Findings from the questionnaire revealed that 38.1% (n = 8) of participants reported to have received the necessary training to teach LSEN, while another 38.1% (n = 8) were only partially trained. Notably, 23.8% (n = 5) of teachers indicated that they had received no formal or informal training. This lack of training, particularly regarding collaboration and its importance in LSEN schools, has been highlighted in previous studies (Banks, 2018; Pentek et al., 2018; Pfeiffer et al., 2019). This presents significant challenges, acting as a barrier to effective teamwork and negatively impacting learner performance and progress (Pentek et al., 2018; Pfeiffer et al., 2019).

In terms of experience, 47.6% (n = 10) of participants had between 6 years and 10 years of experience working in LSEN schools, 28.6% (n = 6) had 1 year to 5 years, and 19% (n = 4) had 11 years or more years of experience.

Professional experience does not appear to mitigate the fundamental issue of inadequate pre-service training in collaborative practice. The sentiment articulated in Brimo and Huffman’s (2023) study, where participants noted they haven’t been taught to have knowledge of collaboration’ (Brimo & Huffman, 2023) suggests that this deficiency spans teachers at various stages of their careers. This underscores the need for targeted training on interdisciplinary collaboration, which has significant implications for service provision in LSEN schools.

Most participants (86%, n = 18) reported being aware of collaborative practices at their schools, and 90% (n = 19) indicated active engagement in collaboration with SLTs and other team members. This reflects a positive trend towards interdisciplinary collaboration in LSEN settings.

The frequency of collaboration among participants varied considerably. A notable proportion, 43% (n = 9), reported engaging in collaborative practices with SLTs and other team members on a weekly basis. In contrast, 19% (n = 4) indicated that collaboration occurred monthly, while another 19% (n = 4) reported daily collaboration.

Although literature offers limited guidance on optimal collaboration timeframes, Stephenson et al. (2024) suggest that therapy requires a minimum of 30 min, three times per week, to achieve meaningful outcomes, emphasising the importance of consistency and intensity. Hence, these variations of collaborative practices reported by the participants reflect differing levels of integration and scheduling of interdisciplinary teamwork within LSEN school environments.

Furthermore, these findings suggest a consistent pattern of collaborative engagement and indicate a foundational understanding and implementation of collaborative practices within LSEN school environments. They also provide insight into the existing collaborative landscape and highlight areas where further support may be needed.

Based on the researcher’s experience, the participants from the respective LSEN schools participating in the study typically designate the remaining weekdays (other than pull-out therapy times) for collaboration between teachers and SLTs. This collaboration occurs at scheduled times or as needed. However, further analysis is required to assess the adequacy and impact of these interactions. Furthermore, the variability in training, experience and collaboration frequency as presented in the results for Phase 1 suggests that while foundational practices are in place, gaps remain that may hinder optimal learner outcomes. Phase 2 (Interviews) will build on these insights by exploring participants’ lived experiences in greater detail. The ensuing discussions will then delve into these aspects.

Two participants noted that the interdisciplinary team offers academic support to learners with disabilities, including reader and scribe services. According to Malone et al. (2015) and Ramraj (2014), such support is often necessary for learners with visual impairments or intellectual disabilities who face challenges with reading, decoding of text or spelling. One participant shared:

The findings highlight the collaboration of interdisciplinary teams in supporting teachers and learners in LSEN schools. Given that LSEN require tailored, integrated interventions to address complex learning and developmental barriers, the South African Education White Paper 6 introduced Individual Support Plans (ISPs) (also known as action plans) (De Villiers, 2012), which outline learner-specific needs, strategies and progress indicators. These plans highlight the importance of collaboration among professionals to meet these learners’ educational needs. Hence, the interdisciplinary team approach is essential. Archibald (2017) and Curro et al. (2022) further underscored the importance of teamwork in achieving educational goals for LSEN.

Two participants shared positive experiences regarding collaborative planning of learner activities with SLTs.

A participant remarked:

Furthermore, seven participants reported positively on the unified visions and missions shared by teachers and SLTs for the learners. One participant responded:

Teachers’ experiences collaborating with SLTs in LSEN schools are mostly positive, aligning with Dillon et al. (2021), who noted that such collaboration enhances learner progress. Knight et al. (2016) found that working with SLTs improved children’s pronunciation, listening skills and speech-language delays, leading to therapy discontinuation for two children. Additionally, Mitchell (2017) reported that collaboration between SLTs and Grade 3 teachers resulted in positive vocabulary outcomes on three measures, reinforcing the benefits of collaborative planning and monitoring.

Three participants expressed positive views on collaboration between the teachers, SLTs and parents through consultations. One participant (P11) noted that therapists play a key role in supporting parents during meetings regarding the challenges and/or barriers that the learner experiences by stating:

Based on the findings, strengthening the active participation of families and all relevant stakeholders is essential during the current transition in departmental responsibilities. To ensure that children with disabilities are not ‘left behind’, both the Department of Social Development (DSD) and the Department of Basic Education (DBE) must establish structured meetings. These meetings should include parents, caregivers, educators, therapists, school management teams and district–level officials, and should focus on developing coordinated, cross–sectoral strategies for identifying, supporting and monitoring interventions for these children. The intention is to equip caregivers with clear, accessible information and ongoing guidance so that they are empowered to make informed, independent decisions aligned with the individual needs and best interests of their children (Karisa et al., 2022).

Pentek et al. (2018) found that consistent collaboration among SLTs, OTs and physiotherapists in LSEN schools led to positive outcomes, with 98% of learners making progress on their ISP goals. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary teamwork and value of regular, coordinated teamwork in fostering meaningful progress for LSEN. In turn, it also supports Dillon et al. (2021), who emphasised that collaboration among parents, teachers and specialists is essential for achieving LSEN goals, such as enhancing communication skills and involving parents in goal selection and medical treatment for improved academic performance. Two participants shared that they received valuable guidance from SLTs classroom activities, as they sometimes felt uncertain about how to support learners with academic and communication challenges. One of the participant’s shared:

The findings underscore the significant role that SLTs play in guiding and coaching teachers within LSEN school environments. Mitchell (2017) highlights that SLTs often serve as trainers, particularly for Grade 1 and 2 teachers, by enhancing their understanding of oral language development and collaborative strategies. In the current study, teachers expressed interest in best practice models and suggested that classroom-based guidance from SLTs could improve their awareness of speech and language challenges. This aligns with the present findings, which demonstrate that SLTs are instrumental in equipping teachers with communication strategies, therapeutic insights, and classroom activities to support learners’ communication development.

Furthermore, four participants specifically noted that collaboration within the interdisciplinary team occurs through both formal and informal meetings. These meetings serve as platforms to discuss learner challenges, provide feedback and guidance to teachers, and coordinate appropriate interventions to support learners effectively. As one participant shared:

In alignment with the findings, existing literature underscores the importance of SLTs prioritising collaboration with teachers particularly through regular meetings – as a foundation for effective interdisciplinary teamwork (Paul et al., 2018). In the current study, most participants reported collaborating directly with SLTs. Paul et al. (2018) claim that collaboration between teachers and SLTs promotes learner development and is essential for achieving optimal educational outcomes.

Participants reported both positive and negative views on SLTs’ involvement in their classrooms. Five participants described meaningful support from SLTs, with one participant stating:

In contrast, four participants reported limited engagement, expressing a need for more support, as one participant noted:

Participants shared a range of perspectives and experiences regarding their collaborative involvement with SLTs in LSEN schools, which varied from active engagement to minimal participation. Positive feedback from participants aligns with findings by Mitchell (2017) and Olszewski et al. (2019), who emphasised the valuable contributions of SLTs in planning, promoting critical thinking, supporting study activities, and facilitating literacy development.

However, some participants expressed concern about the limited presence and involvement of SLTs within classrooms. Three participants perceived poor relationships in their collaborations with SLTs. A participant expressed the following:

While teachers highlighted that SLTs are often given additional school duties, which creates competing priorities, and limits the time they can spend providing support to learners, this topic remains underexplored in current literature. Existing studies tend to address general barriers to collaboration, often overlooking SLTs’ limited classroom engagement and the specific dynamics of their interactions with teachers.

Strengthening professional relationships is essential for effective interdisciplinary collaboration. As Paul et al. (2018) suggest, successful partnerships often begin with individual teacher–SLT interactions and evolve as trust and rapport are built. Typically, SLTs initiate support, and as the benefits of collaboration become evident, the relationship deepens. Gallagher et al. (2019) and Olszewski et al. (2019) further emphasise that collaboration should involve equal participation and shared responsibilities, including joint planning and classroom-based support, to ensure cohesive service delivery.

Participants in the current study also shared practical insights into their experiences working with SLTs. Six participants reported that SLTs were frequently assigned additional duties beyond their core responsibilities. This negatively impacts SLTs’ capacity to provide consistent and effective support to teachers within the classroom setting. One participant reported:

Additionally, five participants mentioned that they received limited support from SLTs. Some of the responses included:

Findings show that SLTs in schools are often overloaded with duties. Stephenson et al. (2024) noted that teachers observe SLTs struggling to address areas like reading because of large caseloads. Both studies highlight that SLTs are overburdened, limiting their ability to collaborate regularly with teachers and reducing the effectiveness of interdisciplinary support and classroom-based interventions.

Four participants additionally highlighted the limited number of SLTs employed in LSEN schools, which poses a challenge in managing classroom needs. As one participant noted:

The findings highlight a growing shortage of SLTs in LSEN schools, worsened by rising learner enrolment, which challenges the sustainability of effective support services.

Two participants reported no challenges and expressed satisfaction with SLT services, as a participant noted:

However, the limited number of such responses is concerning.

Stephenson et al. (2024) identified several barriers to effective collaboration between teachers and SLTs, with one key concern being teachers’ resistance to SLT-led literacy support. This resistance often leads to confusion about each professional’s role. One participant’s (P3) response illustrated a general resistance to the provision of SLT support for learners, a sentiment that was not restricted to literacy-focused tasks. The participant stated:

Hence, the concern raised highlights the need for training on the importance of collaboration with SLTs and to clarify SLTs’ roles and address misconceptions that may hinder collaboration.

Participants were asked to propose practical solutions to the challenges they encountered. Several emphasised the need for teacher training, with four noting that many educators lack a clear understanding of the SLT’s role and scope of practice. One participant suggested:

These training needs align with Stephenson et al. (2024), who noted that limited understanding of SLTs’ roles and scope of practice among teachers can hinder collaboration. Paul et al. (2018) emphasised that in-service training is a practical approach to raising awareness of SLTs’ expertise and the value of collaborative practices in education. Additionally, two participants proposed solutions that the researcher identified as essential to strengthen relationships between teachers and SLTs. One participant remarked:

Stephenson et al. (2024) emphasise that effective interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly among literacy-focused teachers, requires interprofessional practice, role clarity and a shared sense of belonging. Supporting this, two participants recommended reducing SLTs’ non-core duties to allow more time for direct learner support. One noted:

The findings across the four main themes revealed that teachers in LSEN schools had varied experiences collaborating with SLTs. Many teachers appreciated the contributions of SLTs, particularly in learner support and planning. However, consistent collaboration was often disrupted by SLTs’ limited availability, largely because of high caseloads and involvement in non-core duties. Teachers also highlighted a lack of clarity regarding SLTs’ roles, especially in literacy support, and expressed the need for targeted in-service training to address this gap and recommended strengthening professional relationships to improve collaboration.

Despite these challenges, teachers recognised the value of interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly when SLTs were actively involved in learner discussions and classroom activities.