'I never even gave it a second thought': PGCE students' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with speech and language impairments

Secondary School Teachers' Beliefs, Attitudes, and Reactions to Stuttering

Purpose

The study identifies teachers' beliefs about and attitudes toward stuttering and explores to what extent these beliefs and attitudes prompt specific teachers' reactions to the stuttering of a student.

Method

Participants were teachers in secondary education in Flanders (Belgium), currently teaching an adolescent who stutters. They were the student's class teacher or instructed a course in which communication is important. Ten semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed thematically.

Results

Teachers believed that (a) when peers do not react to the stuttering, the lesson is not disrupted by it, and the student who stutters participates in the lesson, stuttering is not necessarily a problem; (b) when attention is paid to it, stuttering can become a problem; (c) they try to react as little as possible to the stuttering; and (d) they seldom talk about the stuttering.

Conclusion

Although teachers reported that they feel confident in how to deal with stuttering, and although it is possible that students who stutter do not feel the need to talk about their stuttering, teachers could consult their students on this matter. This way, they would acknowledge the stuttering and likely encourage the students to approach them when they feel the need.

Attitudes of teachers towards dysfluency training and resources

Past studies have shown that teachers have a vital role in the educational process of children who stutter (CWS) and teachers' perceptions have a significant impact on the progress of CWS. These studies suggest that there is a need for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to supply teachers with more information about stuttering. This study aimed to gather views from teachers in the United Kingdom (UK) about their current training in stuttering and their awareness of stuttering resources to support school aged CWS. It sought to investigate teachers' interest in future stuttering training and materials, including their preference for content and method of delivery. The attitudes of 72 teachers in mainstream UK schools were measured in a postal survey using a self-completed questionnaire. Teachers viewed their experience of training in stuttering to be limited either as trainee teachers or as part of their continuing professional development. Of the respondents, 43 (60%) teachers were aware of or had used a stuttering resource. Teachers expressed a positive interest in receiving stuttering training and resources in the future and the majority favoured direct contact with SLPs to deliver this training. The findings of this survey offer new information regarding teachers' views of dysfluency training and resources.

Teacher identification of speech and language impairment in kindergarten students using the Kindergarten Development Check

The purpose of this paper was to profile the extent and accuracy of teacher identification of speech and language impairment within a kindergarten student population in Tasmania, Australia, using the Kindergarten Development Check (KDC). A total of 286 kindergarten students (aged 4-5 years and in their first year of formal schooling) were screened by teachers with the KDC on two separate occasions over their kindergarten year. In the following academic year, each of the same 286 students were assessed by a speech-language pathologist, and diagnosed with either typically developing or impaired speech and/or language skills. Review of KDC data determined the number of students identified by teachers with speech and language impairment at each occasion during their kindergarten year. Comparison of data from the later KDC administration and speech-language pathology assessment then determined the correspondence between identification of speech and language impairment by teachers and speech-language pathologists. Upon initial administration of the KDC, 51 (17.8%) students were identified by teachers with language impairment and 47 (16.4%) students with speech impairment. Following the second administration of the KDC 3 months later, 20 (7.0%) students continued to be identified with language impairment, and 39 (13.6%) with speech impairment. Comparison of speech-language pathology testing results and KDC data from the second administration found the overall validity of teacher identification was 86.4% and 71% for speech and language impairment respectively. Specificity rates were high, with 93% and 97% of students with typically developing speech and language skills respectively, correctly classified on the KDC. However, the sensitivity was only 50% for speech impairment and 15% for language impairment, indicating that 50% of students presenting with speech impairment and 85% of students with language impairment in their subsequent academic year were not recorded by teachers as having such a difficulty on the later KDC administration during their kindergarten year. The KDC appears to be ineffective in supporting kindergarten teachers to identify students with ongoing speech and to a greater extent, language impairment. Measures to improve the sensitivity of the KDC in particular need to be considered by speech-language pathologists and educational professionals in Tasmania.