16_secc_12

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

1/19

250

School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal - July, 2009 No. 1

School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal July

A Study Of Dyslexia Among Primary SchoolStudents In Sarawak, Malaysia

Rosana Bin Awang Bolhasan

Education DepartmentBatu Lintang Teachers Training Institute

Sarawak MalaysiaTel: 082 243501Fax: 082 252382

E-mail: [email protected]

Batu Lintang Teachers Training InstituteCollege Road

93200 KuchingSarawak, Malaysia

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of dyslexic reading problem among primaryschool students and the relationship between the degree of dyslexia and the demographic factors. Eightdemographics factors, according to gender of age, class, parents income, parent education, parentsoccupation, students position in the family and the number of brothers and sisters in the family are chosenfor the study. There are 32 characteristics of dyslexic student listed in the questionnaire Dyslexia ScreeningInstrument. 250 dyslexic students from 7 primary schools in Petra Jaya area in Sarawak, who were earlydetermined in the pilot study were the sample in the study. The analysis is done by using SPSS Windows6.1. The result of the study shows the dyslexic students concerned really facing reading problem because58-62% of them exhibit the 32 characteristic of dyslexia. However, the relationship between dyslexiaand the demographics factors is weak, that is at the correlation of r=0.0 0.12 only. This shows that thedyslexic problem among the students are of no correlation with the demographic factors.

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

2/19

2

Rosana Bin Awang Bolhasan - A Study of Dyslexia among Primary School Students in Sarawak, Malaysia

2009 A Study of Dyslexia among Primary School Students in Sarawak, Malaysia

Intoduction

Dyslexia is a language disability, affectingreading, writing, speaking and listening. Itis a dysfunction or impairment in the use of words. Consequently, relation with others and

performance in every subject in school can beaffected by dyslexia. It can be found around theworld principally among boys. It exists in learnersof slow, average and superior intelligence. Thedyslexic child can come from any background or any income level and dyslexia may occur in anychild in a family regardless of order in which heis born.

Like other countries, in Malaysia, reading isone of the skills required in the study of language.It is the important skill in the hierarchy of theMalaysian Education syllabus. It is very essentialand considered to be one way to evaluate thesuccess of students in their learning in schools. Inthe integrated curriculum of Secondary Schools,reading ability is of prime importance besidesthe skills in arithmetic and writing. The ability toread is not only considered as basis to achievingsuccess in other learning processes but includingthis skill this main skill of reading in the Education

System is proven to be the factor of success from primary to higher institutional level.

Amir Awang (1995) quoted that students abilityis one of the factors that contribute of their learningwidely in the other areas of knowledge. Findingsfrom research study on reading still persist untiltoday that it has great bearing on achievement invarious areas of acquiring knowledge. It is proventhat students who are able to read usually havegreat potentiality in their studies.

According to Bond & Tinker (1987) readingability considered to be of paramount importancewhich ties the bond of interaction which enables

people to communicate with one another. Smith(1973) had dwelled in depth on psycholinguisticcommunication in correlation with reading

process from the view of psycholinguistics.In general it has three views which have beensupported by linguists and cognitive psychologists.Their views are:

a. There need to be only small portion of theinformation that requires understandingfrom printed text.

b. Understanding must proceed vocabularyc. Reading is not to decode written language

from that of oral.

Our nations educational experts have mucheffort in promoting and developing the skills of reading and interpreting, especially in the MalayLanguage subject. However, the adversity inreading ability amongst students in the primary andlower secondary school still prevails. Accordingto Mohd. Fadzil Haji Hassan (1998) the problemof student disability in reading in schools has not

been solved and so far cannot be overcome.Students being unable to read and dislike

reading is a topic of conversation that is often brought up by the various communities. AbdulHalim Yusuf (1995) quoted:

Recently questions about the increase in thenumber of studentswho cannot read and dislike reading newsfrom the mediareveals that many students do not have thereading skill.

Lately, the media has reported that students

are not pro cient in reading. Various authoritiesvoiced their concern about the phenomenon of students having low reading pro ciency. TheMalaysian Ministry of Education, parents andteachers have voiced out their concern over thenewspaper (So ah Hamid, 1999). According to thereport from the Director General of The MalaysianEducation Ministry, there are about 6,000 of

primary 6 students who cannot read properly.In view of the importance of reading skill

which necessarily acquired as the basic skill aswell as the unsolved problems about dyslexia, athorough study needs to be carried.

According to Kamarudin Hj. Hussin (1980)cases on dyslexia are increasing. It happens in the

primary school and lower secondary schools. Toaddress this problem, the Ministry of Educationhas taken steps such as:

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

3/19

252



a. Conducting courses on reading for primary school teachers.

b. Introducing special project on remedial andincentive studies in 1975 by Centreof Advanced Curriculum.

c. Organizing and conducting workshops andseminars ton address the problem.

d. All projects being planned are in collaborationwith Faculty of EducationUniversity Malaya.

e. Many education of ces carry out remedial program on the Malay language subject.

f. Teachers Training College for specialeducation successfully organized courseson methodology for teacher trainees.

Although the Education Ministry has takenvarious steps to tackle the problem on dyslexia, ithas not been able to overcome it successfully. Thecurriculum division has come up with a ndingthat primary six students in the school below havereceived certain percentage of success:

a. The Chinese National School 50.5% b. The Tamale National School 50.8%

(Hasmah Udin, 1998)

This phenomenon has a great set back. Dueto that, the Ministry of Education introducesthe new Curriculum for primary school, whichfocuses mainly on reading, writing and arithmetic(Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 1998:1).It is hoped by the end of the primary schoollevel, students are able to adapt themselves intodeveloping thinking process.

Following the new primary school curriculum,the Cabinet Committee has come up with the newEducation Policy or System formulated a newCurriculum of secondary school to replace the

previous one. This has come up with the stress onspeaking, reading and writing pro ciently as wellas being creative in handling situation.

Musa Jalil (1989) has found out that 40% of the primary 6 students in Pulau Pinang cannotread well. There are 15,728 students, 2573 cannotread, 2,105 can read but without the ability to

comprehend the text they read. His study hascome up with a number, 6,668 out of 15,728 whocannot master the basic skill of reading and arealmost illiterate.

This has been proven through the weaknessesof the new primary school curriculum. It has notencouraged the student to strive harder and provento have no bearing at all to improve the situation.It means the student spend fruitless sessions intheir schools for the whole 6 years in the primaryeducation.

This situation has raised the level on anxietyamongst educationists, parents and the society.Being not able to possess a good pro ciency inreading, students will not be able to refer andlearn much from text books in order acquire other knowledge on other genre. It has been proven thatstudents fail in their examinations just becausethey cannot understand or comprehend thequestions. Due to this problem, in depth study isnecessary to be carried out so that the real problemcan be indenti ed. The details of the problems can

be looked upon from the following points of viewand this research objectives are mainly focusedon the problem of dyslexia amongst studentsin the primary school Sarawak, Malaysia. Thespeci cation of this study are the highlighting of:

a. The frequent dyslexia characteristics exhibited by the dyslexic students.

b. The relationship between the degree of dyslexia faced by the student and their demographics factors.

c. The signi cant difference between male andfemale dyslexic.

All these aspects are the focus of this casestudy with the hope that all can be solved, havingcome up with a guide to remedy the situation withsystematic well-planned approaches.

Method

The data for this research was collected fromthe District of Petra Jaya, in the state of Sarawak,Malaysia. The district was selected because it

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

4/19

2



meets the requirement of the main focus of thestudy in terms of demographical features.

Further more, one pilot study had been made before the actual research was done. The pilot studyis to certify the researched subject is being madethrough interview with the principal, the remedialteachers and other teachers who are teaching them,

besides observation of the students who had beennoti ed. This study involved 250 dyslexic studentsand this sample has been con rmed through the

pilot study at the early stage of the research.Besides using the students sample, the

researcher also distributed questionnaire to the 25teachers who are in charge of every subject, andthe class teachers to nd out about their perceptiontoward the students. The age of those dyslexicstudents range 7 to 12 years and were from 7

primary schools.The pilot study s carried out after interview

with those teachers who teach them. Students thathave been analyzed are been observed. In thisobservation, the students characteristic as set inDyslexia Screening Instrument were detected. Inthe pilot study report from teachers and the studentswork are also included as criteria to ascertain if thestudents is suffering from dyslexia.

At rst, the researcher distributed questionnaire

to the dyslexic students and asked them to write their name in the questionnaire. Then, the researcher distributed the same questionnaire to the classteacher and asked them to evaluate the students.The teachers perception is important becauseaccording to Abang Ridzuan (1991), Classteacher is one who knows well about the problemsamong the students besides their attitude. In anindirect way, teachers perception can be used as acontrol for the students opinions.

The Dyslexia Screening Instrument byKathryn B. Choon et al (1994) is a rating scaledesigned to describe the cluster of characteristicsassociated with dyslexia and to discriminate

between students who display these characteristicsand students who do not. This scale, for use in theschool setting, is quick and non intrusive, and

provides education professionals with a starting point for identifying students at risk for dyslexia.

The Dyslexia Screening Instrument is designed

to be used with students in grade 1 through 12(ages 6 through 21). It can be used to screen entire

population of students or students who exhibitreading, spelling, writing or language-processingdif culties. Rating and scoring should take 15 to20 minutes per student.

A classroom teacher who has worked directlywith the student for at least six weeks shouldcomplete the Rating Form. This will result ina rating that will be more accurate because theteacher has observed the student over a lengthy

period of time and can compare the students performance to that of the students; classmate.

For an elementary student, the prefer rater isthe teacher who instructs the student in a varietyof subjects. For a middle school or high schoolstudent, the prefer rater a language teacher whogenerally has more opportunity to observe the

behavior that is indicative of dyslexia.The professional who is in charge of gathering

information about the student should explain tothe rater that the purpose of the Rating Form isto obtain an accurate picture of current student

performance related to speci c characteristics.The professional also should make sure the rater understand how to complete the Rating Form andwhat each statement describes.

The rater should complete the studentinformation on the front of the Rating Form. Notall of the information is required for scoring, but itmay be useful for record-keeping purposes.

Never exhibitsa.Seldom exhibits b.Sometimes exhibitsc.Often exhibitsd.Always exhibitse.

Besides that, a questionnaire is used torecognize especially the Socio-economic status of the students family. The items are:

Gender a.Age b.Level of studyc.Occupation of Parent/Guardiand.Education of Parent/Guardiane.

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

5/19

254



The number of brothersf.Family statusg.

Questions Management

The instrument that is used is a questionnaire,which was translated from its original instrumentDyslexia Screening Instrument. Both versions,English (original) and Malay Language (Translatedare attached). The questionnaire is made into twogroups which contain similar question. The rstset is for the students and second set is for theteachers.

Evaluation

Evaluation is made according to evaluation procedure, especially the explanation for everystatement which is written in the questionnaire.Both questionnaires need to be completed in 15 to20 minutes only. The lling in the demographicquestionnaire and the questionnaire for studentswho suffer from dyslexia must be carried out

by the help from the teacher and the researcher.Detail explanation about their needs followed bythe meaning of a statement must be carried outand it is students preference to choose their scale

according to their own valuation. Teachers whoare involved must have experience in teaching thestudents for at least 6 weeks. It can help the teacher to make an observation followed by comparingtheir potential with their friends. It makes twomonths to complete the questionnaire.

Data Analysis

The questionnaire that are lled in are collectedfor analysis. Both of the students and teachersvaluation are put together for every respondent.Every respondent is evaluated according to everyitem in the questionnaire and written down in

both valuation scales. One type of analysis fromis modi ed to simplify the analysis. Here is theexample of simple procedure by using the analysisform.

Table 1 Analysis Data Code

ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3

A B A B A B

Respondent 1 2 1 3 4 2 2



There is data analysis from 250 respondents andthe items are from 1 to 33. Teachers valuationsare in (A) and the students valuations are in(B). The demographic questionnaire has beenaccomplished and analyzed. All data has been

processed for frequency, correlation, regressionfollowed by T-test by using SPSS Window 6.1.

Frequency analysis is a prepared list of quantitative data and this is done by listing, inrank order from high to low, all the scores to besummarized, with tallies to indicate the number of subjects receiving each score. The scores in adistribution are grouped into intervals. To further the understanding and interpretation of data, it will

be presented in frequency polygon with frequencyanalysis. In this context, frequent act by thestudents who suffer from dyslexia can be detectedeasily and frequent analysis characteristics can bealso recognized.

With correlation, researcher seeks to determineif relationship exists between two or more variables.By comparing the performance of different groupsis the way to study relationships. Sometimes,such relationships are useful in prediction, butmost often the eventual goal is to say somethingabout causation (Jack R. Fraenkel and Norman E.Wallen, 1990:158).

Correlation coef cients can take on valuesfrom 1.00 to + 1.00 inclusive; the greater theabsolute value of the coef cient, the stronger therelationship. A correlation coef cient of zeroindicates no relationship or independence of thevariables. In the context of this study correlation isused to seek relationship between the demographicfactor and the characteristics which have beenshown by the dyslexia students.

Regression analysis allows the researcher towork out whether two variables are associated,whether people who vary on one variable also

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

6/19

2



vary systematically on the offer (D.A.de Vaus,1995: 179). The researcher also can determinehow strongly these variables are associated. It alsoenables the researcher to say how much impacteach unit change in the independent variable hason the dependent variable.

In summary, the regression coef cient can be used to measure the amount of impact or change one variable produces in another. Theyare asymmetrical and will be different accordingto which variable id independent. In this study,regression will be used to see the most valuablechanges or the main in uence of dyslexia.

The t-test provides a method by which themeans of the samples can be compared when it

is assumed that the samples have been randomlyselected and the score are obtained from normallydistributed population (Gajendra K. Verma andKanka Mallick, 1999:205). Use of the test enablesresearcher to say whether the difference obtainedis quite likely to occur by chance, or whether it issigni cant. In the latter case, the difference may

be due to some underlying cause which deservesfurther investigation.

This is case study research. After pilotstudy, with interview and observation done, setsof questionnaires are produced for the actualresearch. The whole procedure of the research isas in Figure 1 below.

Pilot Study(Interview)

Pilot Study(Observation)

Pilot Analysis

Study

Constructing Instrument

According to validity and reliability

Applied in the study

Product of study

Figure 1: Research Graphic Procedure

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

7/19

256



Result The result of the research on dyslexia has

been experienced by the respondents in the primary school level. The question that is goingto be answered is, Are the demographic factorslike the economic level of the parents in uence alldyslexia characteristics?.

The main purpose of describing these variableswas to provide some insight into the characteristicof dyslexia students pertaining to the study.All statistical analysis and other analyses onrelationships between variables and varianceswithin variables are also described.

From the questionnaire Dyslexia Screening Instrument , the researcher makes a decision to havea valuation with frequency analysis, correlationanalysis, regression analysis and t-test. Theresearcher used the test result from every individualaccording to the analysis and nally differentiatethem. Before the process, the researcher has todiscuss the dyslexia characteristics openly withthe students themselves without putting any of thein uence factors.

Demographic Characteristics of RespondentsAge

Table 2 shows the distribution of respondents by age. The data indicates that only 19.2 percentof the respondents were 7 years; 68 percent of the respondents were between 8 to 11, and 12

percent wee 12 years of age. The mean age of therespondents was 9.24 years with a range of 7 to 12years old.

Table 2

Breakdown of Respondents by Gender

(Gender) Number of Respondents

Per Cent

Male 145 58

Female 105 42Total 250 100.0

Distribution of Respondents by Age

Age Number of Respondents Per Cent7 Years 48 19.28 Years 45 189 Years 50 20

10 Years 42 16.811 Years 35 1412 Years 30 12

Total 250 SD = 1.98

X = 9.24 SD = 1.98

Parent Income

The monthly income for all parents of therespondent is summarized in table 4. The meanincome of the parents was RM325.84. However,the range of their income varied very widelyfrom RM100.00 to RM1280.00. It was generallyobserved by the researcher that most of the parentsof the respondents had understand their actualincome.

Table 4

Distribution of Parent IncomeLevel of income

(RM) Number of Respondents

Per Cent

RM150 and less 70 28RM151 RM300 90 36RM151 RM300 52 20.8RM451 andabove

38 15.2

Total 20 100.0X 325.84

Parents Level of Education

Level of education referred to the actual number of years of formal schooling both secular andreligious education. The mean number of years of education completed for all parents of respondentswas 4.66 years while the range was from 0 to 11years. Table 5 provides the breakdown of thesample of years of education completed. Thedata indicates that only 28.4 percent of the parentshad education beyond the elementary level (6years) and 54.4 percent of the parents had formalschooling between 1 to 6 years.

Table 3

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

8/19

2



Parent Level of Education

Level of Education Number of Respondents

Per Cent

No Education 43 17.21-3 51 20.44-6 85 34.0

7 or more 71 28.4Total 250 100.0

X = 4.66

Hierarchy in the FamilyHierarchy in the

family Number of Respondents

Per cent

First 27 10.8

Second 35 14

Third 25 10

Forth 28 11.2

Firth 32 12.8

Sixth 50 20.0

Seventh 27 10.8

Eight 26 10.4

Total 250 100.0

X = 4.56 SD = 0.17

Hierarchy in the Family

Table 7 shows the distribution of respondents by hierarchy in the family. About 20 percent of the respondents are from the youngest and oldestkids in the family. As revealed from the data, 20

percent of the respondents are sixth in hierarchyof the family, while the second, third, forth and

Parents Occupation

As shown in table 6, of the 250 parents of respondents, about 8.8 percent did not have

permanent jobs. 22.4 percent have their permanent jobs in the government sector as teachers, clerks, police, nurses and of ce workers. However, about34 percent have their jobs in private sector and self employed with own small business. There wereabout 34.8 percent of the parents of the respondentsinvolved themselves as labours.

Table 6

Parent Occupation

Occupation Number of Respondents

Per cent

- No PermanentJobs

22 88.8

- Private rm 31 12.4- Self employed 54 21.6- GovernmentService

56 22.4

- Labours 87 34.8Total 250 100.0

X = 4.66

While 17.2 percent had not received any formaleducation.

Table 5

seventh hierarchy revealed almost a similar percentage which range from 10 to 14 percent.The mean for all respondents was 4.56.

Table 7

Number of Siblings

The distribution of number of siblings in therespondents family is presented in table 8. Thedata reveals that the dyslexia students are fromfamily of 3 to 5 siblings which range the percentage

of 16.0.

Table 8

Number of Siblings in the Family No. of Siblings

Number of Respondents

Per cent

1 15 6

2 25 10

3 42 16.8

4 40 165 42 16.86 40 167 21 8.48 25 10

Total 250 100.0

X = 4.59 SD = 0.7

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

9/19

258



Items III. ViewAmount/

Percentage1. The writingvocabulary not stable

with the oralvocabulary. (Item 15)

Teachers View 201 ( 80% )

Students View 179 ( 71% )

2. Not active in oral.(item 26)



3. Weak in arranging theimportant Point in

writing. (Item 16)

Teachers View 200 ( 79.4% )

Students View 188 ( 74.6% )

4. Can remember in ashort period (Item 8)



5. Less skill in spelling.(Item 17)


Students View 176 ( 70% )6. Understand whilein class but Decreasein Test. (Item 9)



7. Not exact in oralreading. (Item 10)



8. No. PlanningTeachers View 189 ( 75% )


Statistical Analyses

Frequency analysis

Based on the items in the questionnaire inDyslexia Screening Instrument there are 32items which are the normal characteristics thathave been shown by the students who suffered thedyslexia problem. The research points that thestudents very often show the 32 characteristics.Although the dyslexia level and status is differentfrom each other, this is the view of the two sideswhich involved the teachers and the studentsthemselves. Table 9 will show that 62% of thestudents are frequent and 58% are always showingthe 32 characteristics. For more discussion, thereare 8 high characteristics percentages from therespondents used in this research.

Table 9: Frequency / Percentages of theTeachers/Students View about the

Every Time facing the dyslexia problem

Table 9 proves that dyslexias students are veryoften showing good response in oral reading. The

percentage of 49.6% is the proof of validity of weakness that exist in the students.

Besides that, the students have been detectedthat they had shown weakness in their writingwhich may have connection with the oral reading.According to the percentage, in item 20, 49.2%(Teachers view) and 47.6% (Students View).

The students are also showing forgettablecharacteristic because they understand or knowfor a short time and could not remember the nextday. The gures 57.5% student view are the

proof based on that characteristic. Besides that,the students are also weak in arranging words.Accordingly that weakness can be detected fromitem 14 that shows both view, the teachers view50.8% and the students view 11.6%

The students also showed doubts in writing andoral, and it causes the students having problemsin both writing skill and oral skill which has beenexplained in item 10 and 20. this unstable existencehas been detected by item 15 that produces the

percentage of 61.9% and 57.9% from the teachersand students respectively. Item 17 proves that thestudents have less skill in spelling at that level,which is supposed to be. This means that the

student are really having a problem in spellingskills compared to normal students at the samelevel. The highest percentage is between 51.6%and 51.2% from the both views which is the proof of the situation.

The students also illustrated the weakness and being slow in making prediction. It may haveoriginated from other weakness, in them. By item27, this weakness is proved with the percentageof the teachers view (60.7%) and the studentsview (57.5%) which is quite high. The delayin making the prediction can cause dif cultyin making plans. This problem can cause lesscreativity, ability and can cause problems instudying if there is no action taken to solve the

problem. Concerning item 8, regarding studentsthat always forget, this characteristic is supported

by item 30. By item 30, the students always showtheir weakness in repeating the explanation, whichhave been explained to them. They are weak in

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

10/19

2



saying something that has been said to them. Theviews percentages from both sides on this matter are 57.5% and 56.3%.

There must be a possibility that the studentsunderstand what they been taught, but alwaysshow their weakness in the test. This matter has

been proven because they can easily forget andcould not repeat the fact or explanation, which has

been given to them like it was stated in item 8 anditem 31. The fall in this test id dominated by the

percentage, of 56.3% and 57.6% from the viewof both sides by item 9 in the questionnaire. Thestudents also show their noisy emotion in makingactivities or work especially in pressured andlimited time. This matter can be proven by item 6with the percentage of 50.4% and 46.8%. Noisyemotion may be the cause of their less capabilityin planning their work properly. These studentsalways could not plan their work that shows by the

percentage 58.7% and 56%, which is high by item7 in the questionnaire. The percentage of 47.6%and 51.2% the characteristics are easily disturbedand this is the factor that the students are weak insome aspect.

Item 16, proved that the students are weak in arranging the essay content. The percentageof 51.6% (the teachers view) and 59.1% (the

students view) prove the presence of the weaknessin the students themselves. This matter may haveits connection with item 7, which says that thestudents always could not plan their work.

The correlation and domination is in item 8 anditem 30 being interpreted above. Item 19 is alsoconnected. The students are speci ed as a groupthat needs repeated explanation because they caneasily forget and are already weak in repeatingthe explanation that has been given to them. Bythis item 19, the view of 54.0% from the teachersand 51.6% from the student themselves, prove thestrong statement that the students need a repetitionexplanation or drilling system.

It is clear that the students often and everytime show the 32 characteristics, which an alreadyanalyzed by the Dyslexia Screening Instrument.The dyslexia level and status is detected by theresearch correlation, that is the percentage of views which have been collected. From the

analysis above, it can be proved that the studentsare in critical dif culties. In certain situation,their problem is not serious especially for itemsno. 3,4,5,13,28 and 31 which shows the frequencyand every time it is lower than 50%. This showsthat we do not agree about them being

Disappointed very easily (item 3)oDown to earth (item 4)oLower down their status (item 5)oWeak in direction concept (item 13)oMisplace / lost their personal thing (itemo28)Very quick in thinking (item 31)o

Correlation Analysis

By the correlation analysis, there are a fewobvious relation between the independent variablewith the dyslexia characteristics. This was proven

by the Pearson correlation. This analysis showsthat there is a relation in weak level only betweenthe dyslexia characteristics with the age factor is (r = 0.13; p, 0.041 ). This mean that relation exist

between the simple disturbed characteristics in thestudents with their age factor.

Based on the result from the questions 32 andquestion 8, the change factor has been identi ed

because of the relation between both in the weak stages. That means from the questionnaires thathave been given to the students, their charactersare weak regarding education, occupation andtheir parents or guardians. Their characteristicsare not in uenced by their parents or guardianshigh education or their high salary. That also for the matter of factor-gender, age, the number of siblings, and their status in the family. All thesefactors have their own weakness for the dyslexiacharacteristics.

Because of the high percentage in the weak level ( below r 0.4 ), we have to see how muchis the amount that r = 0.12 to see the connection.From this result, we will divide them into twogroups that is parents which in uence the studentsand the students factor itself, which emerge in thedyslexia characteristics in the questionnaire.

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

11/19

260



The number of siblings factor for example onlyin uences the students look which is forget easily(0.2), not right in oral reading (0.12) and inequality(0.04) on level p < 0.05.

There is less in uence by parents or guidancein students dyslexia characteristic. This provesthat with correlation obtained by Pearson whichshows the it is not beyond 0.4 but only around r =0.0 until r = 0.12 only.

Regression Analysis

In the regression analysis which has beencarried out, researcher likes to know the maindemographic factor, which in uences dyslexia.For that, researcher has inserted all this which isoccupation, income, and the parents education inthe research for the purpose to nd one or somefactors that always in uence the students. Alsoincluded are the ve students demographic factors,which are age, gender, status in the family, number of siblings and the class that the students are inwhile the research is in progress.

Table 12: The Demographic FactorsWhich In uence Dyslexia

Table 10: Parents / Guardian withDyslexia Characteristics

ITEM

FAC-TORS

Disap-pointedEasily

FeelDown

TO Earth

FeelDown

TO Earth

Explana-tion

To BeRepeated

Education 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.4Income 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04

Income 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.07

ITEM

FACTORS

Forget EasilyNot right inoral reading

Unrelationoral

vocabularywith writingvocabulary

Number of siblings

0.02 0.12 0.04

Status in thefamily

0.02 0.12 0.1

Gender 0.05 0.06 0.09

Age 0.08 0.02 0.09

Primary Level 0.08 0.02 0.09

Mult R R2R

F R Signif -cant

Occupation .367 .135 .124 .894 P < .001

Income .307 .094 .083 .894 P < .001Education .285 .082 .070 1.298 P < .001

Age .221 .049 .041 .848 P < .01 Number of

siblings.158 .025 .021 .970 P < .05

Status of thefamily

.157 .024 .021 .848 P < 0.5

Primary .386 .149 .135 .889 P < .001

Signify p > 0.05

Based on table 10 above, there is a relation between education, income and the students parent or guardians occupation with signi cantrelation of being weak in disappointed easily, feeldown to earth, noisy the pressure and explanationhave to be repeated which the students have onlevel p< 0.05. For example, the connection of

parents education factor concerning disappointedeasily ( r = 0.12 ), down to earth ( r = 0.08 ). Noisywith pressure ( r = 0.06 ) and explanation to berepeated ( r = 0.04 ) on level p < 0.05.

The students factor that in uences the dyslexiacharacteristic also shows a weak signi cant relationin table 11 The students factor is in uenced by thedyslexia characteristics.

Table 11: Students factor that in uenceDyslexia Characteristics

Signi cance p < 0.05

From table 11 above, it can be seen thatstudents factor does not in uence the look andthe characteristics forget easily, not right in oralreading and inequality which is in the students.

This research shows that the outside in uencesand the factors in the student only give less effect tothe students. The researcher found that the socio-economic status of the parents has less in uenceon their childs dyslexia characteristics. Theresults obtained show that the parents occupationis one of the factors, which can in uence ( R2 =.135 ). This means that the parents occupationcontributes about 13.5% to the dyslexia problem.

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

12/19

2



Majority of the students parents work as labour.Because of that the parents have no time to payattention to their children. The low educationlevel, contributes 8.2% to the problem of nothelping their children in reading. The incomefactor contributes 9.4%

( r 2 = 0.094 ) to this problem. With lowincome, the parents couldnt manage to buy booksfor their children to read.

The researcher believes that the dyslexia isassociated with the students age factor. Studentsin secondary school have no problem comparedto those primary school students. This has been

proved with the high percentage ( R 2 = .149 ) of in uence on the students dyslexia. This meansthe dyslexia problem always happens in the earlystage or in this context in rst school level which is

primary one, two, three and happens less in secondstage which is primary four, ve and six. This is

because the rst stage, the students understandingis less compared with the second stage where theylearn a lot by revision studies process which arecarried out by the school from time to time.

The meaning of comprehension is the studentsability to understand something they read liketheme, plot and teaching from academic books or story books. With less understanding, may be the

reader gets less information. This results in thefailure to collect information and to make use of the information when it is needed.

One more thing researcher believes that thisdyslexia has connection with lack of interest instudents in what they read. It is because of lessconcentration in their reading process or in uenceof other matters like thinking of playing, evennegative in uences from classmates. Like it wasexplained before, researcher also has an opinionthat their interest in something that they read isimportant in dyslexia. The interest in a story book that is interesting, can bring back the curious feelingand high concentration to try and understand allthe facts. This can improve their understandingin what they have read. This can be differentiatedwith the interest in academic books which may beless than the interest in story books. Here parentsneed to give motivation to their children to learnsomething that they are not interested in.

In the context of age and level, even thoughcon rmed that the dyslexia characteristics bulgein the early stage of schooling which means age ata young, we get the different test result that is theclass factor shows strong in uence besides thatthe age factor is R2 = .049 or 4.9% only. Thismay be because of their mature age each student isdifferent from the other. The age factor is not themain reason that contributes to dyslexia problemand it is believed that the dyslexia that the dyslexia

problem will disappear when they grow older.If the researcher touches on the status factor of

the in the family and the number of siblings thatis 2.5% and 2.4%. The researcher can view asthat the factor of the number of the children inthe family can in uence dyslexia. This is becausewhen the number of children is too high, the

parents attention to the individual will be less.

t-Test

The t-test has been carried out to analysiswhether there are any differences that aresigni cant among the male students and femalestudents in dyslexia problem.

Table 13: The Result of t-test for Gender Factor.

Item Gender N Min SP t-valueSigni -

car Forget Male 145 3.6 0.9Their 1.03 P = 0.01duty Female 106 3.4 1.0

Noisy Male 145 3.6 1.0

basis 1.14P =

0.056Pressure Female 106 3.4 1.1

Lost Male 145 3.7 0.8

basic 0.39P =

0.057In test Female 106 3.6 1.0Weak Male 145 3.7 0.8

in 0.39P =

0.023

Writing Female 106 3.6 0.8Slow to Male 145 3.8 0.8

Predict 0.68P =

0.365Female 106 3.6 1.0

Signi cant p = 0.05

By this t-test it can be found that there are 5characteristics which show different signi canceamong the male and female students. These

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

13/19

262



ve characteristics are in between p = 0.008 to p = 0.057. Two characteristics which are verysigni cant among the male and female studentsare slow in making prediction with the value of t= 1.14 and p = 0.056. The signi cance is found inthe forget easily characteristic with ( value t =1.03 p = 0.01 ) , lost basis in test 9 value t = 0.39

p = 0.57 ) and weak in writing ( value t = 0.39 p= 0.023 ).

The mean value also shows the studentsratio of male and female who suffer from thedyslexia problem. All the mean ratio in these vecharacteristics show the male students mean ratiois higher than the female mean ratio. This meanthat there are more male student facing the easilyforget problem , noisy, and lost basis in test, weak in writing and slow in making prediction comparedto the female students. This may be because of the male is not serious and slows and puts lessconcentration in doing thing.

From the analysis and test which nave beencarried out, researcher can make an excuse bydividing the result into two parts that is socio-economic status of the parents of the students andthe demographic factor itself.

The result of the analysis has proved thatthe socio-economic status factor which include

education, occupation and the parents incomein uences the dyslexia characteristic. Parents, whohave low education and low income can in uencethe students. The students should be given moreencouragement in education and help them in their home work to solve the dyslexia problem.

About the students factor, researcher foundout that there are two tests have come out withoutstanding results of age factor, primary, number of siblings and status from the family also in uencethe students that suffer from dyslexia. Thismeans from the primary one level until primarysix, they will continue to show the same dyslexiacharacteristics. Besides that, the researcher foundthat the dyslexia characteristics are different in themale and female students in the easy forget, noisywith pressure, lost basis in test, weak in writingand slow in making prediction.

However, the incidence of dyslexia as reportedvaries a great deal from language to language.

There has been much speculation as to the reasonfor this variance. One assumption is that answer may lie in the inherent linguistic merits and scriptsof the different languages. However, MacdonaldCritchley et, al (1970:96) maintains that this is notcredible and suggests the low incidence of dyslexiamight be due to genetic reasons. At any rate, atthe present time, this variance of dyslexia fromlanguage to language cannot be explained. Whatwe do know is that dyslexia is likely to be foundaround the world (Janett W, Lerner, 1989:3)

There are sex differences in the incidence of dyslexia, just as there are in color blindness. Thedyslexia child is referred to in most books as hefor a good reason. While both boys and girls canhave dyslexia, boys are far more likely to have it.

As with estimates on the incidence of dyslexia,so too, is there a lack of consensus on the ratio of dyslexia male to dyslexia females. The estimatesvary from study to study: 2-to-1 (John Money,1962:31), 3.5-to-1 or 4-to-1 (T.R.Miles and ElaineMiles, 1983:2), 4-to-1 (Critchley, OP, Cit:9), 5-to-1(Sandhya Naidoo, 1972:25). The ratio of dyslexiamales to dyslexia males to dyslexia females has

been nearly 6-to-1 and the method of enrollmentacceptance and pairing sex with like sex is likelyto have contributed to this higher ratio.

The difference in the number of male dyslexiaas compared to females is well founded andaccepted. The reason has not yet been established,although there are numerous hypotheses: a greater occurrence of cerebral trauma in males, thehemispheric functioning of the sexes, a mutantat a single locus whose expression is modi ed bysex, or a polygenic expression that has a lower threshold for males than that for females.

Dyslexia has no favorites in regard to thewealthy or the poor, the cultured or the culturallydisadvantaged. Any child from any background canhave dyslexia but the socioeconomic backgroundsof dyslexia are varied.

Any child in the family can have dyslexia,whether he be the oldest, the youngest, or the in-

between child. Research on birth order is sparse.In a study of ve hundred dyslexia, 24.6 percentwere the oldest in their families, while 36 percentwere the youngest (Edith Klasen, 1950(60). There

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

14/19

2



In the aspect of correlation, students withdyslexia with educational and socio-economicfactors, number in a family, class and gender hadthe correlated signi cance of r-0.4, P

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

15/19

264



helping dyslexics. Society recognizes the needto provide the dyslexic with opportunities for remediation opportunities to learn and to developnormally, and opportunities to become what he iscapable of becoming.

The challenge of dyslexia must be met by all:all parents, schools, researchers, teachers-traininginstitutions, the federal government, society asa whole and the dyslexic himself. For it willtake all of us working together to accomplish whatmust be accomplished what can be done. Wemust make this challenge the focus of our efforts.

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to express his sincereappreciation to the following individuals on theinvolvement in preparation of this manuscript:

Director of Malaysia Education Planning andResearch Section, and the State Education Director Of Sarawak, Malaysia for their sympathy andcooperation that made this manuscript a success.Director of Batu Lintang Teachers TrainingCollege, headmasters and teachers of the schoolsfor being helpful and concern over the research

made.

Reference

1. Abang Ahmad Ridzuan (1991), Factors Relatingto Achievement of High School Students inKuching City, Malaysia. Unpublished PhD.Thesis University of Hull, England.

2. Abdul Halim Yusuf (1995), SukatanKurikulum Baru Sekolah Menengah, KualaLumpur: Pusat Perancangan Kurikulum.

3. Amir Awang (1995), Trenda Baru dalamBidang Pendidikan Bahasa, Kuala Lumpur.Utusan Publication and Distributor Sdn. Bhd.

should be used. In that case samples can begiven continuous attention for a long periodof time.Due to the in imbalance of the written and b.oral vocabulary it portrays the main criteriashown by the pupils. It is hoped that teachingcan be more focused on interaction whichis very open to teacher and pupils. Thatwill encourage pupils to talk more openly.It also helps to built up their con dencein reading. However, writing can also bestressed in order to create a balanced skillsin both oral and abnormally, it may be thatsometime in the future CT scans will revealwill more speci c nding in regard todyslexia. (Martha B. Denckla: 1985)

The future is promising for the dyslexic,although progress toward ful llment of the promiseis slow. It will not be realized soon enough to helpsome already out there in the Dyslexia World of Frustration. But we are nding out more aboutthe condition. We know that there is a geneticfactor in the cause of dyslexia, and therefore wecan be alert to the occurrence in some familiesand provide the immediate help as needed. Wenow know how to diagnose dyslexia accurately;

the problem lies in disseminating and using thisknowledge. Unfortunately, some people seem to

be unwilling to give up pet theories or special teststhat they have devised (which also bring a certain

pro t). We know that, because of maturationalfactors, an accurate diagnosis of dyslexia at the

present time ordinarily cannot be made before achild has reached about the age of eight.

We know that dyslexia can be alleviated, andthat the most appropriate time to begin remediationfor a child is at about the age of eight. It is far easier to remediate the condition at this early agethan at an older age, when certain behaviors andattitudes have been internalized. Of course theseverity of the dyslexia condition will affect thesuccess and length of remediation, (as will other factors).

More information is being distributed aboutdyslexia; and thus more people are aware of thecondition and are becoming concerned about

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

16/19

2



4. Bertil Hallgren (1950) Speci c Dyslexia(Congenital Word-Blindness); A Clinicaland Genetic Study (Copenhagen : Ejnar Munksgaard, 1950); trans. By Erica Odelberg(Stockholm : Esselte Aktiebolag)

5. Bonds and Tinker. (1987), ReadingDif culties. The Diagnosis and Correction

New York : Appleton-Century-Croft.

6. D.A. de Vaus (1991). Surveys In SocialResearch, London: Allen & Unwin.

7. Edith Klasen (19720) The syndrome of Speci cDyslexia (Baltimore: Unviersity Park.

8. Gajendra K. Verma and Kanka Mallick (1999)Researching Education, London: Falmer Press.

9. Hinshelwood J. (1959) Congenital Word- blindness. H.K. Lewis, London.

10. John Money (1962) Dyslexia: A Postconference Review, Reading Disability,Progress and Research Needs in Dyslexia, JohnMoney, ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins,

11. Kamarudin Hj. Husin, (1980). PedagogiBahasa. Petaling Jaya : Longman MalaysiaSdn. Bhd.

12. Kathry B. Coon et al. (1994) Dyslexia ScreeningInstrument. United State of America: HarcourtBrace & Company.

13. Lerner, W. Janet (1985) Learning Disabilities.London: Open Book Publishing Ltd.

14. Macdonald Critchley (1970) The DyslexiaChild, Spring eld, III: Charles C. Thomas.

15. Mohd. Fadzil Hj. Hassan. (1998). Isu-IsuPerancangan Bahasa. Kuala Lumpur : DewanBahasa dan Pustaka.

16. Musa Jalili. (1989). Falsafah Pendidikannegara Kuala Lumpur : Pusat PerkembanganKurikulum.

17. Sandhya Naidoo (1972). The Research Reportof the ICAA Word Blind Centrenfor DyslexiaChildren. New York : John Wiley.

18. Smith, D. Shelley (1986) Genetics andCorrecting Reading Disabilities. London:Taylor and Francis.

19. So ah Hamid. (1991). Pendidikan dalam

Politik Di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur : DewanBahasa dan Pustaka.

20. T.R. Miles and Elaine Miles (1983), Help for Dyslexia Children, London: Methuen.

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

17/19

266



Appendix 1

DYSLEXIA

SCREENING

INSTRUMENT

Kathryn B. Coon, Melissa M. Waguespack, Mary Jo Polk Respondent Name: ________________________________________________ Date of Birth: ________________________________________________ Age: ________________________________________________ Gender: ________________________________________________ Standard: ________________________________________________ School: ________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Raters Name: ________________________________________________ Raters Signature: ________________________________________________ Date of Rating: ________________________________________________

RATER: To what extent does the students exhibit these characteristics?

1 never exhibits 2 seldom exhibits 3 sometimes exhibits 4often exhibits5 always exhibits (Please rate all statements)

__________ 1. Easily distracted __________ 2. Forgets assignment and/or loses papers __________ 3. Easily frustrated __________ 4. Low self-esteem __________ 5. Puts himself/herself down __________ 6. Falls apart under time limits and pressure __________ 7. Disorganized __________ 8. Knows material one day; doesnt know it the next day __________ 9. Knows class material but tests poorly __________ 10. Oral reading inaccurate __________ 11. Reverses letters and/or numbers __________ 12. Losing ground on achievement tests __________ 13. Poor directionally (up/down, left/right, over/under) __________ 14. Poor sequencing skills __________ 15. Vocabulary of written composition in NOT equal to students spoken vocabulary __________ 16. Poor organization of composition (Events are not in chronological order or any disciplineorder organization

__________ 17. Inadequate spelling for grade level __________ 18. Trouble following a series of directions __________ 19. Needs information repeated __________ 20. Poor handwriting __________ 21. Has trouble copying __________ 22. Unable to tell time, days of the week, months of the year __________ 23. Unable to tell time, days of the week, months of the year __________ 24. Cannot recall words, especially names __________ 25. Production of smudged papers (erasures, mark-over) __________ 26. Delay in verbal response __________ 27. Doesnt anticipate consequence of behavior __________ 28. Misplaces and loses personal items __________ 29. Cant stay on task __________ 30. Cant repeat information __________ 31. Has trouble with the alphabet (learning and/or saying) __________ 32. Is very literal/concrete in thinkingRaters Signiture _________________________________________________________

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

18/19

2



Appendix 2Frequence/Percentage of the Teachers/Students View about the Frequent and Every Time facing theDyslexia Problem

ITEMTEACHERS ANDSTUDENTS VIEW

NEVER SELDOM SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EXHIBITS EXHIBITS EXHIBITS EXHIBITS EXHIBITS

1. Easily distracted Teachers 18 (7.1%) 22 (8.7) 58 (23.0%) 120 (47.6%) 34 (13.5%)

Students 30 (11.9%) 17 (6.7) 49 (19.4%) 129 (51.2%) 27 (10.7%)

2. Forgets assignments and/ Teachers 2 (8.0%) 18 (7.1%) 54 (21.4%) 139 (55.2% 39 (15.5%)Or loses papers Students 9 (3.6%) 21 (8.3%) 72 (28.6%) 120 (47.6%) 30 (11.9%)

3. Easily frustrated Teachers 13 (5.2%) 35 (13.9%) 109 (43.3%) 78 (31.0%) 16 (6.3%)

Students 12 (4.8%) 20 (7.9%) 113 (44.8%) 89 (35.3%) 18 (7.1%)

4. Low self-esteem Teachers 7 (2.8%) 42 (16.7%) 98 (38.9%) 81 (32.1%) 24 (9.4%)

Students 17 (6.7%) 30 (11.9%) 104 (41.3%) 83 (32.9%) 18 (7.1%)

5. Puts himself/herself down Teachers 10 (4.0%) 38 (15.1%) 93 (36.9%) 92 (36.5%) 19 (7.5%)

Students 7 (2.8%) 25 (9.9%) 100 (39.7%) 102 (40.5%) 18 (7.1%)

6. Falls apart under time Teachers 4 (1.6%) 12 (4.8%) 76 (30.2%) 127 (50.4%) 33 (13.1%)Limits and pressure Students 13 (5.2%) 27 (10.7%) 62 (24.6%) 118 (46.8%) 32 (12.7%)

7. Disorganized Teachers 2 (0.8%) 16 (6.3%) 45 (17.9%) 148 (58.7%) 41 (16.3%)

Students 8 (3.2%) 17 (6.7%) 57 (22.6%) 141 (56.0%) 29 (11.5%)

8. Knows material one day: Teachers 3 (1.2%) 18 (7.1%) 40 (15.9%) 145 (57.5%) 46 (18.3%)doesnt know it the nextday Students 7 (2.8%) 21 (8.3%) 48 (19.0%) 144 (57.1%) 32 (12.7%)

9. Knows class material but Teachers 4 (1.6%) 18 (7.1%) 41 (16.3%) 142 (56.3%) 46 (18.3%)Tests poorly Students 7 (2.8%) 22 (8.7%) 46 (18.3%) 145 (57.5%) 32 (12.7%)

10. Oral reading inaccurate Teachers 8 (3.2%) 20 (7.9%) 41 (16.3%) 125 (49.6%) 58 (23.0%)

Students 10 (4.0%) 23 (9.1%) 51 (20.2%) 115 (45.6%) 52 (20.6%)

11.Reverses letters

Teachers 14 (5.6%) 29 (11.5%) 85 (25.8%) 117 (46.4%) 27 (10.7%)Students 22 (8.7%) 24 (9.5%) 79 (31.3%) 102 (40.5%) 25 (9.9%)

12. Losing ground on Teachers 6 (2.4%) 19 (7.5%) 41 (16.3%) 149 (59.11%) 37 (14.7%)achievement tests Students 5 (2.0%) 22 (8.7%) 65 (26.8%) 128 (50.8%) 32 (12.7%)

13. Poor directionally (up/down Teachers 22 (8.7%) 40 (15.9%) 78 (31.0%) 86 (34.1%) 25 (9.9%)Left/right, over/under) Students 23 (9.1%) 33 (13.1%) 86 (34.1%) 88 (34.9%) 22 (8.7%)

14. Poor sequencing skills Teachers 7 (2.8%) 20 (7.9%) 48 (19.0%) 128 (50.8%) 49 (19.4%)

Students 11 (4.4%) 25 (9.9%) 65 (25.8%) 122 (48.4%) 29 (11.5%)

15. Vocabulary of written Teachers 4 (1.6%) 11 (4.4%) 36 (14.3%) 156 (61.9%) 45 (17.9%)Composition is NOTequal Students 7 (2.8%) 20 (7.9%) 46 (18.3%) 146 (57.9%) 33 (13.1%)To students spoken

vocabulary

16. Poor organization of Teachers 3 (1.2%) 11 (4.4%) 38 (15.1%) 130 (51.6%) 70 (27.8%)Composition (Eventsare not Students 12 (4.8%) 10 (4.0%) 42 (16.7%) 149 (59.1%) 39 (15.5%)in chronological order

or any discipline order of

organization

17. Inadequate spelling for Teachers 7 (2.8%) 12 (4.8%) 43 (17.1%) 130 (51.6%) 60 (23.8%)grade level Students 9 (3.6%) 20 (7.9%) 65 (25.8%0 129 (51.2%) 29 (11.5%)

7/29/2019 16_SECC_12

19/19

268 School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal July

ITEMTEACHERS ANDSTUDENTS VIEW

NEVER SELDOM SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EXHIBITS EXHIBITS EXHIBITS EXHIBITS EXHIBITS

18. Trouble following aseries Teachers 6 (2.4%) 20 (7.9%) 55 (21.8%) 135 (53.6%) 36 (14.3%)of directions Students 4 (1.6%) 22 (8.7%) 80 (31.7%) 120 (47.6%) 26 (10.3%)

19. Needs informationrepeated Teachers 4 (1.6%) 18 (7.1%) 38 (15.1%) 136 (54.0%) 56 (22.2%)

Students 13 (5.2%) 13 (5.2%) 59 (23.4%) 130 (51.6%) 37 (22.2%)

20. Poor handwriting Teachers 5 (2.0%) 22 (8.7%) 53 (21.0%) 124 (49.2%) 48 (19.0%)

Students 8 (3.2%) 21 (8.3%) 71 (28.2%0 120 (47.2%) 32 (12.7%)

21. Has trouble copying Teachers 9 (3.6%) 24 (9.5%) 70 (27.8%) 113 (44.8%) 36(14.3%)

Students 9 (3.6%) 20 (7.9%) 94 (37.3%) 111 (44.0%) 18 (7.1%)

22. Unable to tell time,days of Teachers 18 (7.1%) 33 (13.1%) 54 (21.4%) 118 (46.8%) 29 (11.5%)the week, months of the year Students 14 (5.6%0 23 (9.1%) 65 (25.8%) 126 (50.0%) 24 (9.5%)

23. Unable to keep place on Teachers 15 (6.0%) 35 (13.9%) 62 (24.6%) 110 (43.7%) 30 (11.9%) page when reading Students 16 (6.3%) 28 (11.1%) 73 (29.0%) 116 (46.0%) 19 (7.5%)

24. Cannot recall word Teachers 8 (3.2%) 27 (10.7%) 65 (25.8%) 131 (52.0%) 21 (8.3%)Especially names Students 9 (3.6%) 28 (11.1%) 85 (33.7%) 114 (45.2%) 16 (6.3%)

25. Production of smudged Teachers 5 (2.0%) 33 (13.1%) 85 (33.7%) 108 (42.9%) 21 (8.3%)Paper (erasures, mark-over) Students 9 (3.6%) 21 (8.3%) 70 (27.8%) 124 (43.2%) 28 (11.1%)

26. Delay in verbal response Teachers 4 (1.6%) 15 (6.0%) 32 (12.7%) 157 (62.3%) 44 917.5%)

Students 10 (4.0%) 32 (12.7%) 45 (17.9%) 144 (57.1%) 21 (8.3%)

27. Doesnt anticipate Teachers 1 (0.4%) 8 (3.2%) 42 (16.7%) 153 (60.7%) 48 (19.0%)Consequence of behavior Students 7 (2.0%) 16 (6.3%) 55 (21.8%) 145 (57.5%) 28 (11.1%)

28. Misplaces and loses Teachers 5 (2.0%) 45 (17.0%) 112 (44.4%) 66 (26.2%) 23 (9.1%)Personal items Students 14 (5.6%) 28 (11.1%) 114 (45.2%) 79 (31.3%) 17 (6.7%)

29. Cant stay on task Teachers 5 (2.0%) 13 (5.2%) 55 (21.8%) 137 (54.4%) 42 (16.7%)

Students 5 (2.0%) 24 (9.5%) 60 (23.8%) 134 (56.7%) 20 (7.9%)

30.Cant repeat information

Teachers 4 (1.6%) 15 (6.0%) 47 (18.7%) 145 (57.5%) 41 (16.3%)Students 9 (3.6%) 19 (7.5%) 55 (21.8%) 142 (56.3%) 27 (10.7%)

31. Has trouble with thealphabet Teachers 6 (2.4%) 13 (5.2%) 50 (19.8%) 136 (54.0%) 47 (18.7%)(learning and/or saying) Students 10 (4.0%) 23 (9.1%) 69 (27.4%) 129 (51.2%) 21 (8.3%)

32. Is very literal/concrete in Teachers 61 (24.2%) 57 (22.6%) 62 (24.6%) 54 (21.4%) 18 (7.1%)thinking Students 73 (29.0%) 32 (12.7%) 62 (24.6%) 62 (24.6%) 23 (9.1%)

16_secc_12

Documents