lit review 11_3-2015 (1) (file 7)

Khawla Al Mamari December 29, 2014

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The main purpose of this literature review is to discuss the resource room critically as an

appropriate alternative to the more conventional and traditional approach of teaching students

with learning difficulties, namely inclusion and mainstreaming. Resource rooms are different

in their teaching strategies, degree of socialisation and involvement of other learners (Sabbah,

S., & Shanaah, 2010; Bataineh, & Al-Shehry 2010). The literature review starts with a

description of the context in Oman and then clarifies the terms of learning difficulties and

continues with specific types of inclusion and resource rooms. Parents’ involvement, teaching

professionalism, clarity of reading and writing instructions, and contribution of school

administration are approached as resource room moderators to increase teaching effectiveness

(Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001).

2.1.1 The Education System of Oman

Since this study will use the resource room programme of the Sultanate of Oman, it must first

describe their education system and also highlight the special education services provided to

students with special needs in general and the services to students with learning difficulties in

particular. The Ministry of Education in Oman (2014) provides free education to all students.

The types of educational services in Oman are

General Education: This system was started in 1998/99 and comprised of 12 years duration,

afterwards, the basic education system has replaced it gradually in the following years.

General education was completely replaced by basic education in 2001/2002 (The Ministry of

Education, 2014).

Basic Education: Its duration is ten years, and those who pass grade 10 successfully shall be

promoted to the following level which continues for two years of study and prepares the

students to sit for general education certificate. Basic Education is composed of two cycles.

The duration of the first cycle is four years which is from grade 1 to grade 4 (age 6 to 9 years)

while the second cycle covers six years from grade 5 to grad 10 (age 10 to 15 years).

Implementation of this system started in 1998/1999 with grade one and two in 17 schools and

hence in 2001/2002 the first group of students were promoted to the second cycle. The

1


number of basic schools increased to 891 schools in this school year (The Ministry of

Education, 2014).

Post basic Education: It comprises of two years of schooling covering grades eleven and

twelve. Students who successfully pass grade ten of basic or general education are all

admitted in grade eleven of post basic education, where they study specialised curricula

taking into consideration students’ choices of optional courses (The Ministry of Education,

2014).

2.1.2 Special Education in Oman

In 1974/1975 the Ministry of education in Oman established a section in the directorate of

general education of special education which commenced duties by sending selected children

with learning difficulties to study abroad. In 1980/198, ministry set up Al Amal School for

deaf students. In 1984/1985 Al Fikriah School for Intellectually disabled students has been

established. In the same area, Omar bin Al-Khatab Institute was established in 1999/2000 for

visually impaired students. After sixth/five years, the Ministry has started the implementation

of the policy of admitting children who have special needs in basic and general education

schools at the same level with other non-disabled children (The Ministry of Education, 2014).

Significant educational developments have been made in special education in the Sultanate of

Oman over the last two decades. Despite the Ministry of Education’s limited exposure and

experience in this field, it aims to offer a quality education to students with special needs

(The Ministry of Education, 2012a). It is monitored by a Special Education Department in the

Ministry of Education in Oman. The Ministry of Education focuses on providing special

students with the best available programmes, educational services, training and guidance. The

aim is to equip these students with the necessary skills to become effective and productive

members of society, capable of dealing with challenges of today’s world. The Ministry of

Education pays particular attention to students with special needs as it believes that every

child has the right to benefit from proper educational care and access to best practices in all

educational fields, regardless of their ability (The Ministry of Education, 2012a). It is also

committed to ensuring that students with special needs are provided with every opportunity to

excel at whichever ability is dominant and believes that these students can engage in

developing their country to the best of their abilities. The Ministry of Education is fully aware

that this care and attention will have a positive impact on education throughout the Sultanate

of Oman (The Ministry of Education, 2012a) and has established different schools and

2


implemented programmes to serve students with special needs, as shown in Figure 1 (adapted

from The Ministry of Education, 2012b).

Figure 1: The Special Education Services Programs in Oman

2.2 Definition of Learning difficultiesand Difficulties

Prior to discussing and evaluating the main approaches and strategies of teaching students

with special educational needs, it is essential to demarcate the clear difference between

learning difficulties and difficusabililties. Learning disability is a more prevalent term in

USA and ‘learning difficulties’ is a term commonly used in UK’s perspective and refer to

children with dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia (SEN 2014).

According to Section 139A Learning Difficulty Assessments Statutory Guidance (2013), the

definition of learning difficulty in a child of Special Education Needs (SEN) as, “have a

significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age” (SEN

2014).

In order to differentiate both terms in UK literature, Department of Health (DOH) (2001)

gave a working definition on ‘learning disability’ in its “White Paper on the health and social

care of people with learning disabilities”, as “‘Learning disability includes the presence of a

significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information, to learn new skills

(impaired intelligence), with; a reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social

3


functioning); which started before adulthood, with a lasting effect on development”.

Nevertheless, UK education literature has prescribed the term ‘learning difficulty’ as people

with specific difficulties in learning like dyslexia, not a physical or long term impairment

with no general deficiency in intelligence. In this context, Special Educational Needs (SEN)

codes (2014) states that “moderate learning difficulty, severe learning difficulty and profound

multiple learning difficulty all refer to generalised learning difficulty of varying severity”.

Therefore these generalised learning difficulties are not related with specific learning

difficulties to be addressed in this research and treated as a separate entity.

In practice, learning difficulties is used in the UK to discuss dyslexia, dysgraphia and in the

US, learning difficulties is used to discuss these issues. This concept is further elaborated by

Wong et al. (2011), reported that

“Children with specific learning difficulties exhibit a disorder in one or more of the basic

psychological processes involved in understanding or in using spoken or written languages;

these may be manifested in disorders of listening, thinking, talking, reading, writing, spelling

or arithmetic” (Wong et al., 2011, p. 8).

Hence, definitions clarify that in the UK, the term learning difficulties is used in a different

way than US. A broader category of students is included under the learning difficulties

banner. By contrast, children with learning difficulties do not experience any problems with

general intelligence (IQ) and are not be affected by either temporary or permanent intellectual

or emotional disorders (Dirks et al., 2008). Having no cognitive impairment, students with

learning difficulties can experience problems such as dyspraxia, dyslexia, dysgraphia and

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is reported by the Foundation for People

with Learninglearning difficulties UK (2014) that almost 10 per cent of all children are

affected by dyslexia to some degree. These findings indicate that learning difficulties are not

a rare phenomenon and teaching professionals would normally encounter it during their

career in establishments and institutions of basic education (Foundation for People with

learning difficulties UK 2014). The most critical question that can be asked with respect to

learning difficulties is whether primary school teachers are ready to support such students and

contribute to their learning capabilities (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2002).

At the same time, it should be noted that certain researchers in the field fail to differentiate

clearly between learning difficulties and learning difficuisabilities (Bender and Larkin, 2009).

Similarly, Susana (1995) presented the two terms as generic concepts and argued that they

were interchangeable. Moreover, this scholar categorised dyslexia and dysgraphia as learning

disabilities, not as learning difficulties (Susana, 1995; Wong et al., 2011). On the other hand,

4


classification of these two terms can be expressed in view of Lima, Salgado, & Ciasca,

(2009) as learning difficulties are normally caused by gaps in literacy, inadequate teaching

methods, excessive academic changes, or education issues due to various “neurological

problems, deficiencies or psychosocial factors” in children, whereas, learning difficulties are

the result of functional problems in the central nervous system (CNS), resulting in failure of

information processing related to reading, writing and arithmetic skills.

It was emphasised by Prior (1996) that specific learning difficulties (SpLD) are “problems in

learning that cannot be easily explained by lack of intellectual ability or by deficient

schooling” (Prior, 1996, p. 3). On the other hand, SpLD can be viewed as an attempt to

explain diverse responses to learning challenges and to rationalise a personalised approach to

teaching (Andersson and Lyxell, 2007). Learning difficulties are called ‘specific’, because the

performance of certain cognitive functions (e.g. reading and writing) is impaired and overall

learning quality is undermined (D’Amico and Guarnera, 2005). Interestingly, the

identification of SpLDs is consistent with the Strauss concept (Kaufman and Kaufman,

2001). This conceptual framework incorporates several psychological theories and argues

that the overall intellectual performance depends on separate intellectual abilities and

perceptual skills (Kaufman and Kaufman, 2001). In context of Oman, the researcher noted

that the concept of SpLD is a product of the Western world and schooling, designed to

identify objective difficulties in learning to help students of all levels to do well and achieve

academic progress, but not classified and implemented clearly in guidelines of the basic

education programs for children with special needs.

Therefore in Oman perspective, irrespective of the differences mentioned, learning

difficulties and learning and difficusabilities are treated similarly by establishments for basic

education ( The Ministry of Education, 2014). In view of the use of the term learning

difficulties, specifically in UK literature of education, the thesis will use this term “Specific

Learning Difficulties (SpLDs)” in future discussions to maintain compatibility with British

terminologies. According to Al-Ghafri (2009), in Oman, the term ‘Learning Difficulties’

(LDs) is used to refer to “students who have difficulties in particular tasks such as reading,

writing and math, but are assumed to be of average or above average ability overall and

capable of coping with the mainstream curriculum with support”. Al- Ghafri (2009: 171)

further asserted that ‘ The main aims of the LDs Programme in Oman are to provide support

for students who cannot cope with normal school requirements; to provide early diagnosis

and intervention for students with LDs; and to raise awareness of the importance of helping

students with LDs across the community’ (p. 171). Hence, for this study, the above discussed

5


standardized definitions of learning difficulties by SEN (2014) and Wong et al (2011) will be

used in context of Oman.

2.2.1 Types of Learning Difficulties:

This subsection of the literature review discusses the main characteristics of children with

learning difficulties and defines the basic symptoms of dyslexia and dysgraphia. The above-

mentioned learning difficulties are compared in terms of characteristics, symptoms, treatment

methods and areas of difficulty. It should be emphasised that learning difficulties are not

limited to dyslexia and dysgraphia, however the focus of this literature review is restricted to

reading and writing difficulties in the first cycle of the basic education so that they are given

primary attention in the following subsections.

As learning difficulties affect various aspects of reading, writing, and numerical abilities, it is

valid to identify several types of learning difficulties related to information processing. Lyon

(1996) suggests classifying the basic learning difficulty types according to specific stages of

processing information flows. This approach permits identifying learning difficulties related

to information input, integration, information storage and information output (Lyon, 1996).

The second information-related process singled out by Guay et al. (2010) is integration.

Indeed, individual difficulty to categorise symbols and meanings, interpret them objectively,

arrange them in a certain sequence and establish logical links with previous learning which is

explained by specific learning difficulty (Jitendra et al., 2002).

As argued by Jordan et al. (2003), difficulties with short-term memory and visual memory are

also associated with learning difficulties. Memory dysfunction is related to the storage phase

of information processing previously identified by Guay et al. (2010). To be more specific,

language output, gestures, drawing and muscle activity are viewed as the main output

activities, and children with learning difficulties do not seem to perform these actions well

(Prior 1996). For instance, satisfactory language can be challenged by inadequate

organisation of thoughts, fragmentary speech patterns and inability to match questions and

suitable response (Odom et al 2013). This approach to the identification of the core learning

difficulties on the basis of information processing stages seems to be reasonable and justified,

because learning difficulties can be classified in terms of their functional and process-based

significance Therefore, Learning Difficulties affect the way information is learned and

processed. Further, these difficulties resulted by neurological (rather than psychological)

processes, usually inherited and occur separately from intelligence. They include Dyslexia,

Dyspraxia or Development Co-ordination Disorder, Dyscalculia, and Attention Deficit

6


Disorder (Guay et al., 2010; Fuchs and Fuchs, 2002). This classification does not reflect that

learning activities are affected by learning difficulty. The point is that primary school

teachers may fail to recognise the succession and successfulness of information-related

processes for each student; however, they always need to diagnose learning difficulties on the

basis of classroom activities (Jitendra et al., 2002).

2.2.1.1 Reading Difficulties (Dyslexia)

The term dyslexia is set in everyday language and has gradually gained acceptance as

compared to term ‘specific learning difficulties’, and included in key policy documents

(Department of Education and SkillsSEN, 2014). A working definition of dyslexia by British

Psychological Society (1999) is given as:

‘Dyslexia is evident when accurate and fluent word reading and/or spelling develops very

incompletely or with great difficulty. This focuses on literacy learning at the ‘word level’ and

implies that the problem is severe and persistent despite appropriate learning opportunities. It

provides the basis of a staged process of assessment through teaching.’

The British Dyslexia Association (2005) defines dyslexia as:

‘Dyslexia is best described as a combination of abilities and difficulties that affect the

learning process in one or more of reading, spelling or writing. Accompanying weaknesses

may be identified in areas of speed of processing, short-term memory, sequencing and

organization, auditory and/or visual perception, spoken language and motor skills. It is

particularly related to mastering and using written language, which may include alphabetic,

numeric and musical notation.’

According to the Rose review (2009b), an independent report to identify and teach children

with learning difficulties and Dyslexia, the operational definition of dyslexia is:

“Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and

fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in

phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed. Dyslexia occurs across

the range of intellectual abilities. It is best thought of as a continuum, not a distinct category,

and there are no clear cut-off points. Co-occurring difficulties may be seen in aspects of

language, motor co-ordination, intellectual calculation, concentration and personal

organization, but these are not, by themselves, markers of dyslexia. A good indication of the

7


severity and persistence of dyslexic difficulties can be gained by examining how the

individual responds or has responded to well-founded intervention” (p.10).In view of the above-presented commonly accepted categorisation, dyslexia is diagnosed

when students experience difficulties with the interpretation of written material, reading and

decoding of written symbols (Brunswick, et al 2010; Rose, 2009:a; Pavey 2013). These

problems incorporate both reading and spelling skills of an individual student. Another

characteristic of dyslexia is that the original meaning of a word or utterance can be altered

because of incorrect decoding and invalid interpretation (Brunswick, et al 2010). It was

explained by Handler (2011) that dyslexia can be diagnosed and recognised using criteria

such as slow reading, mispronunciation of language sounds, difficulties with decoding, use of

wrong letters and poor recognition of familiar words. Andersson and Lyxell (2007) added

that the basic reading rules are violated in the case of dyslexia. Riddick (2009) asserted that

students may fail both to organise syllables within one word correctly and to form syllables

from several sounds.

As argued by Desoete et al. (2004), almost 25 per cent of all students with dyslexia have

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This implies that some individuals may lose

patience and concentration while perceiving and interpreting written symbols (i.e. reading)

(Snowling. 2013: Reid 2009). Dyslexia can have mild and severe forms depending on

individual symptoms and the degree to which students experience reading difficulties

(Desoete et al., 2004).

2.2.1.2 Writing Difficulties (Dysgraphia)

Dysgraphia can be defined as “severe impairment in transcription skills, which include

handwriting, spelling and keyboarding” (Prifitera et al., 2008, p. 76). Even though dysgraphia

is categorised in this definition as perceptual and output impairment, this learning difficulty

has nothing in common with feeblemindedness or cognitive dysfunction. Interestingly, it is

observed by researchers that “although children with severe reading impairment are typically

impaired in spelling as well, some children may read reasonably well and still be impaired in

spelling; reading impairment with spared spelling is rare but does occur” (Prifitera et al.,

2008, p. 76). These observations argue that a connection between dyslexia and dysgraphia is

not inevitable for all primary school students. The contribution of Prevatt and Hyles’ (2012)

research lies in the fact that they identify several types of dysgraphia, namely dyslexic

dysgraphia, motor dysgraphia and spatial dysgraphia. Dyslexic dysgraphia means poor

8


handwriting and bad spelling. Motor dysgraphia is the term to describe motor clumsiness and

students’ inability to draw graphical symbols accurately (Prevatt and Hyles, 2012). Finally,

spatial dysgraphia is inadequate perception of space while writing and graphically

representing words and utterances. It is reasonable to argue that all types of dysgraphia are

relevant to this subsection of the literature review. Motor skills and letter-choice skills are

equally important for adequate writing and graphical representation of individual thoughts

(Smits-Engelsmanbc and Van Galen, 1997).

In accordance with Mather, (2003) dysgraphia is diagnosed when students’ handwriting is

difficult to interpret and understand. Other important symptoms of dysgraphia are an

awkward grip of a pencil or pen, lack of concentration while writing and problems associated

with the transformation of thoughts into written text (Matherds 2003). Furthermore,

Golubovic and Milutinovic (2012: 409) illustrated dysgraphia as “one of the learning

disorders involved problems with handwriting”. According to this research, handwriting is a

multifaceted, over learned mechanical skill in which ‘biomechanical and cognitive processes’

contribute to the "spatial form and the kinematic features of the handwritten product.” In

view of the research of Kushki et al (2011), “Handwriting difficulties or dysgraphia have a

profound impact on children's psychosocial development, and yet, 10–30% of school-aged

children are reported to experience difficulties mastering this skill” (P. 1063). It occurs

regardless of the ability to read and is not due to intellectual impairments (Berninger and

Wolf 2009).

Therefore, in present research, these indicators and impacts of dyslexia and dysgraphia both

will be used to identify the role on interventions in improving the learning difficulties of

primary school children in Oman

2.2.6 Relationship between writing and reading in learning language

It is argued by White (2013) in a study in kindergarten and first grade schools in US that

reading and writing are traditionally taught separately. Although the two are usually taught by

the same teacher, explicit connections are rarely made by educators between reading and

writing when learning language in primary school (White, 2013). However, over the past few

years, research has demonstrated that the cognitive functions underpinning reading and

writing are interdependent; as Brizee et al. (2012) notes, writing cannot exist without reading

and vice versa. Researchers maintain that a child’s literacy development is dependent on the

relationship between reading and writing, and a number of scholars contribute towards the

9


debate on the relationship between dyslexia and dysgraphia by aiming at individuals’

engagement in tasks (Tierney, 1985; Webster and Ammon, 1994).

Another important contributor is the ‘quality of teacher–child relationship’, which is not

researched by many researchers as an important factor in children’s early success in writing.

In this regard, White (2013: 167) noted the interactive nature of both processes as they occur

in resource rooms. According to this research, “Close teacher–child relationship” is important

for children learning to write, given the complex and personal nature of writing. This study of

White (2013) examined associations between quality of the teacher–child relationship

(defined as teachers’ perceptions of closeness and conflict and children’s feelings about

teachers) and children’s writing quality in kindergarten and first grade. Children’s receptive

language was also investigated as a moderator of these associations. Results indicated

teacher–child conflict in terms of teacher’s perception and children’s feeling about teachers

was significantly associated with children’s writing quality, after accounting for grade level,

initial reading status, and type of instruction.

According to Garcia-Sanchez and Caso-Fuertes (2005), writing skills can be developed more

effectively when intertwined with the development of a child’s reading abilities. They

conducted an empirical research among children in the first stage, hypothesising that when

children read extensively they become better writers (Garcia-Sanchez and Caso-Fuertes,

2005). In addition, Jefferies et al. (2007) claim that reading a wide range of genres allows

children to learn structures and language, and to use this knowledge in their own writing.

However, it should be critically remarked that, in primary school, a major portion of new

information comes not only from the texts that children read but also from pictures and

images shown to them by teachers (Webster and Ammon, 1994). Hence, the link between

writing and reading established by Jefferies et al. (2007) is not explicit as most children have

not started independent reading in early classes and are dependent on the information

transferred from the teacher and parents through reading of books and material. On the other

hand the association of these children with interpretation of pictures and illustrations is strong

and expressions are mostly based on the comprehension from the visuals rather than from the

text (Jefferies et al. (2007). However, further research is required in order to investigate the

interdependence of writing from reading, and vice versa.

A relevant investigation of the relationship between writing performance and reading ability

of 64 children aged between 8 and 11 years was carried out by Williams and Larkin (2013).

This study examined the connection between measures of reading and writing, and examined

whether cognitive measures identified with reading capabilities were likewise connected with

10


writing capabilities of children in mid-schools. Reading fluency is found as having a strong

relationship with performance in written language, after controlling for age and verbal

reasoning. On the other hand, children suffering with reading difficulties were found weak at

spelling accuracy but they can produce written texts of comparable quality to normal readers.

Collectively the results highlighted the need for advance research on the relationship of

reading ease and writing in early education. These findings are consistent with Tierney

(1985), who claimed that the development of writing skills allow children with learning

difficulties to analyse the pieces they read. One of the major limitations of the study

conducted by Garcia-Sanchez and Caso-Fuertes (2005) lies in the fact that the researchers

attempted to examine the relationship between the two cognitive functions using a sample

group of children who experienced no learning difficulties. Indeed, as it was concluded by

Tierney (1985), students with learning difficulties may demonstrate considerable writing

skills, but at the same time, experience difficulties in reading. This was overcome by Jefferies

et al. (2007), who investigated the link between writing and reading during language classes

for children with learning difficulties related to information input (Jefferies et al., 2007). It

was reported by Oishi et al (1985) that the practice of writing helps individuals with

difficulties, builds their reading skills, phonics skills (the ability to link sounds) and

phonemic awareness (the understanding that any word is developed from vowel and

consonant sounds). Interestingly, Jefferies et al (2007) found that with students with

perceptual difficulties, reading does not lead to a development of writing skills during

language learning. These outcomes can be explained by the fact that there are numerous

causes for learning difficulties that have not yet been properly studied (Webster and Ammon,

1994). Nonetheless, the investigation of Jefferies et al. (2007) is managed to establish a

relationship between reading and writing with respect to children with learning difficulties in

the first stage of education.

Interestingly, Williams and Larkin (2013) managed to differentiate the interrelation of the

cognitive functions and perceptual abilities in boys and girls. Their results were that boys

with reading difficulties produced less written text than girls, although they did not

demonstrate weaker written language skills (Williams and Larkin, 2013; Jefferies et al.,

2007). Despite the fact that Williams and Larkin (2013) managed to link writing and reading,

their study is limited as they failed to reveal whether reading becomes a predictor of written

language learning as children with difficulties develop (Webster and Ammon, 1994).

Prifitera et al. (2008) arrived at alternative conclusions regarding the relationship between

writing and reading skills of children with learning difficulties. Whilst researchers argue that

11


children with reading impairment are more likely to be impaired in spelling (Webster and

Ammon, 1994), although some students may read well yet experience problems and

difficulties with spelling, no relationship between reading difficulties and writing difficulties

was established by Prifitera et al. (2008). This is inconsistent with Williams and Larkin

(2013) since, unlike Prifitera et al. (2008), Rapcsak et al. (2005) find that the spelling of

children with learning difficulties is strongly influenced by writing. The most severe

limitation of Prifitera’s et al. (2008) study is that the researchers were unable to ensure that

all research participants received testing using the same content, since secondary data was

used to establish the link between students’ writing and reading difficulties in language

learning (Webster and Ammon, 1994; Jefferies et al., 2007).

Therefore, the analysis of reading difficulties is well connected with the performance in

writing abilities for the current research on the bases of the results of the above discussed

studies. Consequently, the unavailability of the studies in Oman context create challenges to

design the testing techniques for children included in this research. The connections between

dyslexia and dysgraphia found in these studies are not measured in specific terms and only a

strong relationship is discovered. Hence, both reading and writing difficulties need to be

tested to draw a conclusion about the influence of teaching techniques and surroundings on

the academic performance of children with learning difficulties.

2.2.7 Relationship between writing and reading in Oman in context of

Arabic Diglossia

“Diglossia basically means "bi-lingualness" and is the word used to describe the state of

affairs where two different forms of speech live side by side and are used in different

contexts. Diglossia is only one of the problems which the student of Arabic will encounter”

(Francis 1985). One must consider all of this in conjunction with how children in Oman’s

primary schools usually learn languages to understand fully how learning difficulties affect

the children’s ability to read and write. Children of primary school age must learn Arabic, a

language with some distinctive features such as the occurrence of diglossia (Al-Batal, 1992;

Haeri, 2000). The diglossia is derived from two types of language that come together to form

Arabic. One type is the primary dialect spoken in Oman, learned by speaking, whereas the

other is learned in formal education. The latter is utilised mainly for written or formal spoken

purposes, not ordinary conversation (Ferguson, 1959) and the extent to which it is taught may

12


vary from country to country or between localities. It is important to acknowledge the

existence of diglossia in understanding why children may have difficulty in learning Arabic.

It should be borne in mind that the spoken language of children before attending school is

different from the formal language taught at school and this has a negative effect on

children's ability. Since the oral language is not part of what children are taught, children with

learning difficulties will face significant learning problems. These can be attributed to the fact

that oral skills are needed to enable children to develop their ability to understand formal

Arabic; consequently their reading or writing skills will be impeded in a classroom setting

(Abbott and Berninger, 1993; Berninger et al., 1994).

Today there is little empirical evidence for how the Arabic diglossia issue and education are

used in different areas and how they affect primary school children with learning difficulties

(Haeri, 2000). Existing research in this area has focused upon how early exposure to Arabic

texts, as used in educational settings, has affected the ability to read (Abu-Rabia, Share and

Mansour, 2003; Eviatar and Ibrahim, 2000; Feitelson, Goldstein, Iraqi, and Share, 1993),

while other studies have sought to discuss how the development of children and those with

learning difficulties has been affected by the use of these formal Arabic texts in educational

settings (Abu-Rabia, Share and Mansour, 2003; Saiegh-Haddad, 2003). Thus, there are only a

few studies on how those with learning difficulties may be affected by the Arabic diglossia

issue.

In summary, one considers how learning difficulties affect primary school children’s ability

to read and write. Some researchers state that as a child’s ability to speak a language

increases it is closely related to their ability to write (Scott, 1999; Shanahan, 2006). However,

this will affect their ability to read, as there is high covariance demonstrated between oral

language skills and a child’s ability to read (Abbott and Berninger, 1993). This means

children find it difficult to develop their reading and writing skills if they are unable to speak

(Abbott and Berninger, 1993; Berninger, Mizokawa, Bragg, Cartwright, and Yates, 1993). It

became clear that, in primary school settings, oral and written development is closely related

to a child’s ability to read or write (Hidi and Hilyard, 1984; Shanahan, 2006). However, the

exact causal relationships between the development of oral, written and reading skills in

relation to different levels of impairment are not yet fully understood. Indeed, Naucler and

Magnusson (2002) have found that, even when these early oral skills are addressed, children

still experience written language problems.

13


2.3 Teaching strategies for Students with Learning

Difficulties

2.3.1 Successful Strategies for problem recognition and difficulty

identification

There has been very little investigation into how primary school children with learning

difficulties are taught by using differing teaching strategies, educational interventions or how

teacher’s knowledge and attitudes affect their reading and writing abilities in Oman.

Therefore, there is a research gap that requires further investigation. In part, this may be

addressed by this study, discussing whether or not the use of learning difficulties classrooms

(resource rooms) can be an alternative form of support for primary school students with

reading and writing difficulties in Oman. However, this would only go part of the way to

understanding how those in Oman with learning difficulties are affected when trying to learn

reading or writing in bi-languages. The next section is based on the discussion on approaches

used in schools for students with learning difficulties to evaluate the major elements affecting

the success of these approaches.

The identification and recognition of problems associated with students facing learning

difficulties are discussed by Kakabaraee et al. (2012). The researchers explored the Middle

Eastern context, research findings are consistent with the present literature review on the first

cycle of basic education in the Sultanate of Oman. This study attempted to investigate the

awareness of teachers in identifying children with learning difficulties. In this descriptive

research, data analyzed with t-test, results showed that more than 50 percent of the teachers

have appropriate knowledge of learning difficulty. Also, more than 90 percent of teachers had

no acceptable ability in identifying students with learning disorders. There are significant

differences found according to variation in gender and level of teaching with respect to the

teachers’ knowledge of the learning difficulties.

Similarly, Kakabaraee et al. (2012) examined teaching strategies in primary schools of

Karmanshah Province, Oman and concluded that the first step is identifying pupils with

learning difficulties that may require academic help and special attention from primary school

teachers. According to Kakabaraee et al. (2012):

“the prevalence of learning difficulties in different regions of the world is estimated

from 3 to 12 per cent and teachers, who have classes of 20 to 25 students in each, may have at

least one, two or more students with learning difficulties” (p. 2615).

14


However, Andbil, (2007) argued that most teaching professionals’ attempt to recognise and

diagnose learning difficulties by relying on their intuition rather than objective and

standardized diagnostic tools. For this reason, Kakabaraee et al. (2012) insist that primary

school teachers should use unified and specialised questionnaires, test materials and other

objective tools to identify those with learning difficulties. On the other hand, academic

performance of these identified students with learning difficulties through the objective tools,

cannot serve as a universal indicator because attention should be given to how information is

processed and tasks are performed by students (Gersten et al., 2005). Therefore, the

identification and assessment of problems associated with children facing learning difficulties

are important for current study as it will help to evaluate the effectiveness of the resource

rooms in context of Oman.

2.3.2 Successful Strategies for Teaching Primary School Students with

Learning Difficulties

Besides problem recognition and difficulty identification, there are many practical strategies

that should be applied by primary school teachers. The discussed strategies are aimed at the

development of reading and writing skills, since this research project addresses

predominantly these areas of learning difficulties.

Williams et al., (2006) asserted that provision of reading lists and learning materials to all

students at the beginning of each term is important. This strategy will allow ‘slow’ learners to

find the curricular material in advance and prepare it with parents to make better progress in

class. Also, Whiteley and Smith, (2001) proposed in their study that the recorded material

should be provided to students who experience problems with reading and decoding printed

text. As a result, students with special learning needs will be able to integrate their listening

skills and reading skills.

In another study, Valdois et al (2004) discussed the frequent reviews and summaries of what

was done during previous classes. The application of this strategy can activate students’

memory and render it easier for them to perceive new material. Reading and writing activities

can be supported by previous experience and knowledge. In this regard, advance explanation

of complex terminology and unknown words can provide a review of difficult terms ahead of

the class. Reading and interpretation difficulties can be avoided if new words are introduced

by primary school teachers (Stein and Talcott, 1999). In order to support the understanding

of given text to students with learning difficulties, Smith-Spark and Fisk, (2007) suggested

15


highlighting the main ideas and content of each lesson on the board or in an interactive

presentation.

On the other hand, elimination of audio and visual distractions in the external environment of

the classroom affected the level of distraction in the classroom. Learning information cannot

be perceived and ‘digested’ effectively when students are disturbed by various factors coming

from the external environment (Valdois et al., 2004). For example, some students with poor

attention concentration are distracted when windows are open in the classroom (Bashir and

Scavuzzo, 1992). This idea seems to be less workable due to isolation and detachment of the

students from the environment. Though distracted from the surroundings, but these

surroundings can be used in the classroom lectures to utilize the available visual aids to

understand elements in these surroundings, their names, and use in language. According to

Williams et al (2006), use of ICT tools are effective to create learning environment in the

class for students with special needs as these visual aids attract the students’ attention and

increase their understanding levels. In another study of Al-Yaari (2013) in Saudi Arabia, the

idea of using audio-visual aids was supported by the findings and proposed that these aids are generally important in teaching language productive skills and particularly in speaking skill for students with learning difficulties.

Furthermore, teachers who work with children with learning difficulties need to maintain a

balance of oral and written practices. Otherwise, reading and writing skills will be isolated

from each other, and students will lose connection between these interrelated activities

(Gersten et al., 2005). On the other hand, Thomson (2003) and Townsend Townend & Turner

(2000) argue that dyslexia and dysgraphia are not necessarily connected to each other, and a

reading deficiency can be independent of the children performance in writing. In contrast,

Graham and Hebert, (2010) supported Gersten et al., (2005) research that success in writing

enhances pupils’ reading skills because similar competences are transferred from one

important area of learning to the other. Therefore, more researches identified connections

between dyslexia and dysgraphia and the learning deficiency should be identified in both

areas of writing and reading in order to devise appropriate teaching techniques for these

deficiencies.

When students with learning difficulties have visual material and support, their reading and

writing skills benefit from multi-channel communication. In study Al- Yaari, (2013), it was

observed that information is perceived and shared by students in the learning environment

more easily with the support of visual aids. When more channels (e.g. visual, audio and

tactile) are employed by learning strategies, students with special needs have a better chance

16


of overcoming their learning difficulties. Al-Yaari (2013) study of students between 8 and 18

years in schools of Saudi Arabia also supports the idea that “using audio-visual aids and

computer assisted language instruction (CALI) to the students with learning difficulties are

important in teaching language productive skills in general and speaking skill in particular” (p.

231). Similarly, utilisation of visual and graphical means of data presentation can affect the

comprehension of students with learning difficulties positively. Successful and effective

primary school teachers are expected to use schemes, diagrams, and illustrations with colour

presentations to attract students’ attention and stimulate their perceptual skills (Andersson,

2010; Stein and Talcott, 1999). In context of current study, these strategies need to be

observed in schools of Oman selected for the study. Applications of videos, presentations,

illustrations, and graphical presentation of data are some important parameters to be used in

current study.

This section of the literature review has already emphasised the importance of visual images

and pictures for teaching students with learning difficulties. These findings are supported by

Bender and Larkin (2009), who examined the role of picture-based learning in their research.

They argue that “the use of pictures can result in enhancing the memory of students with

learning difficulties, because different brain areas are involved; picture-based learning

involves the visual cortex more than merely reading, and the spatial areas in the right

hemisphere of the brain are more involved also” (Bender and Larkin, 2009, p. 137).

Teachers who are attentive to the personality of pupils are thus able to recognise their

learning difficulties at an early stage. This timely identification of special learning needs

allows teachers to spend more time and effort on particular students with difficulties in

reading and writing (Smith-Spark and Fisk, 2007). Nevertheless, it can be critically remarked

that intuitive and self-motivated participation of teachers is not enough for the successful

management of learning difficulties (Van den Berg et al 2001); in addition, there should be

the use of support programs from school management and special education regulatory

authorities. For example, educational authorities should provide primary schools with

specialised equipment (e.g. visual learning, IT-based technology and specialised textbooks)

in order to construct an effective educational setting for students with special needs (Cook,

2004). Another practical recommendation is for electronic databases, of great use in

cataloguing all students with learning difficulties and arranging specialised learning material

for them. It is also valid to argue that teachers’ creativity and commitment contributes to the

creation of convenient and comfortable educational settings for students with learning and

academic difficulties (Smith-Spark and Fisk, 2007).

17


These findings indicate that the overall success of primary school teachers is determined by

the degree to which they employ different methods to induce learning and information

sharing. Skilful teachers may deploy alternative and supportive channels in order to stimulate

individual reading and writing skills (Smith-Spark and Fisk, 2007). However, these presented

strategies of teaching children with reading and writing difficulties should be applied by

experienced teachers according the context of teaching. Some practices are compatible with

learning in groups when children with special needs are included in the classroom and are

able to interact with other pupils in the course of learning, for example: highlighting the main

ideas; lesson summaries; and visual means of data presentation.

2.4 Concepts of mainstreaming, integration and inclusion

The concepts of mainstreaming, integration and inclusion are terms used to describe

approaches to teaching and learning that are grounded in strong (and distinctive) concepts

about learning and social inclusion more broadly (Wong et al 2011). Given that these

approaches for teaching disabled students are often viewed as alternatives to resource rooms

(Zoellner et al., 2008), greater emphasis should be placed on the differences between

mainstreaming, integration and inclusion.

2.4.1 Inclusion

Defining the concept of inclusion, Kugelmass (2004) noted that “rather than focusing only on

the education of children with difficulties and others with special educational needs, inclusive

education is understood as a philosophy supporting and celebrating diversity in its broadest

sense” (p. 3). In other words, inclusion implies that disabled children are not isolated in

special groups from non-disabled students. This approach to education was approved by

UNESCO because it reflects universal educational and human values, where it is declared

that all students should be provided equal educational opportunities (Bender, 2008).

Furthermore, the United Nation (UN) endorsed Salamanca statement (1994) with the

commitment for students with special needs through its call to international community to

sanction the approach of inclusive schooling and to provision the development of special

needs education as an essential part of all education platforms. This statement also called the

endorsement of UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank for the implementation of

this commitment in member nations of UN ( UN Salamanca Statement 2013).

18


In view of the described basic concept of inclusion, a proper defi9nition which is used for the

current study is given by Sebba and Ainscow (1996, p.9) as,

“Inclusion describes the process by which a school attempts to respond to all pupils as

individuals by reconsidering its curricular organization and provision. Through this process,

the school builds its capacity to accept all pupils from the local community who wish to

attend and, in so doing, reduces the need to exclude pupils”.

The concept of inclusion is highly consistent with the socio-cultural perspective that argues

that all educational initiatives should be integrated in rich social and cultural context (Kraker,

2000). Inclusion is associated with the highest degree of students’ involvement in social

processes and maximum time spent with peers (Conrad and Whitaker, 1997). Similarly, Antia

et al. (2002) argues that inclusion signifies a student with a learning difficulty completely

belonging to and having full participation of a regular class in a regular school and its

community. In another study, Pirrie et al (2006) compared inclusion with integration and

mainstreaming, indicated that the special needs student was treated like a visitor with

provisional admission to a regular classroom, but primary affiliation of a special class or

resource room. Nevertheless, the definition provided by Hick et al. (2009) illustrates a certain

difference:

“the placement of pupils with difficulties or special needs in mainstream schools; there were

of course different degree of integration, from full-time placement of a child with difficulties

in a mainstream class in his/her local school, to the placement of a pupil in a special class or

unit attached to a mainstream school” (Hick et al., 2009, p. 2).

Therefore,

Ainscow (1996) has elaborated the concept of inclusive education as a process of responding

all students as individuals in schools and their curriculum is designed and reviewed according

to their individual needs. In another perspective, Thomas (1997) asserted that inclusive

education considers giving normal school experiences for the children with special needs in

the same classrooms with children having no special needs. This concept is different from

integration as it includes mainstreaming of children with learning difficulty in regular class

settings rather than adopting special arrangements for these social children in separate

settings. Ainscow (2000) emphasized that in inclusion, all children need to participate in all

school activities and events irrespective of their individual and specific needs. In this respect,

the Index of Inclusion, by Ainscow (1996) adopted the term inclusion instead of integration.

This index has been proved useful in many respects, including attempts to use best available

literature in school development areas and especially for process of inclusive schools in order

19


to design and review effective school practices (Ainscow 1996). Therefore, inclusion is about

all features of the school being anticipatory and proactive; it is about management practices,

the ethos of the school, and teachers’ attitudes as much as it is about teaching practices.

Consequently, Thomas and Loxley (2001) suggested that inclusion does not assign limits

around specific assumed difficulty. This means that regardless of the origin of the difficulty, a

child can be valued equally, respected in the same manner as students without difficulty, in

order to be given opportunities at school. Further, Stainback and Stainback (1992) supported

that the use of inclusion may mean the elimination of ‘special education’, where the

distinction between students by labelling or placing them into either ‘special education’ or

‘general education’ will no longer occur.

Inclusive education also faced arguments such as it claims to be based on human rights and

equality but it rather seems to be based on policy requirements (Lipsky & Gartner 1996) .

Thus, inclusion is based on the moral principles that value and respects diversity as a

universal learning resource. For instance, Skrtic et al. (1996) provide the argument that

inclusive education should go beyond the physical placement of children with learning

difficulties in normal school setting but the schools need to provide inclusive environments

for all students without any prejudice. Skrtic et al. (1996) also argued that the designing of

school programs for students with learning difficulties, the core element should be the social

context rather than addressing the ‘individual impairments’.

Another argument raised by Lipsky and Gartner (1996) was related to the introduction of

homogeneous or similar education system to impart quality education for every student

regardless of individual difficulties. On the other hand, in absence of clear lines of

demarcation between the nature of student without and with learning impairments, the

categorisation of students cannot be justified and separate provisions for these students are

not favoured as was supposed in case of integration programs originally introduced (Lipsky

and Gartner 1999). Further, Lindsay (2003) has declared that “UNESCO’s Salamanca

Statement (1994)” is based on many counteracting points like uniqueness of individual

learners but no criteria is set for the differentiation of the characteristics of individual

students, the absence of a clear definition of a regular school, and the imbalance of the

prevalence of social model in place of the medical model.

As a critical view point, Hegarty (2001: 249) claimed the distortion of education values as he

contemplated if inclusion may even comprehended and suggests neglect of ‘easy sloganizing’

of inclusion in view of the overemphasis on the importance and application of inclusion in

regular schools. Hegarty (2001) understands inclusion as an adaptable code that in several

20


perspectives may be against “hierarchy of values in education” (246). Hence, Hegarty

(2001) observes inclusion to be of secondary value, with more importance given to education

being the main goal for the student’s development equipping them with knowledge necessary

to lead an adult life and there may be confusion if inclusion is highlighted more than

education itself.

2.4.2 Inclusion and models of learning difficulty

The models of learning difficulty are conceptual frameworks for understanding difficulty,

which can provide some insight into why certain attitudes exist and how they are reinforced

in society. The two chief models are the medical model and the social model. Briefly, the

medical model understands difficulty as a medical drawback, a shortcoming, lying inside the

individual. This model is the root of most negative attitudes held towards people with

difficulties; they are seen as defective and dependent, in need of cure or rehabilitation

(Midgley and Livermore 2009). The social model however, having emerged from the disability

rights movement originating since 1970s, sees difficulty as stemming from societal and

environmental obstacles. Individuals with difficulties are not perceived as defective, but

rather as appreciated as “normal” members of society.

Another similar mode is the diversity model that considers individuals with such difficulties

as a faction of the society. Both these models observe individuals with difficulties with a

positive perspective giving a compassionate approach and projection of such individuals

withdifficulties (Midgley and Livermore 2009). The social and diversity models lend to much

more positive and humanistic portrayals of people with difficulties; unfortunately the medical

model is still quite prominent in many aspects of life, ranging from language and the media to

education and To understand how particular attitudes are carried and in what manner the

society reinforces these attitudes, learning difficulty models that are conceptual frameworks

are used. According to Peter (2003), the medical model and the social mode are the two main

models to understand special needs in adults and children. The medical models treat the

difficulty as a problem or imperfection that exists within an individual. This model is the

source of most adverse attitudes and perceptions that societies have for learning difficulties.

Individuals with such problems are perceived as defects and the individuals are considered as

dependent needing treatment and rehabilitation (Midgley and Michelle 2009).

However, the medical model is more common approach in different facets of life, spanning

from education, technological advancements, media portrayal and language (Peter 2003). In

comparison, the medical model projects individuals with difficulties and abnormalities,

21


dependency and lesser individuals of society as compared to the assumptions of social model

based on rights and social views of special education needs. It is essential to be aware of the

negative approaches and how these are reinforced by the society. Adaptation of models like

social and diversity models may be a resolution to such societal issues. With these models

one may be able to elevate the perceptions about these individuals and enable them to being

accepted as important members of the society.

On the other hand, Lindsay (2003) explains that the viewpoint of inclusive education seems

to be changing dynamically in the current century, and supports that segregating students

with special needs from the normal classes may be depriving them of basic human right of

socialization in diverse environment. Further, Lindsay (2003), asserted that UNESCO’s

Salamanca Statement (1994) comprised of several aspects that were debatable including

overstressing of the unique aspects of every learner, absence of a precise characterization of

what a regular school was, and a discrepancy of giving importance to the social model when

compared with the medical model. On the other hand, give preference to social model over

the medical and diversity models makes it only an issue of rights, while its effectiveness and

outcomes require the consideration of medical and diversity point of views also. Hence, a

right balance between these models and having knowledge of how these models interrelate

with one another can help to apply the techniques like inclusion in special education.

2.4.3 Integration

As far as integration is concerned, traditionally this term is used as a former version of

inclusion and prevalent in US literature as compared to the inclusion in UK literature of

education in later years (Ainscow 1999). Mainly, the definition of integration given by

Winzer, Rogow, and David, (1987: 21) is that integration is the “instruction of children with

learning, behavioural, physical, or other problems in regular classrooms”. Integration

basically related to educating children with special needs in mainstream schools. In order to

estimate the real life application of this concept, Cambra and Silvestre (2003) evaluated the

level of social assimilation of SEN students within the school, and investigated the

association among social integration and the students' self-concept in contrast with the other

students with no special needs. The study sample comprised of 97 students with special

needs assimilated in a public school in Catalonia (Spain). The outcome signified that these

special needs students carry optimistic self-concept even though it is prominently lower than

their fellow students with no learning difficulty. The study also mentioned the integration

22


between peer group perspectives and development of individual self-concept within the

special needs students.

Integration gained relative importance in the debate of providing more facilities to students

with learning difficulties (Skrtic et al. 1996). Therefore, until the end of 1980s, integration

was the more common model for educating children with special educational needs, but since

1990s, inclusion has dominated the field with the broader perspectives of treating social

needs of children in holistic environments (Ainsow 1999, Thomson et al 1997).

2.4.4 Mainstreaming

In accordance with Meyer and Poon (2001), integration and mainstreaming usually indicate

temporary placement of students with learning difficulties in the usual primary school class,

while most time is spent in separate classrooms. From this point of view, mainstreaming can

be defined as a “transitional stage between full inclusion and resource rooms” (Zoellner et

al., 2008). The balance between isolated education and learning in groups is determined by

personal readiness on the part of a disabled student and the necessity to develop his or her

social skills (Smith-Spark and Fisk, 2007). On the other hand, Pirrie, et al (2006; p. 12)

argued that “that integration may be seen as politically neutral and a form of service delivery

while inclusion has a strong ideological element”. Whereas the term “mainstreaming” is

popularly used in US literature, “inclusion” is the term of choice internationally (Lindsay

2003).

Buckley, (2006) compared the performance of ‘adolescents with Down syndrome’ with the

students having same level of abilities that were a part of mainstream education or studied in

special schools. The findings of this study concluded no practical difference of performance

of the students with special needs in both mainstream and special education schools’

settings, on the other hand, the children who were studying in mainstream schools in their

local neighbourhood have shown better average performance in language and academic

effectiveness. The mainstream education is also argued by many scholars like Fuchs and

Fuchs (1994) in view of the fact that incorporation of students with difficulties in mainstream

would increase the challenges for these schools, which already faced difficulties due to

existing diversity of regular students. At the same time, there are specific forms of

mainstreaming, when students with learning difficulties are fully integrated in common

classroom (Kugelmass, 2004). This kind of mainstreaming is identical to the inclusion that

was discussed and defined earlier.

23


2.4.4.1 Mainstreaming students with learning difficulties in

primary schools

Compared to inclusion, mainstreaming offers more freedom to teachers and students with

learning difficulties since they can switch between the different modes of individual and

collective learning (Marcon, 1999). From this point of view, the main advantage is that

unsuccessful social experience can be avoided if something goes wrong (Ainscow 1999). It

should be admitted that students with learning difficulties benefit from one-to-one

cooperation and interaction with the teacher (Bender, 2008). Therefore, forms of individual

and isolated work should be applied jointly with social inclusion (Ainscow 2000). According

to Valdois et al., (2004), mainstreaming allows a reasonable balance between different forms

of work to be maintained and to integrate the most important tasks and conditions for

students with learning difficulties. Students with SpLDs and difficulties usually benefit from

mainstreaming because they are placed in a more competitive environment from time to time

where they can see the positive example of other students (Thomson 2003). Hence, these

researches account for the mainstreaming as an important tool to address the special needs of

children with learning deficiencies. The evaluation of practices involved in mainstreaming is

not the major aim of this research; therefore, a detailed review of literature is not performed

in area of mainstreaming.

2.4.5 Theoretical and practical context of including students with

learning difficulties in ordinary primary schools

Discussing the role of inclusion in overcoming learning difficulties, it should be noted that

there is a gap between the theoretical understanding of inclusion and practical attitudes to this

educational phenomenon (Byerley et al., 2007). Wong’s (2008) study revolved around

measuring the attitudes of the students concerning students with special needs in a secondary

school based in Hong Kong. The students were given one questionnaire before the year began

and another questionnaire towards the end of their school year. Results showed that the

attitudes of the students remained the same even after they had these students with special

needs within their class for a year. The students who were a part of educational programs

endorsing social acceptance had optimistic changes. This study shows that “the findings

clearly establish the need for good teaching practices that facilitate mutual benefits and co-

operation between students with and without difficulties in academic tasks within the

mainstream classroom” (Wong, 2008, p. 70). Hence besides an understanding of the attitudes

24


of the adults with respect to inclusion in the regular classroom settings, it is equally

significant to understand the attitudes of the peers as these students interact with students

with learning difficulties.

Rose & Howley (2007) characterize inclusion as making a difference to those with Learning

Deficiencies’ overcomes their issues without excluding them from their unique schools and

classes. Dyson & Milward (2000) consider inclusion regarding inclusive classrooms where

all learners are taught together paying little heed to their level of anxiety. As per Dyson &

Milward (2000) a comprehensive educational program, where all students contemplate the

same system to impart inclusive learning encounters, where all students work collectively and

gain from one another. At long last, the study proposed comprehensive conclusions, so all

students can feel accomplishment however in diverse ways.

2.5 Historical perspective of the resource room concept

The concept of a resource room seems to have a long history since it was originally defined

by Weiner (1969) in the second half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the idea of

specialised education existed long before Weiner (1969) defined it. As noted by Al-Zoubi

(2011) and De l’Eeoile (2005), learning difficulties may involve the failure to learn particular

academic skills, like reading, writing skills, spelling abilities and math. Some students may

face problems in a particular subject while some may have difficulties in two or perhaps even

the entire subjects range. Resource rooms play a pivotal role because they facilitate essential

supplementary services for students that have with learning difficulties in the mainstream

schools.

Moreover, resource rooms are also attractive for researchers, teachers and even parents and

simultaneously are subjected to a lot of controversy where special education is concerned (De

l’Eeoile (2005). As McNamara (1989) explains, two methods are primarily used for the

purpose of conducting activities and programs in these resource rooms. McNamara (1985)

explains that in the resource room, the focus should be on teaching the essential skills to

students and classify a group of basic activities pertaining to the resource room. These

activities include provision of diagnostic and evaluation scales to identify students that have

learning difficulties, giving appropriate instructional methods, and coaching students in

groups that are grouped keeping the individual abilities and their extent of learning difficulty

into perspective. It is valid to give a clear definition of a resource room since it is an

independent teaching strategy used for managing the learning needs of children identified

25


with learning difficulties. To be specific, “the resource room is a placement choice for many

children with SpLDs where children are pulled out of general education classrooms for small

group or individual instruction” (Webster, 2014, p. 1). As indicated by this definition, the

main characteristic of a resource room is that it offers a customised learning environment for

students with learning difficulties. However, it should be remembered that resource rooms are

not homogeneous and identical for all teaching purposes and educational goals.

2.5.1 Types of resource room

In accordance with Kuboyama and Kobayashi (2003), they can be differentiated into

categorical, cross-categorical, specific-skill resource rooms and itinerant resource rooms.

• Categorical Resource Room: The most common category of resource rooms, this is where

the learners that have difficulties pertaining to learning, behavior and emotional disorders are

allocated the same resource room (McNamara, 1989; Bender, 2008). It may be explained in

greater detail that categorical resource rooms incorporate students with similar learning

difficulties. For instance, a categorical resource room that includes students with dyslexia,

not caters both dyslexia and dysgraphia (Stone and Reid, 1994). It is conceded that it is

challenging for small and medium-sized schools to form categorical resource rooms, as they

are unlikely to have many students with the same learning difficulty (Marcon, 1999). At the

same time, teachers’ efforts are focused and directed in categorical resource rooms, which

cannot be achieved easily in a cross-categorical resource room (Stone and Reid, 1994).

• Cross-Categorical Resource Rooms: In this type of are resource room, learners are divided

according to multiple needs without much attention given to traditional learning deficiency

categories of dyslexia and dysgraphia. Though this categorization may not facilitate the

teachers in creating appropriate educational programs, focus is given to pointing out learners

that have needs pertaining to academia, behavior and physical needs (Bender, 2008).The

latter are for students with different types of learning difficulties and, as reported by

McNamara (1989), are the more popular one in contemporary primary schools because of the

difficulty of numbers already mentioned. It was suggested by McNamara (1989) that resource

rooms indeed should be cross-categorical, as most children learn how to compensate for their

learning difficulties from other group members.

• Non-Categorical Resource Rooms: Such a resource room needs exceedingly trained

teachers as a greater portion of the learners having learning difficulties have not ready for

such special education and get such teaching as a trial and experiment (Bender, 2008;

26


Hallahan et al, 2005; McNamara, 1989). Interestingly, non-categorical resource rooms do not

attempt to categorise learning difficulties, but rather accept all students who experience

difficulties in education. The difference between learning difficulties is less important

(Wong, 2008).

• Itinerant Resource Programmes: This resource group does not require its members to attend

every day, but encourages meetings only when there is an educational necessity (Kuboyama

and Kobayashi, 2003). This arrangement of isolated and individualised learning is highly

suitable for small and rural primary schools with limited resources.

2.5.2 Purposes of using resource rooms for students with reading and

writing difficulties

Given that this literature review is focused entirely on students with language-related learning

difficulties, therefore the purpose of using resource rooms is important to review. Resource

rooms are organised for many reasons and are supported by many teaching motives

(D’Amico and Guarnera, 2005). During individualised learning and classes, students can

improve their pronunciation, train their sound recognition skills and master the construction

of syllables from sounds (Chua et al., 2009). Furthermore, they can ask additional questions if

some topics and reading rules are unclear to them. Similarly, students with dysgraphia can

experience positive effects if they are involved in resource room programmes (Dirks et al.,

2008). Nevertheless, as prompted in the previous section of the literature review, the

effectiveness of resource rooms will also depend on the type that was chosen by the specific

educational establishment. When primary schools have many students with learning

difficulties, categorical resource rooms are the best option (Ebersbach et al., 2013; Kuboyama

and Kobayashi, 2003).

2.5.3 Resource room policy

It was argued by Pretis (2009) that a resource room is not a chaotic arrangement of

specialised teaching, and that strict policies and rules should be observed. The identification

of these rules is especially important for resource room members because all students with

learning difficulties should be provided with equal educational opportunities. Students with

learning difficulty are not responsible for their learning but rely on their teacher’s experience

and professionalism to receive quality education (McNamara 1989). One of the most

important policies related to resource rooms refers to the maximum number of students who

can be accepted into the resource room. According to Williams et al. (2006), this should not

27


exceed five, yet it can be critically remarked that this rule is violated in practice, since non-

categorised resource rooms usually include more disabled students if there is more than one

instructor (Kuboyama and Kobayashi 2003). It is also not reasonable to organise long classes

for children in the first cycle of basic education (Valdois et al., 2004). The frequency of

meetings is determined by specific learning needs and necessities at a given moment of time.

Taking into account that the practical part of this study is focused on the Sultanate of Oman,

it is reasonable to state that this national context does not have firm and traditional policies of

resource room training for primary school children with learning difficulties (Riyami et al.,

2004).

2.5.4 Different aspects of the resource room

Discussing other aspects of the resource room, this literature review identifies a series of

successive actions to be undertaken by resource room teachers in order to organise the

teaching process effectively. It is argued by McNamara (1989) that resource room training

should start with evaluative actions and decisions concerning who should be accepted into a

certain resource room. Given that the total number of students in the resource room is always

limited, it is essential to select group members carefully. At this stage, resource rooms have

several options, namely to form categorical or cross-categorical resource room (Dermody and

Majekodunmi, 2011). It was explained earlier in this section that each decision is associated

with certain advantages and limitations. The second stage of organising the resource room

should be identified for each activity (McNamara, 1989). Each teacher is involved in resource

rooms training needs to identify clear performance targets for each student. Further stages are

collecting feedback from students with learning difficulties and effective communication with

parents. It was suggested by Samson, S. (2011) that resource room learning will not be

successful if disabled students are not supported by their parents at home. Hence, these

attributes are important to verify and observe in the current study in the resources rooms of

Oman. The studies like that of Sabbah, S., & Shanaah, H. (2010) in public schools of Oman

are helpful in validating these discussed characteristics in context of Oman

2.5.5 Resource room support for reading and writing skills

It was affirmed earlier that resource rooms are of help in teaching students with dyslexia.

However, this assumption should be tested in practice in order to be realistic (Bashir and

Scavuzzo, 1992). A relevant empirical study was conducted by Burns et al. (2013) examining

how personalised learning contributes to overcoming reading difficulties. A weakness of this

28


research identified is lack of direct relevance with current study as Burns et al. (2013)

collected primary data from teaching professionals and explored their personal estimations of

learning outcomes. The relevance to the current research is the discussion on the importance

of techniques like resource rooms for recovery of the learning difficulties like dyslexia.

Resource rooms were presented by Burns et al. (2013) as a highly individualised learning

environment where individual reading skills are practiced and activated. The discussed study

had special reference to this literature review because of the analysis of the effect of the

resource room on dyslexia. On the downside, the empirical research did not attempt to

compare learning effects in resource rooms, inclusion groups and mainstreaming (Pretis,

2009). Similarly, resource rooms have been found to be useful in dealing with students’

writing difficulty, known as dysgraphia (Auclair et al., 2008).

2.5.6 Benefits of resource rooms

This literature review summarises that the main benefit of resource rooms is that they offer a

focused learning environment for primary school students with learning difficulties

(McQuarrie & Zarry 1999; Pavey 2013). It is convenient for teachers to deal with several

students with similar or even identical learning difficulties. In these conditions, teachers’

efforts become more focused and targeted. Finally, it is argued that a small number of

students in each resource room give greater freedom for cooperation, communication and

interaction (Zoellner et al., 2008). Having access to resource rooms, parents can communicate

with experienced teachers directly and can participate in their children’s development and

academic progress (Bashir and Scavuzzo, 1992).

2.5.7 Limitations of resource rooms

Resource rooms are frequently criticised as they do not allow students with learning

difficulties to socialise and communicate with other students with no special needs in primary

schools (Kuboyama and Kobayashi, 2003). Being located in the resource room, disabled

students are deprived of the competitive environment natural in every classroom. This

depends on how much time a child spends in the resource room. There is a lack of researches

in this area on the impact of spending time on the efficiency of resource rooms. Furthermore,

students with learning difficulties have less chances of gaining experiences of the problems

faced by children with no difficulty in their academic studies and progression, and this social

isolation cannot have a positive effect on students with learning difficulties (Wang, 2008;

Avramidis, 2009). It was earlier noted by Zoellner et al. (2008) that students with cognitive,

29


perceptive and emotional impairment need to be placed in social environment for faster and

more effective development. Therefore, inclusion and mainstreaming is supported by

Zoellner et al. (2008) to overcome the issues linked with resource rooms. The major issues

like social inclusion, lack of competitive environment, and less interaction with the students

having no learning difficulty may affect the outcome of resource rooms. These limitations are

needed to be considered in the current study to compare the limitations of resource rooms in

Oman with the outcomes of the above discussed researches.

2.5.8 Summary

It can be summarised that resource rooms are used as an important tool for teaching students

with reading and writing difficulties (Zoellner et al., 2008). This teaching strategy and

method can be justified by the benefits and advantages of the resource room mentioned

( Pavey 2013). However, it is argued in this literature review that the effectiveness of

resource rooms is moderated by the type of the resource room like categorical, non

categorical, and cross-categorical. The identified research gap is that most empirical scholars

do not attempt to compare the link of the resource rooms with inclusion groups and

mainstreaming with respect to teaching students with learning difficulties (Ebersbach et al.,

2013; Auclair et al., 2008). The current study addressed the implications of inclusion and its

link with various categories of resource rooms. There is a single empirical study conducted in

the primary education sector in the Sultanate of Oman by Al-Ghafri (2009), but this study

aimed to “evaluate the effectiveness of the special educational needs programme for students

with learning difficulties” (Al-Ghafri, 2009, p. 170). The academic studies reviewed did not

demonstrate clearly if cultural and social integration and involvement is possible when

resource rooms are organised in primary schools (Chappell, 2000).

Section VI- Roles of Stakeholders in Special Education of

Learning Difficulties

2.6 Role of teachers in resource rooms

The role of teachers is of the basic importance in organizing and conducting resource room

activities for students with learning difficulties. One of the relevant studies was carried out by

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). The researchers collected primary data from more than

400 respondents, including pre-service teachers and in-service tutors. According to the

30


statistical analysis results, resource room teachers’ efficacy is a powerful predicator of

various meaningful educational outcomes, including their persistence, job commitment,

enthusiasm, motivation and goal achievement (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). However,

it was claimed by Kraker (2000) that efficacy is presented as a relatively stable set of

variables that includes not only the factors outlined by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001),

but also such characteristics as the teaching environment and context.

Alberto et al. (2010) investigated the consequences of teacher efficacy. There is a link

between resource room teachers’ efficacy and academic achievement, as well as teachers’

behaviour in fostering this achievement (Alberto et al., 2010). These outcomes are closely

consistent with Hocutt (1996), who claims that programme models implemented in special

education produce a considerable positive social and academic effect in children with

learning difficulties, including dyslexia and dysgraphia. Browell (1998) linked teacher

efficacy to the degree to which parents are involved in school activities, finding that teacher

efficacy was the strongest predictor of parent involvement (Browell, 1998). These findings

can be explained by the fact that trained tutors of special education put more emphasis as

compared to the regular teachers on monitoring their students’ progress and behaviour

(Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Furthermore, in comparison to general educators,

resource room teachers more willingly show positive regard, provide children with

difficulties with answers and reject inadequate verbalisation (Alberto et al., 2010). As a

result, the efficacy of special education teachers was reported by Odom et al. (2009) to have a

statistically positive effect on students’ ability to read and write properly.

Resource room teachers have an important role to play in terms of designing the

individualized educational programs that address the special needs of the students joining the

resource room. As active members in each student’s individualized education program, these

teachers are also a critical link between learning in the resource room and both regular

classroom teachers and parents. According to McQuarrie and Zarry (1999) resource room

teachers play numerous roles that all contribute to improving the academic skills of learners

with learning difficulties. They also perform/offer evaluation, guidance, and cooperation

with/for parents, teachers of the regular classrooms, and school administrators. The visual,

auditory, and sensory instructional methodologies used by resource room teachers play a

significant role in improving the academic skills of learners with learning difficulties.

The educational methods used by resource room teachers likewise play an important role in

the enrichment of the teaching and learning process and expanding the expertise of learners,

and this was confirmed by Al-Makahleh (2011). Similarly, Al-Zoubi et al (2010) in their

31


research on the effect of in-service training program in improving performance competencies

for resource room teachers in Jordan measured the effect of a training program module on

improving knowledge competencies for resource room teachers. The results revealed that the

module did improve competencies for teachers in the experimental group. The main

limitation of this research was small sample size and focus on one teaching module that

probably does not encompass the overall development through training.

Moreover, Sabbah & Shanaah (2010) investigated the effect of resource rooms from the

perspective of principals, teachers, and educational supervisors in government schools of

Palestine. These results indicate that the principals including the teaching staff and the

educational administrators are content with the results given from the resource room learning

in the realms of methodologies used, educational programs and apparatus used. The

assessment was based on the self-administered questionnaires; therefore, the aspect of

personal bias could have affected the findings of this research (Sabbah & Shanaah (2010).

The research recommended that the ministry of Education should increase the number of

resources rooms in south and north districts in Palestine. Furthermore, universities have to

offer Special education specialization to teach those who are in need of it, the public

organization should play a bigger role in dealing with those who need special care.

Furthermore, Bataineh and Al-Shehry (2010) explored the effectiveness of different resource

room components from the perspective of resource room teachers in Madinah Al-Monawara

in the KSA. In this study, the teachers of the resource room graded the aides and

methodologies as number one, the progression of the educational programs as two, the

curriculum of the instructions as number three and the equipment and apparatus in the

resource rooms as four or last. This grading pointed out that the learning aides and teaching

methodologies are considered as the most important resource room components. McNally et

al. (2009) supported the importance of teaching skills and Al-Yaari (2012) asserted the

significance of teachers attitudes towards resource rooms. These aspects are discussed in

detail in the next section.

2.6.1 Importance of Teaching Skill in Resource Room

The importance of teaching skills in teaching children with learning difficulties is emphasised

by McNally et al. (2009). The researchers claim that an effective special education teacher

should possess a wide range of specific skills and competencies in order to produce a positive

effect on the level of individual literacy (McNally et al., 2009). To be specific, Kraker, (2000)

asserted that tutors should be able to demonstrate evaluation skills, but argued by Odom et al.

32


(2009) that teachers should be provided with relevant and reliable information that is

expected to contribute to the development of effective learning strategies. It was added by

McGrath (2010) that tutors should focus their efforts on pre-reading tasks, graphic

organisation and improving retention. By using assessment information, special educators are

able to identify a child’s specific types of reading and writing problems to select the most

appropriate strategy (Al-Zouibi et al 2014).

It was added by Curtis et al. (2012) that teachers can underestimate the abilities of a student

with learning difficulties, which can produce a negative effect on the quality of the learning

process and the overall degree of a child’s literacy. Indeed, according to Schiemer and Proyer

(2013), individuals with learning difficulties have general learning ability as high as their

non-learning class fellows with learning difficulties. A skill deficit in a single area may be

perceived by a teacher as a learning difficulty and, in turn, lead to the adoption of relevant

teaching strategies (McGrath, 2010). Therefore, learning difficulty diagnostic reading and

writing tests are needed by tutors to identify specific problems and issues that influence the

reading and writing skills of the learner (McGrath, 2010). Observations, cognitive

assignments, language tasks and student work analysis are argued by McNally et al. (2009) to

be the most effective tools for teachers of students with SpLDs to identify specific learning

areas that require improvements. Alternatively, Jenkinson (2000) holds that tutors should

focus on students’ strengths rather than weaknesses to examine what they can do best.

The ability to establish a supportive relationship with students and focus on what children can

do is claimed by Schiemer and Proyer (2013) to be an important skill for effective resource

room teachers. Indeed, good communication between the teacher and the learner stimulates

students’ interest and contributes to the development of their skills and competencies

(Schiemer and Proyer, 2013). Special tutors should be able to make adjustments to the

learning process, and remain flexible and attentive to students’ needs (McGrath, 2010). In

turn, students with learning difficulties need to possess basic skills at all levels in order to be

able to solve learning problems and further develop their writing and reading skills (Schiemer

and Proyer, 2013).

2.6.2 Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion

Teachers’ attitudes towards including students with learning difficulties in the regular

classroom were investigated by Avramidis et al. (2000) in local education authority of south-

west of England. The researcher indicated for any inclusive policy to be successful, it is

essential that the educator has a positive outlook about it. A survey conducted about student

33


teachers regarding including into an ordinary classroom children that have learning difficulty.

The sample size was 135 students and these subjects were students undertaking teacher-

training courses at a university School of Education. The investigation disclosed that the

participants had positive approaches about the inclusion of such children however, their

acceptance dependent largely on the gravity of the children’s needs as recognized by the

Code of Practice for the Identification and assessment of Special Educational Needs in UK

(SEN 2014). Additionally, children having emotional and behavioral difficulties were

perceived as those instigating more concern and anxiety when compared to those having

other types of special needs. Lastly, the survey raised concerns related to the preliminary

training of the teachers in the UK.

The research of Avramidis et al., 2000 argued that prospective teachers need to have early

and continuous exposure to students with special educational needs, preferably through field

experiences in inclusive settings. In addition, if students with SEN receive a heavy emphasis

upon the skills of mixed-ability teaching, they may feel more confident about dealing with

the instructional challenges of teachers. Similarly, the outcomes of research suggest that

providing extensive opportunities for training for prospective teachers in resource room

settings may also support the development of confidence and competence.

This limitation is overcome by MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013), who investigated special

teachers’ attitudes towards the resource room as well as the mainstreaming of students with

learning difficulties in ordinary primary schools in Scotland, UK. Primary data collected from

81 primary teachers was processed by means of statistical analysis (MacFarlane and

Woolfson, 2013). The research findings indicated that those teachers who already part of the

inclusion process as trained special education teachers, demonstrated more positive attitudes

towards the inclusion of special students. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was

employed to study the relations between the children having behavior, social and emotional

issues and the teachers (SEBD). A total of 111 respondents participated and filled out

questionnaires. The subjects were all teachers in elementary schools (MacFarlane and

Woolfson 2013). The evaluation of special education teachers’ attitude was further extended

when MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013) managed to establish a direct statistical link between

the level of special education teachers’ professional development and their attitudes towards

mainstream schooling. Indeed, more skilful and experienced teachers who spend time in

integrated classrooms and the resource room are better able to address the learning needs of

special children and more effectively develop their writing and reading skills (McGrath,

34


2010). The limitation of this study is the use of self reporting questionnaire that has increased

the chances of personal bias in responses.

Knowing special education teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of special students leads

to better understanding of their willingness to work with these children (Alberto et al., 2010).

Knowing this information, organisational managers are able to influence tutors’ readiness to

teach children with learning difficulties and minimise their resistance (Rieben et al., 2005). In

addition, it is important to know learning difficulties teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion

of special students in ordinary primary schools in order to allow the evaluation their level of

confidence (Browell, 1998). Taking into consideration the findings of the present literature

review, it can be argued that general class teachers experience a lack of confidence in their

instructional skills (Craft-Tripp and Glatthorn, 2013). Special tutors are more confident in

their abilities and skills, and are reported by Schiemer and Proyer (2013); Sabah, and Shania,

H. (2010) and Al-Zoubi, (2011) to demonstrate greater readiness to teach students with

severe reading and writing impairment.

2.6.3 Role of resource rooms for Dyslexia

Practices in reading instruction play a significant role in facilitating successful adoption of

this instruction (White, 2013). An attempt to implement comprehensive reading instruction

was made by Craig (2006), who carried out a 16-week study comparing a programme of

meta-linguistic games and an adjusted interactive reading programme in four first-year

groups (Craig, 2006). The sample group included eighty individuals randomly divided into

two groups (Craig, 2006). The first was engaged in interactive or guided reading, while the

other went through a series of language games focused on the development of phonological

awareness as well as alphabetic training (Craig, 2006).

The children’s training was followed by statistical analyses that indicated no significant

difference between the two groups with respect to phonological awareness spelling and

pseudo word reading. On the contrary, the analysis demonstrated that the score of the

interactive reading group was higher on real world identification and work reading

development (Ouellette and Seneschal, 2008). Nonetheless, Craig’s (2006) study is limited

with respect to the present project because the researcher did not explicitly include special

education students but the paper constructively presented an analytical approach to evaluate

the reading deficiencies that can help to devise the testing instrument in the current research.

Teachers are able to use the reading instruction suggested by Craig (2006) in the context of

35


the Sultanate of Oman in order to contribute to the development of their students’ cognitive

abilities and perceptual mechanisms.

Alberto et al. (2010) suggest the use of sight-word, claimed to be one of the most common

methods of reading instruction for students with learning difficulties, arguing for “the

instruction of reading and comprehending individual words and connected text through the

use of simultaneous prompting” (Alberto et al., 2010, p. 1467). According to the statistical

analysis outcomes, children demonstrated generalisation across connected text, which allows

it to be said that sight-word contributes to the development of individuals’ cognitive

functions (Jefferies et al., 2007). The main limitation of this empirical investigation lies in the

fact that the scholars studied effects of the sight-word strategy only with respect to students

with moderate intellectual difficulties; the inclusion of individuals with severe difficulties

could have resulted in more comprehensive outcomes (Ouellette and Senechal, 2008).

2.6.4 Role of resource rooms for Dysgraphia

In accordance with Wong et al. (2011), disorders of spelling can be attributed to specific

learning difficulties. The impact of Dysgraphia and on the educational performance of a child

with writing deficiency is often very misunderstood in mainstream schools. Consequently,

the concern relating to handwriting difficulties are often not appropriately addressed for

children with dysgraphia in both resource room and regular classroom. According to Chia

and Ong (2009), most teachers misunderstanding that repeated handwriting practice alone

would improve the child with dysgraphia ability to write with a use of pencil or pen. In

reality, it is not the case as this practice is not the only one to improve the writing ability of

these children with dysgraphia. Moreover, Chia and Ong (2009) have argued that a successful

intervention programme for children with dysgraphia should be a two-pronged approach.

First, the teachers must decide the accommodations need to be provided by the assistance of

child and his/her parents about the child’s difficulties in written expression. The

understanding of the child’s perspective is important to rectify writing difficulties. Second,

the teachers should seek the assistance of fellow teachers for special education and the

experts in educational psychology to understand the emotional needs of these children with

dysgraphia.

A study by Nalpon and Chia (2009) involved Twelve children ranging in age between 7 years

10 months and 9 years 7 were picked randomly to take part in this quasi-experimental study

which expended the single-group pre-test-post-test research design to find out if cursive

handwriting as an intervention strategy was effectual to develop the reading and spelling

36


performance for children suffered with dyslexia and dysgraphia. The results showed that both

reading and spelling processes were more closely intertwined than cursive handwriting with

either reading or spelling process. Hence, the impact of cursive handwriting on either reading

or spelling or both was found to be insignificant.

The statistical analysis conducted by Nixon and Topping (2001) indicates that individuals in

paired writing groups scored higher than peers on the researchers’ writing assignment. The

outcomes of the investigation suggest the importance of one-to-one interaction with more

knowledgeable individuals to children with learning difficulties. Alternatively, children in

primary schools are taught by teachers who are older and far more experienced than students

(Ouellette and Senechal, 2008). Therefore, the interaction with teachers is important to

improve the learning level of students with dysgraphia in resource room intervention.

2.7 Role of parents in resource room programme

As claimed by Dyson (1996), by participating in the resource room programme parents are

able to contribute to the development of their child’s writing and reading skills. Dyson (1996)

conducted a study aimed at investigating the attitudes of the siblings and the parents with

learning difficulties. His results revealed that existence of one child with learning difficulties

in a family causes enormous stress on the parts of the parents, and affects the lifestyle of the

family and the interaction between siblings. Furthermore, Warner (1996) investigated the

attitudes of the parents‟ with learning difficulties towards Special Education Schools. The

results indicated that the attitude that parents have for learning difficulties and its schools is

influenced by the social and cultural paradigms. Weiner (1996) assessed the effectiveness of

the resource rooms and explained that resource rooms are positively affect that improvement

of a child in the realm of learning and improve the child’s level of learning.

According to Hocut (1996), provision of equipment and doing homework with children are

also among the most significant predictors of parents’ satisfaction. The previously mentioned

gap was bridged by MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013), who set out to explore whether

parents of students with writing and reading impairments play a significant role in the

development of the resource room initiative. Furthermore, Al-Khateeb and Hadidi (2009) in

their research on teachers and mothers’ satisfaction levels in Jordan assessed the level of

satisfaction of resource room teachers and of the parents of learners with learning difficulties

about the services provided in the resource rooms. Their findings indicated that teachers in

37


the resource rooms were satisfied with the work in the resource room but not with the parents

who fail to participate in the programs of the resource rooms. Thus participation can change

parents’ perceptions of resource rooms but they might need training for effective participation

in increasing the learning potential of the students. This aspect was not assessed in the article

and it was also limited to small sample size that restricts the generalization of findings.

2.7.1 Attitudes of Parents towards Resource Rooms

Similarly to Dyson (1996), Somaily et al (2012) focused on the collection of primary data

from 111 parents of students with learning difficulties in primary schools of Narjan, Saudi

Arabia. The study was aimed at assessment of parents’ attitude towards the establishment of

resource rooms for the children with special needs. The findings of the research showed that

parents are significantly satisfied with the resource rooms’ facilities and there was no

statistical variation reported with respect to the gender age, income, or family size of these

parents. Nonetheless, the discussed findings allow for a more comprehensive examination of

the link between parents of children with writing and reading disparities and the resource

room programme. It is valid to summarise that positive attitudes of parents are transferred to

their children, and better learning results are achieved in resource rooms.

2.7.2 Peers’ attitude toward students with learning difficulty

Pretis (2009) argue that most primary school students are not ready to cooperate and

collaborate effectively with students with special needs; on the contrary, the learning

difficulties of some pupils may give rise to their mockery and cause conflict in the classroom.

Children will notice that teachers give more attention to these students, and the students with

no difficulty may dislike this unequal distribution of attention (Kugelmass, 2004). Therefore,

resource rooms provide a solution to

2.8 Role of school administration in resource room

programme

2.8.1 General perceptions of principals and supervisors of resource rooms

Principals, as school leaders, were argued by Villa et al. (1996) to be instrumental in leading

initiatives in education. The principal’s role in the implementation process of inclusive

practices can be presented as the key success factor, thus the attitude of principals and

supervisors towards the resource room is crucial to its effectiveness and performance (Villa et

38


al., 1996). General perceptions of principals of inclusive practices, including special day

school, self-contained classroom, resource rooms and general classrooms, were examined by

Livingston et al. (2001) in a study in primary schools of Georgia. According to the empirical

findings of this research of Livingston et al., (2001), school headmasters continue to favour

the traditional placement of resource rooms for students with learning difficulties

Interestingly, a direct statistical relationship between principals’ experience in working with

students with learning difficulties and their positive attitudes towards the resource room was

established by Livingston et al. (2001). In accordance with the researchers, head teachers’

emerging experience contributes to their willingness to consider inclusive placements

(Livingston et al., 2001; Idol, 2006). It should be critically remarked that, although

Livingston et al. (2001) examined principals’ attitudes toward resource rooms, their

investigation is limited since only rural school head teachers were contacted.

This point is interesting, as interpersonal links between individuals are argued by Rapcsak et

al. (2009) to be stronger in smaller towns than large cities. Likewise, managers who reside in

urban areas are reported by Horne (2012) to be focused exclusively on organisational

performance, and perhaps not interested in activities unless they contribute to financial

stability. Elementary principals’ perceptions of and attitudes towards the resource room were

investigated by Kataoka et al. (2004) in a study conducted in Japan to evaluate the

perceptions of teachers and principals, found that only around 40 percent of urban principals

had positive attitudes towards the inclusion for individuals with difficulties (Kataoka et al.,

2004; Horne, 2012). As reported by Livingston et al. (2001), most head teachers expressed

concerns about dealing with the behaviours typical of children with special needs and the

model of the resource room was preferred by most principals since they believed that it is

“the only way to help a student with difficulties is to remove the student from the general

education classroom for tutorial assistance” (Idol, 2006, p. 88). The main limitation of

Kataoka’s et al. (2004) empirical investigation lies in the fact that the researchers focused on

students with learning difficulties who cannot perform simple actions (e.g. cannot use a

spoon or fork, or not toilet trained). Dyslexia and dysgraphia cannot be attributed to these

difficulties (Horne, 2012). Hence different outcomes could be produced by including children

with these learning difficulties.

39


2.9 Improvements that can be made to develop the resource

room programme in primary schools

As emphasised, instructional grouping includes several interaction types, namely small group

instruction, one-to-one instruction and peer pairing and tutoring (Horne, 2012). This section

of the literature review is focused on the discussion of improvements that can be made in

order to develop the resource room programme in primary schools. Small group instruction

was reported by Idol (2006) to provide students with opportunities of expressing their

knowledge and receiving feedback from other individuals besides the teacher (Odom et al.,

2009). As Craft-Tripp and Glatthorn (2013) find, many teachers receive little professional

development in how to implement a successful instructional group. Hence, a relevant

improvement that can be made to develop the resource room programme is the

implementation of reading groups led by the teacher (Craft-Tripp and Glatthorn, 2013).

However, despite the effectiveness of these groups, many tutors are not able to provide

effective instructions to group members. This issue can be addressed by providing students

with shared reading time during group instruction (Taylor and Duke, 2013).

Collaborative learning is an effective procedure that allows enhancing student learning,

writing and reading skills in resource rooms (Idol, 2006). Since tutors are not responsible for

direct contact with children (Craft-Tripp and Glatthorn, 2013), it is practical to use this

instruction type in the resource room model. According to a research conducted by Promising

Practices Network (2014, 1), class-wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) can be adopted to increase

“the proportion of instructional time that all students engage in academic behaviours and

provide pacing, feedback, immediate error correction and high mastery level”. The

significance of this method lies in the fact that it allows children to serve as both tutor and

student. It is reported by Idol (2006) that CWPT contributes to the development of writing

and reading skills of persons with learning difficulties. Student engagement and learning can

be further enhanced by means of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) that engage

persons in strategic reading activities. As a result, these strategies provide those with

difficulties with an opportunity to develop their writing and reading skills (Taylor and Duke,

2013).

One-to-one instruction implies that a student receives instruction from the tutor (Odom et al.,

2009). Although this practice is considered to be the most effective for developing the ability

to read and write, its implications for practice are usually difficult to define (Kim, 2007).

40


Nixon and Topping’s (2001) paired writing and tutoring programme in a model that lays

emphasis on paired and individual writing sessions with children with learning difficulties

(Nixon and Topping, 2001).

2.10 Conceptual framework of current phenomenology study

The conceptual framework of this literature review indicates that mainstreaming is associated

with a lower degree of social integration than inclusion (Meyer and Poon, 2001). In turn,

resource rooms offer an isolated methodology of teaching students with learning difficulties

(Dermody and Majekodunmi, 2011). In the UK context, resource rooms terminology is used

in context of integration or, mainstreaming, otherwise, in ‘inclusion’ phenomenon, the

student is part of the regular class, therefore, separate resource rooms for learning difficulty

are not evident. Social contact by students with special needs is limited when they are in

resource rooms. Furthermore, there is a risk that students with learning difficulties will

concentrate excessively on their weaknesses if they do not see a positive example from more

successful students in the same group (Cook and Inglis, 2012). At the same time, resource

rooms can be viewed as an effective teaching tool because teachers may concentrate fully on

the problems and challenges of their students (Whiteley and Smith, 2001).

The conceptual framework of this literature review is about the inclusion and its link with

types of resource rooms, namely categorical, cross-categorical, non-categorical, specific-skill

and itinerant (Kuboyama and Kobayashi, 2003). Therefore, the conceptual framework of this

study concedes that many challenges are associated with resource rooms as an alternative to

inclusion and mainstreaming. Other challenges should be examined by analysis of specialised

learning in primary school in the Sultanate of Oman.

It is argued that categorical resource rooms have the most potential to engage with learning

difficulties because most schools have few students with identical difficulties (Bashir and

Scavuzzo, 1992). For this reason, cross-categorical resource rooms have proved to be the

most widespread method of specialised teaching. Other moderators of teaching effectiveness

in resource rooms are the roles played by parents and teachers, by reading and writing

instructions and the school administration (Kakabaraee et al., 2012). It is argued by the

conceptual framework of this literature review that parents’ involvement in specialised

teaching has a strong positive impact on teaching effectiveness (Whiteley and Smith, 2001).

In addition, teaching professionalism determines the extent to which specialised teaching

methods are effective and reasonable (Smith-Spark and Fisk, 2007; Valdois et al., 2004;

41


Whiteley and Smith, 2001). Regardless of the type of learning difficulty, resource rooms

offer effective teaching strategies that can assist primary students with dyslexia and

dysgraphia. To be specific, the main strategies identified in this conceptual framework are

learning assistance through such activities as recall questions, prompts, explanations,

corrections, rephrase, drill practice, repetitions and task formulation (Smith-Spark and Fisk,

2007; Valdois et al., 2004).

2.10.1 Resource rooms in regular primary schools

It is already reviewed that students with learning difficulties have no problems with general

intelligence (IQ) and are not affected by temporary or permanent intellectual or emotional

disorder (Dirks et al., 2008). Having no cognitive impairment, primary school pupils with

learning difficulties usually have learning problems such as dyspraxia, dyslexia, dysgraphia

and the deficit hyperactivity disorder (Stone and Reid, 1994). Even though the nature of

learning difficulties is different, these concepts are often used together when specialised

teaching approaches and strategies are discussed. However, the theoretical framework of this

study is limited to language-related learning difficulties, namely reading and writing

(Holttum, 2013).

The theoretical framework of this literature review affirms that inclusion is totally consistent

with the sociocultural perspective presented and grounded by Kraker (2000. These

underpinnings show that primary school students cannot be isolated from their social

environment. Children with learning difficulties are especially sensitive to obtaining relevant

social experience and communicating with their peers (Guay et al., 2010; Fuchs and Fuchs,

2002). On the other hand, the use of inclusion in teaching of children with special needs is

associated with several limitations and disadvantages. It is clear that more time will be spent

by teachers on students with learning deficiencies will have fewer opportunities to contact

them in the classroom with other students (Meyer and Poon, 2001). Further, the attitude of

students with no learning difficulty might be insulting and result in bullying of the students

with learning deficiency. Additionally, the drastic impacts in combined class rooms can

negatively affect the academic performance and confidence of the children with learning

deficiencies.

On the other hand, resource rooms are specialized tools of handling special needs of children

with learning deficiency in a separate environment. The advantage of inclusion on resource

room strategy is socialisation and the acquisition of social experience (Prevatt and Hyles,

2012), otherwise this method can act as only a cost effective way of handling children with

42


special needs. Collaborative learning in homogeneous groups supports the enhancement of

creative, social, and academic performance of students (Elman 1990). Further, the trained

teachers of special education coordinate, organize, and decorate the resource rooms in

professional environment to increase the impact on the students’ performance. Though, due

to small number of students with learning deficiencies, this method is not cost effective and

resulted in non- categorical resource rooms presence in majority public schools.

2.10.3 Summary of the Literature Review

It can be summarised that resource rooms may be considered as an alternative to inclusion

and mainstreaming of primary school students with learning difficulties (Schiemer and

Proyer, 2013). This critical literature review has identified that resource rooms offer a

focused approach to teaching that incorporates students with similar and diverse learning

difficulties. Resource rooms have been found to have strong potential to stimulate

cooperation between teachers, disabled students and their parents (Rieben et al., 2005). On

the other hand, the implementation of the resource room strategy is associated with limited

social involvement of students with reading and writing difficulties. At the same time, the

resource room concept allows for more convenient and effective introduction of IT-based

methods of learning and teaching (Craig, 2006). Only a few studies referred to the Sultanate

of Oman (Cook and Inglis, 2012; Chappell, 2000; Al-Ghafri, 2009). It has been found that the

effectiveness of resource rooms is moderated by such factors as parental involvement,

teaching professionalism, clarity of reading and writing instructions and contribution of

school administration.

43


References

Abbott, R. D., & BerningerBeminger, V.W. (1993). Structural equation modelling of

relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary- and intermediate-

grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 478-508.

Abu-Rabia, S., Share, D. & Mansour, M. (2003). Word recognition and basic cognitive

processes among reading-disabled and normal readers in Arabic. Reading and Writing: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 423–442.

Al-Batal, M. (1992). Diglossia proficiency: The need for an alternative approach to teaching.

Aleya Rouchdy (Ed.), The Arabic language in America (pp. 284-304). Detroit, Michigan:

Wayne State University Press.

Al-Ghafri S. (2009) The effectiveness of the Learning Difficulties Programme in Basic

Education Cycle 1 schools (Wyatt, M. & J. Atkins (eds), Research Perspectives on Education

in Oman. The Ministry of Education, the Sultanate of Oman.

Al-Khateeb, J & Hadidi, M. (2010). Introduction to Special Education, Amman: Dar Al-

Fikker.

Al-Makahleh, A. (2011). The effect of direct instruction strategy on math achievement of

primary 4th and 5th Grade students with learning difficulties. International Education

Studies, 4, 199-205.

Al-Zoubi, S. (2011). A training program module: A practical guide for teachers of learning

disabilities. Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Al-Zoubi, S., Bani Abdel Rahman, M., & Ismail, H. (2010). The Effect of in-service Training

Program in Improving Performance Competencies for Resource Room Teachers in Jordan.

Educators’ Digest, 10, 4-11.

Alberto, P., Waugh, R. and Frederick, L. (2010) “Teaching the reading of connected text

through sign-word instruction to students with moderate intellectual difficulties”, Research in

Developmental Difficulties, 31 (6), pp. 1467-1474.

Al- Yaari, S. S., (2013), Using Audio-Visual Aids and Computer-Assisted Language

Instruction (CALI) to Overcome Learning Difficulties of Speaking in Students of Special

Needs, Journal for the Study of English Linguistics, ISSN 2329-7034, 1(2)

Andersson, U. (2010) “Skill development in different components of arithmetic and basic

cognitive functions: Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study of children with different types

of learning difficulties”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (1), pp. 115-134.

44


Andersson, U. and Lyxell, B. (2007) “Working memory deficit in children with mathematical

difficulties: A general or specific deficit?”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96

(2), pp. 197-228.

Antia, S.D., Stinson, M.S. and M.G. Gaustad (2002). Developing membership in the

education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies

and Deaf Education, 7, 214-229.

Anthony, P., (1994) The federal role in special education, Educational Considerations, 22

(1): 30-35.

Andbil, F, A. (2007). Effects of teacher knowledge of learningdifficultieson how to return

feedback academic and emotional reactions to students with learning disabilities. Journal in

new Science Education. 3(1), 143-160.

Ainscow, M. (2000). Reaching out to all learners: Some lessons from international

experience. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 1-19.

Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer

Press.

Arscott, K., Dagnan, D. and Kroese, B. (1998) “Consent to psychological research by people

with an intellectual disability”, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Difficulties, 11

(1), pp. 77-83.

Auclair, L., Siéroff, E. and Kocer, S. (2008) “A case of spatial neglect dysgraphia in Wilson's

Disease”, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23 (1), pp. 47-62.

Avramidis, Elias (2009). The Social Impacts of inclusion on statemented pupils with SEN and

their mainstream peers: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-061-23-

0069-A. Swindon: ESRC. Retrieved on December 7, 2014 from

file://soton.ac.uk/ude/personalfiles/users/kham1e12/mydocuments/Downloads/RES-061-23-

0069-A-5k.pdf

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. and Burden, R. (2000) “Student teachers’ attitudes towards the

inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school”, Teaching and

Teacher Education, 16 (3), pp. 227-293.

Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2004). Promoting inclusive education: A review of literature

on teachers’ attitudes towards integration and inclusion. In L.Poulson & M.Wallace (Eds.)

Learning to read critically in teaching and learning (pp.201-222). London: Sage.

Bashir, A. and Scavuzzo, A. (1992) “Children with language disorders: Natural history and

academic success”, Journal of Learning Difficulties, 25 (1), pp. 53-65.

45


Bataineh, O., & Al-Shehry, K. (2010). The reality of learning resource rooms in Madinah Al-

Monawara. Journal of Psychological & Educational Studies, 5, 2-38.

Bender, W. (2008) Learning Difficulties: Characteristics, Identification, and Teaching

Strategies (6th edn). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bender, W. and Larkin, M. (2009) Reading Strategies for Elementary Students with Learning

Difficulties: Strategies for RTI, USA: Corwin Press.

Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D. T., Bragg, R., Cartwright, A. and Yates, C. (1994).

Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading & Writing Quarterly:

Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 259-275.

Berninger, VW., and Wolf, B. (2009) Teaching students with dyslexia and dysgraphia:

Lessons from teaching and science. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (Eds) (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion

in education. London: Routledge.

Brizee, A., Sousa, M. and Driscoll, D. (2012) “Writing centres and students with difficulties:

the user-centred approach, participatory design, and empirical research as collaborative

methodologies”, Computers and Composition, 29 (4), pp. 341-366.

Brooks, G. (2013) What works for children and young people with literacy difficulties? The

Dyslexia-SpLD Trust

Craft-TrippBrowell, S. (1998) “Visual disability, learning and education - a practical

approach”, Industrial and Commercial Training, 30 (1), pp. 24-29.

Brunswick, N., McDougall, S. & Davies, P. de M. (2010). Reading and Dyslexia in Different

Orthographies. Psychology Press.

Buckley, S. (2006). ‘Reflections on twenty years of scientific research’. Portsmouth: The

Down Syndrome Educational Trust.

Burden, B. & Burdett, J. (2004). Is inclusion always the best option? Special Children, 159,

30-32.

Burns, E., Poikkeus, A. and Aro, M. (2013) “Resilience strategies employed by teachers with

dyslexia working at tertiary education”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 34 (1), pp. 77-85.

Byerley, S., Chambers, M. and Thohira, M. (2007) “Accessibility of web-based library

databases: the vendors' perspectives in 2007”, Library Hi Tech, 25 (4), pp. 509-527.

Bynner, P. and Parsons, S. (2002) “Social exclusion and the transition from school to work:

The case of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET)”, Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 60 (2), pp. 289-309.

46

http://www.down-syndrome.org/editorials/2034/


Cambra, C., and Silvestre, N. (2003) Students with special educational needs in the inclusive

classroom: social integration and self-concept. European Journal of Special Needs

Education, 18(2) pp197-208

CENSUS (2010). Final Results of General Census of Population, Housing & Establishments.

Electronic source from www.omancensus.net

Chappell, A. (2000) “Emergence of participatory research in learning difficulty research:

understanding the context”, British Journal of Learning Difficulties, 28 (1), pp. 38-43.

Chin, C. and Lin, F. (2000) “A case study of a mathematics teacher’s pedagogical values:

Using a methodological framework of interpretation and reflection”, Proceedings of the

National Science Council, 10 (2), pp. 99-101.

Chua, H., Chenb, T., Linc, C., Liao, M. and Chen, Y. (2009) “Development of an adaptive

learning case recommendation approach for problem-based e-learning on mathematics

teaching for students with mild difficulties”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (2), pp.

5456-5468.

Conrad, M. and Whitaker, T. (1997) Inclusion and the Law: A Principal’s Proactive

Approach, London: The Clearing House.

Cook, T. (2004) “Reflecting and learning together: action research as a vital element of

developing understanding and practice”, Educational Action Research, 12 (1), pp. 77-97.

Cook, T. and Inglis, P. (2012) “Participatory research with men with learning disability:

informed consent”, Tizard Learning Disability Review, 17 (2), pp. 92-101.

Craft-Tripp, M. and Glatthorn, A. (2013) Standards-based Learning for Students with

Difficulties, New York: Routledge.

Craig, S. (2006) “The effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention on kindergarten

children’s phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading development: a contextualized

approach to instruction”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), pp. 714-731.

Curtis, A., McVilly, K. and Day, A. (2012) “Arson treatment programmes for offenders with

disability: a systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Learning Difficulties and

Offending Behaviour, 3 (4), pp. 186–205.

D’Amico, D. and Guarnera, M. (2005) “Exploring working memory in children with low

arithmetical achievement”, Learning and Individual Differences, 15 (1), pp. 189-202.

De Il’Etoile, S. (2005). Teaching music to special learners: children with disruptive behavior

disorders. Music Educators Journal, 91, 37-43.

Dermody, K. and Majekodunmi, N. (2011) “Online databases and the research experience for

university students with print difficulties”, Library Hi Tech, 29 (1), pp. 149-160.

47

http://www.omancensus.net/

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rejs20/18/2

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rejs20/18/2

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0885625032000078989

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0885625032000078989


Department of Health (DoH) (2001) Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning

difficulties for the 21st Century, CM 5086. London: DoH.

Department for Children Schools and Families (2009), Children with special educational

needs 009: an analysis. London: Department for Children Schools and Families.

Department of Education and Science (DES) (1978) Special Educational Needs, Report of

the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People,

Cmnd 7212, London: HMSO.

Desoete, A., Roeyers, H. and Clercq, D. (2004) “Children with mathematics learning

difficulties in Belgium”, Journal of Learning Difficulties, 37 (2), pp. 50-61.

Dirks, E., Spyer, E., Lieshoult, C. and Sonneville, L. (2008) “Prevalence of combined reading

and arithmetic difficulties”, Journal of Learning Difficulties, 41 (4), pp. 460-473.

Dowling, J. & Pound, A. (1994). Joint intervention with teachers, children and parents in the

school. In Dowling, E. & Osborne, E. (Eds.). The family and the school. London: Routledge.

Dyson, A. & Millward, A. (2000). Schools and special needs: Issues of innovation and

inclusion. London: Paul Chapman.

Ebersbach, M., Luwel, K. and Verschaffel, L. (2013) “Comparing apples and pears in studies

on magnitude estimations”, Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (332), pp. 1-6.

Emerson, E and Hatton, C (2008) Estimating Future Need for Adult Social Care Services for

People with Learningdifficultiesin England: Centre for Disability Research , University of

Lancaster. Carried out for Mencap and the Learning Disability Coalition.

Equality Act (2010) accessed from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Eviatar, Z., & Ibrahim, R. (2002). Orthography and the hemispheres: The case of Arabic

script. Manuscript in preparation.

Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education’,

International, Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, 2, 153–162.

Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share, D. L. (1993). Effects of listening to story

reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossic Situation. Reading Research

Quarterly, 28, 70-79.

Ferguson, C. A. (1959). "Diglossia". World Journal of the International Linguistic

Association, 15(2): 325-340.

Fletcher-Campbell, F. (2000). Literacy and special educational needs: A review of the

literature. DfEE Research Report 227. London: DfEE.

Fletcher-Campbell, F. and Cullen, M. A. (2000). Schools' Perceptions of Support Services for

Special Educational Needs. Support for Learning, 15: 90–94.

48

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents


Forlin, C., Hattie, J. & Douglas, D. (1996). Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers? Journal of

Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 21, 3, 199-217.

Foundation for People with Learning Difficulties (2014) “Learning Difficulties”, [online]

Available at: http://www.learningdifficulties.org.uk/help-information/learning-disability-a-z/

l/204300/ [Accessed on 22 February 2014].

Francis, T., (1985), Access to Arabic, Arabic Script Version, Nelson Filmscan

Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L., (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of

special education reform, Exceptional Children, 60: 294-309.

Fuchs, L. and Fuchs, D. (2002) “Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with

mathematical difficulties with and without comorbid reading difficulties”, Journal of

Learning Difficulties, 35 (2), pp. 563-573.

Fuchs, L.A. & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis.

Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208

Garcia-Sanchez, J. and Caso-Fuertes, A. (2005) “Comparison of the effect on writing

attitudes and writing self-efficacy on three different training programs in students with

learning disabilities”, International Journal of Educational Research, 43 (4), pp. 272-289.

Geary, D.C., Hamson, C.O., & Hoard, M.K. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A

longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal

of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 236–263.

Geary, D. (2011) “Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning

difficulties and persistent low achievement in mathematics”, Journal of Developmental and

Behavioral Pediatrics, 32 (1), pp. 250-263.

Gee, K. (2002). Looking closely at instructional approaches: Honoring and challenging all

children and youth in inclusive schools. Whole‐school success and inclusive education:

Building partnerships for learning, achievement, and accountability, 123-41.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J. and Baker, B. (2005) “Teaching Reading Comprehension

Strategies To Students With Learning Difficulties: A Review Of Research”, Review of

Educational Research, 71 (2), pp. 279-320.

Gibson, S. (2006). Beyond a ‘culture of silence’: Inclusive education and the liberation of

‘voice’. Disability and Society, 21 (4), 315-29.

Golubovic SM, and Milutinovic J. (2012) Speed of reading and number of errors in children

with dysgraphia. Inter J Psychophys 2012; 85(3): 409-413.

Graham, S., and Hebert, M., (2010). Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can

Improve Reading. A Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York

49


Guay, F., Ratelle, C., Roy, A. and Litalien, D. (2010) “Academic self-concept, autonomous

academic motivation, and academic achievement: Mediating and additive effects”, Learning

and Individual Differences, 20 (6), pp. 644-653.

Haeri, N. (2000). Form and ideology: Arabic sociolinguistics and beyond. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 29, 61-87.

Handler, S. (2011) “Learning difficulties, dyslexia, and vision”, Pediatrics, 127 (3), pp. 818-

856.

Harrington, S., (1997) Full Inclusion for Students with Learning Difficulties: A Review of the

Evidence, The School Community Journal, 7 (1): 63-71.

Hegarty, S. (2001). Inclusive education: a case to answer. Journal of Moral Education, 30(3),

243-249.

Hick, P., Kershner, R. and Farrell, P. (2009) Psychology for Inclusive Education: New

Directions in Theory and Practice, London: Taylor & Francis

Hidi, S. and Hilyard, A. (1984). The comparison of oral and written productions in two

discourse modes. Discourse Processes 6 (2), 91–105.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Kochanoff, A., Newcombe, N., and de Villiers., (2005). "Using Scientific

Knowledge to Inform Preschool Assessment: Making the Case for Empirical Validity".

Social Policy Report. Society for Research in Child Development. 19(1) pp 3-20.

Hocutt, A.M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement the critical factor?

Special Education for Students with Difficulties, 6(1), 77-102.

Holopainen, L., Lappalainen, K., Junttila, N. and Savolainen, H. (2012) “The role of social

competence in the psychological well-being of adolescents in secondary education”,

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56 (2), pp. 199-212.

Holttum, S. (2013) “Improving social inclusion for young people diagnosed with “first

episode psychosis”: employment, education and online support”, Mental Health and Social

Inclusion, 17 (3), pp. 112-117.

Horne, M. (2012) Attitudes toward Handicapped Students: Professional, Peer, and Parent

Reactions, New York: Routledge.

Idol, L. (2006) “Towards inclusion of special education students in general education”,

Remedial and Special Education, 27 (2), pp. 77-94.

James, F. & Brown, K. (1998). Effective differentiation. London: Collins.

Jefferies, E., Sage, K. and Ralph, L. (2007) “Do deep dyslexia, dysphasia and dysgraphia

share a common phonological impairment”, Neuropsychologia, 45 (7), pp. 1553-1570.

50


Jenkinson, J. (2000) “All Students Belong: Inclusive Education for Students with Severe

Learning Disabilities”, Tizard Learning Disability Review, 5 (4), pp. 4–13.

Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C. and Perron-Jones, N. (2002) “An exploratory study of schema-based

word-problem-solving instruction for middle school students with learning difficulties: An

emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding”, Journal of Special Education, 36 (2),

pp. 23-38.

Jordan, C., Hanich, L. and Kaplan, D. (2003) “A longitudinal study of mathematical

competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with

comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties”, Child Development, 74 (3), pp. 843-885.

Kakabaraee, K., Arjmandnia, A. and Afrooz, A. (2012) “The study of awareness and

capability of primary school teachers in identifying students with learning disability in the

province of Kermanshah”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 (1), pp. 2615-2619.

Kataoka, M., Kraayenoord, C. and Elkins, J. (2004) “Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of

learning difficulties: a study from Nara Prefecture, Japan”, Learning Disability Quarterly, 27

(3), pp. 161-175.

Kaufman, A. and Kaufman, N. (2001) Specific Learning Difficulties and Difficulties in

Children and Adolescents: Psychological Assessment and Evaluation, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Kauffman, J.M., McGee, K. & Brigham, M. (2004). Enabling or disabling? Observations on

changes in special education. (edit) Ryan, K. and Cooper, J. Kaleidoscope: Contemporary

and Classic Readings in Education. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 85, 8, 613-620.

Kelly, K. S. & Phillips, S. (2011). Teaching Literacy to Learners with Dyslexia: A Multi-

Sensory Approach. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Kim, S. (2007) A General Educator’s Instructional Adaptation for Students with Mathematics

Disability in Standards’ Based Mathematics Instruction, Ann Arbor: ProQuest.

Kirk., S. A., (1962). Educating exceptional Children, Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Kraker, M. (2000) “Classroom discourse: teaching, learning, and learning disabilities”,

Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 (3), pp. 295-313.

Kuboyama, S. and Kobayashi, M. (2003) The Role of Resource Rooms in Educational

Counselling of Children with Special Needs, pp. 20-30. Available from

http://202.237.53.67/kenshuka/josa/kankobutsu/bulletin7/Kobayashi.pdf

Kugelmass, J. (2004) The Inclusive School: Sustaining Equity and Standards, New York:

Teachers College Press.

51

http://202.237.53.67/kenshuka/josa/kankobutsu/bulletin7/Kobayashi.pdf


Kushki A, Schwellnus H, Ilyas F, Chau T. (2011) Changes in kinetics and kinematics of

handwriting during a prolonged writing task in children with and without dysgraphia. Res

Develop Disab; 32(3):1058-1064.

Langer, J. A. (1986). Children Reading and Writing: Structures and Strategies. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: a critical perspective. British Journal of Special

Education, 30(1), 3-12.

Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1996). Equity requires inclusion: the future for all students with

difficulties. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and

justice (pp.145-155). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A (1999). Inclusive education: a requirement of a democratic

society. In H. Daniels & P. Garner (eds.) World yearbook of education 1999: Inclusive

education (pp.12-23). London: Kogan Page.

Livingston, M., Reed, T. and Good, J. (2001). Attitudes of rural school principals towards

inclusive practices and placements for students with severe difficulties, Journal of Research

for Educational Leaders, 1 (1), pp. 49-62.

Lyon, G. (1996). Learning Disabilities. The Future of Children: Special Education for

Students with Disabilities. 6 (1) pp. 54-76.

MacFarlane, K. and Woolfson, M. (2013) “Teacher attitudes and behaviour towards the

inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in mainstream

schools: an application of the theory of planned behaviour”, Teaching and Teacher

Education, 29 (1), p. 46-52.

McQuarrie, N. & Zarry, L. (1999). Examining the actual duties of resource teachers.

Education, 120(2), 378-387.

Mather, D. (2003), Dyslexia and dysgraphia: More than written language difficulties in

common. Journal of Learning disabilities, 36:307-318.

Marcon, R. (1999) “Positive relationship between parent school involvement and public

school inner-city preschoolers development and academic performance”, School Psychology

Review, 28 (3), pp. 395-412.

McGrath, R. (2010) “A critical self-reflection of teaching ‘disability’ to international business

students”, Journal of International Education in Business, 3 (1), pp. 20–33.

McNally, J., Blake, A. and Reid, A. (2009) “The informal learning of new teachers in

school”, Journal of Workplace Learning, 21 (4), pp. 322–333.

52


McNamara, B. (1989) The Resource Room: A Guide for Special Educators, New York:

SUNY Press.

Meyer, B. and Poon, L. (2001) “Effects of structure strategy training and signalling on recall

of text”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), pp. 140-160.

Midgley, J. & Livermore, M. (Eds). (2009). Handbook of Social Policy, 2nd Ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moll, K. and Landerl, K. (2009) “Double dissociation between reading and spelling deficits”,

Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 (5), pp. 359-382.

Naucler, K., & Magnusson, E. (2002). How do preschool language problems affect language

abilities in adolescence. In F.Windsor & M. L. Kelly (Eds.), Investigations in clinical

phonetics and linguistics (pp. 243–269). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nixon, J. and Topping, K. (2001) “Emergent writing: the impact of structured peer

interaction”, Educational Psychology, 21 (1), pp. 41-58.

Norwich, B. (2002). Education, inclusion and individual differences: recognising and

resolving dilemmas. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(4), 482-502.

Odom, S., Horner, R. and Snell, M. (2009) Handbook of Developmental Difficulties, New

York: Guilford Press.

Oishi, N., Sumino, T., and Nagahata , M. (1985) “A case of development dyslexia and

dysgraphia”, Language Sciences, 7 (1), pp. 85-108.

Ouellette, G. and Senechal, M. (2008) “Pathways to literacy: a study of invented spelling and

its role in learning to read”, Child Development, 79 (1), pp. 899-913.

Pavey, B. (2013). The Dyslexia-Friendly Teacher’s Toolkit: Strategies for Teaching Students

3-18. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Petegem, V., Aelterman, A., Rossel, Y. and Creemers, B. (2007) “Students’ perceptions as

moderator for students’ wellbeing”, Social Indicators Research, 83 (3), pp. 447-463.

Peterson, R. L. & Pennington, B. F. (2012). Developmental Dyslexia. The Lancet, 379(9830),

1997–2007.

Pollard, E. and Lee, P. (2003) “Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature”,

Social Indicator Research, 61 (1), pp. 59-78.

Pirrie, A., Head, G. and Brna, P. (2006) Mainstreaming pupils with special educational needs:

an evaluation. Final Report to the Scottish Executive Education

Department.<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/12121142/0>http://

www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/89188/0021334.pd

53

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/89188/0021334.pd

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/89188/0021334.pd


Pretis, M. (2009) “Early childhood intervention in Austria: An overview of 30 years of

development and future challenges”, International Journal of Early Childhood Special

Education, 1(2), pp. 127-137.

Prevatt, C. and Hyles, D. (2012) Life Skills Training - Critical Reflective Approach: Critical

Reflective Approach, London: Xlibris Corporation.

Prifitera, A., Saklofske, D. and Weiss, L. (2008) WISC-IV Clinical Assessment and

Intervention, London: Elsevier.

Prior, M. (1996) Understanding Specific Learning Difficulties, New York: Psychology Press.

Promising Practices Network (2014) “The official website”, [online] Available at:

http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=99 [Accessed on 28 Novamber

2014].

Rapcsak, SZ., Pannu, J., and Kaszniak, AW,. (2005). Metamemory for faces following frontal

lobe damage. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11:668-676.

Rapcsak, S., Beeson, P., Henry, M., Leyden, A., Kim, E., Andersen, S. and Cho, H. (2009)

Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia: cognitive mechanisms and neutral substrates, Cortex,

45 (5), pp. 575-591.

Reid, G. (2009). Dyslexia: A Practitioner’s Handbook. John Wiley & Sons.

Riddick, B. (2009). Living With Dyslexia: The Social and Emotional Consequences of

Specific Learning Difficulties/disabilities. London: Routledge.Reid, L., Kurkjian, S. and

Carruthers, S. (1994) “Special education teachers interpret constructivist teaching”, Remedial

and Special Education, 15 (5), pp. 267-280.

Rieben, L., Ntamakiliro, L., and Gonthier, B. (2005) “Effects of various early writing

practices on reading and spelling”, Scientific Studies of Reading, 9 (1), pp. 145-166.

Riyami, A., Afifi, M. and Mabry, M. (2004) “Women’s Autonomy, Education and

Employment in Oman and their Influence on Contraceptive Use”, Reproductive Health

Matters, 12 (23), pp. 144-154.

Rose, J. (2009a). Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and

Literacy Difficulties. Retrieved December 3 2014,

from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://

www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf

Rose, J. (2009 b ) Independent review of the primary curriculum : final report (no. 00499-

2009dom-en). DCSF.

Rose, R. (2001). Primary school teacher perceptions of the conditions required for including

pupils with special educational needs. Educational Review, 53, 2, 147-156.

54

http://www.catchup.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=O0UPnzCS_zs%3D&tabid=105

http://www.catchup.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=O0UPnzCS_zs%3D&tabid=105

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf


Rose, R. & Howley, M. (2007). The practical guide to special educational needs in inclusive

primary classrooms. London: Paul Chapman.

Sabbah, S., & Shanaah, H. (2010). The Efficiency of resources rooms for special needs in

Government Schools from headmasters, teachers of resources rooms, and educational

counselors perspective. An-Najah University, Journal for Research Humanities, 24, 2187-

2226.

Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of

Arabic diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 115–135.

Salha, I., and Nariman, G. M.M., (2010). Post basic education reforms in Oman : A case

study, Litracy information and computer Education journal(LICEJ), pp. 19-27.

Samson, S. (2011) “Best practices for serving students with difficulties”, Reference Services

Review, 39 (2), pp. 260-277.

Schiemer, M. and Proyer, M. (2013) “Teaching children with difficulties: ICTs in Bangkok

and Addis Ababa”, Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 7 (2), pp. 99–112.

Scott, C. M. (1999). Learning to write. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kahmi (Eds.), Language and

reading difficulties (pp. 224–259). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Seo, Y. and Bryant, D. (2009) “Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted

instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities”,

Computers & Education, 53 (1), pp. 913-928.

Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development.

Edited by MacArthur, C., Graham, S., and Fitzgerald, J., Handbook of writing research, the

United State of America, The Guilford Press.

Smith-Spark, J. and Fisk, J. (2007) “Working memory functioning in developmental

dyslexia”, Memory, 15 (1), pp. 34-56.

Smits-Engelsman, B. M. and Van Galen, G. (1997). Dysgraphia in children: Lasting

psychomotor deficiency or transient developmental delay? Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 67:164-187.

Snowling, M. (2013). Dyslexia, Language and Learning to Read - St John’s College Oxford.

Retrieved December 9, 2014, from https://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/6385/2013-Dyslexia,-Language-

and-Learning-to-Read.html

Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early Identification and Interventions for Dyslexia: A Contemporary

View. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 7–14.

Stainback, S., and Stainback, W., (1992) Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms:

Facilitating learning for all students, Baltimore, USA, Paul Brookes.

55

https://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/6385/2013-Dyslexia,-Language-and-Learning-to-Read.html

https://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/6385/2013-Dyslexia,-Language-and-Learning-to-Read.html


Stein, J. and Talcott, J. (1999) “Impaired neuronal timing in developmental dyslexia: the

magnocellular hypothesis”, Dyslexia, 5 (2), pp. 56-77.

Stone, A. and Reid, D. (1994) “Social and individual forces in learning: Implications for

instruction of children with learning difficulties”, Learning Disability Quarterly, 17 (1), pp.

72-86.

Susana, E. (1995) “Perspectives of Students with Learningdifficultiesabout Special Education

Placement”, European Journal of Special Education, 10 (1), pp. 210-226.

Swanson, L. (1991) “Learning disabilities, distinctive encoding, and hemisphere resources”,

Brain and Language, 40 (2), pp. 202-230.

Sebba, J. & Ainscow, M. (1996). International developments in inclusive schooling: Mapping

the issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 5-18.

Taylor, B. and Duke, N. (2013) Handbook of Effective Literacy Instruction: Research-based

practice K-8, New York: Guilford Press.

Tierney, R. (1985) Reading Writing Relationships: A Glimpse at Some Facets. Reading

Canada Lecture, 3(2): 109-116.

The Dyslexia-SpLD Trust (http://www.thedyslexia-spldtrust.org.uk/)

The Ministry of Education (2014). The Annual Educational Statistics Book 2013/2014

(yearbook). Educational Issues 12/2014, Muscat, Oman.

The Ministry of Education (2012a). Handbook of roles for working in the learning difficulties

programme. Department of Special Education, Department of Inclusion and Learning

Difficulties. Unpublished Document.

The Ministry of Education (2010b). Manual book of addressing Learning Difficulties

programme for first cycle.

The Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman (2012c). Interviews in 31st December

2012.

The Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman (2013d). Electronic source from

http://home.moe.gov.om/arabic/file/top-menu/system/genral-school/low/9.pdf

The Ministry of Information, Governorates of the Sultanate of Oman (2012-2013). Electronic

source form: http://www.omanet.om/english/regions/oman.asp?cat=reg

Thomas, G. (1997). Inclusive schools for an inclusive society. British Journal of Special

Education, 24(3), 103-107.

Thomas, G. and Loxley, A., (2001). Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing

Inclusion, Open University Press.

56

http://www.omanet.om/english/regions/oman.asp?cat=reg

http://home.moe.gov.om/arabic/file/top-menu/system/genral-school/low/9.pdf

http://www.thedyslexia-spldtrust.org.uk/


Thomson, M. E. (2003). Dyslexia Included : A Whole School Approach / Edited by Michael

Thomson. London : David Fulton.

Townend, J. & Turner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Dyslexia in Practice: A Guide for Teachers.

London: Springer.

Tschannen-Moran, M., and Hoy, A. (2001) “Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive

construct”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (7), pp. 783-805.

US Department of State (2014) “YES Programme”, [online] Available at:

http://yesprograms.org/country/oman [Accessed on 22 February 2014].

Valdois, S., Bosse, M. and Tainurier, M. (2004) “The cognitive deficits responsible for

developmental dyslexia: review of evidence for a selective visual attential disorder”,

Dyslexia, 10 (4), pp. 339-363.

Van den Berg, R., Sleegers, P. & Geijsel, F. (2001). Teachers’ concerns about adaptive

teaching: Evaluation of a support program. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16, 3,

245-258.

Villa, R., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H. and Nevin, A. (1996) “Teacher and administrator

perceptions of heterogeneous education”, Exceptional Children, 63 (1), pp. 29-45.

Vukovic, R. and Lesaux, N. (2013) “The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways

language counts for children’s mathematical development”, Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 115 (3), pp. 227-244.

Wang, H., (2009). Should All Students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) Be Included in

Mainstream Education Provision? - A Critical Analysis. International Education Studies, 2

(4) pp. 154-161.

Webster, L. and Ammon, P. (1994) “Linking written language to cognitive development:

reading, writing, and concrete operations”, Research in the Teaching of English, 28 (1), pp.

89-109.

Webster, J., (2014). The Resource Room - a Placement Choice for Students with Difficulties,

“Special education”, [online] Available at: http://specialed.about.com/od/glossary/g/The-

Resource-Room-A-Placement-Choice-For-Students-With-Difficulties.htm [Accessed on 22

February 2014].

Weber, A., (2012), inclusive education in the gulf cooperation council, Journal of

Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, volume: 2 issue: 2 article: 11 issn: 2146-

7463.

Weiner, L. (1969) “An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Resource Rooms for Children

with Specific Learning Disabilities”, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), pp. 223-229.

57

http://specialed.about.com/bio/Jerry-Webster-65947.htm


Westwood, P. (2008) What Teachers Need to Know about Learning Difficulties, Sydney:

Australian Council for Educational Research.

White, K. (2013) “Associations between teacher-child relationships and children’s writing in

kindergarten and first grade”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 (1), pp. 166-176.

Whiteley, H. and Smith, C. (2001) “The use of tinted lenses to alleviate reading difficulties”,

Journal of Research in Reading, 24 (1), pp. 30-40.

Williams, G. and Larkin, R. (2013) “Narrative writing, reading and cognitive processes in

middle childhood: what are the links?”, Learning and Individual Differences, 28 (1), pp. 142-

150.

Williams, P., Jamali, H. and Nicholas, D. (2006) “Using ICT with people with special

educational needs, what the literature tells us”, Aslib Proceedings, 58 (4), pp. 330-345.

Windsor, J., Scott, C. M., & Street, C. K. (2000). Verb and noun morphology the spoken and

written language of children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech,

Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1322-1336.

Wong, B., Graham, L., Hoskyn, M. and Berman, J. (2011) The ABCs of Learning Difficulties,

2nd edn., New York: Academic Press

Wong, D. (2008) “Do contacts make a difference?: The effects of mainstreaming on student

attitudes toward people with disabilities”, Research in Developmental Difficulties, 29 (1), pp.

70-82.

Wragg, E.C., Haynes, G.S., Wragg, C.M. & Chamberlain, R.P. (2000). Failing Teachers?

London: Routledge

Zoellner, K., Samson, S. and Hines, S. (2008) “Continuing assessment of library instruction

to undergraduates: a general education course survey research project”, College & Research

Libraries, 69 (4), pp. 370-383.

Lima, R. F., Salgado, C. A., & Ciasca, S. M. (2009). Atualidades na dislexia do

desenvolvimento. Revista Psique,38,22-29.

British Dyslexia Association. (2005). Practical Solutions to Identifying Dyslexia in Juvenile

Offenders.

British Psychological Society. (1999). Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological Assessment.

Winzer, M., Rogow, S., & David, C. (1987). Exceptional children in Canada Scarborough,

ON: Prentice-Hall.

58


Dyson, L. (1996). The experiences of families of children with learning disabilities: Parental

stress, family function, and sibling self-concept. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 281-

288.

[12] Weiner, H. (1999). An investigation of the effectiveness of resource rooms of children of

students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2, 223-229.

Warner, R. (1999). The views of Bangladeshi parents on the special education attended by

their young children with severe leaning difficulties. Handicapped & Gifted Children, 26,

218-223.

Somaily, H., Al-Zoubi,S., and Abdel Rahman, A., (2012), Parents of Students with Learning

Disabilities Attitudes towards Resource Room, International Interdisciplinary Journal of

Education - February 2012, Volume 1, Issue 1

Chia, N.K.H., and Ong, E.L.Y. (2009). Dysgraphia and written output difficulties. In N.K.H.

Chia and M.E. Wong (Eds.). Series on Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools (Paper

No. 5). Singapore: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

SEN(2014), Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years , accessed

from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/

SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (accessed March 01, 2015)

British Psychological Society 1999), a working defibitrion o dyslexia, accessed gfrom

http://www.bps.org.uk/content/dyslexia-literacy-and-psychological-assessment. (accessed

March 01, 2015)

Prifitera , A., Saklofske, D. H., and Weiss, G. L., (2008), WISC-IV Clinical Assessment and Intervention:

Practical resources for the mental health professional, London: Elsevier

The UNESCO Salamanca Statement (2013), accessed from

http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/unesco-salamanca.shtml ((accessed March 01, 2015)

59

http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/unesco-salamanca.shtml

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=bibliogroup:%22Practical+resources+for+the+mental+health+professional%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=8

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Lawrence+G.+Weiss%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=8

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Donald+H.+Saklofske%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=8

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Aurelio+Prifitera%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=8

http://www.bps.org.uk/content/dyslexia-literacy-and-psychological-assessment

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf


Skrtic, T. M., Sailor, W. & Gee, K. (1996). "Voice, collaboration, and inclusion," Remedial and Special Education, 17(3), 142-157

Nalpon, L., and Chia, Noel., (2009), Does cursive handwriting have an impact on the reading

and spelling performance of children with dyslexic dysgraphia: A quasi-experimental study,

Journal of Reading & Literacy Vol.1, 2009 pp.60-99

Elman, Natalie. (1990) The Resource Room Primer. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

60

https://repository.nie.edu.sg/handle/10497/16315

https://repository.nie.edu.sg/handle/10497/16315

lit review 11_3-2015 (1) (file 7)

Documents

ministry of education

basic education system

free education

education system of

post basic education

special education services

general education certificate

years of study