Stuttering, is a fluency disorder characterized by primary and secondary behaviors that impact the smooth, forward flow of speech. It has adverse social and educational implications for Learners Who Stutter (LWS). In Zambia, stuttering is part of the speech impairments category referred to as “speech defects” Education Reforms [1], “speech and language deficits” Focus on Learning [2], “speech impairments” Educating Our Future [3], “communication disabilities” Central Statistics Office [4], or “communication impairments” Zambia’s Disability Country Report.

The prevalence of speech impairments in Zambia is estimated at 3.8% of the general population [4,5]. However, specific data on prevalence and incidence of stuttering are not currently available despite the classification of stuttering as a fluency disorder by the World Health Organization [6]. Similarly, statistical data about learners who stutter does not exist at the Ministry of General Education [7]. However, given the widely used prevalence rate of 1% there could be as many as 170,000 people who stutter in a population of approximately 17 million [4,8,9], majority of whom could be in school given that Zambia has a young population. 

The adverse impact of stuttering on the academic performance and socio-emotional functioning of learners who stutter are well documented. Academically, learners who stutter are more likely to get restricted educational opportunities. They often have decreased classroom participation during discussions and group-focused learning activities; and often find it difficult to read aloud or deliver oral presentations in front of peers [10]. Teachers and peers alike may perceive them as shy, nervous, withdrawn, tense, anxious, self-conscious, insecure, sensitive, unfriendly and less intelligent. Socially, learners who stutter, are more likely to be bullied and teased by peers and may suffer social harm and rejection at the hands of uninformed peers and teachers.

The impact of stuttering goes beyond school. Studies show that stuttering plays a role in the choice of a career, limits occupational progression, hampers promotion, inhibits social interactions and communication with workmates and perpetuates constant negative evaluation by others [11,12]. For this reason, it is critical to investigate the attitude of teachers towards learners who stutter for it has a bearing on the social and academic life of learners who stutter. 

An investigation into attitudes of teachers towards learners who stutter in Zambia is an important undertaking for several reasons. First, attitudes of teachers towards disability and difference in general has been documented to be negative [13,14,15]. They display discriminatory attitudes based on race, class, gender, culture, disability, religion and labels they attach to learners that in turn create barriers to the identification process and education of learners with special needs [13, 14,15]. Lack of awareness and knowledge about the needs of learners with special education needs have also been cited as underlying causes of mainstream teachers’ negative attitudes toward them [13]. 

Secondly, teachers are authority figures in the lives of children who attend school. What they say and do has a lasting impact on the academic life of learners. Teachers who believe in learners’ innate ability to succeed also demonstrate a positive attitude toward them. However, if teachers have erroneous beliefs about stuttering, these beliefs can have a negative impact on how they perceive and interact with learners who stutter [16]. Thirdly, teachers are role models that school-age children look up to. Moreover, the academic success and failure of students in school is largely contingent upon beliefs and attitudes of teachers toward their learners. This is because learners who stutter need all the support they can get from their teachers given their struggle in public speaking, group discussion and challenges with interpersonal communication. If teachers do not have a positive attitude towards learners who stutter, these limitations may adversely impact their academic and social interaction with peers in school and even endanger their future. It is, therefore, important that stakeholders have an informed basis from which to understand attitudes of Zambian teachers toward learners who stutter. Such an undertaking would illuminate understanding of teachers’ attitudes toward learners who stutter. This, in turn, could provide a basis for policy and curricular developments and implementation tailored to providing a learning environment in which equitable and inclusive access to quality education for all is guaranteed. Therefore, if ‘no one is to be left behind’ as enshrined in the United Nations 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals to which member countries like Zambia have committed themselves, UN Sustainable Development Report [17], then learners who stutter must not only be seen to participate but do so effectively. Above all, the 2017-2021 Seventh National Development Plan (7NDP) which Zambia developed in 2017 with an overarching theme of “leaving no one behind” would be fully realized if learners who stutter effectively participate in a school environment under the care and mentorship of teachers whose attitudes toward them are informed and positive.

Research Questions

To explicate attitudes of teachers towards learners who stutter, three general questions guided the study, thus:

• How do teachers describe learners who stutter? 

• How much do teachers know about stuttering? 

• What beliefs do teachers have about stuttering and learners who stutter?

Semi-structured interviews were used [18]. A researcher-generated interview guide was used on 13 participants, purposefully selected to provide interpretive adequacy based on their work experiences and knowledge of stuttering [11]. For this study, 13 participants were considered adequate after all there is no pre-determined number of participants in a qualitative study [10,19,20,21]. For this reason, Creswell [14] suggests that as many as ten (10) participants could be ideal. Table 1 shows distribution of participants.

Participant Characteristics

Participants had a combined average age of 38.5 (minimum age of 23 years and maximum of 53 years) with a shared teaching experience of 12.6 years (minimum 0 and maximum of 26 years). A summary of the participants’ characteristics is presented in Table 2.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

A PX470 Sony Digital Voice Recorder was used to audio-record 13 interviews on a 32GB micro-SD that later were verbatim transcribed and thematically analyzed. An adapted Braun and Clarke [22] model of cyclical, inductive approach to thematic analysis was used.
 

Table 1: Participant Distribution 

Table 2: Participant Characteristics

Themes were explained in investigator narratives and illustrated through participants’ quotes for verification purposes of the emerging themes [23,24]. This kind of thematic analysis is rigorous but flexible as it is not tied to a single epistemological or theoretical perspective [25]. It provides for rich thematic description, helps to preserve authenticity and validity of data set and is also frequently used [26,27]. Further, findings of thematic analysis are often amenably quantifiable. 

Microsoft Excel was used to code and thematically analyze data because it is an essentially simple, cost-effective device compared to some commercial software options [22]. Though developed to analyze focus group data transcripts [28], Bree and Gallagher, assert that this data coding method is transferable to any field or data set involving large amounts of textual data such as interviews. For this reason, the Microsoft Excel qualitative data coding method was found to be methodologically appropriate, economically viable and easy to learn by simply watching videos on You tube (https://youtu.be/VIYBEE-1GbA). 

Data were coded without fitting it to a predetermined coding frame or research questions to ensure that the analysis process was driven by the data than any analytic preconceptions. Themes identified and descriptively analyzed at semantic level were those that emerged from raw data sets to form thematic patterns. Interpretation of semantic content looked beyond the surface of the data to ensure that broader cultural meanings and implications of thematic patterns were deduced in light of available literature [22] so that imbedded cultural meaning of teachers' attitudes toward LWS are constructed. 

Credibility and Verifiability

Verbatim transcription was employed to preserve credibility and verifiability of data. Seven color-coded Microsoft Excel work spread sheets were used to facilitate for independent validation of data and the analysis process employed [22]. To ensure that analysis and results were credible, member-checking was employed and findings shared with all 13 participants for purposes of verification and cross-checking [22]. Creswell [18] recommends use of member-checking and verbatim transcription of audio recordings has been used before [21]. 

Results are presented under three sub-themes of teachers’ description of, beliefs about and attitudes towards learners who stutter.

How Teachers Describe Learners who Stutter

Asked to describe learners who stutter, participants used a combined total of 91(M = 7) complete sentences in response to, “How would you describe a learner who stutter?” Within these complete sentences, participants used a total of 46 (M = 3.5) expressions to describe LWS or anyone they know who stutters. These descriptive statements were thematically categorized as positive, neutral, or negative expressions. Among these expressions 10 (21.7%, M = 0.8) were positive statements, 21 (45.7%, M = 1.6) were neutral and 15 (32.6%, M = 1.2) were negative.

Positive Expressions Teachers use to Describe Learners who Stutter

Five out of 13 (38.5%) of the participants used positive expressions to describe LWS. Of the ten (10) positive expressions used to describe LWS, 6 (60%) used qualifiers that focused on their mental abilities to perform and be successful. For example, positive expressions like, “most of them are good writers,” or is “a person who is ready and willing to learn and to interact with others,” were used. The remaining 4 (40%) of the statements included positive, non-academic human attributes to describe LWS. For example, one participant, P13, described and acknowledged that some LWS have exceptional qualities that they admired. These qualities ranged from being a very friendly person and having a lot to give to a demonstration of good leadership qualities. Quotes to illustrate these findings are shown in Table 3.

Neutral Expressions Teachers use to Describe Learners who Stutter

Twelve out of 13 (92.3%) of the participants used expressions that were neutral when describing LWS. Of the 21 neutral expressions that participants used to describe LWS, 5 (23.8%) were flat descriptive expressions without qualifiers and 16 (76.2%), were descriptive expressions with qualifiers. Descriptive statements with qualifiers were further sub-divided into three groups. The first group consisted of expressions in which participants used primary stuttering behaviors to describe LWS; the second group comprised expressions in which participants used secondary stuttering behaviors; and the third sub-group used social interaction and academic performance. Of the 16 descriptive statements with qualifiers, 7 (43.8%) used primary stuttering behaviors to describe school CWS, 3 (18.8%) used secondary stuttering behaviors, while in 6 (37.5%) of the 16 statements, participants used social interaction and academic performance to describe school CWS. Descriptive expressions like, “is like any other human being,” or “is just like any other child in school,” were regarded to be flat descriptive statements because they merely expressed a fact about stuttering or its impact on LWS but did not state any attribute that expressed anything positive or negative. 

However, neutral statements with qualifiers focused on the impact of stuttering on LWS or described stuttering itself. Some participants used primary stuttering behaviors as qualifiers to express neutral statements that described what they had observed in LWS. For example, neutral expressions with qualifiers like, “the way she phrases her words, maybe she runs out of her breath,” and “is just like any other person except having challenges in speech,” were used. Other participants used concomitants as descriptive qualifiers to express what they had observed to be the impact of stuttering. For example, expressions like, “they nod their heads down and upwards.” and “tilt their heads slightly to bring out something  which  may  seem  to  be  difficult,”  were  used.

Table 3: Positive Expressions Teachers use to Describe Learners Who Stutter 

Table: 4. Neutral expressions teachers use to describe learners who stutter 

Other participants used social interaction and academic performance as qualifiers to describe LWS. For example, one participant, P3 in utterance 74, stated that LWS appeared to be slow learners when in fact not, while some participants talked about how stuttering affects their social interaction. Table 4 presents results of neutral statements participants’ comments used to describe LWS.

Negative Statements Teachers use to Describe Learners who Stutter

Seven out of 13 (53.4.%) of the participants used negative statements to describe LWS. They were considered negative expressions because they focused on the perceived emotional reactions of LWS that teachers assumed to be consequences of stuttering. Of the 15 negative expressions that participants used to describe LWS, 4 (26.6%) statements indicated that LWS are short-tempered, 3 (20%) stated that they are emotional, 3 (20%) that they easily engage in fights, 2 (13.3%) are hostile or simply not friendly, 2 (13.3%) are slow to learn new concepts and 1 (6.7%) that they are simply indifferent. Negative expressions participants used to describe LWS also revealed their knowledge level of stuttering. For example, expressions like, “They would look at you, straight at you, as if they want to beat you,” and “for others, they would just be quiet,” show that participants lacked accurate knowledge about how ‘blocking’ as a primary stuttering behavior affects speech fluency of people Who Stutter (PWS). Illustrative negative quotes are presented in Table 5.

Description of Learners’ Socialization 

In response to the question: “How would you describe the socialization of LWS?” seven out of 13 (53.8%) of the participants, who responded to this question, said that LWS find it hard to socialize and make many friends. That while LWS like to be in the company of others, many fail to do so because of the mockery they receive from peers about their stuttering. One participant, P11 in utterance # 72, said LWS find it hard to socialize and make friends because people take them for jokers and consider them as a source of entertainment. Another participant, P7 in utterances # 74, 76, & 80, said LWS are usually found alone, because they feel out of place while in the company of others who think they are uncoordinated speakers and time wasters. He said, “that makes you feel like you are not needed by the entire group so, you withdraw.” However, one participant, P4 in utterances # 53– 56, suggested that LWS themselves are to blame because they discriminate themselves. The participant said, “people who stammer discriminate themselves or rather segregate themselves from socializing because most of them feel like they are going to be laughed at, being bullied or mocked… so, their social life is kind of affected.” 

Impact of Stuttering on Academic Performance and Career Choice of Learners Who Stutter 

 When asked if stuttering has impact on academic performance, eleven out of 13 (84.6%) of the participants said stuttering has no impact on academic performance. 

Table 5: Negative Expressions Teachers use to Describe Learners Who Stutter 

As one participant, P4 in utterances # 59–63, put it, “Ah, I strongly disagree. It does not really affect their academic performance.” However, some participants argued that public stigma toward people who stutter has led to lowered teacher expectations of LWS. The education system too dictates against academic success of LWS because teachers tend to give less time to them during class interactions. Misconceptions have also led most teachers to a belief that LWS are not as intelligent. These views were shared by P3, in utterances # 216-222, who said that: 

The impact is quite inevitable. Society has taken these individuals as people who have got a lot of issues in terms of intelligence. Some people define intelligence in terms of the way someone expresses himself or herself. People who stammer or stutter are looked at as people with less intelligence. Such beliefs make teachers to have less time for these learners as a result they fail to excel academically. 

Participants expressed different views on whether stuttering had any impact on career choice. One participant, P5 in utterance # 80 said it has no impact, while several others said it has an impact and a few others said it depends with a career. When asked if People Who Stutter (PWS) could work as teachers, the majority of the participants said teaching was not suited for PWS because it involves a lot of talking. For example, one participant, P2 in utterances # 193-201 said, “teaching requires someone who is fluent and who articulates well. A person who stammers may end up being more frustrated because even the children may start imitating him. I am sure it has an impact on the type of a profession someone would want to get to.” P2 suggested that PWS could instead join professions that do not involve a lot of talking or making of speeches. 

Knowledge and Attitudes of Teachers Toward Learners who Stutter 

Findings suggest a deficient in teachers’ knowledge about stuttering. Insufficient knowledge about stuttering is attributed to lack of curriculum inadequacy and training. This makes it difficult for most teachers to address the educational needs of LWS. Knowledge deficiency is even more apparent regarding causes of stuttering which is characterized by lots of misconceptions and misinformation. 

Findings further indicate that attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers toward LWS is generally negative. Lack of knowledge about stuttering and how to react to a stuttering moment are cited as some of the contributing factors to teachers’ negative attitude toward LWS. Teachers also lack patience because they are in a hurry to cover the syllabus and therefore are reluctant to accommodate LWS whom they feel would waste their time. Further, attitudes of special education teachers even though still viewed to be negative is comparatively better than that of regular teachers.

Knowledge Teachers have about Stuttering

Six out of 13 (46.2%) of the participants said teachers were not very knowledgeable about stuttering. Two of the participants (P3 and P8) stated that teachers’ lack of knowledge about stuttering could be due to lack of policy direction and curriculum inadequacy and training. On whether stuttering is a component of the curriculum for colleges of education one participant, P6 in utterance # 141 said, “I have never had time to check the syllabus to say stammering is part of the curriculum.” One participant stated that insufficient knowledge about stuttering by most teachers makes it difficult for them to conduct effective assessment. For example, P8 in utterances # 25 & 26 said, “I think the knowledge is not so much. This is as a result of maybe the training, the processes of identification might be there, but the part of screening might not be, we have challenges of maybe the curriculum.” P12 in utterance # 20 added that, “Teachers don’t know much about stuttering and are therefore not very competent to address the issues of assessment and therapy.” 

Teachers’ Knowledge about Causes of Stuttering Results revealed that teachers’ knowledge about causes of stuttering was characterized by lots of misconceptions and misinformation. While all participants believed that stuttering was due to heredity causes or some form of genetic malformation, several other participants also advanced numerous divergent views about causes of stuttering. Cleft palate, stress, trauma, emotional instability, language delay, problems with vocal folds, tongue tie and deformities of speech organs were all cited to be causes of stuttering. Other causes that participants mentioned included disease, brain damage, accidental injuries to speech organs, restrictive social environment, administered drugs and aging. Asked to state what caused stuttering, P8 in utterances # 42–45 said, “it could be as a result of deformities in the sound production or producing system. Maybe the teeth the way they are arranged, the dental problem. Lips, the nose, the mouth in general, or it could be maybe the cleft palate. 
 

Table 6: Participants’ Knowledge and Attitudes toward Learners Who Stutter 

Table 6:  Continue

It could be how the sound is articulated.” P9 in utterances # 42-50 also said that stuttering, comes about if there is what we call developmental delay. Also, when a child is not exposed to playing with other real toys, friends, or keeping quiet for some time the vocal organs will not develop, they will be fixed. Sometimes it is because of hereditary. Some children maybe born with maybe heavy tongues, very long tongues and because of tongue ties. If during birth there are some delays and part of the head was clamped using the forceps during the time to remove the child, it can also disturb the speech. Sometimes it could be accidents, dropping them down, falling them head down, hammering their heads on the floor, it can also disturb their speech or slapping them, beating them heavily on their head, it can cause stuttering. 

Myths Associated with Stuttering

All participants cited several myths that are associated with stuttering in Zambia. Prominent among them was that stuttering is a form of punishment from the gods. Majority of the participants said stuttering is a form of punishment for parents who might have violated social norms, practiced witchcraft, touched charms or stolen. P7 in utterances # 42- 52 had this to say: 

There are a lot of beliefs about stuttering. It depends with a culture where you come from. It could be that the mother when she was pregnant, she, used to speak too much, to kind of argue with a lot of people, so God has punished her by bringing a child who cannot speak fluently. 

Other participants said people believed that stuttering is passed on to the living by the dead relatives who themselves used to stutter. Participants also indicated that people believed that stuttering is a curse for disobedience. Others cited a tongue tie as a cause of stuttering. One participant said that if a tongue tie is not properly cut it could lead to stuttering. Another participant, (P13 in utterances # 37 & 38) said that the, “other myth is that stuttering is contagious, that you can get stuttering just from touching somebody who stutters. Or if the saliva of a Person Who Stutters (PWS) touches you. So, most of the times, as children we would run away from anybody who stutters... Then the other myth about stuttering is that People Who Stutter (PWS) cannot progress in life and that they are socially weak.” 

Attitudes of Teachers toward LEARNERS who Stutter

Nine (9) out of 13 (69.2%) of the participants indicated that attitude of teachers toward LWS is generally negative. Many participants cited lack of patience among teachers as a trigger of the perceived negative attitude among most teachers. One participant said teachers are in a hurry to cover the syllabus and therefore are reluctant to accommodate learners who they know would waste their time. One participant, (P2 in utterance # 133) said, “people who stammer require some patience and usually teachers do not have that time to wait a little bit longer for the child.” 

Other participants said that teachers act out of sympathy and fear for LWS that peers would ridicule them. So, to avoid creating situations that would make LWS uncomfortable and distressed, they hardly give them opportunities to verbally participate in class activities. Other participants said teachers are just ignorant about how to treat a LWS and react to a stuttering moment. When asked to compare attitude of teachers to that of the general public toward PWS P13 in utterances # 56 - 60 said, teachers also are worse. Because we don’t have much and we don’t want to know more about stuttering, we neglect them. We look at other conditions to be more serious than stuttering. In class, we would rather pick fluent people than people who stutter because we feel they are too slow and so, they do not participate in the classroom activities. They withdrawal because of our attitude. Our attitude is not good. 

Attitudes of Special Education Teachers Toward Learners who Stutter

Eight out of 13 (61.5%) of the participants generally agreed that there was a difference between attitudes of regular teachers and special education teachers toward LWS even though it was still viewed to be negative. Five of the eight participants, who themselves were special education teachers, said attitudes of special education teachers toward LWS was better than that of regular teachers. One participant said regular teachers are often impatient with LWS and as a result they are more likely not to give them opportunities to participate in class activities. Responding to whether such differences exist between special teachers and regular teachers, P1 in utterances # 310–313 said: 

Yes, there is, there is a big difference. In fear of not wasting time a teacher may not even point at a child. They think these learners may keep on repeating; friends may burst in laughter and may waste a little bit of time. Teachers may be forced to leave out that one and go for somebody who may not create any anxieties in the friends to waste any minute. They may give him the answer which he is trying to give long before he even finishes just to help out and redeem their time. 

However, one participant, disagreed with the assertion that attitude of special education teachers toward LWS was better than that of regular teachers. P12 in utterances # 17 & 18 said, “attitude of teachers towards LWS is generally negative- even special teachers who should know better are often cited for use of derogatory comments against learners who stutter; they discriminate against them.” Table 6 presents sub-themes on participants’ knowledge about and attitude towards LWS.

The current study sought to explicate attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers in selected schools of the Copperbelt and Lusaka provinces of Zambia. It focused on the following: (1) description of LWS; (2) knowledge level of teachers about stuttering and (3) their attitudes towards LWS.

Teachers’ Description of Learners who Stutter

Findings suggest that teachers describe LWS differently. Mostly teachers use core and secondary stuttering behaviors to characterize their description. Further, teachers use mostly neutral expressions with qualifiers, 21, (45.7%) to describe LWS rather than positive, 10, (21.7%) or negative,15, (32.6%) expressions respectively. 

There is lack of consensus on what constitutes a positive, negative, or neutral statement as studies that have examined how the public or professionals describe PWS have produced conflicting results [19,29]. This study is no exception and its findings on this score are equally not unique. For instance, past studies that investigated attitudes of students and teachers have reported more negative descriptive statements of PWS [29]. Hughes [19], on the other hand, reported that students used positive expressions more than negative ones; and only two neutral statements were used to describe PWS. The use of more neutral expressions by teachers in the current study possibly is indicative of their sensitivity to and awareness of the impact of stuttering on the LWS. It may also mean that teachers in Zambia are likely to use expressions that are politically correct. And most probable, just like the general public, teachers’ attitudes toward stuttering appear to be positively changing as recent studies show [30,31]. 

Knowledge about Stuttering

Knowledge about stuttering and LWS is insufficient. Lack of knowledge about stuttering is attributed to inadequacy in curricular content on stuttering and nature of teacher training. Insufficient knowledge about stuttering makes it difficult for most teachers to address the needs of LWS. It is important therefore, that teachers’ knowledge about stuttering is enhanced. Adriaensens and Struyf [32] assert that increased teacher knowledge helps them to cope with students who stutter and makes it easier for students who stutter to approach teachers. This in turn helps to build a positive and supportive relationship that leads to increased classroom productivity.

Misconceptions and Misinformation about Stuttering

Both pre- and in-service teachers’ knowledge about causes of stuttering is characterized by misconceptions and misinformation. For example, P8 attributed stuttering to craniofacial anomalies like cleft palate or deformities in speech organs and articulators; while the other participant, P9, blamed it on forceps used during delayed child delivery and head-slapping of children. Misconceptions and misinformation held by teachers about the causes of stuttering are not unique to the current study. In a similar study, Panico et al. [33] found that both regular teachers and student teachers had little knowledge about stuttering, particularly the causes. Abdalla and St. Louis [34] also found that their pre-service and in-service teachers in Kuwait were misinformed about the cause of stuttering. These results are also not surprising since the general public equally hold similar attitudes about stuttering [35]. It is important that teachers have accurate knowledge about the causes of stuttering because lack of or insufficient knowledge about stuttering often leads to unhelpful beliefs that culminate into negative attitudes toward PWS. Emphasizing the importance, Hearne et al. [36] assert that teachers’ awareness and knowledge about stuttering makes it possible for students who stutter to access treatment and it enables them to play an important facilitative role in ensuring that LWS follow through with their treatment schedules. 

Attitudes of Teachers toward Stuttering

Findings indicate that attitude of pre- and in-service teachers toward LWS is generally negative. However, attitudes of special education teachers, even though somewhat negative, are comparatively better than those of regular teachers. For example, although some participants refuted the claim that the attitude of special teachers was better than that of the regular education teachers, other participants (e.g. P1 & P12) contended that special education teachers’ attitude toward LWS was comparatively better than that of regular teachers on several fronts. Participants attributed the relatively positive attitude to knowledge and experience that special education teachers accumulate over time while dealing with school children with special education needs. This finding suggests that special education teachers provide a better starting point in the quest to positively influence the attitudes of educators toward LWS because of their familiarity, passion for and tacit knowledge about special education needs in general and more so speech disorders like stuttering. 

Educational Implications 

As underscored by other studies, there is a need for increased awareness of and knowledge about stuttering to help dispel myths, clear misconceptions and correct misinformation of pre- and in-service teachers [32,36]. Therefore, efforts aimed at creating awareness for or education about stuttering would go a long way in addressing some of the highlighted issues. 

The findings also show that while teachers in general have negative attitudes toward stuttering and LWS, special education teachers’ attitudes are relatively positive compared to those of regular education teachers and student teachers which is contrary to what Ruscello et al. [29] found. It is time therefore, to stop looking at the concept of attitude toward stuttering and PWS as a purely negative or positive dichotomy but rather as a continuum. The current study attests to this. It shows that some segments within the teaching profession may demonstrate relatively better beliefs about and positive attitudes toward LWS than others. That should be the starting point for any meaningful intervention aimed at attitude change among teachers. Focused efforts designed to change teachers’ attitude should first identify sections of the teaching profession that are receptive, robust, intrinsically motivated and enthusiastic to bring about the change we all yearn for. Special education teachers appear to be one such segment of the teaching profession that can be tapped into to bring about lasting change in attitudes toward LWS within the teaching fraternity. 

The findings also have additional research and educational implications for the field of fluency disorders in general and Zambia in particular. First, understanding attitudes of teachers toward LWS, can help shape future development of the field of fluency disorders in Zambia, as it may play a role in the policy direction and curricular development. As Zambia prepares to establish the field of speech and language pathology, studies like this one are essential in the absence of statistical data on prevalence and incidence of stuttering in the country. This study can also help with the recognition of LWS as a distinct category that require urgent attention by the ministry of general education to ensure that no one is left behind. This in turn may influence research direction and clinical service provision in Zambia. 

Suggested Areas for Future Research 

A future study could investigate how special education teachers and regular education teachers treat and/or interact with LWS in class. Such a study might employ classroom observations and interviews of both teachers and LWS to explicate the impact such interactions have on academic performance and social interaction of LWS. It could also reveal whether special education teachers and regular education teachers interact with LWS differently. Further, the study calls for understanding the gaps within the curriculum of teacher education to ensure that it addresses the educational needs of LWS. There is need, therefore, to examine educational programs for teacher education in colleges and universities to determine how much content on stuttering education student teachers cover. This would impact the preparedness of teachers to handle LWS and address their needs. The findings further suggest that teachers have a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about stuttering and LWS. Therefore, there is a need to increase knowledge about stuttering among both practicing and student teachers, particularly on its causes. Avenues like Continuous Professional Development (CPD), workshops, conferences and production of literature in local languages can all be utilized to increase teachers’ knowledge about stuttering and positively influence their attitudes toward LWS. As Adriaensens and Struyf [32] observed, teachers do not need to be experts in the area of stuttering, but they require some basic information to understand it and its educational and social implications on LWS. Increased knowledge could help dispel the misconceptions and misinformation that teachers have about LWS. 

The current study shows that attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers toward stuttering and LWS is generally negative; and their knowledge and beliefs about stuttering are characterized by misconceptions and misinformation [19,32,33]. Although their beliefs and attitudes are still regarded as negative, signs for positive change, especially among special education teachers are evident. Overall, it underscores the need to look at the concept of attitude toward stuttering as a continuum and not as a negative and positive dichotomy.

Conflict of Interest

Study was self-financed. The authors reported no financial or political conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Consent was sought and secured from each of the 13 participants prior to the commencement of the research process. No means of coercion was applied for participation. Participants were free not to provide any piece of information they felt uncomfortable to share. They were also at liberty to leave the study at any time during the research process. However, to avoid implied exploitation of participants, reciprocity in form of tokens of appreciation for their time and participation in the study was given [18]. Confidentiality of personal data and protection of identity of participants were given utmost care. All identifying information were redacted and replaced with pseudonyms. Personal identifiers were collapsed to make inferences difficult by readers familiar with individual participants.

1. Ministry of Education. Educational Reforms: Proposals and Recommendations. Zambia Publishing Education House, 1977.

2. Ministry of Education. Focus on Learning: Strategies for the Development of School Education in Zambia. Zambia Publishing Education House, 1992.

3. Ministry of Education. Educating Our Future: National Policy on Education. Zambia Publishing Education House, 1996.

4. Central Statistics Office. 2010 Census of Population and Housing–National Analytical Report. 2012, https://www.zamstats.gov.zm/phocadownload/2010%20Census/2010%20Census%20of%20population%20National%20Analytical%20report.pdf.

5. Loeb, Mitchell, et al. "Approaching the Measurement of Disability Prevalence: The Case of Zambia." Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, vol. 2, 2008, pp. 32-34.

6. World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. 1980, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1980/9241541261_eng.pdf.

7. Ministry of General Education. Zambia’s Educational Statistical Bulletin 2016. 2017, http://www.moge.gov.zm/?wpfb_dl=50.

8. Bloodstein, Oliver, and Nan B. Ratner. A Handbook on Stuttering. 6th Ed., Thomson Delmar Learning, 2008.

9. Central Statistics Office. Projected Total Population and Number of Eligible Voters in the Year 2016. Lusaka, Zambia, 2016.

10. Panico, James, et al. "Comparing Perceptions of Student Teachers and Regular Education Teachers Toward Students Who Stutter: A Mixed-Method Approach." Speech, Language and Hearing, vol. 21, no. 4, 2018, pp. 245-255, doi:10.1080/2050571x.2017.1391425.

11. Bricker-Katz, Grace, Michelle Lincoln, and Steven Cumming. "Stuttering and Work Life: An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 38, 2013, pp. 342-355.

12. Klein, Joseph F. and Bruce S. Hood. "The Impact of Stuttering on Employment Opportunities and Job Performance." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 29, 2004, pp. 255-273.

13. Kelly, Michael J. Education in a Declining Economy: The Case of Zambia, 1975-1985. World Bank, 1991.

14. Mandyata, John M. "Teachers’ Views on Inclusive Practices: A Case of Basic Schools in Kasama District, Zambia." Unpublished MEd Dissertation. University of Zambia, 2002.

15. Ndhlovu, Donald. "Challenges Faced by Pupils with Disabilities in Accessing Education in Inclusive Schools in Zambia." Unpublished MEd Dissertation. University of Zambia, 2008.

16. St. Louis, et al. "Improving Polish Stuttering Attitudes: An Experimental Study of Teachers and University Students." American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, vol. 27, 2018, pp. 1195-1210.

17. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016. 2016, doi:10.18356/3405d09f-en.

18. Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed., SAGE Publications Inc., 2014.

19. Hughes, Sean. "Exploring Attitudes Toward People Who Stutter: A Mixed Model Approach." Unpublished Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 2008.

20. Klompas, Marlene, and Eleanor Ross. "Life Experiences of People Who Stutter, and the Perceived Impact of Stuttering on Quality of Life: Personal Accounts of South African Individuals." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 29, 2004, pp. 275-305.

21. Trichon, Megan and Andrew J. Tetnowski. "Self-Help Conferences for People Who Stutter: A Qualitative Investigation." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 36, 2011, pp. 290-295.

22. Braun, Virginia and Victoria Clarke. "Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology." Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, 2006, pp. 77-101.

23. Spradley, James P. Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

24. Spradley, James P. Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980.

25. Maguire, Moira and Brid Delahunt. "Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars." The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 3, 2017, http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335.

26. Carter, Anna K., et al. "Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Experiences of Adults Who Stutter." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 60, 2019, pp. 11-25.

27. Daniels, Derek E., et al. "A Qualitative Study of How African American Men Who Stutter Attribute Meaning to Identity and Life Choices." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 31, 2006, pp. 200-215.

28. Bree, R. T., et al. "Engaging Learning and Addressing Over-Assessment in the Science Laboratory: Solving a Pervasive Problem." The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 3, 2014, pp. 206.1-206.36, http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/viewFile/206/290.

29. Ruscello, Dennis M., et al. "Special Educator’s Perceptions of Stutterers." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 19, 1994, pp. 125-132.

30. Irani, Farzan, and Rodney Gabel. "Attitudes Toward People Who Stutter by K-12 Schoolteachers." Annual Convention of the American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association, 2008, Chicago, IL.

31. Irani, Farzan, and Rodney Gabel. "Schoolteachers’ Attitudes Towards People Who Stutter: Results of a Mail Survey." Revue Canadienne d’Orthophonie et d’Audiologie, vol. 32, no. 3, 2008, pp. 129-134.

32. Adriaensens, Stefanie, and Elke Struyf. "Secondary School Teacher’s Beliefs, Attitudes, and Reactions to Stuttering." American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, vol. 47, 2016, pp. 135-141.

33. Panico, James, et al. "Elementary School Students’ Perception of Stuttering: A Mixed Model Approach." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 45, 2015, pp. 1-11.

34. Abdalla, Farid A. and Kenneth O. St. Louis. "Arab Schoolteachers’ Knowledge, Beliefs, and Reactions Regarding Stuttering." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 36, 2011, pp. 262-267.

35. Ozdemir, S. Rahime, et al. "Public Attitudes Toward Stuttering in Turkey: Probability Versus Convenience Sampling." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 35, 2011, pp. 262-267.

36. Hearne, Ariel, et al. "Stuttering and Its Treatment in Adolescence: The Perceptions of People Who Stutter." Journal of Fluency Disorders, vol. 33, 2008, pp. 81-98.