Volume 4 Issue 1 (February 2012) - Ozean Publications

European Journal of Educational Studies 4(1), 2012
METHODOLOGY
Subjects: The subjects are all the graduates of the program working in Jordan who have been reached; the
total number of which is 80.
Instruments: A questionnaire has been designed to consist of two parts .
Part 1 includes a list of competencies necessary for teachers of special education to assess the importance
of each area of competencies in the work of the teacher, and to determine how well the college program in
general has prepared the graduates to function in that area. Through literature review concerning common
core competencies of special education teacher, researchers have developed a list of competencies
necessary for teachers of special education, and the programs of teacher education in special education
aim to develop it (CEC, 1983; CEC, 1992; CEC, 2002). There is an agreement between specialists on a
number of competencies. The most prominent one is the competencies set by CEC as well as the
competencies from many studies and documents (Blanton, 1992; York and Reynolds, 1998; Reynolds,
1990; Crockett, 2002; Kerns, 1996; Thomas and Loadman, 2001; Hayes, 2002; and Wilcox, et al, 2002).
The total number of competencies is 57 distributed at 7 dimensions, see Tables 1, 2, 3,4,5,6 and 7.(
Rating scales from 1 to 4 is identified for questions 1 and 2 (Part 1). These questions will be repeated here
for convenience.
-To what extent these competencies are important for effective work in the field
-To what extent the program has prepared you to perform it effectively
Scale 4 indicates that the competency is very important, and the program ability to develop it is high. As
for scale 3, it indicates that the competency is important, and the program ability to develop is moderate.
Regarding scale 2, it is evident that the competency is less important, and the program ability to develop
is weak. Concerning scale 1, it is obvious that the competency is not important, and the program ability to
develop is nonexistent. Cut points which were identified as 3.27 or more mean that the competency is
very important, and the program ability to develop is high. Cut points from 2.51 to 3.26 mean the
competency is important, and the program ability to develop is moderate. Cut points from 1.75 to 2.50
indicate that the competency is less important, and the program ability to develop is weak. Cut points less
than 1.75 mean that the competency is not important, and the program ability to develop is nonexistent.
Part 2 of the questionnaire has been designed to answer question 2, which includes a cluster of openended
questions concerning their perception of the program content and outcomes. These questions have
been abstracted from (Mastropeiri, 2001; AL-Smadi, 1999; Crockett, 2002; Kerns, 1996; Thomas and
Loadman, 2001; Hayes, 2002; and Wilcox, et al, 2002(
Judgments agreement is 88% of the 12 faculty members who are involved. The questionnaire has been
distributed to 80 (42 male and 38 female) graduates, and the returning rate is 90%.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data obtained were analyzed using Descriptive statistical (frequencies and means) with the application of
statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) to examine graduate responses to the questions in part 1
of the questionnaire. Frequencies and percentages are used to examine graduate responses to the questions
in part 2 of the questionnaire.
37