DepEd Forms: School Forms

      As of the moment, I am our school's ICT (Information Communications Technology) coordinator. It is not actually a position but a coordinatorship. This means that you are in charge of anything related to computers, internet, encoding, multimedia, lay-outing etc. You are also in charge of the e-learning classroom. This may sounds a good position and if you are asking if this makes me a step higher in the ladder then you're wrong. This is just an extra or ancillary work and it does NOT increase my salary..hehehe...However, I find this position quite satisfying since the thrust of education is geared towards Information Technology. It is perhaps an advantage on my part since this contributes to me to become a "21st Century" teacher. This position also gives me the opportunity to attend seminars that increase my exposure to the system and the same time meet new people and develop linkages. As they say, it is not enough what you know, but whom you know. And I can never be sure how would these acquaintances be of good help in the future especially if professional development is to be taken account.
    I would like to share some of the forms currently used in the public school system. And for this maiden post about DepEd forms, let me share to you the current forms which were implemented just this school year. These forms also have a change in their names: These are:

  School Form 1 (SF 1) School Register - This replaces  Form 1, Master List & STS Form 2-Family Background and Profile.
  School Form 2 (SF2) Daily Attendance Report for Learner - This cancel Form 1, Form 2 & STS Form 4 - Absenteeism and Dropout Profile.  
   School Form 3 (SF3) Books Issued and Returned- This replaces Form 1 & Inventory of Text Book.
  School Form 4 (SF4) Monthly Learner's Movement and Attendance- This replaces Form 3 & STS Form 4-Absenteeism and Dropout Profile.
  School Form 5 (SF 5) Report on Promotion & Level of Proficiency- This replaces Forms 18-E1, 18-E2, 18A.

   School Form 6 (SF6) Summarized Report on Promotion and Level of Proficiency- This cancels Form 20
   School Form 7 (SF7) School Personnel Assignment List and Basic Profile- This replace Form 12-Monthly Status Report for Teachers, Form 19-Assignment List, Form 29-Teacher Program and Form 31-Summary Information of Teachers.

    Now, where are the forms? Relax, Just click the link below.

DepEd School Forms

   

   

Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale by Gething (1991)

Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale

This scale was developed by Lindsay Gething, a professor in the Nursing Research Centre in the Faculty of Science at the University of Sydney, and a member of the Australian Psychological Society. Gething developed the IDP for Australian setting to assess discomfort in social interaction which is suggested to reflect reactions associated with non-accepting or negative attitudes towards people with disabilities (Gething, 1994).

Though IDP was developed and primarily tested in Australia, the scale has been translated into four languages and tested in nine different countries. It has also been tested as part of a battery of research scales designed to assess attitudes towards people with disabilities (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005).

Gething (1994) defined Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale as paper-and-pencil report measure stated in the first person. It asks respondents to rate how much of each of a series of twenty statements fit their own reactions when meeting a person with disability. It is an instrument comprising 20 items that are rated on a six point scale (ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with no midpoint or neutral point).   

IDP measures attitudes at a personal level and is based on the assumption that negative attitudes are reflections of the subjects’ lack of association with the object and that this lack of information or strangeness engenders feelings of uncertainty and anxiety (Gething 1993). This was developed to address criticism that the ATDP is written at the societal level and was designed specifically as a unidimensional measure of the overall attitude toward individuals with disabilities. IDP was instead developed to measure attitudes at the individual level of analysis. It describes how a given rater feels about a particular person with disability in a certain situation (Haskell,2010).  

The majority of statements in IDP are constructed in such a way that an agreement response reflects relative discomfort in social interaction. A higher Total Score indicates more discomfort in social interaction toward persons with disabilities, thus reflect negative attitudes toward them.

Moreover, as both the ATDP and IDP scales are intended to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, Gething (1994) predicted that significant associations exist between the their scores. Since the direction of the scoring is reversed for the two scales, significant negative relationships could be revealed.

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale by Yuker, Young and Block (1970)

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale

The Attitudes Toward Disabled Person Scale (ATDP) was developed following the need for an objective and reliable instrument to measure attitudes toward disabled persons as a group (Yuker et al, 1970). This is the most widely used research tool developed by Yuker, Block and Young (1970) in measuring attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Lyons, 1990; Alghazo, 2002; Yuker and Block, 1986, in Kitchen, 2007). The ATDP measures attitudes at the societal level and extent of perceived differences between disabled and nondisabled people, with a positive attitude reflected in perception of few differences (Gething, 1994). On the ATDP form O, the preferred version which includes 20 items in a Likert format, reliability is .83 on a test-retest within 5 weeks, 4 – 16 month test-retest is .68; split-half is .80, and alpha is .76 (White et al., 2006). Validity of the ATDP is acceptably high, using several approaches including content, predictive, concurrent, and construct validity (White et al., 2006). The instrument published by the Human Resources Center can be accessed free through Education Resources Information Center website (http://www.eric.ed.gov).

The ATDP may be administered as either an individual or a group test. The test covers items to which the subject responds by indicating the extent of his agreement or disagreement to each according to the following scale: (+3=I agree very much; +2=I agree pretty much; +1=I agree a little; 1=I disagree a little; -2=I disagree pretty much; and -3=I disagree very much).

ATDP scores may be interpreted as reflecting either the subject's perceiving persons with disabilities as basically the same as or different from persons without disability. A high score indicates the idea that persons with disabilities are similar to persons without disabilities; while a low score indicates the view of difference between persons with disabilities and those without disabilities. The view of differences in characteristics and treatment of persons with disabilities might be interpreted as rejection or prejudice, considering them "inferior" or "disadvantaged”. At the same time, the scale may show the degree of positive and negative stereotypy in the attitudes of persons without disabilities toward those who have disabilities (Yuker et al, 1970).

ATDP, like most attitude scales, is thought to measure the affective and cognitive aspects of attitudes. One of the many strengths of this instrument however, is that it also appears to be capable of measuring behavioral tendencies, since it inquires how people should act toward persons with disabilities (Haskell, 2010).

Attitudes Toward Persons with Sensory Disabilities

People with sensory disabilities receive low academic and behavioral expectations because they tend to keep to themselves and minimize joining in social activities (Smith et al, 2008; Ting and Gilmore, 2012).

Stephens et al (2000) reviewed literature on attitudes toward persons with deafness and hearing impairment and discussed that results have little difference across various countries. They generalized that the attitudes toward the deaf and hearing impaired are negative. Olika (2009) also noted in her study that children with hearing impairment received more negative than positive attitudes from hearing people. The informants also said that many hearing people are rude, mean, screaming insulting words, isolating and neglecting the hearing impaired child.

Walker (2008) also examined counselors-in-training’s attitude toward persons who are blind or visually impaired and found that the participants held rejecting or negative attitudes. Lecturers in South Africa find teaching them a problem and consider these students a burden (Mushome and Monobe, 2013). General education teachers identify them as the students they least want to have in their classrooms (Horne, 1983 in Wall, 2002). In less intimate situations (e.g. workplace), people are comfortable interacting with them but not in helping situations or if close personal contact is required (Stovall and Sedlavek, 2010). Among employers, persons with sensory disabilities (together with cognitive and behavioral disabilities), were found to be the most difficult to accommodate in the workplace as compared to medical, neurological and physical disabilities (Center for Information, Training & Evaluation Services, 2003).

On the other hand, Stanlland (2009) noted that nine out of ten of the respondents in British Social Attitudes Survey in 2009 are fairly or very comfortable interacting with persons with sensory impairments in various situations (e.g as a boss, spouse, school/classmate, neighbor). The same survey also found out that persons with sensory disabilities are less likely to encounter prejudice from the public. Furthermore, teachers are positive in including persons with sensory impairment (Mamah et al, 2011, Prakash, 2012). They are more willing to accommodate these students than those with emotional problems or with physical disabilities (Wolman et al, 2004, Stephens et al, 2000). Miller at al (2009) also found that students expressed the most willingness to have relationships with persons with sensory disabilities as compared to those with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities. Galloway (1972) also found that counselors from four different populations have positive attitudes towards the deaf.

Women generally are more comfortable than men in their attitudes toward persons with sensory disabilities (Stanlland, 2009). Prakash (2012) reported in his study that female teachers showed more positive attitudes towards children with hearing impairment in their classroom when compared to male teachers. On the other hand, Walker (2008) reported that gender was not found to be significant in the attitudes toward persons with sensory disabilities.

           In relation to the current study in which age is a variable, it is revealed that its impact on attitudes is not consistent across scenarios particularly with persons with sensory disabilities (Stanlland, 2009). For instance, the youngest age group reported the least comfort interacting with people with sensory disabilities in workplace/boss scenarios but not in marriage and school scenarios. No significant differences in the attitudes of the participants were found when grouped according to age (Walker, 2008). On the other hand, Stephens et al (2000) indicated that age was significant as to whether persons with sensory disabilities make a lesser contribution to the society. Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to indicate that persons with sensory disabilities make a lesser contribution to the society.

Walker (2008) and Galloway (1972) found that no significant difference between groups according to education (masteral or doctorate) among counselors in their attitudes toward persons with sensory disabilities. These however is inconsistent with Prakash (2012) who reported that teachers with post graduate education held statistically more positive attitudes toward persons with sensory disabilities compared to those who only have bachelor’s degree.

In term of contact, Walker (2008) found no significant associations between attitudes and contact toward persons with sensory disability. However, if the participants were grouped according to their experience with persons with sensory disabilities (none, casual, work-related, intimate), a significant difference was found in the respondents attitudes. Also, Wall (2002) reported that teachers with more direct or indirect exposure and experience with persons with sensory disabilities hold more positive attitudes than those with less experience.

image source: http://www.cbm.org/programmes/images/8856819_eb8a6b8555.jpg

The Use of Contextualized Visual Aids in Teaching Vocabulary to Children with Mental Retardation

Overview

        Public awareness about individuals with mental retardation has increased in the past years. Comprising 4.6% of the population in developed countries including the Philippines, these individuals gained considerable acceptance from the public and have found their place in special schools in the hope to live a productive life.

      In line with this, special educators sought for ways in order to provide the best learning possible for these individuals. Various movements have emerged and presented new ways of teaching considering the special needs of these individuals. These trends remain dynamic, presenting new findings and recommendations as results of research and study.

      There has been relatively little research on the vocabulary abilities of children with mental retardation. Some researches, like that of Ezell & Goldstein (1991), indicate that children with mental retardation tend to be more concrete in their understanding of words. This tendency to be more concrete may be the result of delays in development of semantic abilities (Rosenberg, 1982) and being lag behind in their development of organizing strategies (Stephens, 1972)

In respect with the above-mentioned ideas, studying the effect of using contextualized visual aids to increase the vocabulary of children with mental retardation is a significant and meaningful investigation. It is with an utmost conviction to the idea that in order to effectively teach these children, teaching approach must be integrated- multisensory and culturally/contextually-relevant.  Multisensory in a sense that the more senses being used, the more learning takes place. On the other hand,  to be culturally/contextually-relevant simply means that learning will be more effective when differences in the learner’s linguistic, cultural and social background are also taken into account (13^th Principle: American Psychological Association’s 14 Learner-Centered Principles, in Corpuz and Lucas, 2007).

Mental Retardation

     Mental retardation is defined by the World Health Organization as a condition of incomplete or halted development of the mind, which is characterized by impairment of skills as manifested during developmental period that contributes to the overall level of intelligence.

     Most children with mental retardation have problems with language and communication (Long & Long, 1994). In fact, language and speech disorders have been found to be the most frequent secondary disability among children with mental retardation (Epstein, Polloway, Patton, & Foley, 1989). Deficits in language and communication have been found to "constitute major impediments to the social, emotional, and vocational adjustment of retarded citizens" (Swetlik & Brown, 1977).

    Research about vocabulary abilities of children with mental retardation is said to be limited as compared to other language development concerns. Children with mental retardation have been found to lag behind in their development of organizing strategies (Stephens, 1972) and to use more concrete concepts (Mac Millan. 1982), suggesting that children with mental retardation have some difficulty developing and using semantic concepts.

On the other hand some studies have found that an area of strength for children with mental retardation is that of vocabulary skills. In a study of the comprehension of syntax and vocabulary conducted by Chapman, Schwartz, and Kay Raining-Bird (1991), the authors found that their subjects with mental retardation performed significantly better on the vocabulary comprehension task than on tests of syntactic skills.

 Theories Underlying the Use of Visual Aids

    Over the years, educators agree that the use of visual aids enhances learning both to children with or without special needs (with the exception for some cases i.e. visually-impaired children).  Jerome Bruner initially supported this when he proposed that learners can learn through Iconic mode or through the use of pictures and images. According to Machado (2007), visuals and images (pictorial representations) used during instructions almost always improve students’ attention, listening and comprehension and reduces recall errors.