780914

research-article2018
JVI0010.1177/0264619618780914British Journal of Visual ImpairmentKisanga and Richards

BJVI
Research Article

British Journal of Visual Impairment

Teaching pedagogies in Tanzanian

2018, Vol. 36(3) 216­–226
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
inclusive educational settings: Do sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264619618780914
https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619618780914
they respond to diverse needs? journals.sagepub.com/home/jvi

Voices from students with visual

impairment

Sarah E Kisanga
University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Gill Richards
Nottingham Trent University, UK

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.

Corresponding author:
Sarah E Kisanga, Department of Educational Psychology and Curriculum Studies (EPCS), School of Education, University
of Dar es Salaam, P. O. Box 35048, Post Code: 16103, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Email: sarahdalton08@gmail.com
Kisanga and Richards 217

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 minimi-
sation 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 edu-
cational 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 with-
out 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 special-
ists (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, orienta-
tion 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; con-
sequently, 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 pro-
cess (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
218 British Journal of Visual Impairment 36(3)

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 inclu-
sive 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 teach-
ers’ 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 stake-
holders 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:

1. What are the predominant teaching methods employed by teachers to accommodate stu-
dents with VI in Tanzanian inclusive educational settings?
2. What are the positive inclusive practices from teachers that can address the needs of stu-
dents with VI?
3. What are negative inclusive practices from teachers that do not address the needs of stu-
dents 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.
Kisanga and Richards 219

Methods
Participants
This study involved 12 students with VI selected purposively from one HEI to explore their experi-
ence 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 examin-
ing 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 emerg-
ing 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 occur-
rence 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 pri-
mary schools were reported to use teaching methods that meet the needs of students with VI, com-
pared 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 instruc-
tions as remarked by P10 that ‘. . . the problem starts when the teacher is using a blackboard or
220 British Journal of Visual Impairment 36(3)

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 projec-
tors 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 admin-
istration, 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 exclu-
sionary 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 govern-
ment 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)
Kisanga and Richards 221

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 find-
ings 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 pre-
sented, 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 multime-
dia 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
222 British Journal of Visual Impairment 36(3)

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: ‘teach-
ing 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 attrib-
uted 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 stu-
dents 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 stu-
dents 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 respon-
sibility 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 eco-
nomical 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 prac-
tices 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
Kisanga and Richards 223

economic status, but rather teachers’ readiness to provide support, their attitudes, and expecta-
tions 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 posi-
tive 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 struc-
ture, 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 impor-
tant 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 posi-
tive 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.
224 British Journal of Visual Impairment 36(3)

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 docu-
mented 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 second-
ary schools and HEIs. A possible explanation for this could be that inclusive education was first initi-
ated 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 under-
standing 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 dif-
ferences, 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 struc-
tures, 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 prac-
tices 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.
Kisanga and Richards 225

Exclusionary practices revealed in this study suggest that what is practised in Tanzanian inclu-
sive 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 maxi-
misation of resources (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; URT, 2009).

Conclusion and implications

This study explored teaching methods and inclusive practices demonstrated by teachers in inclu-
sive 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 oth-
ers 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-ser-
vice 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).

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion 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, F. (2016). Inclusive education school cultures, teaching and learning. In G. Richards & F.
Armstrong (Eds.), Teaching and learning in diverse and inclusive classrooms: Key issues for new teach-
ers (pp. 87–99). London, England: Routledge.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (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, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ezekiel, S. (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, C., & 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, F., Rukhsana, B., Misbah, M., Mahwish, S., & Dur-E-, N. (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.
226 British Journal of Visual Impairment 36(3)

James, C. E. (2017). The schooling of marginalized students in Urban Canada: Programs, curricula, and peda-
gogies. In C. Reid & J. Major (Eds.), Global teaching: Education dialogues with/in the global south (pp.
35–57). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kiomoka, J. D. (2014). An investigation of the challenges which children with visual impairment face in learn-
ing and participation in inclusive primary schools (MA thesis). Hedmark University College, Elverum.
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.
Macfarlane, K., & 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.
Mackenzie, S. (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
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.
Mitchell, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching
strategies (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
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.
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.
Morris, C. (2014). Seeing sense: The effectiveness of inclusive education for visually impaired students in
further education (PhD thesis). Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
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
Nasiforo, M. B. (2015). Academic impediments students with visual impairments encounter in the colleges of
university of Rwanda (PhD thesis). Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Qureshi, S. (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
Reed, M., & Curtis, K. (2012). Experience of students with visual impairments in Canadian higher education.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106, 414–425.
Richards, G. (2016a). I feel confident about teaching, but ‘SEN’ scares me: Moving from anxiety to con-
fidence. In G. Richards & F. Armstrong (Eds.), Teaching and learning in diverse and inclusive class-
rooms: Key issues for new teachers (pp. 87–99). London, England: Routledge.
Richards, G. (2016b). A new role for special schools? In G. Richards & F. Armstrong (Eds.), Key issues
for teaching assistants: Working in diverse and inclusive classrooms (pp. 13–20). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Rieser, R. (2001). Does language matter? Inclusion Now, 2, 16–17.
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-forskningsgrup-
per/forskningsgruppen-specialpedagogik2/specialpedagogiska-rapporter-och-notiser/
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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.