Teaching pedagogies in Tanzanian inclusive educational settings: Do they respond to diverse needs? Voices from students with visual impairment

Abstract

Students’ learning and participation in inclusive educational settings requires, among other things, teaching pedagogies that respond to students’ diverse needs so as to benefit from the education provided. This study explored teaching pedagogies employed in Tanzanian inclusive educational settings across all educational levels, whether or not they respond to students’ diverse needs, using voices of students with visual impairment (VI) in higher education institutions (HEIs). A total of 16 students with VI from two HEIs were involved in a semi-structured interview, with thematic analysis being used to evaluate the data. The teaching methods used in primary schools were found to be more responsive to the needs of students with VI, compared to secondary schools and HEIs. Similarly, more positive inclusive practices were reported in primary schools than in secondary and higher education settings, and more primary school teachers with neither inclusive nor special education training were reported to be supportive and considerate to the needs of students with VI, compared to their counterparts in advanced levels. Some negative inclusive practices were also reported which appear to have an impact on students’ access to teachers’ instructions and their participation in learning. The negative inclusive practices of teachers appear to originate from teachers’ limited understanding of inclusion, negative attitudes towards students with special education needs and lack of support from school authorities. In this regard, school authorities and teachers need to transform school cultures, teaching pedagogies, and attitudes to respond to the diverse needs in inclusive educational settings.

Keywords

Barriers to learning curriculum adaptation diverse needs inclusive education participation teaching pedagogies visual impairment

Introduction

Inclusion in education involves increasing participation in learning to all learners through minimisation of barriers to learning and maximisation of resources (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; United Republic of Tanzania [URT], 2009). In this regard, teachers are required to adapt curriculum, teaching pedagogies, learning materials in a bid for students with VI and others with special educational needs (SEN) to increase their participation in learning and achieving their education objectives. Trends in inclusive education show that students with VI experience difficulties in learning in regular schools, where the educational settings were designed solely for students without SEN (Kiomoka, 2014; Mwakyeja, 2013; Nasiforo, 2015; Reed & Curtis, 2012; Tungaraza, 2012). These difficulties, to mention a few, include a shortage of learning and teaching (L&T) resources, inappropriate curriculum, physical barriers, and shortage of trained teachers and specialists (Kiomoka, 2014; Mwakyeja, 2013; Nasiforo, 2015; Reed & Curtis, 2012; Tungaraza, 2012). In this study, the term teacher is used to mean an academic professional who facilitates/supports learners’ education at any educational level.

To benefit fully from education, the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB, 2014) claims that students with VI require curriculum adaptation which involves modification of the core curriculum in the following areas: concept development, academic functioning, communication skills, orientation and mobility skills, career development skills, daily living skills, and sensory motor skills, for example. However, in Tanzania, teachers are mainly prepared to teach students without SEN; consequently, they lack knowledge and skills to adapt the core curriculum to students with SEN (Ezekiel, 2009; Kisanga, 2017; Mwakyeja, 2013; Tungaraza, 2012). In this regard, ‘the existing curriculum is not inclusive as it was primarily designed to cater for students without SEN and not students with VI and others with different impairments’ (Kisanga, 2017, p. 188).

Appropriate teaching pedagogies in inclusive educational settings

Literature has documented that to accommodate diverse needs in inclusive educational settings, teachers need to use social constructivist teaching (Armstrong, 2016), which perceives learners as active agents in the learning process and who also actively construct meaning in the learning process (Vygotsky, 1978). In social constructivist teaching, students learn through social interaction from either their teachers or their peers, who may be more skilled learners (Vygotsky, 1978).

Learning through peers

One of the strategies used in social constructivist teaching, which is appropriate in inclusive settings, is teaching using peer groups. In an inclusive educational setting, peer groups play a vital role in learning as they provide opportunities for students to learn from each other (Mitchell, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). In this method, a combination of learners with different abilities and talents is essential to enhance the learning of less skilled learners or those experiencing learning difficulties (Vygotsky, 1978) within a group. A similar view on the importance of using peer groups in teaching learners with SEN was also reported by Rieser (2001). However, Mitchell (2014) claims that peer tutoring should not be used as a sole means of teaching skills or knowledge to learners, rather it should complement other methods of teaching to enhance understanding of the learned skills or knowledge. Peer tutoring can take different forms: a more knowledgeable learner teaching a less knowledgeable learner; an older learner teaching a younger learner (cross-age tutoring); or a class-wide peer tutoring, where each learner becomes a tutor and a learner at different times (Mitchell, 2014).

Social constructivist teaching seems to be appropriate in addressing diverse needs in an inclusive classroom because it respects and considers individual differences as well as prior knowledge during the teaching and learning process (Armstrong, 2016). This concurs with James (2017) who advocates a Community-Referenced Approach to Education (CRAE) which, among other areas, focuses on inclusive practices that consider the background, knowledge, and experiences students bring into the classrooms. Similarly, Fernandez and Cortes (2017) claim that teaching practices in inclusive education should focus on enhancing a strong relationship between teaching staff and students, motivating students to learn, and classrooms conducive to learning.

Despite the importance of social constructivist teaching, curriculum adaptation in meeting diverse needs, and various teaching approaches advocated to enhance inclusive education, teachers in most inclusive educational settings were reported to teach students with SEN and those with VI using the core curriculum without any modification and without consideration of their needs (Mnyanyi, 2009; Mwakyeja, 2013; Reed & Curtis, 2012; Tungaraza, 2012). Various reasons could be attributed to this situation, which in particular include a time constraint due to large class size, examination-oriented curriculum, as well as lack of knowledge and skills to adapt the curriculum (Mnyanyi, 2009; Mwakyeja, 2013; Reed & Curtis, 2012; Tungaraza, 2012). This situation has resulted in teachers feeling incompetent and unable to accommodate students with SEN within learning activities (Richards, 2016a).

Aim

Most studies that focused on teaching pedagogies in inclusive educational settings, and/or teachers’ knowledge on curriculum adaptation, explored limitations related to teachers’ pedagogies in meeting diverse needs, by focusing either on the perspective of teachers and other education stakeholders or on one educational level (Ghulam et al. 2014; Mongwaketse, 2011; Mwakyeja, 2013; Nasiforo, 2015; Tungaraza, 2012). This study responds to this knowledge gap, exploring teaching pedagogies employed by teachers across educational levels from the students’ perspective. Students’ perspectives on teaching pedagogies are deemed to be appropriate because ‘we learn best about what we should do when we ask those who are experiencing it’ (Richards, 2016b, p. 96).

The study aims to inform teachers and other education stakeholders about positive inclusive practices which increase learning and participation among learners with diverse needs. In addition, it reports on the negative inclusive practices the students experience that need to be addressed to provide a more inclusive education environment.

The following research questions guided the study:

What are the predominant teaching methods employed by teachers to accommodate students with VI in Tanzanian inclusive educational settings?

What are the positive inclusive practices from teachers that can address the needs of students with VI?

What are negative inclusive practices from teachers that do not address the needs of students with VI?

These provided the opportunity for students to give their own perspectives about inclusive experience that could be met for further development within educational settings.

Methods

Participants

This study involved 12 students with VI selected purposively from one HEI to explore their experience on teachers’ pedagogies from their primary education to HEIs whether or not they respond to their needs. Participants involved in the study are referred in this article as P1 to P12.

Procedure

A semi-structured interview was used as a main tool for data collection. All 12 students with VI were interviewed to explore teaching pedagogies used in inclusive educational settings across their educational levels and their experience of positive and negative inclusive practices delivered by teachers. All ethical issues such as informed consent, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality, were adhered to before conducting this research (British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2011). Research clearance from my university was used to obtain permission to conduct this research in the selected institution. Informed consent was gained from all respondents. It was a mixture of verbal and written consent depending on an individual student’s needs.

Data analysis

All data collected were subjected to thematic analysis because this allows flexibility when examining data for emerging topics or ideas relevant to the research questions (Bryman, 2016).

A framework of thematic analysis was used to organise and summarise data according to emerging themes. This consisted of a matrix that displayed cases of interviewees that supported themes emerged from data. One of the criteria used in identification of themes and subthemes was occurrence of a particular concept among the respondents (Ryan & Bernard, 2003, cited in Bryman, 2016) and how it was related to the research questions (Yin, 2014).

Results

The predominant teaching methods used to accommodate students with VI across Tanzanian educational levels

Special primary schools and domination of oral method of teaching

Comparatively, teachers in primary schools were reported to use teaching methods that meet the needs of students with VI, compared to teachers in secondary schools and lecturers in HEIs. All students with VI who attended primary education within special schools reported that teachers in special schools were supportive, in contrast to other teachers in advanced levels of education. This was possibly due to the nature of their impairment as all teachers in special schools do not use a chalkboard during the L&T process; instead, they explain the subject matter orally while moving around to check whether the students have understood the lesson.

Inclusive primary/secondary schools and domination of chalkboard writing method of teaching

Most teachers in inclusive primary and secondary schools were found to depend more on writing on a chalkboard to teach, rather than using oral explanations. Thus, they wrote more and talked less. This method of teaching was found by students with VI to be a barrier to accessing learning instructions as remarked by P10 that ‘. . . the problem starts when the teacher is using a blackboard or showing a point on a map or a drawing. They describe things as if all the students can see what is being demonstrated . . .’ (P10, female, UG). The description from P10 indicates that teachers’ preparations and delivery of instruction in inclusive settings seem to overlook the diverse needs of the learners and specifically the needs of students with VI, who largely depend on oral explanations.

Higher education institutions and domination of lecture method of teaching

Findings from students’ semi-structured interviews revealed that most lecturers in HEIs relied more on the lecture method because of the large classes they teach. Lectures dominated with oral descriptions were highly beneficial to students with VI, in comparison with lectures presented through multimedia projectors or writing on the boards. This is reflected in the comment by P12 that

Lecturers here use lecture methods which are not helpful to us. Most of the lecturers here are not aware of our presence in the lecture rooms. They teach us just like sighted students because they talk less during lectures. They rely more on their slides displayed on the screen assuming that all students can see. (P12, male, UG)

This was also supported by P3 who said that

At this university, we experience little cooperation from lecturers when they are in the lecture rooms. Some of the lecturers could not talk they just write on the board especially when they mentioned the names of the people that they have to include in the subject. (P3, male, PG)

The two comments above suggest the inclusion of learners with VI in HEIs lies with the administration, those who accepted students with SEN enrolments and staff in the Special Education Unit, employed to support SEN students, rather than with the lecturers themselves.

Teachers’ negative practices (exclusionary practices) in inclusive settings

Findings from this study revealed some exclusionary practices among teachers. These include the rejection of students with SEN by school authorities, exclusionary language during L&T practices, reluctance for their teaching to be recorded, disinclination to provide their teaching notes, and inappropriate teaching methods that exclude these students from the L&T process. These exclusionary practices are expounded below.

Rejection of students with SEN by school authorities

Findings from the study revealed that some school authorities in private schools are unwilling to enrol and/or support students with VI and others with SEN. It was reported that those who experienced loss of vision later in life when they were at private schools were forced by school authorities to look for another school with special education unit. These students encountered difficulties in searching for private schools with special education units because such schools do not exist in the country. Moreover, the existing government schools with special educational units do not enrol students from private schools. This was claimed by P12 that

I experienced the problem of VI when I was in Form Two in a private secondary school. The school authorities forced me to look for another school . . . elsewhere. Unfortunately, all the secondary schools with a special unit belong to the government . . . Thus, every private school that I approached rejected me because of my VI. They asked, ‘How are we going to teach you here?’ (P12 male UG)

This experience from P12 implies the head of school has a vital role to play in the inclusion of students with SEN because they have the power to accept or reject such students. P12 was rejected because the head of the school perceived him as a burden, who needed extra resources. In addition, P12’s narration uncovers one of the major limitations of private schools in Tanzania – that they seem to be ill-prepared and reluctant to accommodate learners with diverse needs.

Teachers’ exclusionary language during the teaching and learning process

The study also revealed that the language used during teaching was one of the types of exclusionary practice. Teachers were reported to use language that excluded students with VI in the classrooms, especially in subjects which demanded drawings and/or computation such as biology, geography, and mathematics. Teachers delivered these subjects regardless of the needs of students with VI, as described by P9:

. . . In Biology, our teacher used to describe a diagram by saying, for example, you see here (while pointing at the diagram drawn on the chalkboard), this is a head, and when you go down here is . . . (P9, male, PG)

Responding to the same issue P13 also said: ‘. . . It was common to hear a Mathematics teacher asking students: what do you get when you multiply “this” by “this”?’ (P3, male, PG). A similar view was reported by P5:

. . . our English teacher when teaching us how to identify nouns and verbs in a sentence used to write the sentence on a black board and then without reading the sentence to us he asked the class, ‘do you see this sentence?’ Then pointing to the sentence would say ‘This is a noun, and this is a verb’ . . . (P5, female, UG)

The three experiences suggest that students with VI gained very little knowledge if the teaching was not accompanied by an oral explanation. Most of their digitally recorded lectures appear to be full of gaps of important information due to the tendency of writing without teachers/lecturers explaining what they are doing or reading their text. In this case, students with VI found it difficult to create a mental picture of what had been described on the board and so felt excluded from the class.

Poor involvement of students with visual impairment during the teaching and learning process

The findings further revealed that most students with VI were not involved in the L&T process in their secondary schools. These students were rarely given the opportunity to either ask questions or respond to teachers’ questions, nor were they asked whether they had understood the topic presented, as one student commented,

In my secondary school, teachers did not involve us during the teaching and learning process. However, later after realising that we were answering questions and sometimes more than ordinary [non-disabled] students, it was then they decided to involve us. Otherwise, other VI students who were not active in class would remain uninvolved for the whole term. (P4, male, UG)

The view from P4 implies that the involvement of students with VI during the L&T process depended on the students’ academic ability and consequently those who were academically good or active had more opportunities to be involved than passive students or those with low academic achievement.

Overdependence of multimedia projectors without oral descriptions

This exclusionary practice was revealed mostly in HEIs where the lecture method dominates. Lecturers’ over-reliance on multimedia projectors was reported to exclude students with VI during lecturing because these were used with minimal oral descriptions or support. This is due to the majority of lecturers integrating this technology into their lectures with heavy dependence on the PowerPoint slides with very little additional explanation to the information being projected. This was reported by one student: ‘teaching methods in this university are not friendly, especially for lecturers who use projectors. They talk very little, compared to what they display’ (P5, female, UG). This experience could be attributed to either the lecturers’ unawareness of the existence of students with VI in their lecture rooms or poor understanding of the concept of inclusion.

Teachers’ reluctance to be recorded and to provide lecture notes

Findings from the study show that students with VI were excluded during the L&T process simply because the lecturers declined to be recorded during lectures. Consequently, the dependence among these students on sighted students increased. Without access to recording lectures, students with VI mainly relied on borrowing lecture notes from their reader (a designated person who reads for the VI student) or friends. One student described his experience thus ‘. . . other lecturers refuse even to be recorded when we asked they would respond you have no right to record . . .’ (P9, male, PG), suggesting that there were no clear guidelines from the university authority to the lecturers, stipulating that they are required to be recorded by students with SEN during the L&T process. It appeared that the lecturers who agreed to be recorded did it as a favour and/or through compassion towards students with SEN, rather than accepting a responsibility as lecturers to ensure learning is taking place for all learners, irrespective of their differences.

Some lecturers not only refused to be recorded but they were also reluctant to provide lecture notes for all students, including those with SEN, as one student observed: ‘some time ago we requested our lecturers to give us lecture notes in electronic format since that saves us typing time. Some of them agreed but most of them did not’ (P10, female, UG). This student emphasises that due to lecturers’ limitations in accommodating diverse needs during lecturing, she needed other mechanisms to benefit from the education provided, but this was not always forthcoming. Most students with VI reported that they preferred electronic lecture notes to hardcopy because e-notes reduced their over-dependence on sighted students in requesting reading assistance and were economical in terms of time and because e-notes saved the time that could be used for typing standard print notes into Braille format.

Positive inclusive practices from teachers

Positive practices from primary and secondary school teachers

Some teachers’ positive inclusive practices reported by students included the following: provision of extra classes; supporting students in recording lectures; keeping records of students with SEN in their courses by registering their names and contacts; making sure that all the students with SEN sat in the front rows, if necessary, and those with VI had a device for recording, and assisting students with VI to obtain specialist L&T facilities. Some teachers also provided students with their electronic lecture notes. These positive inclusive practices are exemplified in the following comments: ‘I had a teacher in secondary school who was very concerned about the problems I faced in class; she decided to prepare recordings of different teachers, teaching different subjects and give them to me’ (P11, female, UG). A similar view was narrated by P1:

As the problem slowly became known to the teachers, some of them would voluntarily ask me to sit in front, and some would go further to give me extra classes in their offices to enable me catch up with my fellow students. (P1, female, UG)

The quotations from these two students suggest that support for those with VI and others with SEN does not necessarily require training in SEN, or relate to teachers’ educational level or economic status, but rather teachers’ readiness to provide support, their attitudes, and expectations towards students with SEN. This could also imply that some teachers use lack of training and funds as an excuse for being insensitive to the needs of these students. Teachers with positive attitudes and high expectations towards these students may demonstrate willingness and ability to find any possible means to support students with SEN achieve their goals; for where there is a will, there is a way.

Positive practices from school authorities

Findings from the study also revealed positive inclusive practices from the head of the school as explained by P12:

. . . One headmaster in one of the private secondary schools agreed to enrol me in his school . . . (after being rejected by several private schools) he held a meeting with all teachers and informed them about my presence [in the school] and requested teachers to provide me with the support I needed. He also gave me two sighted students to assist me with academic issues. Later, he assisted me to get a funder who bought a Braille machine and a typewriter . . . (P12 male UG)

P12’s statement highlights the essential roles heads of schools play in the education of students with SEN and that they have a crucial role of transforming the whole school organisational structure, school cultures, and teachers’ attitudes to be responsive to students’ diverse needs. Among the vital roles of the head of the school in an inclusive school are to accept enrolment of all students irrespective of their differences and to have high expectations towards all students. It is also important to collaborate with classroom teachers, students without SEN, and others in the community when supporting students with SEN.

Positive practices from lecturers

Although some lecturers were considered inconsiderate because of their insensitivity to students with SEN, others demonstrated positive inclusive practices that in one way or another increased learning and participation of students with VI and others with SEN. This was mentioned on by the following participants:

. . . There are few lecturers who are very considerate. For example, one lecturer at (name withheld) is very friendly and supportive. He would always make sure that I attend his lectures and when I missed, he would call me and arrange to teach me in his office . . . (P7, male, UG)

This was also supported by P11:

Thanks to God for the lecturers at (name withheld). Most of them would make sure that they are aware of students with SEN in the class. Usually, whenever they come to class for the first time, they would ask for students with SEN and later meet with them in their office and discuss how they could help . . . they would also bring our exams on time and provide us with electronic lecture notes . . . (P11, female, UG)

From their statements, we can infer that teachers’ and lecturers’ behaviours towards students with VI and others with SEN are similar. The study revealed some exclusionary practices and positive inclusive practices from both teachers and lecturers. Interestingly, in HEI, lecturers who were reported to be more supportive and considerate to students with SEN were those who taught courses other than education, although it would be expected that lecturers who teach education courses would be more supportive of diverse needs.

Discussion

The predominant teaching pedagogies students with VI experienced throughout their school life (primary and secondary) were writing on boards accompanied by some oral explanations. The predominance of chalkboard writing during the L&T process in inclusive settings was also documented by other scholars in Tanzania (Mnyanyi, 2009; Migeha, 2014). Mnyanyi (2009) claimed that pupils with VI benefit more when teachers explained the subject matter, rather than simply writing notes on the board. Teachers in Tanzania spend more time writing notes than explaining the subject matter, possibly because of the shortage of L&T materials, or to complete the syllabus in time, prior to examinations (Mnyanyi, 2009).

Teachers’ positive inclusive practices were reported more in primary schools compared to secondary schools and HEIs. A possible explanation for this could be that inclusive education was first initiated in primary schools; hence, more seminars, workshops, and research on inclusive education have been conducted in primary schools, which gave primary school teachers more exposure to basic information on students with SEN, compared to their counterparts in other educational levels.

The findings from this study also correspond with other previous studies, which reported either teachers’ inability to accommodate diverse needs or to effect curriculum adaptation for students with VI or others with SEN (see, for example, Mnyanyi, 2009; Mwakyeja, 2013; Reed & Curtis, 2012; Tungaraza, 2012). The findings on lecturers’ exclusionary practices in HEIs also concurred with the work of Morris (2014) and Nasiforo (2015), who found that barriers to learning among students with VI resulted from lecturers’ and other supporting staff’s tendency to use PowerPoint presentations and whiteboards without accompanying oral explanations.

Generally, the exclusionary practices revealed in this study across education levels imply two key issues – teachers’ poor understanding of inclusion and lack of support from the heads of schools.

Teachers’ poor understanding of inclusion

The exclusionary practices revealed in this study suggest that many educators have limited understanding of inclusion, possibly believing that it simply means students with and without SEN studying alongside one another in the same classroom. Teachers often have overlooked essential aspects of inclusion that increase learning and participation of all learners, regardless of their differences, through reducing barriers to learning and maximisation of resources (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; URT, 2009). Exclusionary practices also imply a perspective that students with VI own their impairment, so the solution is their responsibility rather than the teacher’s or that of the educational system. This belief hinders teachers’ creativity in terms of teaching pedagogies, classroom structures, and access to appropriate resources to meet students’ diverse needs (Richards, 2016a).

Lack of support from the head of school

Other exclusionary practices revealed in this study appear to be associated with a lack of support from the head of the school. Support from school authorities is crucial in developing positive practices in inclusive schools (Macfarlane & Woolfson, 2013), particularly, as heads of school are role models for teachers; hence, their behaviour towards disabled students has an impact on teachers’ behaviours. Similarly, the support they offer to teachers in accommodating diverse needs not only motivate teachers but also help them minimise barriers to learning in a collaborative way. The vital role of school authorities in the inclusion of students with SEN is also exemplified in this study by P12’s comment on page 9.

Exclusionary practices revealed in this study suggest that what is practised in Tanzanian inclusive educational settings is contrary to the definition of inclusive education which emphasises on increasing participation in learning to all learners, minimisation of barriers to learning and maximisation of resources (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; URT, 2009).

Conclusion and implications

This study explored teaching methods and inclusive practices demonstrated by teachers in inclusive settings through the perspectives of students with VI. Based on the findings revealed, school authorities and classroom teachers need to collaborate in transforming school cultures, teachers’ pedagogies and attitudes towards disabilities, to accommodate diverse needs (Armstrong, 2016; Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Moreover, teachers need to incorporate peer tutoring in their teaching methods in inclusive settings to increase the learning and participation of students with VI and others with SEN (Mitchell, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). The Tanzanian Ministry of Education and Vocational Training needs to equip teachers at various levels of education with strategies on how to prepare and deliver instructions that will accommodate students with diverse needs, through compulsory training to all teachers in inclusive settings, on teaching pedagogies that accommodate diverse needs. This can be integrated in teacher education curriculum at all levels of education for preservice teachers, and the training can be in the form of special seminars/workshops for in-service teachers. Alternatively, one teacher in each inclusive education setting could be trained and work as a coordinator of all matters related to the L&T of students with SEN, and they would, among other things, assist other teachers in pedagogical matters (Mackenzie, 2007; Qureshi, 2014).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declare no potential conflict of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

References

American Foundation for The Blind (AFB). (2014). Specialised education services for students with vision loss. Retrieved from http://www.afb.org.

Armstrong

(2016). Inclusive education school cultures, teaching and learning. In Richards

Armstrong

(Eds.), Teaching and learning in diverse and inclusive classrooms: Key issues for new teachers (pp. 87–99). London, England: Routledge.

Booth

Ainscow

(2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol, UK: Centre for studies for inclusive Education (CSIE).

British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2011). Ethical guidelines for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://www.bera.ac.uk/

Bryman

(2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ezekiel

(2009). Determinants of primary school teachers’ attitude towards inclusive education in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (MA thesis). University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Fernandez

Cortes

C. M. A. C

. (2017). Alternative teaching practices for inclusive education. SHS Web of Conference, 37, Article 01005. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20173701005

Ghulam

Rukhsana

Misbah

Mahwish

Dur-E-

(2014). Difficulties faced by students with visual impairment registered in open and distance learning programs of AIOU, Islamabad, Pakistan. Academic Research International, 5, 214–223.

James

C. E.

(2017). The schooling of marginalized students in Urban Canada: Programs, curricula, and pedagogies. In Reid

Major

(Eds.), Global teaching: Education dialogues with/in the global south (pp. 35–57). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Kiomoka

J. D.

(2014). An investigation of the challenges which children with visual impairment face in learning and participation in inclusive primary schools (MA thesis). Hedmark University College, Elverum.

11.

Kisanga

S. E.

(2017). Educational barriers of students with sensory impairment and their coping strategies in Tanzanian higher education institutions (PhD thesis). Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.

12.

Macfarlane

Woolfson

M. L.

(2013). Teacher attitudes and behaviour toward 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, 46–52.

13.

Mackenzie

(2007). A review of recent developments in the role of the SENCo in the UK. British Journal of Special Education, 34, 212–218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00481.x

14.

Migeha

J. D.

(2014). An analysis of academic performance of students with hearing impairment in Tanzania secondary schools. (M.A thesis), The Open University of Tanzania.

15.

Mitchell

(2014). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

16.

Mnyanyi

B. F. C.

(2009). Developing teachers work for improving teaching and learning of children with visual impairment accommodated in ordinary primary schools. European Education Research Journal, 8, 336–335.

17.

Mongwaketse

O. E. M.

(2011). Implementing inclusive education in Botswana primary school settings: An exploration of teachers’ understanding of curriculum, curriculum adaptations and children who have learning difficulties (PhD thesis), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

18.

Morris

(2014). Seeing sense: The effectiveness of inclusive education for visually impaired students in further education (PhD thesis). Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

19.

Mwakyeja

B. M.

(2013). Teaching students with visual impairments in inclusive classrooms: A case study of one secondary school in Tanzania (MA thesis). University of Oslo. Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/36642/MasterxsxThesis.pdf?sequence=1

20.

Nasiforo

M. B.

(2015). Academic impediments students with visual impairments encounter in the colleges of university of Rwanda (PhD thesis). Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.

21.

Qureshi

(2014.). Herding cats or getting heard: The SENCo–teacher dynamic and its impact on teachers’ classroom practice. Support for Learning, 29, 217–229. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12060

22.

Reed

Curtis

(2012). Experience of students with visual impairments in Canadian higher education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106, 414–425.

23.

Richards

(2016a). I feel confident about teaching, but ‘SEN’ scares me: Moving from anxiety to confidence. In Richards

Armstrong

(Eds.), Teaching and learning in diverse and inclusive classrooms: Key issues for new teachers (pp. 87–99). London, England: Routledge.

24.

Richards

(2016b). A new role for special schools? In Richards

Armstrong

(Eds.), Key issues for teaching assistants: Working in diverse and inclusive classrooms (pp. 13–20). New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Rieser

(2001). Does language matter? Inclusion Now, 2, 16–17.

26.

Tungaraza

F. D.

(2012). Including the excluded: Impediments to attaining this goal in education in Tanzania. Specialpedagogska Rapporter Och Notiser Fran Hogskolan Kristianstad, 4–30. Retrieved from https://www.hkr.se/forskning/forskningsmiljoer/forskning-relationell-pedagogik-forp/forps-forskningsgrupper/forskningsgruppen-specialpedagogik2/specialpedagogiska-rapporter-och-notiser/

27.

United Republic of Tanzania (URT). (2009). National strategy on inclusive education 2009-2017 (Final Draft). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ministry of Education and Vocational Training.

28.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

29.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.