ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮﺩ دو
א א دس وא ون א د א E 2014 Fم م E 1436 F
http://jes.ksu.edu.sa
א א א ﺩ. ﺑﻴﻞ ﻋﻄﻮﺓ ﺃ .ﺩ. ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﻴﻤﺮﻱ
Fא אE .ﺃ .ﺩ ﺭﺍﺷﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮﻱ א אF א دE ﺃ .ﺩ. ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻮﻫﺎﺏ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺭ .ﺃ ﺩ. ﺭﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﻏﻮﻝ אF א دنE .ﺃ ﺩ. ﻓﻬﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻳﻊ א א دF א دE ﺃ .ﺩ. ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺪﻯ .ﺃ ﺩ. ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻮﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺑﻄﻴﻦ א دF א دE א دF א دE ﺃ ﺩ. . ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺮﺣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻼﻓﻲ .ﺃ ﺩ. ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻴﺐ א م א د نE F E F ﺃ ﺩ. . ﺟﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﻴﺐ א א دF א دنE א א ﺃ ﺩ. . ﺳﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻧﻲ .ﺃ ﻓﻬﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻄﻴﻒ אE F [email protected] ﺃ ﺩ. . ﻣﺎﻫﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻫﻼﻝ .ﺃ ﻋﺒﺪﻩ ﻧﻌﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺘﻲ א ن سF نE [email protected] ﺩ. ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻳﻢ א دF א دE א אج وא א ﺃ ﺩ. . ﻫﻴﺎ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﻑ .ﺃ ﺃﻳﻤﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﺩ ﺯﻛﻲ א دF א دE
©E 1436F 2014 א دK ق אK د א و و و א و و ذ א وא و א د ل م و א د ون א ل א אK א א م א
Fدو E א א م א א א F אE א א د و א א אن א א א وא ل א م א א אم א א وא אK و م א א אد א א و و W א אW א وא وא א א و א وא א א א و א א وא א وא وא وא א و א א وא א د א א وض א א ل אK
אW ن ن א و א א א א א א م אK אW א א و א م אK א אW 1 – ن א ً ً א م אK 2 – א א א وא وא א م אK 3 – א א ل א א א א א وK
A א @
• 1977 L 1397م و ل د א אنA د א K@ • 1984 L 1404م א א WA د א @ א א دK • 1989 L 1409م א אW א دA א م א K@ • 1992 L 1412م א אW א دA א م א وא א א K@ • 2012 L 1433م א WA א م א Aو@ א א א K@ • 2013 L 1434م و ل دA א م א K@
אW
«ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﻮﻳﺔ» صW K 2458 א א11451 W ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ – ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮﺩ – ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺽ – ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ (+966) 1-4679965 W (+966) 1-4674454 W א א و [email protected] W א א و http://jes.ksu.edu.sa W
א א وא دلW ﺩﺍﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ – ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮﺩ – ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺽ – ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ صW K 68953 א א W 11537
א د40 W ً د20 ً دو ً אK
א و א א
1 ن وز א א مE30F אW א وא وא אK 2 نW א وא א ن وز وא K E200F 3 אW א وאF EKey WordsF د אن אE א א و א م אK 4 ن د א א אF א وא وא وא E3 EF وא א دK 5 ن ع א א אE16 F E Simplified ArabicF و אE Times New RomanF KE11F 6 ن ع א א אول אE10F ESimplified ArabicF و אE Times New RomanF KE8F 7 م א م אE Arabic, 1-2-3...F אK 8 ن א א K 9 אن א وא א و א وא א و אن א א אK א אً א و אن א ً אK 10 א א م אد א א و א א א و و א و مF א و אE ً א א א و א و א א K 11 א و אW L א אW د א ض א و א و و א א א א دون אنK ذ א אض א א و א א د א و وK ض אW א و و دوא و א אK ض א و وא אK و א א א ع א א א K L א אW د א א א א ً د א و و אK ض و א م د א א ض د ن אً א אK א א א אK و א א א ع א א א K 12 א א א م א א א א W א دس (American Psychological Association – APA – 6th ED)
13 א א و א א وא K 14 م א و و א א א و א א א د א א אF א א א אE و ً م אW L ذא א א א א א د א אF א א و א و אن א و א وE د א א و א א אEin ArabicF אن א وK L ذא א א א د א א و א و ERomanization / TransliterationF א و א אF و א א و א و א א א אW ق א و א وE אن א ذא ن א אً א א و ذא א אً א א א و א א א ذא ن ً و ذא ً א אK Ein ArabicF אن א وK جL א א א ً א א א ول و ً א א אK دL א א א א א א א א א و و و אF אE א א א ول و ً א א אK J و ل و א א אW א ن1991F KمKE ق א א و א א א و و א א א א دK א د א م אK170 – 143 E 1F3 Al-jabr, S. (1991). The Evaluation of geography instruction and the variety of its teaching concerning the experience, nationality, and the field of study in intermediate schools in Saudi Arabia (in Arabic). Journal of King Saud University- Educational Sciences, 3(1), 143-170. 15 م א א אً ً و א אF ن و وאE ن א و م و م א א و אK 16 א א א و و و K 17 ل ل א ول ق א و ز و ً و و ً دون ذن א K 18 א א א א د א א و א و و א K 19 א א و אK 20 א و ً ل א א وKE [email protected]
)) 1436 2014 , 674 – 663 , 661 – 511 , 3 ,26 ,
))T
א אن
א א دF אE
א א
א א ز א א א و وزא א وא ن
א و א ن א و א KKKKKKKKKKKKKK 511 א א ن א א א א א א ل א وא א و א א
א א و ن אKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 535 א א א א אم א א א ذو א א د وא א א
א ن א KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 559 א א م א א א א א א א א
א ن و א KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 583 א אم א א א د א א א א א א א
א و و א KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 611 ز א א دא א א א א א א د
א KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 635
ضF د אKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK E 657 א אن
א א
א א א א אW א ض
ز א ل KKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 663
א א د
א א د
, 26
1435 11 12 , ,
, (Institute for Scientific Information – ISI) (Thomson Reuters Foundation) , , , , , , , , , : , , , , , ,, א م א א د * * * و
, 1436 1435 1435 11 12 : : , , ∗ ∗ , ,,,
א م א א د * * *
א א
1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , 1436 2014 ,533 − 511 , 3 ,26 ,
3 , 2 , 1
1434 08 29 ; 1434 05 18
, : 212 36 , , , , ,
, , , : ______
The Intransitive Requirements to Appliance the Electronic Supervision in the Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman Nema Hamad Al-Hajri(1), Rashid Sulaiman Al-Fahdi(2) and Ali Sharaf Al- Musawi(3) The Ministry of Education, Sultanate of Oman (Received 25/10/2013; accepted 01/12/2013) Abstract: This study aimed to investigate the intransitive requirements to appliance the electronic supervision in the Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman. The study followed a descriptive approach, it used a questionnaire as a tool, which consisted of 36 items. The study sample consisted of 212 members of the administrators, educational supervisors, and performance evaluation and follow up technicians, in Ministry of Education, the Governorate of Muscat, the Governorate of Al Buraimi, and the Governorate of South Al Batinah. The study found that the legislative requirements and technical requirements for the deployment and provide the necessary support and material requirements for the application of e supervision represents an important and very much. Keywords: technician diffusion, preferment effort, equipment, training and human resource development. ______
(1) Master, Ministry of Education. Sultanate of Oman. , , 1 Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, P.O. Box (213) , Postal Code: (133) 133 , 213 , ,
e-mail: [email protected] : (2) Assistant Professor, Collage of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman. , , , 2
(3) Associate Professor, Collage of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman. , , , 3
– 511 – : , ,
, ; , ; , 2008 , , , 2007 ,
; ,
2007 , , ; ; , , , , , , , , , 2010 2010 , 2006
– 512 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
; , 2005 , , , , , , , , , , : , , : , ; (Winn, 2009) 2005 , , 2011 ; , ,
– 513 – : , ,
, 450 , 45 , , (Alger & Kapcha, , , , 2009) , , , , , − , , ; 2008 , , , , , 2009 , , 638 , ,
– 514 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
(Gos & , : Newcombes, 2003) , 15 , , 2007 ; , , (Hsiung & Nin Juin, − 1999 160 , Distance , Supervision Hot Line DSHL , , , , , DSHL , − 36 DSHL
– 515 – : , ,
, , , , , : , - , , , , , , : - - , : , , , , , , - - , , , , : - :
– 516 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , : : , − 1 , , − 2
0.05=α , : , 2005 , , , , : : : , : : , , − 1 2010 ? , − 2
0.05=α
– 517 – : , ,
, , : , , : , , , : : ? , : : , , : , , − 1 , , , , 13 , 2008 , : , − 2 ; : , , : , : − 1 , : : , , , : − 2 , , , ; : − 3
, 2011 − 2010 , : − 4
– 518 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, 470 2010 , : , , , 212 , , 1 %45 , : , , : , , ,
, , , 1
12 25 44 93 13 28 31 66 %100 212
54 115
35 74 11 23 %100 212
24,5 52 4− 1
45.5 95 10− 5 30 65 − 10 %100 212
14,5 31 69 146 10,5 22 6 13 %100 212
– 519 – : , ,
2 :
0.81 9 , 0.80 8 0.89 10 36 , 0.89 9 0.92 36 :
: , : 9 : : : : , , : 8 : , : , 10 , ? , , , 9 , , 13 3 , 3
,
5 = – 4.2
4.2 – 3.4 , 3.4 – 2.6
2.6 – 1.8 1.8 1 − CHRONBACH ALPHA – : : 2 ,
, , 4
– 520 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
,
: , , 4
0.46 4.80 1 2 0.53 4.73 2 7 0.53 4.69 3 4 0.59 4.67 4 8 0.66 4.67 5 9 0.56 4.62 6 6 0.52 4.34 7 3 0.59 4.34 8 1 0.54 4.33 9 5 0.35 4.57
, 4
,4.80 – 4.33
,0.66 − 0.46 : , : 4.57 , , 5 ,0.35 , ; ,
– 521 – : , ,
: , , 5
0.49 4.75 1 1 0.55 4.72 2 3 0.62 4.65 3 6 0.75 4.59 4 5 0.55 4.49 5 7 0.53 4.41 6 2 0.55 4.38 7 4 0.73 4.28 8 8 0.39 4.53
5 , ,
,4.75 – 4.28
,0.75 − 0.49
, 2008 , 2009 : 4.53 , Win. 2009) ,0.39 : : , , 6 , ,
– 522 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: , , 6
0.55 4.83 1 1 0.56 4.79 2 4 0.76 4.75 3 5 0.59 4.74 4 2 0.67 4.42 5 10 0.71 4.42 6 8 0.58 4.41 7 3 0.73 4.40 8 9 0.69 4.24 9 6 1.01 4.03 10 7 0.62 4.52
6
– 4.03
,1.01 − 0.55 ,4.83 ;
, 2009 , , 2008 , : 9−1 10 , , , 4.52 , 2007 ,0.62
– 523 – : , ,
, : : , , 7
: , , 7
0.52 4.74 1 1 0.64 4.70 2 3 0.62 4.68 3 5 0.67 4.29 4 8
0.66 4.25 5 9 0.64 4.20 6 7 0.67 4.19 7 4 0.67 4.19 8 6 0.94 3.82 9 2 0.47 3.81
3.81 7 , ,0.47
,4.74 – 3.82
, ,0.94 − 0.52
, , , 6−1
, 9−7
– 524 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , : , , , ? , : : , Winn, 2009) , 2009 , : : : , 2008 , , , , , : : 8 :
0.05=α
8
0.63 2 1.27 0.00 *5.24 0.12 209 25.43 0.14 2 0.29 0.39 0.94
0.15 209 32.68 0.28 2 0.56 0.48 0.71 0.39 209 82.21 0.13 2 0.25 0.56 0.58 0.22 209 46.71 0.05=α *
– 525 – : , ,
0.05=α 8 , , 5.24 ,
, 0.05=α : , , LSD , , 9
LSD 9
*0.18 *0.14 4.50 115
4.65 74
4.68 23 0.05=α *
, 9 ; 2008 , , : : ;
, 4 − 1 , 10 , 10−5 – 10 –
– 526 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
10
5.44 2 0.10 0.65 0.42 0.12 209 26.60 6.74 2 0.13 0.65 0.42
0.15 209 32.84 0.90 2 1.80 0.10 2.33 0.38 209 80.97 0.19 2 0.39 0.41 0.89 0.22 209 46.57 0.05=α *
10 , ; 2007 , ;
0.05=α : : , , ; , 11 , ,
11
0.13 1.66 3 5.00 0.94 0.12 208 26.66
– 527 – : , ,
11
0.11 3 0.35 0.52 0.74
0.15 208 32.62 1.19 3 3.57 0.02 *3.12 0.38 208 79.21 0.50 3 1.50 0.07 2.29 0.21 208 45.47 0.05=α *
0.05=α , , , , ,0.02 ,3.12 11 , , : LSD 12 , , ,
LSD 12
4.10 31 0.36 4.15 22 * 4.16 146
3.97 13 0.05=α , *
– 528 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, 12 ; 2009 , , : , , , 13 ,
13
0.11 3 0.35 0.42 0.93 0.12 208 26.35 0.45 3 1.36 0.03 2.99 * 0.15 208 31.61 1.11 3 3.34 0.03 *2.91 0.38 208 79.44 0.87 3 2.62 0.00 4.10 * 0.21 208 44.34 0.05=α *
4.10 2.91 2.99 , 0.05=α 13
,0.00 0.03 0.03
0.05=α , , ; 0.93 ;
– 529 – : , ,
, LSD , ,0.42 14
LSD 14 ,
4.56 54 *0.23 4.44 68 4.67 37 4.51 53 *0.30 4.41 54 4.60 68 *0.31 4.72 37 4.40 53 *0.31 3.72 54 *0.21 3.82 68 *0.29 4.04 37 3.74 53 0.05=α , *
14 , , , , , , , ; 2009
– 530 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: − 7 :
0.05=α 32 − 1 4 − 8 − 2
0.05=α , − 3 , , , , , : : : : − 4 − 1 − 5
0.05=α − 2 − 3 − 6
0.05=α − 4
– 531 – : , ,
,
: − 5 2008 , , , , 6 : − 2007 , , , − 7 , : , − 8 2009 ,
: : , , * * * 2005 , : :
2010 , ; , : 1 , : ,
2008 , 2005 , : ,
: , , 2008 , , : : 2007 , 2010 , 1 : ,
– 532 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
2011 , 605 575 1 45 − , , , , , , , , 2005 : 1 , 2010 www.moe.gov.om : : : : Alger, C. & Kopcha, T. (2009). E-Supervision: A technology framework for the 21st century field experience in teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education Journal, 18(2), 31 46. Goss, M. & Newcombe, E. (2003). Using a handheld mobile technology for supervision of constructivist teaching and learning. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.).Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1807-1809). Hsiung, Chao Ti; Tan, Nin Juin (1999). A Study of creating a distance supervision hot line. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. Othman, Mona Shaaban. (2011). Improving by using electronic communication for educational supervision forms, (in Arabic). College of Education Journal, Al-Azhar University, 45(1), 575 605. Winn, S. (2009). Synchronous virtual supervision of professional experience: Issues and challenges. In T. Bastiaens et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2236-2250). * * *
– 533 –
: , ,
– 534 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , 1436 2014 ,557 − 535 , 3 ,26 ,
, 2 , 1
1434 11 02 ; 1434 04 14
: 204 , 68 , 1904 34 , , : 816 , : , , , : , , , α = 05 , , ,
, , : ______
The level of Islamic Studies' Teachers knowledge about Feedback Strategies and Exams and The Effect of using them
(1) (2) Mohammad Abdulkareem Al-Ayasrah and Thurayya Suleman Al-Shabibi Sultan Qaboos University (Received 24/02/2013; accepted 08/09/2013) Abstract: The study aimed at determining Omani female teachers' knowledge of the written feedback strategies and exams and the effect of using them. The sample of the study included (34) female teachers'. The researchers analyze (1904) classroom written activities, (68) homework, (204) reports, and (816) exams. And tow tools used in the study, the first was a test for level of Islamic studies' teachers knowledge about feedback strategies and exams. The descriptive approach was adopted. The main findings of the study are: Teachers' levels of knowledge was rated very high with regard to written feedback reinforcement and was moderate in written corrective, informative, and interpretive feedback. Generally, the written corrective feedback that was most commonly used in homework, exams, reports and the classroom written activities by the Islamic studies' teachers are: informative, strategies followed by corrective strategies and then interpretive strategies. There are no significant differences (α=.,05) in using the four written feedback strategies due to the level of teachers' knowledge about these strategies. The study provided a number of recommendations. Key Words: The strategies, written feedback strategies, written work and exams. ______
(1) Associate Professor, Department of Curriculum & Teaching Methods, , , 1 College of Education at Sultan Qaboos University. 123 , 32 , , − Muscat-Al Khoudh, Sultanate of Oman, P.O. Box (32) , Postal Code: (123)
e-mail: [email protected] : (2) Education Supervision Department, Ministry of Education, Sultanate of Oman. , 2
– 535 – : ,
: , , , , , ,
, 2011 , ,
, , , ,
; , ; , ; , 2000 , , ; , ,
; , , , , Byrne, 1991 , 2011 , , , , , 1995 , , , – – 536 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, ; ; , , ; ;
, ,
: , , , , , , , , Brown, 2005
, , , , , : Skinner , Robert, 1991, 43 , – – 537 : ,
1980 , , , (Kozlova, 2009) ; 1997 , ; 2001 , , 1996 , , , (Hyland, 2001)
, , : , ; , ,
, , , , , 1982 2005 , ; , ,
, 1990 1996 , ; , 1991 ,
, ;
, , – – 538 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , 1988
, , Huang, 1995 1872
,
(Menosota)
, , , (α=,05) , , ,
, , 1994 , , Ferris, 1997 101 , – – 539 : ,
1600 , , 2003 , 114 ,
: , , , 2002 , ,
, , , 42 , 10 ,
, , , , 2003 – – 540 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
62 , , , , , , , , Sugita, 2006 :
, , : 115 ,
, − − − , ,
− , ,
, , , , – – 541 : ,
– 2 , , , ,
? , – 3 ,
: Ferris, 1997 2002 Sugita, 2006 ; ; ; 1988 ? , : :
, , , , , , : , , : : : : • – 1 ? – – 542 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
• , , ,
:
: : 34 : • •
• : : • : , , , , , , ,
, , • : 2012 2011 , • , : , : : ,
– – 543 : ,
, : , , : , , ,
:
: , , , , ,
: : ; ,
,
: : ; , , ,
:
: : – – 544 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: : , , , : ,
154 , :
, 39 , 2012 2011 2012 2011 , , : 34 : : , %22 15 2000
,
, , ,
, , , 1 ,
1 34 =
1904 56
68 2
204 6
816 24 – – 545 : ,
: , : : 12 , : , 0.83 (Cronbach Alpha) : , 20 – 1 , , , , , – 2
, , , , , – 3
, , ,
, , , ,
– – 546 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
16 448 40 , , , 192 48 , , , , : : , x √ • :
, • : ,
• , , ,
, , , • , ,
, ,
0.82 Cooper , , , – – 547 : ,
:
? 56 , , 24 6 , , 20 , , 2 , , ,
** * 2
, 2.94 % 1 10 11.76 % 4 11 5.88 % 2 12 : 14.70 % 5 13 20.58 % 7 14 11.76 % 4 15 5.88 % 2 16 SPSS 14.70 , % 5 17 11.76 % 4 18 , 20 34 = ** = * t test , , 2 Scheffe , 18 10 : : 90 50 , % − % – – 548 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: : , 10 %50 3 18 %90
, 14 10 − : : 5 4 , , 20 − 15 , : : : 2 1 , 3 9 1 − ,
** * 3 5 ,4 3 2 ,1 **** 94 4.7 100 % *** % 34 − − − − 66.4 41.2 38.2 20.6 % 3.32 % 14 % 13 % 7 65.2 55.9 14.7 29.4 % 3.26 % 19 % 5 % 10 62.2 44.1 29.4 26.5 % 3.11 % 15 % 10 % 9 20 15 14 10 9 1 − − − 72 14.4 % 44.1 55.9 % 15 % 19 − − 34 = * 5 5 , , , ** 20 4.7 24 5 10 4 , , *** 45 74 75 , % − % , % **** 44 % – – 549 : ,
, 3
20 14.4 , %72 , % 72 = 5 × 14.4 , 2002
− : : − %75
: , , , , , ? , 2008 %95
, , , , , , 3 , , , 4 94 % – – 550 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , ,
4 ,
2992 204 816 * 68 88 × 34 56×34 1904 6 × 34 24 × 34 2 × 34 87.28 82.27 88.80 94.29 81.57 % 28807 % 8586 % 1626 % 12455 % 6140 9.47 12.63 6.11 3.39 16.59 % 3127 % 1319 % 112 % 447 % 1249 2.68 4.77 1.70 2.11 1.01 % 884 % 497 % 31 % 280 % 76 ,57 ,33 3.39 ,21 ,83 % 187 % 35 % 62 % 28 % 62 × *
4 , , , , %87.28 , %0.57 , %2.68 , %9.47 , 2002 , 1988 , :
, ,
,
Huang, 1995 2003 2003 ; ; , ; , 1994 , :
– – 551 : ,
, ,
, , , , ,
4 94.29 , % 2.68 , % %0.57 , , , 1980 , ;Kozlova, 2009
16.59 , % ; , , − , : − – – 552 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
? : %75 ; 15 %4.77 : ; 15 %75 , ,
; , 18 10 − , 3.39 , % 19 15 , ; , , (α=,05) ,
, , : T test : 5
– – 553 : ,
5
257.2 865.6 15 * 0.73 0.35 280.4 832.8 19 **
45.2 23.3 15 0.76 0.31 − 42.1 28.1 19
6.8 7.1 15 0.14 1.52 4.4 4.2 19
68.8 89.7 15 0.84 0.20 − 19 53.2 94 15 ≥ 15 ≤ ** *
5 (α=,05)
, , , , 2002
, , , ,
, – – 554 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: : : 1991 , ; , , 15 1 , , , 165 123 − , 1994 , , , ; 2003 ,
, , 1 2005 ,
: 1990 , ; , , , , 211 210 2 1 10 − , , , , , 1996 , , , , ; , ; , ; , 2000 , ;
, : * * *
– – 555 : ,
1991 , , 1 , 2002 , : 2008 , , , 2003 , , , , , 1995 , , 2000 , 1 : , 2012 2011 160 99 54 15 − , , , , 1988 , ; , ; , , 2011 10 5 , − , 176 165 18 5 − , , 1997 , : 1 1982 , 2001 , , 181 136 1 11 − , : : , Abdul Kareem, K. (2001). The effecting of using objective 151 109 2 17 Feedback computer questions On academic − , , achievement and cognitive ability among students 1 1996 in the first grade of biology secondary school , student. Sultanate of Oman (in Arabic). Journal of
the Faculty of Education, the Omani Ministry of : Higher Education, 17(2), 109 151. 1980 Bassiouni, M.& Almowafi, F. (1991). The effectiveness of , – – 556 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
certain types of feedback in the development of the * * * affective and cognitive aspects of students at junior colleges in Sultanate of Oman (in Arabic). Journal of the Faculty of Education, the Omani of Higher Education, 1(15), 123 165. Brown, E. (2005). Refocusing written feedback. th Proceedings of the 12 Improving Student Learning Symposium, C. Rust (ed.), The Oxford Centre for Staff & Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University. Byrne, D. (1991). Teaching Writing skills. .4th ed London: Longman. Doyon, M.& Arschmbo, D. (1990). Feedback for improvins learning (in Arabic). Arab Journal Education, the Association of Arab Universities / Tunisia, 10(1,2), 210 211. Ferris, D.(1997). The influence of Teacher commentary on students revision. Teachers of English to Speakers of other Language, 31/2, 315 339. Huang, J. (1995). The effects of types of feedback on achievement and attitudes during computer –based cooperative condition. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Education Communications and Technology. Anaheim, California (Feb, 8 12 1995). Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185 212. Kozlova, I. (2009). Ellis’s corrective feedback in a problem solving context. Retrieved July 29, 2011from eltj. oxford journals. org at University of Leeds. Saber, Q, H. (1995). Homework for lower grades of pupils at Primary public and private schools in Jeddah (in Arabic). Message of Arabian Gulf, The education office of Arab Gulf countries, Alreyad, 15(54), 99 160. Saparini, M.& Odeh, Ahmad.& Sawalha, M. (1988). The extent of the use of science teachers in the preparatory phase of the feedback strategies written in UNRWA schools in Irbid Educational Zone (in Arabic). Journal of Education, Kuwait University, 5(18), 165 176. Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers' comment types on students' revision. English Language Teaching, 60(1), 34 41. Yoseph, I. (1997). Teachers' mastery of basic skills needed to build achievement and School tests in the light of the use of certain forms of feedback. An experimental study in Humanistic learning (in Arabic). Journal of Research in Education and Psychology, 11(1), 136 181.
– – 557
: ,
– – 558 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , 1436 2014 ,582 − 559 , 3 ,26 ,
1
1434 11 20 ; 1434 07 18
: 54 ; , , , , , ;
, , : ______
Factors that affect the use of assistive technology with students with multiple disabilities in their institutions and the attitudes of teachers toward this use Turki Abdullah S. Alquraini(1) King Saud University (Received 28/05/2013; accepted 26/09/2013) Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify some factors that affect the use of assistive technology with students with multiple disabilities in their institutions , as well as the attitudes of teachers towards using assistive technology with their students. The study included 54 teachers who worked with student with multiple disabilities in institutions in the city of Riyadh. The results of the study showed that an essential factors that significantly affects the use of assistive technology is the lack of special education teachers with the necessary competencies relevant to the field of assistive technology. The training of individualized education program team members on using this technology is similarly lacking. The results of the study also showed that teachers of students with multiple disabilities do have positive attitudes towards the use of assistive technology with their students. Finally, the study provided several recommendations regarding assistive technology as used with these students. Keywords: competencies, special education teachers, training ______
(1) Assistance Professor, Special Education Department, , , 1 College of Education, King Saud University. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, P.O. Box (2458) , Postal Code: (11451) 11451 , 2458 , , e-mail: [email protected] :
– – 559 :
: (Students ,with multiple disabilities) , ; ; (Best, Reed,
Bigge, 2005; Kirk, Gallagher, Coleman, & , (Anderson- , Anastasiow, 2009) , Inman, 1999 ; Best et al. , 2005) ; , , , , (Cavalier, Ferrite, & , , (Luckasson et al., 2002) Okolo, 1994) Competencies , , , , ;
, , , , , , (Assistive Technology) (Derer, Polsgrove, & Rieth, (Edyburn, 2006 1996 ; Yankova & Yanina, 2010 ; Hutinger, Johanson & Stoneburner, 1996 ; Todis & Walker, 1993) Zhang ,2000) – – 560 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , (Paul et al., 2012) ; 840 Derer et al., 1996) 450 , ; % % 19 , , , ; (Zhou, Parker, − , % 81 Smith, & Griffin-Shirley, 2011) , , , , , 74 54 57,5 % , , , , (Derer, Polsgrove, & Rieth, 1996) – – 561 :
, ; (Carey & Sale, 1994) 2010 2010 , ; , (Hutinger et al., 1996)
; , : , ,(Sharma & Madhumita, 2012) , , , , , Soto, 1997 , – – 562 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
; − − − 1421 − − , − . , , , ; − − (Edyburn, 2006) , , , :
, , − (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004)
; ; (IDEIA)
, , – – 563 :
, : , , : : ; − 1 , , , , , ? Best et al., 2005 −2 ? ; − 3 : ; , ,
, , ? ? : : ; 1434 − 1433 , , : – – 564 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , : 1434−1433 , (Descriptive : : ,Approach) ; ; , , , 89 (Creswell, 1998) 60 : , 54 , 89 1 ,
, , , : 1
46.3 25 5 1 − 50 27 10 6 − 3.7 2 15 11 − 0 0 16 40.7 22 25.7 14 20.4 11 11.1 6 , – – 565 :
1
9.3 5 5 18.5 10 10 6 20.4 11 15 11 51.9 28 15 35.2 19 64.8 35 100.0 54
: (Council for Exceptional Children, 2003) , 2003 (CEC) , , 34 : : ,5−4.21 , 5 , , 4 , , , , 3 ,4.20 − 3.41 3.40 – 2.61 , , , , , ,2.60 − 1.81 , , , 1− 1.80 , , – – 566 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: 0.76 0.65 0.01 , , ; 0.01 : : %30 , %70 ; , , 0.92 ,
: 0.84 , 0.84 , : : 54= , : : , 0.82 0.74 : : 1 0.01 − – – 567 :
? CEC, 2003 100 , , 2 , , ,
2 54 =
1 84.4 0.861 4.22 1
2 83.0 0.718 4.15 2
3 82.2 0.572 4.11 3
4 77.8 0.793 3.89 4
5 77.0 0.818 3.85 5
6 72.4 0.925 3.62 6
7 71.6 0.842 3.58 7
2 , – – 568 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
0.861 4.22 3.85 84.4 , , , 0.818 , , 77 4.15 , 0.718 , 0.925 3.62 83 , , , 72.4 4.11 , , , 0.842 3.58 82.2 0.572 , , , 71.6 3 , , 0.793 3.89 , , 77.8 ,
3 54 =
1 80.8 0.699 4.04 1
2 78.8 0.738 3.94 2
3 78.6 0.797 3.93 3
– – 569 :
3
4 78.2 0.759 3,91 4
5 77.8 0.945 3.89 5
, 5 77.8 0.954 3.89 6 , 6 77.0 0.856 3.85 7
, 3 0.797 3.93 , , , 78.6 , ; , , 0.759 3.91 4.04 , , , 78.2 80.8 0.699 , : , 3.94 , 78.8 0.738 , , , – – 570 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
3.89 , , 0.856 3.85 0.945 , , 4 77 77.8 , , ,
4 54 =
1 82.2 0.664 4.11 1
2 80.0 0.614 4 2
2 80.0 0.784 4 3
3 77.8 0.839 3.89 4
3 77.8 0.945 3.89 5
4 73.2 0.831 3.66 6
4 , , 0.644 4.11 , , 82.2 : – – 571 :
3.66 4.11 , 4 0.784 0.614 , , , , , : 80 , 3.89 , 0.945 0.839 − − , ,
− , 77.8 , , 3.66 , , 73.2 0.831 , , 4 ,3 ,2 4.22 3.58 , 3.85 4.04 ; , – – 572 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
(Derer et al., 1996 2011) , − , − 5 , , (Zhou et al., (Paul et al., 2012)
5 54 =
1 78.2 0.807 3.91 1
2 77.4 0.778 3.87 2
3 76.6 0.795 3.83 3
4 76.0 0.810 3.80 4
5 75.6 0.793 3.78 5
6 74.4 0.920 3.72 6
73.8 0.755 3.69 7 7 – – 573 :
5
7 73.8 0.843 3.69 8
− − 5 , 0.810 3.80 , , ; 76 3.91 , , 3.78 0.807 , , , 75.6 0.793 78.2 , , , 3.72 3.87 , , 74.4 0.920 77.4 0.778 : , 3.83 , , 76.6 0.795 , – – 574 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
3.69 ; , , 0.843 0.755 , , 73.8 , , , , , , 3.69 3.91 , , ,
, , , , , , ;(Derer et al., 1996) , ; (Copley & Ziviani, 2004) −
, − – – 575 :
? , , , , 6 , : : : − 2
6 54 =
1 87 0.756 4.35 1
, 2 85.2 0.711 4.26 2
3 74.8 0.955 3.74 3
4 68.8 1.160 3.44 4
5 63.4 1,225 3.17 5
2.02 6 40.4 1.236 6
3.49
, 4.35 , 87 0.756 , – – 576 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
1.236 2.02 , , 40.4
: , 4.26 , 85.2 0.711 , ; , 2.02 4.35 , 5 , 3.49 , 0.955 3.74 − − , , 74.8 , , %65 , , 1 3.44 ; , 68.8 1.160 , , 3.17 , , (Sharma & , , 1.225 (Soto, 1997) Madhumita, 2012) 63.4 ; , – – 577 :
: − − 3 : , , : , , , ? − − : ,
7 420.217 2 840.434 621 0.481 873.614 51 44554.325 53 45394.759
7 0.481 , 15− 11 , 10− 6 , 5− 1 : ,
8
2761.951 3 8285.853 0.017 3.758 734.959 49 36013.015 52 44298.868 – – 578 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
3.758 8 , , , , , , , 140 28
10
22.65 211.2632 19 0.235 1.201 32.05 201.2857 35
1.201 10 ,
11
2157.059 3 719.020 0.483 0.831 43237.700 50 864.754 53 1583.774
– – 579 :
0.831 11 ; , , , : : 15 11 , 10 6 , 5 15 , , , , , , : , , , , , , , , – – 580 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
4 − , , , , : − −5 − 1 − , ; , , * * * − 2 * * * , , : : : , 2003 , , , , : 3 2010 , − , , : , – – 581 :
on Mental Retardation. : : : Sharma, D & Madhumita, A. (2012). Availability and attitude of using assistive technology for students Anderson-Inman, L. (1999). Computer-based solutions for with disabilities. Indian Streams Research Journal secondary students with learning disabilities: ,2 (9), 1-8. Emerging issues. Reading and Writing Quarterly,15(3), 239-249. Soto, G. (1997). Special education teacher attitudes toward AAC: Preliminary survey Augmentative and Best , S. Reed, & P. Bigge, J. (2005). Teaching individuals th Alternative Communication, 13 (1), 186-197. with physical or multiple disabilities (5 ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Todis B. & Walker H.M. (1993). User perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Focus Carey ,D.M.&, Sale P. (1994). Practical considerations in on Exceptional Children, 26(3), 1–16. the use of technology to facilitate the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Technology and Yankova, Zh & Yanina, A. (2010). Assistive devices and Disability, 3 (2), 77–86. technology in education of children and students with mental retardation.Trakia University Journal Cavalier , A., B. , Ferrite, R. P. , Okolo, C. M. (1994). of Sciences, 8 (3),273-277. Technology with individuals differences. Journal of Special Education Technology,12(3), 175-181. Zhang, Y. (2000). Technology and the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Copley, J. & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of Research on computing in Education, 27(4), 483- assistive technology for children with multiple 499. disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11(4), 229-243. Paul, L. Z., Derrick , M. Ajuwon ,A., Smith, W., Griffin- Shirley , Parker, A., & Okungu, P. (2012). Assistive Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). What every technology competencies for teachers for students special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and with visual impairment: A national study Journal of guidelines (6th ed). Arlington, VA: Author. Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(10),210-220. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research Zhou, L., Parker, A. T., Smith, D. W., & Griffin-Shirley, N. design: Choosing among five designs. Thousand (2011). Assistive technology for students with Oaks, CA: Sage. visual impairments: Challenges and needs in Derer K, Polsgrove L, & Rieth H (1996). A survey of teachers’ preparation programs and practice. assistive technology applications in schools and Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, recommendations for practice. Journal of Special 197–210. Education Technology XIII(2): 62–80. Edyburn, D.L. (2006). Assistive technology and mild * * * disabilities. Special education Technology Practice l, 8(4), 18-28. Hawsawi, A. (2010). Obstacles of using technology in teaching students with mental retardation. Paper presented at the first scientific conference "special education between reality and expectations" of the Faculty of Education: University of Banha. Egypt. Retrieved from: faculty.ksu.edu.sa/12681/DocLib1 Hutinger P, Johanson J, & Stoneburner R. (1996). Assistive technology applications in educational programs of children with multiple disabilities: A case study report on the state of the practice. Journal of Special Education Technology XIII(1): 16–35. Kirk, J. Gallagher, M. Coleman, N. & Anastasiow, J. (2009). Educating Exceptional Children (12th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kopp, C. Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Reeve, A., Schalock, R. L., Snell, M. E., Spitalnik, D. M., Spreat, S., & Tasse´, M. J. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (10th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association – – 582 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , 1436 2014 ,609 − 583 , 3 ,26 ,
2 , 1
1435 01 28 ; 1434 12 20
: , 48 23 , , 25 : , , , , , 0 95
, , : ______
The Effects of TRIZ Theory's Strategies in Improving Creative Teaching Science Skills for Female Student Teachers at Princess Nora Bint AbdulRahman University Amani M. Al-Hussan(1) and Jabber M. Aljabber(2) Princess Noura University (Received 25/10/2013; accepted 01/12/2013) Abstract: The current study aimed to identify the effectiveness of creative problem solving strategies based on TRIZ theory in improving creative teaching skills for student teachers at Princess Nora Bint AbdulRahman University. The sample of the study consisted of (48) female student teachers, which was divided into two groups. Twenty five female student teachers were in the control group, and taught by traditional teaching methods. Twenty Three female student teachers were in the treatment group, and exposed to creative problem solving strategies based on TRIZ theory. Data was collected by using creative teaching skills questionnaire, and statistical analysis such as means, standard deviations, Independent Sample T test was conducted. In addition, Eta squared (η2) was computed to determine the effectiveness of creative problem solving strategies on improving creative teaching skills. Results revealed statistically significant differences between the control and treatment groups in favor of the treatment group. This indicated the positive impact of creative problem solving strategies on improving creative teaching skills. Keywords: Inventive Problem Solving Theory, Creative Teaching Behaviors, Primary Classes Teachers. ______
(1) Associate Professor, Science Education, C&I Dep, , , 1 College of Education, Princess Noura Bint AbdulRahman University. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, P.O. Box (26685) , Postal Code: (11496) 11496 , 26685 , , e-mail: [email protected] : (2) Associate Professor, Science Education, Science Education, C&I Dep., College of Education, King Saud University. , , 2
– – 583 : ,
: , , Chye, King & ; 2004 , , Saifain, ; 2011 , ;Davies, 2006 ;Seng, 2005 , 2012 , ;2011 , ; , Saifain, 2011 , , , ; 2013 , 2005 , , ; (Jeffrey & Craft, , 2004) , ; 2003 , ;Schweizer, 2002 , , ; 2012 , ; 2008 , ; 2005 ; 2004 , 2013 ; 2011 , ; 2011 , ; 2005 , ; 2011 , ; 2004 , ; 2003 , 2013 , 2013 , , , – – 584 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , , 1946 , Henry Altshuller , , (Teoria Resheniqy Izobreatatelskikh Zadatch, ,TRIZ) (Kaplan, Theory of Inventive Problem Solving , ;Terninko, Zusman & Zlotin, 1998 ;1996 , Fan, 2010 ;Schweizer, 2002) ; , , , 1 : , , , , 2 3 , ;Souchkov, 1999 , 2013 , ;Kunst & Clapp, 2002 , ,
, ; Mazur, 1996 – – 585 : ,
2010 , Altshuller , ,
, (Liou & Chen, ;Kaplan, 1996 , 2012 , 2011) , , , , Vincent & Mann, 2000 , ; 2005 , ; 2003 , 2010 , ; 2010 Marsh, Waters & Mann, 2004 2003 , Louri, 2009 , , 2006 – – 586 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
2011 , 2008 , , 2010 , , , ; 2008 , ; 2005 , ; 2003 , 2011 , , ; 2011 , ; 2010 , , ; 2013 , ; 2012 , ; 2011 , 2013 , , 2013 , , , , – – 587 : ,
, , ; , ; 2010 , ; 2005 , 2011 , ; 2010 , , Color Change ; 2011 , ; 2008 , , 2013 , , , , , , , , , Segmentation , , ; 2008 , ; 2005 , : , 2011 , ; 2010 , ; 2011 , , , Copying , : ,
– – 588 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , ; 2010 , ; 2005 2011 , ; 2010 , Universality , , , , ; , , , ; 2010 , ; 2005 , , , ; 2011 , ; 2010 , 2013 , , , Combining , ; 2011 , 2013 : Short lived Inexpensive ; , , , , , – – 589 : ,
, , , , : , 2011 , ; 2005 , , ; ; 2011 , ; 2010 , ; 2005 , , 2013 , Cushion : in Advance
, , ; , , ; , , , , : ; , – – 590 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , , , 2011 , ; 2005 , , Back To Back , , , , , , , , – – , , , , , , ,
, ; 2002 , ; 2000 , , ;Chye, et. al., 2005 ;Hirschy & Wilson, 2002 , , , 2011 2010 2011 , , ; , (Johnson, Aragon, Shalk & Palma −
,Rivas, 2000) Feedback (Horng, Hong, Chalin, Chang & Chu, , 2007 ;2005) , – – 591 : ,
: , , 2003 , , , , , ,
2009 1998 , , 2012 Cheng, 2001 , ; , , 2003 – – 592 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , ; 2002 , , , ; 2011 , ; 2003 , Newton ; 2001 , ; 2009 , ; 2012 Kampylis, Berki & ;& Newton, 2009 , : 2012 , ;Saariluoma, 2009 , , − , , − ; , − − , ,
;Bore, 2006 ;Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000 : 2011 , ;King's College London, 2008 , − − TIMSS , 2011 2007 2003 , , , – – 593 : ,
, , Martin & Mullis, 2012 ; 2009 , , , , ; 1996 , , , : : Wagner, 2012 ; 1996 ,
, , , , : : ; − 1 , , , − 2 ; , :
− 3 ? : , – – 594 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
439 , 301
: 2003 : : – 1 , 7R1, 7R2, 7R3 422
– 2 : , Savransky, 2001 422 – 3 , , , ,
– 4 1434 1433 , − – 5 , ; 331 : , 115 288 , , – – 595 : ,
: : : : , , , , , ,
: 2012 2009 2001 , , , Qualitative Research , , , , , , , , , , themes , , , ;Bogdan & Biklen, 1998 ; 2006 , ; 1992 , Merriam, 2001 , : : , ; – – 596 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , 48 , 422 : 1433 , − , 1434 , , , , 7R1, 7R2, 7R3 422 , : , 48 , , 25 , 23
: , , , , 2008 , ; 1987 , , , , : , , , , – – 597 : ,
– 2 Krippendorff, 1980
, η2 – 3 , , 1433 30 − , 1434 , 0.14 , , : 0.977 , Pierce, Block & Aguinis, 2004 : :
: : – 1 , , : – 1 1 : :
1
46 36.40 25 *0.944 0.005
46 34.43 23 0.01 α = * – – 598 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, 1 , 0.944 , 0.005= , – 2 − , , – 4 ,
– 3 , 422 : ,
, , −
– 5
, − ,
14 ,
, − – 6
, 422
−
– – 599 : ,
– 7 : :
: , , , – 8 , , , ? 2 , . ,
2 3.17 15.56 25 16.83 0.000 − 2.80 30.17 23 1.46 15.08 25 32.67 0.000 − 2.23 32.78 23 1.67 16.32 25 27.94 0.000 − 2.10 31.60 23 4.69 17.80 25 12.42 0.000 − 2.22 30.82 23 9.51 64.76 25 23.19 0.000 − 8.50 125.39 23 0.01 α = *
, 2 , , – – 600 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, 0.95 η2 , , , %95 ,
, , (Vincent & : , 2003 ,Mann, 2000) , , Louri, 2009 , 2008 , 2005 , , 2011 , 2010 , , 2012 , 2011 2013 , 2013 − , , – , , , , , , , , , , , – – 601 : ,
19 : , , , , , , , , , , : : , : : , 94 % − , : , ,
: , % 95 − , 1999 , , – – 602 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
% 93 −
, % 95 −
95 % − , , : , , , ,
: : % 93 − ,
: : : – 1 95 % − ,
– 2 94 % − – – 603 : ,
1987 , , – 3 2011 , , 169 , , , , : 142 108 − 1999 – 4 , : , * * * 2012 , 1 : , , : : 2005 2011 , , (TRIZ) 89 27 4 9 − , , 2003 , , , 2003 ,
, , 63 17 84 TRIZ 2005 − , , 2003 , ; , : , : 2007 : , ; , 5 , : , , – – 604 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
2010 91 41 88 24 , − , 1996 , ; , ; , 42 1 48 1 − , , : , 2010 , 2010 , : TRIZ 148 141 − , : : 2001 , , ,
, , 2008 , 2012 , , : 2 , 1996 , − 608 585 3 26 − , , 2006 , 2006 , , , TRIZ 2011 , , , , , , , ; , ; , ; , 2003 , ; , ; 2011 , : 2001 , 457 422 1 76 − , , 2000 , ; , , 3 4 , 2 64 39 : , : − – – 605 : ,
2003 , ; , : 1 , 122 79 127 34 101 2011 − , , , 1416 , : ,1 , 2010 , ; , , , , , 1998 146 110 105 , ; , − , 2013 , ; , 42 3 37 − , , 2010 47 11 35 , ; , − , , 2013 , , 232 190 105 462 411 1 5 − , − , , 1992 , , , 2008 , : , , , , , 2004 203 166 138 , − , 2007 , ; , ; , 85 2 4 − , , : 150 : 2012 , 2013 , – – 606 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
2012 , 217 1 − , , , , 245 148 2 10 2012 − , , , 167 1426 15 1 68 10 , − , , 2003 , , , 1419 , 63 1 4 6 − , , , , , 2002 , : 66 11 16 64 : : : − , , , Abdo, Y. B. (2008). The Effect of TRIZ theory in teaching science in developing higher thinking skills and attitudes for 6th grade students (in Arabic). Journal 2009 of Studies in Curriculum and Teaching Methods, (138), 166 203. Ahmad, S. M. (2011). The Impact of a suggested program in developing creative teaching skills and attitudes in Arabic Language for female students in college of education at Um Alqura University (in Arabic). Journal of Studies in Curriculum and Teaching Methods, (169), 108 142. 2002 , Alabdulaziz, A. A. (2013). The Impact of a training program based on theory of inventive problem − − − solving (TRIZ) on developing parallel thinking (in Arabic). Journal of Educational & Psychological Sciences, Um Alqura University, 5(1), 411 462. : Ali, M. E.; & Alghanam, M. A. (1998). The Effect of a : suggested program in providing students teachers with creative teaching skills and developing this 2009 , attitudes toward it in Science, and its impact on improving innovative thinking for their students (in Arabic). Journal of Almansorah College of Education, (37), 3 42. Alkarni, Y. A. (2012). A suggested strategy in providing 234 184 143 creative communication skills in the light of their − , , – – 607 : ,
presented at Asia Pacific Forum on Science classroom practices (in Arabic). Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vivian Mo Yin CHENG, Educational Sciences, Egypt, (1), 217 245 2(2), 1 23. Alkhatabia, A.; & Aloraimi, B. (2003). The Effect of using Chye, S.; King, S.; & Seng, S. (2005). Improving the concept maps in the achievement of 10th grade preparation of teachers, educating the pre-service female students in "Classification of Organisms" teacher for the information millennium. The unit (in Arabic). Journal of Arabic Gulf, (88), 41 National Institute of Education, Singapore. 91. Davies, T. (2006). Creating teaching and learning in Alkhayat, M. (2012). The Effect of a training program Europe: Promoting a new paradigm. The based on TREZ theory on the development of Curriculum Journal, 17(1). 37 57. metacognitive thinking skills for Al Balqa Applied University (in Arabic). An-Najah University Fan, J. (2010, August). Application idea for TRIZ theory in Journal – Humanities, 26(3), 585 608. innovation education. Paper presented in The 5th International Conference on Computer Science & Almohisen, I. (2002). Science teaching in intermediate Education. Hefei, China. 1535 1540. stage in America, Japan, Britain, and Saudi Arabia: Comparative study (in Arabic). Educational Filmban, S. N. (2004). The Effect of a Suggested Program Journal, Kuwait, 64(16), 11 66. in Providing Mathematics Students Teachers with Creative Teaching Skills (in Arabic). Journal of Alnajar, E. A. (2012). The Possession of science teachers Teachers' Colleges, 4(2), 85 150. and science students teachers with creative teaching skills in Teachers' College at Alqunfothah, and its Goddard, R.D.; Hoy, W. K.; & Hoy, A. W. (2000). relation with academic achievement (in Arabic). Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, Measure, Journal of Arab Universities Union of Education and Impact on Student Achievement. American and Psychology, 10(2), 148 167. Educational Research, 37(3). 479 507. Alrefai, A. T. (2001). The Effect of microteaching program Hasaneen, B. M. (2003). A Training Program based on in developing some creative teaching skills for Creative Teaching Skills and Its Impact on students teachers in College of Education at Tanta Developing Science Teachers' Teaching Skills in (in Arabic). Journal of Science Education 4(3), 39 General Education(in Arabic). Journal of Studies in 64 Curriculum and Teaching Methods, (84), 17 63. Alshaikh, S. A.; & Alonazi, A. A. (2010). The Impact of Hirschy, A.; & Wilson, M. (2002). The sociology of the TRIZ training program in developing innovative classroom and its influence on student learning. thinking for Community College in Aljof (in Journal of Educational, 77(3), 85 100. Arabic). Journal of Reading and Knowledge, (105), Horng, J.; Hong, J.; Chalin, L.; Chang, S.; & Chu, H. 110 146. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching Alzahrani, S. Y. (2010a). Islamic rooting for creative strategies. International Journal of Consumer thinking strategies of TRIZ theory (in Arabic). Studies, 29(4), 352 358. Journal of Banha College of Education, (48), 1 42. Ibrahim, A. M. (2005). The Impact of Multiple Intelligence Assas, F. M. (2013). Faculty members' and female students Program in Developing Creative Teaching Skills teachers' views about the use of creative teaching and Problem Solving Skills for Science Teachers skills in teaching courses at female colleges in Um and their Students (in Arabic). Journal of Science Alqura University (in Arabic). Journal of Arabic Education, 9(4), 27 89. Gulf, 34(127), 79 122. Jeffrey, B.; & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research teaching for creativity: Distinctions and for education: An introduction to theory and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. Methods. (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Needham Johnson, S.; Aragon, S.; Shalk, N.; & Palma Rivas, N. Heights, Messasschusetts (2000). Comparative Analysis of Learner Bore, A. (2006). Bottom–up for creativity in science?: A Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online and collaborative model for curriculum and professional Face to Face Learning Environments. Journal of development. Journal of Education for Teaching, Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 3 28. 32(4), 413 422. Kampylis, P.; Berki, E.; & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In service Cheng, V. (2001). Enhancing creativity of elementary and prospective teachers' conceptions of creativity. science teachers: A preliminary study. Paper Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29. – – 608 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
Teaching Methods, (143), 184 234. Kaplan, S. (1996). An Introduction to TRIZ: The Russian Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Ideation Newton, D. P.; & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some student International, Inc., Southfield, MI. teachers' conceptions of creativity in school science. Research In Science & Technological Education, King's College London. (2008). Science Education in 27(1), 45 60. Europe: Critical Reflections. A Report to the Nuffield Foundation. Omar, M. A.; & Alonazi, A. A. (2010). The Effect of a Training Program based on Theory of Inventive Kini, M. A. (2012). Innovative teaching methods to develop Problem Solving (TRIZ) in Developing Critical the Creative thinking skills in Students (in Arabic). Thinking for University's Students (in Arabic). Journal of Educational Development, 10(68), 1 15. Journal of Reading and Knowledge, (105), 190 232. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. Pierce, C. A.; Block, R. A.; & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary Note on Reporting Eta Squared Values Kunst, B.; & Clapp, T. (2002). Automatic Boarding from Multifactor ANOVA Designs. Educational Machine Design Employing Quality Function and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 916 924. Deployment: Theory of Inventive Problem Solving and Solid Modeling. Retrieved from Sabri, M. I.; & Alhazmi, R. S. (2013). The Effect of some http://www.triz journal.com. Inventive Problem Solving Strategies in Teaching Science in Improving Innovative Thinking Skills Liou, Y.; & Chen, M. (2011). Using collaborative for Elementary Gifted Female Students in technology for triz innovation methodology. Almadinah Almonaorah (in Arabic). Journal of International Journal of Electronic Business Studies in Education and Psychology, (35), 11 47. Management, (9), 12 23. Saifain, E. S. (2011). The Impact of a Training Program Louri, B. (2009). Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving based on Multiple Approaches in Developing some at University: A Course on TRIZ. Journal Creative Teaching Skills and Educational Compilation, 18(2), 101 108. Technology Competencies in Teaching Mahmoud, A. M. (2003). The Effect of a Suggested Mathematics for Student Teachers and their Program based on Self Learning to Develop and Attitudes toward it (in Arabic). Journal of Understand Authentic Teaching Practices Standards Almansorah College of Education, 76(1), 422 457. for Female Science Student Teachers and its Savransky, S. D. (2001) Engineering of creativity Relation with Improving their Students' Higher introduction to Triz methodology of inventive Thinking Skills (in Arabic). Journal of Science problem solving. Boca Ranton, Florida: CRC Press Education, 6(4), 1 63. LIC. Marsh, D.; Waters, F.; & Mann, D. (2004). Using TRIZ to Schweizer T. P. (2002). Integrating Triz into Curriculum: Resolve Education Delivery Conflicts Inherent to An Educational Imperative. Anti TRIZ-journal, Expelled Students in Pennsylvania. Retrieved from 1(10), 1 21. http://www.triz journal.com Souchkov, K. V. (1999). Four views on TRIZ. Retrieved Martin, M.; Mullis, I.; Foy, P.; & Stanco, G. (2012). TIMSS from http://www.trizexperts.net 2011 international results in science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Terninko, J.; Zusman, A.; & Zlotin B. (1998). Systematic Education, Boston College, USA. Innovation: An Introduction to TRIZ. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Mazur, K. G. (1996). Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ). Retrieved from Vincent, J.; & Mann, D. (2000). TRIZ in Biology Teaching. http://www.personal.engin.umich.edu Triz-Journal, (9). Retrieved from http://www.triz journal.com. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2nd ed.). Jossey Bass Wagner, T. (2012). Calling All Innovators. Educational higher and adult education series. San Francisco, Leadership, 69(7), 66 69. California. Moawadh, L. I. (2009). The Effect of a Suggested Training * * * Program in Developing some Creative Teaching Skills and Motivation toward Accomplishment for Science Student Teachers at College of Education (in Arabic). Journal of Studies in Curriculum and – – 609
: ,
– – 610 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , 1436 2014 ,633 − 611 , 3 ,26 ,
2 , 1
1435 03 27 ; 1435 01 25
: , 2013−2012 58 , 28 , 30 , ; , 0 82 , , , ,
, , , : ______
The Effect of using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy in Developing the Natural Intelligence by Students of Geography Department in the College of Basic Education University of Mosul (1) (2) Fadhil Khalil Ibrahim and Rawaa Bahae Karkaje University of Mosul (Received 28/11/2013; accepted 28/01/2014) Abstract: The research aims to identify the effect of using reciprocal teaching strategy in developing of natural intelligence among the students of the third grade / Department of Geography / College of Basic Education, university of Mosul. The research sample included (58) male and female students distributing randomly into two groups, the experimental group numbered (30) male and female students were taught by reciprocal teaching strategy, either the control group were included (28) male and female students were taught by the traditional Method. The researchers prepared a tool to measure the natural intelligence, introduced to a group of experts in the field of Education and Psychology to find the face validity; the reliability of the tool was (0.82). By conducting statistical treatments the results showed that there is statistically significant difference between the two groups in favor of the experimental group. In the light of the results the researchers recommended that the reciprocal teaching strategy should be used in the department of Geography. Further studies dealing with other variables were be recommended Key Words: I interactive learning, multiple I intelligence, Prediction Strategy, Geography Education. ______
(1) Pro of Education and Teaching Methods, , 1 College of Basic Education, University of Mosul. , Mosul, Iraq, P.O. Box (11089). 11089 , , e-mail: [email protected] : (2) Ass. Lec. of Teaching Geography, College of Basic Education, University , , , , 2 of Mosul.
– – 611 : ,
, : 2010 , , , , , 2010 , , , , , , 2013 , 2011 , , , , , , , , , Hansen & Stephen, 2000 , – – 612 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , , , , 2004 , (Gang, 2010) , , , , 2008 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , : , (Oczkus, 2003) 2010 , – – 613 : ,
, , , , 2012 , 2009 , , , , , , ; , 2010 , , , , 2009 , , , , , : , Omari & Weshah, 2010 ? , , 2007 , , , , – – 614 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: − , 5−3 (Omari & , , Weshah, 2010) 2011 Gardner , , 2011 , 2007 , Frames of mind : 1999 1995 1983 − , , : − , – – , : : − – , , , – , , , , , : − , , : − , 2011 , – – 615 : ,
, , , , , , , , , 2010 , , : : , (Diehl, 2005) , , , 2011 , , , , , , , ; 1431 , , , – – 616 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
− − , 0.05 , , 2011 , , 2011 0.05 , , , 2011 , , , 2011 0.05 – – 617 : ,
2011 , , , 0.05 , , , 0.05 2012 (Jafarigohar & Soliemmi, 2013) 0.05 : , , , , , : 2013 – – 618 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, Pan & Wu, 2013 , , EFL : : , , : , , 2013 : , , , , 40 , 2011 , , , , , , – – 619 : ,
, ?
: , , , , : : − 0.05 , 2006 , : : : : − 1 , − 2 : – – 620 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: : , 1 : : − : : Oczkus, 2003 − , − 3 : : , , , , , , − 4 Oczkus, 2003, P.14 : : 2005 − , , , − 5 , , − 6 , 325 , 2005 , : : 2008 − : : − 1 2013 2012 − 165 , 2008 , , − 2 : : – – 621 : ,
, , , 2008 , , , 230 , :
: − , , , : −2 2003 : − , , , , : : , : 10 , 2003 , 2007 , , : − , , , , : : : , 3 2007 , , , 2008 : − : : 1 , – – 622 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
1
1 : 30 28 – , 2013 2012 308 − : : 100 , , , , : , – 1 : , , , 30 28 , , , 0.22 , , 0.05 3.84 2 , 1 , , 1
2
17 20 3.84 0.22 11 10 – – 623 : ,
– 2 , : 0.107 0.05 2.004 , , 56 3 , t - test ,
3
12.562 268.033 30 2.004 0.107 13.019 268.392 28
– 3 : , 0.345 , 0.05 2.004 1983 , , 56 4 ,
4
9.980 33 366 30 2.004 0.345 10.295 34 285 28
– 4 , : , 111.70 – – 624 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, 0.024 , 111.96 , 56 , 2.042 t- test , , 5 , 0.05
5
41.885 111.70 30 2.042 0.024 41.360 111.96 28
: : : : , , , 16 : , , , − : : , , , , , , , : , , , , : , 2006 , ; 2010 , ; 2008 , , , , 40 ,
, : , – – 625 : ,
4 , , , , 2 , 3 , : , 1 , : 40 − − , 200 : : , Test-Retest , , , , 2002 , 2013 2 13 , : 2013 2 28 30 , , , , , 0.82 , 2011 2013 2 3 , , : : 2013 3 3 40 , , , 50 , 45 : : , , , 6 5 5 − , : , 5 – – 626 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , , , 2013 5 5 , : : , , , , , : : : ,? 0.05 : 31.466 , , 39.996 , 4.714 , – – 627 : ,
51.169 6 , 26.752 ,
6
39.996 31.466 30 2.004 2.227 51.169 4.714 28
− 2 6 2.227 , 0.05 2.004 , , 56 , , , , , : – 1 − – , , , − 3 , , – – 628 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , 2010 , , 2013 , : : : : : − 4 : : − 1 , − 2 : : : : : , , (Diehl, 2005 : – 1 2011 2011 2011 , , , , , 2012 2011 , , , , , – 2 Jafarigoher, 2013) 2013 , 2011 , – – 629 : ,
2004 , : – 3 2006 , ; , : 2007 : : , , : : : 2007 , − 1 – 2 , , , 2011 , , , − 3 , , 2011 , * * * : 2005 , : : : 2010 2011 , , : 2011 64−40 , 38 5 , , 32 2012 , : K.w.l 2011 , : , , , – – 630 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: 2010 , 2011 , : , 2010 , , , : 2009 , 1431 , , , , , , , : 2004 , , 2009 , : : 2007 , 2007 , , 2 , :
, 2003 , , , 2006 , , : 2013 2 7 , http://gulfkids.com/pdf/strategy-azzo 2008 2012 , , , : , : , 2000 , , , − 2011 , 110 89 95 − , , – – 631 : ,
2011 , , , 2011 , , , , , , 2013 2013 , , 354−344 , 3 7 , 2007 , , , 2013 : , 2010 , : 2011 : 2 , 2008 , , : 130 112 5 38 – : , − , , 2006 , : : : : Ahmadi, M., R., Ismail; Hairul, N. &Abdullah, M., K. (2013).Goals of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy Instruction. (IJLLALW), 2(1) 18-28. 2010 Al-Kassab, Ali. (2011). The influence of reciprocal , teaching strategy In the achievement of the – elementary tenth grade students and their , motivation toward learning Geography(in Arabic). Studies Journal: Educational Sciences(University : of Jordan), 38 (5) 112-130. 2002 Carter, C. J. (2001). Reciprotal Teaching: The Application , of a Reading Improvement Stratgy on Urban Strategy in Highland Park,Michigan, (1993-1995): : Innodata Monographs 8.Internatonal Bureau of Education. Retrieved 10 /8/2006 from , http://www.ERIC 2013 1 30 Diehl, H., L. (2005). The Effects of the Reciprocal , Teaching Framework on Strategy Acquisition of http://homeeconomics.mounada.biz/1397-topic Fourth-Grade Struggling Readers. Ph.D. – – 632 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
thesis,University of Virginian. Harb , Majid. (2011).The impact of reciprocal learning strategy in reading awareness For the students of elementary tenth grade in Jordan (in Arabic). Journal of Educational Sciences, (5) 38.40-64. Jafarigohar, M., S., H. & Soliemni, Z. (2013). The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching vs. Think- Aloud on Reading Comprehension of Pre-Intermediate Students in Iran. International Journal of English and Education,2(1) 191-202 Maiman, HindAhmed. (2013). The effect of usingReciprocal Teaching on Reading Comprehension and their attitudes toward reading at a seventh-grade students in Kuwait(in Arabic). Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies in Sultan Qaboos University 7 (3), 344-354. Oczkus, L., D. (2003).Reciprocal Teaching at work Strategies for improving reading comprehension. New York: International Reading Association. Omari, H. A. & weshah, H.A.2010 (Using the Reciprocal Teaching Method by Teachers at Jordanian Schools)European Journal of social sciences,1(15).34-44. Pan, C. & Wu, H. (2013). The cooperation learning effects on English reading comprehension and learning motivation of EFL freshmen. Teaching and Teacher Education,6(5).1327. Shabib, Ahmed. (2000). The influence of training on self- questions strategy (Independent – Cooperation) on understanding the lecture by university students and their appreciation for the degree of their self- effectiveness(in Arabic). Journal of Education (Azhar University), 95.89 -110 Yang,Y. F. (2010),"Developing a reciprocal teaching /learning system for college remedial reading instructionJournal of computers and Education, 10(3).56-67
* * *
– – 633
: ,
– – 634 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , 1436 2014 ,656 − 635 , 3 ,26 ,
1
1435 03 27 ; 1435 02 01
; : : 32 − , , :
, , , , : ______
The Effect of Using Teaching Portfolio on Developing Reflective Thinking among Master Program Students in Education College at King Saud University
(1) Latefa Saleh ALsemairi King Saud University (Received 04/12/2013; accepted 28/01/2014) Abstract: This study aimed at investigating the effect of teaching portfolio on developing reflective thinking among students in master program at king Saud university. To achieve the aim of this study, one group pre test, post test design was used and the sample of the study consisted of 32 students. The results of the study showed that: There are significant statistical differences at level (α=0.01) between means of preappliction and post application in favor of post application in the following reflective thinking skills: (a) Open mindedness, (b) Self guided, (c) Intellectual responsibility. There are significant statistical differences at level (α=0.01) between means of preapplication and post application in favor of post application in the three reflective thinking skills together. According to the results, it was recommended to adopt teaching portfolio experience among students among students in master program at education collages of Saudi Arabia after being proven effective. Key words: Portfolio, Professional Portfolio, Performative Task, Reflective Writing, Reflective Thinking Skills. ______
(1) Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, , , 1 College of Education, King Saud University. 11472 , 7695 , , Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, P.O. Box (7695), Postal Code: (11472)
e-mail: [email protected] :
– – 635 :
Ohio 1988 , , 2008 , , , Florida, 1983 : (Stanford, , Ohio, 1988 ; , 1988) , , : 2003 2008 , 2007 , 1983 , , 2011 , , Florida Stanford
– 636 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
− − : 2010 2007 , , 2012 , (Professional Standards, 2002, p1) , , : 2002 1954 , , , , 6000 , NCATE : , , – – 637 :
(Anderson & Demeulle, , , %69 1998) , 1 : ; 3 2 , 5 4 , 6 ; , Kish, 1997 Portfolios (Burke, 1997) ; ,
– 638 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
2010 , 2005 112 , 100 , , (Stoddardt, 2002) , 2010 , , : 2005 Ostorga, 2002 , 2012 , 2011 (Rees, Watkins, & Morris, 2003) – – 639 :
NCATE : , : : , , ; 2012 , , , : 2011 , Norton, 1994 : : ; 2008 : : • • ; • , •
– 640 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: − 1 .05 • − 2 : .05 : − 3 ? .05 : − 1 − 4 ? .05 − 2 ? : : − 3 : : Bird, 1990, p.241 ? − 4 ? – – 641 :
(Evans, 1995, p. 2) , ? ? ? ? ? ? 2005 NCATE : , : : , (Schon, 1983, 67) 275 Bird, 1990 Evans, 1995 , 2001, 50 2005 , , , : : 2010
– 642 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , : , , , , 67 : : , 2008 , Schon, 1983 : : 2001 : : 2010 : , , : : : , , : – – 643 :
: , , : , : , , , , : , , : : : : − − : 2008 , : , , ,
– 644 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, , , , , , , : : , , , 2008 , , : : , , , , , , , , : , , RUBRIC 1 ,
RUBRIC : 1
3 2 1 : , , – – 645 :
− 2 ? : ? − 3 ? 2008 − 4 ? − 5 1 : ? 3 2 , : , 4 − 1 ? : − 2 : ? − 1 − 3 ? ? − 2 : ? − 1 − 3 ? ? − 4 − 2 ? ? ? : ? − 1 − 3 ?
– 646 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
, 275 ? 32 1434 − 4 % % 11 ? : − 5 ? : : : 2005 , , 30 : • ,
29 ,27 ,25 ,21 ,17 ,13 ,9 ,5 ,3 ,1 ; 2010 , •
28 ,26 ,24 ,22 ,20 ,18 ,16 ,14 ,12 ,10 ,8 ,6 ,4 • :
,11 ,7 ,2 ,
30 ,23 ,19 ,15 1434 1433 – – 647 :
: : : , , .05 .01 .894 , .953 , .938 , : t test Paired Sample T Test 2 .736 , .901 , .771 .01 .935
2
5.3033 32.5625 32 .01 11.879 2.7990 44.6875 32
2 .05
– 648 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
t test , 3
3
7.9097 45.1250 32 .01 9.736 3.6365 58.4688 32
.05 3 , 4 t test
4
3.8404 21.3438 32 .01 11.746 2.1362 29.7813 32
4 – – 649 :
, t test .05 5
5
15.9484 99.0313 32 .01 11.785 7.0204 142.9375 32
11.746 5 11.785 , , kish, 1997 : Portfolios .01 ; 9.736 11.879
– 650 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: , : ,
, : , : : : : , , – – 651 :
2008 , 1 : , , ? , 2 ? , : , , ? ? , 3 ? 9 7 NCTM : , ? ? , : , 4 ? ? ? ? ? Schon, 1983 : : − 1 − 2 − 3
– 652 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
: : • : Schon : , • , , , • , : , , • − − , , , , Stoddardt, 2002 , 2010 Ostorga, 2002 : : : • – – 653 :
• • * * * : : : • 2008 , : NCATE 2003 , • : 174 – 133 , 3 7 , 2010 , • , , 1 22 , , 55 − 27 : 2007 , • 127 –125 , 15 , , 2012 , • 2005 , :
2005 ,
– 654 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
2007 , : NCATE , 2010 , 749 − 741 , 2007 5 16−15 Jan,17,2014 , http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/dralnassar/dralnassar2/Lists/List/At . tachments/34 2005 , 2008 , , , 193 199 , 1 2 , PESA 2008 : 2001 , 2008 2010 , 2011 , : 2007 , , , , , 306 287. ,1 229–171 , 3 146 , 2012 , 2011 , , , , 186 145 , 121 , , : : : 131 93 ,43 , , Al Ahmad. N. (2003). Using Portfolio in the teacher 1434 preparation program in the Kingdom of Saudi , Arabia and comparison of benefits and difficulties 1434/1433 of similar programs in developed countries (in Arabic). Journal of Educational Sciences. Institute of Educational Studies, Cairo University, 7 (3), – – 655 :
Colleges, and Departments of Education. (2002). 133 174. Washington, DC: National Council for Allam, A. (2012). The effectiveness of social constructivist Accreditation of Teacher Education. learning for teaching social studies on Developing Rees, j, Watkins, C & Morris, M. (2003). Developing of Some Reflective Thinking Skills and Problem Reflective Practice for Use in Continuing Solving among Elementary School Students (in Professional Development". Retrieved July.31. Arabic). Journal of Educational Association for 2013. From: Social Studies, Egypt, 43.93 – 131. http://www.hsrpp.org.uk/abstract/2003_29.html. AL Nimri, H. (2011). The impact of the Use of A bag Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Based Educational Strategy of Self Questioning and Professional Thin; in Action.London: Temple Evaluation Methods Inherent in the Development of Smith. Literary Appreciation Skills and Reflective Yarkndi, A. (2011). A teacher Professional Portfolio for Thinking to the First Grade Students of Secondary Secondary School Courses Track, Developmental (in Arabic). Journal of the Faculty of Education, al Vision (in Arabic). Risalat ul-khaleej AL-arabi, azar University, 146 (3), 171 – 229. Riyadh, 12, 145 186. Al Swedy, N. (2008). The effectiveness of A suggested Strategy (TLD DRT) Based on Mezirow Theory * * * Transformative Learning on Developing of Some Reflective Thinking Skills among EFL Students Teachers (in Arabic). A series of Arab Studies in Education and Psychology (PESA), 2(1), 193 199. Anderson, R. S. & Demeulle ,L. D. (1988). Portfolio Use in Twenty – Four Teacher Education Programs. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 23 – 31. Balushi, M. (2007). Teaching Portfolio (in Arabic). Journal of Education, Oman, 15, 125 127. Bsharah, M. (2010). The Effect of Writing Training on Developing of Reflective Thinking among A sample of Early Childhood Education Program Students at AL Hussein Bin Talal University (in Arabic). Educational Sciences & Islamic Studies, 22 (1) , 27 55. Bird, T. (1990). The Schoolteacher’s portfolio: An essay on possibilities. In J. Millman & L. Darling Hammond (Eds.) Handbook of teacher evaluation: Elementary and secondary personnel. (2nd ed.). 241 256. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Burke , K.(1997). Designing Professional Portfolios for Change.Arlington Heights, IL: IRJ Skyligh. Evans, S.M. (1995). Professional Portfolios:Documenting and Presenting Performance Excellence. Virginia Beach, Va: Teacher Little Secrets . Kish, Ch. & Sheehan, J. (1997). Portfolios in the Classroom: A Vehicle for Developing Reflective Thinking. High School Journal, 80(4), 254 265 Norton, J. (1997). Locus of Control and Reflective Thinking in Preservice Teachers, Education , 117(3), 401 416. Ostorga, A. N. (2002). Relationships Between Epistemology and Reflective Thinking of Instructional Paraprofessionals in an Elementary Teacher Education program.Dissertation Abstracts, 63(6), 2205. Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, – 656 –
1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , ض
– – 657
:
– 658 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 , 1436 2014 ,661 − 659 , 3 ,26 ,
–
: : Leading Curriculum Development : • : • Jon Wiles : • : • : • Corwin Press 2009 : • 2014 1435 : • , , , Leading Curriculum Development , , – – 659 :
, , , , , , , , , , , , − − , , , , , , , , , ,
– 660 – 1436 2014 , 3 ,26 ,
232 , , , , , ; : ; ; ; * * *
– – 661
:
– 662 – Zaed M. AL Battal: Parental Satisfaction with Special Education...
Methods applied to intensive outpatient programming in a private practice setting. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40(3), 203–214. Zablotsky, B., Boswell, K., & Smith, C. (2012).An evaluation of school involvement and satisfaction of parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117(4),316–330. Ziviani, J., Cuskelly, M., & Feeney, R. (2010). Parent satisfaction with early intervention services for children with physical disabilities: Internal consistency of the European parent satisfaction scale about early intervention. Infants& Young Children, 23(3),184 –194. * * *
– 674 – Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 26 , Number (3), Riyadh (2014/1436)
Arabia: Office of Arabic Education for Gulf countries. Exceptional Children,53, 441–449. Alotaibi, B. N. (2009).Family satisfaction with special education Miedel, W. T.,& Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in services provided to students with special needs in the special early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? education special schools and programs in Saudi Arabia. Journal of School Psychology,37,379–402. Arabic Journal of Special Education,14,39–82. Ministry of Education (2002). Legislations for organizing institutes Asartawy, Z., Asartawy, A., Kashan, A., & Abujodah, W. and programs of special education. Riyadh: Administration of (2011).Introduction to learning disabilities. Riyadh, Saudi Special education. Arabia: Dar Azahra. Ministry of Education (2012a). Statistical report on learning Association for Children with Learning Disabilities. (1986). ACLD disabilities programs in Saudi Arabia for the academic year of description: Specific learning disabilities. ACLD 2012. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Administration of Special Newsbriefs,15–16. Education. Bailey, D.B.,& Simeonsson, R.J. (1988). Family assessment in Ministry of education (2012b). Statistical report on learning early intervention. Columbus, OH: Merrill. disabilities programs in Riyadh city for the academic year of Bender, W.N. (1992).Learning disabilities: Characteristics, 2012. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Administration of Education in identification, and teaching strategies. Needham Heights, MA: Riyadh. Ellyn and Bacon. Office of Educational Research and Improvement(2004). Parent Dawson, R., & Kierney, J. (1988).A survey of parents’ views. involvement at the middle school level. U.S. Department of British Journal of Special Education, 15(3), 123–125. Education. Fantuzzo,J., Perry, M.,& Childs, S. (2009). Parent satisfaction with Parsons, S., Lewis, A., Davison, I., Ellins, J., &Robertson, educational experiences scale: A multivariate examination of C.(2009).Satisfaction with educational provision for children parent satisfaction with early childhood education programs. with special education needs or disabilities: A national postal Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21,142–152. survey of the views of parents in Great Britain. Educational Review, 61(1), 19–47. Gable, R. A., Mostert, M. P., & Tonelson, S.W. (2004). Assessing professional collaboration in schools: knowing what works. Prieto, A. J. (1992). A method for translation of instruments to Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 4–8. other languages. Adult Education Quarterly,43(1), 1–14. Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (2006). Exceptional learner: Rogers, M. A., Wiener, J., Marton, I., & Tannock, R. (2009). Introduction to special education (8thed.). Needham Heights, Parental involvement in children’s learning: Comparing MA: Ellyn and Bacon. parents of children with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of School Heward, W.L. (2006). Exceptional children: An introduction to Psychology,47, 167–185. special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Samioti, A., Papanis, E., & Giavrimis, P.(2011).Literature review on the needs of families and carers of people with learning Johnson, J., & Duffett, A.(2002).When it's your own child: A disabilities. International Journal of Business, Humanities and report on special education from the families who use it. New Technology, 1(1),45–53. York: Public Agenda. SAS Institute. (2009). SAS/STAT 9.2 User's guide (2nded.). Cary, Lanners, R.,& Mombaerts, D. (2000). Evaluation of parents' NC: SAS Institute Inc. satisfaction with early intervention services within and among European countries: Construction and application of a new Stallard, P.,& Lenton, S. (1992). How satisfied are parents of pre- parent satisfaction scale. Infants & Young Children,12(3),61– school children who have special needs with services they 70. have received? A consumer survey. Child: Care, Health and Development, 18, 197–205. Leiter, V.,& Krauss, M. (2004).Claims, barriers, and satisfaction. Journal of Disabilities Policy Studies, 15(3), 135–146. Starr, M.E., Foy, J.B., Cramer, K. M., & Singh, H. (2006). How are schools doing? Parental perceptions of children with autism Lerner, J., & Kline, F. (2012). Learning disabilities and related spectrum disorders, Down’s syndrome and learning disorders: Characteristics and teaching strategies th disabilities: A comparative analysis. Education and Training (11 ed.).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. in Developmental Disabilities, 41(4),315–332. Lowenbraum, S., Madge, S., & Affleck, J. (1990).Parental Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A., & Poston, satisfaction with integrated class placements of special D. (2005).Relationship between parent satisfaction regarding education and general education students. Remedial and partnerships with professionals and age of child. Topics in Special Education, 11(4), 37–4. Early Childhood Special Education,25(1), 48–58. Lynch, E. W.,& Stein, R. (1982). Perspectives on parent U.S. Department of Education (1999).Twenty-first annual report to participation in special education. Exceptional Education Congress on the implementation of the Individual with Quarterly, 3(2), 56–63. Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. McNaughton, D. (1994). Measuring parents satisfaction with early Government Printing Office. childhood intervention programs: Current practice, problems, Voltz,O., &Euiott, R.(1990).Resource room roles in promoting and future perspectives. Topics in Early Childhood Special interaction with regular education. Teacher Education and Education,14(1), 26–58. Special Education,13(3),160–166. Meyers, C.,& Blacher, J. (1987).Parents’ perception of schooling Wise, E. A.(2003). Psychotherapy outcome and satisfaction: for severely handicapped children: Home and family variables. – 673 – Zaed M. AL Battal: Parental Satisfaction with Special Education... married couple has two individuals at home to share level, and involvement in the child’s school. the responsibility of their child’s education (Fantuzzo et al., 2009), which can positively affect their level of In light of these findings, a few recommendations satisfaction. can be proposed for practice and research. An important finding in the current study may be that It was also found that parents with less than high satisfaction of parents of students with LD is school education were more satisfied than parents enhanced when parents become involved in their with more than a bachelor’s degree education. Parents children’s schools. This finding may have an with high school were more satisfied than parents important implication for LD teachers and school with more than a bachelor’s degree. Parents with personnel who should know that satisfaction is an bachelor’s degrees were more satisfied than parents important indicator of effective home-school with more than a bachelor’s degree. This finding was partnerships. Therefore, they should develop similar to that of Alotaibi (2009), who found that partnership practices with parents of students with illiterate parents (parents who do not read or write) LD to ensure their involvement in appropriate were more satisfied than parents with bachelor’s procedures (Fantuzzo et al., 2009). Moreover, It is degree or more. These interesting findings in the important that LD teachers inform parents about their present study may be attributed to unawareness of rights, nature of the LD and possible solutions, and their rights. As Leiter and Krauss (2004) explain, the importance of their involvement in their children's “parents may be unaware of their rights or of the education. services for which their children are eligible, suggesting that parents’ expectations of special In addition, The important dimensions of parents’ education may be compromised by what they do (and satisfaction with LD and the reasons that contribute to do not) know” (p.143). higher levels of this satisfaction need to be addressed. This is worth further study because LDs represent the In addition, parents who became involved in the largest segment of student disabilities in Saudi child’s school were more satisfied than parents who Arabia. did not. This finding is logical, and can be interpreted * * * by the significant positive correlation between The author thanks the Educational Research Center in College of parental school involvement and parental school Education, King Saud University for their support to this research. satisfaction (Zablotsky et al., 2012). Parents’ involvement in their children’s education has * * * improved students’ achievement (Rogers et al., 2009; References Abu Nayyan, I. (2000). Learning disabilities: Teaching methods Miedel & Reynolds,1999) and may have resulted in and cognitive strategies. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Academy of lower levels of stress and higher levels of satisfaction. Special Education. Al Khateeb, J. M., & Hadidi, M. S. (2009). Teachers’ and mothers’ Conclusion and Recommendations satisfaction with resource room programs in Jordan. The This study explored the level of parents’ Journal of the International Association of Special Education, satisfaction with the services provided to their 10 (1), 56–59. children with LD in public elementary schools in Algahtany, S., Almethheb, A., & Alomar, B. (2011). Research methods of behavior science with SPSS applications. Riyadh, Riyadh City. It was found that parents were satisfied Saudi Arabia: Alobecan Library. with special education services. Thus, parents agreed Almosa, N. A. (1999).The way of special education in the Ministry that LD programs in their children’s schools provided of Education in the hundred year memorial of the founding of good services with regard to certain criteria. These the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: The criteria included identifying eligible students for Ministry of Education. special education services, developing suitable IEP Almosa, N. A. (2000). The experience of the Ministry of Education in mainstreaming students with special needs into the regular based on students’ needs, providing appropriate education in Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the Second instruction to improve their children’s achievements, International Conference for Handicap and Rehabilitation. and providing useful collaboration. In addition, a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. number of significant differences in parents’ Almosa, N. A. (2004). Mainstreaming students with special needs satisfaction was found for social status, academic into the regular education: Educational view. Riyadh, Saudi – 672 – Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 26 , Number (3), Riyadh (2014/1436)
Table 6:Least squares means at each level of social status, academic level, and involvement in child’s school variables. Source Least squares means Married 98.18 Social status Divorced 91.81 Widowed 88.14 Under high school 95.76 High school 95.58 Academic level Bachelor’s degree 94.53 Above bachelor’s degree 84.97 Yes 94.59 Involved in child’s school No 90.83
Discussion students with LD were less likely to be satisfied when The primary purpose of the current study was to compared to parents of other categories of special evaluate whether parents were satisfied with the needs students. For instance, Starr et al. (2006) found special education services provided to their children that parents of children with learning disabilities had with LD. The results revealed that parents were significantly lower levels of satisfaction than those of satisfied with these services (M=4.04, SD=0.85). In children with Down’s syndrome or autism spectrum addition, the distribution percentage of parents’ disorder. Parsons et al. (2009) found that parents of responses on the 5-point Likert scale indicated that students with psychosocial difficulties in mainstream more than two thirds, or 73.82%, of parents were schools were the least satisfied with special education satisfied with special education services (39.90% were provision, while Alotaibi (2009) found that parents of very satisfied and 33.92% were satisfied),while students with LD were less satisfied than parents of 18.82% were neutral(neither satisfied nor dissatisfied). students with physical or intellectual disabilities. Out of those parents who were not satisfied (7.36%) with special education services, 5.34% were The present study’s explanation for level of dissatisfied, and 2.02% were very dissatisfied. satisfaction may be that determining eligibility, developing students’ IEP, providing appropriate These findings are consistent with certain instruction and related services for students with LD, previous studies, which indicated that most parents of and collaborating with regular teachers and parents students with disabilities are satisfied with special are activities often performed by LD teachers, with education services. For example, Leiter and Krauss parents playing a limited role. These practices may (2004) found that 83% of parents (N=1864) were suggest that parents have less contact with school satisfied with the special education services provided personnel, fewer conflicts, and less responsibility for to their children (52% were very satisfied and 31% the student, which may increase their satisfaction were somewhat satisfied). Dawson and Kierney level. In addition, parents in this study are likely to be (1988) indicated that parents of students with LD happy with services because they lack information scored high for satisfaction. Stallard and Lenton’s regarding the quality of other services and view the (1992) study revealed that parents of pre-school services provided to their children as better than children with disabilities had an overall high level of nothing (Lanners & Mombaerts, 2000). Parents’ satisfaction. Meyers and Blacher (1987) found that satisfaction in the current study could be attributed to the majority (70%) of parents of children with severe cultural factors that encourage parents to accept the disabilities were either satisfied or very satisfied with disabilities of their children; such factors may affect all aspects of school programs. Lowenbraum, Madge, their satisfaction level positively. and Affleck (1990) indicated that 91% of parents were very satisfied or satisfied with LD programs. The second purpose of this study was to Lynch and Stein(1982) found that 76% of parents of investigate whether background characteristics students with disabilities were satisfied or very affected parents’ level of satisfaction. Significant satisfied with the special education services provided. differences in parents’ satisfaction were found. Married parents were found to be more satisfied than In contrast, some studies reported that parents of widowed parents. This finding is reasonable since a – 671 – Zaed M. AL Battal: Parental Satisfaction with Special Education...
Research question2: Are there any significant independent variables (legal guardians, social status, differences in parents’ satisfaction with services income class, academic level, helping child study at for students with LD attributed to parents’ home, involvement in child’s school, child’s grade, background characteristics? and the degree of child’s LD).Table 4 reveals the To determine whether there was a significant overall F test (F=3.40, p<0.0001), indicates that at difference in parents’ satisfaction with respect to least one independent variable has a significant effect independent variables, one-way analysis of variance on the dependent variable (the level of parents’ (ANOVA) was implemented for the dependent satisfaction). variables (scores of parents’ satisfaction) and the
Table 4: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F p-value Model 14 9557.73 682.69 3.40 < 0.0001 Error 378 75856.16 200.68 Corrected Total 392 85413.88
Table 5 shows the results of the individual tests significant effect by legal guardians (F=2.48, for each effect. The results suggest a significant effect p=0.0851), income class (F=1.72, p=0.1804), helping for social status (F=4.21, p=0.0155), academic level child study at home (F=1.95, p=0.1637), child’s grade (F=2.67, p=0.0474), and involvement in child’s (F=0.01, p=0.9242), and degree of child’s LD school (F=4.58, p=0.0330) on the score for parents’ (F=1.53, p=0.2186) on the score for parents’ satisfaction. However, the results revealed no satisfaction.
Table 5:F test for the effect of parents’ variables on satisfaction score. Variable DF F P-value Legal guardians 2 2.48 0.0851 Marital status 2 4.21 0.0155* Income class 2 1.72 0.1804 Academic level 3 2.67 0.0474* Helping child study at home 1 1.95 0.1637 Involvement in child’s school 1 4.58 0.0330* Child’s grade 1 0.01 0.9242 Degree of child’s learning disability 2 1.53 0.2186 *0.05 level of statistical significance
Table 6shows the least squares means. Based on significantly different between bachelor’s (94.53) and the results of Tukey’s post-hoc tests for marital more than a bachelor’s degree (84.97) (p=0.0129), status, the mean scores were significantly different i.e., scores of parents’ satisfaction were significantly between married (98.18) and widowed (88.14) higher for parents with a bachelor’s degree than (p=0.0146) respondents; i.e., satisfaction scores were parents with more than a bachelor’s degree. In significantly higher for married parents than for addition, the mean scores for being involved in the parents who were widowed. For parents’ academic child’s school were significantly different between level, the mean scores were significantly different parents who were involved in the child’s school between less than high school education (95.76) and (94.59) and those who were not (90.83) (p=0.0330), more than a bachelor’s degree education (84.97) i.e., scores for parents’ satisfaction were significantly (p=0.0066), i.e., scores of parents’ satisfaction were higher for parents who were involved in the child’s significantly higher for those with high school than school than those who were not. those who had obtained a qualification higher than a bachelor’s degree. The mean scores were also
– 670 – Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 26 , Number (3), Riyadh (2014/1436)
Follow Table 2. Frequency counts and percentage for responses No. Survey items 1=very 5=very Mean SD 2=dissatisfied 3=neutral 4=satisfied Missing dissatisfied satisfied Cooperation between you 7 15(3.07) 17(3.48) 85(17.42) 157(32.17) 214(43.85) 3 4.10 1.01 and team members Objectives and goals 8 included in your child's 8(1.63) 35(7.14) 75(15.31) 167(34.08) 205(41.84) 1 4.07 1.00 IEP Implementation of your 9 13(2.69) 22(4.56) 78(16.18) 179(37.14) 194(40.25) 5 4.09 0.95 child's IEP Information provided to 10 you about your rights as a 11(2.25) 30(6.13) 84(17.18) 137(28.02) 227(46.42) 2 4.10 1.04 parent Respect for your values, 11 5(1.03) 23(4.73) 61(12.55) 183(37.65) 214(44.03) 5 4.19 0.90 concerns, and suggestions Your child’s social 12 integration with other 4(0.82) 19(3.89) 61(12.47) 179(36.61) 226(46.22) 2 4.24 0.87 students Technology used in 13 6(1.24) 15(3.09) 78(16.08) 177(36.49) 209(43.09) 6 4.17 0.89 teaching your child Instruction time given to 14 6(1.23) 17(3.48) 69(14.14) 197(40.37) 199(40.78) 3 4.16 0.88 your child Individual instruction for 15 14(2.87) 26(5.33) 75(15.37) 148(30.33) 225(46.11) 3 4.11 1.04 your child Effectiveness of strategies 16 11(2.25) 16(3.28) 74(15.16) 139(28.48) 248(50.82) 3 4.22 0.97 used with your child Academic improvement 17 7(1.43) 26(5.31) 124(25.31) 159(32.45) 174(35.51) 1 3.95 0.97 of your child Learning independence of 18 6(1.22) 8(1.63) 81(16.53) 199(40.61) 196(40.00) 1 4.17 0.85 your child Test modifications made 19 12(2.46) 35(7.17) 124(25.41) 171(35.04) 146(29.92) 3 3.83 1.02 for your child Conferences with LD 20 10(2.05) 42(8.61) 128(26.23) 163(33.40) 145(29.71) 3 3.80 1.03 teacher 21 Notes sent home 31(6.38) 45(9.26) 122(25.10) 153(31.48) 135(27.78) 5 3.65 1.16 Contact with other school 22 11(2.25) 50(10.22) 114(23.31) 176(35.99) 138(28.22) 2 3.78 1.04 personnel Communication with 23 1(0.20) 15(3.07) 48(9.84) 142(29.10) 282(57.79) 3 4.41 0.81 school principal Support network offered 24 14(2.87) 26(5.34) 68(13.96) 154(31.62) 225(46.20) 4 4.13 1.03 by the school
In addition to the descriptive statistics presented Table 3suggest that more than one third (39.9%) of in Table 2, the frequency counts and percentage for the respondents were very satisfied, about one third all responses to the 5-pointLikert items are displayed (33.92%) were satisfied, 18.82% were neutral, 5.34% in Table 3. For parents’ satisfaction, the results from were dissatisfied, and 2.02% were very dissatisfied.
Table 3: Frequency and percentage of parents’ satisfaction scores. Frequency counts and percentage Variable Likert scale Frequency Percentage 1 = very dissatisfied 9.92 2.02 2 = dissatisfied 26.20 5.34 3 = neutral 92.42 18.82 Parents’ satisfaction with special education services 4 = satisfied 166.54 33.92 5 = very satisfied 195.92 39.90 Total 491.00 100.00
– 669 – Zaed M. AL Battal: Parental Satisfaction with Special Education... questionnaire, which comprised 24 items (q1–q24). investigate which groups differ from each other. A p- Then, a field test was conducted with 15 parents to value less than 0.05 indicates that the effect is ensure reliability, and Cronbach’s coefficient alphas statistically significant. were calculated. Results revealed the reliability coefficient was .82 for the scale. Study Results Research question 1:What is the level of parents’ The instrument was developed in Arabic satisfaction? language, and for the purpose of publishing the study The answer to the first question of this study can in English, the instrument was translated from Arabic be determined through the mean scores of parents’ to English through back translation by two bilingual satisfaction. Table 2 presents the frequency counts individuals (working independently). The first and percentages for responses to the scale items (q1– translator translated the instrument from Arabic to q24), mean, and standard deviation (SD). English, and then the second translated it back from English to Arabic. The two forms were compared, The means for parents’ satisfaction with services and any differences in meaning were noted and ratings for the 24 items on the 5-point response scale revised accordingly (Prieto, 1992). (1=very dissatisfied to 5=very satisfied) ranged from 4.41 to 3.65. The overall mean across all 24 items Design and statistical analysis was 4.04 (SD=.85). For interpreting the mean value This study was quantitative in nature, and used a of parents’ responses, the point on the scale was survey design. Data for 491 subjects were analyzed. identified by calculating the range (5–1=4). The range was then divided by the number of scale points For the purpose of data analysis, descriptive (4/5=.80). The result was then added to the lowest statistics were generated to present the characteristics point (1) of the scale to calculate the first level. By of the data and the parents’ satisfaction scores. For continuing this process, the lowest and highest the dependent variable (parents’ satisfaction scores), boundaries for each point were obtained (Algahtany, one-way ANOVA was proposed to investigate the Almethheb, & Alomar, 2011) as follows: 1=very effects of the independent variables (legal guardians, dissatisfied (from 1.00 to 1.80); 2=dissatisfied (more social status, income class, education level, helping than 1.80 to 2.60); 3=neutral (more than 2.60 to the child study at home, involvement in the child’s 3.40); 4=satisfied (more than 3.40 to 4.20); and school, grade of child, degree of child’s disability). 5=very satisfied (more than 4.20 to 5.00). Therefore, The F test was applied to test if the effect of a term the mean of parents’ satisfaction rating ranged might be statistically significant, under the between 3.65 and 4.41 with a total mean of 4.04 assumption that sampled populations are normally (SD=0.85), which falls within the satisfaction level distributed. In addition, if the effect was statistically (No. 4=more than 3.40 to 4.20), indicating that significant, Tukey’s post-hoc tests were performed to parents were satisfied with overall services.
Table 2:Response frequencies, percentage, mean, and SD for each item. Frequency counts and percentage for responses No. Survey items 1=very 5=very Mean SD 2=dissatisfied 3=neutral 4=satisfied Missing dissatisfied satisfied Permission to assess your 1 3(0.61) 33(6.75) 137(28.02) 153(31.29) 163(33.33) 2 3.90 0.96 child Accuracy of assessment 2 14(2.87) 40(8.34) 130(27.14) 155(32.36) 150(31.32) 2 3.84 1.01 tests Results: Reported 3 24(4.94) 29(5.97) 132(27.16) 159(32.72) 142(29.22) 5 3.75 1.09 diagnoses Identification of your 4 5(1.03) 18(3.71) 99(20.41) 181(37.32) 182(37.53) 6 4.07 0.90 child as LD Invitation sent to you to 5 6(1.23) 27(5.56) 91(18.72) 177(36.42) 185(38.07) 5 4.05 0.95 join the IEP team Participation in decision- 6 making about your child's 10(2.06) 20(4.12) 80(16.46) 161(33.13) 215(44.24) 5 4.13 0.97 education
– 668 – Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 26 , Number (3), Riyadh (2014/1436)
Table 1:Background characteristics of parents (N=491). Variable Response Frequency Percentage Father 341 69.45 Mother 112 22.81 Legal guardians Other 32 6.52 Missing 6 1.22 Married 432 87.98 Divorced 26 5.30 Social status Widow 17 3.46 Missing 16 3.26
Instrument First, common areas in special education programs for The survey questionnaire used in this study students with LD, including identification and comprised two sections: personal information (e.g., eligibility for special education services, IEP the child’s grade, parents’ social status, income, and development, instruction and student achievement, and academic level) obtained through explicit questions, collaborative relationships (Lerner & Kline, 2012) and a satisfaction scale that included 24 items. The were identified. Second, items covering the potential scale was based on the literature review on benefits of services and related to parents’ satisfaction educational programs and services for students with were generated to represent all areas. LD as well as research on parents’ collaborative relationships with school personnel (Gable, Mostert, After initial development, the scale was reviewed & Tonelson, 2004; Voltz & Euiott, 1990). In addition, by six professors at the Department of Special some satisfaction measures and their developmental Education in the College of Education at King Saud methods were reviewed (Lanners & Mombaerts, University to ensure that the items were clear, 2000; Summerset al., 2005; Zivianiet al., 2010).The precise, and adequate. Consequently, eight items rating scale required parents to indicate their level of were modified. In addition, to ensure that parents satisfaction with the LD services provided to their understood the items, it was piloted on four parents to children. It was self-administered and the response obtain feedback on the ease of completing the scale for each item was a 5-point Likert format:1=very and the clarity of instructions. The pilot study dissatisfied, 2=dissatisfied, 3=neutral, 4=satisfied, revealed that some items were difficult to understand. and 5=very satisfied. The scale was again re-structured in terms of language, and unclear items were clarified and The development of the scale comprised two steps. corrected. These processes resulted in the final survey – 667 – Zaed M. AL Battal: Parental Satisfaction with Special Education... recent years. In addition, the Ministry of Education letter, personal information sheet, and a satisfaction has indicated that parents of students with disabilities scale. The parents of students with LD were asked, if should be included in the decision-making team in all they intended to participate, to complete the special education processes. However, the level of demographics sheet along with the satisfaction parents’ satisfaction with LD services in Saudi Arabia questionnaire, and return it by their children to remains understudied. Thus, examining parents’ school. One week later, a reminder letter and new satisfaction with LD services and understanding their survey were sent to the students’ parents. Surveys levels and differences have become essential. Based were collected and forwarded to the researcher. This on these considerations, an effort has been made in procedure produced a total of 502 returned surveys. this study to close the gap by evaluating parents’ Eight surveys were excluded from the data analysis as satisfaction with services for students with LD. The each had more than 6 missing values out of the 24 purpose of this study is to examine the level of items. Outliers were also examined and three were service satisfaction among parents of students with removed. The sufficient data consisted of 491 surveys LD and highlight eight variables of parents’ for a response rate of 60.7%. The collected data was background characteristics and practices related to coded, entered into a computer, analyzed using SAS their children’s education that may affect parents’ (2009), and the results reported. satisfaction. To achieve this purpose, the following research questions need to be answered: Participants 1. What is the level of parents’ satisfaction with Table 1 displays the background independent services for students with LD? variables for the participants. Frequency of missing 2. Are there any significant differences in parents’ values is also reported. Out of the majority of legal satisfaction with services for students with LD based guardians, 341, or more than two thirds (69.45%), on parents’ background characteristics? were fathers, while 112 (22.81%) were mothers, and 32 (6.52%) respondents considered themselves as Method other, e.g., an older brother, grandfather, or uncle. Procedure Most respondents, 432 (87.98%), were married, 26 The sample was selected from elementary schools (5.30%) divorced, and 17(3.46%) widowed. that offer LD programs in Riyadh City. To select a representative sample, lists of data containing the The reported monthly income of participants entire population of students with LD (4446) enrolled included 59 (12.02%) who earned less than SR5,000, in LD programs in public elementary schools in while 365 (74.34%) reported an income between Riyadh City in the school year of 2011–2012 (Ministry SR5,000 and 10,000, and 45 (9.16%) earned more of education, 2012b) were used. The sample was than SR10,000. Regarding the academic levels of stratified to represent 10 educational offices located in parents, 144 (29.33%) had less than a high school different areas. To ensure the representativeness of the education, 172 (35.03%) had completed high school, population, after the identification of the 10 145 (29.53%) had obtained a bachelor’s degree, and educational offices, six random elementary schools 20 (4.07%) had obtained more than a bachelor’s within each educational office were approached. degree qualification. Among the participants, 370 Employing this sample frame, a random representative (75.36%) indicated that they help their child study at sample of 809 students with LD was identified. home, while 118 (24.03%) said they do not. With regard to being involved in the child’s school, 325, or Official permission was obtained in advance from approximately two thirds (66.19%), responded yes, the Administration of Education in Riyadh City to and 155, or slightly less than one third (31.57%), approach the selected elementary schools that offer responded no. Out of the students with learning LD programs and collect the data. The principals of disabilities whose parents participated, 341 (69.45%) the selected schools were then contacted to ask if the were in grades 1, 2, or 3, and 106 (21.59%) were in LD teachers in these schools were allowed to grades 4, 5, or 6. In terms of students’ degree of LD, distribute the questionnaire package. This package, to 135 (27.49%) were characterized as mild, 300 be taken home by all students (first through sixth (61.10%) as moderate, and 41 (8.35%) as severe (see grades) attending LD programs, included a cover Table 1 for more details). – 666 – Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 26 , Number (3), Riyadh (2014/1436) satisfaction with special education services (e.g., Parsons, Lewis, Davison, Ellins, and Robertson Zablotsky, Boswell & Smith, 2012; Stallard & (2009) investigated parents’ satisfaction with Lenton, 1992). Although much work has been done, a educational provision for students with special clear and widely accepted definition of satisfaction education needs. A sample of diverse parents (N=562) does not exist. In some studies, satisfaction has been was surveyed on key aspects of educational provision described as a perception, attitude, or view (Samioti, such as the choice of school and influence of attitudinal Papanis, & Giavrimis, 2011). However, satisfaction and environmental factors. Results revealed a largely can be defined as the number of personal perceptions positive view of educational provision. The main regarding service provision (Tselepi, 2000, cited in exception was parents of students with psychosocial Samioti et al., 2011). Lanners and Mombaerts (2000) difficulties in mainstream schools, were the least provided an operational definition for the concept of satisfied with educational provision. satisfaction as follows: “Satisfaction is the difference between the expectation of the parents about services The relationship between parent’s satisfaction of LD programs and real service delivery” (p.62). regarding partnerships with professionals and the child’s age was also evaluated by Summers, Regarding the level of parental satisfaction, Starr, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, and Poston (2005). A Foy, Cramer, and Singh (2006) surveyed the parents of total of 147 parents completed the scale to describe 209 children with LD, Down’s syndrome, and autism the perceived importance of and satisfaction with 18 about their perceptions of their children’s education. aspects of their child’s and family’s relationship with Group differences were observed for a number of their primary service provider. No differences items. In almost every case, the LD group rated the emerged for importance rating among parents of items significantly lower than one or more of the other children aged from birth to 3 years, 4 to 5 years, or 6 groups. Results indicated many significant differences to 12 years, although there were differences for between what parents felt their children needed to satisfaction rating, with parents of older children achieve their potential across diagnostic groups and reporting less satisfaction. what they felt was being offered. In a study comparing the involvement and In addition, Al Khateeb and Hadidi (2009) satisfaction level of parents of children with autism investigated the satisfaction of 135 LD teachers and spectrum disorder and parents of children without the 190 mothers of children with LD who participated in disorder, Zablotsky et al. (2012), in a national sample resource room programs in Jordan. The teachers of families (N=58,978), found that parents of children reported moderate satisfaction while the mothers with the disorder were more likely than parents of non- were very satisfied. However, mothers were satisfied autistic children to attend parent-teacher conferences, with the academic improvement of their children and meet with school guidance counselors, and help with least satisfied with the school’s communication. homework. The parents of children with autism spectrum disorder were also more dissatisfied with the Parents’ satisfaction with services for pre-school level of communication provided by the school. children has also been examined. For example, Stallard and Lenton (1992) examined the satisfaction Clearly, evaluating parents’ satisfaction with of parents with the services of pre-school children services is essential in examining special education with special needs attending local opportunity services because it can positively influence educational playgroups. Results found an overall high level of programs and provide information to improve the satisfaction, although parents felt they had not services offered (Ziviani, Cuskelly, & Feeney, 2010; received as much information as they wanted on their McNaughton, 1994). In addition, parents’ satisfaction child’s condition (29%), available help for their has been identified as an important indicator of family (44%), financial benefits (61%), or program quality and effectiveness (Wise, 2003; Bailey information about their child’s future. Families also & Simeonsson, 1988). felt that they had not received enough family support (43%), and that professional staff regularly did not LD programs in Saudi Arabia have been understand their concerns (32%). established and enhanced for elementary students in – 665 – Zaed M. AL Battal: Parental Satisfaction with Special Education...
Introduction special education services (Lerner & Kline, 2012; The concept of learning disabilities (LD) includes Bender, 1992). However, resources may be withdrawn heterogeneous disorders that manifest as difficulties for part of the school day, and thus students with LD in one or more academic areas (e.g., reading, writing, are also often educated in general education or mathematics), and are presumably of biological classrooms (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2006; Bender, origin and related to the functioning of the central 1992). Within the Saudi Arabian educational system, nervous system (Lerner & Kline, 2012). Although students with LD comprise one of the largest students with LD have an average intellectual ability, populations of students receiving special education they face significant unique problems in academic services in public schools. According to the Ministry areas (Heward, 2006). of Education (2012a), there are 1285 LD programs with approximately 17,732 students with LD receiving LDs exist as distinct handicapping conditions and special education services in elementary schools. vary in manifestation as well as degree of severity (e.g., mild, moderate, or severe). Throughout the life Coinciding with a notable increase in the of individuals with LD, the condition can affect self- prevalence of students with LD and their programs, esteem, education, vocation, socialization, and/or there has also been a growing effort by the Ministry of daily living activities (Association for Children with Education to involve parents in the education of their Learning Disabilities, 1986). children with LD. This is in contrast to their earlier dependent role. A number of legislations were enacted The concept of LD is relatively new in Saudi to give parents the right to be included as partners in Arabian schools, and did not exist in the Saudi the decision-making processes related to educational educational system until 1992 (Almosa, 1999). programs for their children. Thus, the educational Moreover, academic difficulties faced by students with goals of LD students are met through educational LD and problems encountered by their parents were teams that encompass parents’ membership (Ministry not addressed. They were viewed instead as a personal of Education, 2002). issue. In addition, school personnel considered parents to be in need of educational services for their children Parents’ involvement in their children’s education with LD. This situation changed in 1993, when the influences students’ academic improvement and was Ministry of Education initiated special education found to be correlated with a higher level of services for students with LD. The Ministry established satisfaction (Office of Educational Research and a small number of LD programs (resource rooms with Improvement, 2004; Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). Some LD teachers) in some public elementary schools countries consider parents’ involvement as a national (Almosa, 2000; Abu Nayyan, 2000). This led to goal. For instance, the U.S. Department of Education demonstrations of increased interest from both parents (1999) stated that “increasing the involvement of and educators. The field of LD has developed over the parents in the education of their children is a national last fifteen years from being an unknown area to one in goal for policy makers in both general and special which there is a constant increase in the prevalence and education” (p.I-1). Therefore, schools’ practices should number of educational programs in elementary public encourage and facilitate parents’ participation and schools constantly. LD resource rooms have been involvement. In the area of special education, parent established in most elementary public schools across participation and involvement can occur across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to serve students from different contexts, e.g., communication, parent-teacher the first to sixth grade (Ministry of Education, 2012a; conferences, and individualized education plan (IEP) Almosa, 2004). meetings (Fantuzzo, Perry, & Childs, 2009).
Resource rooms in elementary schools were Parents’ satisfaction is an important factor for established to remediate students’ academic problems evaluating special education services (Johnson & in basic areas (Abu Nayyan, 2000; Asartawy, Duffett, 2002). Research on parents’ satisfaction with Asartawy, Kashan, & Abujodah, 2011). Students with services for special needs students has received much LD are usually referred to an LD program when they attention in Western literature. Many researchers are unable to learn in the regular classroom without have investigated the level and nature of parents’ – 664 – Journal of Educational Journal Sciences, of Educational Vol. 26 ,Sciences, Number Vol.(3), Riyadh 26 , Number (2014/1436) (3), pp. 663-674, Riyadh (2014/1436)
Parental Satisfaction with Special Education Services for Students with Learning Disabilities: Riyadh Zaed M. AL Battal(1) King Saud University (Received 06/10/2013; accepted 11/12/2013) Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of parents’ satisfaction with special education services for students with learning disabilities (LD), and to highlight differences in parents’ satisfaction levels. A survey questionnaire was completed by the parents of 491 students with LD at public elementary schools in Riyadh City. The results indicated that parents of students with LD were satisfied (M=4.04, SD=0.85) with the special education services offered to their children. Examination of differences in parents’ satisfaction revealed a number of significant differences attributed to social status, academic level, and involvement in the child’s school. Married parents were more satisfied than widowed parents. Parents with less than high school education were more satisfied than parents with more than a bachelor’s degree education. Parents with high school education were more satisfied than parents with more than a bachelor’s degree education. Parents with a bachelor’s degree education were more satisfied than parents with more than a bachelor’s degree education. Parents who were involved in the child’s school were more satisfied than parents who were not. Implications for future application and research are outlined. Keywords: exceptional children, special education, parent views, educational provision. ______
:
1 1435 02 08 ; 1434 12 01
: 491 , , , , , , ,
, , , : ______
(1) Associate Professor, Department of Special Education, , , , 1 College of Education, King Saud University. 11451 , 2458 , , Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, P.O. Box (26685) , Postal Code: (11496)
e-mail: [email protected] :
– 663 –
English Section
Journal of Educational Sciences, Vol. 26 , Number (3), pp. 511 - 661 Ar., Eng 663-674, Riyadh (2014/1436)
Contents
Content • Foreword: Associated Editors ...... Arabic section • "The Intransitive Requirements to Appl iance the Electronic Supervision in the Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman" Nema Hamad Al-Hajri, Rashid Sulaiman Al-Fahdi & Ali Sharaf Al- Musawi ...... 511 • The level of Islamic Studies' Teachers knowledge about Feedback Strategies and Exams
and The Effect of using them Mohammad Abdulkareem Al-Ayasrah, & Thurayya Suleman Al-Shabibi ...... 535 • Factors that affect the use of assistive technology with students with multiple disabilities
in their institutions and the attitudes of teachers toward this use
Turki Abdullah S. Alquraini ...... 559 • The Effects of TRIZ Theory's Strategies in Improving Creative Teaching Science Skills
for Female Student Teachers at Princess Nora Bint AbdulRahman University Amani M. Al-Hussan, & Jabber M. Aljabber ...... 583 • The Effect of using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy in Developing the Natural Intelligence by Students of Geography Department in the College of Basic Education University of Mosul Fadhil Khalil Ibrahim, & Rawaa Bahae Karkaje ...... 611 • The Effect of Using Teaching Po rtfolio on Developing Reflective Thinking among Master
Program Students in Education College at King Saud University Latefa Saleh ALsemairi ...... 635 • Review book (Leading Curriculum Development) ...... 657 English section • Parental Satisfaction with Special Education Services for Students with Learning
Disabilities: Riyadh Zaed M. AL Battal ...... 663
14. The researcher must add a transliterating (Romanizing) form of the Arabic references and must be included in the English references list according to their alphabetical order. Example: Al-jabr, S. (1991). The Evaluation of geography instruction and the variety of its teaching concerning the experience, nationality, and the field of study in intermediate schools in Saudi Arabia (in Arabic). Journal of King Saud University- Educational Sciences, 3 (1), 143-170. 15. The Arabic references list should be at the end of the manuscript followed by the English references list according to the APA Style. 16. The manuscript must be accompanied by a statement that the manuscript has not been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere. 17. All accepted manuscripts become the property of JES, and must not be published in any other vessel whether in paper or electronically without a written permission from the editor in chief. 18. Opinions in the manuscripts do not express JES view; rather they express only the researchers’ views. 19. The editors’ board has the right to set priorities of publishing the research. 20. Manuscripts are submitted electronically through the e-mail address: [email protected].
Instructions for Authors
1. A Manuscript must not exceed 30 pages, including Arabic and English abstracts and references. 2. A Manuscript must include Arabic and English abstracts, each of them must not exceed 200 words. 3. Each abstract is followed by not more than five Key Words -that do not exist in the title of the manuscript - for indexing. 4. Margins of the manuscript pages (top, bottom, left and right) must be 3 cm and the line spacing should be single. 5. The size and style of the Arabic font in the manuscript must be 16 (Simplified Arabic) and for the English font must be 11 (Times New Roman). 6. The size and style of the Arabic font in the tables must be 11 (Simplified Arabic) and for the English font must be 8 (Times New Roman). 7. Numerals in the manuscript must be (Arabic 1-2-3…). 8. A Manuscript should include page numbers at the middle bottom of the page. 9. The title of the manuscript, the name of researcher/ researchers, the affiliation institution and the corresponding address must be typed on a separate page, followed by the manuscript pages where the title of the manuscript is typed at the top of the first page. 10. Name/names of the author/authors should not be openly expressed in the manuscript or expressed by any indication that might reveal their identity; however, the word (researcher/researchers) may be used instead of the name in the manuscript, citation and references list. 11. The manuscript must be organized as follows:
- A) Empirical Research: Starts by an introduction that presents the background of the research, the need for it, and justifications for conducting it. Related studies should be integrated included in the introduction without allocating sub-titles. Then, present the problem followed by the objectives and questions or hypotheses. Afterwards, method that includes: population, sample, materials, and procedures. Data analysis should be included followed by the results and discussion including recommendations. References should be at the end of the manuscript according to the APA Style. - B) Theoretical Study: Starts by an introduction that paves the way for the central idea to be discussed by the research and illustrates the literature review, importance and its scientific addition to its field. Then present the method followed by sections of the study. Each section must reveal a certain idea that represents part of the central idea. The manuscript should be ended by a comprehensive summary that includes the most significant results that the study concluded. References should be at the end of the manuscript according to the APA Style. 12. JES adopts the American Psychological Association (APA) Style- 6th ed. 13. It is the responsibility of the researcher to make sure that the manuscript is free of linguistic, grammatical and typo errors. Development of the Journal of Educational Sciences
• 1397 (1977) The first issue was published under the title 'Studies '. • 1404 (1984) The title was changed to: ' Educational Studies ' Journal of the Faculty of Education, King Saud University. • 1409 (1989) The title was changed to: Journal of King Saud University 'Educational Sciences '. • 1412 (1992) The title was changed to: Journal of King Saud University 'Educational Sciences and Islamic Studies '. • 1433 (2012) The journal was divided into two journal: ' Journal of Educational Sciences ' and 'Journal of Islamic Studies '. • 1434 (2013) The first issue of the ' Journal of Educational Sciences ' was published.
Contact us (Journal of Educational Sciences ) P.O. Box: 2458, Postal Code: 11451 College of Education, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Tel: (+966) 1-4674454 Fax: (+966) 1-4679965 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://jes.ksu.edu.sa
Subscription and Exchange King Saud University Press, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia P.O. Box: 68953, Postal Code: 11537
Price: SR 40 / US$ 20 including mail.
Journal of Educational Sciences
The Journal of Educational Sciences ( JES ) is a refereed periodical concerned with research in the field of Educational Sciences. It is published by the King Saud University; three times a year in February, May and November . The JES provides opportunities for researchers all over the world to publish their researche and studies in the feild of educational sciences; that are characterized by originality, novelty and committed to the scientific ethics. The JES publishes manuscripts, in both Arabic and English languages that have not been previously published. Those include empirical researches, theoretical studies, literature reviews, conferences reports, and theses abstracts. The JES also welcomes reviews of recently published books in the area of educational sciences.
Vision: To be a leading journal that is classified among the most famous international databases specialized in publishing refereed research in educational sciences.
Mission: Publishing refereed research in accordance with distinguished professional international standards in educational sciences.
Objectives: 1. To be an academic reference for researchers in educational sciences. 2. Meeting the needs of researchers at the local, regional and international levels for publishing in educational sciences. 3. Contributing to building the knowledge-based society through publishing high quality educational research that would contribute to the development and progress of the society.
(ISSN: 1018-3620)
Journal of Educational Sciences
Consulting Editors Editor-in-Chief
Prof. Abdulaziz A. Albabtain, Prof. Yousif Abdulrahaman Alshumaimri King Saud University, (KSA)
Dr. Bill Atweh, Editing Manager Curtin University, (Australia) Prof. Abdelwahab Mohamed Elnaggar
Prof. Fahad S. Alshaya, King Saud University, (KSA) Associated Editors
Prof. Rafe'a A. Zghoul, Prof. Omar A. Almofadda, Yarmouk University, King Saud University, (Jordan) (KSA)
Prof. Mohammed S. Almekhlafi, Prof. Rashid H. Alkathiri, The Shura Council, Dammam University, (KSA) (KSA) Prof. Jamal M. Alkhateeb, Prof. Yahya K. Alnakeeb, The University of Jordan, Newman University, (Jordan) (UK) Prof. Salman H. AlAni, Indiana University, (USA) Secretary Prof. Maher M. Abu Hilal, Sultan Qaboos Uinversity,
Mr. Fahad Isa Abdullatif (Oman) Mr. Abdo Noman Almufti Dr. Saleh A. Alabdulkareem, King Saud University, (KSA) Prof. Haya S. Alrawaf, Technical Design King Saud University, Mr. Ayman Awad Zaky (KSA)
© 2014 (1436H.) King Saud University All rights are reserved to the Journal of King Saud University. No part of the journal may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or via any storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the Editor-in-Chief.
Journal of Educational Sciences
Published by King Saud University
Periodical Academic Refereed
Volume 26, Issue No. 3 November 2014 Muharram 1436
http://jes.ksu.edu.sa
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful