކެމްބްރީޖް:
ކެމްބްރީޖް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.
މެހްރާންގ، އެފް. އަދި ރަހިމްޕޫރު، އެމް. )2010(. ދަ އިމްޕެކްޓް އޮފް ޓާސްކް ސްޓަރަކްޗަރ އެންޑް ޕްލޭނިނގ ކޮންޑިޝަންސް އޮން އޯރަލް ޕާރފޯމަންސް އޮފް އީ.އެފް.އެލް.
ލާރނަރސް. ޕްރޮސީޑިއާ ބިހޭވިއަރަލް އެންޑް ސޯޝަލް ސައެންސަސް: ވޯލްޑް ކޮންފަރެންސް
އޮން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަނަލް ސައެންސް 2010. އިސްތަމްބޫލް، ޓާރކީ.
މެކީ، އޭ. އަދި ގޭސް. އެސް. )2005(. ސެކަންޑް ލޭންގުއޭޖް ރިސަރޗް: މެތޮޑޮލޮޖީ އެންޑް
ޑިޒައިން. ލަންޑަން: ރޫޓްލޮޖް.
141
ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޤައުމީ ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ. )2011(. ދިވެހި ބަސް ފޮތް. މާލެ: މުސައްނިފު.
ރޑް ތޯމަސް، އެސް. ކޭން. )2007(. ދަ އޮކްސްފޯއެސެންޝިއަލް ގައިޑް ޓޫ ރައިޓިންގ. ޔޫކޭ:
ރޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް. އޮކްސްފޯ
ލުއިސް ކޯހެން، ލޯރެންސް މެނިއަން އަދި ކެއިތް މޮރިސަން. )2007(. ރިސަރޗް މެތަޑްސް އިން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން. )ހަވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ނިއުޔޯކް: ޓޭލަރ އެންޑް ފްރެންސިސް އީ ލައިބްރަރީ.
ގެއިލް އީ ޓޮމްކިންސް. )2005(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އާރޓްސް: ޕެޓާރންސް އޮފް ޕްރެކްޓިސް.
ރޒީ: ޕިއަރސަން )ހަވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ނިއުޖާއެޑިޔުކޭޝަން.
ގޭ، އެލް. އާރ.، އަދި ޕީޓަރ އަޔަރޭސިއަން. )2003(. އެޑިޔުކޭޝަނަލް ރިސަރޗް ކޮމްޕިޓެންސީސް
ފޮރ އެނަރލިސިސް އެންޑް އެޕްލިކޭޝަންސް. އެމެރިކާ: އަޕަރ ސޭޑްލް ރިވަރ، ނިއު
ރޒަރީ. ޖަ
ގެއިލް، އީ. ޓޮމްކިންސް، ރޮބިން، އެމް. ބްރައިޓް، މައިކަލް، ޖޭ. ޕޮލާޑް، ޕަމިލާ، ޖޭ. ޓީ.
ވިންސަރ. )2002(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އަރޓްސް: ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ ސްޓަރެޓެރެޖީސް. )ދެވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ކެލިފޯނިޔާ: ކެލިފޯނިއާ
ސްޓޭޓް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ.
ގެއިލް، އީ. ޓޮމްކިންސް. )2002(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އަރޓްސް: ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ
ސްޓަރެޓެރެޖީސް. )ހަތަރުވަނަ އެޑިޝަން(. ކެލިފޯނިޔާ: ކެލިފޯނިއާ ސްޓޭޓް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ.
ސްކޮޓް ތޯންބަރީ. )2007(. ހައު ޓޫ ޓީޗް ވޮކެބިއުލަރީ. ޔޫކޭ: ބްލުއެސްޓަން ޕްރެސް، ކާލްބަރީ،
އެކްފޯޑްޝިއަރ.
ޑޭވިޑް ކްރިސްޓަލް. )2003(. ދަ ކެމްބްރިޖް އެންސައިކްލޮޕީޑިއާ އޮފް ދަ އިންގްލިޝް
ލޭންގުއޭޖް. )2 ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ނިއުޔޯކް: ކެމްބްރިޖް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.
ޒެންހުއީ ރާއޯ. )2007(. ޓްރެއިނިންގ އިން ބްރެއިން ސްޓޯމިންގ އެންޑް ޑިވެލޮޕިނގ ރައިޓިންގ ސްކިލްސް. ޔޫކޭ: އެކްސްފޯޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ . ޕްރެސް. content/61/2/100.short ން
ޕީޓަރ ރޮބިންސަން. )2011(. ޓާސްކް - ބޭސްޑް ލޭންގުއޭޖް ލަރނިންގ. ޔޫ. އެސް. އޭ:
ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ އޮފް މިކިގަން.
ޕީޓަރ ރޮބިންސަން. )2001(. ޓާސްކް ކޮމްޕްލެކްސިޓީ، ޓާސްކް ޑިފިކަލްޓީ، އެންޑް ޓާސްކް
ޕްރޮޑަކްޝަން: އެކްސްޕްލޯރިންގއިންޓަރެކްޝަން އިން އަ ކޮމްޕޯނެންޝިއަލް ފްރޭމްވޯކް. އެޕްލައިޑް
ލިންގްއިސްޓިކްސް، 22 )1(، 75-72.
ޖިއަރމީ ހާރމަރ. )2004(. ދަ ޕްރެކްޓިސް އޮފް އިންގްލިޝް ލޭންގުއޭޖް ޓީޗިންގ. )3
ރޑް ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. މެލޭޝިޔާ: އެކްސްފޯޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.
ޖޭން ވިލިސް އަދި ޑޭވް ވިލިސް. )2007(. ޑުއިންގ ޓާސްކް ބޭސްޑް ޓީޗިންގ. ޔޫ. އެސް. އޭ:
ރޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް. އެކްފޯ
ޖޯން ޑަބްލިޔު. ބެސްޓް އަދި ޖޭމްސް ވީ. ކަން. )2003(. ރިސަރޗް އިން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން.
)9 ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. އެމެރިކާ: އަ ޕަރސަން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން ކޮމްޕެނީ.
ޖޯން ޑަބްލިޔު ކްރެސްވެލް. )2005(. އެޑިޔުކޭޝަންލް ރިސަރޗް ޕްލޭނިންގ، ކޮންޑަކްޓިން، އެންޑް
އިވެލުއޭޓިން، ކުއަންޓިޓޭޓިވް ރިސަރޗް. )2 ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ޔޫކޭ: ޕަރސަނަލް
އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން.
142
4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue
Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education
Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved
978-99915-0-842-9/10
ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދިވެހި ބަސް ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ މައިގައުނގަންނައިދިނުން
އަޛްރާ ތައުފީޤް[email protected]
ގެންދެވޭ ގުޅިލާމަހައިގެން ހުނަރުތައް އެ ޓަކައި، ތަރައްޤީކުރުމަށް ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ ޚާއްޞަ ޙަރަކާތެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދެނީ އެކަމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ ޚާއްޞަ އުޞޫލުތަކެއް، އުޞޫލެއް 4 ނޑު، މައިގަ ފާހަގަކުރެވޭ މީގެތެރޭގައި، ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ. އުޞޫލު ލެންގުއޭޖުޓީޗިންގެ ނުވަތަ ހިމެނެއެވެ. އެއީކޮންޓެންޓު އަދި ލެންގުއޭޖު އިންޓަރގުރޭޓެޑް ލަރނިންގެ އުޞޫލާއި، ޓާސްކް ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖުޓީޗިންގެ އުޞޫލާއި، ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖު އުޞޫލާއި، ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ އުޞޫލެވެ. މިފަދަ އުޞޫލު ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރު ތަރައްޤީވެ، ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުވާކަމެކެވެ. އެހެންނަމަވެސް، ސާނަވީއިމްތިޙާނުން ދަރިވަރުން ހޯދާ ނަތީޖާއަށް ބަލާއިރު، އެހެން މާއްދާތަކަށްވުރެ ދިވެހިމާއްދާގެ ނަތީޖާ ދަށް ކަމަށް ފާހަގަކުރެވެއެވެ. ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ދަށްވުމަކީ، ދިވެހި ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި، ބެލެނިވެރީންނާއި، ދަރިވަރުން ވެސް ނުހަނު ކަންބޮޑުވާ މައްސަލައެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން، މި މައްސަލައަށް ޙައްލު ހޯދައި ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ރަނގަޅުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި، އެ ނަތީޖާ ދަށްވުމަށް މެދުވެރިވާ، ސަބަބުތައް ހޯދައި ދެނެގަތުން މުހިންމެވެ. ވީހިނދު، ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ ނުވަތަ ނޫންތޯ ބެލުމަކީ، އެފަދަ ސަބަތުތައް ދެނެގަތުމަށް ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ މައިގަމަރުޙަލާގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގައި މާލޭގެ މިއީ ކަމެކެވެ. ބޭނުންތެރި ނުހަނު ކުރަންޖެހޭ، ކޮންމެހެން ޓަކައި، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް، ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ ދެނެގަތުމަށް ޓަކައި މިކްސްޑް މެތަޑެއް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ހަދައިފައިވާ ދިރާސާއެކެވެ. މި ދިރާސާ ހަދައިފައިވަނީ މާލޭގެ ސްކޫލެއްގެ ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ތެރެއިން ރެންޑަމް ސާމްޕަލެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި 45 ދަރިވަރުން އިޚްތިޔާރުކޮށް، އަދި އެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭ 2 މުދައްރިސުން ބައިވެރިކޮށްގެންނެވެ. ދިރާސާއަށް މަޢްލޫމާތު ހޯދާފައިވަނީ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދެވުނު ސުވާލުކަރުދާހަކާއި، ދިވެހި މުދައްރިސުންނާ ކުރެވުނު ބަސްދީގަތުމަކުންނެވެ. ދިރާސާއިން އެނގިގެންދިޔަގޮތުގައި، ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނޫނެވެ. ދިވެހި ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް، ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަބަހުގެ ގޮތަށް ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭން ޖެހުމަކީ، އަމާޒުކޮށްގެންނެވެ. މި އިމްތިހާނަށް ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީވާގޮތަށް، ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް، ދިވެހި މުދައްރިސުންނަށް ދިމާވެފައިވާ ގޮންޖެހުމެކެވެ. ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް އެނގި އެފަދަ ހަމައެހެންމެ، ދިރާސާއިން ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި ބަސްކިޔަވައި ދިނުމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަ
އުޞޫލުތަކަށް ދިވެހި މުދައްރިސުން އަހުލުވެރިވުމަކީ، މުހިންމު ކަމެކެވެ.
މުހިންމު ލަފްޒުތައް: ދިވެހި ބަސް، ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަނނައިދޭ މުދައްރިއްސުން، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އުސޫލު
143
ތައާރަފް
މި ދިރާސާއަކީ،މާލޭގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ
ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް މަރުޙަލާގައި
އުޞޫލު/އެޕްރޯޗުތައް ނޑު ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެމައިގަ
ޓަކައި ބެލުމަށް ނޫންތޯ ނުވަތަ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ
ކޮށްފައިވާ މަސައްކަތެކެވެ. ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާ ނިންމާ
ދަރިވަރުންގެ މޮޅު ޚާއްޞަކޮށް، ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ގަދަ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެ ދަށްވެ، ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ
ނުކުރެވުމަކީ، ކާމިޔާބު ވަނައެއް ދިހައެއްގެ
ބެލެނިވެރިންނާއި ދަރިވަރުންނާއި މައްސަލައެކެވެ.
ކަންބޮޑުވާކަމެކެވެ. ނުހަނު މުދައްރިސުންވެސް
އެހެންކަމުން، ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާ،
ދެނެގަތުން ސަބަބުތައް މެދުވެރިވާ ދަށްވުމަށް
މުހިންމެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ކަމެއް ރަނގަޅުކުރެވޭނީ،
ސަބަބުތައް ހޯދައި ސަބަބުތައް ނައްތައިލެވިގެންނެވެ.
ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް، އިރު، އޮތް ކަންމިހެން
ނޑު އުސޫލުތަކުން، ހާމަވާގޮތުގައި ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަ
ކިޔަވައިދޭ ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން، އުސޫލުތައް އެ
ދަރިވަރުން ތަރައްޤީވެ، ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ނަމަ،
މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ ވުމާއެކު، މޮޅުވެއެވެ. ބަހަށް
ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ
ބެލުމަކީ، ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ އުސޫލުތައް ނޑު މައިގަ
އެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ދަށްވުމަށް މެދުވެރިވާ
މަސައްކަތުން، ކުރަންޖެހޭ ދެނެގަތުމަށް ސަބަބުތައް
ބޮޅެވެ. އެއް އުނިކުރެވިގެންދާނެ
ބަސް ބަލައިލައިފައިވަނީ، ރިވިއުގައި ލިޓްރެޗަރ
ނޑު ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް، ގިނަ ބަޔަކު ހިތްވަރުދޭ މައިގަ
4 އުސޫލަށެވެ. އެއީ، ކޮންޓެންޓު އެންޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު
އިންޓަރގުރޭޓެޑް ލަރނިންގ އެޕްރޯޗް )ސީ،އެލް،އައި،
ޓީޗިންގ ލެންގުއޭޖު ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް އެލް(އާއި،
ލެންގުއޭޖު ހޯލް )ޓީ،ބީ،އެލް،ޓީ(އާއި، އެޕްރޯޗް
އެޕްރޯޗުގެ އިތުރުން ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު
ޓީޗިން އެޕްރޯޗް )ސީ، ބީ، އެލް، ޓީ( އެވެ.
ސޫޒަން ބުރިޖު)2011( ހާމަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި ސީ،
ކޮންޓެންޓަށް މަންހަޖުގެ އަކީ، އެލް އައި، އެލް،
ބިނާކޮށްގެން ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ އުޞޫލެވެ.
މިއީ، ޔޫރަޕުގެ ޤައުމުތަކުގައި އަލަށް ބޭނުންކުރެވެމުން
އަންނަ އަދި ހަލުވިކަމާއެކު، މަޤުބޫލުވަމުން އަންނަ
ޓީ،ބީ،އެލް،ޓީގެ ގޮތެކެވެ. އާ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ
ޤަވާއިދު ބަހުގެ ބަހާއި ވަނީ، ބިނާވެފައި އުޞޫލު
ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ގުޅުވައިގެން، މާއްދާތަކާ އެހެން
ޢާންމު އުޞޫލު، މި ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށެވެ. ބަސް
ތަފާތު ފެށުމުން، ބޭނުންކުރަން ތަޢްލީމުގައި
ފެންވަރުގައި ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން،ޔުނިވަސިޓީ މޮޑެލްތައް
ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު ފަހިވެގެންދިޔައެވެ. މިއީ،
ޓީމު ޓީޗިންއަށް މަގުފަހިކޮށްދިންކަމެއް ވެސް މެއެވެ
އެލްގެ ސީ،އެލް،އައި، .)2011 ބުރިޖު )ސޫޒަން
އެއްބަސްވާ މީހުން ދިރާސާކުރާ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި،
ބިނާކޮށްގެން، ލެންގުއޭޖަށް ކޮންޓެންޓާއި ގޮތުގައި
ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދޭ މި އުސޫލުގެ ސަބަބުން، ކޮންޓެންޓާއި
ލެންގުއޭޖު ގުޅުވައިދެއެވެ. ސޫޒަން ބުރިޖު )2011(
އައި، އެލް، ސީ، ޔޫރަޕުގައި ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި
އެލް ބޭނުންކުރެވެން ފެށުނީ، އެ މީހުންގެ ތަޢްލީމު
ސަޤާފީކަންކަމަށް/އިންޓަރ އާއި ]ޕްލޫރިލިންގުއަލް[
ކަލްޗަރަލްއަށް ބިނާވެފައިވާ މިންވަރު ބޮޑު ކަމުންނެވެ.
ސީ، ގޮތުގައި ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ )2007( ޖަޕިނެން
144
ހަދައިފައިވާ ބިނާކޮށް، އަށް އެލް އައި، އެލް،
މިއުޞޫލު ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ދިރާސާތަކުން ގިނަ
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުން، ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ފަރާތުން ފެންނަ ޖުމުލަ ތަރައްޤީއަށް/
ރަނގަޅު އެކަށީގެންވާ ޕަރފޮރމަންސަށް ސްކޫލް
އަސަރެއް ކުރެއެވެ. އަދި ރަސްމީ ތަޢްލީމުގެ ތެރެއިން
އެތަކެއް ލިބިފައިނުވާ، ކާމިޔާބެއް އެކަށީގެންވާ
ދަސްކުރުމުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް
ހޯދައެވެ. ކާމިޔާބު ދަރިވަރުން އެ ލިބި، ފުރުސަތު
ދަރިވަރަކަށް ތަފާތު ވެސް ދަރިވަރަކީ ކޮންމެ
ވުމާއެކު، ޚާއްޞަ އެހީއަށް ބޭނުންވާ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް
ދިރާސާތައް ސީ،އެލް،އައި،އެލްގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން
)2010( ކައިސާ-ޕިއްކޯ މަރޖަރ ހަދައިފައިވެއެވެ.
ދަރިވަރުން ހާމަވެގެންދިޔަގޮތުގައި ދިރާސާއިން ގެ
ބޭނުންވަނީ، ވަކިވަކި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން
ސެއިކްލަ-ލެއިނޯ ޖާނާ ދިނުމެވެ. އުނގަންނައި
)2005( ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި އިތުރު އެހީ ބޭނުންވާ،
ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސީ،އެލް،އައި، އެލް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން
ސަޤާފީގޮތްތައް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުން، ބަސް
ދަރިވަރުން ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުން ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން،
ނަތީޖާ ދަރިވަރުންގެ އެ ނަތީޖާއަށްވުރެ، ހޯދާ
ހާމަވިއެވެ. ދިރާސާއިން ރަނގަޅުކަން
އުޞޫލަކީ، ޓީޗިންގެ ލެންގުއޭޖު ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް
ފްރޭމްވާކުގެ ޓީޗިން ލެންގުއޭޖު ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިވް
ދަށުން އުފެދުނު، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އުޞޫލެކެވެ.
ރޑް އީ ނިސްބެޓް)2003( ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި ރިޗަ
ރޑް - ޓީޗަރ-ފެސިލިޓޭޓަޑް މިއީ، ސްޓުޑެންޓް ސެންޓަ
ދައުރު ދަރިވަރުންގެ ނުވަތަ މޮޑެލެކެވެ. ޓީޗިންގެ
ހަނިކޮށްގެން ދައުރު މުދައްރިސްގެ ފުޅާކޮށް،
މިއީ، އުސޫލެވެ. ބަސްއުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ
ސަބަބުން، ގޮތްތަކުގެ އައި ކިޔަވައިދެމުން ބަސް
އޮތް ދެމެދު ދަރިވަރުންނާ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި
]ހައިރާކިއަލް[ ގުޅުމަށް ގޮންޖަހައިލި އުޞޫލެކެވެ. މި
އުސޫލުގެ ސަބަބުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޢަމަލީ ބައިވެރިވުން
ގުރޫޕު އަދި މެދުގައި ފަރުދުންގެ ދޭދޭ އިތުރުވެ،
މަސައްކަތް ކުރުމަށް ބާރުއަޅައި އެ ކަމަށް، ވަރަށް
އުޞޫލެކެވެ. ދިޔަ ލިބިގެން ތަރުޙީބެއް ބޮޑު
ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ރަންހޫ)2013(
މާނަހުރި އެޕްރޯޗަކީ، ޓީޗިންގ ލެންގުއޭޖު
ޓާސްކުތައް ޙަރަކާތްތައް/ އުނގެނުމުގެ ގޮތެއްގައި
ގެންދިއުމަށް ފުރިހަމަގޮތުގައި އިޚްތިޔާރުކޮށް،
ތަޖުރިބާ ދެއްކުމާއި، ކުރާނެގޮތް ކަންކަން ޓަކައި،
އެއްބާރުލުން ބައިވެރިވުމާއި، ހިއްސާކުރުމާއި،
)މޮޑެލިން، މުޢާމަލާތްކުރުމަށް ދިނުމާއި،
ކޯޕަރޭޓިން ޕާރޓިސިޕޭޓިން، އެކްސްޕީރިއެންސިން،
ފުރުޞަތު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިންގ( އަދި
ފޮސްޓަރ ޕައުލިން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމެވެ. ދީގެން،
އުނގެނުމުގެ ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި، )2014(
މުހިންމުކަން، ދަސްކުރުމުގެ ބަސް ޙަރަކާތްތަކުން
ފަހުގެ ޓީ،ބީ،އެލް،ޓީގެ ދިޔައީ ހާމަވެގެން
ދިރާސާތަކުންނެވެ. މެގަން ކަލްވަރޓް އާއި ޔަންގްހީ
ޝީން )2014( ހާމަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައ މި އުސޫލު
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމާ ބެހޭގޮތުން ހެދި،
ބަޔަކު ގިނަ އަލީގައި ލިޓްރެޗަރގެ އެންޕިރިކަލް
ރާވާ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް އެއްބަސްވާގޮތުގައި،
ޙަރަކާތަކުގެ ސަބަބުން ބަސް އުނގެނުމަށް ރަނގަޅު
ކުރެއެވެ. އަސަރުތަކެއް
ކަލްވަރޓްއާއި،ޔަންގްހީ މެގަން ނަމަވެސް، އެހެން
145
އެފަދަ ފާހަގަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި، )2014( ޝީން
ކިހިނެއްކަން ބޭނުންކުރަނީ، ކުލާހުގައި ހަރަކާތްތައް
ނުވަތަ އެކަމުގެ ޙަޤީގަތް ހާމަކޮށްދޭ ދިރާސާތައް ވަރަށް
މުހިންމުކަމާއި ޙަރަކާތްތަކުގެ އުނގެނުމުގެ މަދެވެ.
ބޭނުންތެރިކަން، އޭގެ ދަސްކުރުމުގައި، ބަސް
ދިރާސާތަކުގެ އެހީގައި އެނގުނު ނަމަވެސް، ޓެކްސްޓް
ފޮތުގައި ދީފައި ހުންނަ، އެކްޓިވިޓީތަކާއި ކްރައިޓީރިޔާ
ހަމައެހެންމެ، ޙާލަތެއްގައެވެ. މަދު ދިމާވަނީ
އުނގެނުމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތަކަކީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ބޭނުންތަކާއި
ނޑިތަކާ އެއްގޮތަށް، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެންމެ ނޑުދަ ލަ
ފަހަރު ބައެއް ވެސް ޙަރަކާތްތަކަކަށް އެކަށީގެންވާ
ނޑިވަޅުތަކުގައި މުދައްރިސުން، ނުވެދެއެވެ. މިފަދަ ދަ
ނަމަވެސް ތައްޔާރުކުރެއެވެ. ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް އަމިއްލަ
ދަރިވަރުން ބައިވެރިކޮށްގެން ފެންވަރާ ގުޅޭ ގޮތަށް،
ރިޢާޔަތްކޮށްގެން، ނޑިތަކަށް ނޑުދަ ލަ ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ހަރަކާތްތައް ބައްޓަން ކުރުމުގެ ޤާބިލުކަމެއް ހުރިހައި
މުދައްރިސުންގެ ކިބަޔަކު ނުހުރެއެވެ. ވުމާއެކު، މިފަދަ
ޙަރަކާތްތައް އެކަށީގެންވާ އެންމެ، ޙާލަތްތަކުގައި
ދަތި މުދައްރިސުންނަށް، ގިނަ ގެންދިއުމަކީ،
އުނދަގޫ ކަމެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން، މެގަން ކަލްވަރޓް
އަދި ޔަންގްހީ ޝީން )2014( ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި
މިއީ،ޓާސްކް ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިންގއަށްދިމާވާ،
ގޮންޖެހުމެކެވެ. ބޮޑު ވަރަށް
މާދަރީ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމާއި، އާރޓްސް ލެންގުއޭޖު
ސަމާލުކަމެއް ޚާއްޞަ ލިޔުމަށް ކިޔުމާއި ބަހުން
މަޝްވަރާކުރެއްވި، ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ބަސް ދީގެން
އުފެއްދި 1980ގައި އެޑިޔުކޭޓަރުން އެމެރިކާގެ
ލަފުޒު ]ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖު އެޕްރޯޗް[ އަކީ، ބަހުގެ
ބަސްކިޔަވައިދޭ ލާމަހައިގެން ގުޅުވައި ހުނަރު 4
ދަރިވަރުން މަޝްވަރާތަކުގައި މިއީ، އުސޫލެކެވެ.
ލިޔުންތައް ވައްތަރުގެ ތަފާތު ބައިވެރިކުރުވައި
ރިފްލެކްޓު އެއަށް ލިޔުއްވުމަށްފަހު، ކިޔުއްވައި
ކަމުގައި، އުނގަންނައިދޭގޮތް ބަސް ކުރުވައިގެން
)1987،1975( ހަލިޑޭ އެލެކްސެންޑާ މައިކަލް
ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުން، ބަސް މިގޮތަށް ހާމަކުރައްވައެވެ.
ބަހުގެ ހުރިހައި ހުނަރެއް އެއްވަރަކަށް ތަރައްޤީކުރެވި
ހެދެއެވެ. ޤާބިލުބަޔަކަށް ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުންނަކީ،
ތިއޯޑޯރ އާއި ރޑްސް ރިޗަ އެހެންކަމުން،ޖެކްސީ
އުސޫލުން މި ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި )2011( އެސް
ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ޙަޤީޤީ ބަސްމޮށުންތެރިކަމަށް
އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން، އަމިއްލައަށް ލިޔެ، ކިޔަން ދަސްވުމަށް
އަމިއްލަ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަކީ، އަދި ތަރުހީބުދެވޭ،
ބާރުއަޅައި، ހެދުމަށް ކުރާކަމަކަށް ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް
ގޮތެކެވެ. ހިތްވަރުދެވޭ އެކަމަށް
މައިކަލް ލިންގުއިސްޓެއްކަމަށްވާ، ސޯޝިއޯ
)1987،1975( ހަލިޑޭ އެލެކްސެންޑާ
ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި ކިޔުމާއި ލިޔުމާއި ވާހަކަދެއްކުމާއި
އަޑުއެހުމުގެ ތެރެއިން، ދުނިޔޭގެ ކަންހިނގާ ގޮތާ މެދު
ކޮބައިކަން ބަހަކީ އުފައްދައެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން ސުވާލު
ދަސްކޮށް، ބަސް ދަސްކޮށްދޭން މަސައްކަތްކުރާ ގޮތް
ވެސް މި އުސޫލުގެ ތެރެއިން ދަރިވަރުން ދަސްކުރެއެވެ.
ލިޔާ ބޭނުންކުރުމުން، އުސޫލު މި އެހެންކަމުން،
އަޑާ އަކުރާއި ހޯދުމާއި ތަޖުރިބާ ލިޔުންތަކުން
ތެރެއިންދަރިވަރުން ފާހަގަކުރުމުގެ ގުޅުން ހުރި
ޖޭ.ޓީ ރޑް ރިޗަ ދަސްކުރާނެއެވެ. އަމިއްލަޔަށް،ބަސް
)1992( ޕިއަރސަން ޕީ ޑޭވިޑް އާއި ވިންސަން
ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ އުސޫލު ބޭނުންކުރާ،
އަމިއްލަޔަށް ދަރިވަރުން އެ ދަރިވަރުން، ކުލާހުގެ
146
އުފައްދާ ސްޕެލިންގެ އެހީގައި ސްޕެލިން- ސައުންޑުގެ
ދަސްކުރަން ފެށިގެން ކުރިއްސުރެ ވަރަށް ހުނަރު
ހުންނަ ބަހުގައި މިއީ، އެހެންކަމުން، ފަށައެވެ.
ބައިބައި ބައިތައްކަމަށްވާ ފޯނިކްސްކަހަލަ ވަކި ވަކި
ތަރުޙީބުދީ، ދަސްކޮށްދިނުމަށް ވަކިކޮށްލައިގެން
)މައިކަލް ނޫނެވެ އުޞޫލެއް ބާރުއަޅާ ކަމަށް އެ
ލެންގުއޭޖަށް ހޯލް .)1978 އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ،
ދަރިވަރުންނަށް މުދައްރިސުން، ތަރުހީބުދޭ
ޓަކައި ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް ބާރުއަޅަނީ، އެހީތެރިވެދީ
ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ކަމެއްގެގޮތުގައި، އާދާކޮށްކުރާ
. ތަރައްޤީކުރުވުމަށެވެ
ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ގިނަ ދިރާސާވެރީން، ދެކޭގޮތުގައި
ހަމައެކަނި އޮތް ތަރައްޤީކުރަން، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން
ލިޔުއްވުމެވެ. ދުވަހަކު ކޮންމެ ގަވާއިދުން ގޮތަކީ،
އިޚްތިޔާރީ ދަރިވަރުން، ލިޔުއްވާއިރު ގޮތަށް، މި
އެހެން ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔުއްވުމާއި، ސުރުޚީތަކަކަށް
އިތުރަށް ފާޑުކިޔުއްވައި ޙިއްސާކޮށް، ފަރާތްތަކަށް،
ރަނގަޅުކުރަން ޖެހޭ ކަންކަން ރަނގަޅުކޮށް، ލިޔުން
މައިކަލް ކަމުގައިވެސް މުހިންމު އިޞްލާޙުކުރުން
ހާމަކުރައްވައެވެ. )1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ
އާއި )1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ މައިކަލް
ރޑްސް އަދި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް )2011( ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަ
ހުނަރުތައް ލެންގުއޭޖު/ބަހުގެ ހޯލް ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި
އެއްކޮށްލައިގެން ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ދަރިވަރުން
ޓަކައި، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ބައިވެރިކޮށްގެން،
ދަރިވަރުން ޝައުޤުވެރިކޮށް، ބިނާކުރަނިވި ހަރަކާތްތައް
ތަރައްޤީކުރުމުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ދަސްކޮށްދިނުމުގެ ގޮތުން
1990ގެ އަހަރުތަކުގައި، މަޝްހޫރުވި އުޞޫލެކެވެ.
އެލެން އީ ޝެންކު )1986( ހާމަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި
ކިޔަވައިދެވެނީ، ބަސް ގޮތަށް، އެކަށީގެންވާ އެންމެ
ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސްޑް ލޭންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިންގެ އުސޫލު
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ފުޅާކޮށްގެންނެވެ.
ހަމައެހެންމެ މަންހަޖާއި ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ
ފެންވަރު ހަރަކާތްތަކުގެ އުނގެނުމުގެ އާލާތްތަކާއި،
އުޞޫލަކީ، މި މެއެވެ. ވެސް ކޮށްގެން ރަނގަޅު
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ނިމޭއިރު މަރުޙަލާތައް، އުނގެނުމުގެ
ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު އަށަގަނެފައިވާ ކިބައިގައި
ކިބައިގައި ހުރި، ބަހުގެ ޤާބިލުކަން ބޭނުން ކޮށްގެން،
ޓަކައި، ބަޔާންކޮށްދިނުމަށް ސީދާ ސާފުކޮށް
ކުރިޔަށް ގެންދިޔަ ސީ، ބީ، އެލް، ޓީގެ އުޞޫލަށް،
ބިނާކޮށްގެން 1970ގެ އަހަރުތަކުގައި އެމެރިކާގައި
ދިޔަ އުފެދިގެން ޙަރަކާތަކުން، ގެންދިޔަ ކުރިޔަށް
ޝެންކު،1986(. އީ )އެލެން އުޞޫލެކެވެ
ރޑްސް އަދި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް )2011( ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަ
ކޮންމެ އުސޫލަކީ، މި ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ
ނަމަވެސް، އުނގެނުނު ބަސް ދަރިވަރުން ގޮތަކަށް
އަމާޒު ގޮތްތަކަށް، ބޭނުންކުރާ ބަސް ދަރިވަރުން
އުޞޫލުގެ މި ނުވަތަ އުޞޫލެކެވެ. ކުރެވިގެންދާ
އަމާޒަކީ، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީކުރުމަށް ގެންދެވޭ
ދަރިވަރުންނަށްޙާޞިލުކުރެވުނު ކަންކަމުގެތެރެއިން،
އެއްޗެއްގެ އެހީގައި، ދަރިވަރުން ލައްވާ އުފެއްދުންތައް
އުފެއްދުމެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގައި
ނޑު އަމާޒަކީ، ބޭނުންކުރާ ގިނަ އުޞޫލުތަކުގެ މައިގަ
ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޓަކައި، ދަސްކޮށްދިނުމަށް ބަސް
ބީ، ސީ، ވިޔަސް، ކަމުގައި އެހީތެރިކަންދިނުން
އެލް، ޓީގެ އަސާސަކީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ފޯރުކޮށްދެވޭ
ބަދަލުގައި ބެލުމުގެ އެކަނި އެހީތެރިކަމަށް ތަފާތު
ބެލުމެވެ ވެސް އުފެއްދުންތަކަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ
147
ރޑްސް އާއި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް،2011(. )ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަ
ޑޮންކިންއަރ )1994( ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި ސީ،
ބީ، އެލް، ޓީގެ އުސޫލަށް ތަރުހީބުދޭ މުދައްރިސުން،
ދެކޭގޮތުގައި މިއީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލެއް،
ގެނައުމަށް ޓަކައި ބޭނުންކުރަން އެންމެ އެކަށީގެންވާ،
މިގޮތް އެޖެންޓެވެ.[ ]ޕޮޒިޓިވް ބާރުގަދަ އެންމެ
ތަޢްލީމާއި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން، ބޭނުންކުރުމުގެ
ތަމްރީން ޕްރޮގުރާމުތަކަށް، މުދައްރިސުންގެ ފަރާތުން
އެސެސްމެންޓުތަކުގެ ލިބިގެންދެއެވެ. އާރޯކަން
ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅުކޮށްދިނުމުގެ އިތުރުން، އުއްމީދުކުރާ
ކްލިއަރ ބަޔާންކުރުން/ ސާފުކޮށް ވަރަށް ނަތީޖާ
ސްޕެސިފިކޭޝަން އޮފް އެކްސްޕެކްޓެޑް އައުޓްކަމްސް
ފީޑްބެކުގެ މާނަހުރި ދެވޭ ގޮތެއްގައި ދާއިމީ އާއި،
ފެންވަރު އުނގެނުމުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން،
ވަރަށް ބޮޑަށް ރަނގަޅުވެއެވެ )ޑޮކިންއަރ، 1994(.
ރޑް ޖޭ.ޓީ ވިންސަން އާއި ޑޭވިޑް ޕީ ޕިއަރސަން ރިޗަ
ފާޑުކިޔުއްވާ ގޮތުގައި، ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ )1992(
ޙަރަކާތްތަކަށް، ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ފަރާތްތަކުން
ވަކިވަކި ކޮންޕިޓެންސީތަކަށް ބަހައިގެން ގެންދިއުމަކީ
އުޞޫލެކެވެ. ރިޑަކްޝަނިސްޓް
އުޞޫލުތަކުގެ ބޭނުންކުރާ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް
އުޞޫލުތަކުން ބަޔާންކޮށްފައިވާ މަތީގައި، ތެރެއިން
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން، އުޞޫލުތައް މި ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި،
ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ސަބަބުން ބަސް އުނގެނުމަށް
ތަރައްޤީވެ، ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ލިބި، ފަހިކަން
ޤާބިލުކަން ބަހުގެ މޮޅުވެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް
މި އެހެންކަމުން، ލިއްބައިދެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުންނަށް
އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް، ދިވެހި
ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން ނަމަ އުނގަންނައިދެވޭ ބަސް
ބިނާކޮށްފައި ދިރާސާ މި ވުމާއެކު، މޮޅުވާނެއެވެ.
ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ މާލޭގެ ވަނީ
މުދައްރިސުން، ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ ދިވެހި މަރުޙަލާއަށް،
އެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ،
އުޞޫލުތައް ނޑު މައިގަ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ
ޖަވާބު ސުވާލުގެ މި ހެއްޔެވެ؟ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން
. ވެ ށެ މަ ދު ހޯ
ދިރާސާ ކުރިއަށްގެންދެވުނު ގޮތް
ޞައްޙަކަމާއި މަޢްލޫމާތުގެ ދިރާސާއަކީ، މި
ހަރުދަނާކަން އިތުރުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި، އެއް މެތަޑަކުން
އެހީގައި، މެތަޑެއްގެ މިކްސްޑް މަޢްލޫމާތު ނުހޯދޭ
ލިބިގެންދާނެ ކަމަށް ކުރެސްވެލް )2003(ވިދާވެފައިވާ
ވިދާޅުވުމާ އެއްގޮތަށް މިކްސް މެތަޑް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން
ހަދާފައިވާ ދިރާސާއެކެވެ. މާލޭގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލަކަށް
ދިރާސާގައި މި ހަދާފައިވާ އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން
ބައިވެރިކޮށްފައިވަނީ، އެ ސްކޫލުގެ ގުރޭޑު)8،9(އަށް
ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެއްވާ 2 މުދައްރިސުންނާއި
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ކުލާހެއްގެ 2 ގުރޭޑަކުން ކޮންމެ
ގޮތުގައި ސާންޕަލެއްގެ ރެންޑަމް ތެރެއިން،
އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރެވުނު 54 ދަރިވަރުންނެވެ. ދިރާސާއަށް
މަޢްލޫމާތު އެއްކޮށްފައިވަނީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދެވުނު
ސުވާލު އެންޑެޑް[ ]އޯޕަން ކަރުދާހަކާއި، ސުވާލު
މުދައްރިސުންނާ ބިނާކޮށްގެން، މައްޗަށް ތަކެއްގެ
ކުރެވުނު ބަސްދީ ގަތުމެއްގެ އިތުރުން ސިނާރިއޯއެއް
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ.
ހިމަނައިފައިވަނީ، ސުވާލުކަރުދާހުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ
އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެ
އުޞޫލުތަކުގައި ނޑު މައިގަ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ
148
ހިމަނައިގެން ކަންކަން މުހިންމު ހިމެނޭ،
ނުވަތަ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންކަން އުޞޫލުތައް އެފަދަ
ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައިވާ ގޮތަށް، ދެނެގަނެވޭނެ ނޫންކަން
ބަސްދީގަތުން ހަމައެހެންމެ، ސުވާލެވެ. 22
ސާނަވީ މުދައްރިސުން އެ ބިނާކޮށްފައިވަނީ،
އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ދަރިވަރުންނަށް
އުސޫލުތަކުގައި ނޑު މައިގަ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ
ހިމެނޭ ޚާއްޞަކަންކަން/ ޙަރަކާތްތައް ހިމަނައިގެންތޯ
ނުވަތަ ނޫންތޯ ދެނެގަތުމާއި، މިހާރު ބަސްކިޔަވައިދޭ
ނަތީޖާއަކީ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ގޮތަށް އެ ގޮތާއި
ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައިވާ ގޮތަށް، ދެނެގަނެވޭ ކޮބައިކަން
ނޑު 4 ސުވާލެއްގެ މައްޗަށެވެ. ސިނާރިއޯތައް މައިގަ
ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގައި ބަސް ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައިވަނީ،
ނޑު 4އުޞޫލަކީ ކޮބައިކަމާއި އޭގެ ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަ
ސިފަތަކަށް މުދައްރިސުން އަހުލުވެރިތޯ ވަޒަންކުރެވޭނެ
ގޮތަށެވެ.
ނުވުން ޙާޞިލުވުމާއި މަޤްޞަދު ދިރާސާއެއްގެ
ބޭނުންކުރާ ދިރާސާއެއްގައި އޮންނަނީ، ބިނާވެފައި
އާލާތެއްގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު ބިނާކުރާ ގޮތެއްގެ މައްޗަށެވެ.
ދެނެގަނެވޭނެގޮތަށް އެއްޗެއް ބޭނުންވާ ހޯދަން
ވުމާއެކު، ކުރެވިގެންނެވެ. ބައްޓަން މަޢްލޫމާތުތައް
ޓަކައި ހިފެހެއްޓުމަށް ވެލިޑިޓީ ދިރާސާގެ
މާރޓިން،ބްލޫމް ޖޮއެލް ފިޝަރްޖޫޑީ އޯރމީ )1995(
ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ގޮތަށް ދެއްވައިފައިވާ އިރުޝާދު
ޙާޞިލު މަޤްޞަދު ދިރާސާގެ ސުވާލުތަކަކީ،
ވާނޭގޮތަށް، ތައްޔާރު ކުރެވިފައިވާ ސުވާލުތަކެއްކަން
ކަށަވަރު ކުރުމުގެ ގޮތުން ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ސުވާލުތަކާއި
ސިނާރިއޯގެ ޢަޖުމަބެލުމަށް ޓަކައި، ސާނަވީއަށް ދިވެހި
ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ 4 ޓީޗަރަކަށް ދައްކައި ފައިނަލްކުރީމެވެ.
ސުވާލުތައް ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ އިތުރުން މީގެ
އެލްމަރިސްޓްރުއެނިންގ ހުންނާނީ، ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައި
ގުޓެންޓެގ)1975(ވިދާޅުވެފައި މާރސިއާ އަދި
ގޮތަށް، ރެސްޕޯންސް ވެލިޑިޓީ ޤާއިމުކުރެވޭނެގޮތަށް،
ޖަވާބުދޭން ފަސޭހަ އަދި ]ރެސްޕޯންސްރޭޓު[ އެންމެ
ގޮތަށެވެ. ލިބޭނެ މަޢްލޫމާތު ޞައްޙަ ރަނގަޅުވެ،
އަޑު ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ދިރާސާގެ ހަމައެހެންމެ،
މަޢްލޫމާތު އެހެންކަމުން، ކުރެވުނެވެ. ރެކޯޑު
ރަނގަޅަށް ފުރުޞަތުކުޑަވެ، ދިޔުމުގެ އުނިވެގެން
ފުރުޞަތު ]ޓްރާންސްކުރައިބު[ކުރުމުގެ
ލިބިގެންދިޔައެވެ. ވުމާއެކު، މިއީ، ސްޓެއިނަރ ކްވާލެ
ޓްރާންސްކުރިޕްޓް ވިދާޅުވެފައިވާގޮތަށް، )1996(
މަޢުލޫމާތު ދިރާސާގެ ތަރުޖަމާކޮށް، ރަނގަޅަށް
ހެކި، ޞައްޙަވުމަށް ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާގެ ސައްޙަވެ،
ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާއެއްގެ ކަމެކެވެ. ލިބިގެންދާނެ
)1979( ޖިކް ޑީ. ޓޮޑް ކުރުމަށްޓަކައި، ޞައްޙަ
ކުއަންޓިޓޭޓިވްކޮށްނާއި ގޮތަށް ބަޔާންކުރައްވައިފައިވާ
އުޞޫލު/ބިޓްވީން ބަލާ ކޮލެޓޭޓިވްކޮށް
ޓްރައިންގިޔުލޭޝަނެއް ބޭނުން ކޮށްފައިވުމަކީ ވެސް،
ކަމެކެވެ. ޞައްޙަވާނެ ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާގެ
ދެމެހެއްޓުމަށް ރިލަޔަރބިލިޓީ ވެލިޑިޓީ ދިރާސާގެ
އޯރމީ ޖޮއެލްފިޝަރްޖޫޑީ ބްލޫމް މާރޓިން ޓަކައި،
ސުވާލުކަރުދާހުގެ ވިދާޅުވެފައިވާގޮތަށް، )1995(
ޓަކައި، ޤާއިމުކުރުމަށް ވެލިޑިޓީ،ރިލަޔަރބިލިޓީ
ސާނަވީގެ ގޮތުން، ސައްޙަކުރުމުގެ ޢަޖުމަބަލައި
ދަރިވަރަކަށް 3 މުދައްރިސުންނަށާއި 3
ކުރެވުނެވެ. އިޞްލާޙު ސުވާލުކަރުދާސް ދައްކައި
ހިފެހެއްޓުމަށްޓަކައި، އަޚްލާޤިއްޔާތު ދިރާސާގެ
މަޢްލޫމާތު ސްކޫލަށް ކަޑައަޅައިފައިވާ ސާންޕަލްގައި
149
އެއްކުރުމަށްޓަކައި، ދިޔުމުގެ ކުރީން، ފެކަލްޓީ އޮފް
އަރޓްސް ގެފަރާތުން، ސިޓީއެއް ހޯދައި، ސްކޫލުން
ހުއްދަ ހޯދީމެވެ. އެއަށްފަހު، ދިރާސާގައި ބައިވެރިކުރާ
އިސްފަރާތްތަކާ ސްކޫލުގެ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި
ޙިއްސާކުރީމެވެ. މަޢްލޫމާތު ދިރާސާގެ ބައްދަލުކޮށް،
ނެތްކަމުގެ އިޢްތިރާޒެއް ބައިވެރީންގެ ދިރާސާގެ
ދިރާސާކުރާ ތަޢާރަފާއި ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދީމެވެ. ސޮއި
ބަސްދީގަތުން މަޢްލޫމާތުގެއިތުރުން ފަރާތުގެ
ތަޙްލީލުކޮށް މަޢްލޫމާތު ރެކޯޑުކުރެވޭނެކަމާއި
އެ ވާހަކަ ނައްތާލެވޭނެ ރެކޯޑިން، ނިމުމުން
ހަމައެހެންމެ، ވާނެއެވެ. ބަޔާންކޮށްފައި ފޯމުގައި،
ދިރާސާގެބައިވެރީންގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު ހާމަނުކުރެވޭނެކަމާއި
ދިރާސާއިން ހިނދެއްގައި، ކޮންމެ ބޭނުންވެއްޖެ
ލިބިފައިވާކަމާއި އިޚްތިޔާރު ވަކިވުމުގެ
އިޚްތިޔާރީކަމެއްކަން ބައިވެރިވުމަކީ، ދިރާސާގައި
ކަރާމަތަށް ބައިވެރީންގެ ފާހަގަކޮށްފައިވާނެއެވެ.
ޔަޤީންކަން ފުރިހަމަ ކަމުގެ ރައްކާތެރިވާނެ
. ވެ އެ ނެ ވާ އި ފަ ދީ
ދިރާސާއަށް އެއްކުރީ، މަޢްލޫމާތު ދިރާސާއަށް
އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރި ސުކޫލުގެ ހުއްދައާއެކު، މުދައްރިސުންނާ
ފަސޭހަ މުދައްރިސުންނަށް އެ އުފައްދައި ގުޅުން
ލައްވައި ދަރިވަރުން ގޮސް، ގަޑިއެއްގައި ސްކޫލަށް
ކުރުވައިގެންނެވެ. ފުރިހަމަ ކަރުދާސް ސުވާލު
ބަސްދީގަތުން ކުރިޔަށް ގެންދެވުނީ، އެންމެ ފަސޭހަ
ކަމަށް އެ ކަޑައަޅައި، ވަގުތެއް ޖެހޭ ހިތްހަމަ
މާޙައުލެއްގައި، ރަނގަޅު އެކަށީގެންވާ ޚާއްޞަ
ދިރާސާވެރިޔާއާއި ދިރާސާގެ ބައިވެރިޔާއާ ދެ މީހުން
އެކަނި ތިބެގެންނެވެ. 2 މުދައްރިސުންގެ ބަސްދީގަތުން
ކުރިޔަށް ގެންދިޔައީ ވަކިވަކިންނެވެ. ބަސްދީ ގަތުމުގެ
މުހިންމު މަޢްލޫމާތު ވަގުތުން ނޯޓުކުރުމުގެ އިތުރުން
ކުރެވުނެވެ. ރެކޯޑު
މެތަޑުގެ މިކްސްޑް ސާފުކުރީ، ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާގެ
ދިރާސާގައި ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ. އުސޫލުތައް
ސާފުކުރީ، މަޢްލޫމާތު 54ކަރުދާހުގެ ބޭނުންކުރި
ދީފައިވާ ސުވާލަކަށް ކޮންމެ ކަރުދާހުގެ ސުވާލު
ފެންނަގޮތަށް، ތާވަލަކުން އެއް ޖަވާބުތައް،
ތާވަލުހަދައި ސުވާލު ކަރުދާހުގައި ހުރި، ސުވާލުތައް
ޖަވާބު ދީފައިވާ ސުވާލަކަށް ކޮންމެ ލިޔުމަށްފަހު،
ދެ ގޮތަށް ފާހަގަވާ ވަކިވަކިން، ތާވަލުތަކުގައި
ގުރޭޑަކުން ކޮންމެ އެއަށްފަހު ވަކިންނެވެ. ގުރޭޑު
ޢަދަދު ޖުމުލަ ދީފައިވާ ޖަވާބެއް އެއް ވެސް
ފާހަގަކޮށް، އެ ޢަދަދު ފެންނާނެ ގޮތަށް އެކްސެލްގައި
ފަސޭހައިން ނަކަލުކޮށް، ނަތީޖާތައް ތާވަލުހަދައި
ފެންނަ ގޮތަށް، ޕައިޗާޓުން ނަތީޖާ ދައްކައިގެންނެވެ.
ޕައިޗާޓުހެދީ ސުވާލު ކަރުދާސް ފުރިހަމަކުރި މީހުންގެ
ތެރެއިން ކޮންމެ ސުވާލެއްގެ، ވަކިވަކި ބައިތަކަށް
ގޮތަށެވެ. އެނގޭނެ އިންސައްތަ ޖަވާބުދީފައިވާ
މަޢްލޫމާތު ދައްކުވައިދޭ ޗާޓަކުން ކޮންމެ އެއަށްފަހު
އެއްކުރުމަށް މަޢްލޫމާތު ކޮލިޓޭޓިވް ލިޔެގެންނެވެ.
އަޑުއަހައިގެން ރެކޯޑިން ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ނެގި،
ކަޑައަޅައި، ކޯޑުތަކެއް ލިޔުމަށްފަހު މަޢްލޫމާތު
ނަގައި، ތާވާލަކަށް ކޯޑުތައް ނުވާގޮތަށް ތަކުރާރު
ތާވަލުތަކުގައި އެއަށްފަހު، ކަޑައެޅުނެވެ. ތީމުތަކެއް
ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކެއް ބިނާކޮށް މަޢްލޫމާތަކަށް ހުރި
އެކުލަވައިލެވުނެވެ.
150
ހޯދުންތައް
ގުރާފު 1ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް
ގެންދެވެނީ، އެހެން މާއްދާތަކުގެ މަޢްލޫމާތަށް
ބިނާކޮށްގެން ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީ
ވާގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:1 އެހެން މާއްދާތަކުގެ މަޢްލޫމާތަށް ބިނާކޮށް، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީކުރުން
ގުރާފު 2ން ދައްކާ ގޮތުގައި ވަކިވަކި
ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ
ވަކިވަކި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސަމާލުކަންދީގެން
ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:2 ވަކިވަކި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސަމާލުކަންދީގެން، ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން
ގުރާފު 3ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ދިވެހި ގަޑީގައި
ދެވެނީ ވިސްނައިގެން ހަދަން ޖެހޭ އުނދަގޫ
މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:3 ވިސްނައިގެން ހަދަންޖެހޭ އުނދަގޫ، މަސައްކަތްތަކެއްގެ ތެރެއިން، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް
ތަރައްޤީކުރުން
151
ގުރާފު 4ން ހާމަވާ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ގަޑީގައި
ދެވޭ މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ، ފައިދާހުރި، ބޭނުންތެރި
މާނަހުރި މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:4 ދިވެހިގަޑީގެ މަސައްކަތް، ފައިދާ ހުރި މާނަހުރި މަސައްކަތްތަކަކަށް ހެދުން
ގުރާފު 5ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި
ބަސްއުނގަންނައިދެނީ،ކަންކަން ދައްކައިދީގެން/
މޮޑެލްކޮށްދީގެނެއް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:5 ކަންކަންދީ ދައްކައިދީ/ މޮޑެލްކޮށްދީގެން ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން
ގުރާފު 6އިން ހާމަވާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި
ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުން
މަސައްކަތްކުރުމުގައި މުދައްރިސްގެ އެހީތެރިކަން
ލިބެއެވެ.
ގުރާފު:6 ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަސައްކަތްތަކަށް، މުދައްރިސުން އެހީތެރިވެދިނުން
ގުރާފު 7އިން ދައްކާ ގޮތުގައި، ދިވެހިބަސް
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުން
އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް ލިޔުމުގެ
ފުރުޞަތެއް ނުލިބެއެވެ.
ގުރާފު:7 ދަރިވަރުން އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް ލިޔުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތުދިނުން
152
ގުރާފު 8އިން ފެންނަ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ގަޑީގައި
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ހަނިވެފައި، ބޮޑަށް
އޮންނަނީ މުދައްރިސްގެ ދައުރެވެ.
ގުރާފު:8 ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ފުޅާކުރުން
ގުރާފު 9އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ހިތްހަމަ
ޖެހުމަށްކުރާ ކަމެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި ލިޔުމަށް ދިވެހި
މުދައްރިސްބާރެއް ނާޅުއްވައެވެ.
ގުރާފު:9 އަމިއްލަ ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް ކުރާ ކަމެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ތަރައްޤީކުރުން
ގުރާފު 10އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔަން
ނޑައަޅާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށެވެ. ޖެހެނީ، މުދައްރިސް ކަ
ނޑައަޅާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް، ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔަން ޖެހުން ގުރާފު:10 މުދައްރިސް ކަ
ދިވެހިބަސް ގޮތުގައި ދައްކާ 11އިން ގުރާފު
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތައް
ފާޑުކިއުމުގެ ޙިއްސާކޮށް ދަރިވަރުންނާ އެހެން
ނުލިބެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ފުރުޞަތު
ގުރާފު:11 ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތައް، އެހެން ދަރިވަރުންނާ ޙިއްސާކުރުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު ނެތުން
153
ގުރާފު 12އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައ ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި
ގެންދާ އެކްޓިވިޓީތަކަކީ، ފިލާވަޅާ ގުޅޭ،
ދަސްކުރުމަށް ފަސޭހަ، ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅު
އެކްޓިވިޓީ ތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:12 ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި ދެވޭ މަސައްކަތަކީ،ފިލާވަޅާ ގުޅޭ، ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅު ޙަރަކާތްތަކަށް ހެދުން
ގުރާފު 13 އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ބޭނުންކުރާ އާލާތް/
މެޓީރިއަލްތަކަކީ އުނގެނުމަށް ފަހިވާ ފަދަ
ތަކެއްޗެއް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:13 ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، އުނގެނުމަށް ފަހި އާލާތް/ މެޓީރިއަލް ބޭނުން ކުރުން
ގުރާފު 14 އިން ފެންނަގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް
އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ބޭނުންވާ
އެހީތެރިކަން/އިންޕުޓު ދިނުމަށްފަހު
ދަރިވަރުންލައްވާ އުފެއްދުންތައް/އައުޓްޕުޓު
ނެރޭގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:14 އެހީތެރިކަންދީގެން، އުފެއްދުންތައް އުފައްދާގޮތަށް ފިލާވަޅުތައް ބައްޓަންކުރުން
154
ފާހަގަކުރުވުނު ބަސްދީގަތުމުން މުދައްރިސުންގެ
ކަންކަން ފާހަގަކުރެނު ތީމުތަކުން ތީމުތަކާއި،
ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާއާ މެދު ދެކޭގޮތް:
މެދު، ހޯދާނަތީޖާއާ ދަރިވަރުން ދިވެހިމާއްދާއިން
އެހެންނަމަވެސް ހިތްހަމަނުޖެހެއެވެ. މުދައްރިސުން
ދަރިވަރުންކުރާ މަސައްކަތާ އަޅާ ބަލާއިރު، ދަރިވަރުން
ހޯދާ ނަތީޖާތައް ރަނގަޅެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ސްކޫލުގެ
ޙާޞިލުކުރެވޭތީ ޓާގެޓު މިނިސްޓްރީގެ ޓާގެޓާއި
ހިތްހަމަޖެހުނު ނަމަވެސް، ހުރިހައި މާއްދާއަކުން އޭ
ގުރާފުން 15 އިން ހާމަކޮށްދޭގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިގަޑީގެ
ދަރިވަރުންކުރާ ރާވައިފައިވަނީ، ޙަރަކާތްތައް
މަސައްކަތްތަކުން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޙާޞިލުކޮށްދޭން
ނޫނެވެ. ޙާޞިލުވާނެގޮތަކަށް މިންވަރު ޖެހޭ
ނޑައަޅައި، އެއްޗެއް ޙާޞިލުކޮށްދިނުމަށް، ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް ގުރާފު: 15 ވަކި އެއްޗެއް ކަ
ބައްޓަންކުރުން
ގުރާފު 16ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް
ރާވައިފައި ހުންނަނީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަސައްކަތްތައް
ގިނަވާނެ ގޮތަށް ނުވަތަ ދަރިވަރުގެ ރޯލު
ބޮޑުވާގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.
ގުރާފު:16 ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަސައްކަތްތައް ގިނަވާނެ ގޮތަށް، ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް ބައްޓަންކުރުން
އޭ ކުދީންނަށް ބައެއް މާއްދާއިން ދިވެހި ލިބޭއިރު
ނުލިބުމަކީ، އެކަމާ ކަންބޮޑުވާ މައްސަލައެކެވެ. ދިވެހި
ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް މަންހަޖުގައި ކަޑައަޅައިފައި އޮންނަ
ވަގުތު މަދުވުމާއި އެއް ވަގެތެއްގެ ތެރޭގައި ދިވެހީގެ
އިމްތިޙާންކުރުމުގެ އެއްފަހަރާ ބައިތަކެއް އެތައް
ސަބަބުން ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާއަށް ނޭދެވޭ އަސަރުކުރެއެވެ.
ވަކިން ބައިތައް ފަދަ އަދަބިއްޔާތު ވުމާއެކު،
ހަމައެހެންމެ، ރަނގަޅެވެ. އިމްތިޙާންކުރުން
ދަރިވަރުން އިމްތޙާނުގައި ސީ އެސް އެސް
ލިބޭ މާކުހެއް އެއްވަރުގެ މަސައްކަތާ ކުރަންޖެހޭ
155
މާކުސްތައް ނޑައެޅިފައިވާ ކަ އިމްތިޙާނަށް ގޮތަށް،
ފެނެއެވެ. ބަދަލުކުރުމަށް
ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާއަށް އަސަރުކުރާ ކަންތައްތައް:
ދޭ ދިވެހިބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން، ބެލެނިވެރީންނާއި
ދިވެހި ކުޑައިރުއްސުރެ ކުޑަވުމާއި، ސަމާލުކަން
ނުކޮށް މަސައްކަތް ކުރުމަށްޓަކައި މޮޅު މާއްދާއިން
ތިބެފައި، ސާނަވީއަށް ދިއުމުން ޓޮޕް ޓެންއަށް އެރުމަށް
ސަމާލުކަންދިނުމަކުން، ދިވެހިމާއްދާއަށް ޓަކައި
ދިވެހި ނުކުރެވޭނެއެވެ. ރަނގަޅެއް ނަތީޖާ ދިވެހި
މާއްދާއަށް މޮޅުކުރަން ކުރެވޭމަސައްކަތަކީ، ހަމައެކަނި
ގޭގައި މަސައްކަތަކަށްވުމާއި ކުރެވޭ ކުލާހުގެ
ދިވެހިފިލާވަޅުތައް މުޠާލިޢާ ނުކުރުމަކީ ވެސް، ދިވެހި
ހަމައެހެންމެ، ކަމެކެވެ. އަސަރުކުރާ ނަތީޖާއަށް
ދިވެހިކިޔަވައި ދިނުމަށް މަންޙަޖުގައި ކަޑައަޅައިފައިވާ
ވަގުތު މަދުވުމުގެ އިތުރުން، ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު
ނަތީޖާއަށް ދިވެހި ވެސް ސަބަބުން ފަޤީރުވުމުގެ
ކުރެއެވެ. އަސަރު ނޭދެވޭ
ޖެހޭ ގެންނަން އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް ދިވެހިބަސް
: ލު ދަ ބަ
ބަސް ދިވެހި މިހާރު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް، ސާނަވީ
އުނގަންނައިދެމުން އަންނަގޮތް ބަދަލުކުރަން ޖެހެއެވެ.
އިމްތިޙާނަށް ބަރޯސާވެގެން، ފާއިތުވެފައިވާ އަހަރުތަކުގެ
އިމްތިޙާން ކަރުދާހުގައި، ހުންނަ ބައިތައް ތަކުރާރުކޮށް
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ ދިވެހިބަސް ހައްދުވައިގެން،
ބަދަލުގައި ދިވެހި މާއްދާއަށް މޮޅުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި،
އެ މުހިންމެވެ. އުނގަންނައިދިނުން ބަސް ދިވެހި
ގޮތުން ބަހުގެ 4 ހުނަރަށް އެއްވަރަކަށް ސަމާލުކަން
ދީގެން ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަކީ، ދަރިވަރުން
ބަހަށް މޮޅުވާނެ ކަމެކެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ފޮތަށް ބިނާކޮށްގެން ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ބަދަލުގައި
ދިވެހިބަސް ފަރުމާކޮށްގެން ޓާސްކުތަކެއް އިތުރު
ދިވެހިބަސް މުހިންމެވެ. ވަރަށް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން
ދައުރަށްވުރެ މުދައްރިސުގެ އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ބޮޑުކޮށް، ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޢަމަލީ
ޖެހެއެވެ. އިތުރުކުރަން މަސައްކަތްތައް
މިހާރު ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭ ގޮތް:
ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާގައި ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ،
އަޑުއެހުމުގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްގެންނެވެ. ނަތީޖާއަށް
ގުރޭޑުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ ނުކުރާތީ އިމްތިޙާން ހުނަރު
ވެސް އެއް ކުރުމަށް، ހުނަރުތަރައްޤީ އަޑުއެހުމުގެ
މަސައްކަތެއް ނުކުރެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ
ނުދެވެއެވެ. ފުރުޞަތެއް ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް
ގޮތެއްގައި މާނަހުރި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވަކިވަކި
ދެވެނީ މަސައްކަތް ގުރޫޕު ނުދެވެއެވެ. ފީޑްބެކެއް
މުޅީންހެން ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި މަދުންނެވ. ވަރަށް
ދެވެނީ، އަޑުއަހައިފައި ލިޔުމުގެ މަސައްކަތެވެ. އެހެން
ނަމަވެސް ވާހަކަދެއްކުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތާއި ފާޑު ކިޔުމުގެ
ޢާންމު ދެވެއެވެ. ވަރަކަށް ކޮންމެވެސް ފުރުޞަތު
އެހީތެރިކަމެއް/ ބޭނުންވާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ގޮތެއްގައި
ފަހަރު ބައެއް ވިޔަސް ނުދެވޭކަމުގައި އިންޕުޓު
މަސައްކަތް ޙަވާލު ކުރެވެނީ، ކޮންމެ ވެސް ވަރެއްގެ
ފޯރުކޮށްދީފައެވެ. އެހީތެރިކަމެއް
ބަހުސް
ސާނަވީ ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި، ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ
އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ދިވެހިބަސް ގުރޭޑުތަކަށް،
156
ގުޅުވައިގެން ކޮންޓެންޓާ މާއްދާތަކުގެ އެހެން
ބައިވެރިވި ދިރާސާގެ އެހެންކަމުން، ނޫނެވެ.
ދިވެހި ގޮތުގައި، އެއްބަސްވާ %65 ދަރިވަރުންގެ
މާއްދާތަކުގެ އެހެން އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސް
ހަމައެހެންމެ ނޫނެވެ. ގުޅުވައިގެން ކޮންޓެންޓާ
އެއްބަސް ވެސް މުދައްރިސުން ދިވެހި މިކަމަށް،
ވެލައްވައެވެ. ކަންމިހެން އޮތް އިރު، ސޫޒަން ބްރިޖު
)2011( ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި، އެހެން މާއްދާގެ
ކޮންޓެންޓާ ގުޅުވައިގެން ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަކީ،
ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ކުރިއެރުން ލިބި، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް
ބައިވެރިވި ދިރާސާގައި ކަމެކެވެ. ތަރައްޤީވާނެ
ދަރިވަރުންގެ %69 ދަރިވަރުން ޤަބޫލުކުރާ ގޮތުގައި،
ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި ދަރިވަރުންނަށްދެވޭ މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ،
ޗެލެންޖިން އުނދަގޫ/ ހަދަންޖެހޭ ވިސްނައިގެން
މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ. މުދައްރިސުން ވެސް މިކަމާ
އެއްބަހެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، މުދައްރިސުން ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ
ދިވެހިބަސް ބަރޯސާވެގެން އިމްތިހާނަށް ގޮތުގައި،
މުދައްރިސުންނަށް ޖެހުމަކީ، އުނގަންނައިދޭން
ގޮންޖެހުމެކެވެ. ބޮޑު ވަރަށް ދިމާވެފައިވާ
ދިވެހި ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި، ދިރާސާއިން އެހެންކަމުން،
މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ ދަރިވަރުންނަށްދެވޭ، ގަޑީގައި
ފަސޭހަ މަސައްކަތްތަކެކެވެ. ކަންމިހެން އޮތްކަމުގައި
ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ )2007( ޖަޕިނެން ވިޔަސް
ގޮތުގައި ސީ،އެލް،އައި، އެލްގެ ގިނަ ދިރާސާތަކުން
މޮޅުކޮށް، ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި،
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޖުމުލަ ތަރައްޤީއަށް އެކަށީގެންވާ ހެޔޮ
ދެވޭ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޓަކައި، ގެނައުމަށް ބަދަލެއް
ކަހަލަ ހަދަންޖެހޭ ވިސްނައިގެން މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ،
ޗެލެންޖިން މަސައްކަތްތަކަކަށް ވާންޖެހެއެވެ. ނުވަތަ
ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި، ސީ،އެލް،އައި،
އެލް ގެ އުސޫލު ބޭނުން ކުރުން މުހިންމެވެ. ވުމާއެކު،
ދިރާސާއިން ހެކި ލިބިގެން ދިޔަ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް
އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ސީ،އެލް،އައި، އެލް ގެ އުސޫލު
ކަމަކީ، މި އެހެންކަމުން، ނޫނެވެ. ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން
ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުވުމަށް އެޅޭ ހުރަހަކަށްވެ، މީގެ
ނޭދެވޭ ނަތީޖާއަށް ދިވެހި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން،
ވެއެވެ. އެކަށީގެން އަސަރުކުރުން،
ގުޅިގެން މަސައްކަތްކުރުވުމާއި، ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޢަމަލީ
ބައިވެރިވުން އިތުރުކޮށް، ޓީޗަރ ފެސިލިޓޭޓް ޓީޗިން
މޮޑެލަކަށް ފުރުޞަތުދީ ޢަމަލީ މަސައްކަތްތަކެއްގެ
ތެރެއިން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަކީ،
ދާނެކަމެކެވެ ވެގެން ތަރައްޤީ ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ
އެހެން .)2003 ނިސްބެޓް އީ ރޑް )ރިޗަ
ދިޔަ ހާމަވެގެން ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ ނަމަވެސް
ފުރުޞަތު ކުރުމުގެ މަސައްކަތް ގުޅިގެން ގޮތުގައި
ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދެވެނީ ވަރަށް މަދުންނެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ
ދިވެހި ގަޑިތަކުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ހަނިވެފައި
ބޮޑަށް އޮންނަނީ މުދައްރިސުންގެ ދައުރުކަން %68
ދަރިވަރުން ފާހަގަކުރާއިރު، މުދައްރިސުންވެސް މިކަމާ
އެއްބަހެވެ. މިގޮތަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން
ބައްޓަންވެފައި އޮންނަނީ، އިމްތިޙާނަށް ބަރޯސާވެގެން
އުނގަންނައިދޭން ޖެހޭތީކަން ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދުންތަކުން
ފާހަގަކުރެވުނެވެ.
ފޮތްތަކުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސާނަވީ ހަމައެހެންމެ،
ހުންނަ މަސައްކަތްތަކުގެ އިތުރަށް، ރަންހޫ )2013(
ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް ހުރި މާނަ ފަދަ ހާމަކުރައްވާ
އިޚްތިޔާރުކޮށް، މުދައްރިސުން އެ ފަދަ ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް
ފަރުމާކޮށްގެން، ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި
ނޑައަޅާ ކަ މުދައްރިސް ނުކުރެއެވެ. ބޭނުން
157
ބަދަލުގައި ސުރުޚީ ދިނުމުގެ ލިޔަން ސުރުޚީއަކަށް،
ނޑައެޅުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިނުމަކީ، ކަ
ސިފައެކެވެ. މުހިންމު އުޞޫލުގެ ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް
އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ ދަރިވަރުން ނަމަވެސް އެހެން
ނުލިބޭކަމަށް ފުރުޞަތު ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް
ބޭނުންވާ ދަރިވަރުން ބުނާއިރު، ދަރިވަރުން %91
ގޮތަކަށް އެއް ފުރުޞަތު ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް
ދިވެހި ކަމަށް ނުދެވޭ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވެސް،
މުދައްރިސުން، އެއްބަސް ވެލައްވައެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ
މިހެން ދިމާވަނީ، ނަތީޖާއަށް އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން، ސާނަވީ
އުނގަންނައިދޭން ބަސް ދިވެހި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް،
ވުމާއެކު، ހާމަވެއެވެ. ދިރާސާއިން ޖެހޭތީކަން
ދިރާސާއިން ހެކި ލިބިގެން ދިޔަ ގޮތުގައި، ސާނަވީ
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް މަރުޙަލާއަށް
އުޞޫލު ޓީޗިންގ ލެންގުއޭޖު ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް
ބަހުގެ މިއީ، އެހެންކަމުން، ނުކުރެއެވެ. ބޭނުމެއް
ދިމާވާ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ތަރައްޤީވުމަށް ހުނަރުތައް
ވެދާނެއެވެ. ގޮންޖެހުމަކަށް
)1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ މައިކަލް
އެޕްރޯޗް ލެންގުއޭޖު ހޯލް ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،
ނުވަތަ ބަހުގެ 4 ހުނަރު ގުޅިގެންދާ ގޮތަށް، ހުރިހައި
ބަސް ސަމާލުކަންދީގެން، އެއްވަރަކަށް ހުނަރަކަށް
ތަރައްޤީވާނެ ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ،
ދަރިވަރުން މަޝްވަރާތަކުގައި މިގޮތުން، ކަމެކެވެ.
ލިޔުންތައް ވައްތަރުގެ ތަފާތު ބައިވެރިކުރުވައި،
ރިފްލެކްޓު އެއަށް ލިޔުއްވުމަށްފަހު، ކިޔުއްވައި
ކަމަށް ގެންދެވޭނެ ހުނަރު 4 ބަހުގެ ކުރުވައިގެން
ވެސް، އޭނާ ހާމަކުރައްވައެވެ. ނަމަވެސް ދިރާސާގެ
ހޯދުންތަކުން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ސާނަވީ ގުރޭޑުތަކުގައި
ހުނަރަށް 4 ބަހުގެ އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް
ގުރޭޑު ސާނަވީ [ ނޫނެވެ. އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން
އަޑުއަހައިފައި ކުރާކަމަކީ ދަރިވަރުން ތަކުގައި،
ބުނި ނާދިޔާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ލިޔުން[
ހަމައެހެންމެ، . )2015 ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު
ވަޒަން މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ އަޑުއެހުމަކީ
މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ ވާތީ، ހުނަރަކަށް ނުކުރެވޭ
އެހުމުގެހުނަރު އަޑު ފަދަ ދޭހަ އަޑުއެހުމުގެ
ތަރައްޤީވާ ފަދަ ޚާއްޞަ ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް، އެއްގޮތަކަށް
ފަރީޝާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ނުގެންދޭ[ ވެސް
ބުނިވާހަކައެއް،12އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(. ހަމައެހެންމެ،
ގިނަ މަސައްކަތް ލިޔުމުގެ ގުރޭޑުތަކުގައި، ސާނަވީ
ކަމުގައި ވިޔަސް ދަރިވަރުން ބޭނުންވާ، ސުރުޚީތަކަށް
ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް ކަޑައަޅާ ދަރިވަރުން ނުވަތަ
%91 ނުލިބޭކަން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ފުރުޞަތު
ސާނަވީ ހަމައެހެންމެ، ބުނެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން
މަރުޙަލާއަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަހުގެ
ހުރިހައި ހުނަރެއް، ގުޅިލާމެހިގެންދާ ގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.
ޑޭވިޑް ޕީ ޕިއަރސަން )1992( ބަޔާންކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،
ބަހުގައި ހިމެނޭ އަޑާއި ލަފުޒު ފަދަ ވަކިވަކި ބައިތައް
ދަސްކޮށް ނުދިން ކަމުގައި ވިޔަސް، ލިޔުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު
ގިނައިން ދެވޭ ނަމަ، އެފަދަ ލިޔުންތަކުން ތަޖުރިބާ
ކުރެވޭނެއެވެ. ތަރައްޤީ ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ލިބިގެން
ބަސްމޮށުންތެރިކަމަށް ޙަޤީޤީ ހަމައެހެންމެ،
ޖެހުމަށް، ހިތްހަމަ އަމިއްލަ އިސްކަންދީގެން،
ގިނައިން ލައްވާ ދަރިވަރުން ކަމެއްގެގޮތުގައި ކުރާ
ކުރިއެރުވުމަށްޓަކައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ލިޔުއްވުމަކީ،
ވުމާއެކު، ސިފައެކެވެ. މުހިންމު ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް
އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ )1978( ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި، ހޯލް
158
ލެންގުއޭޖު އެޕްރޯޗުގެ މުދައްރިސުން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް
ޖެހުމަށްޓަކައި ހިތްހަމަ ބާރުއަޅަނީ އެހީތެރިވެދީ،
ލިޔުއްވުމަށެވެ. ގޮތުގައި ކުރާކަމެއްގެ އާދަކޮށް،
ކުރާކަމެއްގެ ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް އަމިއްލަ ނަމަވެސް،
ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔުއްވައިގެން، ގޮތުގައި
ހިތްވަރުދީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސާނަވީ މޮޅުކުރުމަށް
ލިޔުމަށް ލިޔުންތައް އެފަދަ ކަމަށާއި ނައަޅާ ބާރު
ފާހަގަކުރާއިރު، %76 ކަމަށް ނުލިބޭ ފުރުޞަތު
ބާރު ކަމަށް އެ ފަރާތުން މުދައްރިސުންގެ
މުދައްރިސުން ހަމައެހެންމެ، ލިބިގެންދެއެވެ.
ނޑު މައިގަ ދިމާވާ ]މިހެން ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ
ސަބަބަކީ ކޯޑިނޭޓުކޮށްގެން، އެ ގުރޭޑެއްގެ ހުރިހައި
އުޞޫލެއް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އެއްގޮތަށް ކުލާހަކަށް
ފުރުޞަތު ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން، ގެންގުޅުމުގެ
އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން އިމްތިޙާނަށް ހިފެހެއްޓިފައިވުމާއި،
އެއް ކޮށްގެން އަމާޒު އަކުރަކަށް ވަކި ނުވަތަ
ދިވެހި ކުރުވައިގެން ތަކުރާރުކޮށް މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް
)ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ދޭންޖެހޭތީ[އެވެ. އުނގަންނައި ބަސް
ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(.
)1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ މައިކަލް
ގިނަ ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،
ދަރިވަރުން ގޮތުގައި، ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ ދިރާސާވެރިން
ޙިއްސާކޮށް ދަރިވަރުންނާ އެހެން ލިޔުންތައް، ލިޔާ
ފާޑު ކިޔުއްވައި، އިޞްލާހު ކުރުމަކީ ވެސް، ބަސް
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ގެންގުޅެން ޖެހޭ އުޞޫލެކެވެ.
ވަރަށް ތަކުގައި ކުލާސް ސާނަވީ މިއީ، ނަމަވެސް
މުދައްރިސުން ކަމެއްކަން ނުކުރެވޭ ނޫނީ މަދުން
ނުލިބޭކަމަށް ފުރުޞަތު މިފަދަ ފާހަގަކުރައްވާއިރު،
78% ދަރިވަރުން ބުނެއެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ދަރިވަރުން
ލިޔާ ލިޔުންތަކަށް ފީޑްބެކް ދިނުމަކީ، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން
ހިތްވަރެއް ބޮޑު ވަރަށް ތަރައްޤީވުމަށް، ކުރިއަރައި
ގުރޭޑު ސާނަވީ ނަމަވެސް ކަމަކަށްވީ ލިބިގެންދާ
ދެވެނީ، ]ޢާންމުކޮށް ނުކުރެއެވެ. މިކަން ތަކުގައި
ފީޑްބެކެއް[ ދެވޭ ޖުމުލަކޮށް ކުދީންނަށް ހުރިހައި
ބުނިވާހަކައެއް، ފަރީޝާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ
12އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015( ވުމާއެކު، ދިރާސާއިން ލިބުނު
ހެކިތަކަށް ބަލާއިރު،ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާގައި ދިވެހިބަސް
އުޞޫލު ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި
ނުކުރެއެވެ. ބޭނުމެއް
ރޑްސް ރިޗަ ޖެކްސީ )1994( ޑޮންކިންއަރ
)2011( ރޮޖަސް އެސް ތިއޯޑޯރ އާއި
އެޕްރޯޗު ބޭސް ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،
މަންހަޖާއި ނަމަ، ކިޔަވައިދޭ ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން
އުނގެނުމުގެ އާލާތާއި ބޭނުންކުރާ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް
ކުރުމާއެކު، ރަނގަޅު ފެންވަރު ޙަރަކާތްތަކުގެ
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ވުރެ ދައުރަށް މުދައްރިސުންގެ
ދައުރު ފުޅާކުރުން މުހިންމެވެ. އަދި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް
ޙާޞިލުވާންވީ މިންވަރު ވަޒަންކުރުމުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ޖެހެއެވެ. ބަލަން އައުޓްޕުޓަށް އުފެއްދުންތަކަށް/
އެހެންނަމަވެސް ދިރާސާއިން ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި، ސާނަވީ
އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ތަކުގައި ގުރޭޑު
އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން އުފެއްދުންތަކަކަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ
ވަކި ތެރޭގައި، ވަގުތުގެ ނޑައެޅިފައވާ ކަ ނުވަތަ
ލައްވާ ދަރިވަރުން ޙާޞިލުވާނެގޮތަށް އެއްޗެއް
ނޫންކަމަށް ރާވައިގެން މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ކުރުވާނެ
ތެދެއްކަމަށް އެއީ ބުނާއިރު، ދަރިވަރުން %52
ވެލައްވައެވެ. އެއްބަސް ވެސް މުދައްރިސުން
ހަމަމިއާއެކު، މުދައްރިސުން ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި
159
ކަޑައަޅައިފައި އެއްޗެއް ޙާޞިލުވާނެ ]މަޤްޞަދާއި
މިވެނި ކުރާނީ ތިކުދީން މިއަދު މުހިންމު، އޮތުން
ޖެހޭ އެބަ ކަމެކޭ މިވެނި ޖެހެނީ ކަމެކޭ، އެނގެން
ބޭނުން އޭގެ އެއްޗަކާއި ދަސްކޮށްދޭ އެނގެން،
ބުނެދޭން ޖެހޭ، އެކަން ނުކުރެވޭ[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ
ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(.
ބުނާގޮތުގައި ދަރިވަރުން 61% މީގެއިތުރުން،
އެހީތެރިކަން/ ބޭނުންވާ މަސައްކަތަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ
އިންޕުޓެއް މުދައްރިސުންގެ ފަރާތުން ދަރިވަރުންނަކަށް
ވެ އެ ބެ ލި .ނު
އަދި ރޑްސް ރިޗަ ޖެކްސީ ހަމައެހެންމެ،
ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ )2011( އެސް ތިއޯޑޯރ
ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭނުންކުރާ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް
ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ އުޞޫލުން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް
ޓަކައި، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެހީތެރިކަން ފޯރުކޮށްދިނުމުގެ
އިތުރުން އެ އެހީތެރިކަން، ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުން
އުފައްދާ އުފެއްދުންތަކަށް ބަލަން ޖެހެއެވެ. ނަމަވެސް
ގުރޭޑު ސާނަވީ ގޮތުގައި، އެނގުނު ދިރާސާއިން
ޢާންމު ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގައި، ދިވެހިބަސް ތަކުގައި
ގޮތެއްގައި ކަންކުރަނީ މި ގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ. ދިވެހި
ދަސްކޮށްދޭ ގޮތުގައި، ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ މުދައްރިސުން
ނޯވެއެވެ. ބެލުމެއް ޙާޞިލުކުރެވުނުތޯ އެއްޗެއް
އެ ކިޔައިދީފައި، އެއްޗެއް އުޅެނީ މި ]އަހަރުމެން
ޗެކެއް ނުލެވިގެން، ބަލައި އެނގުނުތޯ އެއްޗެއް
ބުނި ނާދިޔާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ނުކުރެވޭ[
ޕުޓާ ]އައުޓް .)2015 ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު
އިންޕުޓު ކުރަންޖެހޭ، ގިނަ އިންޕުޓު އެއްވަރަށް،
ނުދީ، އައުޓް ޕުޓު ނެރެންވެގެން، މަސައްކަތްކުރުވައި
މިހެން ގޯސްވެފައި، އެއް ތިބެނީ ކުދީން ކުރުވައި
ސާނަވީ ބަރޯސާވެގެން، ނަތީޖާއަށް ދިމާވަނީ
މަރުޙަލާގައި ދިވެހި ކިޔަވައިދޭން ޖެހޭތީ[ )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ
ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި ވާހަކައެއް،11 އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(.
]އިންޕުޓު ދީފައި އައުޓްޕުޓު ނެރެން މަސައްކަތް ކުރާ
ނަމަ އިތުރު އެހީ ބޭނުންވާ ކުއްޖާއަށް ވެސް އޭނަގެ
ފެންވަރުން އެއްޗެއް އުފެއްދޭނެ[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ
ގާތު ފަރީޝާ ބުނިވާހަކައެއް، 12އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(
ޕުޓުނެރެން، އައުޓު ވަނީ ބޭނުން ވެސް ]އަބަދު
އަހަރުމެންނަށް އިންޕުޓެއް ނުދެވޭ[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ
ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު ބުނި ނާދިޔާ ގާތު
ޕުޓް އައުޓް ދިނުމަށްފަހު ]އިންޕުޓް .)2015
ދިނުމަކީ ރަނގަޅު ގޮތެއް[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ގާތު
)2015 12އޮކްޓޫބަރު ބުނިވާހަކައެއް، ފަރީޝާ
ސާނަވީ ސާބިތުވާގޮތުގައި ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ
އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް ދިވެހިބަސް ގުރޭޑުތަކުގައި،
އެހީތެރިކަމެއް ބޭނުންވާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޓަކައި،
ނުދެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުންނަށް
ދިޔަގޮތުގައި އެނގިގެން ދިރާސާއިން، ހަމައެހެންމެ
އުނގަންނައި ދިވެހިބަސް މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ
ހުރިހައި ބޭނުންކުރަނީ، ޢާންމުކޮށް ދިނުމުގައި
%80 މުދައްރިސެވެ. ދިވެހި ކަމެއްކުރާނީ
ދަރިވަރުން ފާހަގަކުރާ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި ބޮޑަށް
އޮންނަނީ މުދައްރިސްގެ ދައުރެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ ދިވެހި
މުދައްރިސް ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ]ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތަކުގައި،
ދައުރު މުދައްރިސްގެ ވުރެ ދައުރަށް ކުދީންގެ
ކުރުން، ކަން ގޮތަކަށް ބުނާ ޓީޗަރުން ބޮޑުކޮށް،
ފަރަށްދާ ކީތީ އަމާ އޮންނަނީ، ގަޑިތަކުގައި ދިވެހި
އުޞޫލު، އެހެންނަމަވެސް މުދައްރިސުންގެ ރޯލަށްވުރެ
ދަރިވަރުންގެ ރޯލު ބޮޑުވާންޖެހޭ[ އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ
160
ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(.
ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދުންތަކުން ހާމަވާގޮތުގައި މިގޮތަށް ދިމާވާ
އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން ސަބަބަކީ،ނަތީޖާއަށް ނޑު މައިގަ
އެހެންކަމުން، ބައްޓަންކުރުމެވެ. ފިލާވަޅުތައް
ދިރާސާއިން ހެކި ލިބިގެންދާ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް
އުޞޫލު ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ،
ނޫނެވެ. ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން
ގޮތުގައި، ހާމަކުރައްވާ )1994( ޑޮންކިންއަރ
ދަރިވަރުންގެ އެޕްރޯޗުގައި ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ
ދެވޭ ގޮތެއްގައި ދާއިމީ މަސައްކަތްތަކަށް،
ފީޑްބެކުގެ ސަބަބުން އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ ފެންވަރު
މަތިވެއެވެ. ފެންވަރު އުނގެނުމުގެ ރަނގަޅުވެއެވެ.
]ކޮންޓިނުއަސް ފީޑް ބެކް ދިނުމަކީ ވަރަށް ރަނގަޅު
ނުކޮށް ތަކުރާރު މިސްޓޭކްސްތައް ، ކަމެއް
ޢާންމުކޮށް އެހެންނަމަވެސް ދަސްކުރެވިގެންދާނެ،
މިކަން ނުކުރެވޭ[ )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި
ވާހަކައެއް،11 އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(. އެހެންކަމުން،
މަސައްކަތްތަކަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަރުޙަލާގެ ސާނަވީ
ދިރާސާއިން ނުދެވޭކަން ފީޑްބެކް ދާއިމީގޮތެއްގައި،
ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ ވުމާއެކު، ހާމަވެއެވެ.
ބަސް ދިވެހި ދިޔަގޮތުގައި އެނގިގެން
އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ
އެހެންކަމުން، ނޫނެވެ. ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން އުޞޫލު
މިފަދަ ރަނގަޅުނުވަނީ، ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ދަރިވަރުންގެ
އެކަށީގެންވެއެވެ. ކަމަށްވުން ސަބަބުން ކަންކަމުގެ
ނިންމުން
މި ދިރާސާއަކީ، މާލޭގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ
ދިވެހިކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް މަރުޙަލާގެ
ދިވެހިބަސް ދަރިވަރުންނަށް މުދައްރިސުން
ނޑު އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައި ދިނުމުގެ މައިގަ
ނޫންތޯ ނުވަތަ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ އުޞޫލުތައް
ދެނެގަތުމަށްޓަކައި ކުރެވުނު ދިރާސާއެކެވެ. މިކްސްޑް
މަސައްކަތުން ކުރެވުނު ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން މެތަޑެއް
ހާމަވެގެން ދިޔަގޮތުގައި، ދިރާސާ އަމާޒު ކުރެވުނު،
ދިވެހިބަސް ކުލާސްތަކަށް ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުގައި
އުނގަންނައިދެއްވާ، މުދައްރިސުން އެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް،
ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ދިވެހިބަސް
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން އުޞޫލުތައް ނޑު މައިގަ ބޭނުންކުރާ
އެ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ހަމައެންމެ، ނޫނެވެ.
އަހުލުވެރިއެއް މުދައްރިސުން އެ އުޞޫލުތަކަށް،
ނޫނެވެ. ވުމާއެކު، މިއީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާ
ވެދާނެއެވެ. ސަބަބަކަށް މެދުވެރިވާ ދަށްވުމަށް
ދިވެހިބަސް ގުރޭޑުތަކަށް ސާނަވީ އެހެންކަމުން،
ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ މުދައްރިސުންގެ އިތުރުން، ދިވެހިބަސް
ވެސް މުދައްރިސުން ހުރިހައި އުނގަންނައިދެއްވާ
އުޞޫލުތަކަށް ނޑު މައިގަ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ބަސް
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން އުޞޫލުތައް ފަދަ އެ އަހުލުވެރިވެ،
މުހިންމެވެ. އުނގަންނަދިނުން ބަސް ދިވެހި
ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން، އުޞޫލުތައް ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ
ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭ ނަމަ ބަސް ދަސްކުރުމުގެ
ޝައުޤުވެރިކަން އިތުރުވެ،ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުވެ،
ދިވެހިމާއްދާއިން ދަރިވަރުން ހޯދާ ނަތީޖާ މިހާރަށްވުރެ
ދާނެއެވެ. ފުރިހަމަވެގެން
ވަގުތުގެ ދަތިކަމާ އެކު މި ދިރާސާ ހަދައިފައިވަނީ،
މާލޭގެ އެންމެ، ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލަކަށް އަމާޒުކޮށްގެންނެވެ.
ދިވެހިބަސް ސާނަވީއަށް، ސުކޫލުގައި އެ ވުމާއެކު،
ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ 2 މުދައްރިސުންނާއި އެ މުދައްރިސުން
161
އެއްބަޔަށް ދެބައިކުޅަ ކުލާސްތަކުގެ ދެއްވާ ކިޔަވައި
މި ހެދުނު ކޮށްގެން ބައިވެރި ގިނަކުދީން ވުރެ
ޖެނެރަލައިޒު ސްކޫލަށް އެ ނަތީޖާއަކީ، ދިރާސާގެ
ނަތީޖާ މި ނަމަވެސް ނަތީޖާއެކެވެ. ކުރެވިދާނެ
މާލޭގެ ހުރިހައި ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކަށް ޖެނެރަލައިޒެއް
ހުރިހައި މާލޭގެ މިއީ، ނުވަތަ ނުކުރެވޭނެއެވެ.
ކަމަކަށް ނަތީޖާއެއް ފެންނާނެ ސްކޫލަކުން ސާނަވީ
ނުބެލެވޭނެއެވެ. ވުމާއެކު ގިނަ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކެއް
ހެދުން ދިރާސާއެއް އިތުރު މިފަދަ ޝާމިލުވާގޮތަށް
މުހިންމެވެ.
ރެފަރެންސް ލިސްޓު
ރަން ހޫ )2013(.ޓާސްކް-ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން: ރެސްޕޯންސެސް ފްރޮމް ޗައިނީޒް ޓީޗަރސް
އޮފް އިންގްލިޝް. އީސްޓް ކެރެލޯނިޔާ ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ. ޔޫ.އެސް.އޭ 61،ނަންބަރ4.
ރޑް ޖޭ.ޓީ. ވިންސަރ އަދި ޑޭވިޑް ޕީ. ރިޗަޕިއަރސަން)1992(.ޗިލްރަން އެޓް ރިސްކް : ދެޔަރަ ފޮނެމިކް އެވެއަރނެސް ޑިވެލޮޕްމަންޓް
އިން ހޯލިސްޓިކް އިންސްޓްރަކްޝަން. އަރބަން. ސެންޓަރ ފޮރް ދަސްޓަޑީ އޮފް ރީޑިންގ: ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ އޮފް އިލީނިއަސް.
ރޑް އީ ނިސްބެޓް)2003(. ދަ ޖިއޮގްރަފީ ރިޗައޮފް ތޯޓް- ހައު އޭޝިއަންސް އެންޑް
ވެސްޓަނަރސް ތިންކް ޑިފަރެންޓްލީ އެންޑް ވައި؟ ނިއުޔޯކް: ދަ ފްރީ ޕްރެސް.
އެލެންއީ. ޝެންކް)1986(. އަ ގައިޑްޓް އައިޑެންޓިފައިންގ ހައިސްކޫލު ގުރެޖުއޭޝަން ކޮމްޕީޓެންސީސް. ޕޯރޓްލަންޑް. އޮރެގް:ނޯރުތް
ވެސްރީޖަނަލްއެޑިޔުކޭޝަނަލްލެބޯޓްރީ.
އައިނި-ކްރިސްޓީނާ ޖަޕިނެން )2005 (. ތިންކިން އެންޑް ކޮންޓެންޓް ލަރނިންގ އޮފް
މެތަމެޓިކްސް އެންޑް ސައިންސް އޭސް ކޮގްނީޝަނަލް ޑިވެލޮޕްމެންޓް.
އެލްމަރ ސްޓްރެއެނިންގ އަދި މާރސިއާ ގުޓެންޓުގް)1975(. ހޭންޑް ބްކް އޮފް
އިވެލުއޭޝަން ރިސާޗު،ވޮލިއުމ1ް. ބެވަރލީ ހިލްސް.ސީ.އޭ:ސޭޖް
މާރޓިންބްލޫމްޖޮއެލްފިޝަރއަދިޖޫޑީއޯރމް )1995(. އިވެލުއޭޝަންޕްރެކްޓިސް-ގައިޑްލައިންސް
ފޮރ އެކައުންޓަބަލް ޕްރެފެޝަނަލްސް. )2(.ބޮސްޓަންއެމް.އޭ :އެލީން އެންޑް ބޭކަން.
މައިކަލް އެލެކްސެންޑަރ ކާރކްވުޑް ހަލިޑޭ)1975(.ލަރނިންގް ހައުޓް މީން.ލަންޑަން.އަރނޯލްޑް.
މައިކަލް އެލެކްސެންޑަރ ކާރކްވުޑް ހަލިޑޭ)1987(.ލެންގުއޭޖު އޭސް އަ ސޯޝަލް
އިންޓަރޕްރިޓޭޝަން އޮފް ލެންގުއޭޖު އެންޑް މީނިންގ.ބަލްޓިމޯ: ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕަރކް
ޕްރެސް
މެގަން ކަލްވަރޓް އަދި ޔަންގްހީ ޝީން)2014(. ޓާސްކް-ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު ލަރނިންގ އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ:އެން އެކްޝަން ރިސަރޗް ސްޓަޑީ.
ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން ރިސަރޗް. ވޮލިއުމް 91)2( 622-442.ސޭޖް
މަރޖާ-ކައިސާ ޕިއްކޯ)2010(.ލަރނިންގ ތްރޫ އަ ފޮރިން ލެންގުއޭޖު:ލަރނަސް ޕާރސަނަލް ލާރނިންގ އެކްސްޕީރިއަންސަސް އޮފް
އައިޑިއާސް ފޮރ ޑިވެލޮޕިން ޕެޑަގޮޖިކަލް ޕްރެކްޓިސަސް އިން ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް
ލެންގުއޭޖު އިންޓެގްރޭޓަޑް ލާރނިންގ ކުލާސް.ޑިޕާޓްމެންޓްއޮފް ޓީޗަރ އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން:
ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ އޮފް ޖީވާސްކީލާ
162
ސޫޒަން ބްރިޖް )2011(. ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު އިންޓަރގްރޭޓަޑް ލަރނިންގ.
ކެމްބްރިޖު: ކެމްބްރިޖު ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.
ސްޓެއިނަރ ކްވާލޭ )1996(. އިންޓަރވިއުސް، އެން އިންޓްރަޑަކްޝަން ޓު ރިސަރޗް
އިންޓަރވިއުއިން. ތައުޒަން އޯކްސް. ސީ.އޭ: ސޭޖް
ޑޭވިޑް ނުނާން )2005(. ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިވް ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން : މޭކިންގ އިޓް ވޯރކް. އީ.އެލް.ޓީ
ޖަރނަލް 14 )2(،541-631
ޑޮކިން އާރު )1994(.ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ-ބޭސްޑް ކަރިކުލަރ- ދަ ބިގް ޕިކްޗަރ ޕްރޮސްޕެކްޓް
.71-8:)2(9
ޓޮޑް ޑީ. ޖިކް )1979(. މިކްސިންގ ކުއެންޓިޓޭޓިވް އެންޑް ކޮލިޓޓިވް މެތަޑްސް
ޓްރައިންގިޔުލޭޝަން އިން އެކްޝަން އެޑްމިނިސްޓްރޭޓިވް އެންޑް ސައިންސް ކުއަރލިޓީ: ކޯނެލް ޔުނިވަރުސިޓީ.
ޕައުލިންފޮސްޓަރ )2014(. ޓާސްކް- ބޭސްޑްލެންގުއޭޖުލަރނިންގްރިސަރޗް: އެކްސްޕެކްޓިންގޓޫމަޗްއޯރޓޫ؟ލިޓްލް، އިންޓަރނޭޝަނަލްޖަރނަލް އޮފް އެޕްލައިޑް ލިންގުއިސްޓިކްސް 362-742،91
ޖޯން ޑަބްލިޔު ކުރެސްވެލް)2003( . ރިސާޗު ޑިޒައިނިން ކޮލިޓޭޓިވް ކުއަންޓިޓޭޓިވް މިކްސްޑް މެތަޑްސް އެޕްރޯޗްސް)2(. ޔޫ.އެސް.އޭ:ސޭޖް
ޕަބްލިކޭޝަން އިންކޯޕަރޭޓެޑް
ރޑްސް އަދި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް. ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަރޮޖަރސް)2011( .އެޕްރޯޗްސް އެންޑް
މެތަޑްސް އިން ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން. ކެމްބްރިޖު .ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން ލައިބްރެރީ: ކެމްބްރިޖު
ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.
ޖާނާ ސެއިކިއުލާ- ލެއިނޯ )2005(. ސީ. އެލް.އައި.އެލް ލަރނިންގ: އެޗީވްމެންޓްސް ލެވެލް އެންޑް އެފެކްޓިވް ފެކްޓަރސް. ލެންގުއޭޖު
އެންޑް، އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން 12.
ޗިއު-ޔިންވޮންގް )2012(. އަ ކޭސްސްޓަޑީ އޮފް ކޮލެޖްލެވެލް ސެކަންޑްލެންގުއޭޖް
ޓީޗާރސްޕަރސެޕްޝަން އެންޑް އިމްޕްލިމެންޓޭޝަންސް އޮފް
ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިވް ލެންގުއޭޖުޓީޗިން:މާންމައުތް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ،ވޮލިއުމް 63. ނަނބްަރ،2.