Esra YÜRÜMEZ, Ahmet GÜL, Hilal Tuğba KILIÇ, Merve AY GÜNAY, Hesna GÜL

Öğretmenlerin Özgül Öğrenme Güçlüğü İle İlgili Bilgi Düzeyleri ve Damgalama: Çok Merkezli Bir Çalışma

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, öğretmenler arasında Özgül Öğrenme Güçlüğü (ÖÖG) hakkındaki damgalama ve yanlış bilgilenme düzeyini araştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma Türkiye'nin farklı coğrafi bölgelerinde çalışan öğretmenlere ulaşabilmek amacıyla çok merkezli olarak yürütülmüş, ilköğretimde görev yapan öğretmenlere anket yoluyla ulaşılmıştır. Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan öğretmenlerin %53.8'i kadın (n:92), %46.2'si erkektir (n:79). Kadınların %60.8'inin, erkeklerin %59.5'inin daha önce ÖÖG tanısını duymuş oldukları, kadınların daha çok doktor ve arkadaşlarından, erkeklerinse televizyondan duydukları saptanmıştır. Erkeklerin ÖÖG'yi daha çok dikkat eksikliğine, kadınlarınsa ailesel ve genetik faktörlere bağladığı, her iki grupta da katılımcıların ortalama %20'sinin ÖÖG olan çocuklarda zeka geriliği olduğuna inandıkları saptanmıştır. ÖÖG belirtilerinden en sık görülenlerin bilinme oranlarını da tarayan anket sonuçlarına göre; kadın öğretmenlerin %54.3'ünün erkek öğretmenlerinse %39.2'sinin tüm belirtileri bildiği, belirtilerden en sık tanınanların ise okuma hızının düşük olması ve harf karıştırma belirtileri olduğu belirlenmiştir. Kadın öğretmenlerin %39.1'inin, erkek öğretmenlerin %51.9 'unun ÖÖG olan çocukların farklı sınıflarda okumaları gerektiğini düşündükleri, kadınların %26.1'inin, erkeklerin %24.1'inin kendi çocuklarının ÖÖG olan bir çocukla sınıf arkadaşı olmasını istemedikleri saptanmıştır. Sonuç: ÖÖG olan çocuklara ilişkin öğretmenlerin bilgi düzeylerinin yeterli olmadığını ve pek çok yanlış değerlendirmenin öğretmenler arasında kabul gördüğünü gösterilmiştir. Öğretmenlere yönelik bilgilendirme ve damgalamayı azaltma yönünde yapılacak çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

The Misinterpretations And Stigmatization Of Teachers On Spesicif Learning Disorders: A Multi-Center Study

Aim: The purpose was to assess the stigmatization and misinterpretations of teachers on specific learning disorders (SLD). Method: This was a multi-central study aimed to attain teachers from different regions. The questionnaires, including items about features of SLD and tendency to stigma, were attained to teachers by hand or online.Results: 53.8% (n:92) of teachers were women and 46.2% (n:79) were men. The female (60.8%) and male (48.5%) teachers had known about SLD diagnose. They heard SLD from doctors and friends (for women) and television (for men). Female teachers thought genetic factors whereas males thought attention deficit caused SLD. Nearly 20% of them believed that mental retardation occured with SLD. The symptoms of SLD were known by females (54.3%) and males (39.2%). The most known symptoms were reading problems and word confusion during writing. The necessity to train in special classes for students with SLD was supported by 39.1% of women and 51.9% of men. 26.1% of women and 24.1% of men did not prefer their children to be classmate of a SLD child. Conclusion: The results showed that the misinformations and stigmatization about SLD are common among teachers. Education programmes for teachers are needed in order to minimise stigma.

PDF

___

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.
2. Woodward RJ, Paul RS. The performance of fundamental movement skills by elementary school children with learning disabilities. Physical Educator 2001; 58:198-206.
3. Zhang J. Fundamental motor skill performances of children with ADD, LD, and MMR--a pilot study. Palaestra 2001; 7-9.
4. Katz L, Goldstein G & Beers SR. Learning disabilities in older adolescents and adults: clinical utility of the neuoropsychological perspective. Kluwer Academic Publisher; New York; 2002.
5. McQuillan MK. Guidelines for identifying children with learning disabilities. Connecticut State Department of Education. USA; 2010. Online 07/07/2011[http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/ DEPS/Special/2010_Learning_Disability_Guide lines_Acc.pdf].
6. Bender WN. Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: New best practices for general and special educators. Corwin Press; 2012.
7. The International Dyslexia Association. Dyslexia basics. Baltimore, MD: Author; 2008.
8. Pennington BF. From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition 2006; 101(2):385-413.
9. Carroll JM, Maughan B, Goodman R, & Meltzer H. Literacy difficulties and psychiatric disorders: Evidence for comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2005; 46:524-532.
10. Beitchman JH Young AR Learning disorders with a special emphasis on reading disorders: a review of the past 10 years. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1997; 36:1020-1032.
11. Arnold EM, Goldston DB, Walsh AK, et al. Severity of emotional and behavioral problems among poor and typical readers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2005; 33:205-217.
12. Dahle AE, & Knivsberg AM. Internalizing, externalizing and attention problems in dyslexia. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 2013;16:179-193.
13. Ingesson SG. Growing up with dyslexia interviews with teenagers and young adults. School Psychology International 2007; 28:574-591.
14. Shahim S, Sepehriyan AF. Intelligence assessment of a group of Azari children through scale of Good enough - Harris and Raven's Progressive Matrices. New journal of Psychology and Educational Sciences 2003; 5(27):2-42.
15. Carlton PM, Walkenshaw D. Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities in Postsecondary Institutions. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 1991; 9:197-206.
16. Crocker J, Major B, Steele C. Social stigma. In. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The handbook of social psychology 1998; 2:504-553.
17. Valas H. Students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students: Peer acceptance, loneliness, self-esteem, and depression. Social Psychology of Education 1999; 3(3):173-192.
18. Vaughn S, Elbaum B. The self concept and friendships of students with learning disabilities: A developmental perspective. In: Gallimore R, Bernheimer LP, MacMillan DL, Speece DL, & Vaughn S,editors. Developmental perspectives on children with high incidence disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999. p. 81-107.
19. Margalit M, Tur-Kaspa H, Most T. Reciprocal nominations, reciprocal rejections and loneliness among students with learning disorders. An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 1999; 19(1):79-90.
20. Kizzie KT. It's Just a Disability or Is It? Stigma, Psychological Needs, and Educational Outcomes in African American Adolescents with Learning-Related Disabilities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 2009.
21. Prudent N, Johnson P, Carroll J, Culpepper L. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Presentation and Management in the Haitian American Child. Primary Care Companion Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2005; 7:190-197.
22. Baumgaertel A. Alternative and controversial treatments for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Pediatric Clinics of North America 1999; 46:977-992.
23. Chan E, Rappaport LA, Kemper KJ. Complementary and alternative therapies in childhood attention and hyperactivity problems. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 2003; 24:4-8.
24. Perren S, & Alsaker FD. Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2006; 47(1):45-57.
25. Warr-Leeper G. A review of early intervention programs and effectiveness research for environmentally disadvantaged children. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology 2001; 24(2):50-62.