A New Dimensional in Teaching Non-verbal Students with Learning Disabilities

The main aim of this quantitative study is to define the teaching problems among special education teachers in teaching non-verbal students with learning disabilities. Purposive sampling had been used to select 80 participants in this study in Kerian District, Perak. The research instrument used in this study was questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data of the study. The findings show that participants faced problems in teaching the non-verbal students with learning disabilities (M=0.848, SD=0.553) and need a teaching module to teach them (M=0.841, SD=0.672). The results of t-test showed that no significant between teaching problem with gender of teacher (P=0.385 > 0.05, SD=0.330). While the results of one-way ANOVA also showed that no significant between teaching problem with teaching experience (P=0.297 > 0.05, SD=1.553). In conclusion, the problems among non-verbal students with learning disabilities can be solved through intensive training among teachers and development of teaching module based on augmentative and alternative communication with emphasis on functional words. The implication of the study will enable teachers to improve their teaching ability regardless student disabilities and increase the teaching aids and also will assist non-verbal students with learning disabilities to increase interaction with community members.


Introduction
Government has the responsible to ensure all individual to get a suitable education and to ensure that it became the main policy for national development (The Salamanca Statement, 1994). All individuals including people with disabilities are entitled for a fair of education (World Declaration on Education for All (WDEHA, 1990). The paragraph 34 (1) (b) clearly provided minister the statement to create special education program at special school or any of primary or secondary schools which are thought to be suitable and bring benefits (Akta Pendidikan, 1996 (Akta 550;2012). There were many ways or methods used in conducting the teaching and learning for students with special education needs either in their own way or based on the the information givers (Landwher, 2008). Besides that, students have difficulties in understanding the environment situations such as element of joke if they were separated from other students (Semrud & Glass, 2008). Non-verbal students with learning disabilities also do not have the ability to understand the analogy and interpret the behavior in their environment (Schiff, Bauminger & Telodo, 2009). The previous study found that the non-verbal students with learning disabilities have the ability to process the words in learning, but have a significant different in cognitive function if compared with normal students (Gates, 2009).
Model of Social Facilitation based on combination of social training and interaction structured is a believed to be able to solve the problems among non-verbal students with learning disabilities in social and interaction aspect (Simpson, 2008). Approaches of music, dance or singing are suggested to convey their intentions or feelings especially for autism students (Sterland, 2013). In addition, the approach of low-tech teaching aids such a flash card will also helping students to master in the communication skills (Ahmad, 2010). Phone-graphic method, This survey used a questionnaire with validity value (M=0.79) and reliability value (alpha=0.772). The questionnaire contains of a six part, (1) demography, (2) teaching and learning problems, (3) the need of module development, (4) method and module content, (5) module design, and (6) suggestion. All the data were analyzed based on descriptive analysis statistics such percentage and mean, and inferential statistics analysis such a t-test, one-way ANOVA and Pearson Correlation. There are four research questions and three null hypotheses (Ho) that represented the second to fourth research questions as follow: 1. What is the level of teaching problems and module needs for teaching and learning of non-verbal students with learning disabilities among special education teacher? 2. Is there any significant difference in teaching problems between genders of special education teacher? 3. Is there any significant difference between teaching problems and teaching experiences of special education teacher?

Results
The findings were analyzed based on percentage and mean for the first questions, t-test analysis for the second questions and Ho1, one-way ANOVA analysis for the third research question and Ho2, and Pearson Correlation for the fourth research questions and Ho3. The findings of research questions and hypotheses showed in form of tables and figures. Table 2 shows the means of analysis for teaching problems and module needs. The table shows the level of teaching problems among special education teacher (M=0.848, SD=0.553) and module needs (M=0.841, SD=0.672). This means the special education teacher faced problems in teaching and learning and teaching module for teaching non-verbal students with learning disabilities is needed.   Table 4 shows the results of one-way ANOVA for Ho2, that have no significant difference for teaching problems between teachings experiences of special education teacher. The test is said to be significant when the probability of p value is less than alpha value (α). The table shows that there has no significant difference for the value of f (4.75) = 1.251, p (0.385 > 0.05). Hence, the results of the test showed that Ho2 is accepted.

Problems of Handling and Conducting Teaching
The existence of non-verbal students with learning disabilities in special education programs is a minority situation, but this does not mean that their presence is negligible (Ahmad, 2010). The findings of the surveys are in line with the studies of Ahmad, Mahamod and Aziz (2012) which found that special education teachers faced problems in handling and conducting teaching for non-verbal students with learning disabilities (M=0.848, SD=0.553). The analysis of t-test showed that these is no significant difference of teaching problems between genders of special education teacher (P=0.385, SD=0.330). This means that special education teachers faced problems in handling and conducting teaching to non-verbal students with learning disabilities regardless of the genders. This result of this study is in line with the findings by Ong, Mahamod and Yamat (2013) which examined the relationship between gender and intelligence factors for individuals. The evaluation of gender should be taken into account, because the genders can influence individual in action or face an issue especially involving the election (Misran, Syed Sahuri, Arsad, Hussain, Abd Aziz & Zaki, 2012).
The results of one-way ANOVA analysis also found that there is no significant difference between teaching problems and teaching experiences (P=0.297, SD=1.553). This means the problem when addressing and conducting the teaching for the non-verbal students with learning disabilities faced by teachers regardless of whether more or less of teaching experiences. The research is done on the aspect of teaching experiences because it can provide satisfaction coverage for the targeted group (Ismail & Abu, 2016). Experience is also a socialization form that can play the important role in determining behavior (Ning Faidah, Harti & Subroto, 2018) .The finding is consistent with the survey done by Syed Ali, Abdul Rauf and Salimin (2017) that found that there is no correlation between teaching experience and teaching planning which is the factor that contributes to the teaching problems. However, Abdullah (2018) found that there is a significant relationship between teaching experience and teaching competence of a teacher.
The results based on mean score showed that there are three main factors that contributed to the problem of handling and conducting teaching to the non-verbal students with learning disabilities. The findings showed that the exposure course is a most important element (M=0.968), the knowledge of teaching methods (M=0.938) and the teaching planning (M=0.900). These three main factors are interrelated because exposure courses can provide the knowledge of teaching methods and help teachers to plan the appropriate teaching. The lack of knowledge will cause teachers to have low self-esteem, static and can lost student's beliefs to teachers (Tamuri & Ajuhary, 2010). The teachers are not only responsible in delivering knowledge to students but also responsible in improving their knowledge and appreciation the learning (Tamuri, Ismail & Jasmi, 2012).
Based on study by Yahaya, Samsuddin, Mat Jizat and Krishnan (2017) they found that the courses or training had a positive relationship with the teacher's self-efficacy, which refers to the teachers' confidence in implementing actions to achieve the goal or efficiency. Sugumarie and