Smit Atlas (2002)

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.

AN ENVESTIGATION OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF
STUDENTS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENT IN THE SPECIAL
SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN RIYADH
CITY IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
ALI H. ALZAHRANI
2005
UMI Number: 3190400
UMI Microform 3190400

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS
WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENT IN THE SPECIAL SCHOOLS
FOR THE DEAF AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN RIYADH CITY
IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
By
Ali Hassan Alzahrani

B.A., King Saud University, 1993
M.Ed. University of Pittsburgh, 1999
Submitted to the Department of Special Education

and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dissertation Committee:
___________________________
Chairperson
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Dissertation defended:
i
ABSTRACT
Today the new trend in educating students with hearing impairment in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is to educate these students in public schools with hearing
students. One of the assumptions for educating deaf students in public schools is the
expected benefit of students with hearing impairment learning how to interact with
their normally hearing peers. This assumption is based on the theory that students
with hearing impairment will benefit from exposure to their hearing peers who can
serve as models of developmentally appropriate social behavior.
The issues surrounding the educational placement and social development of
students with hearing impairment are numerous. The social adjustment skills of
students with hearing impairment have been discussed in several studies. The results
of these studies indicate that students with hearing impairment differ in their social
development and social adjustment skills according to the type of the educational
setting and program. These studies have provided conflicting results about the social
development of students with hearing impairment in special schools for the deaf and
those in public schools.
Since programs for students with hearing impairment have increased in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as have the options for educational placement, educators
have not explored the issue of social development. The present study investigated the
social development of students with hearing impairment enrolled in special schools
for the deaf and in public schools in Riyadh City in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The study investigated whether the social competence and social adjustment skills of
students with hearing impairment differ significantly according to the type of
educational placement, program, and gender.
ii
Three hundred seventy-five students with hearing impairment were selected
from special schools for the deaf and public schools in Riyadh to participate in this
study. Two scales were used to examine peer relations, academic behavior, self-
management, and social adjustment. The two scales used were the Social Emotional
Assessment Inventories (SEAI)(Meadow, 1983), and the School Social Behavior
Scales (SSBS-2)(Merrell, 2002). A series of statistical analyses were used to
determine if there is a significant difference in the peer relationship, academic
behavior, self-management, and social adjustment scores of students with hearing
impairment according to the type of educational setting, program, and student gender.
The findings of this study indicated that there were no significant differences
in peer relations, academic behavior, self-management, and social adjustment of
students with hearing impairment relative to the educational setting and program.
Also, the results indicated that there were no significant differences related to the
student’s gender in academic behavior and self-management. However, the findings
of this study indicated that there were significant differences between male and
female students in peer relations and social adjustment.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I thank Allah my Creator and sustainer for all the Mercy He Bestowed
and Showered upon me, providing for me every need, energy, and knowledge to
achieve this humble effort.
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my Advisor, Dr. Sally
Roberts for her assistance, support, and academic guidance throughout my doctoral
program. Without her invaluable comments, suggestions and guidance, this study
would have been exponentially more difficult. Thank you Dr. Sally.
I also thank my committee members, Dr. Thomas Skrtic, Dr. Nancy
Montgomery, Dr. Suzanne Rice, and Dr. Earle Knowlton for their time, comments
and suggestions in all parts of this study during my orals defense. Thanks to Dr.
Ibrahim Abunayyan, Dr. Abdulla Alwablee, Dr.Zaidan Al Sartawi, and Dr.
Abdulghaffar Aldamatty for their suggestion and correction for checking about the
accuracy of Arabic scales translation.
I would like to thank the ministry of education, General Secretariat of Special
Education in The kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Educational district in Riyadh City. Also,
I would like to thank king Saud University, College of education, Special education
department and the Cultural mission of Saudi Arabia to The USA for supporting.
I am also grateful to my family. To my parents, and my siblings, thank you for
your love and encouragement throughout this journey. Special thanks to my precious
wife Aminah and my three wonderful children Rayed, Hassan, and Monther. Thank
you all.
iv
Table of Contents
Cover Page………………………………………………………………………......... i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………......ii
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………… iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..V
List of Table…………………………………………………………………………. ix
List of Appendix…………………………………………………………………….. xi
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………..1
Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………..2
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………….4
Research Questions …………………………………………………………...5
Statement of Hypotheses ……………………………………………………...6
Terminology …………………………………………………………………..7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature …………………………………………………..9
Special Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia …………………………..9
The History of the Development of Special Education in
Saudi Arabia ..... ...................................................................................9
Special Education Policy in Saudi Arabia ...........................................13
The Group Benefiting From Special Education ..................................16
Educational Placement for students with special needs
in Saudi Arabia ....................................................................................17
The Training of Special Education Teachers ......................................18
Deaf Education Programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ...........................20
Institutes and Programs of the Hearing Impaired ....................20
Students with Hearing Impairment in Public
v
Education………………………………………………..........22
Special Education Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the
American Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).......................25
Social Development in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students ...........................28
Social Development of Deaf Students in Relation to
School Settings and Programs .................................................29
Social Interaction of Young Hearing Impaired
Students ...................................................................................39
Social Development of Older Hearing Impaired
Students ...................................................................................48
The Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED)………...56
Summary .........................................................................................................59
Chapter 3: Research methodology .............................................................................61
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................61
Participants ......................................................................................................62
Students ...............................................................................................62
Participant Selection ............................................................................64
Instrument ........................................................................................................70
Reliability and Validity .......................................................................71
Reliability of Data Collection …………………………….....74
Scale Translation …………………………………………….74
Procedures …………………………………………………………………...74
Workshop Session …………………………………………………...74
vi
Data Collection ……………………………………………………...75
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………..75
Chapter 4: Results and Analysis ……………………………………………………. 77
Reliability of Data Collection …………………………………………….....77
Descriptive Analysis for Each Scales' Item ……………………………….....77
Descriptive Analysis of Peer Relations Items………………………..77
Descriptive Analysis of Academic Behavior Items………………….82
Descriptive Analysis of Self-management Items…………………….86
Descriptive Analysis of Social Adjustment Items …………………...90
Descriptive Analysis for Each Scale…………………………………………96
Analysis of Variance ………………………………………………………...98
One-way ANOVA on Each Item of All Scales
in This Study …...................................................................................98
One-way ANOVA for Each Scale ………………………………….100
Educational Setting ………………………………………...101
Type of Communication Program ………………………….101
Gender ……………………………………………………...101
Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications, Recommendations, and Summary …………..104
Reliability ………………………………………………………………….104
Discussion ………………………………………………………………….104
Limitation of This Study …………………………………………………...110
Implications and Recommendation for Educational Programming
to Improve the Social Development of Students with Hearing
Impairment …………....................................................................................111
Recommendations for Future Research ……………………………………112
vii
Summary …………………………………………………………………...113
References ………………………………………………………………….115
viii
List of Tables
Table Page
1 The Distribution of the Students According to Age ……………............ 63
2 The Distribution of the Students According to Grade level …………… 63
3 The Distribution of the Students According to Gender ……………. 64
4 The Distribution of the Students According Educational Setting ………. 64
5 The Distribution of the Participants According to Program Type …….. 64
6 Scales Distribution and Return ………………………………. 66
7 Special Schools for the Deaf (Male), Total Number of the Students,
Selected Sample and the Participants …………………………………….. 67
8 Special Schools for the Deaf (Female), Total Number of the Students,
Selected Sample and the Participants …………………………………… 68
9 The Name of Schools, Total Number of Students in Schools

(Self-contained Classes for the Deaf), Selected Sample, and Participant
Sample ……………………………………………………………………. 68
10 Name of Schools for Male (Self-Contained Classes for Hard of

Hearing), Total Number of Students, Selected Sample, and Participant
Sample …………………………………………………………………… 69
11 Name of Schools for female (Self-Contained Classes for Hard of

Hearing), total Number of Students, Selected Sample, and Participant
Sample …………………………………………………………………… 69
12 Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Peer Relations Scale
According to Type of Educational Setting ………………………………. 78
13 Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Peer Relations Scale
According to the Type of Program ……………………………………. 80
14 Mans & Standard Deviations for Each item of Peer Relations Scale
According to the Type of Gender ………………………………………... 82
15 Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Academic Behavior

According to the Type of Educational Setting …………………………... 84
16 Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Academic Behavior

According to the Type of Program ………………………………………. 85
ix
17 Means & Standard Deviations for Each item of Academic Behavior
According to the Type of Gender ……………………………………… 86
18 Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Self-management

According to the Type of Educational Setting …………………………. 87
19 Mean & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Self-management

According to the Type of Program ……………………………………. 88
20 Mean & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Self-management

According to the Type of Gender ……………………………………… 89
21 Means & standard Deviation for Each Item of Social Adjustment

According to the Type of Educational Setting ……………………........ 91
22 Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Social Adjustment

Scale by Program Type …………………………………….. ………….. 93
23 Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Social Adjustment

by Gender …………………………………………………... ………….. 95
24 Mean & Standard Deviation for Each Scale and Subscale by
Type of Education Setting………………………………........................ 97
25 Mean & Standard Deviation for Each Scale and Subscale by the
Type of Program……………………………………………………… 97
26 Mean & Standard Deviation for Each Scale and Subscale by
Gender…………………………………………………………………. 98
27 Summary of One –Way ANOVA for Peer Relations Items …..………. 123
28 Summary of One –Way ANOVA for Academic Behavior Items ...……… 124
29 Summary of One- Way ANOVA for Self- management Items………….. 125
30 Summary of One- Way ANOVA for Social Adjustment Items ………….. .126
31 One –way ANOVA for peer relation by gender …………………………. 102

32 One –way ANOVA for social adjustment by gender ……………………... 102
33 Means and Standard Deviations for Peer Relations ……………………... 103
34 Means and Standard Deviations for social

Adjustment ……………………………………………………………….. 103
x
List of Appendices
Appendix A Tables of One-Way ANOVA for Each Item in Peer

Relations, Academic Behavior, Self-management, and
Social Adjustment Scale
Appendix B Instrument, Cover Letter Arabic Copy for School Social

Behavior Scale and Meadow-Kendall Social-emotional
Assessment Inventories for Deaf and Hearing-Impaired
Students
Appendix C Letter submitted to Four Special Education professors for

Checking about Arabic translation Statements and Example of
Correction Form
Appendix D Letter of Gaining Access
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Socialization is one of the main ideas embedded within the “least restrictive
environment” mandate, which implies that schools serve an important role in providing
opportunities for social interaction. In relation to the education of deaf children, part of the idea
of mainstreaming is that deaf children will benefit from positive role models demonstrating
appropriate social interaction, and that they will learn how to function in a hearing world and
improve their socialization skills. However, social development depends on, among other things,
communication. Limitations in communication skills present an obstacle that children with
disabilities must overcome if they want to experience positive social interaction. One is left with
the question: what type of setting and program would promote and improve social development,
and reduce the social isolation of deaf and hearing impaired children?
Increasingly, most educators in the field of special education desire public school
placement for children with hearing impairment as the least restrictive environment (LRE)
(Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996). However, several studies found that social isolation and
low self-esteem is more of a problem among deaf children in public school than among deaf
children in segregated settings (Antia, 1982; Charlson et al., 1992; Farrigua & Austin, 1980;
Kennedy, Northcott, McCauley, & Williams, 1976; Reich, Hambleton, & Houldin, 1977).
Contrary to these negative results, however, several studies have shown that special programs
can have positive effects on the interaction between deaf and hearing children in public schools
(Davis, 1986; Kluwin & Gonsher, 1994; Ladd, Munson & Miller, 1984).
This study examined the social development skills of students with hearing impairment in
both special schools for the deaf and in public school settings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The study
2
also examined whether social competence and adjustment skills differ significantly according to
educational setting. In addition, the researcher also examined whether the type of educational
program (i.e., oral, Total Communication) and student gender would significantly affect social
competence.
Statement of the Problem
In 1962, when the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Education passed Resolution No. 2385 to
establish the Department of Special Education as a General Directorate, students with disabilities
(i.e., blind, deaf, mentally retarded) who were receiving special education services at that time
were being educated in two types of educational settings—residential institutes, a kind of
educational setting that provided facilities to house students as well as to educate them, and Day
Institutes, an educational setting where students with special needs commuted to school daily.
The Day Institutes “provided them with educational programs during the day and allowed them
to return to their families after school” (Al-Mosa, 1999, p. 34).
Recently, patterns of educational placement for students with hearing impairment in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have undergone significant change and there has been a significant
increase in the educational placement options for students. The General Secretariat of Special
Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided three new options of educational placement
for students with hearing impairment in addition to the two educational placement options
mentioned previously. The first option was self-contained classes (day classes in public schools).
These classes provide students with hearing impairment with adequate materials and equipment,
certified and experienced teachers of students with disabilities, and a minimum class size of five
students. Second, resource rooms were established in public schools for students with hearing
loss who need more services than they can get in the general education classroom. Teachers in
3
this program provide individual services to students varying in age and academic achievement.
Third, an itinerant and counselors program was provided where the itinerant teachers work with
students with hearing impairment from different schools. The counselor teachers may teach
through a resource room and provide assistance for regular teachers who teach students with
hearing impairment in their classrooms (Al-Mosa, 1999).
According to Al-Mosa (1999), the special education programs for students with hearing
impairment in public schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have positive effects on social
development, social adjustment, and interaction between deaf and hearing students in public
schools. Special programs in public schools will also have positive effects on the academic
achievement of the deaf students enrolled.
One of the assumptions for educating deaf students in public schools is the expected
benefit of students with hearing impairment learning how to interact with their normally hearing
peers. The social interaction that occurs in public schools provides deaf students with a context
in which to develop the social skills necessary to function in the hearing world (Mertens, 1989).
This position supports the theory that deaf children will benefit from exposure to their hearing
peers who serve as models of developmentally appropriate social behavior.
The issues surrounding the educational placement and social development of deaf
students are numerous. Research studies have provided conflicting results about the social
development between deaf students in residential and public schools. The results indicate that
students with hearing impairment in public schools often feel very lonely, frustrated, rejected,
and unable to communicate with their hearing peers (Antia, 1982; Stinson & Lang, 1994). In
contrast, students with hearing impairment in residential schools report that they have more
friends, feel emotionally secure, and have higher self-esteem (Mertens, 1989; Farrugia & Austin,
4
1980). Several studies found that students with hearing impairment differ significantly in their
social competence according to setting, program, gender, and age (Cartledge, Cochran, & Paul,
1996; Cappelli, Daniels, Durieux-Smith, McGrath, & Neuss, 1995; Leigh & Stinson, 1991;
Mootilal & Musselman, 1994).
The issue of the social development of students with hearing impairment has not been
fully explored by educators in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Since different educational
placement options for students with hearing impairment have increased in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, it is appropriate to investigate the impact of these options on social development. This
study looked at the social development of students with hearing impairment in the special
schools for the deaf and in the public school settings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The findings of this study are expected to produce several outcomes that may
significantly impact decisions about educational placement options for students with hearing
impairment. The study will also increase the knowledge of educators, teachers, parents, and all
individuals who are interested in deaf education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the
data are expected to encourage special educators in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to continue to
investigate the social development of students with hearing impairment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the following study was to examine the social development skills of
students with hearing impairment who are enrolled in either special schools for the deaf or public
schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The study examined whether the social competence and social
adjustment skills of students with hearing impairment differ significantly according to
educational placement. In addition, it also examined whether or not social competence and social
5
adjustment skills differed significantly according to the type of program (i.e., oral, Total
Communication) and gender.
Research Questions
In order to examine the social development of students with hearing impairment who are
enrolled in special schools for the deaf and public schools, the following research questions were
explored in the areas of (a) Social Competence which included three areas—1) peer relations, 2)
self- management, 3) academic behavior; and (b) social adjustment.
Social Competence:
Peer relations
1. Is there a significant difference in the peer relations scores of students with
hearing impairment according to the type of educational setting, program, and/or
gender?
Self-Management
1. Is there a significant difference in the self-management scores of students with
gender?
Academic Behavior
1. Is there a significant difference in the academic behavior scores of students with
gender?
6
Social Adjustment:
1. Is there a significant difference in the Social adjustment scores of students with
gender?
Statement of Hypotheses
I. There is no significant difference in the peer relations scores of students with
gender?
II. There is no significant difference in the self- management scores of students with
gender?
III. There is no significant difference in the academic behavior scores of students with
gender?
IV. There is no significant difference in the Social adjustment scores of students with
gender?
7
Terminology
Definitions for social development and skills. Social competence refers to the following
characteristics: a) the ability to direct oneself, b) the ability to adapt to the needs of a divers
situation, and c) the ability to establish good peer relationships. In general, Foster and Ritchey
(1979) referred to social competence as "those responses which, within a given situation,
maximize the probability of producing, maintaining, or enhancing positive effects for the
interactor" (p.626). Peer relations refer to the ability to listen and respect others and the ability to
make friends. Self- management refers to social skills related to self-restraint, cooperation, and
compliance with the demands of school rules and expectations.
Academic behavior refers to social skills that are related to competent performance and
engagement on academic tasks while social adjustment is the administration of positive social
behaviors such as following rules, cooperating and sharing with others in classroom and school
activities (Merrill, 2002; Meadow, 1983).
In addition, for the purpose of this study deafness is defined as a severe hearing loss that
limits the child’s ability to processes linguistic information through hearing, with or without
amplification, and that adversely affects educational performance (National Center for Law and
Deafness, 1996). A student is classified as deaf if he or she has a hearing loss of 70dB or greater
in an individual's better ear and hard of hearing if the hearing loss prevents the understanding of
spoken language through the ear alone, with or without hearing aids. An individual is usually
considered hard of hearing if the loss ranges from 35dB to 69 dB (Moores, 1996). Hearing
impairment refers to all types and ranges of hearing loss from birth to old age.
Educational settings. Residential schools for the deaf are programs that provide facilities
to house students as well as to educate them. Day schools for the deaf are programs established
8
in large metropolitan areas that educate deaf students exclusively (Moores, 1996). Day classes
refer to self-contained classrooms for the deaf established in public school buildings in which the
majority of students have normal hearing (Heward & Orlansky, 1992).
Educational programs based on method of communication. The oral method of communication
relies on speech only for communication. Total communication may involve one or several
modes of communication (manual, oral, auditory, and written), depending on the particular needs
of the child.
9
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter includes two sections that are related to the current study. The first section
provides a history of special education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It consists of several
areas that the investigator believes to be relevant to and important for the totality of this study
and includes (a) the history of the development of special education in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, (b) special education policy in Saudi Arabia, (c) the group benefiting from special
education, (d) educational placement for students with special needs in Saudi Arabia, (e) the
training of special education teachers, (f) deaf education programs in The Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, (g) special education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and (e) the American
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The second section will focus on social
development in deaf and hard of hearing students including several areas that are relevant to the
study. However, due to the lack of empirical studies on social development in deaf and hard of
hearing students in Saudi Arabia, the review will depend heavily on relevant research in the
United States.
Special Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The History of the Development of Special Education in Saudi Arabia
Historically, education began very early in the Arabian Peninsula with the Directorate of
Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia established in 1925. At that time, Egyptian assistance
was called upon to initiate an educational system patterned after the Egyptian system which had
French origin. This system provided for six years of elementary school followed by a five-year
10
secondary cycle. In 1932, with the founding of Saudi Arabia, King Abdul Aziz, expanded the
responsibilities of the Directorate of Education in terms of the territory it covered. Many schools
were established in almost all of the important Saudi Arabian cities. Also, the responsibilities and
duties of the General Directorate of Education was expanded to establish the regulations of
schools as the entire country was in the process of laying the foundation for educational
organization. Before 1932, there was no public school system. Only four private elementary
schools existed which were all placed under the supervision of the Directorate of Education upon
its establishment in 1925. In 1952, the government of Saudi Arabia established more than 306
elementary schools. Because the expansion in education was so rapid, on December 24, 1953,
the government established the Ministry of Education, which later created separate school
districts in different parts of the country. In 1958, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, along with other
members of the Arab league, agreed upon a uniform educational system that provided for a 6-
year elementary, a 3-year intermediate and a 3-year secondary cycle (Ministry of Education,
1978). It should also be noted that then and in the current system of education, males and
females are educated separately.
The ministry of Education of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had been attempting to
develop and diversify education according to a specific plan aimed at giving all citizens in all
parts of the country the opportunity to receive an education. In doing this, the ministry did not
ignore the importance of the education of children with disabilities. The earliest recorded history
of special education was in 1958 when Al-Ghanem, a blind man, learned the Braille system of
reading and writing from an Iraqi man visiting Saudi Arabia at that time. Al-Ghanem then
introduced the Braille system to a few blind men who were attending the general public school.
This private effort lasted for about two years. The government supported this undertaking and
11
offered the opportunity to use government buildings and materials to teach these blind men in the
evening (Al-Mosa, 1999). Due to its success, in 1960 two years after those initial Braille classes,
the Ministry of Education opened the first Institute for the training of the blind. It was called The
Institute of Light for the Education and Training of the Blind in Riyadh. This Institute was the
first real step toward organized special education in Saudi Arabia. In 1962, the Ministry of
Education established the first Administration of Special Education, which was at that time
providing services for the blind, deaf, and students with mental retardation. In 1964, the first
school for blind girls was founded. In the same year, the first deaf school, Al-Amal Institute, was
established in Riyadh City to provide education for deaf children. Also, the first specialized
institute for children with mental retardation, Al-Riaih Institute, was opened in 1971. And later,
in 1972, the Ministry of Education passed Resolution No.674/36/40 to upgrade the
Administration of Special Education to the Directorate-General of Special Education with three
specialized departments. The latter includes the administration of programs for individuals who
are blind, deaf, or have mental retardation. Also, these three departments are responsible for the
preparation and execution of educational programs for each group, male and female, monitoring
educational progress and ensuring that the schools follow the established program. The programs
included the publication of special education curricula and the provision of technical assistance
and training programs for teachers. Also, these programs provide parents with information
regarding the benefits of special education for their children. In 1983, The Directorate-General of
Special Education was named the General Secretariat of Special Education, with the same
specialized departments. The General Secretariat of Special Education continued in its efforts to
open special Institutes each year to ensure that each local educational district had the proper
facilities to accommodate the students with disabilities in their area (Al-Mosa, 1999).
12
In 1996, the General Secretariat of Special Education began overseeing the planning and
implementation of programs for students with disabilities at all levels throughout the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia developing new and different educational administrations for students with
different disabilities. The General Secretariat is divided among seven departments. These include
the Educational Administration for the Blind, the Educational Administration for the Deaf, the
Educational Administration for the Mentally Retarded, the Educational Administration for
Learning Disabled students, the Educational Administration for gifted students, the Educational
Advisory Unit, and the center for Physical Therapy and Training (Al-Mosa, 1999).
The Educational Administrations for each of the categorical areas take care of the
preparation and administration of educational programs for all students with disabilities who are
qualified to receive services. They also monitor the programs' progress and ensure its
effectiveness, and play a role in enlightening students with disabilities in the value and benefits
of these educational programs, which are specially adapted to their abilities, so that they will
achieve enhanced abilities that will help them be more independent.
The Educational Advisory Unit provides for the continuous evaluation of educational
programs and social services. This evaluation is performed through field visits. It also is
involved in preparing the curriculum and educational books and choosing suitable equipment.
Moreover, it works to improve teaching methods as well as provide meetings of teachers in
schools for the purpose of staff development and training.
The Physical Therapy and Training Unit cares for students with special needs and offers
physical and occupational therapy focused on the specific disabilities of individual students.
The General Secretariat of Special Education set up critical objectives to help its various
departments work to develop and improve and special education for all students with disabilities
13
in Saudi Arabia. These objectives included the planning and preparing of special programs, the
supervision of their implementation and the follow up of their progress. Additionally, the
General Secretariat formulated the policies and the procedures that the separate departments
must follow in their administration of special education programs and other activities related to
their specific areas, and offered technical and administrative help whenever needed. They
drafted the necessary plans to ensure the covering of all the Kingdom’s needs in terms of
institutes and programs, and distributed them according to each district’s needs. Another task of
the Secretariat involved participation in educational research programs in special education, the
writing of books and the selection of suitable assessment instruments, and in preparing training
programs in special education at its various levels. Finally, they directed participation in
debating groups, meetings, and conferences related to each separate specialization (Al-Mosa,
1999).
Currently the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has three government agencies that administer
the different types of services for individuals with disabilities: 1) The General Secretariat of
Special Education which develops the specific social and technical services; 2) The Ministry of
Labor and Social Affairs that supervises programs which focus on training and rehabilitation;
and 3) The Ministry of Health that provides integrated medical, psychological, and counseling
services as part of its physical rehabilitation programs. In addition, the General Presidency of
Youth Welfare provides a variety of sports, cultural, and recreational activities for individuals
with disabilities (Ministry of Education, 1978).
Special Education Policy in Saudi Arabia
The Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia did not ignore the importance of the education
of children with disabilities. It has been attempting to provide them with an appropriate
14
education equal to that of non-disabled children. Articles 29 to 61 of the general education policy
in Saudi Arabia specify two important principles of Islam in relation to special education and in
achieving the overall purpose of education. First, as Islam is a combination of religion and
secularism, the demonstration of the full harmony between science and religion is found in the
Islam Law, and Islamic thought meets all the human needs in their highest forms and at all ages.
The caring for students with academic delays, eliminating as many of their disabilities as
possible, and establishing special and appropriate environmental and provisional programs to fit
their needs is an exemplification of Islamic thought (Ministry of Education, 1978).
In 1990-1992 the Education Policy in the government of Saudi Arabia focused on the
education of children with disabilities and initiated reforms and new and special policies and
principles for special education. These included 1) a ministerial order’s instruction that no
students may be dismissed from any level of education for repeated failure as long as he / she is
still in the age bracket of that level; 2) the establishment of new units and facilities and
modernizing existing ones to improve the care and services offered to students with disabilities;
3) the improvement of curricula for special education; and 4) the establishment of a program at
the King Saud University’s College of Education to prepare teachers specialized in the teaching
students who are blind, deaf and have mental retardation (Ministry of Education,1990).
The objectives of special education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are to provide
students with disabilities with a free and appropriate education and appropriate rehabilitation
programs. It also is intended to help students with disabilities to discover their skills according to
their abilities. Moreover, it designs special and suitable plans and programs to enable students
with disabilities to better understand the values and conditions that affect their lives and to
15
prepare them to share with normal people in all aspects of life. In order to achieve these
objectives, The General Secretariat of Special Education set up the following principles:
1. To identify students with special needs and their locations to provide them
with special education programs;
2. To discover each child’s skills and abilities, and develop each of these through
special and appropriate education and activities;
3. To use appropriate related services and materials that may enable students
with special needs to improve their skills according to their abilities;
4. To provide stability and medical, psychological and social care to help
students with disabilities become as independent as possible;
5. To design individualized plans and programs that correspond with each
child’s abilities;
6. To make other members of society aware of the various types of existing
disabilities and the manner and ways in which one should associate with and
relate to these children with disabilities;
7. To adapt schools to provide they have an appropriate environment and the
necessary materials and services necessary for students with disabilities;
8. To prepare students with disabilities for public life so that they become
productive members of society, able to support themselves and productively
participate with others;
9. To provide families who have children with disabilities with information
regarding the ways they might deal with their children in their homes; and
16
10. To provide recourse to educational, psychological, and social researchers to
develop and improve special education programs. This includes coordinating
the participation of professional development activities such as study
scholarships, conferences, seminars and future plans for education expansion.
Also to facilitate the needs assessment of manpower, equipment, books, and
materials (Al-Mosa, 1999).
The Group Benefiting From Special Education
According to Al-Mosa (1999), the General Secretariat of Special Education identified
students who are to be the beneficiaries of special education program policy in Saudi Arabia.
These beneficiaries included students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, and mental
retardation. They also included gifted students, students with learning disabilities, students who
have emotional and behavior disturbances, and those with speech and language impairments.
Finally, students with autism, physical impairments, and those with multiple disabilities were
also to be served. It should be noted that these categorical disability areas are the same ones
included in the United States’ IDEA with the exception of students with traumatic brain injury.
As noted previously, all of these students with different special needs receive free and
appropriate services and programs from different departments in the General Secretariat of
Special Education in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The separate agencies who oversee the
services are the Educational Administration of the Blind, Educational Administration of the
Deaf, the Administration of the Mentally Retarded, Educational Administration for Learning
Disabled Students, the Educational Administration for Gifted Students, the Educational Advisory
Unit, and the Center for Physical Therapy and Training (Al-Mosa, 1999).
17
Educational Placement for students with special needs in Saudi Arabia
In 1962, when the Ministry of Education passed Resolution No. 674/36/40 to establish the
Department of Special Education as a General Directorate, students with disabilities (i.e., blind,
deaf, mentally retarded) who were receiving special education services at that time were getting
their education in two types of programs, Residential Institutes, a kind of program that provided
facilities to house students as well as to educate them, and Day Institutes, a program where
students with special needs commuted to these Institutes daily.
Today, and since 1994, educational placements for students with disabilities in Saudi
Arabia have increased from two types of placements to five. The present tendency in educating
students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia is to educate them in public schools with students
without disabilities. This new trend produces an educational perspective, for example, that
educating children with a hearing impairment in public schools with normal hearing children will
help deaf children to learn how to function in a hearing world and to promote their socialization
and academic skills.
In order to educate students with disabilities in public schools, the General Secretariat of
Special Education upgraded to three more educational placement options for students with
disabilities in addition to the two placements mentioned previously. Self-contained classes (day
classes in public schools) were established in public school buildings. Adequate materials and
equipment and certified teachers with experience with students with disabilities were provided.
These classes have a minimum of five students. In addition, students with disabilities participate
in extracurricular activities with nondisabled students (Al-Mosa, 1999). Resource rooms are
programs where students with disabilities spend 50% of their school day in regular classes with
nondisabled students. These programs provide special materials and equipment and a certified
18
resource room teacher who may provide individualized services to students with disabilities
varying in age and academic achievement. An Itinerant & Counselors program provides follow-
up and support for students with disabilities who are educated full-time in general education
classes. The counselor teacher may teach in a resource room and provide assistance to the regular
teacher who teaches the student with a disability in his or her classroom. In contrast, the itinerant
teacher may work with students with disabilities from several different schools (Al-Mosa, 1999).
In order to improve and develop all of these programs, the General Secretariat of Special
Education mandated the Education Advisory (E.A.) Unit to provide for the continuous evaluation
of the educational programs and social services under the General Secretariat. This function is
performed through field visits. It also performs research, reviews reports, and evaluates
programs. The E.A. Unit is concerned with reviewing the curriculum and suggesting revisions,
modernizing and correcting programs, and fitting programs to each group’s needs in the context
of continuous educational development. The General Secretariat works to improve special
education methods, use of available aids, and raises the standards of teachers (Al-Mosa, 1999).
The E. A. Unit is also involved in preparing the curriculum and educational books, and
choosing suitable equipment. It prepares guidance pamphlets, monitors their implementation and
holds debate groups and meetings in the schools and institutes for the purpose of improving their
educational activities. Finally, it prepares policies for the various out-of-class activities,
supervises their implementation, and evaluates the results (Al-Mosa, 1999).
The Training of Special Education Teachers
Historically, even though there were no universities and colleges that prepared special
education teachers in Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Education established some training
programs for preparing teachers to be able to work with students with disabilities. To do this, the
19
Ministry of Education selected a group of qualified teachers who had experience in the public
schools of not less than three years, and who had a wish to work with children with disabilities.
These individuals were sent to a training course for a period of between six months and two
years so that they might specialize in the teaching of students with disabilities. Some of these
courses were provided within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and some outside of it in
neighboring Arab states or in foreign countries. Advisers and some of the specialized employees
arranged debate groups and conferences within the Institutes in which the teachers work in order
to increase their knowledge of new developments and more advanced methods (Al-Mosa, 1999)
Although there are many universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there is only one
university that offers a Bachelor of Arts degree in Special Education. This degree is granted from
King Saud University in Riyadh City. The program was started in 1984, thus, it is a relatively
new department. The goal of this department is to train undergraduate students to be qualified
teachers of children with special needs including mental retardation, deaf or hard of hearing
students, blind students, and students with severe disabilities. Recently, the Department of
Special Education at King Saud University has started to offer some new majors in the areas of
learning disability and behavior disorders. Most of the faculty in this department are from
foreign Arabic speaking countries. In addition to a lack of universities that offer degrees in
special education, another limitation is that there are no graduate degree programs in existence at
this time. Therefore, there is a shortage of both Saudi and Arabic speaking faculty members to
staff any new programs that other universities might want to initiate. New programs would need
to attract international faculty and there is much time lost because Saudis with B.A. degrees in
the special education field are sent abroad by the government for masters or Ph.D. Degrees in
special education.
20
Deaf Education Programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The real beginning of education of children with hearing loss occurred in 1964 when the
Ministry of Education represented by the Special Education Administration opened the first two
institutes (Al-Amel Institutes) for the deaf in Riyadh City (one for girls and the other for boys).
Forty-one male and female students entered these two institutes. That was the beginning of
programs for students who are deaf and hard of hearing and it paved the way for the spread of
Al-Amal Institutes all over the country. The number of institutes and programs for students with
hearing loss reached 83 by the school year 1999/2000, serving 3,470 students in 441 separate
classes.
Institutes and Programs of the Hearing Impaired
This department is charged with the overall planning and supervision of the institutes and
programs for deaf and hard of hearing students, participation in improving the curricula, and
providing the institutes and programs with the necessary technical and educational needs. It also
aims at raising the level of educational process and the level of manpower in the field of the
hearing impairment. There are several institutes and programs for students with hearing loss.
These programs provide services to students in a number of locations throughout the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia.
Al-Amal Institutes for the Deaf
In 2000/2001, the number of Al-Amal institutes reached 20, serving 2,032 students in 246
classes. Eleven of these institutes provide students with accommodations as well. These include
modifications in the student's environment such as accessible classroom/ location/ furniture,
assistive computer technology, assistive listening devices, lodging, food, clothing, and health and
21
recreational activities for children whose families reside outside of the town where the
specialized programs are available.
The education stages
AL-Amal Institutes and programs provide education at the following levels: (a)
preparation (one year), (b) Primary (Elementary—six years), (c) Intermediate (three years), and
(d) Technical Secondary Education (three years). Each level of learning applies a curriculum
that fits the abilities and conditions of the students with hearing impairment.
Preparation stage. Learning in this stage aims at preparing the child with hearing
impairment to be able to learn in primary school. This stage continues for a one year period. The
educational program involves 30/31 weekly periods that contain Islamic Education subjects,
training of residual hearing, articulation treatment, writing, reading , mathematics, sciences,
technical education, and physical education.
Primary school stage. The student learns in this stage the primary level curriculum of
public education which is amended to fit the hearing impairment requirements. In addition, this
stage provides some particular courses such as training the child to use his remaining hearing in
the learning process, practicing reading and articulation by moving the lips, using individual
audio phones, indicative alphabetic, and the united Arabian figures. The primary stage lasts for
six years. The first learning plan of AL-Amal Primary Institutes was established in 1964 with 34
periods per week; then the plan was amended after ten years and reduced to 30 periods per week.
The intermediate stage. This is a three year learning stage. The student receives cultural
courses that agree with the general education curriculum, as well as continued aspects specific to
hearing loss. The first plan of learning for this stage was established in 1973 with 36 periods per
week, and then the plan was amended after four years in 1976 to be 30 periods per week. In 1981
22
it was extended to 32 periods a week. Again, the plan developed in 1990 was made to fit the
general education learning plan.
The secondary school stage. This stage began in 1990 to complete the educational stages
for students with hearing impairment. This period of learning continues for three years with 32
periods of learning per week. The curriculum is divided into two parts: 1) The cultural
curriculum which contains considerable general culture and knowledge where the student learns
Islamic education, Arabic language, mathematics, social sciences, and physical education; and 2)
the technical division that contains a number of professional fields where the student can
specialize including secretarial, typewriter English and Arabic, computer, photography,
documents, electrical connections, library, and decoration. The Ministry of Education is working
now on preparing learning courses for each subject and renewing the professional fields. They
are also selecting new fields that would qualify students with hearing impairment for the job
market.
Students with Hearing Impairment in Public Education
Self- contained classrooms for the deaf in regular schools. There is a new educational
plan for educating students with hearing impairment with hearing students in the public schools.
In 1991, the General Secretariat of Education initiated this plan in the field of deaf education. It
began in regular schools in the Sakaka District and then in the provinces such as AL –Kharj,
Hafer AL –Paten ,Hail and Goryat. This inclusive program of education had its maximum
growth from 1997-1999. The deaf students received the same curriculum as did all students in
the AL –Amal Primary Institutes but were taught by specialized teachers.
Now there are 36 programs serving 723 students in 117 classes distributed as follows: a)
Al-Amal self-contained programs in elementary schools (30 programs); b) Al-Amal self-

23
contained programs in intermediate schools (5 programs); and c) Al-Amal self-contained
programs at the secondary stage (one program).
There are specific requirements that are considered for students enrolled in these
programs. The student must be totally deaf or have a loss of hearing of 70 dB or greater; the
student must not get less than 75 points on an I.Q. test; and the student must not have any other
disabilities that may prevent him from making use of the programs offered.
Hard of hearing and speech disabilities programs in regular schools. There are 11
programs serving 435 students in 52 classes including ten for elementary stage students with the
11th at the intermediate stage. The students in these programs study the same curricula taught at
the general education school. Hard of hearing and speech disabilities programs are specifically
targeted for two categories of students—hard of hearing and those who have difficulties in
speech and articulation which has negative impact on their learning as well as their social
adaptation in the regular class room. It also provides for the use of medical and educational care
as well as the available auditory services of education in AL-Amal Institutes, particularly in
articulation training. The goal of this program is to enable the students to return to the schools
from which they were previously transferred after being treated for their articulation and speech
problems allowing them to adapt better in their schools and communities. Finally, the program
hopes to improve the student’s self-esteem, and provides psychological services in order for
him/her to achieve social adjustment. This program was designed to reduce attrition in public
education as a result of the repeated failure of students in normal classes.
The requirements for student entry into this program include: a) the student must not get
less than 90 points on an I.Q. test; b) the degree of hearing loss must be between 40 and 69
decibels with hearing aids; c) the student must not have any other disabilities that may prevent
24
him/her from making use of the program offered; and d) the student must be transferred from a
regular school and his/her name (registration) must be kept at the regular school so that he/she
may return if improvement occurs or if a committee of admission determines that he/she should
be returned.
Counselor teacher and resource room programs. The counselor teacher program
was established in 1999. It is charged with following students who have problems in
hearing or speech but remain in their general education classes. It also provides students
with suitable educational services, and the special education and regular education
teachers with consultation and support. There are three itinerant counselor programs
serving 19 students. The counselor teacher works through resource rooms in general
public schools where all the necessary materials and manpower are available.
There are four resource rooms serving 91 students. The resource teacher offers
additional services and instructions from academic subject areas to speech and language
therapy in resource rooms. The teacher in the resource room provides support for deaf
and hearing impaired students studying in the public school. The resource room’s
purpose is to provide space for test-taking accommodations, workstations for students
who need to use adaptive equipment, assistive computer technology, and materials
rendered into alternative formats. In general, these resource rooms are used for a variety
of reasons, including the opportunity for students to get support from different teachers
and the opportunity for special education teachers to work with one another in a team-
teaching atmosphere. The resource rooms are also economical because materials,
equipment, and other supports can be located in one area

25
Hearing and speech centers. There are two centers of hearing and speech in Saudi
Arabia, the first is in Riyadh and the other in Jeddah. These centers serve those students who
have hearing and speech problems and need to be examined and treated in the center. These
centers also provide training for teachers to measure hearing and to make ear molds (Al-Mosa,
1999).
Special Education Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the
American Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Through the review of information about Saudi Arabian special education previously
discussed in this section, the author attempted to examine the historical development of special
education and special education policy in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In this section, special
education law and policy in the U.S.A will be discussed briefly focusing on the concepts and
principles that match the Saudi policies.
In order to make a connection between the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) and special education policy in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it helps to understand the
purposes and principles that are included in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In
1975, Public Law 94-142, the education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed requiring
local and state schools to provide free and appropriate public education to every child with
disabilities five years old or older. The law was later reauthorized and renamed the Individuals
with Disabilities Act (IDEA). IDEA made the federal government responsible for setting the
guidelines for what is an “appropriate education” for a child with disabilities, namely education
in the “least restrictive environment” (LRE) (Lane et al., 1996).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act consists of six major principles. These
six guiding principles of the law are: 1) Zero reject—a rule against the exclusion of any student
26
with disability from a free appropriate public education; 2) Appropriate evaluation—each child
with disabilities has right to be evaluated fairly; 3) Appropriate education—each child with a
disability must have a beneficial education, one that is individualized to their needs; 4) Least
restrictive environment—each child must be educated in the least restrictive environment to the
maximum extent appropriate (i.e., educated with their non disabled peers); 5) Procedural due
process—each student's parents have the right to challenge the school's decisions and comply
with all of the other five principles of IDEA; and 6) Parent and student participation—each
student's parents have the right to participate in the decision-making process regarding their
child’s special education program.
In relation to the first principle (zero reject), in 1990-1992, the education policy in the
government of Saudi Arabia focused on the education of children with disabilities and innovated
new and special policies and principles for special education. One of these principles is similar to
the zero reject in IDEA. This is a ministerial order’s instruction that no students may be
dismissed from any level of education for repeated failure as long as he/ she is still in the age
bracket of that level (Ministry of Education, 1990).
In relation to the term of "appropriate evaluation" in the IDEA, The General Secretariat
of Special Education in Saudi Arabia has a similar principle. First, they are looking for students
with special needs and identifying their locations in order to provide them with special education
programs. Second, they are discovering each child’s skills and abilities, and developing each of
these through special and appropriate education and activities (Al-Mosa, 1999). The General
Secretariat of Special Education in Saudi Arabia also does the planning and preparing of
appropriate and suitable special education programs to give children with disabilities every
possible chance for learning according to their abilities (Al-Mosa, 1999).

27
The concept of least restrictive environment (LRE) in the IDEA is typically interpreted as
the placement of children with disabilities in classes with non-disabled peers. This is termed
“inclusion.” Today, and since 1994, education placements for students with disabilities in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have increased from two classifications to five. The present tendency
in educating students with disabilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is to educate them in
public schools with non-disabled students.
In order to make a decision about what kind of education and placement is appropriate
for students with disability, IDEA requires important processes that must be followed for
defining "appropriate" education and placement. IDEA's technique for defining "appropriate",
requires nondiscriminatory evaluation, developing an individualized education program,
attempting to place the child in the least restrictive environment, seeing that the parents have
access to the child's records throughout this process, and convening a due process hearing if the
parents wish to protest the placement or any other action related to child's right to a free
appropriate education (Turnbull, Turnbull, Stowe, & Wilcox, 2000).
Similar to these processes, the General Secretariat of Special Education in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia also requires that a process should be followed when the decision is made about
the appropriate education and placement for student with disabilities. First, a multidisciplinary
evaluation must be considered when the decision is made about the "appropriate" education and
placement for a student with a disability. This kind of evaluation must be obtained by a
multidisciplinary evaluation team (MDT) including the following individuals: 1) teacher (special
education and regular teacher), 2) psychologist, 3) audiologist, 4) speech and language clinician,
5) parent, and 6) the student. Second, an Individualized Education Program (IEP) must be
developed. The development of the IEP must involve the teacher, parent, student, and the
28
General Secretariat of Special Education representative. Finally, after making a decision about
the appropriate education and placement for the student, the General Secretariat of Special
education prepares the school environment or placement with all necessary and suitable materials
and curriculums.
In general, the IDEA is designed to prepare people with disabilities to be productive and
independent people in the society. Similar to this objective, The General Secretariat of Special
Education in Saudi Arabia aims at preparing students with disabilities for public life so that they
become productive members of society, able to support themselves, and productively participate
with others (Al-Mosa, 1999).
Social Development in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students
IDEA made the federal government responsible for setting the guidelines for what is an
“appropriate education” for a disabled child, namely education in the “least restrictive
environment (LRE)” possible (Lane et al., 1996). Though the law does not provide a formal or
detailed definition of LRE, it is typically interpreted as the placement of children with disabilities
in classes with non-disabled peers, termed mainstreaming or inclusion. In relation to the
education of deaf children this concept produces two perspectives. First, that it is necessary for
children with hearing loss to be educated with normally hearing children so they will learn how
to function in a hearing world and to promote their socialization skills. Second, and opposing the
first view, that mainstreaming causes social isolation because of the communication barrier
between children with hearing loss and hearing children (Stoefen-Fisher & Balk, 1992).
Socialization is one of the main ideas embedded within the “least restrictive
environment” mandate which implies that schools serve an important role in providing
29
opportunities for social interaction. Part of the idea of mainstreaming is that deaf children will
benefit from positive role models demonstrating appropriate social interaction. However, social
development depends on, among other things, communication. Limitations in communication
present an obstacle that children with disabilities must overcome if they want to experience
positive social interaction. One is left with the question—what type of setting and program
would promote and improve the social development and reduce the social isolation of children
with hearing loss? The following section reviews and examines the current research related to
the social development of deaf and hard of hearing students.
Social Development of Deaf Students in Relation to School Settings and Programs
Depending on the deaf person’s perspective or identity, Freeman, Carbin, & Boese
(1981) state that “deafness can either be a difference to be accepted or a deficit to corrected.”
This statement has left many parents confused when making decisions about which school or
educational placement is appropriate for their child. Making a decision about school or
educational placement for their child is a very important and critical issue in the education of
deaf children. Parents must consider many different questions. What particular school and
method is appropriate for their child? Does the child desire to be educated in a mainstreamed
program or attend a deaf school to be with his/her peers? Both of these considerations will have
a consequence on their child’s life. When the mainstreaming program in a public school is
chosen, the deaf student may face the frustration of not being able to adjust in either world, deaf
or hearing. In contrast, deaf students in a residential deaf school may also face difficulties of not
being able to adjust in the hearing community (Harvey, 1989).
The choice of schools for a deaf child or adolescent will have long-term effects on their
academic achievement and career goals as well as on their personal and social skills. Therefore,
30
it is very important to understand that different students have different needs and there are
different programs that best suit those needs (Marschark, 1997).
It is a particularly difficult decision for a deaf adolescent to make. Therefore, they should
be asking themselves questions like, “Do I want to enter the deaf community?” or “Do I want to
be in touch with hearing world?” Whatever choice the deaf adolescent makes, it is his best
interests that should be taken into consideration. There is no right or wrong way. Parents,
teachers, counselors, and friends need to be supportive of the decision the child makes without
pressuring them to do what others want (Schlesinger & Meadow, 1972).
Marschark (1997) reported that understanding the social development of deaf students,
and making decisions about which placement is beneficial and best for them, requires an
investigation of their social skills around their hearing peers versus around their deaf peers. He
concluded that when given equal exposure to both mainstreamed and residential settings, social
interaction with deaf peers in partial mainstreaming is much better than total mainstreaming. He
reported that mainstreamed settings do not provide self-identity or emotional security in deaf
students. Even though deaf students determined mainstream education was a positive experience
for them, negative effects may show up later in their life. Marschark argues that this is not only
about becoming sociable, but also about academic skills, mental ability, and successes in
vocational life.
As an increasing number of deaf students are placed in public school programs, questions
have arisen regarding their educational experience. The argument about the best placement of
deaf students has left conflicting results. One of the issues that remains unresolved is that of
social integration (Saur, Layne, Hurley, & Opton, 1986).

31
Studies conducted by several researchers have examined the social development of deaf
students in mainstreamed schools versus residential schools. The results indicate that deaf
students in mainstreamed settings often feel very lonely, frustrated, rejected, and unable to
interact with their hearing peers. In contrast, deaf students in residential schools reported that
they have more friends, feel emotionally secure, and have higher self-esteem, and are accepted
by their peers (Saur, Layne, Hurley, & Opton, 1986; Marschark, 2002).
For about twenty years after PL 94-142 went into effect, the most desirable and accepted
form of academic and social education for students with disabilities was considered to be
mainstreaming. However, several studies found that social isolation and low self-esteem is more
of a problem among mainstreamed deaf children than among deaf children in segregated settings
(Antia, 1982; Charlson et al.,1992; Foster,1988). Contrary to these negative results, however,
some studies have shown that special programs can have positive effects on the interaction
between deaf and hearing children in public schools (Davis, 1986; Ladd et al.,1984).
Stinson and Lang (1994) reported that deaf students placed in public school programs
described their social experiences as feeling rejected, lonely, and socially isolated. Chough
(1979) noted that students with hearing impairment in mainstreaming settings indicated less
social and emotional satisfaction in comparison with deaf students who were in residential
settings. Foster (1989) concluded similar findings in his study at the National Institute of the
Deaf. Mertens (1989) found that deaf students who attended residential schools reported more
positive social experiences than those placed in mainstreaming settings. Moreover, Farrugia and
Austin (1980) cited that deaf students in residential schools had higher levels of self-esteem,
greater maturity, and more positive social and emotional adjustment compared to those deaf
students who attend public school programs. In addition, Dale (1984), as cited in Stoefen-Fisher
32
& Balk (1992), found in his investigation of the development of social maturity in children in
mainstreamed classrooms and self-contained classrooms at the elementary level, that self-
contained deaf students were slower in developing a mature social behavior than were the
mainstreamed children.
In relation to self-contained and partially integrated settings, it may be that deaf students
who are placed in self-contained classes and deaf students who are partly integrated in regular
classrooms feel isolation from the social context of the public school. Rejection also is another
feeling that is engendered by the lack of contact with hearing students as an effect of their
placement. Deaf students may feel as if they have no part in the hearing community (Kluwin et
al., 1992). Risley (1977) reported in his study that parents and teachers agree that hearing
impaired students have a lower level of social functioning. He also found that four of the
fourteen hearing impaired students in the self-contained program and the integrated program
reported they had no friends.
Cartledge, Cochran, and Paul (1996) conducted a study to find what variables impact the
social competence of hearing impaired students. The factors studied in relation to the social
development of the students were self-control (SC), empathy (E) and heterosexual confidence
(HC). With these factors as dependent variables, the setting/program of the school, gender, and
age of the students were used as the independent variables.
The study tested 74 students between the ages of 12 and 21. Thirty-five were from a
residential school which used a total communication (TC) approach and the remaining 39 were
enrolled in either an oral or total communication program. The school employed a total
communication approach, that is speech, signing, and fingerspelling were executed
simultaneously. The degree of hearing impairment for the residential school sample ranged from
33
60 dB to 110 dB. Fifteen female students and four male students who were enrolled in the public
school oral program experienced a hearing loss ranging between 42 dB and 107 dB and were 16
to 21 years old. Participating in the public school total communication program, the sample
consisted of 11 female students and 9 male students with a hearing loss ranging from 83 dB to
120 dB.
The measurements were generated from within 54 items in a social skills self-report
known as the Social Skills Rating Scale-Self-Report SSRS-S developed by Gresham and Elliot,
(1990). Each item was to be answered on a 3-point scale indicating the degree to which students
felt they exhibited a certain behavior. The SSRS-S was administered individually or to groups of
2 or 3 students by reading aloud the questions to oral students, and reading and signing to the
students who used total communication.
One important note about this study is that the results were generated by self-assessment
responses as opposed to responses generated by teachers. However, the researchers argue that
assessments completed by teachers could be wrong because some teachers might not have had
sufficient previous experience to adequately and accurately perceive the students’ behavior. For
that reason, the SSRS (Social Skill-Rating Scale-Self-Report) was used.
The results from these tests showed that the hearing impaired students differed
significantly in their social competence according to program, setting, gender, and age.
Setting/program produced the strongest main effect. Students in the setting/program of the public
school rated their social skills higher than those in residential schools for all three areas—SC, E,
and HC. The gender and age variables seemed at first to play a role in social competence
depending on the setting/program because the scores favored older female students. However,
this was due to the disproportionate number of older females in the public school settings.
34
As noted, according to the results the setting/program was what most affected the self-
assessed social competence of a student. The setting (i.e., mainstream or residential school) and
program (i.e., OC or TC) was the most significant factor to consider in relation to a student’s
social development. However, since the TC program was offered (and tested) in both settings,
and TC public school students rated themselves higher than the TC residential school students,
one might deduce that the setting is of higher importance than program type.
In a related study, Mootilal and Musselman (1994) examined the social adjustment of
deaf children who were enrolled in segregated settings, partially integrated settings (deaf
students in self-contained classes in public school who spend part of their day in regular classes),
and mainstream settings. Overall, the study focused on testing social variables that are related to
interaction between peers.
The sample consisted of 39 students in segregated (SEG) settings, 15 in partially-
integrated (PI) settings, and 17 in mainstreamed (MN) settings. The deaf students, 64% of whom
were female, ranged from 12-9 to 18-6 years of age. Hearing threshold level ranged from 70 dB
to 120 dB. Fifty-six hearing (H) students from the same region as the deaf and hard of hearing
students (Ontario, Canada), were also used as a control group. The hearing (H) students ranged
in age from 15 to 19 years old. The grade level of the students in this study ranged from the 8th to
13th grades. The Ontario school system has 13 grades rather than 12.
In order to measure the social adjustment of the students, the authors developed a Social
Activity Questionnaire (SAQ) that was a revised version of the standardized Social Activity
Scale (SAS). The SAS measures the social adjustment of students on three levels: 1)Participation
(the frequency of interactions); 2)Relatedness (how secure a student feels about relationships
with peers); and 3)Perceived Social Competence (how confident a student feels about
35
establishing relationships with peers) (Mootilal & Musselman, 1994, p.5). Of the three subscales
of Participation (i.e., in-class, at school, and out of school), the SAQ did not include the “at
school” subscale. It also did not include the 2 subscales for the Relatedness dimension (i.e.,
desire for closer relationships and emotional security) of the SAS. Finally, Perceived Social
Competence was included in the SAQ.
Thus, the SAQ included four scales in 2 versions (deaf-oriented and hearing oriented),
plus the perceived social competence scale. After pilot testing, the researchers made some
changes to simplify the wording of some points, and they replaced the five-point Likert scales by
a single, three-point scale.
The distribution of the SAQ was carried out according to the setting. Hearing students
completed hearing versions of the scale. Partially-integrated students were administered a deaf-
oriented and a hearing version to complete the “in-class participation” as opposed to a hearing-
oriented version for the mainstreamed students, and a deaf-oriented version for the segregated
students. Finally, all deaf students were administered both versions to complete the remaining
Participation and Relatedness subscales. The Perceived Social Competence scale was
administered to all groups. The methods used to explain the instructions on how to complete the
questionnaire were appropriate for the individual student. It was the deaf student’s choice to
select the mode of communication that they preferred, ASL (American Sign Language), TC
(Total Communication), or spoken English.
The results showed that, within the Participation dimension of the SAQ, PI students had
higher scores on the deaf-oriented version than on the hearing-oriented version for the “in-class”
subscale. On the “social” subscale the SAQ scores showed that PI and SEG students had a better
36
social adjustment with deaf peers, whereas MN adolescents had better adjustments with hearing
peers.
SEG adolescents seemed to “desire a closer relationship” (Mootilal & Musselman, 1994,
p.9) with deaf peers, according to the results on that subscale. Finally, on the Emotional Security
subscale of Participation, SEG and PI adolescents felt better in the presence of deaf peers over
hearing peers, with the highest scores obtained by the PI group. On the other hand, PI and MN
students obtained higher scores than SEG in interaction with deaf and hearing peers.
The third dimension of the SAQ, which was Perceived Social Competence, showed that
PI students see themselves as more socially competent than SEG and MN students. However,
the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test revealed that differences among groups were not
significant.
Regardless of the third dimension and with the exception of the “desire for relationship”
subscale, Mootilal and Musselman (1994) came to the conclusion that the PI group showed the
best adjustment towards deaf peers. Also, the PI and MN students showed better adjustment than
SEG students did, with no difference in adjustment toward deaf and hearing peers.
Cappelli et al. (1995) examined the social development of hearing-impaired children who
communicated orally and were placed in an integrated setting. Past research using self-report,
sociometric and behavioral observations led to the hypothesis of this study. The self-report
studies showed that hearing-impaired children had behavioral problems, low self-esteem, felt
socially alienated, and found difficulties in making friends and becoming socially accepted. The
sociometric studies indicated that hearing children were more likely to be chosen as friends by
hearing impaired children over their hearing impaired peers. The previous studies that the
authors of the current study drew on had showed the low acceptance level of hearing impaired
37
children. Based upon these studies, the study by Cappelli et al. hypothesized that orally
communicating hearing-impaired children could be risking social, behavioral, and emotional
problems. Thus, social competence, social-cognitive, and emotional factors were studied to
perhaps discover a link with peer relations.
Forty-six students, half of whom were hearing, were investigated for the Cappelli et al.
study. The hearing impaired students were comprised of 17 female and 6 male children ranging
from grades 1 through 6. Their hearing losses ranged from mild to profound. All hearing-
impaired children wore hearing aids and participated in an aural habilitation program prior to
regular classroom integration.
The method used in the study was divided into three parts: a Sociometric, Social
Knowledge, and an Affective Assessment. The researchers performed three visits to carry out the
procedures. Parental consent was acquired on the first visit. The second visit provided
sociometric results, and the third visit was used to administer self-report assessments to matched
hearing and hearing-impaired students. The subjects were matched prior to the third visit by
randomly selecting a hearing student of the same age and gender as a hearing-impaired child in
the same classroom. In the event that the child misunderstood the language of the instruments, a
teacher and a research assistant were available for help.
The Sociometric assessment was administered using two forms, the sociometric
nomination and sociometric liability rating scales, in order to measure a child’s social status and
popularity among peers. The liability rating scale determined the overall level of acceptance by
the student completing a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 for “don’t like” to 5 for “like a lot”
(Cappelli et al., 1995, p.200). The hearing-impaired students were administered a list of the
names of all the students in the classroom. The children would then select three classmates they
38
“most liked to spend time with at school” and three they “liked least”. The researchers then used
these results to form a scheme to evaluate a child as “popular”, “neglected”, “rejected”,
“controversial”, or “average” (Cappelli et al., 1995).
The second assessment, Social Knowledge, was measured by evaluating the performance
goals, relationship goals, and negative concern goals. These three subscales were determined by
a questionnaire of 50 items that were given to all hearing-impaired children. The questionnaire
was derived from a Game Playing Goals Questionnaire (Taylor & Asher, 1985), which measures
interpersonal goals within a social context.
Finally, the Affective Assessment determined the social anxiety and the self-competence
of each child. Ten questions, answered as “never true”, “sometimes true”, or “always true,” were
provided to measure social anxiety (Cappelli et al., 1995). The self-perception subscale was
imported from the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985) to determine students’
self-worth and self-competence. Comprising 36 items, the questionnaire measures a child’s self-
perception of “scholastic and athletic competence, social acceptance, physical appearance,
behavioral conduct, and global self-worth” (Cappelli et al., 1995).
The Sociometric assessment indicated that the hearing peers rejected 30% of hearing-
impaired children, as opposed to only 5% of hearing children. The results also led the authors to
conclude that neither hearing loss nor low social status affect the Affective Assessment factors of
social anxiety or self-competence. Finally, age seemed to be an important factor in relation to
social status, social anxiety, and relationship goals of hearing-impaired children because the
children that were either rejected or neglected by their peers were mostly younger children. On
the other hand, age did not seem to affect the social status, affective, or knowledge assessments
39
of hearing children. In short, hearing-impaired children had peer problems, and peer rejection
seemed to affect younger children more than older ones.
Social Interaction of Young Hearing Impaired Students
Studies have been conducted that focus solely on young hearing-impaired children who
are mainstreamed to assess their social development in pre-schools or elementary schools. The
studies’ results may help to determine whether social development can be improved at an early
stage of a child’s education in public school programs. The following four studies may provide
an idea of the types of factors that should be examined to determine how hearing impaired
children interact and communicate with hearing students, and how to improve a hearing impaired
child’s social development.
Higginbotham and Baker (1981) conducted a study to examine the differences in the
ways hearing-impaired children interact with each other when engaging in free play, as opposed
to how hearing children interact with their hearing peers. Emphasis was given to the acquisition
of language and social skills since the two go hand in hand when children play together.
Consequently, delays in either play or language can seriously hamper social interactions.
Seven hearing impaired children (ages 47 to 66 months) were observed at a preschool for
deaf children. All hearing-impaired students exhibited a Pure Tone Average of 70 dB or greater
in the better ear. All of the children wore hearing aids. A professionally trained staff made up of
preschool teachers and education practicum students observed the children for an hour and a
half, three to four days a week. Prior to formal observation, the observers visited the classrooms
frequently to reduce the effect of interacting with the children. A wide variety of toys were
provided for free play and teacher-directed activities. Play groups were usually composed of ten
40
to fifteen children. Also, seven normally hearing children (age 47 to 63 months) who attended a
mainstream preschool located at a junior college in Louisville, Kentucky were observed.
The following cognitive play categories developed by (Smilansky, 1968) were used in the
observation: (a) functional play (repetitive movements with or without objects), (b) constructive
play (organized activity directed at creating something), and (c) dramatic play (acting out
imaginary events or wish fulfillment). Also used were other classifications, developed by
parents under the headings solitary play (playing solo), parallel play (children playing
independently close to surrounding play groups), associative play (two children playing together-
no groups), and cooperative play (similar to dramatic play). Hearing impaired students were
observed from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m., three to four days a week, whereas hearing students were
observed from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m.
The hearing impaired children were rather quiet and engaged in solitary activities more
often. They also preferred functional and constructive play to dramatic play. Mostly, they sat
drawing, put puzzles together, and only communicated verbally in order to attract attention or
when playing with stuffed animals or dolls. In the large groups, one child was always the leader
while the other simply followed his commands. True social interaction hardly ever occurred.
In contrast, the normally hearing preschoolers engaged in organized play that involved a
lot of peer interaction and creative dramatics. The activities were less goal-directed and
structured as well. Communications with their peers were also much more verbally complex.
According to the results of this study, hearing impaired children have difficulty
verbalizing their wants and needs, which makes it hard for them to engage in social interaction
with their peers. In other words, the normally hearing preschoolers exhibited more complex
41
social and cognitive play patterns than the hearing impaired group, since verbal interactions
allowed the children to interact in larger groups.
While the conclusions from this study could be useful, it’s dangerous to generalize the
results to all deaf preschoolers. First, the observations of the subjects were very short in duration
and occurred only during a six-week period. Second, it is conceivable that there are differences
between the deaf students who participated and those who did not. Finally, the small size of the
sample also leads to difficulty in generalization.
A study conducted by Minett, Clark and Wilson (1994), sampled 30 young deaf and hard
of hearing children and 30 hearing children to observe their behavior. In doing this, the
researchers were attempting to resolve five questions:
1) Do children play and communicate with classmates of other hearing status?

2) Do children who are deaf and hard of hearing and their hearing peers in auditory and
total communication environments engage in the same amounts of social play, non-
social play and communication at school?
3) Do children who are deaf and hard of hearing and their hearing peers in auditory
communication and total communication environments engage in the same amounts
of social play, nonsocial play and communication with children of similar and other
hearing status?
4) Does the child’s social play, non-social play and communications vary across
educational contexts?
5) Does the child’s play behavior and communications vary across context when the
partner is either hearing or deaf and hard of hearing? (pp. 421-422.)
The integrated preschool offered auditory communication in some of its classes and total
communication in others. The sixty children that participated in the study were selected from 76
(out of 119) children whose parents gave consent. This included 30 deaf and hard of hearing and
30 hearing students in six classes (one auditory communication and one total communication
class for each age level). The remaining 16 children were not included because 7 of them were
hearing Asian children and there were no deaf or hard of hearing Asian children in the sample.
42
Three children had received cochlear implants, one had other developmental delays, and the
remaining five were randomly selected to be removed before the start of the study to balance
numbers in the two groups of children (hearing and deaf and hard of hearing). Out of the 30
hearing children, 16 used total communication (speech, auditory training, and language therapy
combined with manual signing) and 14 used auditory communication only. Fifteen children
from the deaf and hard of hearing group used auditory communication and the other half used
total communication. Across the groups, the average hearing loss was 69.23 dB for the auditory
communication children and 105.43 dB for the total communication children. Three types of
ethnicity were represented in each group—Anglo, African-American, and Hispanic. Finally, all
60 students ranged from three to five years of age.
In order to measure the behaviors involved in children’s play, the researchers used The
Play and Observation Scale developed by Rubin (1990). This scale is divided into two types of
play, social and non-play. Social play is categorized as “solitary,” “parallel” and ‘group-play” (p.
422). Non-play, on the other hand, is evaluated by observing four types of behavior: unoccupied,
onlooker, transition, and adult involvement. A third category was developed from Rubin’s
“conversation” category to assess the targeted individuals and was named “communication” (p.
422).
The procedure of observation was very simple—the children were videotaped in their
classrooms and outdoors. Each child was videotaped twice for five minutes in each setting,
totaling 20 minutes of video recording. The cameraman was given a list of randomly selected
numbers representing the children to be taped regardless of their activity at that moment. Each
session was then divided into 30 ten-second frames (in accordance with Rubin’s procedure) to
record the play categories and the hearing status of the targeted child’s partner.
43
Coding according to Rubin’s scheme provided results which helped to resolve the five
questions posed in this study. Indeed, 63% of the children communicated with peers of other
hearing status. With regard to the second question, the researchers found that there was a better
chance for children to engage a peer of similar hearing status for social play and communication.
This was shown in the study without exception. The third question was divided into 4 parts—
Parallel Social Play, Group Social Play, Non-Social Play, and Communication. In the Parallel
Social Play category, children who used total communication were more likely to engage their
peers during center-time (or classroom activities), whereas the auditory communicating children
were more likely to engage their peers during outdoor play. In the group social play category,
children in the auditory communication environment were more likely to engage with their peers
consistently in the centers, whereas children in the total communication environment were more
likely to engage their peers highly during outdoor play. Non-Social Play seemed to be equal for
both hearing status groups during centers, it was low for deaf and hard of hearing children during
outdoor play and high for hearing children. Regardless of hearing status, communication was
less likely to occur during outdoor play than during centers. For the fourth question, three parts
were evaluated separately: (1) parallel play with the hearing or deaf and hard of hearing, (2)
group play with hearing or deaf and hard of hearing, and (3) communication with deaf and hard
of hearing or hearing. For the first part, it was found that auditory communicating children were
more likely to engage in parallel play with classmates of the same hearing status in outdoor play,
whereas children who use total communication showed the same high frequency engagement
during centers. For the second part, all deaf and hard of hearing children engaged in group play
with the same hearing status children more than did all hearing children. Finally, all children
44
(hearing and hearing impaired) communicated with the deaf and hard of hearing more during
outdoor play.
The synthesis of the study supported specifically the fifth question—Does the child’s
social play and communication with peers who are deaf and hard of hearing or hearing vary
across educational context?—indicating a preference for all children to communicate with
children with the same hearing status. While the results and conclusions of this study are very
interesting, it is difficult to generalize them. The use of the instruments might not be appropriate
for all subjects. Also, the observations of the children were very short in duration and occurred
only twice during five minutes in the classroom, for a total of 20 minutes. It is possible that
within the five minutes that subjects were caught on tape, they were not participating in ways
that are typical.
A study conducted by Rodriguez and Lana (1996) focused more on the style of
interaction and the modes of communication employed in dyadic situations of deaf children
rather than on the frequency of interactions between deaf/ hard of hearing and hearing children in
a certain setting (as did the first study that was conducted by Minett et al., 1994).
The pool of subjects was small. Seven profoundly deaf children (4 girls and 3 boys) from
the Canary Islands were the focus of the study. Five of them ranged from 4 years and 2 months
of age to 6 years and 2 months. Five of the children also were in first year compulsory education
with hearing children in public schools; the remaining children were 27- and 38- months old,
attending the first and second year of preschool. The bilateral prelingual hearing loss for all of
the deaf/hard of hearing children was measured as a minimum of 85 dB. The mothers of four of
the children had been trained for a year in bi-modal communication using signed and oral
Spanish. Two mothers communicated orally only, and the remaining mother used Spanish Sign
45
Language because she was deaf. As partners, five deaf children (4 boys and 1 girl), 11 hearing
children (3 boys and 8 girls) and seven adults (1 profoundly deaf teacher and 6 hearing teachers)
participated. All of the children attended the same two schools. Whether or not the partners and
the deaf/hard of hearing children played together in their spare time was the basis that their
teachers used to determine whether the partner was familiar to the child or not. The age of the
children ranged from 52 to 66 months for partners of the older deaf/hard of hearing children, and
33 months for the partners of the younger deaf/hard of hearing children who were the focus of
the study.
Unlike the study conducted by Minett et al., (1994), the observations were done in
intentionally contrived situations. These were six interaction situations used: 1) with familiar
deaf child, 2) with unfamiliar deaf child, 3) with familiar hearing child, 4) with unfamiliar
hearing child, 5) with unfamiliar deaf adult, and 6) with familiar hearing adult” (p. 248). Each of
the first four situations lasted for 10-minute sessions while situations five and six lasted for two
10-minute sessions. Children were seated facing each other around a table containing the
materials to be used during each activity. The situations and materials were carefully chosen so
as to generate either a competition or cooperation between the deaf/hard of hearing children and
the partner children. The three types of activities used to stimulate these behaviors were playing
with dolls, role play and cooperative activities.
The results showed that the deaf/hard of hearing children attempted to adjust to their
hearing partners to increase contact. When a deaf/hard of hearing child was in the presence of a
familiar partner, he/she would continue using the mode of communication that the hearing child
initiated. However, this adjustment was not seen with either familiar or unfamiliar hearing
children using sign language. With familiar hearing adults, the deaf/hard of hearing children
46
seemed to react to a teacher/student expectation and therefore had a limited number of responses.
Finally, with familiar adults, the deaf/hard of hearing children accepted the mode of
communication from the beginning of the session, but had to progressively adjust to a preferred
mode as the session continued with unfamiliar adults.
In a related study, Lederberg, Ryan, and Robbins (1986) examined the effect of partner
hearing status and familiarity on young deaf children’s communication. The researchers looked
at 14 deaf children’s interactions with 28 hearing children. The group of hearing children was
used to determine the effects of a partner’s hearing status, familiarity, and peer interaction on
deaf children.
The purpose was to determine whether young deaf children who are linguistically
delayed but not otherwise disabled develop an alternative form of communication. Deaf children
would achieve this via the analysis of the communication types used with peers and from the
observations of relationships between language use, social interactions and different types of
play. Moreover, three factors were examined to determine their effects on dyadic interactions.
The first factor was hearing status since past research has shown that children are more prone to
interact with others of the same hearing status. The second factor, familiarity, was deduced from
parents’ comments that their deaf child was more comfortable playing with familiar hearing
children. Finally, the third and last characteristic observed was also derived from parents’
comments, experience-familiar deaf and hearing children’s positive interactions may be due to
some hearing children’s experience with past deaf playmates.
The children who participated in the study ranged from 4 years 5 months to 6 years 9
months of age. Fourteen deaf children (5 girls and 9 boys) were participants. Seven were in
kindergarten and 7 in preschool. The hearing loss of the children was 80 dB and greater. All the
47
children were enrolled in a total communication program using Texas Preferred Signs Total (an
English based sign system). Only one child of the group had a deaf mother. The selected partners
totaled 28 children, 7 of whom were deaf (2 girls and 5 boys). Out of the remaining 21 children,
14 hearing children played with a deaf child at home. Seven of the 14 were cousins of the deaf
children, and 7 were selected from a childcare center that shared facilities with the deaf school
the deaf children attended. These hearing children were the oldest (4 years 6 months to 5 years 3
months of age) in the partner group.
The subjects participated in four 14-minute sessions. These were videotaped for each of
the deaf children, first with a deaf playmate at school, second with a hearing playmate from
home, and finally with an unfamiliar hearing child who was friends with another deaf child. The
matching of the deaf children with their partners was done according to age, resulting in the
following sex composition: (a) 11 same-sex and 3 cross-sex dyads for the deaf-deaf dyads, (b) 7
same-sex and 7 cross-sex dyads for the deaf-hearing dyads, (c) 7 same-sex and 7 cross-sex dyads
for the unfamiliar deaf-hearing dyads, and (d) 11 same-sex and 3 cross-sex dyads for the
unfamiliar dyads. So as not to disturb the interactions between the children, two cameras were
hidden during the sessions behind one-way mirrors on opposite sides of the room.
The results of the study showed that interaction and pretend play (behavior where the
child is pretending to perform an action such as talking on the phone or being a doctor) had a
relationship with language competence in deaf-deaf dyads but not in the other 3 dyad types
(deaf-hearing, unfamiliar deaf-hearing, unfamiliar deaf-unfamiliar hearing). However, formal
language seemed to be less important than nonlinguistic visual communicative devices (mime,
gesture, and sign.

48
Furthermore, in examining the effects of partner hearing status, the researchers found that
deaf children were more prone to use signs when with another deaf partner than with a hearing
partner. However, they initiated interaction more often with a hearing partner than with a deaf
partner. Moreover, observing the effects of familiarity, interaction, and communication, results
were interpreted as familiarity affecting the type of communication and play. And hearing
children felt more comfortable with familiar playmates than with unfamiliar deaf partners. By
contrast, the deaf children “used more pretend play and physical contact with their familiar
hearing playmate than with an unfamiliar hearing playmate” (Lederberg et al.,1986 p. 698). With
relation to hearing playmates’ experience with their deaf playmate, it seems that experienced
hearing children used more head nods and fewer exaggerated facial expressions with an
unfamiliar deaf child than unfamiliar hearing children did. Finally, deaf partners seemed to be
more ready to improve interaction with other deaf children than were the unfamiliar hearing
partners.
Overall, the study did find that young deaf children develop an alternative form of
communication. Hearing children generate more gestures, exaggerated facial expressions, and
vocalizations with a familiar deaf playmate than with an unfamiliar deaf partner. The deaf
children used signs only with other deaf children, used object-related behavior more with hearing
children than with deaf children, and used more physical contact with their familiar hearing
playmate than with an unfamiliar hearing partner.
Social Development of Older Hearing Impaired Students
It has been documented that social and behavioral problems or the lack of positive self-
concepts in mainstreamed deaf children can be harmful to the deaf adolescent's social
development (Fisher, 1966; Levine, 1956; Meadow, 1983). Therefore, it has also been
49
hypothesized that deaf adolescents are not prepared to cope with the hearing world upon
graduation (Moores & Meadows-Orlans, 1990)
Schlesinger & Meadow (1972) designated ages 11 to 18 as adolescence. It is a time in
between childhood and adulthood. Many problems can occur during this time as a result of the
adolescent’s desire for independence, their social interactions, and hormonal changes. For the
deaf, it is a very difficult and stressful time for them especially among their peers and family
members.
Higgins and Nash (1987), reported that it is very important to be aware that deaf
adolescents suffer from isolation and have lower self-esteem more often than hearing adolescents
because of their communication difficulties. They reported that deaf adolescents with deaf
parents tend to score high on positive self-identity, while deaf adolescents with hearing parents
tend to score even higher. Perhaps one thing that may explain this outcome is the is the
participant’s success in the academic area and their communication skills with family members.
In an attempt to examine the social development of students at a later stage of their
education, Ladd et al. (1984) conducted a study to evaluate the various social conditions and
perceived social-personal changes that deaf students experience with their non-disabled peers
during their last two years in high school. The study involved four schools for the deaf and
neighboring occupational education centers in New York State since it was part of a larger
investigation of the cooperative mainstreaming arrangement between these schools and centers.
The subjects, all in occupational education classes, consisted of 48 students in their junior
and senior years. Three groups of 16 students entering the mainstream program during
successive academic years were formed. Teachers from the mainstreamed classrooms, parents of
mainstreamed deaf students, and hearing classmates of deaf students were also included.
50
The design of the study was a time-lag sequential one which "investigates the progress of
each of several successive cohorts from the time that each cohort becomes eligible for inclusion
in the investigation" (Ladd et al. 1984, p. 422). Hence, students enrolling in the mainstream
programs between 1976 and 1978 were studied during these 3 consecutive years. The way in
which the time-lag sequential design was used in the study was to study the seniors in 1976, both
juniors and seniors in 1977, and the juniors in 1978.
The study used three types of measurements—narrative observation, a sociometric scale,
and interviews of parents, teachers, and students. The narrative observational scheme assessed
the interactions between the deaf and hearing students in terms of three dimensions: 1) total
number of interactions observed between deaf and hearing students, 2) the students' role
(initiator or target), and 3) the nature of the interaction (i.e., social or work related). A
sociometric scale was used to measure the students' peer perception. The scale used was
developed by Rubenstein, Fisher, and Iker (1975) and was called the Peer Rating Scale (PRS).
The PRS assigned a student’s behavior to one of four categories-disruptive-attention-seeking,
motivation-maturity, social ability, and considerateness. Finally, the interviews were composed
of carefully prepared questions for each group (i.e., parents, teachers, and students).
The parent interviews were designed to evaluate the changes in the deaf students' social
behavior, attitudes, and out-of-school friendship experiences throughout their participation in the
mainstreamed program. The questions for the parent group were:
1. Have you noted any changes in {name}'s behavior since s(he) started attending the
occupational education classes? If so, what changes have you observed?
2. Have you noticed any changes in {name}'s attitudes since (s)he started attending the
occupational education classes? If so, what changes have you observed?
3. Has {name} invited hearing friends from the occupational classes to visit your
home? If so, on what occasions? (p. 423)
51
To evaluate the changes pertaining to in-school and out-of-school friendships between
deaf and hearing children, the teacher interview questions were:
1. Do you know of any case where a hearing student and a deaf student became good
friends? If so, how many?
2. Do you know of occasions when hearing students have invited deaf students to their
homes or to attend some out-of-school activity? If so, on what occasions?(p. 423)
Finally, the senior students' interviews were composed of three questions
designed to evaluate the awareness of and participation in deaf-hearing friendships in the
mainstreamed classrooms:
1. Do you have any deaf (hearing) friends in your occupational education class? If so,
how many?
2. Was it hard for you to make deaf (hearing) friends in your class?
3. What did you do to try to make friends with deaf (hearing) students?(p. 423)
The procedure for this study was fairly simple. The observational and sociometric
measures were administered to randomly selected mainstreamed classrooms during each school
year across the four research sites. Hence, 12 classrooms were sampled in the 1977-78 and the
1978-79 school years for 16 (8 male, 8 female) students. The same measures were administered
to 16 seniors during the 1976 cohort and to 16 juniors in the 1978 cohort during the 1977-78 and
1978-79 school years, respectively. The interviews were carried out during the second and third
years of the study resulting in 26 parental, 33 teacher and 66 student (33 deaf and 33 hearing)
interviews. The students were randomly selected for interviews, but the parent and teacher
selections were made with an effort to interview all parents and teachers from the four research
sites.
The results from the narrative observation measures showed that deaf students engaged in
more interactions with their hearing peers during the second school year. Also, deaf students in
other cohorts, as opposed to the 1977 cohort, showed similar levels of interaction with hearing
52
classmates at corresponding times in the two-year program. The PRS results showed no
significant effects. Finally, interviews with the parents showed that their children's behavior had
changed during the two-year program. Two thirds of the teachers' interviewed showed that deaf
students had friendly relationships with hearing classmates, but only 10 of the 33 teachers were
aware of out-of-school activities between deaf and hearing students. This was not surprising
since adolescents tend not to share their social life with their teachers. Almost 94% of the 33
deaf students interviewed reported friendly relationships with hearing peers in their classes. The
researchers' concluded that the interaction between the deaf and hearing students increased as the
students were in a particular classroom for long time. Finally, the researchers also suggested that
because the scores in each of the four categories that make up the PRS were well distributed,
classmates recognized the differences among the deaf students and did not perceive them in
stereotypic ways.
Murphy and Newton (1987) conducted a study to investigate whether there was a
problem with mainstreamed hearing-impaired college students or if their loneliness was simply a
difference in lifestyles. From past research, the authors drew nine hypotheses:
1. Hearing impaired students will be more lonely than hearing students.

2. Students who consider themselves hard-of-hearing will be more lonely than students
who consider themselves deaf.
3. Freshmen hearing impaired students will be more lonely than hearing impaired
students who are upper classmen.
4. Male hearing impaired students will be more lonely than female hearing impaired
students.
5. Satisfaction with parental relationships will relate inversely to loneliness in hearing
impaired students.
6. Satisfaction with peer relationships will relate inversely to loneliness in hearing
impaired students.
7. Adjustments to disability will relate inversely to loneliness in hearing impaired
students.
8. Comfort with speech will relate inversely to loneliness in students who consider
themselves hard-of-hearing.
53
9. Comfort with sign language will relate inversely to loneliness in students who
consider themselves deaf. (pp.21-22)
The sample of subjects was drawn from eight different universities throughout the
contiguous forty-eight states. Out of 446 subjects, 170 were hearing impaired. Ninety-four
participants saw themselves as deaf, and seventy-six saw themselves as hard-of hearing, the
difference being that self-perception shapes a student's choice of primary mode of
communication (i.e.,. sign language or speech respectively). Fifty-two students were freshmen,
49 were sophomores, 31 were juniors, 19 were seniors, and 19 were graduate students. Eighty-
nine out of the 170 hearing-impaired subjects were female.
The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980) was the
instrument used to measure loneliness. This scale consists of 10 positively worded and 10
negatively worded items. To answer hypotheses 1 through 4, the questions required a forced
choice. For the remaining hypotheses (5 through 9), the questions were answered by degrees of
agreement or disagreement. The questionnaires were mailed along with instructions to data
collectors (professionals working with hearing impaired services in each college or university)
for each school period. Questionnaires were to be given to students individually with no
specified time limit for completion. The students were not told the purpose of the study until
completion and were asked to answer as honestly as possible.
Once the data were collected, the information was mailed back to the research team for
analysis. The results showed that all hypotheses were supported with the exception of hypotheses
2 through 4. These findings led the researchers to conclude that loneliness was more likely to
occur among hearing impaired students and to increase if causes related to social adjustment and
communication came into play. The rejection of hypotheses 2 through 4 thereby refutes past
54
research which claimed that loneliness is accentuated also in relation to the hard-of-hearing/deaf
dichotomy, year in school, or gender.
One must be careful not to generalize these results though. Since the study was conducted
on a volunteer basis, it is conceivable that there are differences between the group of students
with hearing loss who participated and deaf college students in general. It is also conceivable that
students who feel more lonely might be more eager to participate in the study as an attempt to
participate in a social interaction of some kind as compared with those who are not as lonely.
Also, the method of data collection is questionable. There was a lack of direct instruction for
those collecting the data. Because so many different people gathered the information, there is a
danger of inconsistency. Finally, loneliness is a feeling and feelings are subjective. The lifestyle
of a deaf person in the mainstream is different from that of a hearing person. It could be that the
hearing impaired subjects in the study led more isolated lives than average hearing people for
which the test was designed. Their responses may not reflect a great degree of loneliness, just a
difference in lifestyle. Of course, if that lifestyle leads to loneliness that is important to know.
A study conducted by Coryell, Holcomb, and Scherer (1992), sought to find the various
factors which lead hearing students to have a certain attitude (positive or negative) towards deaf
students. The study was conducted at the Rochester Institute of Technology where 1200 deaf
students attend the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. The 62 resident advisors (RAs)
who participated in the study, 28 of whom were female and 34 were male, were hearing and had
almost daily contact with the deaf student body. Fifty-six of the participating RAs attended a
weekly staff meeting where focus group interviews were held (the remaining six were absent or
excused for reasons other than intentional non-participation). The focus groups were composed
of 10 to 30 participants at a time. All participants were at least sophomores. Half of the RAs
55
didn't have any sign language knowledge, as opposed to the other half who had been signing for
one to three years.
During the meetings, prior to answering two open ended questions, a discussion
regarding issues relating to deaf and hearing students on campus was carried out. This was done
to shift the focus from daily thoughts to the issue at-hand. An anonymous survey type of
questionnaire was then handed out to the RAs. This questionnaire was composed of only 2
questions: 1) What factors do hearing students perceive as having a positive influence on their
attitudes toward deafness? and 2) What factors do hearing students perceive as having a negative
influence on their attitudes toward deafness? All the sessions from which comments were
extracted were audio taped and recorded for analysis.
The results provided suggestions for improvement of hearing student attitudes toward
their deaf peers. The suggestions were related to ideas such as the need for more contact, better
communication, and increased cultural awareness. The responses to the two questions generated
a number of factors that contribute to both positive and negative attitudes. Personal contact with
other deaf students and deaf role models, education and deaf awareness for hearing students, sign
language competence and classes for hearing students, patience in communication for both, and
open-mindedness and tolerance on the part of both deaf and hearing students were seen as
positive contributions. Factors contributing to negative attitudes were stereotyping and
patronizing by hearing students, excessive noise levels for deaf students, ignorance about deaf
culture and deafness, lack of opportunities for meaningful interaction, and unequal treatment and
privileges enjoyed by deaf students. Hearing students also mentioned poor attitudes and
immature behavior in some deaf students as being a negative.

56
The study, based on responses of the RAs, came to the conclusion that deaf and hearing
students needed to have more meaningful interactions. Moreover, the authors also thought that
the display of role models and communication and awareness of cultural difference could
improve the attitudes of hearing peers.
Stoefen-Fisher and Balk (1992) recommend that mainstreaming and special programs
may not be appropriate for all deaf and hard of hearing children. However, they also feel that
one must keep in mind that teachers’ expectations of a student’s social development may be a
potential factor affecting their socialization.
The Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED)
The Department of Education has been assigned the responsibility of formulating policies
and rules regarding education for all children. This body also gives directions and instruction
regarding the education of children with disabilities, and IDEA is probably one of the most
concrete steps taken by this Department to ensure that children and youth with disabilities are
given a free appropriate education and that their special needs are recognized and met. The
Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED), after careful monitoring of the way in which
implementation of IDEA affected deaf and hard of hearing students, presented its findings before
the Department of Education for consideration (Commission on Education of the Deaf, 1988).
The Commission found that despite their disability and the presence of IDEA, most deaf
students encountered many problems getting an appropriate education. It was noted that since
deaf children face numerous communication and language problems, they need specially trained
teachers and additional equipment to understand what is being taught in regular classes. It is not,
however, always easy for them to procure these additional services. Sometimes state laws
interfere in this process while in other situations, school administrations refuse to cooperate.
57
Even some trained teachers fail to understand the special needs of deaf children because of the
low incidence and uniqueness of this disability.
To help identify the basis of the findings of the Commission, it is extremely important to
first understand what exactly are the needs of deaf students. First, since communication is their
primary problem, deaf children need to be taught in a manner that can enhance their self-esteem
while at the same time imparting knowledge properly. It has been shown that since these children
cannot communicate with their peers, their self-esteem is lower than that of non disabled
students. For this reason alternate approaches must be adopted and implemented to facilitate
communication.
Keeping all these factors in mind, research is needed as to what exactly is creating
problems for young deaf students particularly in the area of socialization. It has been found that
state and local educational agencies are not always clear about the meaning of free appropriate
education for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Because of this problem, the
Commission’s report was an attempt to clarify the various factors that appear to influence social
development and then make appropriate suggestions in the areas where change was required. It
must be made absolutely clear that it is up to the student’s team (including their
parents/guardians) to decide whether a child should be placed in a regular classroom or whether
he/she needs a special setting to meet his educational needs.
The concept of free appropriate education forms the very core of IDEA, and this
legislation directs local educational agency responsibilities regarding children who are deaf and
hard of hearing. Local educational agencies cannot refuse to provide any student with
appropriate education under the law and, thus, they should be clearly familiar with the concept of
free appropriate education for students with hearing loss.

58
A student is said to be receiving free appropriate education when all his educational
needs are recognized and met under state and local laws. To children with hearing impairment
such that it impacts their educational performance, Part B of the IDEA provides for an Individual
Educational program for each student. Students who qualify for Part B of IDEA receive an IEP, a
specially designed individual learning program, which need not be similar to programs designed
for other deaf students.
For example, if it appears that a certain deaf student cannot learn without the aid of
special equipment, then he/she will be provided that equipment and the cost is to be borne by
local educational agencies. When designing an individualized program for students with hearing
impairment, certain important factors must be considered:
1) Communication needs of the child and the way his family prefers to communicate;
2) Language needs and linguistic skills;
3) How serious is the hearing loss;
4) His/her educational level; and
5) The child’s cultural and social needs.
Apart from these factors, the contents of the curriculum should also be modified
according to the needs of the child. The Commission on Education for the Deaf found that the
LRE provision of IDEA can often create problems and confusion as many educational agencies
mistakenly place deaf students in a setting, which is not suitable for them. The Commission
recommended that the least restrictive environment provision should be applied carefully for
students with hearing loss because a mainstreamed setting may not allow for all of the above
listed considerations (i.e., their unique communication needs). If a deaf student is not making
adequate progress in a particular setting, then it might mean that setting is not the LRE for that
59
specific child. The setting chosen should be one where the child can be provided all the
additional services and help that he/she requires and one that takes into consideration the child’s
unique communication and socialization needs.
Summary
Patterns of educational placement for students with hearing impairment in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia have undergone significant change. In recent years, educators in the field of
special education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia desire public school placement for children
with hearing impairment. According to Al-Mosa (1999), the special education programs for
students with hearing impairment in public schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have
positive effects on social development, social adjustment, and interaction between deaf and
hearing students in public schools. Special programs in public schools will also have positive
effects on the academic achievement of deaf students enrolled in public schools.
The reported studies provided conflicting results on the social development of students
with hearing loss educated in both public schools and residential schools. Several studies
indicated that deaf students who are enrolled in public school often feel very lonely, frustrated,
rejected, and unable to interact and communicate with their classmates. Contrary to these
negative results, other studies have shown that special programs in public schools can have
positive effects on interaction between deaf and hearing children. Also, responses from deaf
students in residential schools reported that they had more friends, feel emotionally secure, have
higher self-esteem, and are accepted by their peers.
It is apparent from these studies that hearing impaired students differ significantly in their
social adjustment and competence according to program, setting, gender, and age. Isolation and
lack of socialization are important issues for deaf students especially those who are in public
60
school programs. Deaf students who are in public school were found to be more lonely than deaf
students in residential schools for the deaf than were the average hearing student. Research has
also found that feelings of isolation are not just something that happens at the college level, but
at elementary and secondary levels also. Studies have found that children prefer to interact with
others of the same hearing status. While hearing students and deaf students do not ignore each
other, they are more likely to interact with others who communicate in the same way.
Finally, the issue of the social development of students with hearing impairment has not
been fully explored by educators in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The researcher believes that it
is appropriate to investigate the social development of students with hearing impairment in
different educational settings and programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the social
development skills of students with hearing impairment in the Schools for the Deaf and public
school settings in Riyadh City in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is believed that the findings of
this study can produce several outcomes that may increase the knowledge of all individuals who
are interested in deaf education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

61
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes four sections. The first section focused on the purpose of the study.
The second section highlighted the description of the participants in this study and is followed by
an overview of the instrument used to collect the data. The fourth section describes the
procedures that were used to conduct the study. This chapter concluded with a description of the
application of the statistical method that was used to analyze the data.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the social development skills of students with
hearing impairment in special schools for the deaf and in public school settings in Riyadh City in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study assessed the social development skills in two areas: (a)
social competence, which includes peer relations, self-management, and academic behavior; and
(b) social adjustment. Based on these two areas, the study investigated whether there were
differences between students with hearing impairment in their social competence scores (peer
relation scores, self-management scores, academic behavior scores) as a result of their
educational setting, program (i.e., communication method), and gender. Any differences between
students with hearing impairment in social adjustment as a result of the type of educational
setting, program, and gender were also examined. Specifically, this study was designed to
investigate the following research questions: a) is there a significant difference in the peer
relations scores of students with hearing impairment according to the type of setting, program, or
gender?; b) is there a significant difference in the self-management scores of students with
hearing impairment according to the type of setting, program, or gender?; (c) is there a
significant difference in the academic behavior scores of students with hearing impairment
62
according to type of setting, program, or gender?; (d) is there a significant difference in the
social adjustment scores of students with hearing impairment according to the type of setting,
program, or gender?
Participants
Students. The participants in this study included both males and females who range in
grade from 1 to 6 and in age from 7 to 17. The study included students with hearing impairment
who are enrolled in total communication programs (a combination of signing, speech, and finger
spelling which are executed simultaneously) and oral programs (rely on speech only for
communication). All the students with hearing impairment in the special schools for the deaf use
a total communication approach (TC), whereas, students with hearing impairment in public
schools are enrolled in either an oral or total communication program. The study included a total
of 375 students from three different types of settings. One hundred ninety four (194) students
were from the special schools for the deaf, 96 male students and 98 female students; and 50 male
participants from self-contained public school classes for the deaf were included. The deaf
students’ hearing losses ranged from 70 dB to 110 dB. Participants from self-contained classes
for the hard of hearing public school oral program consisted of 131 students, 84 male and 47
female with a range of hearing loss from 40 dB to 75 dB. Table 1 shows the distribution of
students according to their age. Table 2 presents the distribution of students by grade level. Table
3 provides information about the distribution of students according to gender. Table 4 shows the
distribution of students according to the type of educational setting. Table 5 presents additional
information about the distribution of students according to the type of program.

63
Table 1
The Distribution of the Students According to Age
Age(n) Percent
6(2) 5.0
7(31) 8.3
8(46) 12.3
9(63) 16.8
10(52) 13.9
11(52) 13.9
12(49) 13.1
13(41) 10.9
14(22) 5.9
16(11) 2.9
16(5) 1.3
17(1) 3.0
Total=375 100.00
Table 2
The Distribution of the Students According to Grade Level
Grade(n) Percent
First(68) 18.1
Second(74) 19.7
Third(66) 17.6
Forth(62) 16.5
Fifth(67) 17.9
Sixth(38) 10.1
Total=375 100.00
64
Table 3
The Distribution of the Students According to Gender
Gender(n) Percent
Male(230) 61.3
Female(145) 38.7
Total=375 100.00
Table 4
The Distribution of the Students According to Educational Setting
Setting (n) Percent

Special Schools for the Deaf (194) 51.5
Self-contained Class for the Deaf—Public School (50) 13.9
Self-contained Class for Hard of Hearing—Public School (131) 34.7

Total = 375 100.0
Table 5
The Distribution of the Students According to Program Type
Program Type(n) Percent
Oral(131) 34.9
Total Communication(244) 65.1
Total=375 100.00
Participant selection. The population sample for this study was located in Riyadh City in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Approval for the study was initially acquired from the Human
Subjects Committee at the University of Kansas. Arrangements were then made to obtain
65
approval from the official organizations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (i.e. Special Education
Department, College of Education in the King Saud University, and the General Secretariat of
Special Education in the Ministry of Education). Based on the collaboration between the
Department of Special Education at King Saud University and The General Secretariat of Special
Education in the Minister of Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the approval was given
for the investigator to select subjects from schools, including students with hearing impairment
in the special schools for the deaf and in the public schools. An official letter from the college of
Education at King Saud University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was submitted to the
General Secretariat of Special Education in the Ministry of Education in order to receive
permission to get information about the total number of students with hearing impairment in
elementary schools in Riyadh City. (See Appendix D).
Based on the records taken from the General Secretariat of Special Education in the
Ministry of Education, the total number of students with hearing impairment in all special
elementary schools for the deaf and in self-contained classes in the public schools in Riyadh City
was 778 students. The number of male students was 324 and the number of female students was
454.
Krejcie and Morgan (1970), provide an equation to determine the required size of a
randomly chosen sample from a given finite population so that the sample proportion is .05 of
the population with a 95% level of confidence. The results of this equation showed that a good
representation of the population of 778 students with hearing impairment was between 254 and
260.
In order to obtain this appropriate sample, a total of 508 scales were randomly
distributed in Riyadh City, 260 scales for male students and 248 for female students. The total
66
qualified returned scales were 375, 230 returned for male students and only 145 qualified scales
returned for female students. Ultimately, 375 students were selected for this study, which was
enough to meet the appropriate sample size. Table 6 provides additional information about the
scale's distribution and return.
In Riyadh City there are four schools for the deaf with a total of 517 students. There are
131 male students, while the number of female students is 386. The number of the selected
sample and distributed scales for the male students was 96, and all selected sample
Table 6
Scales Distribution and Return
Sex Total Number of Returned Scales Scale Not Returned

Distributed scales
Male 260 230 30
Female 248 145 103
Total 508 375 133
distributed scales were returned from the male students, while the number of the selected sample
and distributed scales for the female students were 239 and the total return was only 98. Table 7
provides the name of the male schools, the total number of students in the schools, the selected
sample, and the returned scales from participants. Table 8 lists the name of the female schools
and the total number of students in the schools, the selected sample, and the returned scales.
Also, there are two elementary public schools that have self-contained classes for the deaf.
The total number of students in these self-contained classes was 77. The number of the selected
sample and distributed scales was 60 and the total return was 50. Table 9 provides the name of
the public schools that have self-contained classes, the total number of the students, total number
67
of the selected sample and distributed scales, and the total number of participants and returned
scales.
There are ten public schools that have self-contained classes for hard of hearing students.
The number of male and female students in these self-contained classes was 184 with 116 males
and 68 females. The number of distributed scales for male students was 104 and the total return
was 84, while the number of distributed scales for female students was 55 and the return was
only 47. Table 10 represents the name of the elementary public schools for the male hard of
hearing students, the total number of students, the total number of the selected sample and
distributed scales, and the total number of participants and returned scales. Table 11 presents the
name of elementary public schools for the female hard of hearing students, the total number of
students, the total number of selected sample and distributed scales, and the total number of
participants and returned scales.
In general, a total of 508 scales were randomly distributed in all special elementary
schools for the deaf, the self-contained classes for the deaf, and self-contained classes for hard of
hearing students in the public schools for the deaf.
Table 7
Special Schools for the Deaf (Male), Total Number of the Students, Selected Sample
and the Participants
School Total Number of Selected Participant

Students in schools Sample Sample
Al-Amal Institute- 61 50 50
West
Al-Amal Institute – 70 46 46
East
Total 131 96 96
68
Table 8
Special Schools for the Deaf (Female), Total Number of the Students, Selected
Sample and the Participants
School Total Number of Selected Participant

Students in Schools Sample Sample
Al-Amal
Institute-West 303 193 52
Al-Amal
Institute-East 83 46 46
Total 386 249 98
Table 9
The Name of Public Schools, Total Number of Students in Schools, Selected Sample, and
Participant Sample
Total Number of Selected Participant

School Students in Schools Sample Sample
Abdullah Bin
Abi Awfa 40 25 15
Mohamed
Egbal 37 35 35
Total 77 60 50
69
Table 10
Name of Schools for Males (Self-Contained Classes for Hard of Hearing), Total
Number of Students, Selected Sample, and Participant Sample
Total Number Selected Participant

School of Students Sample Sample
Al-Mohalab Bin Abi Safra 27 27 26
Hatem Al-Taei 14 14 13
Saud Alkabeer 11 11 11
Malik Bin Senan 15 10 10
Hai Sultana 12 12 12
Prince Salman Educational

Compound 12 12 12
Aotba 10 8 8
Hamad Bin Abe Salama 15 10 10

Total 166 104 102
Table 11
Name of Schools for Females (Self-Contained Classes for Hard of Hearing),

Total Number of Students, Selected Sample, and Participant Sample
Total Number of Selected Participant

School Students Sample Sample
366 Primary 23 20 20
294 Primary 45 35 27
Total 68 55 47
70
Instruments
In order to examine the social development of students with hearing impairment, the
investigator reviewed three relevant scales related to social development including social
adjustment, social skills, and the social/emotional health of children with hearing loss. These
scales included the Social Emotional Assessment Inventories (SEAI) (Meadow, 1983), the Social
Skills Rating System (SSRS-2)(Gresham & Elliott, 1991), and the School Social Behavior Scales
(SSBS-2)(Merrell, 2002).
After a review of the literature and an analysis of the previously mentioned scales, two
scales were chosen. They are the Social Emotional Assessment Inventories (SEAI) and the
School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2). Since this study was conducted in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, the investigator translated the two scales into the Arabic Language. The Soc SEAI
is designed for deaf and hard of hearing students and completed by teachers and other
educational personnel in close contact with students who are hearing impaired. The Social
Emotional Assessment school-age inventory has 59 items, which include three subscales: (a)
social adjustment, (b) self image, and (c) emotional adjustment. Items measuring social
adjustment deal with positive classroom and school social behaviors. Items in the self-image
subscale deal with self confidence, effort in communicating with others, and motivation to learn.
Items that look at emotional adjustment pertain to being calm, realistic, and balanced as opposed
to being fearful, anxious, and having negative feelings about one's motor skills (Meadow, 1983a;
Meadow, 1983b).
In order to examine the social adjustment of students with hearing impairment for this
study, the investigator used Scale 1, Social Adjustment, which includes 22 items. Each item was
rated on a four-point scale: Very True = 4; True = 3; False = 2; Very False = 1; Can't Rate = 0.
71
The “Very True” is the most positive response for some items and was scored as a 4. For other
items “Very True” is the most negative response and was given a score of 1.
The School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2) includes two subscales which provide an
integrated rating for both social skills and antisocial behaviors. The social competence scale has
32 items that include three subscales that measure peer relations, self-management, and academic
behavior. The antisocial behavior scales include 33 items that measure socially linked problem
behaviors and also includes three subscales: Hostile-Irritable, Antisocial-Aggressive and
Disruptive-Demanding (Merrell, 2002). In this study the investigator used only the 32 items of
the Social Competence scale. The SSBS-2, which used in this study, is designed to be completed
by teachers.
The SSBS-2 Social Competence scale is divided into three subscales. The items are
assessed using a five-point scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently. The Peer Relations
subscale consists of 14 items measuring social skills that are important in establishing positive
relationships with peers. The Self-Management subscale consists of 10 items that measure social
skills related to self restraint, cooperation, and compliance with the demands of school rules. The
Academic Behavior subscale includes eight items that measure performance and engagement on
academic tasks.
Reliability and Validity
Social Emotional Assessment Inventories (SEAI): Validity. The school-age SEAI was
based on theoretical and practical considerations and on information that was developed over a
period of years (Meadow, 1967; 1975; 1976; 1980). Studies done by many researchers who
were involved with mental health problems and the development of individuals with hearing loss
were used as a basis for the scales (Rainer, Altshuler & Kallmann, 1969; Levine, 1956; Mindel
72
& Vernon, 1971). Four categories were established as a first step to designing the separate
scales: 1) sociability and interpersonal relationships; 2) individual and personal characteristics;
3) self-esteem or identity; and 4) maturity and responsibility. Each category included between 12
and 15 items. These items were divided between positive and negative statements of behaviors.
The first draft included 52 items and was circulated to teachers and support specialists at the
Kendall Demonstration Elementary School (a lab school for students with hearing loss connected
to Gallaudet University) for comments and suggestions. The second draft included 57 items
based on feedback from the specialists. This second draft was mailed to a large group of
professionals who were knowledgeable about students with hearing impairment. A total of 83
responses were obtained for this request, including responses from 22 educational administrators,
five faculty members from teacher training programs, 28 mental health professionals, 25
classroom teachers, and three researchers. It should be noted that more than 100 professionals
who work with deaf children contributed to the designing of the items in the final version. Thus,
the third and final version was developed based on suggestions and comments obtained from a
diverse group of professionals who work with individuals with hearing loss. The final assessment
includes three scales consisting of 59 items. The three scales are: Scale 1—Social Adjustment;
Scale 2—Self Image; and Scale 3—Emotional Adjustment (Meadow, 1983).
Social Emotional Assessment Inventories (SEAI): Reliability. For the Social Emotional
Assessment Inventories (SEAI), the inter-item reliabilities of the three scales using Cronbach's
alpha are Scale 1—Social Adjustment = .96, Scale 2—Self Image = .94, Scale 3—Emotional
Adjustment = .91. In general, the evidence presented in the SEAI user's guide indicates the SEAI
is highly reliable measure (Meadow, 1983).

73
School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2): Validity. The School Social Behavior Scales
(SSBS-2) has very strong validity evidence obtained from content, construct, and criterion-
related validity. This validity evidence was obtained based on test content, the internal structure
of scales, relations to other measures, and consequences of testing. All of the validity measures
indicate that SSBS-2 is indeed a very useful assessment of social and antisocial behavior of
children and youth who are behaviorally at-risk, and who may benefit from prevention or
intervention efforts. The evidence presented in the SSBS-2 user's guide indicates that the SSBS-2
is a highly valid measure (Merrell, 2002).
School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2): Reliability. The reliability reported for the
School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2), indicates strong internal consistency. The test-retest
reliability over short periods of time is moderately strong to very strong. The interrater reliability
of SSBS-2 scores across raters is also strong. For example, the results indicate a high coefficient
of internal consistency across samples. For the total scores of the two scales (scale A—Social
Competence; scale B—Antisocial Behavior), the alpha and split-half coefficients range from .96
to .98 across the three samples (Grades K-6, Grade 7-12, and total sample grades K-12).
Regarding the test-retest reliability coefficients for the SSBS-2, the scores for 142 elementary
school students rated by teachers at 1-week intervals indicate that for the Social Competence
subscale, the obtained Pearson product-moment correlations ranged from .86 to .94. The
interrater reliability coefficients were acquired for 40 elementary school students with learning
disabilities rated by special education teachers and the obtained coefficients from the Bivariate
Pearson product-moment correlation indicated a high level of agreement across rater on Social
Competence scores ranging from .72 to .86. In general, the evidence presented in the SSBS-2
user's guide indicates the SSBS-2 is a highly reliable measure (Merrell, 2002).
74
Reliability of data collection. A test-retest reliability coefficient was completed on each
scale in this study. In order to determine the reliability of data collection, 94 students, 25% of
375 students, were assessed independently two times by the same teachers at 2-week intervals.
Scale translation. Since this study took place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the
investigator translated the two scales, the Social Emotional Assessment Inventories (SEAI) and
the School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2), from English to the Arabic Language. (See
Appendix B).
The original and translated copies were sent to four professors in the Department of
Special Education at King Saud University to check the accuracy and clarity of the Arabic
translation. In order to get clear revisions from the four professors, the investigator developed a
judgment form to assist them in submitting their corrections. The form was sent with both the
original scales and the translated Arabic copy. The form included 5 columns. The first column
provided the original English statements of the scales, the second column included the translated
Arabic statements of the scale; the third and fourth columns had two spaces (“clear” and “not
clear”) to allow the professors to rate the correctness and comprehension of the translated item;
the fifth column, included space that allowed the professors to correct or rewrite the statements if
the translation was not clear. After considering the suggestions of the professors, changes were
made in the final draft of the Arabic translated scales that were ultimately provided to the actual
population of the study. ( See Appendix C)
Procedures
Workshop session. Prior to implementation of the assessment for this study, the
investigator conducted workshops for male teachers who would be completing the scales. During
75
the workshops, teachers were told the purpose of the study. Also, the terminology and the items
used in scales were explained. Finally, the teachers were trained to administer the assessment.
Data collection. Data collection was conducted in a three step process. First, the General
Secretariat of Special Education's letter of permission was submitted to the school districts to
allow the investigator to visit schools and distribute the scales to the study’s target population
(see Appendix D). After receiving permission from the Ministry of Education to distribute the
scales, the investigator visited all of the selected male schools to distribute the scales. The
schools were asked to select the teachers who were most familiar with the students and to have
them complete the scales. For the female schools, the scales were mailed to the selected schools
with a cover letter asking the administration to select the teachers who were familiar with the
selected students and to have them fill out the scales. In addition to the scales, the mailing
contained an introductory letter explaining the purpose of the study. Also, the directions included
an instruction sheet that briefly described how to administer the scales. Follow-up phone calls
were made to administrators in the General Secretariat of Special Education to check about the
returning of the scales.
Data Analysis
Collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the mean scores and standard deviation for
each statement of each section of the scales. In this study, a series of one-way analysis of
variances (ANOVAs) were conducted to determine whether differences in Social Competence
and Social Adjustment scores are related to type of setting (residential, public schools), type of
program (manual, oral), and gender (male, female). The f-ratio that results from such an
ANOVA is the ratio of between-groups variance (Mean Square between-groups or MS between)

76
to the within-groups variance (Ms within). When the f-ratio is large and reaches statistical
significance it is large enough for the appropriate number of alpha level. When the between-
groups variance is not larger than the within-groups variance, the f-ratio is small and does not
reach statistical significance. The one-way analysis of variance was set at .05.
77
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Reliability of Data Collection

In order to determine the reliability of the data collection for the scales in this study, a
test-retest coefficient alpha was completed on the peer relations, academic behavior, self-
management, and social adjustment scales. The test-retest reliability of each scale was calculated
on the scores rated by the same teachers at a 2-week time interval for 94 of the students (25% of
the total sample). The reliability scores were as follows: Peer Relations = .83; Academic
behavior = .77; Self-management = .78; Social Adjustment = .85.
Descriptive Analysis for Each Scales' Items
Descriptive Analysis of Peer Relations Items. This section provides information on the
descriptive analyses of each item (14 items) for the Peer Relations scale according to the type of
educational setting, program, and gender. The Peer Relations scale contains items relating to a
child’s behavior in interactions with his/her peers (e.g., offers to help, is sensitive to the feelings
of others). Table 12 reports descriptive statistics of means and standard deviations for each item
according to the type of educational setting. Table 13 reports descriptive statistics of means and
standard deviations for each item according to the type of program, and Table 14 reports
descriptive statistics of means and standard deviations for each item according to gender.
The difference in means for the hearing impaired student concerning offering help to
other students when needed was 0.02. The mean score for students in self-contained classes for
the deaf and hard of hearing is 3.71, while students in special schools for the deaf had a mean
score of 3.69 which shows no significant difference among the educational settings.
78
Table 12
Means & Standard Deviations for each item of the Peer Relations Scale According to Type of
Educational Setting
Educational settings
Self-contained
Special classes for the
schools for Self-contained hard of
Item the deaf classes for the deaf hearing
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1. Offers help to other students when
needed 3.69 1.26 3.71 1.10 3.71 1.29
2. Participates effectively in group
discussions and activities 3.81 1.29 3.23 1.33 3.40 1.46
3. Understands problems and needs
of other students 3.28 1.20 3.27 1.33 3.22 1.34
4. Invites other students to
participate in activities 3.34 1.28 3.19 1.33 3.35 1.41
5. Has skills or abilities that are
admired by peers 3.20 1.46 4.04 1.48 3.23 1.47
6. Interacts with a wide variety of 3.88 1.06 3.94 0.98 3.66 1.37
peers
7. Is good at initiating or joining
conversations with peers 3.81 1.17 3.94 1.29 3.46 1.38
8. Is sensitive to feelings of other
students 3.36 1.21 3.41 .94 3.39 1.25
9. Enters appropriately into ongoing
activities with peers 3.79 1.5 3.90 1.28 3.64 1.29
10. Has good leadership skills 3.21 1.45 3.35 1.44 3.15 1.52
11. Notices and compliments
accomplishments of others 3.21 1.27 2.90 1.3 3.16 1.34
12. Is assertive in an appropriate way
when he/she needs to 3.28 1.36 3.46 1.19 3.23 1.41
13. Is invited by peers to join in 3.47 1.24 3.75 1.21 3.54 1.26
activities
14. Is "looked up to" or respected by 3.78 1.21 3.96 0.92 3.91 1.19
peers
79
Table 12 shows that for most of the items on the Peer Relations Scale there was little
difference between the scores for the students in the three different types of educational settings.
In regard to statement 2, "participates effectively in group discussions and activities," it was
found that students in special schools for the deaf had a higher mean score (3.81) than students in
self-contained classes for the hard of hearing (3.40) and students in self-contained classes for the
deaf (3.23). For statement 5,"has skills or abilities that are admired by peers", it was found that
the students in self-contained classes for the deaf had a higher mean score (4.04) compared with
means in the other settings (3.23 and 3.20 respectively for students in self-contained classes for
hard of hearing and students in special schools for the deaf). Students in self-contained classes
for the deaf had a slightly higher mean score (3.94) on statement 7, "is good at initiating or
joining conversations with peers," than did students in special schools for the deaf, which had
mean score of 3.81, while students in self-contained classes for hard of hearing had a mean score
of 3.46. Regarding statement 11, "notices and compliments accomplishments of others," the
highest mean score was for students in special schools for the deaf and students in self-contained
classes for hard of hearing while the lowest mean score was for students in self-contained classes
for the deaf. Students in self-contained classrooms for the deaf had a higher mean score on
statement 13, "is invited by peers to join in activities," (3.75) than students in the other settings
with a mean score of 3.54 for students in self-contained classes for hard of hearing and 3.47 for
students in special schools for the deaf.
Interestingly, while not largely different, the students in the self-contained classes for the
deaf had the higher or equally high mean on 10 of the 14 items on the Peer Relations scale with
students in the other two settings have the higher or equally high mean on only three items.
80
Table 13 reports descriptive statistics of means and standard deviations for each item of
the Peer Relations section according to the type of program, oral or total communication (TC).
Table 13
Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of Peer Relations According to the Type of
Program
Type of Program
Item Oral Total
Communication
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Offers help to other students when needed 3.70 1.29 3.77 1.23
2. Participates effectively in group
discussions and activities 3.37 1.46 3.80 1.28
3. Understands problems and needs of other
students 3.20 1.34 3.28 1.23
4. Invites other students to participate
activities 3.33 1.41 3.34 1.29
5. Has skills or abilities that are admired by 3.21 1.47 3.21 1.46
peers
6. Interacts with a wide variety of peers 3.68 1.37 3.90 1.04

7. Is good at initiating or joining
conversations with peers 3.43 1.39 3.86 1.18
8. Is sensitive to feelings of other students 3.37 1.24 3.83 1.15

9. Enters appropriately into ongoing activities
with peers 3.61 1.31 3.83 1.16
10. Has good leadership skills 3.12 1.52 3.26 1.44

11. Notices and compliments accomplishments
of others 3.14 1.35 3.15 1.28
12. Is assertive in an appropriate way when
he/she needs to 3.22 1.41 3.33 1.33
13. Is invited by peers to join in activities 3.52 1.27 3.55 1.24
14. Is "looked up to" or respected by peers 3.90 1.19 3.83 1.16

81
There was little difference between the means for the two groups, students who use the
oral method of communication and those who use total communication. There were three items
where the means showed a greater amount of difference with the students using total
communication having the higher mean. These were items 3, “understands problems and needs
of others” (TC = 3.80 and OC = 3.37), item 7, “is good at initiating or joining conversations with
peers” (TC = 3.86 and OC = 3.43), and item 8, “is sensitive to feelings of other students” (TC =
3.83 and OC = 3.37). The most interesting finding was that, while the differences between the
means of the two groups weren’t large, the group of students using total communication had the
higher or equal mean on all but one of the items.
Table 14 shows the means and standard deviations for the Peer Relations scales
according to gender. There were differences of greater than .40 between males and females on
four of the items and the females with hearing loss had the higher mean on all but two of the 14
items. The largest mean difference (.53) occurred on item 4 “invites other students to participate
in activities” with a female mean of 3.66 compared to the male mean of 3.13. There was a
difference of .52 on item 3 “understands problems and needs of other students” with the females
having a mean of 3.57 and the males 3.05. Two other items had differing means of .40. Item 7
“is good at initiating or joining conversations with peers” (M = 3.55, F = 3.95) and Item 8 “is
sensitive to feelings of other students” with a mean for male students of 3.21 and a mean for
female students of 3.64.

82
Table 14
Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of the Peer Relations Scale According to the Type
of Gender
Item Gender
Male Female
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Offers help to other students when needed 3.60 1.24 3.97 1.25
2. Participates effectively in group discussions and
activities 3.55 1.34 3.81 1.38
3. Understands problems and needs of other
students 3.05 1.24 3.57 1.25
4. Invites other students to participate in activities 3.13 1.29 3.66 1.33
5. Has skills or abilities that are admired by peers 3.13 1.44 3.33 1.5
6. Interacts with a wide variety of peers 3.72 1.17 3.99 1.15
7. Is good at initiating or joining conversations with

peers 3.55 1.30 3.95 1.19
8. Is sensitive to feelings of other students 3.21 1.17 3.64 1.17

9. Enters appropriately into ongoing activities with
peers 3.62 1.22 3.97 1.19
10. Has good leadership skills 3.23 1.42 3.18 1.55

11. Notices and compliments accomplishments of
others 3.05 1.25 3.30 1.37
12. Is assertive in an appropriate way when he /she
needs to 3.41 1.25 3.09 1.50
13. Is invited by peers to join in activities 3.43 1.22 3.70 1.28

14. Is "looked up to" or respected by peers 3.79 1.13 3.95 1.22
Descriptive Analysis of Academic Behavior Items. This section provides the results of
descriptive analyses for each item of the Academic Behavior scale according to the type of
educational setting, program, and gender. The academic behavior section includes 8 items which
83
deal with behaviors that are related to academic subjects (e.g., completing school work, asking
for help, listening to the teacher). Table 15 shows descriptive statistics of means and standard
deviations for each item of the Academic Behavior scale according to the type of educational
setting. Table 16 shows descriptive statistics of means and standard deviations for each item in
the Academic Behavior scale according to the type of program. Table 17 provides descriptive
statistics of means and standard deviations for each item of the Academic Behavior scale
according to gender.
In general, there were no differences in the means for all of the items on the Academic
Behavior scale between students in special schools for the deaf, students in self-contained classes
for the deaf, and students in self-contained for hard of hearing (see Table 15). The range of
means across all items was from 3.27 on item 4 “asks appropriately for clarification of
instructions” to a mean of 3.98 on item 8 “produces work of acceptable quality for his/her ability
level.” Students in self-contained classes for the deaf had the highest mean on 5 of the 8 items
while the students in self-contained classes for the hard of hearing had only one item where the
mean was the highest of the three groups.
Table 16 shows means and standard deviations for items in the Academic Behavior scale
for students with hearing impairment according to their type of program (oral or total
communication). Again, there were essentially no differences between the means for the two
groups on items in this scale. The range of means across the items was from 3.24 on item 4 to
3.97 on item 8. The largest different between the means for the two groups was on item 5
“completes school assignments on time” with the oral group having a mean of 3.55 and the total
communication group with a mean of 3.89 (.25 difference). The students using total
communication had the higher mean on 7 of the 8 items.

84
Table 15
Means & Standard Deviation for Each Item of Academic Behavior According to the Type of
Educational Setting
Special Self-contained Self-contained

Item schools for classes for the classes for the
the deaf deaf hard of
hearing

1. Makes appropriate transitions
between different activities 3.73 1.24 3.47 1.28 3.72 1.26
2. Completes school work without
being reminded 3.63 1.30 3.73 1.28 3.51 1.44
3. Listens to and carries out
directions from teachers 3.91 1.21 3.88 1.11 3.93 1.27
4. Asks appropriately for
clarification of instructions 3.37 1.32 3.48 1.40 3.27 1.42
5. Completes school assignments
or other tasks independently 3.78 1.29 3.81 1.20 3.57 1.51
6. Completes school assignments
on-time 3.76 1.28 3.79 1.27 3.72 1.30
7. Asks for help in an appropriate
manner 3.87 1.08 3.86 1.09 3.72 1.29
8. Produces work of acceptable
quality for his /her ability level 3.96 1.12 3.98 1.10 3.81 1.38
Table 17 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for each item in the Academic
Behavior scale according to gender. The range of mean scores was from 3.27 on item 4 “asks
appropriately for clarification of instructions” to a mean of 4.07 on item 7 “asks for help in an
appropriate manner.” While there were no large differences between the two groups, males and
females, item 1 “makes appropriate transitions between different activities” and item 7 (see
above) showed differences of .38 and .41 respectively between the two groups of students. The
mean for the females on item 1 was 3.92 and the mean for the males was 3.54; on item 7 the
85
mean for the females was 4.07 while the mean for the males was 3.66. It should also be noted
that the means for the female group were higher for all 8 items than were the means for the
males.
Table 16
Means & Standard Deviation for Each Item of Academic Behavior According to the Type of
Program
Type of program
Item Oral Total communication
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Makes appropriate transitions between
different activities 3.70 1.26 3.68 1.25
2. Completes school work without being
reminded 3.49 1.44 3.66 1.29
3. Listens to and carries out directions from
teachers 3.90 1.28 3.92 1.17
4. Asks appropriately for clarification of
instructions 3.24 1.44 3.41 1.32
5. Completes school assignments or other
tasks independently 3.55 1.51 3.80 1.27
6. Completes school assignments on-time 3.69 1.31 3.78 1.27
7. Asks for help in an appropriate manner 3.73 1.28 3.87 1.08
8. Produces work of acceptable quality for

his /her ability level 3.79 1.38 3.97 1.11
86
Table 17
Means & Standard Deviation for Each item of Academic Behavior According to the Type of
Gender
Gender
Item Male Female
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Makes appropriate transitions between different
activities 3.54 1.29 3.92 1.17
2. Completes school work without being reminded 3.55 1.39 3.67 1.28
3. Listens to and carries out directions from teachers 3.83 1.19 4.04 1.23
4. Asks appropriately for clarification of instructions 3.27 1.35 3.48 1.38
5. Completes school assignments or other tasks

independently 3.66 1.36 3.79 1.35
6. Completes school assignments on-time 3.71 1.27 3.81 1.30
7. Asks for help in an appropriate manner 3.66 1.16 4.07 1.12

8. Produces work of acceptable quality for his /her
ability level 3.83 1.21 4.02 1.21
Descriptive analysis of Self-Management Items. This section provides descriptive
analyses results for each item of the Self-Management scale by type of educational setting,
program, and gender. The self-management section includes 10 items related to a student’s self
control and adjustment (e.g., cooperates with others, behaves appropriately at school, adjusts to
different expectations). Table 18 shows the means and standard deviations for each item of the
self-management scale according to the type of educational setting. Table 19 provides the means
and standard deviations according to the type of program and Table 20 gives the means and
standard deviations by gender.

87
Table 18
Means & Standard Deviation for Each Item of Self-management According to the Type of
Educational Setting
Item Self-contained Self-contained

Special schools classes for the classes for the
for the deaf deaf hard of hearing

1. Cooperates with other
students 3.89 1.15 3.82 1.14 3.94 1.27
2. Remains calm when problems
arise 3.32 1.31 3.44 1.29 3.57 1.43
3. Is accepting of other students 3.73 1.14 4.12 1.07 3.66 1.26
4. Will give-in or compromise

with peers when appropriate 3.93 1.18 3.94 1.16 3.70 1.33
5. Follows school and classroom
rules 4.03 1.15 3.75 1.15 3.94 1.29
6. Behaves appropriately at
school 3.84 1.07 3.96 1.06 3.94 1.25
7. Responds appropriately when
corrected by teachers 3.36 1.13 3.92 1.16 3.91 1.20
8. Controls temper when angry 3.36 1.26 3.48 1.05 3.45 1.44
9. Adjusts to different behavioral

expectations across settings 3.36 1.09 3.66 1.01 3.47 1.25
10. Shows self-control 3.49 1.19 3.62 1.05 3.44 1.36
Table 18 presents the means and standard deviations for students with hearing loss on the
Self-Management scale according to the type of education setting where they are receiving their
education. The range of means across the three settings are from 3.32 on item 2 “remains calm
when problems arise” to a mean of 4.12 on item 3 “is accepting of other students.” While the
mean differences between the three settings are small, there are some notable contrasts. First, the
88
mean on item 3 (see above) is much higher for students in self-contained classes for the deaf
(4.12) than for the other two settings (3.66 for hard of hearing students and 3.73 for students in
the special schools for the deaf). Also, on item 7 “responds appropriately when corrected by
teachers,” the means for the two groups in the public schools are higher than is the mean for the
students in the special schools for the deaf (3.36 as compared to 3.92 and 3.91). Finally, the
means of the scores for the students in the self-contained classes for the deaf are higher than the
means for the other two groups on 7 out of the 10 items.
Table 19
Means & Standard Deviation Scores for Each Item of Self-management According to the
Type of Program
Type of Program
Item Oral Total
Communication
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Cooperates with other students 3.93 1.27 3.88 1.15
2. Remains calm when problems arise 3.56 1.43 3.35 1.30
3. Is accepting of other students 3.64 1.26 3.74 1.14

4. Will give-in or compromise with peers when 3.70 1.33 3.77 1.17
appropriate
5. Follows school and classroom rules 3.93 1.29 3.89 1.15
6. Behaves appropriately at school 3.95 1.24 4.01 1.07
7. Responds appropriately when corrected by 3.88 1.21 3.87 1.13
teachers
8. Controls temper when angry 3.44 1.44 3.39 1.22
9. Adjusts to different behavioral expectations 3.46 1.24 3.41 1.07
across settings
10. Shows self-control 3.44 1.35 3.52 1.16
Means and standard deviations for the items on the Self-Management scale are presented
in Table 19. Clearly, there is little difference in the means between the students who
89
communicate orally and those who use total communication on the Self-Management scale. The
means range from a low of 3.44 on item 8 “controls temper when angry” and item 10 “shows
self-control,” and a high of 4.01 for item 6 “behaves appropriately at school.” The means were
fairly split between the two groups with the oral students showing the higher mean scores on 6 of
the items and the manual students having higher mean scores on 4 of the items.
Table 20 provides the mean scores and the standard deviations on the Self-Management
scale for students with hearing impairment according to their gender. The range of means for
gender showed a mean range from 3.34 on item 8 “controls temper” to a mean of 4.21 on item 6
“behaves appropriately at school.” The means between these two groups varied more greatly on
this scale than they did for the other categories (setting and program). The smallest difference
Table 20
Means & Standard Deviation for Each Item of Self-management According to the Type of
Gender
Gender
Item Male Female
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Cooperates with other students 3.77 1.19 4.10 1.17
2. Remains calm when problems arise 3.37 1.29 3.51 1.44
3. Is accepting of other students 3.61 1.20 3.86 1.15
4. Will give-in or compromise with peers 3.56 1.26 4.04 1.13
when appropriate
5. Follows school and classroom rules 3.77 1.21 4.12 1.15
6. Behaves appropriately at school 3.85 1.14 4.21 1.09
7. Responds appropriately when corrected 3.82 1.17 3.97 1.13
by teachers
8. Controls temper when angry 3.34 1.26 3.51 1.35
9. Adjusts to different behavioral 3.35 1.11 3.56 1.16
expectations across settings
10. Shows self-control 3.37 1.21 3.68 1.25
90
between the two means was .14 for item 2 “remains calm when problems arise” and the largest
was .48 on item 4 “will give-in or compromise with peers when appropriate. Also of interest is
that the group of girls in the study had the higher mean on all 10 of the items.
Descriptive Analysis of Social Adjustment Items. This section provides means and
standard deviations for each item of the Social Adjustment scale for educational setting,
program, and gender. The Social Adjustment scale includes 23 items. The items on the scale are
related to a student’s ability to get along in school. Some of the items are worded positively and
some negatively. The results are presented in three separate tables—educational settings,
program, and gender.
A total of 375 hearing impaired students were evaluated on their social adjustment. Table
21 provides the means and standard deviations for students in the three different educational
settings. The mean scores for the 12 positive items on the scale ranged from 2.9 on item 5
“accepts some delay of gratification; does not expect instant satisfaction of every need, whim, or
desire” to 3.73 for item 1 “obeys the rules; follows instructions or requests from adults in
authority. The range of mean scores on the 11 negative items was 1.54 for item 10 “engages in
destructive behavior (breaking objects, defacing walls or furniture, scattering things in disarray)”
to a mean of 3.35 on item 3 “aggressive; behavior may include fighting, scratching, biting other
students and/or kicking or hitting animals.” Students in the special schools for the deaf had 7 of
the highest means (4 on positive items and 3 on negative items) and 9 (4 on positive items and 5
on negative items) of the lowest. Students in self-contained programs for the deaf had 7 (4 on
positive items and 3 on negative items) of the highest means and 10 (5 on positive items and 5 on
negative items) of the lowest. Finally, students in self-contained programs for the hard of
hearing had 9 (4 on positive items and 5 on negative items) of the highest means, and 5 (4 on
91
positive items and 1 on a negative item) of the lowest. Across all of the settings the means were
low for item 10 “engages in destructive behavior (breaking objects, defacing walls or furniture,
scattering things in disarray)” and item 12 “misbehavior is not deterred by restrictions or by
threat of punishment.”
Table 21
Means & Standard Deviation for Each Item of Social Adjustment According to the Type
of Educational Setting
Self-contained
Special Self-contained classes for the
Item schools for classes for the hard of
the deaf deaf hearing
1. Obeys the rules; follows instructions 3.73 0.6 3.23 0.70 3.36 0.76
or requests from adults in authority
2. Kind and considerate 3.20 0.67 3.17 0.16 3.15 0.76
3. Aggressive; behavior may include 3.35 0.74 2.94 0.79 3.21 0.87
fighting, scratching, biting other
students and/or kicking or hitting
animals
4. Has generally acceptable emotional 2.95 0.69 3.13 0.44 3.05 0.76
responses; rages (tantrums) or violent
outbursts occur only after extreme
provocation if at all
5. Accepts some delay of gratification; 2.78 0.57 2.90 0.41 2.87 0.65
does not expect instant satisfaction of
every need, whim or desire
6. Teases or annoys or pesters other 3.02 0.78 2.79 0.82 2.98 0.96
students
7. Takes responsibility for fair share of 3.16 0.66 3.17 0.47 3.10 0.81
tasks; helps to clean up after a project
is finished
8. Performs cooperatively in group of 3.06 0.68 3.15 0.53 3.09 0.77
peers; contributes to cohesion rather
than to conflict
9. Happy, cheerful, pleasant, easy - 3.17 0.70 3.15 0.63 3.11 0.79
going
92
10. Engages in destructive behavior 1.54 0.73 1.87 0.74 1.66 0.89
(breaking objects, defacing walls or
furniture, scattering things in
disarray)
11. Trustworthy, dependable, reliable 2.97 0.73 2.94 0.66 2.94 0.84
12. Misbehavior not deterred by 1.87 0.80 1.83 0.70 1.75 0.87
restrictions or by threat of
punishment
13. Fails to accept criticism, especially if 2.81 0.72 2.69 0.75 2.89 0.80
it is expressed as discipline or
restriction
14. Demands attention; must be center of 2.32 0.81 2.46 0.69 2.39 0.92
everything; may insist on being first
in line, leader, or captain.
15. Seems to understand the feelings of 2.97 0.65 2.96 0.48 3.04 0.64
others; demonstrates empathy
16. Responds poorly to losing in games 2.21 0.73 2.23 0.83 2.33 0.89
or failing to achieve in class
17. Accepts differences in other people; 3.03 0.69 3.04 0.68 3.09 0.82
doesn't tease or exclude peers on
basis of racial differences or physical
handicaps
18. Has habits, mannerisms or traits 3.28 0.71 3.04 0.74 3.29 0.82
considered to be rude or socially
unacceptable (e.g., picks nose, makes
obscene /sexual references
19. Doesn't try to copy classmates' work 2.93 0.81 2.92 0.81 3.05 0.89
nor take things belonging to others
20. Generous; shares with others 3.06 0.58 3.04 0.59 3.09 0.76
21. Demands attention and help 2.26 0.85 2.34 0.68 2.33 0.94
constantly; takes disproportionate
share of teacher’s time
22. Acts without thinking; impulsive. 2.89 0.83 2.94 0.72 3.02 0.89
doesn't consider or doesn't care about
consequences
23. Denies own misbehavior; may also 2.66 0.82 2.35 1.03 3.08 5.5
blame others for own misdeeds
93
Table 22 provides means and standard deviations for the oral and total communication
programs for the 23 items on the Social Adjustment scale. The differences between the means for
the two groups were very small with the exception of two items, both of which assessed negative
behaviors. On item 16 “responds poorly to losing in games or failing to achieve in class” the
oral group mean was 3.32 which was 1.10 higher than the mean for the total communication
group (2.22). For item 23 “denies own misbehavior; may also blame others for own misdeeds”
the mean of 3.07 for the oral group was .47 higher than the 2.60 mean scored for the total
communication group on this item. The mean range on the positive items was from 2.93 on item
11, “trustworthy, dependable and reliable,” to 3.35 on item 1 “obeys the rules; follows
instructions or requests from authority.” The mean range for the negative items was 1.76 on item
12 “misbehavior not deterred by restrictions or by threat of punishment” to 3.32 on item 16 (see
above). Overall, the means were higher for the positive items and lower for the negative items.
Table 22
Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item in the Social Adjustment Scale by Program Type
Type of program
Item Oral Total
Communication
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Obeys the rules; follows instructions or requests from 3.34 0.77 3.35 0.62
adults in authority
2. Kind and considerate 3.15 0.75 3.19 0.66
3. Aggressive; behavior may include fighting, 3.21 0.87 3.26 0.77
scratching, biting other students and/or kicking or
hitting animals
4. Has generally acceptable emotional responses; rages 3.05 0.76 2.99 0.65
(tantrums) or violent outbursts occur only after
extreme provocation if at all
5. Accepts some delay of gratification; does not expect 2.87 0.65 2.81 0.54
instant satisfaction of every need, whim or desire
94
6. Teases or annoys or pesters other students 2.99 0.95 2.96 0.79

7. Takes responsibility for fair share of tasks; helps to 3.10 0.80 3.16 0.62
clean up after a project is finished
8. Performs cooperatively in group of peers; contributes 3.08 0.77 3.09 0.65
to cohesion rather than to conflict
9. Happy, cheerful, pleasant, easy -going 3.09 0.80 3.18 0.68
10. Engages in destructive behavior (breaking objects, 1.68 0.89 1.60 0.74
defacing walls or furniture, scattering things in
disarray)
11. Trustworthy, dependable, reliable 2.93 0.84 2.97 0.72
12. Misbehavior not deterred by restrictions or by threat 1.76 0.86 1.86 0.78
of punishment
13. Fails to accept criticism, especially if it is expressed 2.89 0.79 2.78 0.73
as discipline or restriction
14. Demands attention; must be center of everything; 2.38 0.91 2.35 0.79
may insist on being first in line, leader, or captain.
15. Seems to understand the feelings of others; 3.03 0.64 2.98 0.62
demonstrates empathy
16. Responds poorly to losing in games or failing to 3.32 0.90 2.22 0.75
achieve in class
17. Accepts differences in other people; doesn't tease or 3.09 0.81 3.02 0.68
exclude peers on basis of racial differences or
physical handicaps
18. Has habits, mannerisms or traits considered to be 3.27 0.84 3.24 0.71
rude or socially unacceptable (e.g., picks nose, makes
obscene /sexual references
19. Doesn't try to copy classmates' work nor take things 3.05 0.89 2.93 0.81
belonging to others
20. Generous; shares with others 3.07 0.78 3.07 0.57
21. Demands attention and help constantly; takes 2.34 0.94 2.27 0.82
disproportionate share of teacher’s time
22. Acts without thinking; impulsive. doesn't consider or 3.01 0.89 2.90 0.81
doesn't care about consequences
23. Denies own misbehavior; may also blame others for 3.07 5.48 2.60 0.88
own misdeeds
Table 23 provides means and standard deviations for items in the Social Adjustment scale
for students with hearing impairment by gender. The females had the larger mean score on 12 of
the positive items and 6 of the negative items while the males had the larger mean for 1 positive
item and 5 negative items. The mean range for the positive items was 2.74 for item 5 “accepts
some delay of gratification; does not expect instant satisfaction of every need, whim, or desire”
95
to a mean of 3.46 on item 1 “obeys the rules; follows instructions or requests from adults in
authority.” The range for the negative items was 1.75 on item 10 “engages is destructive
behavior (breaking objects, defacing walls or furniture, scattering things in disarray) to 3.51 for
item 3 “aggressive; behavior may include fighting, scratching, biting other students and/or
kicking or hitting animals.” There were fairly large mean difference between the two groups on
four items all of which were negative. For item 3 (see above) the difference was .43 with the
girls having the higher mean score. The means for item 7 “teases or annoys or pesters other
students” had a difference of .36 with the girls again having the higher mean. The range between
the two means for item 17 “accepts differences in other people; doesn’t tease or exclude peers on
basis of racial differences or physical handicaps” was 3.10 (males) to 3.49 (females), a difference
of .39. Finally, on item 23 “denies own behavior; may also blame others for own misdeeds”
showed a difference of .89, again with the females having the larger mean (3.31 vs. 2.42 for the
males).
Table 23
Means & Standard Deviations for Each Item of the Social Adjustment Scale by Gender
Gender
Item Male Female
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Obeys the rules; follows instructions or requests 3.28 0.65 3.46 0.69
from adults in authority
2. Kind and considerate 3.08 0.70 3.32 0.65
3. Aggressive; behavior may include fighting, 3.08 0.82 3.51 0.71
scratching, biting other students and/or kicking or
hitting animals
4. Has generally acceptable emotional responses; 3.03 0.62 2.98 0.79
rages (tantrums) or violent outbursts occur only
after extreme provocation if at all
5. Accepts some delay of gratification; does not 2.74 0.57 2.97 0.58
expect instant satisfaction of every need, whim or
desire
96
6. Teases or annoys or pesters other students 2.83 0.81 3.19 0.88

7. Takes responsibility for fair share of tasks; helps 3.05 0.65 3.29 0.72
to clean up after a project is finished
8. Performs cooperatively in group of peers; 3.02 0.64 3.19 0.76
contributes to cohesion rather than to conflict
9. Happy, cheerful, pleasant, easy -going 3.14 0.67 3.16 0.80
10. Engages in destructive behavior (breaking objects, 1.75 0.79 1.45 0.77
defacing walls or furniture, scattering things in
disarray)
11. Trustworthy, dependable, reliable 2.94 0.74 2.99 0.80
12. Misbehavior not deterred by restrictions or by 1.92 0.81 1.68 0.80
threat of punishment
13. Fails to accept criticism, especially if it is 2.74 0.73 2.95 0.78
expressed as discipline or restriction
14. Demands attention; must be center of everything; 2.41 0.78 2.28 0.91
may insist on being first in line, leader, or captain.
15. Seems to understand the feelings of others; 2.97 0.56 3.03 0.72
demonstrates empathy
16. Responds poorly to losing in games or failing to 2.32 0.74 2.14 0.89
achieve in class
17. Accepts differences in other people; doesn't tease 2.97 0.70 3.18 0.76
or exclude peers on basis of racial differences or
physical handicaps
18. Has habits, mannerisms or traits considered to be 3.10 0.73 3.49 0.74
rude or socially unacceptable (e.g., picks nose,
makes obscene /sexual references
19. Doesn't try to copy classmates' work nor take 2.87 0.85 3.13 0.81
things belonging to others
20. Generous; shares with others 3.05 0.65 3.10 0.64
21. Demands attention and help constantly; takes 2.36 0.81 2.20 0.94
disproportionate share of teacher’s time
22. Acts without thinking; impulsive. doesn't consider 2.86 0.81 3.06 0.87
or doesn't care about consequences
23. Denies own misbehavior; may also blame others 2.42 0.95 3.31 5.15
for own misdeeds
Descriptive Analysis of Each Scale
A descriptive analysis was done for each scale and subscale used in the study (all of the
items aggregated). Tables 24, 25, and 26 show the means and standard deviations for each scale
and subscale by type of educational setting, program, and gender. There were no differences
between the means on the separate scales/subscales for setting or type of program. There was a
97
mean difference of 9.7 between males and females on the Social Competence scale (Males =
111.38, Females = 121.08) however the other scales had means that were nearly the same. The
females did have a slightly higher mean score on each of the other scales and subscales.
Table 24
Mean & Standard Deviation for Each Scale and Subscale by the Type of Educational Setting
Settings
Scales Special Schools for Self-contained Self-contained
the Deaf Classes for Deaf Classes for HOH
Social Competence 115.20 27.39 116.70 25.74 114.23 30.44
Peer Relations 45.14 12.14 45.82 11.13 44.53 12.94
Academic Behavior 30.08 7.77 29.40 8.46 29.23 9.14
Self-management 37.13 10.59 38.00 9.41 37.24 10.24
Social Adjustment 64.90 5.97 64.41 5.75 66.25 11.36
Table 25
Mean & Standard Deviation for Each Scale and Subscale by the Type of Program
Program
Scales Oral Total Communication
Mean SD Mean SD
Social Competence 115.72 26.90 113.88 30.59
Peer Relations 45.44 11.84 44.26 13.02
Academic Behavior 30.11 7.67 28.92 9.45
Self-management 37.40 10.34 37.40 10.24
Social Adjustment 64.80 5.91 66.25 11.36
98
Table 26
Mean & Standard Deviation for Each Scale and Subscale by Gender
Gender
Scales Male Female
Mean SD Mean SD
Social Competence 111.38 27.65 121.08 28.20
Peer Relations 43.69 11.73 47.15 12.82
Academic Behavior 29.17 8.20 30.48 8.58
Self-management 36.61 11.07 38.37 8.85
Social Adjustment 63.98 6.02 67.35 10.43
Analysis of Variance
One-way ANOVA on each item for all scales in the study
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine what affect, if any, the
factors of type of educational setting, program, and gender have on each item of the scales used
in this study (peer relations, academic behavior, self-management, and social adjustment). (See
Appendix A)
Table 27 in Appendix A summarizes the results of the one-way analysis of variance of
the means conducted to determine how the factors of educational setting, program, and gender
affect or influence each item of the Peer Relations scale. The reported numbers are F-statistics
along with their significant levels as denoted by P-values. Only significant factors at the .05 level
will be reported.
The setting variable showed influence on the following items: (a) participates effectively
in-group discussions and activities; and (b) is good at initiating or joining conversations with
peers. The type of program was found to influence the same two items. Gender was found to
affect nine of fourteen items on the Peer Relations scale. These items are: 1) offers help to other
99
students when needed; 2) understands problems and needs of other students; 3) invites other
students to participate activities; 4) has skills or abilities that are admired by peers; 5) interacts
with a wide variety of peers; 6) is good at initiating or joining conversations with peers; 7) is
sensitive to feelings of other students; 8) enters appropriately into on going activities with peers;
and 9) is assertive in an appropriate way when he/she needs to.
Table 28 in Appendix A shows the results of the one-way analysis of variance on items in
the Academic Behavior scale. The reported numbers are F-statistics along with their significance
levels as denoted by P-values. Only significant factors at the .05 level will be reported. The data
in Table 29 indicates that gender influences two of the eight Academic Behavior items—makes
appropriate transitions between different activities and asks for help in an appropriate manner.
Table 29 in Appendix A summarizes the results of the one-way analysis of variance on
each item of the Self-management scale. The reported numbers are F-statistics along with their
significance levels as denoted by P-values. Only significant factors at the .05 level are
highlighted. The table reveals that the setting factors significantly affect only one item out of the
total of ten. The item of significance based on where the student receives his/her education is the
item indicating that the student is accepting of other students. The analysis of variance also
indicated that gender influenced the following 6 items: 1) cooperate with other students; 2) is
accepting of other students; 3) will give-in or compromise with peers when appropriate; 4)
follows school and classroom rules; 5) behaves appropriately at school; and 6) shows self-
control.
The one-way analysis of variance of the items in the Social Adjustment scale are
summarized in Table 30 in Appendix A. Only the factor significant at the .05 level is reported
below.
100
Table 30 shows that gender was found to influence 16 out of the 23 items on the Social
Adjustment scale. These items are as follows: 1) obeys the rules; follows instructions or requests
from adults in authority; 2) is kind and considerate; 3) aggressive; behavior may include fighting,
scratching, biting other students and/or kicking or hitting animals; 4) accepts some delay of
gratification and does not expect instant satisfaction of every need, whim or desire; 5) teases,
annoys or pesters other students; 6) takes responsibility for fair share of tasks, helps to clean-up
after a project is finished; 7) performs cooperatively in a group of peers contributing to cohesion
rather than to conflict; 8) engages in destructive behavior (breaking objects, defacing walls or
furniture, scattering things in disarray); 9) misbehavior is not deterred by restrictions or by threat
of punishment; 10) fails to accept criticism especially if it is expressed as discipline or
restriction; 11) responds poorly to losing in games or failing to achieve in class; 12) accepts
differences in other people, doesn't tease or exclude peers on the basis of racial differences or
physical handicaps; 13) has habits, mannerisms or traits considered to be rude or socially
unacceptable (e.g. picks nose, makes obscene/sexual references); 14) doesn't try to copy
classmates' work nor take things belonging to others; 15) acts without thinking, is impulsive,
doesn't consider or care about consequences; 16) denies own misbehavior, may also blame others
for own misdeeds.
One-way ANOVA for Each Scale
A series of one-way analysis of variances (ANOVA) were conducted to evaluate
whether there were significant differences in the Peer Relations scale score, the Academic
Behavior score, the Self-management score, and the Social Adjustment score in relationship to
educational setting, program, or gender.

101
Educational setting. Educational setting was divided into three groups—special schools
for the deaf, self-contained classes for the deaf in public schools, and self-contained classes for
hard of hearing students. There were no significant differences (significance level of p<.05)
found between the three settings for any of the scales.
Type of communication program. ANOVAs were conducted in order to determine if
there was a significant difference on the various scales based on the student’s type of
communication program (oral and total communication). The test showed that there were no
significant differences between the two groups for any of the scales used in this study.
Gender. A third series of ANOVAs were calculated to determine if there were significant
differences between students with hearing impairment according to their gender. The ANOVAs
showed that significant differences existed between the scores of the males and females for two
of the scales—Peer Relations and Social Adjustment. The Peer Relations scores were significant,
F (1, 365) = 7.039, p = 0.008. See Table 31. The Social adjustment score was also significant, F
(1, 351) = 14.791, p = 0.000. See Table 32. There were no significant differences in the
Academic Behavior scores and the Self-management scores for either the males or females with
hearing impairment.
Means and standard deviations are presented in Tables 33 and 34. Significant mean
differences were found between male and female students on the Peer Relations scale and on the
Social Adjustment scale.

102
Table 31
One –way ANOVA for Peer Relation by Gender
Scale Source Sum of df Mean F

Squares square
Peer relation Between Groups 1041.611 1 1041.611 7.039*
Within Groups 54010.117 365 147.973
Total 55051.728 366
Note.* P<0.05
Table 32
One –way ANOVA for Social Adjustment by Gender
Scale Source Sum of df Mean F

Squares Square
Social adjustment Between Groups 956.643 1 956.643 14.791*
Within Groups 22701.527 351 64.677
Total 23658.170 352
Note.* P < 0.05
103
Table 33
Means and Standard Deviations for Peer Relations
Gender Mean Std. Deviation

Male 43.69 11.73
Female 47.15 12.82
Total 45.03 12.26
Table 34
Means and Standard Deviations for Social Adjustment
Gender Mean Std. Deviation

Male 63.9814 6.0295
Female 67.3551 10.4363
Total 65.3003 8.1982

104
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter includes a discussion of the research, limitations of the study, implications
of the study’s findings for improving the social development of students with hearing
impairment, and recommendations for future research.
Reliability
Test- retest reliability was conducted for the purpose of evaluating the stability of the
scale scores over time. The test-retest reliability of each scale was calculated on the scores rated
by the same teachers at 2-week time intervals for 94 of the students (25% of the total sample).
The reliability scores ranged from 77 to 83 percent. The reliability scores for each scale were as
follows: Peer relations—83 percent, Academic behavior – 77 percent, Self-management—78
percent, and Social Adjustment—85 percent. All of the reliability scores were considered to be
in the moderate to high range (i.e., an 80 to 85 percent reliability is considered acceptable). In
general, social-emotional assessment instruments are not expected to obtain strong test-retest
reliability because there is more variability across the items based on the objectivity of the
responses (Merrell, 2003). However, since the test-retest reliability of each scale was calculated
on scores rated by the same teachers at a 2-week time interval, the test-retest reliability scores for
this study were acceptable showing that the scores had good stability coefficients.
Discussion
Many of the studies reviewed showed conflicting results regarding the social
development of students with hearing loss educated in both public schools and in special schools
for the deaf. It was apparent from the reviewed studies that hearing impaired students may differ
105
in their social adjustment and competence as a result of their communication program (oral or
total communication), educational setting, gender, and age. Isolation and lack of socialization
opportunities are important issues for deaf students, especially those who are in public school
programs. Deaf students in the public schools were found to be less socially adjusted, more
lonely, and less accepted by their peers; whereas deaf students in the special schools for the deaf
were often found to be more socially adjusted. Contrary to these results, other studies showed
that special programs in public schools can improve the social development of students with
hearing impairment and have positive effects on interactions between deaf and hearing children.
The current study was conducted in an effort to examine whether the peer relations,
academic behavior, self-management, and social adjustment skills of students with hearing
impairment at the elementary level in Riyadh in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would differ
significantly according to educational setting, program, and gender.
Two instruments were used to assess the social development skills of students with
hearing impairment, the Social Emotional Assessment Inventories (SEAI), (Meadow, 1983) and
the School Social Behavior Scales (SSBS-2) (Merrell, 2002). The scales were completed in
Riyadh by elementary special education teachers for students with hearing impairment.
The results for this study indicated that there were no significant differences in peer
relations, academic behavior, self-management, or social adjustment of students with hearing
impairment on the basis of the students’ educational setting. Even though several studies stated
that socialization experiences for students with hearing impairment differ depending on the type
of educational setting (Leigh & Stinson, 1993; Mertens, 1989; Farrugia & Austin, 1980;
Cartledge, Cochran & Paul, 1996), the results found in this study are similar to the findings of
Leigh & Stinson (1991) who reported that the type of educational setting did not appear to affect
106
the social competence of students with hearing impairment. The results from this study were also
similar to the findings of the study conducted by Mertens (1986). She used the Meadow-Kendall
Socio-Emotional inventory to examine the social development of students who were in self-
contained classes and students who were partially integrated. Mertens did not find consistent
differences between two groups. Interestingly, even though no significant differences between
students were found on the peer relations, academic behavior, self-management, or social
adjustment scales on the basis of their educational setting, the one-way ANOVA for each item in
the scales showed that there were significant differences for some of the individual items. The
analysis showed that there were significant differences for two items on the peer relations scale
according to the type of educational setting. These items were: 1) participates effectively in
group discussions and activities, and 2) is good at initiating or joining conversations with peers
(see Tables 27 & 12). In the first item, students in special schools for the deaf had higher scores
than students in the other settings. The results for the first item may be related to the fact that all
of the students in the special schools for the deaf communicate with sign language and are thus
more comfortable in group discussions. The second item was significant for students in self-
contained classes for the deaf. Again, these students all used sign language that may be
contributing to their communication comfort. The one-way ANOVA also showed that there were
significant differences for the students in self-contained classes for the deaf on one item in the
self-management scale—“is accepting of other students" (see Tables 29 & 18). The significance
of this result may be related to the more heterogeneous groups of students in the public school
settings. This may provide students with greater opportunity to interact with differing groups of
students.
107
This study also found that there were no significant differences in relation to the type of
program. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in peer relations,
academic behavior, self-management, and the social adjustment of students with hearing
impairment in oral or total communication (TC) programs. Interestingly, the analysis of variance
for each item in scales showed that there were significant differences on two items in peer
relation scale according to the type of program. These items were the same two items that had
significant values for the setting variable—1) participates effectively in group discussions and an
activity, and 2) is good at initiating or joining conversation with peers. The higher score on these
two items were for the students in TC programs (see Tables 27 & 13). Again, this is most likely
related to their comfort in communication with sign language.
The results of this study showed that there were significant differences for students with
hearing impairment on the basis of gender for both peer relations and social adjustment skills.
There were no significant differences found in relation to gender, however, on academic
behavior and self-management skills. One-way ANOVA for each item showed there were
significant differences on nine items on the peer relations scale. The results showed that females
had higher scores in eight of the nine items. These eight items were: 1) offers help to other
students when needed; 2) understands problems and needs of other students; 3) invites other
students to participate activities; 4) has skills or abilities that are admired by peers; 5) interacts
with a wide variety of peers; 6) is good at initiating or joining conversations with peers; 7) is
sensitive to feelings of other students; and 8) enters appropriately into ongoing activities with
peers. Interestingly, Male students had a significantly higher score on one item—“ is assertive in
appropriate way when he/ she need to be (see Tables 27&12). These results are similar to other
108
findings that showed female students have higher scores on social skills than do males
(Cartledge, Cochran & Paul, 1996).
Regarding the academic behavior scale and gender, there were significant differences for
only two items. The higher scores were for female students (see Tables 28 &17). On the self-
management scale, there were significant differences for six items and the higher scores were all
for the female students (see tables 28 & 20). There were also significant differences for 11 items
on the social adjustment scale. Again, most of the differences on individual items were
significant for the female students (see Tables 30 & 23) and were positive in nature. Only 4 items
had significant differences for male students. These four items were all negative in connotation:
1) fails to accept criticism, especially if it is expressed as discipline or restriction; 2) has habits,
mannerism or traits considered to be rude or socially unacceptable (e.g. picks nose, makes
obscene/sexual reference); acts without thinking, impulsive, doesn't consider or doesn't care
about consequences (see Tables 30 & 23). In general, the results of this study showed that there
were significant differences for students with hearing impairment on the basis of gender for both
peer relations and social adjustment skills and that the higher scores, particularly on positive
attributes, were for females.
A possible explanation for these findings may point to educational (academic) and
environmental (culture) factors. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, female students have their own
separate schools with female teachers and staff and male students also have their own separate
schools with male teachers and staff. Therefore, both male and female students have different
educational environments. In Saudi Arabia, it is possible that there are differences between
academic environment for females and males. The schools and programs where deaf and hard of
hearing students showed more social interaction, have made a substantial and consistent effort to
109
provide opportunities for connections. Perhaps the female schools offer a better academic and
educational environment that provides more opportunities for social adjustment.
It is known that the educational environment is a complex system, and its reform is even
more complex even if one considers only seemingly simple reforms. Included are many complex
components such as school organization, curriculum and instruction, school administration,
student services, community involvement, teacher in-service training, assessment, and
evaluation. In order to understand the factors that effect the social adjustment of both males and
females in Saudi Arabia, one needs to look at the differences in the educational environment and
school organization of the male and female schools. It also requires knowledge about the
historical and social contexts in which both school organizations are embedded. Since both
female and male students have their own separate schools with female and male teachers and
staff respectively, it is possible that both male and female students have different academic
educational environments and organizational systems. This possibility introduces a very
important question—Do the academic educational environments of deaf female schools and
programs differ significantly from the academic educational environments of deaf male schools
and programs? To answer this question a qualitative study needs to be done to examine and
compare the environments for both male and female students to determine if the settings and
programming are equivalent or are, in fact, contributing to the social skills differences in the two
groups.
There was a wide age range of students for this study. Although participants were limited
to those students in the primary grades (1 through 6), students ranged in age from 7 to 17. This
age range is a result of the way in which students are placed in the academic levels in Saudi
Arabia. For example, if a child has had no education and enters school at the age of 12, he/she is
110
placed in the first grade level. The result is that the students in each grade level may vary widely
in age. This fact will, most likely, affect their interactions with other students in their class as
well as their academic and social skills.
Limitations of this study.
Although the findings of this study may be useful, there are limitations that make
generalization of the results to all students with hearing impairment difficult. First, although this
study compared three different types of educational settings (special schools for the deaf, self-
contained classrooms for the deaf, and self-contained classrooms for the hard of hearing), there
may not have been as strong a difference between the various settings as one might find in the
United States. While the self-contained classrooms were located in the public schools, they were
not necessarily inclusive. Students were still being educated for the most part in separate settings
with other children with hearing loss. Thus, some caution must be used when comparing the
results of this study with American studies that looked at social skills between students with
hearing loss and their hearing peers.
Secondly, although there are students with hearing impairment in middle schools and
high schools, this study was limited to in the elementary school stage. Thus, their social skills
may have been influenced by their level of language and lack of experiences.
The third limitation is related to the workshops that were conducted by the researcher to
train the teachers who administered the assessment. The workshops were conducted only for
male teachers to explain the purpose of the study and to describe the scales that were to be used.
The researcher could not directly train the female teachers as he did with male teachers.
Therefore, phone calls were made to the administrators in the selected schools to explain the
111
purpose of the study and the procedures for how to use the scales. The female teachers had to
simply use the instruction sheet that was included with scales to explain the test administration.
The fourth limitation to the current study was related to the lack of empirical studies on
the social development of students with hearing impairment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Due to this lack of studies, the review of related literature was heavily dependant on relevant
research in the United State and Britain.
Finally, this study was that only students with hearing impairment in one city were
assessed. Students with hearing impairment, however, are spread throughout several different
cities across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the findings of this study can not be
generalized to all students with hearing loss in Saudi Arabia. In order to generalize these
findings, it would be necessary to include samples from all of the different cities in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia. In general, findings and results of this study cannot be generalized to
populations other than those included in of this research.
Implications and Recommendations for Educational Programming to Improve the Social
Development of Students With Hearing Impairment
Regardless of the type of educational setting and program of students with hearing
impairment, it is important for educational programs to include in their plans opportunities for
social development and to monitor this development on an going basis (Davis, 1886). In order to
enhance social skills and to help students with hearing impairment enjoy positive social
experiences in schools, the following suggestions are recommended with regard to educational
programming (Kluwin, Moores, & Gausted, 1992).
When deciding on an appropriate educational program, teachers and staff should attend to
the individual differences in their student's social interactions with hearing and hearing impaired
112
social groups. Research findings indicated that students often found friendships with hearing
peers rewarding, and thus benefited from programming that includes opportunities for such
relationships.
Some objective information about students' social relationships maybe helpful in
monitoring their social development. This information can then be used to determine whether
their current educational placement would meet their social needs and whether there is
appropriate social supports. Assessments that identify a student’s self perception might also be
used as measures to evaluate social development in students with hearing impairment and to
decide what type of educational program is appropriate for individual students.
In order to enhance social development in students with hearing impairment and to
increase students' feelings of social confidence and acceptance, more participation in school
activities is needed. Extracurricular activities are one possible way to increase participation.
Extracurricular activities can influence socialization skills because they can involve interaction
with other students (Kluwin, Moores, & Gausted, 1992).
Recommendations for Future Research
The results of this study provide useful information about the social development of
students with hearing impairment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The findings are expected to
increase the knowledge of educators, teachers, parents, and all individuals who are interested in
deaf education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the data are expected to encourage
special educators in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to continue to contribute to the study of the
social development of students with hearing impairment. It is suggested that the following
research be conducted:
113
1. A replication of this study should be conducted with a larger sample that includes
students with hearing impairment from all regions of Saudi Arabia and from all
educational stages (elementary, middle, and high school stage). Data could be compared
with the current study to find if there are differences in social development according to
age.
2. There was a significant difference in peer relations and the social adjustment of students
with hearing impairment according to gender. A possible explanation for these results
may point to academic and educational environmental factors affecting the scores. These
results suggest that gender effects are worthy of further investigation. Therefore,
qualitative study needs to be done to examine the reason behind the differences in the
social skills of male and female students. Also, the educational environment for both
male and female students needs to be studied in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to
determine if the settings and programming are equivalent.
3. Since the new trend in educating students with hearing impairment in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia is to educate these students in public schools with normal hearing students,
future research should further investigate the social interactions between students with
hearing impairment and hearing students.
Summary
Although the findings and results of this study cannot be generalized beyond the
populations on which it was conducted, the current study has provided useful information about
the social development of students with hearing impairment in Riyadh in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. In general, all students with hearing impairment in this study had scores that ranged from
fair to good. The results of this study indicated that there was no significant difference in relation
114
to educational setting and program, but did indicate that there were significant differences in peer
relations, academic behavior, self-management, and social adjustment according to gender. A
possible explanation for this result may point to the cultural and educational environmental
factors affecting scores. These results suggest that gender effects are worthy of further
investigation. In order to investigate the gender effect, more research is needed to study the
academic and educational environments of male and female students particularly in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia.
115
References
Al- Mosa, A. (1999). Maserat al tarbiah al khasah fi wazarit al maa’ref fi al
mumlakah al arabiyah al sa’ udiyah (Development of Special Education in The Ministry
of Education in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Riyadh, King Fahad Library.
Antia, S. D. (1982). Social integration of partially mainstreamed hearing-impaired children.
American Annals of the Deaf, 127(1), 18-25.
Cappelli, M., Daniels, T., Durieux-Smith, A., McGrath,P. J., & Neuss, D. (1995). Social
development of children with hearing impairments who are integrated into general
education classrooms. The Volta Review, 97,197-208.
Cartledge, U., Cochran, L., & Paul, P. (1996). Social skill self-assessment by adolescents with
hearing impairment in residential and public schools. Remedial and Special Education,
17(1), 30-36.
Charlson, E., Strong, M., & Gold, R. (1992). How successful deaf teenagers experience and cope
with isolation. American Annals of the Deaf, 137(3), 261-270.
Chough, S. (1979). Perspective on the need and acceptance of counseling services reported by
deaf college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1979) Dissertation
Abstracts International, 39, 5146A.
Commission on Education of the Deaf (1988). Toward equality: Education of the
deaf. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Coryell, J., Holcomb, T. K., & Scherer, M. (1992). Attitudes toward deafness: A collegiate
perspective. American Annals of the Deaf, 137(3), 299-302.

116
Dale, D.M. (1984). Individualized integration: Studies of deaf and partially hearing children
and students in ordinary schools and colleges. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Davis, J. (1986). Academic placement in perspective. In D. Luterman (Ed.), Deafness in
perspective. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
Farrugia, D., & Austin, G. F. (1980). A study of social emotional adjustment patterns of hearing
impaired students in different educational settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 125,
535-541.
Fisher, B. (1966). The social and emotional adjustment of children with impaired hearing
attended ordinary classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 319-321.
Foster, S. (1988). Life in the mainstream: Reflections of deaf college freshmen on their
experiences in the mainstreamed high school. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 22,
37-56.
Foster, S. (1989). Reflection of a group of deaf students on their experiences in mainstream and
residential school programs in the United States. Disability, Handicap, and Society, 4,
37-56.
Foster, S. L., & Ritchy, W. L. (1979). Issues in the assessment of social competence
in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 625-638.
Freeman, R.D., Carbin, C. F., & Boese, R, J. (1981). Can't your child hear? A guide for those
who care about deaf children. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1991). Social skills rating system (SSRS-2). Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc..
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO:
117
University of Denver.
Harvey, M. A. (1989). Psychotherapy with deaf and hard-of-hearing persons: A systematic
module. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hess, W. (1960). Personality adjustment in deaf children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Heward, W., & Orlansky, M. (1992). Exceptional Children (4th ed.). Maxwell, NY: Macmillan
International.
Higginbotham, D.J., & Baker, B.M. (1981). Social participation and cognitive play differences in
hearing-impaired and normally hearing preschoolers. The Volta Review, 83,135-149.
Higgins, P. C., & Nash, J. E. (1987). Understanding deaf socially. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas Publishers.
Kennedy, P., Northcott, W., McCauley, R., & Williams, S. N. (1976). Longitudinal
sociometric and cross sectional data on mainstreamed hearing impaired
children: Implications for school planning. Volta Review, 78, 71-81.
Kluwin, T. N., & Gonsher, W. (1994). A single school study of social integration of
children with and without hearing losses in a team-taught kindergarten. The
ACEHI Journal/La Review ACEDA, 20(4), 74-87.
Kluwin, T., Moores, D., & Gausted, M. (Eds.)(1992). Toward effective public school programs
for deaf students. New York: Teachers College Press.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Ladd, G. W., Munson, J. L., & Miller, J K. (1984). Social integration of deaf adolescents in
secondary level mainstreaming programs. Exceptional Children, 50, 420-429.

118
Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the deaf-world. San Diego, CA:
Dawn Sign Press.
Lederberg, A.R., Ryan, H.B., & Robbins, B L. (1986). Peer interaction in young deaf children:
The effect of partner hearing status and familiarity. Developmental Psychology, 22 (5),
691-700.
Leigh, I., & Stinson, M. S. (1993). Social environments, self-perceptions, and
identity. Volta Review, 93 (5), 7-22.
Levine, E.S. (1956). Youth in a soundless world: A search for personality.
Washington Square, NY: New York University Press.
Marschark, M. (1997). Raising and educating a deaf child. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Meadow, K.P. (1967). The effect of early manual communication and family climate on deaf
child’s development. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkley, California.
Meadow, K.P. (1975). The development of deaf children. In E.M. Hetherington, J.W. Hagen, R.
Kron, & A.H. Stein (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol.5)(pp. 441-508).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meadow, K.P. (1976). Personality and social development of deaf persons. In B. Bolton (Ed.),
Psychology of deafness for rehabilitation counselors. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Meadow, K.P. (1980). Deafness and child development. Berkley: University of California Press.
Meadow, K. P. (1983). Meadow/Kendall Social-Emotional Assessment Inventories
for Hearing-Impaired students: Revised manual. Washington, DC: Pre-
College Programs. Gallaudet University.

119
Meadow, K. P. (1983). An instrument for assessment of social-emotional adjustment
in hearing-impaired preschoolers. American Annals of the Deaf, 128, 826-
834.
Merrell, K. W. (2002). School social behavior scales (SSBS-2) (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR:
Assessment-Intervention Resources.
Mertens, D. (1986). Social experiences of hearing-impaired high school youth. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Mertens, D. (1989). Social experiences of hearing-impaired high school youth. American Annals
of the Deaf, 134, 15-19.
Mindel, E.D., & Vernon, M. (1971). They grow in silence: The deaf child and his family. Silver
Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
Minnett, A., Clark, K., & Wilson, G. (1994). Play behavior and communication between deaf
and hard of hearing children and their hearing peers in an integrated preschool. American
Annals of the Deaf, 139(4), 420-429.
Ministry of Education (1990). Educational policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, King
Fahad Library.
Ministry of Education (1978). Educational Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, King Fahad Library.
Moores, D. F. (1996). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practice.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Moores, D. F., & Meadow-Orlans, K. P. (1990). Educational and developmental aspect of
deafness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

120
Mootilal, A., & Musselman, C. (1994). The social adjustment of deaf adolescents in
segregated, partially-integrated and mainstreamed settings. ERIC, NO ED 384165.
Murphy. J.S., & Newton, B.J. (1987). Loneliness and the mainstreamed hearing impaired college
student. American Annals of the Deaf, 132(1), 21-24.
National Center for Law and Deafness (1996). Legal rights: The guide for deaf and
hard of hearing people (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Rainer, J.D., Altshuler, K.Z., & Kallmann, F.J. (1969). Family and mental health
problems in a deaf population (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Reich, C., Hambleton, D., & Houldin, R. K. (1977). The integration of hearing-impaired children
in regular classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 122(6), 534-543.
Risley, G. W. (1977). The effects of mainstreaming and self-contained education for hearing
impaired students. ERIC, NO. ED 150762.
Rodriguez, M. S. & Lana, E. T. (1996). Dyadic interactions between deaf children and their
communication partners. American Annals of the Deaf, 141(3), 245-251.
Rubin, K. H. (1990). The Play Observation Scale (POS). Waterloo, Ontario Canada:
University of Waterloo.
Rubenstein, G., Fisher, L., & Iker, H. (1975). Peer observation of student behavior in
elementary school classrooms. Developmental Psychology, 11, 867-868.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale:
Concurrent and discriminate validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 472-480.
Saur, R.E., Layne, C.A., Hurley, E.A., & Opton, K. (1989). Dimensions of mainstreaming.
American Annals of the Deaf, 131(5), 325-329.

121
Schlesinger, H. S., & Meadow, K. P. (1972). Sound and sign: Childhood deafness and mental
health. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Smilansky, S (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool
children. New York: Wiley.
Stinson, M., & Lang, H. (1994). Full inclusion: A path for integration or isolation. American
Annals of the Deaf, 139(2), 156-159.
Stoefen-Fisher, J.M., & Balk, J. (1992). Educational programs for children with hearing
loss: Least restrictive environment. The Volta Review, 93, 19-27.
Taylor, A. R., & Asher, S. R. (1985). Goals, games, and social competence Effects of
sex, grade level, and sociometric status. Toronto Ontario, Canada.
Turnbull, H. R., Turnbull, A., Stowe, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Free appropriate public
education. Denver: Love Publishing Company.

122
Appendix A
Tables of One-Way ANOVA for Each Item in Peer Relations, Academic Behavior, Self-
management, and Social Adjustment Scales
123
Table 27
Summary of One –Way ANOVA for Peer Relations Items
Settings Program Gender

Peer Relation Items
Offers help to other students when needed 1.274 0.215 7.556
(0.28) (0.64) (0.006*)
Participates effectively in group discussions and 3.614 8.489 3.086
activities (0.02*) (0.004*) (0.08)
Understands problems and needs of other students 0.102 0.348 1.713

(0.90) (0.55) (0.000*)
Invites other students to participate activities 0.72 0.004 14.160
(0.93) (0.94) (0.000*)
Has skills or abilities that are admired by peers 0.029 0.000 1.639
(0.97) (0.98) (0.024*)
Interacts with a wide variety of peers 0.684 2.893 4.804
(0.1) (0.09) (0.029*)
Is good at initiating or joining conversations with 4.036 9.853 9.004
peers (0.01*) (0.002*) (0.003*)
Is sensitive to feelings of other students 0.041 0.002 11.978

(0.96) (0.95) (0.001*)
Enters appropriately into ongoing activities with 1.000 2.855 7.343
peers (0.36) (0.09) (0.007*)
Has good leadership skills 0.339 0.695 0.093

(0.71) (0.40) (0.7)
Notices and compliments accomplishments of 1.113 0.010 3.200
others (0.33) (0.91) (0.074)
Is assertive in an appropriate way when he/she 0.524 0.592 5.086

needs to (0.59) (0.44) (0.025*)
Is invited by peers to join in activities 0.998 0.038 4.273

(0.37) (0.84) (0.39)
Is "looked up to" or respected by peers 0.750 0.335 1.684
(0.47) (0.56) (0.19)
Note: Reported numbers denote F-statistic from conducting one-way ANOVA. Numbers in
parenthesis denote the significance level.
124
Table 28
Summary of One –Way ANOVA for Academic Behavior Items

Academic Behavior Items
Makes appropriate transitions between different (0.889) (0.022) (7.937)
activities 0.41 0.88 0.005*
Completes school work without being reminded (0.549) (1.384) (0.683)
0.57 0.24 0.40
Listens to and carries out directions from teachers (0.027) (0.024) (2.581)
0.97 0.87 0.109
Asks appropriately for clarification of instructions (0.465) (1.390) (1.998)
0.62 0.23 0.158
Completes school assignments or other tasks (1.070) (2.719) (0.796)
independently 0.34 0.100 0.37
Completes school assignments on time (0.072) (0.430) (0.547)

0.93 0.51 0.46
Asks for help in an appropriate manner 0.684) (1.282) (11.418)
0.50 0.25 0.001*
Produces work of acceptable quality for his/her (0.701) (2.042) (2.067)
ability level 0.49 0.15 0.15
Note: Reported numbers denote F-statistic from conducting one-way ANOVA. Numbers in
parenthesis denote the significance level.
125
Table 29
Summary of One –Way ANOVA for Self-management Items

Self-management Items
Cooperates with other students (0.173) (0.155) (7.106)
0.84 0.69 0.008*
Remains calm when problems arise (1.410) (2.240) (0.999)
0.24 0.13 0.31
Is accepting of other students (5.731) (0.651) (3.946)
0.02* 0.44 0.04*
Will give in or compromise with peers when (0.761) (0.577) (13.877)
appropriate 0.48 0.58 0.000*
Follows school and classroom rules (0.512) (0.086) (7.399)

0.60 0.76 0.007*
Behaves appropriately at school (0.276) (0.284) (8.860)
0.75 0.59 0.003*
Responds appropriately when corrected by (0.191) (0.003) (1.462)
teachers 0.82 0.95 0.22
Controls temper when angry (0.279) (0.090) (1.565)

0.75 0.76 0.21
Adjusts to different behavioral expectations across (0.982) (0.131) (3.908)
settings 0.37 0.71 0.08
Shows self-control (0.387) (0.387) (5.463)

0.69 0.53 0.02*
Note: Reported numbers denote F-statistic from conducting one-way ANOVA. Numbers
in parenthesis denote the level of significance.
126
Table 30
Summary of One –Way ANOVA for Social Adjustment Items

Social Adjustment Items
Obeys the rules; follows instructions or requests from (0.928) (0.044) (5.958)
adults in authority 0.39 0.83 0.01*
Kind and considerate (0.197) (0.411) (10.965)
0.82 0.52 0.001*
Aggressive; behavior may include fighting , (5.315) (0.390) (27.311)
scratching, biting other students and/or kicking or 0.005 0.53 0.000*
hitting animals
Has generally acceptable emotional responses; rages (1.660) (0.513) (0.483)

(tantrums) or violent outbursts occur only after 0.19 0.47 0.48
extreme provocation if at all
Accepts some delay of gratification; does not expect (1.528) (0.956) (13.253)
instant satisfaction of every need, whim or desire 0.21 0.32 0.000*
Teases or annoys or pesters other students (1.460) (0.100) (16.233)
0.23 0.75 0.000*
Takes responsibility for fair share of tasks; helps to (0.337) (0.732) (10.994)
clean up after a project is finished 0.71 0.39 0.001*
Performs cooperatively in groups of peers; (0.352) (0.019) (5.331)
contributes to cohesion rather than to conflict 0.70 0.89 0.02*
Happy, cheerful, pleasant, easy going (0.294) (1.191) (0.056)
0.74 0.27 0.81
Engages in destructive behavior (breaking objects, (3.546) (0.688) (12.689)
defacing walls or furniture, scattering things in 0.03 0.40 0.000*
disarray)
Trustworthy, dependable, reliable (0.098) (0.234) (0.333)
0.90 0.62 0.56
Misbehavior not deterred by restrictions or by threat (0.803) (1.373) (7.841)
of punishment 0.44 0.24 0.005*
Fails to accept criticism, especially if it is expressed (1.332) (1.831) (7.152)

as discipline or restriction 0.26 0.17 0.008*
Demands attention; must be center of everything; (0.652) (0.093) (2.208)
may insist on being first in line, or leader, or captain. 0.52 0.76 0.13
Seems to understand the feelings of others; (0.490) (0.654) (0.947)
demonstrates empathy 0.61 0.41 0.33
Responds poorly to losing in games or failing to (0.815) (1.431) (4.427)

achieve in class 0.44 0.23 0.03*
127
Accepts differences in other people; doesn’t tease or (0.255) (0.701) (7.730)

exclude peers on basis of racial differences or 0.77 0.40 0.006*
physical handicaps
Has habits, mannerisms or traits considered to be (2.461) (0.151) (24.250)
rude or socially unacceptable (e.g. picks nose , makes 0.08 0.69 0.000*
obscene/sexual references)
Doesn’t try to copy classmates’ work nor take things (0.908) (1.489) (8.439)
belonging to others 0.40 0.22 0.004*
Generous; shares with others (0.174) (0.002) (0.489)

0.84 0.96 0.48
Demands attention and help constantly; takes (0.357) (0.613) (3.904)
disproportionate share of teacher’s time 0.70 0.43 0.08
Acts without thinking; impulsive; doesn’t consider or (0.918) (1.365) (5.174)
care about consequences. 0.40 0.24 0.02*
Denies own misbehavior; may also blame others for (1.060) (1.697) (6.526)
own misdeeds 0.34 0.19 0.01*
Note: Reported numbers denote F-statistic from conducting one-way ANOVA.

Numbers in parenthesis denote the significance level.
128
Appendix B
Instrument
Cover Letter, Arabic Copy for School Social Behavior Scale, and Meadow-Kendall Social-
emotional Assessment Inventories for Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Students
‫‪129‬‬
‫ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬

‫ﻋﺰﻳﺰي اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻢ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﻭﺭﲪﺔ ﺍ‪ ‬ﻭﺑﺮﻛﺎﺗﻪ ‪،،،‬‬
‫أﻓﻴﺪآﻢ ﺑﺄﻧﻨﻲ أﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺑﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‪ ،‬ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﺒﺘﻌﺚ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ درﺟﺔ اﻟﺪآﺘﻮراﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل‬
‫اﻹﻋﺎﻗﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬راﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ اﻟﻤﺮاد اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﻨﻮاﻧﻬﺎ " دراﺳﺔ اﺳﺘﻘﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻤﻬﺎرات اﻟﻨﻤﻮ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺪى اﻟﻄﻼب و اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻗﻴﻦ ﺳﻤﻌﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪارس اﻟﺼﻢ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ وﻣﺪارس اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺮﻳﺎض"‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ أﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻹآﻤﺎل رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺪآﺘﻮراﻩ اﻟﺘﻲ أﻗﻮم ﺑﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮهﺎ وهﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮاﺣﻠﻬﺎ اﻷﺧﻴﺮة‪ .‬و ﺑﻌﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺎة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻲ إرﺳﺎل ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ إذا رﻏﺒﻮا‬
‫ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﻓﻘﻪ ﻋﺪد ) ‪ (٢‬ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ‪:‬‬

‫اﻷول‪ :‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻵﺟﻨﻤﺎﻋﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﺪو – آﻴﻨﺪل – ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﺘﻜﻴﻔﻲ‪ -‬اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻄﻼب اﻟﺼﻢ وﺿﻌﺎف اﻟﺴﻤﻊ‪.‬‬
‫أرﻏﺐ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ هﺬﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﻦ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮاﻋﺎة اﻟﺪﻗﺔ واﻟﻤﺼﺪاﻗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﻛﺮﺍ ﻟﻜﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﺬﻟﻮ�ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﻭﺟﻬﺪ ﻣﺜﻤﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ‪:‬‬

‫‪ -‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻚ ﻟﻠﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﻩ و ﻣﻼﺣﻀﺘﻚ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻃﻼب اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻻﺑﺘﺪاﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﻒ اﻷول ﺣﺘﻰ اﻟﺼﻒ اﻟﺴﺎدس‪.‬‬
‫إذا ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻣﻜﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻢ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻃﻼب اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ ﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻮزﻳﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻣﻮن ﺑﺘﺪرﻳﺴﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﻒ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ ﻳﺤﺘﻮي ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻌﺔ ﻃﻼب‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻮزﻳﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻮﻟﻰ ﻣﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻃﻼب‪ ،‬و ﻣﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻃﻼب ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬و آﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم ﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻃﻼب ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺴﻦ اﻟﺰهﺮاﻧﻲ‬

‫ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬آﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬آﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ آﺎﻧﺴﺲ‬
‫‪ali1 @ kans. edu‬‬
‫ت ‪........................./‬‬
‫‪130‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻟﺼﻒ‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺬي ﻗﺎم ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج‪:‬‬

‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج‪:‬‬
‫) ( ﺻﻢ‪ -‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ آﻠﻲ‬ ‫) ( ﺿﻌﺎف ﺳﻤﻊ‪ -‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ ﺷﻔﻬﻲ‬ ‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪:‬‬
‫) ( ﻣﺪارس ﻧﻬﺎرﻳﻪ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻢ‬ ‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺔ‪ ( ) :‬ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺧﺎص ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻢ‬
‫) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﻣﻠﺤﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﻋﺎدﻳﺔ ) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻀﻌﺎف اﻟﺴﻤﻊ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﻋﺎدﻳﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﻪ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺤﺔ أﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬رﺟﺎ ًء ﻗﻢ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺳﻠﻮك اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام آﻞ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ رﻗﻢ ‪ .٢‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﺘﻤﺪًا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺗﻚ ﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺧﻼل اﻟﺸﻬﻮر اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺎﺿﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻢ ﺑﻘﺮاءة اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺛﻢ ﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل اﻟﺮﻗﻢ )درﺟﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ( اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة واﻟﺬي ﺗﺮاﻩ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺳﻠﻮك‬
‫اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺛﻢ اآﺘﺐ اﻟﺮﻗﻢ اﻟﺬي ﺗﻢ اﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻩ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺮﺑﻊ ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻀﻠﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎل‪:‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‬ ‫اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‬
‫أﺑﺪًا‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺒــــــــــــــــــــــــﺎرة‬ ‫م‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤ ٣ ٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ١‬ﻳﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫درﺟﺎت اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس هﻲ آﺎﻷﺗﻲ‪:‬‬
‫اﺑﺪاً‪ :‬إذا ﻟﻢ ﻳﻀﻬﺮ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ أي ﻧﻮع ﻣﻦ أﻧﻮاع اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات أو إذا ﻟﻢ ﺗﻼﺣﻆ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬
‫ﻗﻢ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎر رﻗﻢ ‪ ١‬واﻟﺬي ﻳﺪل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎرة )أﺑﺪًا(‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‪ :‬إذا ﻻ ﺣﻀﺖ أن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ آﺜﻴﺮا ﻣﺎ ﻳﻀﻬﺮ اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر ﻗﻢ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎر رﻗﻢ ‪٥‬‬
‫واﻟﺬي ﻳﺪل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎرة )ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر(‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‪ :‬إذا ﻻ ﺣﻈﺖ أن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن ﻗﻢ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎر رﻗﻢ واﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ٤-٣-٢‬واﻟﺬي ﻳﺪل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎرة )ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن(‪ .‬ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗﻘﻢ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل آﻞ‬
‫اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﺗﺤﺖ ﻋﺒﺎرة )ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن(‪ .‬إذا اﺧﺘﺮت هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة‪ -‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل رﻗﻢ واﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة و اﻟﺬي ﺗﺮاﻩ أآﺜﺮ دﻗﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻣﻮﺿﺤﻪ آﺎﻷﺗﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‬ ‫أﺑﺪا‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤ ٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬
‫رﺟﺎء ﻗﻢ ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس وﻻ ﺗﻘﻢ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷرﻗﺎم‪.‬‬
‫‪131‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‬ ‫اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‬
‫أﺑﺪًا‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺒــــــــــــــــــــــــﺎرة‬ ‫م‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫‪١‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬ ‫‪٢‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻤﻞ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻲ دون اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺬآﻴﺮﻩ‬ ‫‪٣‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻘﺪم اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻟﻠﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ‬ ‫‪٤‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺸﺎرك ﺑﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت و أﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ اﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪٥‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺸﺎآﻞ و اﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫‪٦‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺒﻘﻰ هﺎدﺋﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺤﺪث ﻣﺸﻜﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪٧‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺴﺘﻤﻊ وﻳﻨﻔﺬ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪٨‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺪﻋﻮ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻧﺸﻄﻪ‬ ‫‪٩‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺴﺄل ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت‬ ‫‪١٠‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻤﻬﺎرات وﻗﺪرات ﺗﺠﻌﻞ زﻣﻼءﻩ ﻳﻌﺠﺒﻮن ﺑﻪ‬ ‫‪١١‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫‪١٢‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻤﻞ اﻟﻮاﺟﺒﺎت و اﻟﻤﻬﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺘﻤﺪا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬ ‫‪١٣‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻨﻬﻲ اﻟﻮاﺟﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﻤﺤﺪد‬ ‫‪١٤‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺴﺘﺴﻠﻢ وﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ زﻣﻼﺋﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن ذﻟﻚ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺎ‬ ‫‪١٥‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻠﺘﺰم ﺑﻘﻮاﻧﻴﻦ و ﺿﻮاﺑﻂ اﻟﺼﻒ و اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‬ ‫‪١٦‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﺼﺮف ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‬ ‫‪١٧‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻄﻠﺐ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﻪ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ‬ ‫‪١٨‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﻗﺮان‬ ‫‪١٩‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻘﺪم اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻘﺒﻮل وﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى ﻗﺪراﺗﻪ‬ ‫‪٢٠‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺟﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدرة ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﺪث او اﻻﻧﻀﻤﺎم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺤﺎدﺛﺎت ﻣﻊ أﻗﺮاﻧﻪ‬ ‫‪٢١‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺣﺴﺎس ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫‪٢٢‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﺤﺢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪٢٣‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻀﺒﻂ اﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬ ‫‪٢٤‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﻨﻀﻢ إﻟﻰ اﻻﻧﺸﻄﻪ أﻟﺠﺎرﻳﻪ اﻟﻨﻲ ﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﻬﺎ أﻗﺮاﻧﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ‬ ‫‪٢٥‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻤﻬﺎرات ﻗﻴﺎدﻳﺔ ﺟﻴﺪة‬ ‫‪٢٦‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ﻋﺒﺮ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة‬ ‫‪٢٧‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻳﺸﻌﺮ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻟﻬﻢ اﻟﻤﻨﺠﺰة وﻳﺜﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪٢٨‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎل إﻟﻰ اﻟﺠﺰم واﻹﺻﺮار ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن ﺑﺤﺎﺟﻪ إﻟﻰ‬ ‫‪٢٩‬‬
‫ذﻟﻚ‬
‫‪٥ ٤ ٣ ٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ٣٠‬ﻳﺪﻋﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ زﻣﻼءﻩ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ‬
‫‪٥ ٤ ٣ ٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ٣١‬ﻳﻀﻬﺮ ﺿﺒﻄﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺲ‪.‬‬
‫‪٥ ٤ ٣ ٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ٣٢‬ﻣﺤﺘﺮم ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ زﻣﻼﺋﻪ‬
‫اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺿﺒﻂ اﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
‫اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺰﻣﻼء‬
‫‪132‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺪو‪ -‬آﻴﻨﺪل‪ -‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﺘﻜﻴﻔﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻌــﻤﺮ‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺬي ﻗﺎم ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ ( ) :‬ﺿﻌﺎف ﺳﻤﻊ‪ -‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ ﺷﻔﻬﻲ‬
‫) ( ﺻﻢ‪ -‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ آﻠﻲ‬
‫) ( ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺧﺎص ﻟﻠﺼﻢ‬ ‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫) ( ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ‬
‫) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﻣﻠﺤﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ‬
‫) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﺿﻌﺎف اﻟﺴﻤﻊ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت‪:‬‬
‫اﻗﺮأ آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺸﻜﻞ دﻗﻴﻖ وﻗﺮر إذا هﻲ ﺗﺼﻒ اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﺬي ﻗﻤﺖ ﺑﻤﻼﺣﻈﺘﻪ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﺮاءة‬
‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة واﺗﺨﺎذ اﻟﻘﺮار ﻗﻢ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل اﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ واﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻚ اﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﺴﻠﻮك هﺬا‬
‫اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدًا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻚ و ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺘﻚ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺜـــﺎل‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة اﻟﺘﺎﺳﻌﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺧﻄﺄ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫‪ -‬ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮح‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺘﻊ‪ ،‬وﻳﺴﻬﻞ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪:‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‪:‬اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺗﻌﻄﻲ وﺻﻒ واﺿﺢ ﺟﺪًا ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺤﻴﺚ أﻧﻪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﺑﺸﻜﻞ واﺿﺢ وﻣﺘﻜﺮر‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴــــﺢ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺗﻌﻄﻲ وﺻﻒ ﺑﺄن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﻄــﺄ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﻻ ﺗﺼﻒ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ ﺳﻠﻮك اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﻄــﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‪ :‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺗﺪل أن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻻ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك أﺑﺪًا‪.‬‬
‫‪133‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﻘﺎد ﻟﻠﻀﻮاﺑﻂ وﻳﺘﺒﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت أو اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺎت‬ ‫‪-١‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﺒﺎر ﻣﻦ هﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ اﻟﻤﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ودود )ﻃﻴﺐ( وﻳﺮاﻋﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-٢‬‬
‫ﻋﺪواﻧﻲ‪ .‬ﺳﻠﻮآﻪ رﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ اﻟﺸﺠﺎر‪ ،‬اﻟﺨﺪش‪،‬‬ ‫‪-٣‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻋﺾ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ و‪ /‬أو رﻓﺲ اﻟﺤﻴﻮاﻧﺎت‬
‫أو ﺿﺮﺑﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻪ اﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺎت ﻋﺎﻃﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎم‪،‬‬ ‫‪-٤‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﺑﺎت اﻟﻐﻀﺐ واﻟﻌﻨﻒ ﺗﺤﺪث ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻷﺷﻴﺎء‬
‫اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺜﻴﺮ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ إﺛﺎرة ﻗﺼﻮى‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﻴﺮ ﻟﻸﺷﻴﺎء اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺸﺒﻊ رﻏﺒﺎﺗﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-٥‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻻ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻊ اﻹﺷﺒﺎع اﻟﻔﻮري ﻟﻜﻞ اﺣﺘﻴﺎج أو ﻧﺰوة ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫أو رﻏﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺴﺨﺮ ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬أو ﻳﺰﻋﺞ أو ﻳﺆذي اﻟﻄﻼب‬ ‫‪-٦‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻣﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪-٧‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻬﺎم وﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﻜﺎن ﺑﻌﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻧﺸﺎط ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻲ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺰﻣﻼء‪.‬‬ ‫‪-٨‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻻ ﻣﻦ إﺛﺎرة‬
‫ﻳﺴﺎهﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻤﺎﺳﻚ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺪ ً‬
‫اﻟﻨﺰاع‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮح‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺘﻊ وﻳﺴﻬﻞ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-٩‬‬
‫ﻳﺸﺎرك ﻓﻲ )ﻳﺼﺪر ﻣﻨﻪ( اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻬﺪام –‬ ‫‪-١٠‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺗﻜﺴﻴﺮ اﻷﺷﻴﺎء أو ﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ اﻟﺠﺪران أو اﻷﺛﺎث‬
‫وﺑﻌﺜﺮة اﻷﺷﻴﺎء ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺜﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬وﻳﻮﺛﻖ ﺑﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-١١‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺼﺮف ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻬﺬﺑﺔ وﻻ ﻳﺒﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﻮد‬ ‫‪-١٢‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫أو اﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﺎب‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ اﻟﻨﻘﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﺼـﻮﺻًﺎ إذا آﺎن ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄًﺎ‬ ‫‪-١٣‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻠﻮك أو اﻟﻤﻨﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻄﻠﺐ اﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ إﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﺐ أن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻣﺮآﺰ‬ ‫‪-١٤‬‬

‫اﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﻓﻲ آﻞ ﺷﻲء‪ .‬رﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﺢ ﺑﺈﺻﺮار ﺑﺄن‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻮن اﻷول ﻓﻲ اﻟﻄﺎﺑﻮر وأن ﻳﻜﻮن ﻗﺎﺋﺪ أو‬
‫رﺋﻴﺲ ﻓﺮﻳﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻳﺒﺪو أﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ وﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ‬ ‫‪-١٥‬‬
‫‪134‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻃﻒ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺳﻲء ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺨﺴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻷﻟﻌﺎب‬ ‫‪-١٦‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫أو ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺨﻔﻖ ﻓﻲ اﻷداء ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪.‬‬
‫‪-١٧‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻘﺒﻞ اﻟﻔﺮوق واﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻟﺪى اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻳﻀﺎﻳﻖ أو ﻳﺴﺘﺒﻌﺪ اﻟﺰﻣﻼء ﺑﺴﺒﺐ اﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻌﺮﻗﻴﺔ واﻹﻋﺎﻗﺎت اﻟﺠﺴﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻋﺎدات وأﻧﻤﺎط ﺳﻠﻮآﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﺳﻤﺎت ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ‬ ‫‪-١٨‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺷﺎذة وﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴًﺎ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ أﺻﺒﻌﻪ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻲ أﻧﻔﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺤﺎول ﻧﺴﺦ اﻟﻮاﺟﺒﺎت ﻣﻦ زﻣﻼﺋﻪ‪ ،‬وﻻ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ‬ ‫‪-١٩‬‬

‫اﻷﺷﻴﺎء اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺨﺺ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫آﺮﻳﻢ وﻳﺴﺎهﻢ ﻣﻊ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-٢٠‬‬

‫‪-٢١‬‬
‫ﻳﻄﻠﺐ اﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ واﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮار وﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺟﺰء‬
‫آﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ وﻗﺖ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺼﺮف ﺑﺪون ﺗﻔﻜﻴﺮ‪ ،‬اﻧﺪﻓﺎﻋﻲ وﻻ ﻳﺮاﻋﻲ أو‬ ‫‪-٢٢‬‬

‫ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻮاﻗﺐ اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺼﺮﻓﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ‪ ،‬ورﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻮم‬ ‫‪-٢٣‬‬

‫اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻮء ﺗﺼﺮﻓﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪135‬‬
‫ﻋﺰﻳﺰﺗﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﻭﺭﲪﺔ ﺍ‪ ‬ﻭﺑﺮﻛﺎﺗﻪ ‪،،،‬‬
‫أﻓﻴﺪآﻢ ﺑﺄﻧﻨﻲ أﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺑﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‪ ،‬ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﺒﺘﻌﺚ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ درﺟﺔ اﻟﺪآﺘﻮراﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل‬
‫اﻹﻋﺎﻗﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬راﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ اﻟﻤﺮاد اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ واﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﻨﻮاﻧﻬﺎ " دراﺳﺔ اﺳﺘﻘﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻤﻬﺎرات اﻟﻨﻤﻮ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺪى اﻟﻄﻼب و اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻗﻴﻦ ﺳﻤﻌﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪارس اﻟﺼﻢ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ وﻣﺪارس اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺮﻳﺎض"‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ أﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻹآﻤﺎل رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺪآﺘﻮراﻩ اﻟﺘﻲ أﻗﻮم ﺑﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮهﺎ وهﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮاﺣﻠﻬﺎ اﻷﺧﻴﺮة‪ .‬و ﺑﻌﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺎة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻲ إرﺳﺎل ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ إذا رﻏﺒﻮا‬
‫ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﻓﻘﻪ ﻋﺪد ) ‪ (٢‬ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ‪:‬‬

‫اﻻول‪ :‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻲ‬
‫اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﺪو – آﻴﻨﺪل – ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﺘﻜﻴﻔﻲ‪ -‬اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﻲ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻄﻼب اﻟﺼﻢ وﺿﻌﺎف اﻟﺴﻤﻊ‪.‬‬
‫أرﻏﺐ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ هﺬﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﻦ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮاﻋﺎة اﻟﺪﻗﺔ واﻟﻤﺼﺪاﻗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﻛﺮﺍ ﻟﻜﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﺬﻟﻮ�ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﻭﺟﻬﺪ ﻣﺜﻤﺮ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻚ ﻟﻠﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﻩ و ﻣﻼﺣﻀﺘﻚ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻻﺑﺘﺪاﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﻒ اﻷول ﺣﺘﻰ اﻟﺼﻒ اﻟﺴﺎدس‪.‬‬
‫إذا ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻣﻜﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ ﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻮزﻳﻌﻬﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼث ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻮاﺗﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻤﻦ ﺑﺘﺪرﻳﺴﻬﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﻒ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ ﻳﺤﺘﻮي ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎت‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻮزﻳﻌﻬﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼث ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺎت‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﻬﻦ‪ .‬ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﺗﺘﻮﻟﻰ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻟﺜﻼث ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎت‪،‬‬
‫وﻣﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻮم ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻟﺜﻼث ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎت أﺧﺮﻳﺎت‪ ،‬و آﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم ﺗﻘﻮم‬
‫ﺑﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻟﺜﻼث ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎت أﺧﺮﻳﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬آﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬آﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ آﺎﻧﺴﺲ‬
‫‪ali1 @ kans. edu‬‬
‫ت‪/‬‬
‫‪136‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪:‬‬ ‫اﻟﺼﻒ‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج )اﺧﺘﻴﺎري(‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج‪:‬‬
‫) ( ﺻﻢ‪ -‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ آﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ ( ) :‬ﺿﻌﺎف ﺳﻤﻊ‪ -‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ ﺷﻔﻬﻲ‬

‫) ( ﻣﺪارس ﻧﻬﺎرﻳﻪ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻢ‬ ‫) ( ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺧﺎص ﻟﻠﺼﻢ‬
‫) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﻣﻠﺤﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﻋﺎدﻳﺔ ) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻀﻌﺎف اﻟﺴﻤﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﻋﺎدﻳﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﺌﻪ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺤﺔ أﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬رﺟﺎ ًء ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺳﻠﻮك اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام آﻞ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ رﻗﻢ ‪ .٢‬ﻳﺠﺐ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﺘﻤﺪًا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻚ و ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺗﻚ ﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺧﻼل اﻟﺸﻬﻮر‬
‫اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺿﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﻘﺮاءة اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺛﻢ ﺿﻌﻲ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل اﻟﺮﻗﻢ )درﺟﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ( اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة واﻟﺬي ﺗﺮﻳﻨﻪ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻮك اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺛﻢ اآﺘﺒﻲ اﻟﺮﻗﻢ اﻟﺬي ﺗﻢ اﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻩ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺮﺑﻊ ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻀﻠﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎل‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‬ ‫اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‬ ‫أﺑﺪًا‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺒــــــــــــــــــــــــﺎرة‬ ‫م‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤ ٣ ٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ١‬ﺗﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت‬
‫درﺟﺎت اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس هﻲ آﺎﻷﺗﻲ‪:‬‬
‫اﺑﺪﺁ‪ :‬إذا ﻟﻢ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ أي ﻧﻮع ﻣﻦ أﻧﻮاع اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات أو إذا ﻟﻢ ﺗﻼﺣﻈﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎر رﻗﻢ ‪ ١‬واﻟﺬي ﻳﺪل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎرة )اﺑﺪﺁ(‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‪ :‬إذا ﻻﺣﻈﺘﻲ أن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ آﺜﻴﺮا ﻣﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎر رﻗﻢ ‪٥‬‬
‫واﻟﺬي ﻳﺪل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎرة )ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر(‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‪ :‬إذا ﻻﺣﻀﺘﻲ أن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﺣﺪ اﻷرﻗﺎم‬
‫اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ٤-٣-٢‬واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺪل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎرة )ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن(‪ .‬ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل آﻞ اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة‬
‫ﺗﺤﺖ ﻋﺒﺎرة )ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن(‪ .‬إذا اﺧﺘﺮﺗﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة‪ -‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺿﻌﻲ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل رﻗﻢ واﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة ﺗﺤﺖ‬
‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة و اﻟﺬي ﺗﺮﻳﻨﻪ أآﺜﺮ دﻗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫اﻷرﻗﺎم اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻣﻮﺿﺤﻪ آﺎﻷﺗﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‬ ‫أﺑﺪا‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤ ٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬
‫رﺟﺎ ًء ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس و ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷرﻗﺎم‪.‬‬
‫‪137‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‬

‫ﻣﺘﻜﺮر‬ ‫أﺑﺪًا‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺒــــــــــــــــــــــــﺎرة‬ ‫م‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت‬ ‫‪١‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬ ‫‪٢‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻜﻤﻞ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻲ دون اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﺬآﻴﺮهﺎ‬ ‫‪٣‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪم اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻟﻠﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ‬ ‫‪٤‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺸﺎرك ﺑﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎت و اﻷﻧﺸﻄﻪ اﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪٥‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺸﺎآﻞ و اﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت‬ ‫‪٦‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺒﻘﻰ هﺎدﺋﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺤﺪث ﻣﺸﻜﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪٧‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺘﻤﻊ وﺗﻨﻔﺬ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺎت‬ ‫‪٨‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺪﻋﻮ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻧﺸﻄﻪ‬ ‫‪٩‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺄل ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت‬ ‫‪١٠‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻤﻬﺎرات وﻗﺪرات ﺗﺠﻌﻞ زﻣﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﺠﺒﻮن ﺑﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪١١‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻘﺒﻞ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت‬ ‫‪١٢‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻜﻤﻞ اﻟﻮاﺟﺒﺎت و اﻟﻤﻬﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺘﻤﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪١٣‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻬﻲ اﻟﻮاﺟﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﻤﺤﺪد‬ ‫‪١٤‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺘﺴﻠﻢ وﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ زﻣﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن ذﻟﻚ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺎ‬ ‫‪١٥‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻠﺘﺰم ﺑﻘﻮاﻧﻴﻦ و ﺿﻮاﺑﻂ اﻟﺼﻒ و اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‬ ‫‪١٦‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﺼﺮف ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‬ ‫‪١٧‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻄﻠﺐ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﻪ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ‬ ‫‪١٨‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷﻗﺮان‬ ‫‪١٩‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪم اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻘﺒﻮل وﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮى ﻗﺪراﺗﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪٢٠‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺟﻴﺪﻩ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺒﺎدرة ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﺪث او اﻻﻧﻀﻤﺎم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺤﺎدﺛﺎت ﻣﻊ أﻗﺮاﻧﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪٢١‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺣﺴﺎﺳﺔ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻵﺧﺮﻳﺎت‬ ‫‪٢٢‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺼﺤﺢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺎت‬ ‫‪٢٣‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻀﺒﻂ اﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻐﻀﺐ‬ ‫‪٢٤‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻀﻢ إﻟﻰ اﻻﻧﺸﻄﻪ اﻟﺠﺎرﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﻬﺎ أﻗﺮاﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ‬ ‫‪٢٥‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻤﻬﺎرات ﻗﻴﺎدﻳﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﻩ‬ ‫‪٢٦‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺴﻠﻮآﻴﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ﻋﺒﺮ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة‬ ‫‪٢٧‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﺗﺸﻌﺮ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻟﻬﻢ اﻟﻤﻨﺠﺰة وﺗﺜﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫‪٢٨‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻟﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺠﺰم واﻹﺻﺮار ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻼﺋﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮن ﺑﺤﺎﺟﻪ إﻟﻰ‬ ‫‪٢٩‬‬
‫ذﻟﻚ‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤٣٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ٣٠‬ﺗﺪﻋﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ زﻣﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻵﻧﺸﻄﻪ‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤٣٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ٣١‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺿﺒﻄﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺲ‪.‬‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫‪٤٣٢‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬ ‫‪ ٣٢‬ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ زﻣﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻷآﺎدﻳﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺿﺒﻂ اﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
‫اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺰﻣﻼء‬
‫‪138‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺪو‪ -‬آﻴﻨﺪل‪ -‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﺘﻜﻴﻔﻲ‬

‫اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻌــﻤﺮ‪ :‬اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺑﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس )اﺧﺘﻴﺎري(‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ ( ) :‬ﺿﻌﺎف ﺳﻤﻊ‪ -‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ ﺷﻔﻬﻲ‬

‫) ( ﺻﻢ‪-‬ﺗﻮاﺻﻞ آﻠﻲ‬
‫) ( ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺧﺎص ﻟﻠﺼﻢ‬ ‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫) ( ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ‬
‫) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﻣﻠﺤﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ‬
‫) ( ﻓﺼﻮل ﺿﻌﺎف اﻟﺴﻤﻊ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت‪:‬‬
‫اﻗﺮاي آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺸﻜﻞ دﻗﻴﻖ وﻗﺮري إذا هﻲ ﺗﺼﻒ اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﺬي ﻗﻤﺘﻲ ﺑﻤﻼﺣﻈﺘﻪ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﺮاءة‬
‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة واﺗﺨﺎذ اﻟﻘﺮار ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ داﺋﺮة ﺣﻮل اﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ واﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮدة أﻣﺎم آﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻚ اﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﺴﻠﻮك‬
‫هﺬﻩ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدًا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻚ و ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺘﻚ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺜـــﺎل‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة اﻟﺘﺎﺳﻌﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫‪ -‬ﺳﻌﻴﺪة‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺘﻌﺔ‪ ،‬وﻳﺴﻬﻞ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪:‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‪:‬اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺗﻌﻄﻲ وﺻﻒ واﺿﺢ ﺟﺪًا ﻟﻬﺬﻩ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺑﺤﻴﺚ أﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﺑﺸﻜﻞ واﺿﺢ وﻣﺘﻜﺮر‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴــــﺢ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺗﻌﻄﻲ وﺻﻒ ﺑﺄن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷﺣﻴﺎن‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﻄــﺄ‪ :‬اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﻻ ﺗﺼﻒ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ ﺳﻠﻮك اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺧﻄــﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‪ :‬هﺬﻩ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺗﺪل أن اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ هﺬا اﻟﺴﻠﻮك أﺑﺪًا‪.‬‬
‫‪139‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﻘﺎد ﻟﻠﻀﻮاﺑﻂ وﺗﺘﺒﻊ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت أو اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺎت‬ ‫‪-١‬‬

‫اﻟﺼﺎدرة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﺒﺎر ﻣﻦ هﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ اﻟﻤﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪-٢‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ودودﻩ )ﻃﻴﺒﻪ( وﺗﺮاﻋﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺪواﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺳﻠﻮآﻬﺎ رﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ اﻟﺸﺠﺎر‪ ،‬اﻟﺨﺪش‪،‬‬ ‫‪-٣‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻋﺾ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت و‪ /‬أو رﻓﺲ اﻟﺤﻴﻮاﻧﺎت‬
‫أو ﺿﺮﺑﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ اﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺎت ﻋﺎﻃﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎم‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺑﺎت‬ ‫‪-٤‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻐﻀﺐ واﻟﻌﻨﻒ ﺗﺤﺪث ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻷﺷﻴﺎء اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺜﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻏﻀﺒﻬﺎ إﺛﺎرة ﻗﺼﻮى‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﻴﺮ ﻟﻸﺷﻴﺎء اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺸﺒﻊ رﻏﺒﺎﺗﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-٥‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻗﻊ اﻹﺷﺒﺎع اﻟﻔﻮري ﻟﻜﻞ اﺣﺘﻴﺎج أو ﻧﺰوة أو‬
‫رﻏﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﺨﺮ ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬أو ﺗﺰﻋﺞ أو ﺗﺆذي اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎت‬ ‫‪-٦‬‬

‫اﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎت‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻣﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻘﻰ إﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪-٧‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻬﺎم وﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﻜﺎن ﺑﻌﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎط ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻲ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ زﻣﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-٨‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻻ ﻣﻦ إﺛﺎرة‬
‫ﺗﺴﺎهﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻤﺎﺳﻚ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺪ ً‬
‫اﻟﻨﺰاع‪.‬‬
‫‪-٩‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺳﻌﻴﺪة‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺘﻌﺔ وﻳﺴﻬﻞ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪-١٠‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﺎرك ﻓﻲ )ﻳﺼﺪر ﻣﻨﻬﺎ( اﻟﺴﻠﻮك اﻟﻬﺪام – ﺗﻜﺴﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻷﺷﻴﺎء أو ﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ اﻟﺠﺪران أو اﻷﺛﺎث وﺑﻌﺜﺮة‬
‫اﻷﺷﻴﺎء ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺮة ﺑﺎﻟﺜﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وﻳﻮﺛﻖ ﺑﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫‪-١١‬‬

‫ﺗﺘﺼﺮف ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻬﺬﺑﺔ وﻻ ﺗﺒﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﻮد أو‬ ‫‪-١٢‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﺎب‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ اﻟﻨﻘﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﺼـﻮﺻًﺎ إذا آﺎن ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄًﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻠﻮك‬ ‫‪-١٣‬‬

‫أو اﻟﻤﻨﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻄﻠﺐ اﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ إﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺐ أن ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﺮآﺰ اﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ‬ ‫‪-١٤‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ آﻞ ﺷﻲء‪ .‬رﺑﻤﺎ ﺗﻠﺢ ﺑﺈﺻﺮار ﺑﺄن ﺗﻜﻮن اﻷوﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﻄﺎﺑﻮر وأن ﺗﻜﻮن ﻗﺎﺋﺪة أو رﺋﻴﺴﺔ ﻓﺮﻳﻖ‪.‬‬
‫‪140‬‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪو أﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ وﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ‬ ‫‪-١٥‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻃﻒ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺳﻲء ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺨﺴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻷﻟﻌﺎب أو‬ ‫‪-١٦‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺨﻔﻖ ﻓﻲ اﻷداء ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﻘﺒﻞ اﻟﻔﺮوق واﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻟﺪى اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ‬ ‫‪-١٧‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺗﻀﺎﻳﻖ أو ﺗﺴﺘﺒﻌﺪ زﻣﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ اﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻌﺮﻗﻴﺔ واﻹﻋﺎﻗﺎت اﻟﺠﺴﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ ﻋﺎدات وأﻧﻤﺎط ﺳﻠﻮآﻴﺔ‪ ،‬وﺳﻤﺎت ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺷﺎذة‬ ‫‪-١٨‬‬

‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫وﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴًﺎ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ أﺻﺒﻐﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫أﻧﻔﻬﺎ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺤﺎول ﻧﺴﺦ اﻟﻮاﺟﺒﺎت ﻣﻦ زﻣﻴﻼﺗﻬﺎ‪ ،‬وﻻ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ‬ ‫‪-١٩‬‬

‫اﻷﺷﻴﺎء اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺨﺺ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫‪-٢٠‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ آﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫آﺮﻳﻤﺔ وﺗﺴﺎهﻢ ﻣﻊ اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫‪-٢١‬‬
‫ﺗﻄﻠﺐ اﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ واﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮار وﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺟﺰء‬
‫آﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ وﻗﺖ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﺼﺮف ﺑﺪون ﺗﻔﻜﻴﺮ‪ ،‬اﻧﺪﻓﺎﻋﻴﺔ وﻻ ﺗﺮاﻋﻲ أو‬ ‫‪-٢٢‬‬

‫ﺗﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻮاﻗﺐ اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺼﺮﻓﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﻜﺮ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻠﻮك ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ‪ ،‬ورﺑﻤﺎ ﺗﻠﻮم‬ ‫‪-٢٣‬‬

‫اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻮء ﺗﺼﺮﻓﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
141
Appendix C
Letter submitted to four special Education professors for checking about Arabic translation
Statements and example of Correction Form
‫‪142‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻜﺮم اﻟﺪآﺘﻮر‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﺴﻼم ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ورﺣﻤﺔ اﷲ وﺑﺮآﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫أرﺳﻞ إﻟﻴﻜﻢ هﺬا اﻟﺨﻄﺎب راﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻌﺎدﺗﻜﻢ اﻟﺘﻜﺮم ﺑﺎﻹﻃﻼع ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺑﺘﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﺻﺤﺔ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ‬
‫إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ و اﻟﻤﺮاد ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺪآﺘﻮراﻩ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻲ و اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﻨﻮاﻧﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫" دراﺳﺔ اﺳﺘﻘﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﻬﺎرات اﻟﻨﻤﻮ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺪى اﻟﻄﻼب اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻗﻴﻦ ﺳﻤﻌﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪارس اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ و ﻣﺪارس اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎم‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ اﻟﺮﻳﺎض"‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺑﺄن اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺗﻬﺪف إﻟﻰ دراﺳﺔ ﻣﻬﺎرات اﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺪى اﻟﻄﻼب اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻗﻴﻦ ﺳﻤﻌﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺪارس اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ و‬
‫ﻣﺪارس اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎم ) ﺑﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﻔﺼﻮل اﻟﻤﻠﺤﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪارس اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎم( و ذﻟﻚ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدا ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼ ث ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮات‪ :‬ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫) اﻟﻤﺪارس اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻢ و ﻣﺪارس اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎم( و ﻧﻮع اﻟﺠﻨﺲ و ﻧﻮع اﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ)ﺑﺮاﻣﺞ ﺿﻌﺎف اﻟﺴﻤﻊ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺸﻔﻬﻴﺔ و ﺑﺮاﻣﺞ اﻟﺼﻢ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﺘﻮاﺻﻞ اﻟﻜﻠﻲ(‪.‬‬
‫و ﻟﻘﻴﺎس ﻣﻬﺎرات اﻟﻨﻤﻮ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﻦ و هﻤﺎ‪:‬‬
‫)‪1- School Social Behavior Scales (Scale A‬‬

‫‪2- Social-Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf and Hearing Impaired Students (Scale‬‬
‫)‪1, Social Adjustment‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﻓﻘﺔ هﺬا اﻟﺨﻄﺎب ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺮاد اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﻤﺎ و ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﺘﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﻟﻌﺒﺎرات اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ أﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫راﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻌﺎدﺗﻜﻢ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﻦ و ﺗﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻣﺪى وﺿﻮح و ﺻﺤﺔ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرات اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ وﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﺴﺨﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﻦ و اﻟﻤﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺎآﺮا ﻟﺴﻌﺎدﺗﻜﻢ ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻜﻢ و ﺟﻬﻮدآﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ"‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪم اﻟﺨﻄﺎب‬
‫________________‬
143
Example of Correction Form

Arabic Form
‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ إذا ﻟﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ واﺿﺤﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺒﺎرة ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬
‫واﺿﺤﺔ ﺗﻜﻦ واﺿﺤﺔ و ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺒﺎرة‬
‫اﻵﺻﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬
‫ ﻳﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬-١ 1-Cooperates with
other Students
English Form
Correction of Arabic Not Clear Arabic Translated Original English

Translated Statement Clear Statements Statements
if it is not Clear
‫ ﻳﺘﻌﺎون ﻣﻊ اﻟﻄﻼب اﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬-١ 1-Cooperates with
other Students
144
Appendix D
Letter of Gaining Access

145
146
147
148

Smit Atlas (2002)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Smit Atlas (2002)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI Microform 3190400

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Ali Hassan Alzahrani

Submitted to the Department of Special Education

serve as models of developmentally appropriate social behavior.

The issues surrounding the educational placement and social development of

those in public schools.

social development of students with hearing impairment enrolled in special schools

students with hearing impairment differ significantly according to the type of

educational placement, program, and gender.

Assessment Inventories (SEAI)(Meadow, 1983), and the School Social Behavior

Scales (SSBS-2)(Merrell, 2002). A series of statistical analyses were used to

determine if there is a significant difference in the peer relationship, academic

behavior, self-management, and social adjustment scores of students with hearing

in peer relations, academic behavior, self-management, and social adjustment of

student’s gender in academic behavior and self-management. However, the findings

female students in peer relations and social adjustment.

achieve this humble effort.

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my Advisor, Dr. Sally

I also thank my committee members, Dr. Thomas Skrtic, Dr. Nancy

Ibrahim Abunayyan, Dr. Abdulla Alwablee, Dr.Zaidan Al Sartawi, and Dr.

accuracy of Arabic scales translation.

I would like to thank the ministry of education, General Secretariat of Special

I am also grateful to my family. To my parents, and my siblings, thank you for

Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………..2

Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………….4

Research Questions …………………………………………………………...5

Statement of Hypotheses ……………………………………………………...6

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature …………………………………………………..9

Special Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia …………………………..9

The History of the Development of Special Education in

Saudi Arabia ..... ...................................................................................9

Special Education Policy in Saudi Arabia ...........................................13

The Group Benefiting From Special Education ..................................16

Educational Placement for students with special needs

in Saudi Arabia ....................................................................................17

The Training of Special Education Teachers ......................................18

Deaf Education Programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ...........................20

Institutes and Programs of the Hearing Impaired ....................20

Students with Hearing Impairment in Public

Special Education Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the

American Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).......................25

Social Development in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students ...........................28

Social Development of Deaf Students in Relation to

School Settings and Programs .................................................29

Social Interaction of Young Hearing Impaired

Social Development of Older Hearing Impaired

The Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED)………...56

Chapter 3: Research methodology .............................................................................61

Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................61

Participant Selection ............................................................................64

Reliability and Validity .......................................................................71

Reliability of Data Collection …………………………….....74

Scale Translation …………………………………………….74

Workshop Session …………………………………………………...74

Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………..75

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis ……………………………………………………. 77

Reliability of Data Collection …………………………………………….....77

Descriptive Analysis for Each Scales' Item ……………………………….....77

Descriptive Analysis of Peer Relations Items………………………..77

Descriptive Analysis of Academic Behavior Items………………….82