中学智障学生职业课程教师评价:来自沙特阿拉伯的探索性分析

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Hussain A. Almalky , Shaykhah M. Alqahtani
{"title":"中学智障学生职业课程教师评价:来自沙特阿拉伯的探索性分析","authors":"Hussain A. Almalky ,&nbsp;Shaykhah M. Alqahtani","doi":"10.1016/j.ridd.2025.105100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) continue to face significant challenges in transitioning from school to employment. Vocational education plays a critical role in developing workforce skills and promoting independent living. Despite its importance, the effectiveness of vocational education for students with ID in Saudi Arabia has received limited empirical investigation. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the vocational curriculum through Tyler’s Curriculum Evaluation Theory and the Universal Design for Transition framework, aligning with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>This study examined special education teachers’ perceptions of the vocational curriculum’s appropriateness for secondary students with ID in Saudi Arabia. It also explored whether these perceptions differed based on teachers’ qualifications, area of specialization, years of experience, or institutional setting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A structured quantitative survey measured four curriculum domains: presentation style, content relevance, learning activities, and assessment methods. Data from 84 special education teachers in Riyadh were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d) reported. Reliability was confirmed via Cronbach’s alpha, and content validity was established through expert review.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Teachers generally rated the curriculum favorably, particularly regarding presentation style. In contrast, the learning activities domain received lower ratings, indicating limited use of experiential and individualized pedagogical methods. No statistically significant differences emerged across demographic variables, suggesting strong consensus among respondents.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>These findings underscore the need to strengthen the learning activities domain to better support students’ development of functional skills and transition to employment. Curricular improvements should integrate practical, differentiated instructional strategies aligned with international standards. Such enhancements align with Vision 2030’s goals for inclusive, outcome-focused vocational education.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51351,"journal":{"name":"Research in Developmental Disabilities","volume":"165 ","pages":"Article 105100"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teachers’ evaluation of vocational curriculum for secondary students with intellectual disabilities: An exploratory analysis from Saudi Arabia\",\"authors\":\"Hussain A. Almalky ,&nbsp;Shaykhah M. Alqahtani\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ridd.2025.105100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) continue to face significant challenges in transitioning from school to employment. Vocational education plays a critical role in developing workforce skills and promoting independent living. Despite its importance, the effectiveness of vocational education for students with ID in Saudi Arabia has received limited empirical investigation. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the vocational curriculum through Tyler’s Curriculum Evaluation Theory and the Universal Design for Transition framework, aligning with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>This study examined special education teachers’ perceptions of the vocational curriculum’s appropriateness for secondary students with ID in Saudi Arabia. It also explored whether these perceptions differed based on teachers’ qualifications, area of specialization, years of experience, or institutional setting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A structured quantitative survey measured four curriculum domains: presentation style, content relevance, learning activities, and assessment methods. Data from 84 special education teachers in Riyadh were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d) reported. Reliability was confirmed via Cronbach’s alpha, and content validity was established through expert review.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Teachers generally rated the curriculum favorably, particularly regarding presentation style. In contrast, the learning activities domain received lower ratings, indicating limited use of experiential and individualized pedagogical methods. No statistically significant differences emerged across demographic variables, suggesting strong consensus among respondents.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>These findings underscore the need to strengthen the learning activities domain to better support students’ development of functional skills and transition to employment. Curricular improvements should integrate practical, differentiated instructional strategies aligned with international standards. Such enhancements align with Vision 2030’s goals for inclusive, outcome-focused vocational education.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Developmental Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"165 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Developmental Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422225001842\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Developmental Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422225001842","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

智障学生在从学校到就业的过渡中仍然面临着巨大的挑战。职业教育在培养劳动力技能和促进独立生活方面发挥着关键作用。尽管其重要性,职业教育的有效性在沙特阿拉伯身份证学生得到了有限的实证调查。本研究通过泰勒的课程评估理论和过渡通用设计框架来评估职业课程,并与沙特阿拉伯的2030年愿景保持一致,从而解决了这一差距。目的本研究考察沙特阿拉伯特殊教育教师对中等身份认同学生职业课程适宜性的看法。它还探讨了这些看法是否因教师的资格、专业领域、经验年数或机构环境而有所不同。方法一项结构化的定量调查测量了四个课程领域:演讲风格、内容相关性、学习活动和评估方法。使用描述性统计和独立样本t检验对利雅得84名特殊教育教师的数据进行了分析,并报告了效应量(Cohen’s d)。信度采用Cronbach’s alpha法确定,内容效度采用专家评审法确定。结果教师对课程的评价普遍较高,尤其是在演讲风格方面。相比之下,学习活动领域的评分较低,表明经验和个性化教学方法的使用有限。人口统计变量之间没有统计学上的显著差异,这表明受访者之间存在强烈的共识。结论需要加强学习活动领域,以更好地支持学生功能技能的发展和就业过渡。课程改进应结合与国际标准一致的实用的、差异化的教学策略。这些改进符合《2030年愿景》关于包容性、注重成果的职业教育的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teachers’ evaluation of vocational curriculum for secondary students with intellectual disabilities: An exploratory analysis from Saudi Arabia

Background

Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) continue to face significant challenges in transitioning from school to employment. Vocational education plays a critical role in developing workforce skills and promoting independent living. Despite its importance, the effectiveness of vocational education for students with ID in Saudi Arabia has received limited empirical investigation. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the vocational curriculum through Tyler’s Curriculum Evaluation Theory and the Universal Design for Transition framework, aligning with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.

Aims

This study examined special education teachers’ perceptions of the vocational curriculum’s appropriateness for secondary students with ID in Saudi Arabia. It also explored whether these perceptions differed based on teachers’ qualifications, area of specialization, years of experience, or institutional setting.

Methods

A structured quantitative survey measured four curriculum domains: presentation style, content relevance, learning activities, and assessment methods. Data from 84 special education teachers in Riyadh were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d) reported. Reliability was confirmed via Cronbach’s alpha, and content validity was established through expert review.

Results

Teachers generally rated the curriculum favorably, particularly regarding presentation style. In contrast, the learning activities domain received lower ratings, indicating limited use of experiential and individualized pedagogical methods. No statistically significant differences emerged across demographic variables, suggesting strong consensus among respondents.

Conclusion

These findings underscore the need to strengthen the learning activities domain to better support students’ development of functional skills and transition to employment. Curricular improvements should integrate practical, differentiated instructional strategies aligned with international standards. Such enhancements align with Vision 2030’s goals for inclusive, outcome-focused vocational education.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
178
期刊介绍: Research In Developmental Disabilities is aimed at publishing original research of an interdisciplinary nature that has a direct bearing on the remediation of problems associated with developmental disabilities. Manuscripts will be solicited throughout the world. Articles will be primarily empirical studies, although an occasional position paper or review will be accepted. The aim of the journal will be to publish articles on all aspects of research with the developmentally disabled, with any methodologically sound approach being acceptable.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信