31.. ...; . . . ...... . . 1.. .. ...... .. _ . .131... . L1 ”haunt? . ... 11.65.. 1 . . I. u 3 -. , .|l.s>$ +5.... .3 . . .....1. 1 11.1... ......L 5.21........1...H........_......u.m .. 31...”..1...‘...4w1....... . .1. 1. ...w‘nx...fi. . 1.......... . ......:......q. .... .....- ... jfiffi 19......1.....~. ..........F..........._. a ...E. .13.... ..-... ........... v.. . ... ...v...‘..........v. ......t... ...... . . . . . . ~..1.._..v. .v , .. ...... ....... . . .................... ...... .. ...J. ... .. . 1...... .. _ .. ... r. "c .. ...... .....Z...» .... .. ... . .... .... .. ...... .. . . ... {Jul}... .... .21.... . .., . , ...... .2»... ......fi. .1............:?... ..n. . 1 . ............ .. . .....“u....1.$..1. .... . . ... 1......2... ._ .. ... . .. A . .1... ... .2. . .. .. ... .. ... .... .. . ; .. ..v.‘_. . .... .. . ..., .....55: . 3 ......I: w... J . .... ...; .1... . w .. .. .. x...“ ..P... ...... ... .. ...» . . ... . .....1. .1 ......1...‘..._. Tile... ...»...r . . .. .. . .... ...—...: . ... .21.... :2... 1. ...... .... . . _ 3... ... .. .. .... .... .... 1.... .. .... .. ...»: .. ... .... .....Z... . .....;.......z... .12.-.. .... .. . ....E. 22.... ... ...... .... tr. .. . 2 .. : ... .. ...... ...... . 3 .1.........1.......m.. ... . 1......" . ...... .. .... .. .. 1 1. . .. ... .. .. ......L... _. .... r. . a... 3?. . .. ~.. ... . TILL. .. v. . . 3. ... ... ...... v. ...; 7...; z . .1-.. ...; . .. . .... 3.3—. ...}... c :12, ...... .. . 3.. ......5: 15...... .....1... . . i... . ...... . ...... ....7 .53.... . ... 7 .....rr... ...... ...... 7.1.1. ... ,f ...; 1... .1. i. . . .21.. ... . . . . ERR .... . ...... .. 1.2:? . .... ... . .... i ..r.\. ...; . 1... a 7» .. ... 1.... ... . ..., .... f z. 41... p. .14 ......z....v..r... ... . ...... a 7.. ... Lu... .. 4?... .... :11: .. .. .....L . .... . .. .... , . .........C...:....L. :3. . ...,..:... .. . ., ......ta. . .12.... . ............. . .. . \.. ....L....,... 1.1.... ....r....1:..... . E.....v.u..... .. . L :_ . . . x. 7 _ .. .. . ...M 1 a .. . ........... .. .... . y .. . ,. .1.. . f . .. .. .11.“. . . L ... .... L13: . . : . . .. ; . . .. ., . . . .. . ...x; . J . . £1... .. . . . A .1 ..mr...L v. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .21}... . , H. . . .... . . .. . .31.. 1. . 1. 1.. ‘. ...»... ....» . . . .........1.......... . . . . .. . . . . ..r . 2 ... . .. . , . .949... . ...; 1 . . ... .11. . . . . , . . . I... .. f .. .. . x.. . . . .. ......L. .... . .. . . f ..A .. , . . . ...... . . . . . . ...: . . . . . . . . . I . . . . .1. ..1.. .. , .. . . . I y . . , . ... . .. . . . . y .. . . . . . f . -1 .....w. ....n........... . . . . . . .... . . ......r. . .L . . A y . , ., flit... . . . ... J .Y . . . f..:...... L... .. . . . . ... . . ’7 . . . .. ..1....._..,.. .... .. . . . .. . . . ... .. .-.... 7:11.51 . . l . 7‘ 31...... .E..(?~.~y. . . . . . . . . . 7,... .. . . . . . » . . 1A ....1 . . . . 41.1.7... ., . l. ... . . . . . . . . .....-....r.....;.. .....»...z.uw..u.....1u...1,; .2: . , , . . ......I £55.. In! ... n: .. .. J . . . . . .57.: v . r 5». .r a . . . . . .. 51.2.... ..n. ...,..w..&... ...:x. t 7...; ..r v . 1 . .1......r..u.....u.....r .... .12. 3...... . . . ., .. .r .x .. . , . . .. . . . , . .. . .r........... 2...... I... I. ... . vv.tv’.yr>. . ..,.....:.| ... t5; ...: .....I:¥3,.. :1sz .1... .73 .. .... . . . v. 1.1.... 54.32.33 . 1..., . r... -..... ......Ft .5 ...t .1. :Et. . 3..., IT... . 534.12... .... V ......1 .. . .... 1 . x 1 v 1.. r .. ... . . 1...... . 5.... Ltd»... ti:?.:...n .. . . .21... : «dew! any“... 3.....- II... , . . .. . ..rfinw. .1 . ... 12.... . To...‘ ...w .3. up... ............ ..a... . 4. 1 . ...; . ..r?..i. {Lazy-(.1: . . .....1...... 2...... ... . .... ... 1...... ......- I he .i ...... ....q . an“... .. . -.. 2.372111... . . . v I..w.n.......uu.. . . ... u... ..wfil .... T ... ...... ..... ......fA THESIS WNW!MM!“fillfl|fl|lljfll|lflifll|||fl This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Evaiuation of Seiected Aspects of the Secondary Teacher Preparation Program at the Umm Ai—Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, based on a foiiow-up of 1978-79 graduates ‘ \ presented by Suiaiman Mohammed Ai-Wabii has been accepted towards fulfillment . of the requirements for Ph.D. degfiehx Teacher Education <7? /,%%dx i Major professor . ‘ Date 0?" ,Z'éo’z. Msu;.,...ur ...-.1 - ,- m . , .-..- . rr 1 0-12771 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item \ J ({f‘m‘x WM: 23.”, " j Piece in book return to remove "~”’ ‘94' charge from ctrcuhtion records #9 “105 Eai'jfl1* '10“ V23!. _ l mft‘?(3°3 Rfifii i m HMS» 20° ”3‘ :41!” , ' $i\\ " VIE} I. p“- "~’ -‘ n , iy‘sz‘i“ a P \M .3" 0% M01 61:? VW / H : . i.. 11.“. ._. .. .1"; AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE SECONDARY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM AT THE UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY, MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA, BASED ON A FOLLOW—UP OF 1978 — 79 GRADUATES BY Sulaiman Mohammed Al—Wabli A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PH ILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1983 ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE SECONDARY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM AT THE UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY, MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA, BASED ON A FOLLOW-UP OF 1978-79 GRADUATES BY Sulaiman Mohammed Al—Wabli Purpose The purpose of this study was to obtain an evalua— tion of the secondary teacher preparation pregram at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, from recent (1978—79) graduates; to analyze this evaluation as a means of determining the extent to which the program was meeting the needs of its graduates; and to use the results to rec— cmmmhd. changes for the improvement of the prOgram. Procedures The questionnaire utilized in gathering data for this research consisted of five parts: general information, teaching skills, professional—preparation courses, student- teaching experience, and proposed recommendations. The population of this study comprised all the 1978—79 Saudi Arabian graduates from The Umm Al-Qura University Teacher Preparation program. Out of 205 Sulaiman Mohammed Al—Wabli questionnaires distributed, 188 were completed and used in this study. Frequency distributions of the numbers, percentages, means, standard deviations, and rank orders were computed in order to describe thoroughly the graduates' overall evaluations regarding the three aspects of the program. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) technique was used to test the six null hypotheses. The significance level was set at 0.05. In addition, the means, rank order, and overall means were employed as descriptive statistics to compare and analyze the graduates' evaluations when grouped according to the independent variables. Findings 1. The 1978—79 graduates considered themselves well—prepared in six of 15 teaching skills, whereas they felt ineffectively prepared in two teaching skills. Preparation in the remaining seven skills was evaluated as average. 2. Seven education courses of 13 were evaluated highly by the graduates, whereas only one course was evaluated as below average. Preparation in the remaining five education courses was ranked as average. 3. The graduates were satisfied with six Sulaiman Mohammed Al—Wabli experiences they had had in student teaching. No student— teaching experience was evaluated as being above or below average by the graduates. 4. With regard to the research hypotheses, anal— ysis of the data indicated that there was a significant difference between the two sexes in their evaluation of the three aspects of the program. By comparing the over- all means for the three aspects of the program, it was found that females evaluated teaching skills and student- teaching experience more negatively than did males, while there was no sex-based difference in their evaluation of the education courses. 5. A significant difference was found between the graduates who taught at the secondary level and the graduates who taught at the intermediate level regarding their evaluationcxfthe three aspects of the program. By comparing the overall means for the three aspects of the program, it was found that the graduates who taught at the secondary level evaluated teaching skills, professional- preparation courses, and student—teaching experiences more negatively than did the graduates who taught at the inter- mediate level. 6. The results drawn from the investigation of the remaining hypotheses (3, 4, 5, and 6» which were concerned with the effects of teaching field, type of degree, year Sulaiman Mohammed Al—Wabli of graduation, and average grade on the graduates' eval— uations of the three aspects of the program, did not indicate any significant differences regarding any of the four hypotheses on the three aspects of the program. Even though there were no significant differences among these independent variables, the results did show that some groups seemed to be slightly more favorable in their evaluation of the three aspects of the program than did others, particularly when we compared the overall means of their evaluations. 7. Regarding the twelve recommendations prOposed by the investigator, the graduates supported eleven rec— ommendations and offered an additional thirteen sugges— tions to improve the secondary teacher preparation program at the Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah. This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my parents, Mohammed and Monirah, and to my son, Yasir. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The successful accomplishment of completing doctoral studies is directly dependent upon the assistance of others. Support, guidance, and encouragement came from many persons. Sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Judd Field, chairman of my committee, for his initial encourage— ment and continual help throughout my doctoral program. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. John Cragun, Dr. Banks Bradley, and Dr. Ruth Useem for their willingness to serve on my committee, giving me the structure and guidance I needed to complete this work. The writer wishes to express his gratitude and indebtedness to his brother, Ibrahim Al—Wabli, at the University of Riyadh; Dr. Mohammed Al-Ghamdi and Dr. Farouk Abdulsalam at the Umm Al—Qura University; Mr. Sulaiman Al—Harkan at the Ministry of Education; Lyla Al—Mazroo and Latifa Al—Somiri at the College of Educa— tion in Makkah; and all graduates of 1978—79 who partic— ipated in this study. Thanks also go to Mr. Steve Freedkin for accurate, efficient, and neat typing of this final draft of the dissertation. My deepest and heartfelt thanks goes to my wife, Fatma Al—Battah, and my son, Mohammed, for their sacri- fices, encouragement, and understanding throughout the years of graduate study in the United States. Finally, special appreciation to my brothers Salah, Ibrahim, and Abdullah, who have provided continuous encouragement throughout my academic and professional career. To them goes a heartfelt, "Thanks." iv LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I II TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . . . . . . . . . FIGURES . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM . Introduction . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . Justification of the Study . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . Research Hypotheses . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . Education in Saudi Arabia . . . . Brief Background on the Educational System in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . A Brief Background of the Secondary Teacher Preparation Program at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah . . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . Footnotes--Chapter I . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . Pre—Service Teacher Education Programs in the United States . . . . . . Teacher Preparation in the Arab World . V .viii .xiii . l . l 3 . 3 4 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 10 . ll . ll . 31 . 43 45 . 48 50 . 57 Chapter III IV Professional Preparation Courses . . Student Teaching Experience . . . Chapter Summary . . . . . . . Footnotes——Chapter II . . . . RESEARCH PROCEDURES . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . The Population . . . . . . . Questionnaire Design . . . Translation of the Questionnaires . . Location of the Graduates . . . . Methods of Distributing and Collecting the Questionnaire . . . Procedures for Analyzing the Data . . Footnotes——Chapter III . . . . . PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . Demographic Characteristics . . The Graduates' Evaluation of the Teacher—Preparation Program . . . . Test of the Hypotheses . . . . The Graduates' Recommendations . . . SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDA- TIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The Problem . . . . . . . The Purpose of the Study . . . The Population . . . . . . . The Questionnaire . . . . . Collection and Analysis of Data . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . vi 63 69 75 78 84 84 84 85 88 89 91 93 98 99 100 107 122 166 175 175 175 176 177 178 179 Chapter Conclusions Recommendations . . . . . . Implications for Further Research . . APPENDICES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE . TRANSLATION APPROVAL AND ARABIC VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE OFFICIAL LETTERS . . . 183 186 188 190 204 223 233 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Elementary and Secondary Schools in Saudi Arabia Among the Different Provinces at the End of the Second World War . Estimated Number of Saudi Arabian Students and Teachers in Each School Level or Type in 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Total Government Expenditure Represented by Educational Budget Appropria- tions Before the Establishment of the Ministry of Education . . . . . Kindergarten: Schools, Classes, Children, Teachers, and Administrators, 1969—70 to 1974—75 . . . . . . . . . Elementary Stage: Schools, Classes, Pupils, Teachers, and Administrators, 1969-70 to 1974—75 . . . . . . . Intermediate Stage: Schools, Classes, Pupils, Teachers, and Administrators, 1969—70 to 1974-75 . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Stage: Schools, Classes, Pupils, Teachers, and Administrators, 1969—70 to 1974—75 . . . . . . . . . . The Distribution of the Total Population of the Study According to College, Major, Sex, and Semester of Graduation . . . . . The Distribution of the Total Number of Graduates Teaching Contacted According to Their School Districts and Schools . . . Responses Received from All Graduates Studied Distribution of the Graduates According to Sex Distribution of the Graduates According to the College from Which They Graduated . . viii 14 15 16 22 23 25 26 86 92 93 94 101 4.16 rIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-I-'::_____________________—F__T Distribution of the Graduates According to the Semester and the Year of Graduation . . 102 Distribution of the Graduates According to Grade Level Taught . . . . . . . 103 Distribution of the Graduates According to Teaching Field . . . . . . . . 104 Distribution of the Graduates According to Type of Degree . . . . . . . . 105 Distribution of the Graduates According to Average Grade . . . . . . . . 106 Graduates‘ Evaluations of Their Preparation in Teaching Skills . . . . . . . 109 Ranking of Graduates' Evaluation of Their Preparation in Teaching Skills . . . . llO Teaching Skills Which Have Not Been Provided by the Umm Al-Qura University Teacher- Preparation Program and are Perceived by Respondents as Being Needed by Secondary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . 112 Evaluation of the Professional-Preparation Courses by the 1978—79 Graduates . . . . 114 Graduates' Ranked Evaluation of Their Prep- aration in the Professional-Preparation Courses . . . . . . . . . . 116 Graduates' Evaluations of Their Student- Teaching Experiences . . . . . . . 118 Graduates‘ Ranked Evaluations of Their Student-Teaching Experiences . . . . . 119 Univariate F-Tests for Mean Evaluations According to Sex, With 1.184 Degrees of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . 124 Means and Rank Order of Males‘ and Females' Evaluation of Their Preparation in Fifteen Teaching Skills . . . . . . . . 125 Means, Rank Order, and Overall Means of the Evaluations of the Professional Preparation Courses, by Sex . . . . . . . . 127 ix 4.20 4.27 Means and Rank Order of the Males' and Females' Evaluation of Their Experience Student Teaching . . 128 O I O O Univariate F-Test for Mean Evaluations According to Teaching Level, With 1.184 Degrees of Freedom 130 g 0 0 Means and Rank Order of the Evaluations of Preparation in Fifteen Teaching Skills by Graduates, Divided Into Those Who Taught at the Intermediate Level and Those Who Taught at the Secondary Level . . . . . 131 Means and Rank Order of the Evaluations of the Professional Preparation Courses by the Graduates, Divided Into Those Who Taught at the Intermediate Level and Those Who Taught at the Secondary Level . . . . . 133 Means and Rank Order of the Evaluation of the Student-Teaching Experience by Graduates Who Taught at the Intermediate and the Secondary Level . . . . 135 Univariate F—Tests for Mean Evaluation According to Teaching Field With 1.184 Degrees of Freedom . . . . . . . 136 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of the Teaching Skills by College of Education and College of Islamic Law Graduates Who Taught in Their Respective Major Teaching Fields . . . . . . . . 138 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of the Professional-Preparation Courses by College of Education and College of Islamic Law Graduates Who Taught in Their Respective Major Teaching Fields . . . . . . 140 Means and Rank Order-of the Evaluations of the Student-Teaching Experience by College of Education and College of Islamic Law Graduates Who Taught in Their Respective Major Teaching Fields . . . . . . 141 Univariate F—Tests for Mean Evaluation According to Type of Degree Obtained, With 1.184 Degrees of Freedom . . 143 Means and Rank Order of the Evaluation of the Teaching Skills by the Graduates Who Received B.A. in Education Degrees and Those Who Received B.S. in Education Degrees . . . 145 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluation of the Professional—Preparation Courses by the Graduates Who Received B. A. in Education Degrees and Those Who Received B. S. in Education Degrees . . . . . . . 147 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of the Items Related to Student— —Teaching Exper— ience of Graduates Who Received B. A. in Education Degrees and Those Who Received B.S. in Education Degrees . . . . . . . 148 Univariate F— Tests for Mean Evaluation According to Year of Graduation, With 1. 184 Degrees of Freedom . . . . . 150 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of the Teaching Skills by Graduates of the First Semester (1978) and Graduates of the Second Semester (1979) . . . . . . . . 152 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of the Professional—Preparation Courses by Graduates of the First Semester (1978) and Graduates of the Second Semester (1979) . . 153 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of the Items Related to Student—Teaching Experience by Graduates of the First Semester (1978) and Graduates of the Second Semester (1979) . . . . . . . . 155 Univariate F-Tests for Mean Evaluation According to Average Grade, With 1.184 Degrees of Freedom . . . . . . . 157 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of their Preparation in Teaching Skills by Graduates Whose Average Grade is the Equivalent of "Very Good" or Better and Those Whose Average Grade is the Equivalent of "Good" or Acceptable . . . . . 158 Means and Rank Order for the Evaluations of the Professional-Preparation Courses by Graduates Whose Average Grade is the Equivalent of "Very Good" or Better and Those Whose Average Grade is the Equivalent of "Good" or Acceptable . . . . . . 160 xi ill 1 . . .il; .. . id Means and Rank Order of the Evaluations of the Items Related to Student—Teaching Experience by Graduates Whose Average Grade is the Equivalent of "Very Good" or Better and Those Whose Average Grade is the Equivalent of "Good" or Acceptable . . . 162 Graduates' Perceptions of the Proposed Recommendations . . . . . . . . 168 Additional Suggestions by the Graduates to Improve the Teacher-Preparation PrOgram at Umm Al-Qura University . . . . . 173 xii LIST OF FIGURES The Administrative Organization of Education in Saudi Arabia During the Period from 1931 until 1951 . Educational Stages in Saudi Arabia, 1974-75 xiii 17 21 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Introduction "Concerned educational authorities shall give special attention to the training of scientifically and morally qualified teachers for all stages of education time—table aimed ultimately at self—sufficiency."l under a The above quotation is one of the policy goals accepted in 1974 by the Saudi Arabian Kingdom Board of Education. This goal and others were developed by a group of Saudi educators who believed that the shortage of native teachers and inadequate training institutions for the edu- cation of teachers was among the most significant problems facing education in Saudi Arabia. This concern continues to the present day. Al-Marsouqi stated: Clearly, there is a need to train native teachers and the Ministry of Education has intensified its program to solve this problem. Success, though, has been limited. While teaching positions are plentiful in Saudi Arabia, unfortunately teaching does not have very high social status. Therefore, many students tend to study medicine, engineering or business. Teacher education is currently blamed for preparing the prospective teacher to be no more than a staff member of the public school. This is because teacher education is concerned mostly with the requirements for the certificate the teacher needs to obtain in order to find a job. 1 2 Friedman and his associates state that: Many teacher training institutions have been accused of preparing teachers for students and schools that no longer exist. These institutions have lost contact with their constituency and continue to prepare teachers as they did twenty years ago. Thus, the preparation teachers receive has become less and less relevant to actual on— theejob performance requirements. The teacher preparation program at the Umm Al—Qura University in Makkah has been the major supplier of secon— dary native teachers, administrators and educators of the Saudi educational system. Any teacher preparation program can consider its training program adequate if there exists a visible relationship between the teacher education pro— gram and the job of teaching. Beaty stated: There are many individuals who can provide judgments regarding the adequaCy of a program of teacher education. One group is the graduates themselves. In 1974—75, the semester system at Umm Al—Qura University was implemented, replacing the annual system. The first class in Education under the new system was graduated in 1978—79.5 Saudi Arabia's teacher preparation program is constantly evaluated in order to incorporate improvements. This study evaluates selected aspects of the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah, as viewed by the program's 1978-79 graduates. Areas of research will include: (1) teaching skills, (2) professional preparation courses, and (3) the student teaching experience. Graduates' suggestions for future I ill nil. I l.— 3 improvement in the program will be considered. Also included is information concerning 1978—79 graduates who are in the teaching profession. Statement of the Problem Evaluation is central to the process of change in education. Any teacher—preparation program must be continuously evaluated to provide a basis for improvement. Among the most serious problems facing Saudi Arabian teacher education today is the lack of research on gradu- ates of the teacher—preparation programs. The problem to which this study is addressed is evaluation of selected aspects of the present secondaryteacherpreparation program This evaluation is at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah. based on data gathered in a follow—up study of the 1978—79 graduates. Purposes of the Study The major purposes of this study are: 1. To determine how many of the 1978—79 graduates are actually teaching. 2. To determine how the 1978—79 graduates evaluate their preparation at the Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, in regard to these aspects of the secondary teacher preparation program: teaching skills, professional preparation courses, and student teaching experience. 3. To determine the value of professional prepara- tion courses and adequacy of the student teaching experience as seen by the graduates. 4. To compare the graduates' evaluation of these aspects--teaching skills, professional preparation courses, and student teaching experience by' characteristics of sex, teaching level, teaching field, type of degree, year of graduation and average grade, as independent variables. 5. To consider the 1978-79 graduates' recommenda- tions for the improvement of the present secondary teacher preparation program at the Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah. Justification of the Study It has been suggested by many researchers in the field of teacher education (e.g., Lehrer) that: The College of Education should maintain contact with every graduate; those who spend four to seven years in an institution usually develOp a lifelong interest in it. Furthermore, they are an invaluable source of data for improving the college's program and also can provide Opportunities for field research.6 In addition, in 1974 the first teacher preparation conference in Saudi Arabia recommended that: Teacher preparation programs should be continually evaluated by graduates, institution directors, teacher educators, college supervisors, educational planners, principals, students and parents in order to improve these programs or design new ones. Basically, the key to improving any teacher prepara- tion program is continued assessment of program effective— ness, which means follow—up of graduates from their schools. Accordingly, Huber and Williams stated that: A follow—up study of graduates is one source of data that can be useful in evaluating a curricu- lum. It may not provide immediate answers 5 regarding the effectiveness of a program, but it does yield information about the educational product that is essential for continuous evaluation. However, as of this writing, no follow—up of secondary teacher graduates of this type had ever been made at the Umm Al—Qura University in Makkah. Therefore, data must be collected to determine the effectiveness of our present secondary teacher preparation programs. The need for evaluation of these programs is imperative in order to effectively revise them and design or implement new ones. Mattson stated: The survey of different methods of evaluation involving graduates of programs indicates that the most practical means of gathSring data is through feedback from the graduates. At the end of 1980, a committee of teacher educa- tors, headed by Dr. Mohammed Al-Ghamdi, was formed to study the project for a new College of Education in Taif City. In its report to the Umm Al-Qura University Council, the committee prOposed the establishment of a College of Educa- tion, preparing teachers of high academic standards for secondary level (7-12). This college should be started in 1982.10 However, the evaluation of teacher preparation programs in Saudi Colleges of Education in general and in Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, in particular seems important at this time for the following reasons: 1. Current enrollment is more than ten times as large as it was when the College of Education and College 6 of Islamic Law were established. 2. As a result of the lack of research on gradu-~ ates in the teacher education programs in Saudi Arabia, it is imperative that all aspects of the graduating profes- sional teachers be researched. 3. Thereawas a lack of evaluation of teacher preparation programs at the Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, which leads to improvement of teacher education programs. Hopefully, the information and results obtained from this study will be of assistance in correcting some of these deficiencies: It is useful to both faculties (College of Ed— ucation and College of Islamic Law) to review the study in or— der to modify the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, where necessary. The find— ings of this study will be made available to the staff of the new College of Education in Taif City, opening in 1982. Research Questions This study is designed to answer the following questions: 1. How do the 1978—79 graduates evaluate their preparation regarding the following aspects of the secondary teacher preparation program: teaching skills, professional preparation courses, and student teaching experience? 2. What are the effects of sex, teaching level, teaching field, type of degree, year of graduation and average grade on the evaluation of these aspects: teaching skills, professional preparation courses and student K? teaching experience? 3. What recommendations do the graduates have for improving the present secondary teacher preparation program, including the student teaching experience at the Umm Al- Qura University in Makkah? Research Hypotheses The following six null hypotheses were tested by MANOVA, using the probability of 0.05 as the level of sig— nificance for rejection of the hypotheses. ~e> 1. There will be no significant difference between male graduates' and female graduates‘ evaluations in respect to the following three aspects of the program: teaching skills, professional—preparation courses and student— teaching experiences. 2. There will be no significant difference between the graduates who taught at the secondary level and the graduates who taught at the intermediate level with respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. 1. 3. There will be no significant difference between College of Islamic Law graduates who taught in their major teaching fields and College of Education graduates who taught in their major teaching fields with respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. l. 4. There will be no significant difference between the graduates who received their B.S. degrees in science and the graduates who received their B.A. degrees in art 8 with respect to their evaluation of three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. l. 5. There will be no significant difference between graduates who completed their programs at the end of the first semester (late 1978) and graduates who completed their programs at the end of the second semester (early 1979) with respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. l. 6. There will be no significant difference between graduates whose average grade is the equivalent of "good” or ac— ceptable and graduates whose average grade is the equiva— lent of "very good" or better with respect to their evalua- tion of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. 1. Definition of Terms l. Graduates: Students who have completed all the requirements for graduation from the secondary teacher pre— paration program at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah. 2. Secondary teacher preparation program: The term refers to the total experience provided for students to enable them to fulfill the requirements of the teacher education programs at Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah. It includes the teaching field, the general education and the professional preparation courses provided to train the student to meet the needs of the secondary classrooms (7—9 intermediate school and 10—12 high school) in the Saudi educational system. 9 3. Student teaching: The period of guided teaching when the student takes increasing responsibility for work with a given group of learners over a period of consecutive weeks.11 4. Teaching field: The term refers to the area of the secondary teacher preparation program in which the graduate majors or specializes. It may also refer to the subject or subjects taught by the graduate if teaching at the intermediate or high school. 5. Teaching level: The term refers to the grade level at which the graduate is assigned to one of the two secondary education levels (intermediate 7—9 and high school 10—12). 6. The professional preparation courses: Sequence of courses designed to prepare the student who wants to devote himself or herself to teaching professionally in the secondary education. These courses are offered by the Curriculum and Methods of Teaching Department at the College of Education, Makkah. 7. Type of degree: the term refers to the degree for which the graduate is qualifying. The teacher prepara— tion program at the Umm Al—Qura University in Makkah confers two types of degrees: B.A. Ed. in the Arts and B.S. Ed in the Sciences. 8. College supervisor: A college staff member who is responsible for coordinating the efforts of the cooper- ating teacher and the institution of higher learning.12 10 This person is also responsible for supervising student teachers‘during'the period of student teaching. 9. Supervising teacher: A classroom teacher who teaches children or youth in public schools in addition to his/her work with the student teacher during the period of student teaching. 10. Teaching skill: This term is defined by Good as "the ability to promote learning, develOped through appropriate preparation and experience and facilitated by natural aptitude."l3 Limitations of the Study Limitations of this study include the following: 1. This study is limited to the graduates of Umm Al-Qura University teacher education program who (a) received their B.A. or B.S. degrees in 1978-79; (b) majored in secondary education; and (c) completed their entire secondary teacher preparation program at the College of Education or the College of Islamic Law in Makkah. 2. Foreign graduates will be excluded from this study, because no information was available concerning their addresses since graduation. 3. The questionnaire is designed to consider the following research areas: (a) general information; (b) teaching skills; (c) professional preparation courses; (d) the student teaching experience; and (3) recommenda— tions. 11 Education in Saudi Arabia It is necessary to first deal with basic informa— tion about the educational system and the teacher education program in Saudi Arabia. It is felt that this will help those who are not familiar with these areas to better under- stand the characteristics of the present undergraduate sec— ondary teacher preparation curriculum. Brief Background on the Educational System in Saudi Arabia Prior to the formation of the present state of Saudi Arabia, the situation in the Arabian Peninsula was no better than in the other Arab and Moslem countries. Educational institutions were limited, consisting of widely scattered literacy "Kuttab" which were frequented by a minority of the people. These institutions were an adjunct of the mosques and were first attended by the child when he reached six years of age. The curriculum taught by the "Umams”(holy men) of these mosques centered upon the Koran as a reading textbook as well as a text for Arabic grammar, stories about prophets, and poems. Throughout the curriculum, memory work was especially emphasized. Early in this century, a movement toward formal education appeared in the western part of the country (Al—Hejaz), where some schools were established as a result of the efforts of a few individuals and Islamic missions. Abdel-Wassia stated that: 12 In 1903, Mohhamed Ali Zeynel founded a regular Arab school in Jeddah and another in Mecca, known till this day under the name of the "Al-Falah School." . . . . In addition, "Dar Al—Hadith School" was founded by Shaikh Abou-Al-Samh in Mecca in 1932 and the "Desert School" was founded near Medina in 1941 by Ali and Osman Hafex for the children of the Bedouin Arabs. . . . In 1924, the Hachemite rulers in the western part established the "Hachemite School" in Jeddah and in Mecca. 4 Saudi Arabia took its recent form and name in 1932 when King Abdulaziz Al—Saud, who had unified the country seven years earlier, issued a royal decree renaming the country "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."15 A serious problem facing the government of Saudi Arabia was illiteracy among its people. Efforts of the new government to educate illiterate peOple have been expanded to the places where Bedouins gather. Formal and informal classes are conducted to combat illiteracy among these people.16 The exact percentage of illiteracy in the country is not known, because accurate statistics on certain population segments are not available yet. On March 15, 1926, the General Directorate of Education was initiated to organize and direct formal education at all levels in the country. However, only a few students were enrolled in the available schools at that time. Nyrop stated that: The first Saudi government elementary school for boys was established in 1925, but not until 1939 did the government elementary schools offer a full range of subjects. Schools were then opened in an organized form. But elementary education was only slightly different from the :::ZJIIII'llllllllllllllllllllll 13 tradition "Kuttab" system. Trial and Winder state that: The curriculum shows that over eighty—two percent of the total class hours are spent on religious disciplines and the Arabic language, the other eighteen percent being divided between history, geography, arithmetic, and geometry. Such a schedule is certainly far more than elementary school pupils can assimilate with any degree of understanding. 8 Secondary education was based upon the Egyptian system, consisting of a five—year course. This system has since been changed to a six—year course, because the curriculum of these schools suffered from lack of variety and flexibility. In addition to the regular secondary schools, there were religious secondary schools; both had even less diversified curricula.19 Hammad, in his assess- ment of this period, points out that: The educational system before the 19505 was so imitative and narrow that even those most able to afford education would send their sons to study abroad. The majority oftflmpopulation was deprived of education by its complex administrative struc- ture as well as lack of public expenditures to support it. The government's first budget covered the financial year November 26, 1942 to November 13, 1948 and allocated 7,022,224 Saudi Riyals for public education from a total national expenditure of 214,586,500 Saudi Riyals.20 The total number of schools, students and budgets allocated for education expenditure before the establish— ment of the Ministry of Education is shown in Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. The organizations of the General Directorate of Education during 1931—1951 is shown in Figure 1. Since the end of World War II, there has been increased interest in education. 14 TABLE 1.1 DISTRIBUTION OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SAUDI ARABIA AMONG THE DIFFERENT PROVINCES AT THE END OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR Province Elementary Secondary Total Western Province 22a 7b 29 Eastern Province 6 -- 6 Southern Province 5 -— 5 Central and Northern Provinces 6 -— 6 TOTALS 39 7 46 SOURCE: M. Hammad, "The Educational System and Planning for Manpower Development in Saudi Arabia" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1974), p. 86. aThis figure includes ten private schools. bThis figure includes three private schools. 15 TABLE 1.2 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SAUDI ARABIAN STUDENTS AND TEACHERS IN EACH SCHOOL LEVEL OR TYPE IN 1950 Number of Students Teachers Schools Enrolled Employed Elementary Schoolsa 127 22,431 839 Village Schools 70 2,622 101 High Schoolsb 13 1,135 122 Evening Schoolsc 12 415 22 Students Abroad (college level) -- 121 —— Students Abroad (below college level) —— 112 —- Boarding Sectionsd -— 297 —— TOTALS 222 27,133 1,084 SOURCE: M. Hammad, "The Educational System and Planning for Manpower Development in Saudi Arabia" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1974), p. 89. aIn cities and towns. bIncluding all post-elementary schools. CFor teacher education, English and typing. dThese are special sections for poor students such as orphans and are not included in the other columns. 16 .wacmflm Hpcwm CH ohm mwusmflw HHmm gaze muH .mumaoom mnH .manowm mpH "Museum steam .mxwgnu omnomo "momDOm mhsuasu . I1iIIIIIIIIinIIIIIIiIIIIIllalulliirllilliiilllli H ooo.oom.mmh eoe.aam.me mmaenmmafi e.m eee.eoe.eae ooe.mew.m NmaH:HmmH e.m ooe.emm.eem ooo.mmo.e wvmalmvmfi wcoapmfiumosmm< soapwodpm mucoflwmendonmm< waOHDmHHQOHmmfl snow Hmomwm SQ cmwzwmoumwm mmuswflpcwmxm pswEQHm>oo Hmwoa HMGOHDMODUW Dcoacno>ow HMDOB mo mmmucoouwm ZOHB¢UDQH mo memHZHS WEB mo BzmzmmHHmflfimm mmfi mmommm wZOHBfiHmmommad Bmwobm Aow H4809 ho mwOM . . wwonu an coaummwmmmwmo ®DMMODOOHHQ Hmhwcww map on NHDOOHHU Umnomuww wuwB m #Mosm MHMMMUMMHwMHmd .mmmmIHmV mmOflfl>OHQ hwnuo m:# CH . m D At. . HEM umnfim up w .nmcpwh MO mmfluao map ou GOD. .H memeiaw can HoB coaumospo hm .m .nenma cw>oum coenwm Hoocom .eeaeez . mo muouowufl room: e aeem .huflwuw>flso mcmflccH coapwpnwmmflc .Q.£mv=oflnmn< chmm CA a on ntOQcmz now mean:MHm an sopmmm chonpeoscm= .emssmm .s umomoom OO> . ucofi H .Hmmfi Hayes AM o p magnum acswm ca coflumoscw mo COHDMNHcmmno o>Humnumfl GHHD . . . ma Eonw poauwm ecu :HEcm 03B .H .mfim gases n;.ot.o—op a mamas co aumtouomt_a co_ueu=uu co wuerouumewo panacea unaou sea area mtmat< 5.3.8.1. to seemeeaz mm_u=.wo Co —woc=ou use co “catamaua one ecu Nen_:-—e cw xoewu_> ugh Education on December 24, in school. centers around Islamic beliefs. the government system. 18 Oil revenues have made it possible for the Saudi government to expand its public education, and the General Directorate of Education was elevated to the Ministry of 1953. Ghamdi states: Since the establishment of the Ministry of Educa— the change in educational standards Schools on tion in 1953, They of Saudi Arabia has been remarkable. all levels have been of the highest caliber. have been built in private palaces and in converted residences, with teaching staff and almost all 21 necessary facilities provided to serve the students. However, as of this time, not all elementary—age youths are In 1966, the Saudi delegation to the thirty— first International Conference on Education indicated that: Education is not compulsory in Saudi Arabia for three reasons: firstly, the population is vitally concerned with education and the children are sent to school without any compulsion being required; secondly, if the government made education compul- sory, it would run up against difficulties, such as that arising from the large number of Bedouin nomads. To meet this problan,thegovernment has organized mobile schools, with satisfactory results. Finally, in Saudi Arabia the shortage of teachers is such that recruitment has to be made from fellow Arab countries but even there recruitment possibilities are limited.22 The philosophical base of education in Saudi Arabia As stated in Article II of the conference's Educational Policy statement: Religious education is a basic element in all the primary, intermediate, and secondary stages of education in all their branches. Islamic culture is a basic course in all the years of higher ‘ education. The Saudi educational system is not controlled by a single agency, although centralization is a main feature of Snyder pointed out that: 19 It is paradoxical that in a country where govern— ment functions tend to be highly centralized, control of some educational funggions should be split between several agencies. Education in Saudi Arabia is not coeducational. schools. The The Ministry of Education controls boys' Education controls schools General Directorate of Girls' for female students at all levels, including the Colleges of Girls' Education. The General Directorate of Religious Institutes and Colleges supervises its school system, which is mainly concerned with religious and Arabic studies. The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs super— vises vocational training in a number of skilled trades. The Ministry of Defense operates schools for military dependents. The universities and the missions abroad are under the authority of the Ministry of Higher Education. Marsouqi stated: All of these come together and are represented in the Supreme Educational Councils. The Supreme Educational Councils are a coordinating body that has the authority to set up policies and approve curriculum for every school. All of the afore— mentioned groups promulgate their own policies and programs, but they have to first be approved by the Supreme Educational Councils.25 Educational Stages The Saudi educational system consists of four stages a six—year elementary school; a a two—year kindergarten; three-year intermediate school; and a three—year secondary school. Higher education is also provided. Education for except in boys and girls is separate at all stages, 20 kindergarten, as shown in Figure 2. All these stages are briefly described below. Kindergarten (ages four to six). Until recently, this stage was not part of the public education system. Today it is limited to the big cities and offered, for the most part, by private institutions. The main objective of this stage, as recognized by the Saudi educational policy, is to "familiarize the child with the school atmosphere, preparing him for sbhool life and transferring him tenderly from the stages of self—centralization to join social life "26 The total number of kindergartens, with his schoolmates. classes, children, teachers and administrators during the period from 1969—70 to 1974—75 is given in Table 1.4. Elementary (ages six to eleven). Article 72 of the educational policy defines this stage as: The foundation on which rests the preparation of youth for the following stages of their life. It is an important stage which covers all the members of the nation and provides them with the funda— mentals of sound ideology and trends and with experience, information and skills. The curriculum in this stage remains traditionally oriented and emphasizes classical Arabic and Islamic religion, as well as some modern subjects such as geography, mathematics, science, general health, and physical educa- tion. In the sixth year of this stage, pupils take a gen— eral examination given by their own district. They move to the next stage by passing the examination. Table 1.5 explains the development of this stage. 1181103 RHJ‘IOIBJ INC I'D-u. I"! I!" ,_-_, .... 21 LAAA “VVV MWWU Jul. at (ammo: INDEOIH h D‘WGJMDNJ ‘— :‘|.u nu.l_v " manna: 9:— I i 'l‘. I :auu'n'oa A“ ..—.—._L .9 0.. 0' "HIM ~ 1 g”. Einwmw J E .1. DEEDS A. '.trVfir\ - » rvvv in v ‘ L (. “ "‘ Gymanaa . ' a: m! " m” 3” “roux AWN“! .- L'ACE} . 'Dnd! IVDISJJ'H (511:1):me (non) anal Brawl um O owavmn weal. "vane-)3: mm 1M 4‘44 as; AAAA mu)“ (Jm'r ”NFC ‘33.??? v.77 7.777 ‘9:2£ :29 t9“” mm(flmuhm*mmu~) nwmmnm 7‘” Wag®9¢ o o o e o e 643$ --;;:--- 4’ w; (nau- buy I- In. Inn. u M—y Tush: n ' '1 “Kuhn Can" *hu ‘k 0 wows-m LOO :‘w Until -— hv-ntao "Info-m I'M“, Uriah an.“ 0 km: to Tn Educational stages in Saudi Arabia, 1974-75. 2. Fig. 222 Ii .mnnena Assam no soemeas are an moaneosem no monnmnumum "momDOm we w. - on sun om - awn mean. emne name Nan a men on ~ ea m~\.na_ me n. - Nm ke~ Ne - e- Ne_e_ ammo .nen NeN a. ea~ an e a. .h\n~a. me a. e. an _- a. ~_ ea. LMNe amen ~n_n ~n~ n a- an - an m~\~ka_ a. N. - an Na. n. - me. move see. eee~ ea. - em. on - on Nexaea. a. N_ - an ”e, n. - em. ewes swan NMMN .m. _ ea. e~ - a~ pk\enma m. ~— ~n _ an. e. SN. ~ ae_. eee. meow we - so mm - an enamemp Peach “see m_t.e ea-ou ..ee» use» a.eeu eu.eu page» when areae page» o.ex e_.eeu peach o_.= o_.an Fuuuww «poocum mummupu eutvpvcu «cognac» ”Lou-Lun_cwsu< meneema oe oeumwma .mmoe .zmmouHmo .mmmmmqo .mgoomom v.H mqmdfi «memHzH2a4 ozs .mmmmosme "zmemgommnsz 23 .MAnmhd Hpsmm mo Eocgcfix exp CH Cofluwospm mo moflumflpmum "momoow liluuniuuuipiuuiuulnui.iulixuiluliuulnnuuuiuul..nInlluinnluuill.ululliuli 11:11:... wNen ~e_~ Fee ~e~e~ -e~_ aSNN meeeme ee___e eOMMNN emNeN NeweN eeem moae __a~ eon. mN\eee_ P_a~ ease _- a-- Face. e~_o emeeem eewowm meeee. eemew .mIm_ new“ ee~e mmmN _me_ eh\nea_ Nee~ one, New -ee_ e_ee_ eemm -_F~m. e~aeem ea—eep om_- neon. “see ewee some mom. mk\~kep em_~ eee_ ewe some. emen— meme seemke nee_~n eeamm_ Kama. ___e_ seem eeee ”Nan Pe~_ ~e\_em. meme e_ma 0am SNeme mSDNF _emn amNNNe ewmmaw anmwe. amen, e_eN_ e_ae mmen __m~ eee. Fk\oee_ ewme seep mam eeee. emm_e omen mm_aan eemNNN swamp, FePkF immwp emne n_en ameN ewe eeeeeap Peace axon “Frau _.uep ”see mpe_e Leech axes “Fade _eae~ use: ceased Fees» e_ex geese» Fuuuwm «poocum mommepu mpvaae mtogueuh «Louecamec—Ev< mhlvmmH OB omlmmma emmOB£n ...... mm ma NH A m v m mOwumenumz .v on ma ~H 4 mg a p smofloam .m hm VA Ha n ma ma ~ cocoons; :mwamcm .N mm as «a snmmuwomu .H "cofiunosom mo OOUHHOU mm ma ca m me am 5H mamuou 3mg oasoamu mm Ms M m - as m spasms: .n «A I I I ad m m momsucwa UHQMH< .N . n «H o e :oamadmm .H "3mg owsmamH no wmmaaoo cameos mhma mama mhma chad Hmuoa can Hmuoa Hmumwsmm umummfimm Haves kumwfimm houmvfiwm oamdh Hens: unsm was: ocooom umuwm ocoomm umuwm can mmmwflaoo. Hence meEmm was: onesooamo mo mmemmsmm ozs .xmm .moe4: .momqqou oe ozHomooo< wossm was so onesdomom qdeoe mes mo oneDmHmemHo use H.m mqmdfi 87 examined in order to discover all available follow~up studies concerning evaluations of teacher preparation programs. The questionnaires in these studies, particu- l 2 in their larly the instruments used by Al-Ahmad and Craff follow-up studies in teacher preparation programs, were analyzed to determine what type of questions would be most pertinent for this study. The questionnaire was developed in three stages. The initial stage was the first draft which concerned three aspects of the program. Secondly, the questionnaire was submitted to the Education Department research consultant for review as to possible changes and additions. Finally, the members of the committee examined the questionnaire critically and suggested some changes which were incorpor— ated into the final version. This was approved by the investigator's advisory committee. The final form of the questionnaire consisted of sixty—six items, which were divided into the following parts (see Appendix A): Part I was designed to obtain general information on the graduate such as sex, college graduated from, semester of graduation, teaching level, teaching field, type of degree and average grades. Thus, there was a total of seven items in this section. Part II consisted of sixteen items. Fifteen dealt with teaching skills listed in the Curriculum and Methods of 3 Teaching Department Bulletin of 1979480. 88 The last question in this section requested the graduate to evaluate the program by listing any teaching skills not covered in the program but which the graduate feels he or she needs as a teacher at the secondary level. Part III contained thirteen questions on professional preparation courses required of university students in the secondary level teaching proqram. The graduates were asked to evaluate the usefulness of these courses in preparing for teaching on a secondary level. Part IV consisted of sixteen questions. Graduates were asked to evaluate different aspects of their student— teaching experiences which were part of the teaching prOgram. Part V consisted of fourteen items, most of which requested suggestions on improving different aspects of the teaching program. The questions were derived from litera- ture reviewed by the investigator in Chapter II. The remaining questions asked the graduates to discuss problems encountered in teaching for which the program did not adequately prepare them and ways the program could be improved to deal with those problems. Translation of the Questionnaires Translating the final form of the approved question— naire from English into Arabic was done in four stages: first, two copies of the Arabic translations were completed by the investigator. Next, the Arabic translations were 89 submitted to two English language and Arabic language experts at Umm Al-Qura University. They were asked to translate the Arabic version back into English to revise it and verify the translation. The third stage of trans— lation was to have two faculty members in the Educational and Psychological Research Center at the College of Educa- tion, who have had experience in translating questionnaires examine both forms. They made suggestions which were incorporated into the final version approved by them. Finally, both forms of the Arabic translations were admin- istered to two groups: eight male teachers and seven female teachers who had graduated from the program in 1979-80. This was done as a pre—test for readability and clarity of the Arabic version. The results of that test were positive. The questionnaire was then sent to graduates accompanied by a cover letter from the investigator explaining the purpose of the questionnaire in relation to this study. (Appendix B contains a document showing the translation approval, an Arabic version of the questionnaire by the Educational and Psychological Research Center, and two copies of the Arabic version in its original forms for male and female graduates.) Location of the Graduates To determine the location of the l978-79 Saudi Arabian graduates, the following five sources were employed: 1. Nine official letters were sent from the director of the Scholarship Department at Umm Al—Qura 90 University to personnel at the university in charge of placing Umm Al-Qura University graduates in governmental institutions. The letters urged their help in distributing the questionnaire. (See Appendix C.) 2. The Department of Admissions and Registration at Umm Al—Qura University was contacted to secure the names and the total number of the l978—79 graduates. 3. The General Office of Civil Service, a govern— mental agency supervising the affairs of all government employees, was contacted and given the list of 214 Saudi graduates in order to determine the graduates' positions. It was determined that 130 male graduates were working in the Ministry of Education as intermediate and secondary school teachers, 75 female graduates were working in the General Directorate of Girls' Education as intermediate and secondary school teachers, and nine male graduates were studying abroad. 4. The director of Appointment Department in the Ministry of Education was contacted. He provided the investigator with a list of the l978-79 male graduates and the school districts in which they were presently teaching. 5. The General Directorate of Girls' Education was contacted to secure the names of l978-79 female graduates and school districts they were employed in. The 75 female graduates were distributed in three school districts. Each district was contacted to secure the names of the schools employing the female graduates and the number in each 91 school. The school districts contacted were: (a) Jeddah school district (b) Makkah school district (c) Taif school district Methods of Distributing and Collecting the Questionnaire After arriving in Saudi Arabia, the investigator spent all of May 1981 obtaining information on the secon- dary teacher education graduates of 1978-79 at Umm Al-Qura University. At the time of the research, 205 of 214 Saudi Arabian graduates were engaged in teaching and were super— vised by ten school districts. (See Table 3.2.) The rest went abroad to study. The questionnaire was designed to collect data from those who were actually engaged in teaching. All question— naires were coded so that each returned questionnaire could be identified for response checking and classification. The 205 questionnaires were distributed to ten school districts on June 5 and collected on July 25, 1981. Personal distribution and mailing of the questionnaire were the methods used to collect data for this study. To assure the anonymity of respondents and to assure effective distribution and collection, the 194 questionnaires were personally distributed to each male respondent and to the school district superintendents of female respondents. In- dividual and/or group sessions were held when necessary to explain and clarify the questionnaires to the male THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF GRADUATES TEACHING CONTACTED ACCORDING TO THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS 92 TABLE 3.2 Number of Schools No. of Grads Contacted School DlStrlCts Intermediate Secondary Intermediate Secondary A. Boys' Schools: Jeddah 12 3 29 6 Makkah l6 4 32 7 Medina 4 2 6 3 Taif 16 2 30 4 Al—Baha 2 7 l Bisha 1 — 2 — Abha — 3 — Total 59 11 109 21 B. Girls' Schools Jeddah 5 8 3 Makkah 14 7 23 24 Taif 8 3 12 5 Total 27 12 43 32 NET TOTAL 86 23 152 53 female respondents. respondents, whereas two specially—trained assistants helped the investigator to collect the questionnaire from the On June 5, 1981, the questionnaire, along with a personal letter and a stamped, return addressed envelope, 93 was mailed to eleven male graduates who were living in the cities of—Al Baha, Bisha, and Abha. By July, all eleven questionnaires had been returned and by July 25, 193 gradu- ates had responded out of the total population of 205. This was a 94 percent response rate. (See Table 3.3.) However, five questionnaires were discarded because of incomplete responses. The remaining 188 (91.7 percent) completed questionnaires were used in this study. TABLE 3.3 RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM ALL GRADUATES STUDIED Methods of Total Number of Number Collecting Data Number Of Respondents NOt . Graduates Responding A. Questionnaires distributed by personal contact 194 182 12 B. Questionnaires distributed by mail 11 ll - TOTAL 205 193 12 Procedures for Analyzing the Data The data collected from the questionnaires provided the basis for the study's analysis. Data were coded by the researcher and sent to the Scoring Center at Michigan State University (MSU) for keypunching. The punched cards were then sent to the Computer Center at MSU for analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences-(SPSS). 94 As previously mentioned, the questionnaire is com- posed of five parts. The frequencies and percentages of the graduates responding to questions 1—7 were used to analyze the demographic characteristics of the population of this study. To evaluate three aspects of the program——teaching skills (Part Two), professional—preparation courses (Part Three), and student—teaching experience (Part Four)-—a five-point rating scale (Likert scale) was selected. The rating scale showed the following: Major Aspects of Lowest Rank Average Highest Rank I m I I I I the Program I E i I I I E ”* I8I..I% . I‘” 1 Teaching Skills I Q I H I m i I 3 I m I H I H I H I m - {“1818 1313 (items 8—22) I g I m I < I 3 I p l 2 3 4 5 Professional Lowest Rank Average Highest Rank I w I I I I Preparation : 3 : o : g : : I m I H I -H I m I o I > I p I w I H I H Courses I I p I p I o I n I o I -H o I u I m I m . I z I q S I o I D I >15 (items 24-36) I I H I o I H I n.4 I m I m-m I c I m I m m I o I o:> I D I > I >>> l 2 3 4 5 Student Lowest Rank Average Highest Rank I I I I I I I I Teaching : g I 8 i c i I i-g I‘EHEI‘S '0': Experience I -H I -H I u i 8 i 8 E I p I u I H I m I o . l>wm % I m m I w I H m I tau (items 37—42) IH w H I m u I o I p u I u o IQ)Q O I s o I c I m o I m m I >ID4JI D-U I D I m-u I >IH l 2 3 4 5 95 Data analysis was conducted to find answers to the research questions used in the study. To answer the first research question, on how the l978—79 graduates evaluate their preparation regarding teaching skills, professional preparation courses, and student—teaching experience, the collected data were tabulated and analyzed by frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and ranking. On the five—point rating scale, the items with scores from 3.9 to 5.00 are in the highest—ranking group; those with scores from 3.0 to 3.89 are in the average group; and items with scores of 2.0 to 2.99 are in the lowest group. To test the research hypotheses which were derived from the second research question, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used for analysis of the data gathered by the questionnaire. A significance level of 0.05 was set for rejection or nonrejection of the null hypotheses. In addition, the mean, rank order, and the overall means were employed as descriptive statistics to 'compare the graduates' evaluations when they were grouped according to the independent variables. The following six null hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of significance: 1. There will be no significant difference be- tween male graduates' and female graduates' evaluations 96 in respect to the following three aspects of the program: teaching skills, professional-preparation courses, and student—teaching experience. 2. There will be no significant difference between the graduates who taught at the secondary level and the graduates who taught at the intermediate level in respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. l. 3. There will be no significant difference between College of Islamic Law graduates who taught in their major teaching fields and College of Education graduates who taught in their major teaching fields in respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. l. 4. There will be no significant difference between the graduates who received their B.S. degrees in science and the graduates who received their B.A. degrees in art in respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. l. 5. There will be no significant difference between graduates who completed their programs at the end of the first semester (late 1978) and graduates who completed their programs at the end of the second semester (early 1979) in respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. l. 6. There will be no significant difference between graduates whose average grade is the equivalent of "good" or ac— ceptable and graduates whose average grade is the 97 equivalent of "very good“ or better in respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis No. 1. To answer the third research question, on what recommendations the graduates have for improving the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, the frequency and percentage counts were used to present the responses of the graduates with respect to the five parts of the questionnaire. The five—point rating scale was used to measure the graduates responses and the results are as follows: Not Recommended Uncertain Recommended Recommendations I I I I I I I I I o I I I I :III III I II ' 't' . I I H I (items 53 to 64) I mgj , H I n I I m I I c oII m I H I a) I c m I I 0rd I m I m I m I OG)I I LIm I w I o I H I 54H I I.IJ-HI -I-I I :1 IU‘ l +JOWI I was I Q I D I s I msfl I l 2 3 4 5 For items 23, 65, and 66 in the questionnaire (the open-ended questions), the narrative method was used to categorize the graduate responses. Closer examination of the data presented in this study is made in Chapter IV. 98 Footnotes-—Chapter III lAbdulrahman Al-Ahmad, "A Study of the Effective— ness of the Teacher Preparation Program at Kuwait University, Based on a Follow Up of 1976 Graduates" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978). 2Paul Craff, "A Follow-Up Study of Graduates and Their Opinions of the Secondary Teacher Education Program of the University of Iowa 1970—76" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1976). 3Curriculum and Methods of Teaching Department Bulletin of 1979—80 (College of Education, King Abdulaziz University Press, 1980), pp. 6-10. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA The purpose of this chapter is to present the data submitted by the graduates in the investigation, along with an analysis of such data. This chapter reports the findings of the study in four sections. The first section deals with the demographic characteristics of the gradu— ates participating in this study with respect to sex, col— lege from which they graduated, semester and year of graduation, teaching level, teaching field, type of de— gree, and average grade. The second section looks into the graduates' evaluations concerning: teaching skills; professional preparation courses; and student—teaching experience——three aspects of the secondary teacher pro— gram at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah. This section addresses Research Question 1. Presented in the third sec— tion are results of tests, using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), performed on the research hypotheses which were derived from the second research question. In addition, the means, rank order, and the overall means were employed as descriptive statistics in comparing the graduates' evaluations when they were grouped according In the fourth section, the to the independent variables. data for answering Research Question 3 are presented. 99 100 Demographic Characteristics Analysis of the general information obtained through the administration of the questionnaire revealed much regarding graduates that is relevant to the variables of this study. In this section is provided a description of the data which gives basic information in regard to sex, year of graduation, teaching level, teaching field, type of degree, average grade, and the colleges in which the graduates completed their programs. The total number of graduates re5ponding to the questionnaire was 188, or 91.7 percent of the 205 gradu— ates contacted. Answers to the first part of the ques— tionnaire were analyzed, yielding the following informa— tion. As shown in Table 4.1, 114 graduates (60.5 per— cent) were males, and 74 (39.5 percentlwere females. TABLE 4.1 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GRADUATES ACCORDING TO SEX Sex Number Percentage Males 114 60.5 Females 74 39.5 TOTAL 188 100.0 ‘101 With regard to the colleges in which the graduates completed their program, 134 (71.3 percent) graduated from the College of Education, and the remaining 54 (28.7 per— cent) graduated from the College of Islamic Law, as shown in Table 4.2. The large number of respondents from the College of Education results from the fact that this Col- lege offers a program for preparing teachers for the secondary level (grades 7—12). TABLE 4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GRADUATES ACCORDING TO THE COLLEGE FROM WHICH THEY GRADUATED Name of the College Number Percentage College of Education 134 71.3 College of Islamic Law 54 28.7 TOTAL 188 100.0 Table 4.3 presents the distribution of graduates according to semester and year of graduation. As shown, a little more than two-thirds of the graduates (126, or 67 percent) graduated during the second semester (early 1979), whereas the remaining 62 (33 percent) graduated during the first semester (late 1978). 102 TABLE 4.3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GRADUATES ACCORDING TO THE SEMESTER AND THE YEAR OF GRADUATION Semester and Year of Graduation Number Percentage First semester, 1978 (1398) 62 33 Second semester, 1979 (1399) 126 67 TOTAL 188 100 The grade levels at which the respondents were teaching during the survey are presented in Table 4.4. This table shows that 135 of the graduates (71.8 percent) were teaching in the intermediate schools, while 53 (28.2 percent) were holding teaching jobs in secondary schools. It is interesting to note that the graduates from teacher— preparation programs at the Colleges of Education in Saudi Arabia are usually assigned to intermediate schools in their first year of teaching, but the shortage of indigen— ous teachers in the secondary schools is forcing the Ministry of Education and the General Directorate of Girls' Education to assign some of the graduates to the secondary schools. 103 TABLE 4.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GRADUATES ACCORDING TO GRADE LEVEL TAUGHT Grade Level Number Percentage Intermediate 135 71.8 Secondary 53 28.2 TOTAL 188 100 The distribution of graduates according to teach— ing field is presented in Table 4.5. The majority of the graduates are concentrated in the humanities rather than in the sciences. This phenomenon, still present at Umm Al—Qura University, where there is a smaller enrollment of high—school graduates in the science departments than in the arts in the teacher-preparation program, has been causing a shortage of science teachers in Saudi Arabia. Foranalysis of the data, eleven teaching—field specializations offered in the secondary teacher prepara— tion program at Umm Al—Qura University were regrouped in— to two categories according to the college offering these major teaching fields. Three major teaching fields (Re— ligion, Arabic Language and History) are offered by the College of Islamic Law. Eight major teaching fields (Geography, English Language, Biology, Physics, Mathema— tics, Physical Education, Art Education and Chemistry) are 104 offered by the College of Education. The reason why the investigator chose to regroup these major teaching fields into two categories is that some of the individual depart- ments are too small for analysis. For instance, in Art Education there were just two graduates (1.1 percent of the total sample); in Physical Education there were four graduates (2.1 percent); in Physics, eight graduates (4.3 percent), and in Religion, ten graduates (5.3 percent). TABLE 4.5 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GRADUATES ACCORDING TO TEACHING FIELD Teaching Ho Percentage * Percentage Field ‘ ' of Sample of Sample College of Islamic Law 54 28.7 Religion 10 5.3 Arabic Language 12 6.4 History 32 17 0 College of Education 134 71.3 Geography 24 12.8 English Language 31 16.5 Biology 29 15.4 Mathematics 19 10.1 Physics 8 4.3 Physical Education 4 2.1 Art Education 2 1.1 Chemistry 17 9.0 TOTAL 188 100 188 100 *Total Graduates Responding According To College 105 In investigating the types of degree for which the graduates were qualified, it was found that the Bachelor of Arts in Education and the Bachelor of Science in Educa- tion were the only two types of degree obtained by the re- spondents. In all, 115 of the graduates (61.2 percent) received Bachelor of Arts in Education degrees, while 73 (38.8 percent) obtained Bachelor of Science in Education degrees. Table 4.6 presents the frequency distribution and percentages of the graduates in relation to the de— grees obtained. TABLE 4.6 DISTRIBUTION OF GRADUATES ACCORDING TO TYPE OF DEGREE Type of Degree Number Percentage B.A.Ed. Degree 115 61.2 B.S.Ed. Degree 73 38.8 TOTAL 188 100 As is noted in Table 4.7, 127 of the graduates (67.5 percent) achieved an average grade of B, "very good." Fifty (26.6 percent) obtained an average grade of g, "good," while 11 (5.9 percent) achieved an average grade of A, "excellent." 106 TABLE 4.7 DISTRIBUTION OF THE GRADUATES ACCORDING TO AVERAGE GRADE Average Grade No. % Total After Regrouping % Excellent 11 5.9 138 73.4 Very Good 127 67.5 Good 50 26.6 50 26.6 TOTAL 188 100 188 100 As a first step in analysis of the data, the three average grades obtained by the graduates were regrouped into two categories. Graduates whose average grades were "very good" or better were replaced in the first category, and graduates whose average grades were "good" or acceptable became the second category. The reason for regrouping these three average grades into two categories is that one of the three categories contained too small a number of students for analysis (11 of the graduates, or 5.9 per- cent, had an average grade of "excellent"). In summary, 61.5 percent of the 188 graduates re— sponding to the questionnaire were males. More than two— thirds of the total graduated from the College of Educa— tion; a little more than two-thirds graduated during the second semester (early 1979); more than two—thirds taught at intermediate schools; and about three—fifths concentra- 107 ted on humanistic, as opposed to scientific, studies. Of the entire group, 115 graduates obtained the degree of B.A. in Education. The majority of graduates achieved average grades of "very good." The Graduates' Evaluation of the Teacher-Preparation Program The graduates were asked in thequestionnaire to express their Views regarding various aspects of the sec- ondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. This section deals with the first research question. Research Question 1 "How do the 1978-79 graduates evaluate their pre- paration regarding the following a5pects of the secondary teacher preparation program: teaching skills, professional preparation courses, and student teaching experience?" To answer this question, the evaluation of the 188 (graduates regarding the fifteen teaching skills, the thir- teen professional preparation courses, and six different aspects of the student-teaching experience were tabulated in rank order according to mean. Frequency and percentage were employed in tabulating the responses to the open-ended question (No. 23) and the remaining ten questions on dif- ferent aspects of the student-teaching experience. Teaching skills. Table 4.8 shows the raw numbers, percentages, means, standard deviations, and ranks of the graduates in regard to teaching skills. As can be seen in 108 Table 4.9, the evaluation scores for the fifteen teaching skills ranged from a mean of 4.245 to a mean of 2.743. The skills have been categorized into three groups according to their effectiveness scores. The first group consists of six teaching skills evaluated highly by the majority of the graduates. "Ability to use teaching ma~ terials effectively" was the highesturankcd teaching skill. In all, 45.4 percent of the respondents said they were taught this skill "very well"; 33.5 percent said they were taught "well"; 13.3 percent said "average"; 3.7 percent said "poorly"; and 1.1 percent said "very poorly" (see Table 4.8). As Table 4.9 reveals, this teaching skill “” was followed in rank order by "skill in evaluating the students' academic progress," which was evaluated by 39.4 percent as having been taught "very well"; by 39.4 percent as "well"; by 11.7 percent as "average"; by 8.5 percent as "poorly"; and by 1.1 percent as "very poorly" taught. Five of the six highest—ranked teaching skills, which ranged from a mean score of 4.245 to a mean score of 3.910, are related to classroom activities of the teacher. The sixth skill is related to the relationship between teacher and school administration. In the second group are seven teaching skills ranked as having been taught with average effectiveness. These teaching skills ranged from a mean of 3.802 to a mean of 3.473. Basically, they are related to the day- to-day classroom activities of teachers. GRADUATES' 109 TABLE 4.8 IN TEACHING SKILLS EVALUATIONS OF THEIR PREPARATION Below Average Average Above Ave rage Item . Very Very Sta d d T achin Sk ll n H Number e g l Poorly Poorly Hell Hell "9‘“ Devration Rank N N N N N A A A | \ 5 Ability to comanicate with students with S 18 21 74 70 different levels 0! abilit 3.999 1.055 4 Y 7.7 9.6 11.2 39.4 37.2 9 Ability to work effectively with the ‘ 13 35 64 72 1 school adaunistration 3'995 1.021 2.1 5.9 18.6 34 o 33 3 lo Ability to use the Arabic language 13 16 33 60 58 3 724 l 195 a effectively 6.9 3.5 20.2 3i 9 30 9 ' ‘ la 34 24 48 64 ll Skill in handling discipline problems in 3 564 1.369 ll "1' “As"m" 9.5 19.1 12.9 25 s 34 o 12 Skill in inactivating students who are 20 25 33 66 44 3“.” 1.277 13 ““"””5" 10.5 13.3 17.6 35 i 23 66 13 Skill in using a variety of teaching methods 15 20 28 56 3.702 1.307 g 9.5 10.5 14.9 29.8 35. 7 4 74 14 Ability to construct appropriate tests 6 1 27 6 3.973 1.092 5 3.2 9.0 14.4 34 0 39 4 9 15 Ability to use teaching materials effectively 2 7 25 63 l 4‘245 .555 1 3.1 3.7 13.3 33.5 45. 16 Ability to construct an appropriate lesson 14 13 24 62 75 3.910 1.214 6 7.4 6.9 12.8 33.0 39.9 17 Skill in using audeisual aids ll 15 35 65 61 3.302 1.154 7 5.9 5.0 19.5 34 5 32.4 18 Skill in budgeting time in the classroom 22 23 23 72 46 3.537 1.310 12 11.7 12.2 12.2 38.3 255 19 Skill in evaluating the students' academic 2 is 22 74 74 progress 4.074 .973 1 1.: 8.5 ii.7 394 394 20 Skill in keeping official records ll 24 41 66 46 3.595 1.159 10 5.9 12.8 21.8 35.}. 24 21 Ability to use scfool resources 30 4l 45 38 31 2.995 1.325 14 16.0 21.8 23.9 10 2 16.5 22 Ab lit t school llbra relource! 50 38 37 34 28 i y 0 use ry 2.74: 1.414 15 26.5 20.2 19.7 18.1 14. .1 _: 110 TABLE 4.9 RANKING OF GRADUATES' EVALUATION OF THEIR PREPARATION IN TEACHING SKILLS Eiiifiitién No. Teaching Skill Mean Rank 3.9 — 5.00 15 Ability to use teaching 4.245 1 Highest materials effectively Ranking 19 Skill in evaluating the 4.074 2 Group students' academic progress 9 Ability to work effectively 3.995 3 with the school administration 8 Ability to communicate with 3.989 4 students with different levels of ability l4 Ability to construct 3.973 5 appropriate tests 16 Ability to construct 3.910 6 appropriate lessons 3.0 - 3.89 17 Skill in using audiovisual 3.802 7 Average aids Ranking 10 Ability to use the Arabic 3.724 8 Group language effectively l3 Skill in using a variety of 3.702 9 teaching methods 20 Skill in keeping official 3.596 10 records 11 Skill in handling discipline 3.564 11 problems in the classroom 18 Skill in budgeting time in 3.537 12 the classroom 12 Skill in motivating students 3.474 13 who are uninterested 2.0 — 2.99 21 Ability to use school 2.995 14 Lowest resources Ranking 22 Ability to use school 2.743 15 Group library resources 111 In the third group, two teaching skills—-"ability to use school resources" and "ability to use school libra- ry resources"——received the lowest evaluations by the graduates, with means of 2.995 and 2.743, respectively. Although these teaching skills are not directly related to the graduates' performance in the classroom, they are related to their overall professional development. On the open—ended question (No. 23) on the ques- tionnaire——"Are there any teaching skills the program did not provide that you feel you need as a teacher?"--three spaces were provided for the graduates to list any teach- ing skills they feel they need as a teacher in the second— ary level (7—12), but did not get in college. Table 4.10 shows that 43 out of 188 graduates responded to this ques— tion. 112 TABLE 4.10 TEACHING SKILLS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE AL-QURA UNIVERSITY TEACHER-PREPARATION PROGRAM AND ARE PERCEIVED BY RESPONDENTS AS BEING NEEDED BY SECONDARY TEACHERS Number of Graduates Te' hi Sk' . . dc ng ills Needed Suggesting Each Skill 1. Ability to help students to 12 understand their assignments 2. Ability to work with 8 students' parents 3. Ability to handle routine 7 duties in the classroom 4. Ability to obtain information 7 about students 5. Skill in asking for help or ideas 6 from other teachers or administration 6. Ability to handle classroom discussion 4 7. Ability to get to know other teachers 1 8. Skill in group work 1 9. Ability to use school laboratories l 10. Ability to apply educational psychology 1 TOTAL 48 Professional preparation courses. For the pur— poses of evaluating responses regarding professional— preparation courses, percentages, means, standard devia— tions and ranks were computed for the graduates' reSpon— ses on each of the thirteen courses. These figures are 113 shown in Table 4.11. Graduates response scores re these courses ranged from a mean of 4.676 to a mean of 2.957. According to these values, the items were categorized into three groups, as shown in Table 4.12. Examination of the first group shows that more than three—fourths of the graduates gave high marks to their preparation in seven courses. "Teaching Methods II" and "Teaching Methods I" were ranked highest by the graduates, with means of 4.676 and 4.574, respectively. These two courses were offered in the senior and the junior academic years as introductory courses in teach- ing methods, and both include techniques to be used in teaching specific subjects. The two courses were fol— lowed in rank by "Developmental Psychology (Childhood and Adolescence)," which 64.4 percent evaluated as "very valuable," 25.0 percent considered "valuable," 1.6 per— cent were "uncertain" about, 6.4 percent felt was "of little value," and 2.7 percent considered "of no value." The mean and standard deviation were computed as 4.420 and .991, respectively. All seven of these courses are required in the teacher-preparation program at Umm Al- Qura University. 114 H omS. www.v S.Snowa o.SHmm H.H N H.N v m.H m HH mooaboz mcflbomoe mm m mHN.H mHS.m m.mmmm m.wmmb m.mamm N.H Hm v.n «a ucmfimon>mo Edaoo$nuoo mw a emm.a oem.m e.m e.Hm o.m m.mH e.HH . wmmnmsm Hmucmz.ecm So am ma mm mm mLHHomcsoe Op aOHpUDUOM#cH em as NHN.N eee.m m.NNme m.mmme e.m we e.eamm mhMHMM. :oHumuumHensemo SN NH HGH.H eam.m H.meem a.Hmoe N.mNem m.N eN o.w ma coflpmosem no sewewmmwmmm eN me eHN.H emm.N o.m SN H.eNme e.emme N.NHmN H.waem mmwwmmwmwawmmmmmwummmwwm mN w omH.H mom.m H.vvmm m.mmmw S.m S m.¢amm S.m h soflpmodwm ommmwmmwwwwummm 6N :.>oo mammsaw> MHQMZ \n\\\m. MUHMW Mafia” omudoo .oz ... wmuuo>< o>on< :HmpuoOCD ommuo>< Boaom mME¢DQm ._.._. . w 34m<9 115 The graduates' evaluations of the second group of professional preparation courses in terms of perceived degree of value are given in Table 4.12. Five courses were ranked as being of average value by the graduates; their evaluation scores ranged from a mean of 3.718 to a mean of 3.396. Four of the five courses were required in the senior year of the program, except for "The Develop— ment of Educational Thought," which was required in the sophomore year. The required "Social and PhilOSOphical Foundations of Education" course was ranked lowest in value by the graduates. It was evaluated by 9.0 percent as "very valu- able," by 26.1 percent as "valuable," by 34.6 percent as of "uncertain" value, by 12.2 percent as "of little value," and by 18.1 percent as "of no value." The standard devia- tion was 1.214. GRADUATES' IN THE PROFESSIONAL-PREPARATION COURSES 116 TABLE 4.12 RANKED EVALUATION OF THEIR PREPARATION Level of Item Professional Eval ation No Preparation Mean Rank u ° Courses 3.9-5.00 36 Teaching Methods (2) 4.676 1 Highest Ranking 30 Teaching Methods (1) 4.574 2 Group 27 Developmental PsycholOgy 4.420 3 (Childhood and Adolescence) 31 Education Media 4.404 4 28 Introduction to Education 3.995 6 and Psychology 29 Curriculum Principles 3.920 7 3.0-3.89 35 Curriculum Development 3.718 8 Average Ranking 34 Introduction to Counseling 3.660 9 Group and Mental Hygiene 32 Education in Saudi Arabia 3.638 10 and the Arab World 33 Educational and Administration 3.447 11 Planning 26 Development of Educational 3.396 12 Thought 2.0-2.99 25 Social and Philosophical 2.957 13 Lowest Foundations of Education Ranking Group K117 Student-teaching Experience. In their responses to Part IV of the questionnaire, the graduates expressed their views regarding many different aspects of their student—teaching experiences.Z[They were queried in re— ference to the assignments they had, their satisfaction with student teaching in the junior and the senior year, the effectiveness of their college supervisors and super— vising teachers, and other aspects of their experiences. Table 4.13 shows the percentages, means, standard deviations and ranks of the graduates in regard to six student—teaching experiences. Table 4.14 shows that no student—teaching experience was ranked in the highest category by the graduates. The experiences were ranked from a mean of 3.830 to a mean of 3.303. The student— teaching experience in the senior year was ranked higher, overall, than the student—teaching experience in the junior year. It was evaluated by 45.7 percent of the respondents as being "very satisfactory"; by 27.1 percent as being "satisfactory"; by 2.1 percent as being of "uncertain" value; by 16.5 percent as being "unsatisfactory"; and by 9.5 percent as a "very unsatisfactory" experience. The student—teaching experience in the junior year and the graduates' assignments to the secondary level (grades 7—12) were tied for a second-place ranking among the factors evaluated. Regarding effectiveness in working with the graduates student teaching in the senior year, the college supervisor was ranked higher than the super— vising teacher by the graduates. 118 muse» MOHsmm Tlllll m as l onv SH mGHQOMQH Hampsu . IIMM; . Illlll4m.om o.om m.v m.wH S.mH 50> QDHB mstuOB sH Hobomop hem H mom.m .msHmH>Hom5m use» we mmoco>Hp mm om m mm mm loommo was chm 50% UHU 30m No menu» season may lilllfilllllllllllllllllt sH msHbommu psmpspm sH MOS o.mm m. . . . SDHB UCHMHO3 CH HOmH>H® 5m v oHeH mmm.m mm m e m em m NH mooHHoo “50» mo mmmcm>Hu he mm m we em Iomwmo esp psHm 50> pHp 30m Hw IlillIIIIIITIIIJllrIIIIItF memo» HOHQom ecu CH ¢.mm S. . . . mostuomxw manommHIHsoUSHm o MHv.H MHN.m \\\\\\\ SN H OH m vN v vH HSOZ MO GOHmH>M®mDm HH.m 3. Nm 3 E. N -86 9t. eefl so» use 30m 3 Illlll . m cm) was :4 h.mw H.hm H.H m.wH m.m onm HOH o . H vow.H omm.m \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ mosmHHmmxo msHaomowlusop ’11 rill em S. N am we. :86 snow 3E so» 36 30s mm . Illrl4 S.wm H.mv m.MH H.0H w.w munch MOHssn ecu CH m m SOH.H mom.m \\\\\\\ mosoHummxo msHsououlpsmp rIIILIlllll em Hm mm mH m Isum Hoow psHm 50% pHp 30m mm moosoHso>soo mo mEHmp sH .mngomoD S.mm S.mm S.m m.om\\\.v.m Hempsum How ANHIS mopmumv m.N mom.H mom.m Hm>®H mumpsoomm 03H OD V\\\\ ucmfismHmmm .pmoo mchomoa mm mm _S Hm NH mo mpoguoz com ESHDUHH IHSU 03¢ UEHM 50% Uflmu 30: PM a Z a Z a Z a Z w Z oHQMSHm> pou ous> osHm> C >00 wDHm> mmHDOU . s . . I M mm .ppm one: >uo> sHm> oHDDHq OZ coHDmummoum Eomw oomuw>m o>OQ4 sHmDHoosD womuw>4 Bonm HwSOHmmomoum mMUZMHmmmxm wZHmUAQQBIBZMQh—Bm mHmEB .mO mZOHBANDHHNx/H .mmB< Question 51 involved the consistency between what the graduates have learned in the professional-preparation courses and the instruction of the supervisor of student teaching. Of the graduates, 123 (65.4 percent) responded negatively, while 34.6 percent said there was consistency. In answer to the final question in this section-- 122 "Did you feel free to discuss student-teaching problems with your college supervisor?"—-the majority of the gradu— ates responded positively, while 45.2 percent responded with n9. In summary, the items related to the first research question provided the following results: The 1978-79 V/ graduates consider themselves well prepared in six teach- ing skills, whereaS' they feel deficient in seven teaching skills (Table 4.9). The graduates' evaluation of the pro— fessional preparation courses (Table 4.12) shows that seven courses were highly evaluated, while one course was / evaluated as below average in value. Finally, no student- teaching experience was evaluated highly by the graduates. As shown in Table:4;l4:)the student—teaching experience in the senior year was ranked first, while the student—teach— ing experience in the junior year and the graduates' assignments to the secondary level (grades 7—12) were ranked second. The overall supervision of student teach— ing in the senior year was evaluated as the least effec— tive of the six experiences in student teaching. No stu- dent—teaching experience was evaluated as being of less— than-average value, which means that the graduates were satisfied with their student teaching experiences. Test of the Hypotheses This section's emphasis is on testing the research hypotheses which were derived from the second research question. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was 123 performed upon the data gathered via the questionnaire. A significance level of 0.05 was set for rejection or non— rejection of the null hypotheses. In addition, the means, rank order, and overall means were employed as descriptive statistics to compare the graduates' evaluations when grouped according to the independent variables. Hypothesis 1 "There will be no significant difference between male graduates' and female graduates' evaluations in re- spect to the following three aspects of the program: teaching skills, professional—preparation courses and student-teaching experiences." To test this hypothesis, MANOVA statistics were used. The multivariate Wilks F—test was 7.56259, which is significant at the 0.05 level (P=0.00009). Hence, Hypothesis 1 is rejected. Table 4.15 presents the results of the Univariate F—tests (with 1.184 degrees of freedom) to identify the significant difference between males' and females' evalua- tion on the three aspects of the program. The results in— dicate that there is a sex effect on perceptions of teach- ing skills and student—teaching experience. The F—tests were significant at the 0.05 level (P=0.00579 and P: 0.00003, respectively). 124 TABLE 4.15 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS FOR MEAN EVALUATIONS ACCORDING TO SEX, WITH 1.184 DEGREES OF FREEDOM Aspects of Hypothesis Error Signifi» the Program Mean Square Mean Square cance of F Teaching skills 930.91650 119.34431 7.80026 0.00579* Professional— 1.04601 72.17488 0.01449 0.90431 preparation courses Student—teaching 515.17121 27.70766 18.59310 0.00003* experience *Significant at the 0.05 level Table 4.16 presents the rank order based upon the means for individual items and the overall means of the fifteen teaching skills as evaluated by male and female graduates. Males ranked preparation in seven teaching skills (items 15, 16, 9, 8, l9, l4 and 13) as highest in effectiveness; preparation in the remaining teaching skills was ranked as average. (There were no teaching skills for which preparation was evaluated by males as being below average.) On the other hand, females ranked preparation in three teaching skills (items 15, 19 and 14) as highest in effectiveness, while items 9, 8, 17, 10, 20, l6, 13, 11 and 12 were ranked as average, and preparation in two teaching skills (items 21 and 22) was evaluated as being below average. Females believed that they were ineffec— tively prepared by the program in two teaching skill areas. In comparing the overall means for teaching skills 125 it can be seen that females evaluated their preparation in teaching skills more negatively than did males. Overall, there was a significant difference between males' and fe- males' evaluations of their preparation in the fifteen teaching skill areas. TABLE 4.16 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF MALES' AND FEMALES' EVALUATION OF THEIR PREPARATION IN FIFTEEN TEACHING SKILLS Item Males Females No Teaching Skill Mean Rank Mean Rank (N=ll4) (N=74) 8 Ability to communicate with stu— 4.053 4 3.892 5 dents with different levels of ability 9 Ability to work effectively with 4.061 3 3.892 4 the school administration 10 Ability to use the Arabic 3.746 11 3.690 7 language effectively ll Skill in handling discipline 3.789 10 3.216 11 problems in the classroom 12 Skill in motivating students 3.711 12 3.108 12 who are uninterested 13 Skill in using a variety of 3.930 7 3.351 10 teaching methods 14 Ability to construct appropriate 3.965 6 3.986 3 tests 15 Ability to use teaching materi— 4.132 1 4.419 1 als effectively l6 Ability to construct an appro— 4.105 2 3.608 9 priate lesson 17 Skill in using audiovisual aids 3.842 8 3.740 6 18 Skill in budgeting time in the 3.816 9 3.108 13 classroom 19 Skill in evaluating students' 4.044 5 4.122 2 academic progress 20 Ability to use school resources 3.221 14 2.648 14 22 Ability to use school library 3.018 15 2.315 15 resources OVERALL MEANS 3.799 3.517 126 Table 4.17 presents means for individual items, rank order, and overall means of the evaluations of thir- teen professional preparation courses by male and female graduates. Both sexes ranked six courses (items 24, 25, 28, 30, 32 and 36) in the same order. Six courses (items 36, 30, 31, 27, 28 and 24) were evaluated highly by both sexes. Item 29 was ranked highly only by males, whereas Item 25 was evaluated as below average by females. When we examine the items separately, we see that there is a strong consistency between males' and females' averages. Comparing the overall means for evaluations of professional—preparation courses, we see that the sexes show no differences in their evaluations of education courses. Basically, this comparison demonstrates that there was no significant difference between males and fe- males in their evaluation of the education courses (see Table 4.15). 127 TABLE 4.17 MEANS, RANK ORDER, AND OVERALL MEANS OF THE EVALUATIONS OF THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION COURSES, BY SEX Item . Males Females No. ProfeSSlonal Courses Mean Rank Mean Rank (N=ll4) (N=74) 24 Introduction to Education and 4.000 6 3.986 6 Psychology 25 Social and PhilOSOphical Founda- 3.040 13 2.833 13 tions of Education 26 Development of Educational Thought 3.265 12 3.595 10 27 Developmental Psychology 4.351 4 4.527 3 (Childhood and Adolescence) 28 Educational Psychology 4.281 5 4.216 5 29 Curriculum Principles 4.000 7 3.797 8 30 Teaching Methods I 4.465 2 4.743 2 31 Education Media 4.386 3 4.432 4 32 Education in Saudi Arabia and 3.649 9 3.622 9 the Arab World 33 Educational Administration and 3.509 11 3.351 12 Planning 34 Introduction to Counseling and 3.816 8 3.418 11 Mental Hygiene 35 Curriculum Development 3.640 10 3.838 7 36 Teaching Methods II 4.614 1 4.770 1 OVERALL MEANS 3.924 3.933 With regard to the six different aspects of student- teaching experiences (Table 4.18), no student-teaching ex— periences were ranked the same in males' and females' evaluations. Males evaluated their student—teaching ex- perience in the senior year as of the highest quality, and they ranked the remaining experiences as average. On the 128 other hand, females evaluated four experiences (items 37, 38, below average. 39 and 42) as average, and two (items 41 and 40) as Females were not satisfied with the help provided by the college supervisor or with the overall su- pervision of student teaching in the senior year. TABLE 4.18 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF THE MALES' AND FEMALES' EVALUATION OF THEIR EXPERIENCE STUDENT TEACHING Item NO. Items Related to Student—Teaching Experience Males (N: 114) Females (N = 74) Mean Rank Mean Rank 37 Evaluation of 38 39 4O 41 42 assignment (grades 7— the department's the secondary level in terms of to 12) convenience Evaluation the junior Evaluation the senior Evaluation of student teaching in year of student teaching in year of the overall super- vision of the student-teaching experience in the senior year The effectiveness of assistance provided by the college super- visor in the senior year The effect iveness of assistance provided by the supervising teacher in the senior year 3.851 3.868 4.123 3.614 3.737 3.429 3 3.743 1 3.716 2 3.378 3 2.595 6 2.716 5 3.095 4 OVERALL MEANS 3.772 3.207 By comparing the overall means for the six differ- ent aspects of student teaching experiences, we find that females evaluated these experiences more negatively than did males. As a consequence, this comparison reveals that there was a significant difference between males and 129 females in their evaluation of the six experiences. Since data analysis through the MANOVA statistics showed this significant difference between males' and females' evalua- tions regarding the three aspects of the program, Hypo— thesis 1 is rejected. Hypothesis 2 "There will be no significant difference between the graduates who taught at the secondary level and the graduates who taught at the intermediate level with re— spect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis 1." In testing this hypothesis, the multivariate Wilks F—test was used to measure the three aspects of the pro— gram. The result of the F-test was 15.32663, which is significant at the 0.05 level (P=0.00001). Consequently, Hypothesis 2 is rejected. Table 4.19 presents the results of the Univariate F-tests (with 1.184 degrees of freedom) to identify the significant difference between the two groups of gradu- ates-~those who taught at the secondary level, and those who taught at the intermediate level. The results indi~ cate there is a teaching-level effect on evaluations of teaching skills, professional~preparation courses, and student-teaching experience. F-tests were significant at 0.05 level (P=0.00001, P=0.00012, and P=0.00001, respec- tively). 130 TABLE 4.19 UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR MEAN EVALUATIONS ACCORDING TO TEACHING LEVEL, WITH 1.184 DEGREES OF FREEDOM Aspects of Hypothesis Error F Signifi— the Program Mean Square Mean Square cance of F Teaching skills 3947.13856 103.55820 38.11517 0.00001* Professional 1032.75643 66.63144 15.49954 0.00012* preparation courses Student-teaching 811.93802 26.66779 30.44639 0.00001* experience *Significant at the 0.05 level Table 4.20 presents the results for each teaching level, showing individual—item means, rank order, and over— all means for respondents' evaluations of their prepara— tion in the fifteen teaching skills. Comparing these evaluations, we see that the graduates who taught at the intermediate level gave high marks for their preparation in nine teaching skills (items 15, 8, 19, 16, 14, 9, 13, 17 and 11). Preparation in the rest of the skills was ranked as average. In none of the skill areas did the graduates rank their preparation as below average. In contrast, preparation in only one teaching skill—~"ability to use teaching materials effectively"—— was evaluated as belonging at the highest level of evalu- ation by the graduates who taught at the secondary level. Preparation in eight teaching skills (items 19, 9, 14, 10, 131 l7, 8, 20 and 16) was ranked as of average effectiveness. Preparation in the other six skills was ranked as below average. TABLE 4.20 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF THE EVALUATIONS OF PREPARATION IN FIFTEEN TEACHING SKILLS BY GRADUATES, DIVIDED INTO THOSE WHO TAUGHT AT THE INTERMEDIATE LEVEL AND THOSE WHO TAUGHT AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL Intermediate Secondary Item . . Level Level NO. TeaChlng Skllls (N = 135) (N = 53) Mean Rank Mean Rank 8 Ability to communicate with 4.230 2 3.377 7 students with different levels of ability 9 Ability to work effectively 4.089 6 3.755 3 with the school administration 10 Ability to use the Arabic 3.813 11 3.490 5 language effectively ll Skill in handling discipline 3.926 9 2.642 13 problems in the classroom 12 Skill in motivating students 3.807 12 2.623 14 who are uninterested l3 Skill in using a variety of 4.044 7 2.830 10 teaching methods 14 Ability to construct 4.126 5 3.585 4 appropriate tests 15 Ability to use teaching 4.289 1 4.132 1 materials effectively l6 Ability to construct an 4.126 4 3.358 9 appropriate lesson 17 Skill in using audiovisual aids 3.955 8 3.415 6 l8 Skill in budgeting time in the 3.830 10 2.792 11 classroom 19 Skill in evaluating the 4.148 3 3.887 2 students' academic progress 20 Skill in keeping official 3.689 13 3.358 8 records 21 Ability to use school resources 3.105 14 2.712 12 22 Ability to use school school 3.000 15 2.094 15 library resources 3.879 3.203 OVERALL MEANS 132 By comparison of the overall means for graduates' evaluations of their preparation in the teaching skills reveals that the graduates who taught at the secondary level evaluated their preparation in teaching skills more negatively than did those who taught at the intermediate level. In fact, this comparison showed a significant dif— ference between the graduates who taught at the secondary level and the graduates who taught at the intermediate level in their evaluation of preparation in teaching skills. Regarding the professional-preparation courses, Table 4.21 presents means for individual items, rank or— der, and overall means of the evaluations of thirteen edu- cation courses by the graduates, divided into groups based on whether they taught at the secondary or the intermediate level. Seven courses (items 36, 30, 31, 27, 28, 29 and 24) were ranked highest in value by the graduates who taught at the intermediate level. The other six courses were evaluated as being of average value. No professional pre- paration courses were evaluated as being below average. On the other hand, the graduates who taught at the second- ary level gave high evaluations to five courses (items 36, 28, 3o, 27 and 31), ranked six courses (items 24, 35, 34, 26, 29 and 32) as of average value, and labeled two cour— ses (items 25 and 33) as below average. Comparing the overall means for the evaluations of professional—preparation courses, the graduates who taught at the secondary level evaluated more negatively 133 their preparation in education courses than did the gradu— ates who taught at the intermediate level. This comparison revealed a significant difference between the two groups in their evaluations of professional-preparation courses. TABLE 4.21 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF THE EVALUATIONS OF THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION COURSES BY THE GRADUATES, DIVIDED INTO THOSE WHO TAUGHT AT THE INTERMEDIATE LEVEL AND THOSE WHO TAUGHT AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL Intermediate Secondary 15:? Professional-Preparation Course (NL:V:§5) (EGZeé3) Mean Rank Mean Rank 24 Introduction to Education and 4.119 7 3.679 6 Psychology 25 Social and PhilosoPhical Founda- 3.081 13 2.642 13 tions of Education 26 Development of Educational Thought 3.410 12 3.358 9 27 Developmental Psychology (Child- 4.496 4 4.226 4 hood and Adolescence) 28 Educational Psychology 4.222 5 4.340 2 29 Curriculum Principles 4.148 6 3.340 10 30 Teaching Methods I 4.667 2 4.340 3 31 Education Media 4.563 3 4.000 5 32 Education in Saudi Arabia and 3.822 9 3.170 11 the Arab World 33 Educational Administration and 3.681 11 2.849 12 Planning 34 Introduction to Counseling and 3.756 10 3.415 8 Mental Hygiene 35 Curriculum Development 3.830 8 3.434 7 36 Teaching Methods II 4.741 1 4.509 1 OVERALL MEANS 4.041 3.639 Table 4.22 presents the results for both groups-— those who taught at the intermediate level and those who taught at the secondary level—-showing individual-item means, rank order, and overall means for evaluations of 134 the six different aspects of student-teaching experiences. Both student—teaching experience in the senior year and student—teaching experience in the junior year were evaluated as being of the highest value by the gradu— ates who taught at the intermediate level. These graduates were very satisfied with their student teaching in both years. The remaining four experiences (items 37, 40, 41 and 42) were ranked as of average value. None of the six ' experiences was evaluated as being below average. The graduates who taught at the secondary level ranked three experiences (items 37, 38 and 39) as of aver- age value in their preparation. The remaining three experi- ences (items 42, 41 and 40) were evaluated as below average. In short, these graduates were not satisfied with the assistance provided by their college supervisors and their supervising teachers; they were also unhappy with the over- all supervision of student teaching in the senior year. A comparison of the overall means of the two groups reveals that the graduates who taught at the secondary level evaluated their preparation in the six student— teaching experiences more negatively than did the gradu— ates who taught at the intermediate level. This compari- son, in fact, reveals a significant difference between the graduates who taught at the intermediate level and those who taught at the secondary level in their evaluations of the six experiences. Since the Multivariate F-test on the data showed 135 significant differences between the two groups of gradu- ates (those who taught at the secondary level and those who taught at the intermediate level) in their evaluations of the three aspects of the program, Hypothesis 2 is re- jected. TABLE 4.22 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF THE EVALUATION OF THE STUDENT- TEACHING EXPERIENCE BY GRADUATES WHO TAUGHT AT THE INTERMEDIATE AND THE SECONDARY LEVELS Intermediate Secondary Item Items Related to Level Level No. Student—Teaching Experience (N = 135) (N = 53) Mean Rank Mean Rank 37 Evaluation of the department's 3.830 3 3.755 1 assignment to the secondary level (grades 7—12) in terms of convenience 38 Evaluation of student teaching 3.963 2 3.415 2 in the junior year 39 Evaluation of student teaching 4.156 1 3.000 3 in the senior year 40 Evaluation of the overall super— 3.519 5 2.434 6 vision of the student—teaching experience in the senior year 41 The effectiveness of assistance 3.630 4 2.585 5 provided by the college super— visor in the senior year 42 The effectiveness of assistance 3.504 6 2.792 4 provided by the supervising teacher in the senior year OVERALL MEANS 3.767 2.997 Hypothesis 3 "There will be no significant difference between College of Islamic Law graduates who taught in their major teaching fields and College of Education graduates who taught in their major teaching fields with respect to 136 their evaluation of the three aspects of the program named in Hypothesis 1.“ To test this hypothesis, MANOVA was used. The Multivariate Wilks F-test was 2.10119, which is not signi— ficant at the 0.05 level (P=0.10175). Therefore, Hypothe- sis 3 is not rejected. Table 4.23 presents the Univariate F-tests (with 1.184 degrees of freedom) conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between College of Islamic Law graduates and College of Education graduates who taught in their respective major teaching fields on the three aspects of the program. The results indicated that there is not a teaching—field effect on evaluations of teaching skills, professional—preparation courses, or student—teaching experience. The F-tests were not signi— ficant at the 0.05 level (P=0.70299, P=0.46335, and P: 0.07135, respectively). TABLE 4.23 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS FOR MEAN EVALUATION ACCORDING TO TEACHING FIELD WITH 1.184 DEGREES OF FREEDOM Aspects of Hypothesis Error Significance the Program Mean Square Mean Square of F Teaching skills 17.40531 119.34431 0.14584 0.70299 Professional— 38.98110 72.17488 0.54009 0.46335 preparation courses Student-teaching 91.16983 27.70766 3.29042 0.07135 experience 137 Table 4.24 presents means for individual items, rank order, and overall means for the evaluations of fif- teen teaching skills by College of Islamic Law graduates and College of Education graduates who taught in their respective major teaching fields. When we compare results from graduates of the two colleges, we find that graduates from both colleges who taught in their respective major teaching field gave the same high evaluation of their preparation in six teaching skills (items 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 19). There were some differences: Item 10 was highly ranked by College of Islamic Law graduates, while Item 17 was highly ranked by College of Education graduates. In all, then, graduates of each college evaluated their preparation in seven teaching skills as being at the highest level of effec— tiveness. The graduates were not exclusively positive in their assessments. Graduates of each college who taught in their major teaching fields evaluated preparation in one teaching skill as being below average. The rest of the items were evaluated as being of average quality by graduates of each college. Although there was no significant difference in overall mean evaluations between graduates of the two colleges who taught in their major teaching fields, Col— lege of Islamic law graduates were slightly more positive in their evaluation of preparation in the teaching skills 138 than were the College of Education graduates. TABLE 4.24 MEANS AND RANK ORDER FOR THE EVALUATIONS OF THE TEACHING SKILLS BY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND COLLEGE OF ISLAMIC LAW GRADUATES WHO TAUGHT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MAJOR TEACHING FIELDS College of College of Item . . Education Islamic Law No. TeaChlng Skill Tch.Flds. Tch.Flds. (N = 134) (N7: 54) Mean Rank Mean Rank 8 Ability to communicate with 3.985 3 4.000 6 students with different levels of ability 9 Ability to work effectively 3.925 6 4.167 2 with the school administration 10 Ability to use the Arabic 3.603 9 4.019 4 language effectively ll Skill in handling discipline 3.552 11 3.593 10 problems in the classroom 12 Skill in motivating students 3.478 13 3.463 12 who are uninterested l3 Skill in using a variety of 3.701 8 3.704 9 teaching methods 14 Ability to construct 3.963 5 4.000 5 appropriate tests 15 Ability to use teaching 4.216 1 4.315 1 materials effectively l6 Ability to construct an 3.918 7 3.902 7 appropriate lesson 17 Skill in using audiovisual aids 3.963 4 3.396 13 18 Skill in budgeting time in the 3.560 10 3.481 11 classroom 19 Skill in evaluating the 4.090 2 4.037 3 student's academic progress 20 Skill in keeping official 3.545 12 3.722 8 records 21 Ability to use school resources 3.114 14 2.698 15 22 Ability to use school library 2.624 15 3.037 14 resources OVERALL MEANS 3.683 3.703 139 Regarding the professional-preparation courses, Table 4.25 presents the mean for each item, rank order, and overall means of course evaluations by College of Islamic Law graduates and College of Education graduates who taught in their respective major teaching fields. Both College of Islamic Law graduates and College of Edu- cation graduates ranked seven courses (items 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 34 and 36) the same. Only "Social and Philosophi— cal Foundations of Education" was evaluated as being of below average quality by both colleges' graduates. Com- paring their evaluations of the twelve education courses, we find that graduates of both colleges who taught in their major teaching fields gave high marks to the prepara- tion they received in seven education courses (items 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 36). The remaining five education courses were evaluated by both groups as being of average value.7%£s a matter of fact, when we examine the evalua- tions of the thirteen education courses individually we see that there is a strong degree of consistency between average evaluations by graduates of the two colleges. Though there was no significant difference by college be- tween graduates of the two colleges who taught in their major teaching fields, College of Islamic Law graduates were slightly more favorable in their evaluations of edu~ cation courses than were COllege of Education graduates, when we compare their overall mean evaluations. 1‘40 TABLE 4.25 MEANS AND RANK ORDER FOR THE EVALUATIONS OF THE PROFESSIONAL-PREPARATION COURSES BY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND COLLEGE OF ISLAMIC LAW GRADUATES WHO TAUGHT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MAJOR TEACHING FIELDS C. of Ed. C. Of I.L. Tch. Fld. Tch. Fld. (N = 134) (N = 54) Mean Rank Mean Rank Item No Professional—Preparation Course 24 Introduction to Education and 3.963 6 4.074 6 Psychology 25 Social and Philosophical Foun- 2.963 13 2.944 13 dations of Education 26 Development of Educational 3.291 12 3.660 11 Thought 27 Developmental Psychology 4.403 4 4.463 3 (Childhood and Adolescence) 28 Educational Psychology 4.261 5 4.24l 5 29 Curriculum Principles 3.903 7 3.963 7 30 Teaching Methods I 4.575 2 4.574 2 31 Education Media 4.425 3 4.352 4 32 Education in Saudi Arabia 3.560 10 3.833 8 and the Arab world 33 Educational Administration 3.358 11 3.667 10 and Planning 34 Introduction to Counseling 3.627 9 3.741 9 and Mental Hygiene 35 Curriculum Development 3.791 8 3.537 12 36 Teaching Methods II 4.649 1 4.741 1 OVERALL MEANS 3.905 3.984 In Table 4.26 can be found individual means, rank order and overall means for evaluations of six different aspects of the student—teaching experience by College of Islamic Law graduates and College of Education graduates who taught in their respective major teaching fields. Contrasting their evaluations, we find that College of Islamic Law graduates evaluated five experiences (items 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41) as being of average quality, while 141 the effectiveness of assistance provided by the super— vising teacher in the senior year was evaluated as below average. TABLE 4.26 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF THE EVALUATION OF THE STUDENT-TEACHING EXPERIENCE BY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND COLLEGE OF ISLAMIC LAW GRADUATES WHO TAUGHT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MAJOR TEACHING FIELDS C. of Ed. C. of I.L. Item Items Related to Tch.Fld. Tch. Fld. No. Student—Teaching Experience (N = 134) (N = 54) Mean Rank Mean Rank 37 Evaluation of the depart- 3.896 1 3.593 3 ment's assignment to the secondary level (grades 7- 12) in terms of convenience 38 Evaluation of student teach— 3.836 2 3.741 2 ing in the junior year 39 Evaluation of student teach— 3.836 3 3.815 1 ing in the senior year 40 Evaluation of the overall 3.179 6 3.296 5 supervision of the student— teaching experience in the senior year 41 The effectiveness of assist- 3.336 5 3.333 4 ance provided by the college supervisor in the senior year 42 The effectiveness of assist— 3.440 4 2.963 6 ance provided by the super- vising teacher in the senior year OVERALL MEANS 3.587 3.457 142 In other words, College of Islamic Law graduates, overall, were not satisfied with the assistance provided by the supervising teacher during their student—teaching exper- iences in the senior year. Meanwhile, College of Education graduates who taught in their major teaching fields evaluated their preparation in the six experiences as being of average quality. No student-teaching experience was evaluated as belonging in either the highest or the lowest category. When the overall means are taken into account, it seems that College of Education graduates gave slightly higher evaluations than did College of Islamic Law grad— uates. This difference was not at a significant level, though. Since the Multivariate F—test revealed that dif— ferences in the evaluations of none of the three aspects of the program met the standard of significance set at 0.05, Hypothesis 3 is not rejected. Hypothesis~4 "There will be no significant difference between the graduates who received their B.S. degrees in science and the graduates who received their B.A. degrees in art with respect to their evaluation of the three aspects of the prOgram named in Hypothesis No. l." MANOVA was used to test this hypothesis. The Multivariate Wilks F—test result was 1.12884, which is not significant at the 0.05 level (P=0.33987). Hence, 143 Hypothesis 4 is not rejected. Table 4.27 presents the Univariate F-tests (with 1.184 degrees of freedom) conducted to determine if there is a significant difference between the graduates who received Bachelor of Science degrees and those who received Bachelor of Arts degrees in their evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The results indicated that there is no type—of—degree effect on graduates' evaluations of teaching skills, professional-preparation courses, and student—teaching experience: F—test results were not significant at the 0.05 level (P=0.966l6, P=0.l9755, and P=0.45620, respectively). TABLE 4.27 UNIVARIATE F—TESTS FOR MEAN EVALUATION ACCORDING TO TYPE OF DEGREE OBTAINED, WITH 1.184 DEGREES OF FREEDOM Aspect of Hypothesis Error F Significance the Program Mean Square Mean Square of F Teaching skills 0.22907 126.76479 0.00181 0.96616 Professional— preparation 107.74004 64.24607 1.67699 0.19755 courses Student— teaching 17.44396 31.23695 0.55844 0.45620 experience 144 Table 4.28 presents the mean and rank order for each item, and overall means, of the graduates‘ evaluations of their preparation in fifteen teaching skills, divided into those graduates who received Bachelor of Science degrees and those graduates who received Bachelor of Arts degrees. Both groups--graduates who received B.S. degrees and those who received B.A. degrees——gave the same rank to three teaching skills (items 12, 15 and 16). While the graduates with B.A. degrees gave high evaluations of their preparation in five teaching skills (items 15, 9, l9, 8 and 14), the graduates with B.S. degrees evaluated their preparation in seven teaching skills (items 15, 20, 8, l4, l7, l6, and 9) as at the highest level of evaluation. , Both graduates with B.A. degrees and those with B.S. degrees evaluated Item 22 as below average. In addition, the graduates with B.A. degrees evaluated another teaching skill (Item 21) as below average. Preparation in other teaching skills was ranked as average by the two groups of graduates. Although there were no significant differences between the groups (B.A. graduates and B.S. graduates) in their evaluations of their preparation in the fifteen teaching skills, the graduates with B.S. degrees seemed to be slightly more positive in their evaluations than did the graduates with B.A. degrees, particularly when we com- pare the overall means of their evaluations. Turning now to the professional—preparation courses, we find in Table 4.29 means for individual items, their 145 TABLE 4.28 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF THE EVALUATION OF THE TEACHING SKILLS BY THE GRADUATES WHO RECEIVED B.A. IN EDUCATION DEGREES AND THOSE WHO RECEIVED B.S. IN EDUCATION DEGREES Item B}?. Ed. B68. Ed. . . egree egree No. Teaching Skill (N = 115) (N = 73) Mean Rank Mean Rank 8 Ability to communicate with 3.948 4 4.055 3 students with different levels of ability 9 Ability to work effectively 4.043 2 3.918 7 with the school administration 10 Ability to use the Arabic 3.768 7 3.658 10 language effectively ll Skill in handling discipline 3.470 12 3.712 8 problems in the classroom 12 Skill in motivating students 3.478 11 3.644 11 who are uninterested 13 Skill in using a variety of 3.722 8 3.571 12 teaching methods 14 Ability to construct 3.948 5 4.014 4 appropriate tests 15 Ability to use teaching 4.261 1 4.219 1 materials effectively l6 Ability to construct an 3.870 6 3.973 6 appropriate lesson 17 Skill in using audiovisual aids 3.675 10 4.000 5 18 Skill in budgeting time in the 3.452 13 3.671 9 classroom 19 Skill in evaluating the 4.043 3 4.123 2 students' academic progress 20 Skill in keeping official 3.704 9 3.425 13 records 21 Ability to use school resources 2.726 15 3.417 14 22 Ability to use school library 2.757 14 2.722 15 resources OVERALL MEANS 3.658 3.741 146 rank order, and overall means of the thirteen profes— sional—preparation courses as evaluated by the graduates who received their Bachelor of Science degrees and the graduates who received their Bachelor of Arts degrees. Comparing their evaluations, we see that both groups of graduates (those with B.S. degrees and those with B.A. degrees) gave the same rank to six education courses (items 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, and 36). The grad— uates with B.S. degrees gave one course, "Social and Philosophical Foundations of Educationfi'a rank of below average. Both graduate groups evaluated six education courses (items 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 36) as being of the highest value. In addition, graduates with B.A. degrees ranked another course (Item 24) as being of the highest value. Other education courses were ranked as being of average value by the two groups of graduates. Basically, when we examine the items separately, we see that there is a strong degree of consistency between the graduates with B.S. degrees and the graduates with B.A. degrees in terms of average evaluations of the courses. Even though there was no significant difference between the two groups in their evaluations of the thirteen education courses, the graduates with B.A. degrees showed slightly more pOSitive regard in their evaluations than did the graduates with B.S. degrees, particularly when this comparison is further analyzed by scrutiny of the overall means. 147 TABLE 4.29 MEANS AND RANK ORDER FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL—PREPARATION COURSES BY THE GRADUATES WHO RECEIVED B.A. IN EDUCATION DEGREES AND THOSE WHO RECEIVED B.S. IN EDUCATION DEGREES B.A. Ed. B.S. Ed. Item . _ . Degree Degree No. ProfeSSional Preparat10nCoursebe slightly more satisfied with the six experiences than did the graduates with average grades of "very good" or better. This result is reinforced when we compare the overall means of their evaluations. But since the data analysis by the 162 Multivariate F—test revealed no significant difference be— tween the graduates whose average grade was "very good" or better and the graduates whose average grade was "good“ or acceptable regarding their evaluations of the three aspects of the program, Hypothesis 6 is not rejected. TABLE 4.38 MEANS AND RANK ORDER OF THE EVALUATIONS OF THE ITEMS RELATED TO STUDENT-TEACHING EXPERIENCE BY GRADUATES WHOSE AVERAGE GRADE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF "VERY GOOD" OR BETTER AND THOSE WHOSE AVERAGE GRADE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF "GOOD" OR ACCEPTABLE Average Average Grade Grade Item Items Related to "Very Good" "Good" or No. Student—Teaching Experience or Better Acceptable (N = 138) 00 = 50) Mean Rank Mean Rank 37 Evaluation of the depart— 3.884 1 3.300 3 ment's assignment to the secondary level (grades 7— 12) in terms of convenience 38 Evaluation of student teach— 3.826 2 3.760 2 ing in the junior year 39 Evaluation of student teach— 3.732 3 4.100 1 ing in the senior year 40 Evaluation of the overall 3.188 6 3.280 6 supervision of the student— teaching experience in the senior year 41 The effectiveness of assist- 3.297 4 3.440 5 ance provided by the college supervisor in the senior year 42 The effectiveness of assist— 3.225 5 3.520 4 ance provided by the super- vising teacher in the senior year OVERALL MEANS 3.525 3.617 163 Summary This section was concerned with the findings on the research hypotheses which were derived from the second research question. Multivatiate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to test the significance of six null hypotheses related to the effects of sex, teach— ing level, teaching field, type of degree, year of grad- uation, and average grade on the respondents' evaluations of the following three aspects of the education program: teaching skills, professional-preparation courses, and student—teaching experience. In addition, the means for individual items, their rank order, and overall means were employed to analyze and to compare the graduates' evaluations regarding the three aspects of the program. Hypothesis 1 tested the effect of sex on the eval— uation of the three aspects of the program. The data analysis by Multivariate F—test showed a significant difference between males and females in respect to the three aspects of the program. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. By comparing the data analysis and the overall means for the three aspects of the program, it was found that females evaluated their preparation in teaching skills and student—teaching experience more negatively than did males, whereas the sexes showed no differences in their evaluation of the professional— preparation courses. Hypothesis 2 concerned the effect of teaching level 164 on the evaluation of the three aspects of the program. The data analysis by Multivariate F—test revealed a sig- nificant difference between the graduates who taught at the secondary level and the graduates who taught at the intermediate level. Consequently, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. Comparison of the data analysis and the overall means for the three aspects of the program showed that graduates who taught at the secondary level evaluated their preparation in teaching skills, professional—preparation courses, and student teaching more negatively than did the graduates who taught at the intermediate level. Hypothesis 3 tested the effect of teaching field on the respondents' evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The Multivariate F-test was used to analyze the data. The results showed no significant difference between College of Islamic Law graduates and College of Education graduates who taught in their major teaching fields. Hence, Hypothesis 3 was not rejected. Though there was no signif— icant difference between graduates of the two colleges who taught in their respective major teaching fields, College of Islamic Law graduates seemed to be slightly more pos- itive in their evaluation of teaching skills and professional— preparation courses than were College of Education graduates, while College of Education graduates were slightly more positive in their evaluation of the student—teaching experience than were College of Islamic Law graduates, according to the overall means. Hypothesis 4 tested the effect of type of degree fl 165 attained on the respondents' evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The data analysis by Multivariate F—test revealed no significant difference between the graduates who received B.S. degrees and graduates who received B.A. degrees. So, Hypothesis 4 was not rejected. Although there was no significant difference between the graduates with B.S. degrees and those with B.A. degrees, the graduates with B.S. degrees seemed slightly more positive in their evaluation of their preparation in teaching skills and of their student—teaching experience than did the graduates with B.A. degrees. On the other hand, graduates with B.A. degrees were slightly more favorable in their evaluation of the education courses than were the graduates with B.S. degrees. This finding was reinforced when we compared the overall means of their evaluations. Hypothesis 5 looked at the effect of year of graduation on the graduates' evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The data analysis by Multivariate F-test showed no significant difference between the respondents who graduated at the end of the first semester and the respondents who graduated at the end of the second semester. Consequently, Hypothesis 5 was not rejected. Although the difference was not significant, the grad- uates of the first semester seemed to be slightly more positive in their evaluation of their preparation in teaching skills, professional—preparation courses, and student-teaching experience than did the graduates of the 166 second semester. This conclusion was reinforced when we compared the overall means of their evaluations. Hypothesis 6 tested the effect of average grade on the graduates' evaluations of the three aspects of the program. Multivariate F—test analysis was performed on the data; it revealed no significant difference between the graduates whose average grade was "good" or acceptable and the graduates whose average grade was "very good" or better. Consequently, Hypothesis 6 was not rejected. But while there was no significant difference between the two groups of graduates, the graduates whose average grade was "good" or acceptable seemedtxbbe slightlyxmare favorable in their evaluation of their preparation in teaching skills and their student—teaching experience than did the graduates with average grades of "very good" or better; the graduates with average grades of "very good" or better showed slightly more favorable evaluations of the professional— preparation courses than did the graduates whose average grade was "good" or acceptable. Again, when we compared the overall means of their evaluations, this finding was reinforced. The Graduates' Recommendations This final section is devoted to answering Research Question 3. The graduates' perceptions of the recommenda— tions proposed by the investigator, and additional suggestions made by the graduates, to address the problems encountered in teaching for which the program did not adequately prepare 167 them, are examined in this section. Research Question 3 "What recommendations do the graduates have for improving the present secondary teacher preparation program, including the student teaching experience at the Umm Al—Qura University in Makkah?" Based upon the findings reported in Table 4.39, we can conclude that graduates' perceptions showed agreement with eleven out of twelve recommendations. The eleven recommendations supported by more than 50 percent of the graduates (in the "strongly agree" and "agree" columns), in rank order from highest level of support to lowest, are: 1. There should be more emphasis on subjects in the teaching fields. 2. There should be more emphasis on recent trends in curriculum and methods. 3. There should be more emphasis on understanding children and/or adolescents. 4. There should be more emphasis on a semester of full-time student teaching in schools that would include seminars on related student—teaching problems. V 5. There should be a written evaluation after every observation of student teaching. 6. There should be more instruction in evaluation of student behavior (tests and measurements). 168 .mm>HH HOSOMOH w>HHommmOHm wsu OHOQB mpoHupch HMHpsmpHmwM on“ CH m.om v.Hm m.m m.OH w.H W mCHaommH uchSpm How cowomew mm mm HH ON m z on UHDOSm mHoosom mCvauwmooo mm .AmHQOE . . . . . H ImusmmmE can mumwpv MOH>wnwn m vm H mm m m N m H H W #cwcspm mo soprSHw>w CH GOHH MOH om HH e N z IosnumcH OHOE on UHDonm wumze hm . . . . M .mpcmomeOUm HO\©cm m mm m mm m m m o I M cwHUHHSO mcHUcmumHmpcs so mOH Nb OH H I Z mHmmsme MHOE on pHsoam wuwse mm . . . . I N .mconpwa Umm N Nm 0 em n N H H M EDHSOHHMDU EH mccmuu pcwowu co SHH we m N I z mHmMQQEm OM08 on UHsonm OHOSB mm .Emsmoum COHHMHMQOHQIHOSOMOH one . . . . . N CH monomoummw HMUHumHomnu b He m mN h m m m H H M swap Hugues HHOHHOMHQ co wHH om n MH N z mHmmsme ONCE an cHsonm OMOQB em . . . . I M .mchHm m Nb H mN m o H H H mCHnomwp map QH mHothDm so mMH av H N I z mHmmszw mHOE on UHsonm whose mm mwnm< OOMmMmHQ wmum< OOHmMmHQ . quconpm chusoocD mHmconpm cOHpmccwEEooom .oz Umpcmfifiooom coccwfifiooom #oz EOHH mZOHBummsm mmmHHoo use no pmmum m mH N.HH m.MH m.mm N.mN m IcH Honommp EooummMHo one ou mN HN mN mm mm m UmsmHmmm on UHSOQm sonH>Hmmsm Nm .Hmom HOHch one CH mocmHnomxo mchommp ucmtsum m.o . . . . M pmHHm on» msHusc Hmsommu m o mm m m w mH e e H EooummMHo may ma mGOHHm>Hoon mm we wH mm NH 2 EoonmmmHo whoa on pHDonm mumne Hm .mEmHQOHm mCHnomoqucmpsum UOHMHOH co mumsHEmm opsHosH UHSOB ems“ N.No m.mN H.H m.v n.N M mHoocom 2H mcHnomou ucmpsum l mEHuIHHsm mo nmummEmm n so SHH mm N w m z mHmmamEm whoa on pHsonm oumsa ow .mHoosom nHmnp ou pmcmHmmm m.em o.vm m.e e.m H.N M mum 0:3 mumcommp ucmcdvm pcmHHo l on pmpH>cH on UHsonm mumnomou MQH mm m e w z EoonmmMHo Umm mHmmHOCHHm Hoosom mm moum< moumé mmummmHo quconpm chpHoocD mmumMmHo.£dcoupm COHpmccmEEooom .oz cmpcmafioomm popcmfifioomm uOZ EmuH pmschcOOIImm.v MHmHB 170 .mno£omou mchchwQ mHms Op msmfimo so Loewe 0:3 mHOHOSHmeH mcoaHoE cam mumzomop Econ m.mN m.mN w.mH N.HH H.HH m Immeo each may we GOHpmoscm mm mm mN HN nN m moH>ummIcH on cHsonm ounce we .mCHgomou . . . . H pcmcspm mo coHpm>ummno 0 NV 0 we m e w e I a >Mo>m Hmem coHpmsHm>w me mm m m I m QOHHHHB m on UHsocm mecca mm moum< OOHmMmHQ > m owumm wmemmHo . . H soupm chuumocD mHmconum coHpmccoEEoomm EMMH coccmfieooom Umtcmfifioowm poz UGDCHHQOOIImm.v mqmfle 171 7. School principals and classroom teachers should be invited to orient student teachers who are assigned to their schools. 8. There should be more emphasis on practical rather than theoretical approaches in the teacher- preparation program. 9. Cooperating schools should be selected for student teaching in the residential districts where the prospective teachers live. 10. There should be more classroom observations by the classroom teacher during the first student—teaching experience in the junior year. 11. There should be in—service education by the same classroom teacher and methods instructors who teach on campus to help beginning teachers. On the other hand, one proposed recommendation for improving the secondary teacher preparation program was not supported by the graduates, i.e.: Supervision should be assigned to the classroom teacher instead of the college supervisor by the Curriculum and Methods of Teaching Department. After the open—ended question (no. 65 on the ques— tionnaire), which was concerned with the problems encoun— tered in teaching for which the program did not adequately prepare the graduates, three spaces were provided to list those problems. Eighty—seven of the 188 respondents answered this question. The listed problems encountered in-teaching were grouped by the investigator into the following five categories: 172 1. Thirty—two graduates listed problems en— countered in teaching that centered on inconsistencies between what they learned in their major teaching fields and the curriculum offered by the public intermediate and secondary schools. 2. Twenty—seven graduates indicated problems encountered in teaching that centered on gaps between what they learned in their professional—preparation courses and their experience in the classroom climate. 3. Eleven graduates who received B.S. degrees found difficulty in teaching four sciences——Physics, 1 Biology, Geology, and Chemistry——which are combined in one course at the intermediate level, since they were prepared only in one specialized area. 4. Nine graduates had difficulty in teaching some of the topics because they considered the topics to be beyond the understanding of intermediate—school students. 5. Eight graduates attributed their difficulties using audiovisual aids, laboratories, and other school facilities to inadequate preparation by the college program. After the open—ended question (no. 66 on the ques— tionnaire), which solicited additional suggestions by the graduates to improve the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, seven spaces were provided to list such suggestions. Ninety—two out of the 188 responded to this question. Table 4.40 173 presents these suggestions offered by the respondents, as grouped by the researcher. TABLE 4.40 ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS BY THE GRADUATES TO IMPROVE THE TEACHER-PREPARATION PROGRAM AT UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY Number of Su estions Graduates gg Suggesting Item 1. There should be a full—time semester of 35 student teaching. 2. There should be coordination between the 28 College of Education in Saudi Arabia and the Ministry of Education regarding the subject—matter taught in the Colleges of Education and that taught in the public schools. 3. The Biology, Physics and Chemistry Departments 18 should be combined under the Science Depart— ment, and the Geography and History Depart— ments should be combined under the Social Studies Department. 4. College Supervisors should be in charge of the 25 supervision of student teaching. 5. There should be more emphasis on the major 22 subjects. 6. There should be at least three audiovisual aide 18 courses offered by the program. 7. The content of professional—preparation courses 1? should include study of the classroom environ— ment, school problems, and the effects of Saudi Arabian culture, education, and social life. 8. More freedom should be given to the student 12 teacher to use various teaching methods in student teaching. 9. More emphasis should be given to the process of selecting student teachers. 174 TABLE 4.40—~continued Number of . Graduates Suggestions Suggesting Item 10. The student teacher should practice 7 teaching in different schools. 11. The supervisory load should be held at 4 10—15 student teachers for each college supervisor in order to allow an increase in the number of classroom observations by the supervisors.* 12. Mini—teaching sessions (6-8 students, 15 3 minutes long) should be conducted prior to full—blown student teaching. 13. Some of the previous student teachers 2 should be invited to orient the new student teachers by talking about their experiences and the problems they faced during student teaching. *The present load is 20—30 student teachers. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The Problem Any teacher—preparation program must be continu— ously evaluated to provide a basis for improvement. Among the most serious problems facing Saudi Arabian teacher education today is the lack of research on graduates of the teacher—preparation programs. The problem to which this study is addressed is evaluation of selected aspects of the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al- Qura University, Makkah. This evaluation is based on data gathered in a follow—up of the 1978—79 graduates. The Purpose of the Study This study was designed to obtain an evaluation of the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al— Qura University from recent (1978-79) graduates; to ana- lyze this evaluation as a means of determining the extent to which the program was meeting the needs of its gradu— ates; and to use the results to recommend changes for the improvement of the program. The major purposes of this study were: (1) to determine how many of the 1978-79 graduates are actually teaching; (2) to determine how the graduates evaluate 175 176 their preparation at the Umm Al—Qura University in regard to the following: teaching skills, professional-prepara- tion courses, and student—teaching experience; (3) to de- termine the value of professional—preparation courses and the adequacy of the student—teaching experience as seen by the graduates; (4) to examine the graduates' evalua— tions of these aspects (teaching skills, professional— preparation courses, and student-teaching experience) on the basis of sex, teaching level, teaching field, type of degree, year of graduation, and average grade (as indepen— dent variables); and (5) to solicit the 1978—79 graduates' recommendations for the improvement of the present second— ary teacher preparation program at the Umm Al—Qura Uni- versity, Makkah. The Population The population studied consisted of graduates of the Umm Al—Qura University Teacher Preparation Program who: (a) received Bachelor of ArtsandBachelor of Science de— grees in 1978—79; (b) majored in secondary teacher educa- tion; and (c) had completed their entire secondary teacher preparation program at the College of Education or the College of Islamic Law in Makkah and had become actively engaged in the teaching profession. Of the 205 Saudi Arabian graduates comprising this population, the 188 graduates returning the questionnaire administered to them formed the population for the study. 177 The Questionnaire The questionnaire utilized in gathering data for this research consisted of five parts: Part I: General information concerning sex, cOl- lege graduated from, semester of graduation, teaching level, teaching field, type of degree, and average grade. Thus, there was a total of seven items in this part. Part II: There were 16 items. Fifteen dealt with teaching skills, and one open-ended question requested that the graduates list any teaching skills not covered in the program but which the graduates felt they needed as teachers at the secondary level. Part III: This part contained 13 items on the pro- fessional-preparation courses required of university stu- dents in the secondary level teaching program. The gradu- ates were asked to evaluate the usefulness of these cour- ses in preparing them for teaching at the secondary level. Part IV: This section consisted of 16 questions. Graduates were asked to evaluate different aspects of the student-teaching experiences which were part of the teach- ing program. Part V: Most of the 14 items in this part request— ed suggestions on improving different aspects of the teach— ing program. The original version of the questionnaire was written in English. The questionnaire was translated into the Arabic language by the investigator. Then, two faculty 178 members of the Department of Arabic Language and the Edu— cational and Psychological Research Center at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, translated the Arabic version back into English to verify the translation. Collection and Analysis of Data Of the 205 questionnaires distributed in ten school districts on June 5 and collected on July 25, 1981, 193 questionnaires were collected. Five questionnaires were discarded because of incomplete responses. The re- maining 188 completed questionnaires (91.7 percent of the 205 questionnaires distributed) were used in this study. Frequency distributions of the numbers, percent- ages, means, standard deviations and rank orders were com- puted in order to describe thoroughly the graduates' over- all evaluations regarding the three aspects of the teacher— preparation program. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) technique was used to test the six null hypotheses related to the effects of sex, teaching level, teaching field, type of degree, year of graduation, and average grade on the respondents‘ evaluations of the following three aspects of the program: teaching skills, profes— sional—preparation courses, and student-teaching experi— ence. The significance level was set at 0.05. In addi— tion, individual—item means, rank orders, and overall means were employed to analyze and to compare the gradu— ates evaluations regarding the three aspects of the pro— gram. 179 Findings Demographic Characteristics Of the 188 graduates responding to the question- naire, the majority, 61.5 percent, were males. More than two—thirds of the total population graduated from the College of Education; a little more than two—thirds gradu- ated during the second semester (early 1979); more than two-thirds taught at intermediate schools; and about three— fifths concentrated on humanistic studies (as opposed to science). Of the total population, 115 graduates obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts. The majority of graduates had achieved an average grade of "very good." Graduates' Overall Evaluation of the Teacher—Preparation Program l. The 1978-79 graduates considered themselves well—prepared in six of 15 teaching skills, whereas they felt ineffectively prepared in two teaching skills. Pre— paration in the remaining seven teaching skills was evalu— ated as average. 2. Seven education courses of 13 were evaluated highly by the graduates, whereas only one education course was evaluated as below average. Preparation in the remain- ing five education courses was ranked as average. 3. The graduates were satisfied with six experi~ ences they had had in student teaching. No student-teach- ing experience was evaluated as being above or below aver— age by the graduates. 180 Research Hypotheses l. Hypothesis 1 concerned the effect of sex on the respondents' evaluation of the three aspects of the program. The Multivariate F—test data analysis showed a significant difference between males and females in re— spect to their evaluations of the three aspects of the program. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. Comparing the evaluations offered by the two sexes by using the overall means of the three aspects of the program, we found that females evaluated preparation in teaching skills and student teaching experience more nega— tively than did males, while the sexes showed no differ— ence in their evaluation of the professional-preparation courses. 2. Hypothesis 2 concerned the effect of respond— ents' teaching level on their evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The data analysis by Multivariate F-test revealed a significant difference between the gradu- ates who taught at the secondary level and the graduates who taught at the intermediate level. Consequently, Hypo— thesis 2 was rejected. Comparing the evaluations by respondents at each teaching level by using the overall means on the three aspects of the program, we found that graduates who taught at the secondary level evaluated preparation in teaching skills, professional—preparation courses, and student— teaching experience more negatively than did the graduates 181 who taught at the intermediate level. 3. Hypothesis 3 involved the effect of teaching field on the respondents‘ evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The Multivariate F—test was used to ana— lyze the data. It showed no significant difference between College of Islamic Law graduates and College of Education graduates who taught in their respective major teaching fields. Hence, Hypothesis 3 was not rejected. Though there was no significant difference between graduates of each college who taught in their respective major teaching fields, College of Islamic Law graduates seemed to be slightly more favorable in their evaluations of preparation in teaching skills and professional-prepara— tion courses than did College of Education graduates, while College of Education graduates showed slightly more favorability in their evaluations of their student-teach- ing experience than did College of Islamic Law graduates, particularly when we compared the overall means of their evaluations. 4. Hypothesis 4 concerned the effect of the type of degree obtained by respondents on their evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The data analysis by Multivariate F—test revealed no significant difference be— tween the graduates who received B.S. degrees and the graduates who received B.A. degrees. Consequently, Hypo- thesis 4 was not rejected. Although there was no significant difference based 182 on type of degrees, the graduates with B.S. degrees seemed to be slightly more favorable in their evaluation of pre- paration in teaching skills and student-teaching experi— ence than did the graduates with B.A. degrees, while the graduates with B.A. degrees showed a slightly more posi— tive attitude on the education courses than did the gradu- ates with B.S. degrees. This conclusion was bolstered by comparison of the overall means of their evaluations. 5. Hypothesis 5 was related to the effect of year of graduation on the respondents‘ evaluations of the three aspects of the program. The Multivariate F—test was used to analyze the data. There was no significant difference between the first-semester graduates and the second semes— ter graduates. Hence, Hypothesis 5 was not rejected. But while there was no significant difference be— tween graduates of the first and graduates of the second semester, graduates of the first semester (late 1978) seemed to give slightly higher evaluations of their pre— paration in teaching skills, professional-preparation courses, and student—teaching experience than did the graduates of the second semester (early 1979). Again, comparison of the overall means of their evaluations fur— ther supported this finding. 6. Hypothesis 6 tested the effect of average grade on the evaluation of the three aspects of the pro— gram. The data analysis by Multivariate F—test revealed no significant difference between the graduates whose 183 average grade was "good" or acceptableandiflnagraduateswhose average grade was "very good” or better. So, Hypothesis 6 was not rejected. Nonetheless, the graduates whose average grade was "good" or acceptable seemed to be slightly more favorable in their evaluation of preparation in teaching skills and student—teaching experience than were the graduates with an average grade of "very good" or better. The graduates with average grades of ”very good" or better showed slight— ly better attitudes on the education courses than did the graduates whose average gradezwas "good" or acceptable, particu— larly when we compared the overall means of their evalua- tions. Graduates' Recommendations Regarding the twelve recommendations proposed by the investigator, the graduates supported eleven recommen— dations and offered an additional thirteen suggestions to improve the secondary teacher preparation program at the Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah. Conclusions Based on analysis of the findings, the more sig— nificant conclusions of this study appear to be the fol- lowing: l. A majority of the 1978-79 graduates indicated that the teacher preparation they received was fairly satisfactory or adequate in most respects. The student— 184 teaching experience appeared to be the most satisfactory area of their preparation, since no student-teaching ex— perience was evaluated as below average. 2. There is a strong indication that the majority of the graduates surveyed in this study did not feel ade- quately prepared in two teaching skills: "ability to use school resources" and "ability to use school library re- “Tm-Id 4...... .....k... finaw... l/ sources." 3. There is a strong indication by the majority of the graduates that, of the thirteen education courses evaluated, one—-Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education——was perZEIVEHJas being ineffective in helping them become prospective teachers. This finding supports other research reported in Chapter 11 ("Review of Related Literature“) concerning the apparent universal dislike of this course by prospective teachers. 4. A majority of the graduates believed that the number of observations of their student—teaching experi— ence by instructors and supervisors was inadequate for preparing effective teachers in their major fields and they were in agreement with the trend toward a longer student—teaching period at the Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah. 5. With regard to the research hypotheses, ana— lysis of the data indicated that there was a significant difference between male and female graduates in their evaluation of the three aSpects of the program. By com— 185 paring the overall means for the three aspects of the pro- gram, it was found that females evaluated teaching skills and student—teaching experience more negatively than did males, while there was no sex—based difference in their evaluation of the education courses. 6. A significant difference was found between the graduates who taught at the secondary level and the gradu— ates who taught at the intermediate level regarding their evaluation of the three aspects of the program. By com— paring the overall means for the three aspects of the pro- gram, it was found that the graduates who taught at the secondary level evaluated teaching skills, professional— preparation courses, and student-teaching experiences more negatively than did the graduates who taught at the inter— mediate level. 7. The results drawn from investigation of the remaining hypotheses (3, 4, 5 and 6), which were concerned with the effects of teaching field, type of degree, year of graduation, and average grade on the evaluation of pre- paration in geaghingmskillsx professional-preparation courses, and student—teaching experience, did not indicate any significant differences regarding any of the four hypo— theses on the three aspects of the program. Even though there were no significant differences among these indepen- dent variables, the results did show that some groups seemed to be slightly more favorable in their evaluation of the three aspects of the program than did others, par— 186 ticularly when we compared the overall means of their evaluations. 8. With regard to the twelve proposed recommenda- tions, the graduates did not support the recommendation that "supervision should be assigned to the classroom teacher instead of the college supervisor," but did sup- port the other proposed recommendations to improve the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah. Recommendations On the basis of the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are presented: 1. The academic departments which are involved in the teacher—preparation program at Umm Al—Qura Univer— sity should examine the graduates' evaluation of the re— quired core curriculum to determine whether or not the most prevalent suggestions and criticisms of the graduates might be implemented in the program in order to effect an overall improvement. 2. The College of Education and teacher educators responsible for the secondary teacher preparation program should put more emphasis on the following: a. More attention should be given to these two teaching skills: ability to use school resources, and ability to use library resources. b. Efforts should be made to evaluate carefully the Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education 187 course and to strengthen this course to satisfy student needs. 0. Content courses should provide more emphasis on the public intermediate and secondary school curricula. d. More effort should be made to integrate theory and practice in all courses. e. More involvement with real teaching situations before the senior year appears desirable. f. Increased emphasis on the number of college supervisor observations during the student teaching is desired. 3. Provisions should be made for the development of the necessary competencies not presently being provided for the graduates. In addition, the constructive criti— cisms and suggestions of the graduates should be consi— dered in order to effect any possible revisions in the three aspects of secondary teacher preparation program that may lead to increased efficiency and improvement of the program. 4. Degrees in teaching social studies and science should replace the present system, especially for those who will teach at the intermediate level. 5. Full—time,full-semester student teaching should replace the present part-time system, and the assignment of student teachers should be at the same teaching level that they will be appointed to as full—time teachers after graduation. 188 6. A handbook for student teaching should be pre— pared in order to give the student teachers a clear pic— ture of their responsibilities and to answer their ques— tions regarding the student-teaching experience. 7. The teacher-preparation program or the Curric- ulum and Teaching Methods Department at Umm Al-Qura Uni— versity should be more careful in selecting supervising teachers from the public intermediate and secondary schools. Further, orientations and workshops should be used for those supervising teachers who have not experienced them before. 8. The teacher education program at Umm Al—Qura University and school districts should work out a co— operative arrangement to provide in—service assistance to beginning teachers graduating from the program. 9. Student—teaching centers should be established by the teacher—preparation program at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity in the cities close to Makkah in order to find more cooperative schools and to assign the student teachers in convenient locations. Implications for Further Research The results of this study would seem to suggest the following further research in the area of the second— ary teacher education program: 1. Continued research designed to evaluate the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al—Qura Uni- versity through the perceptions of the graduates should ._ "L--...._w .....ur -- F's- ' '~ _. . .9 - .— A. 189 be encouraged. 2. The evaluation form used in this study, with possible modifications, should be adopted by the College of Education and the College of Islamic Law as one aspect of an ongoing evaluation of the secondary teacher prepara- tion program at Umm Al—Qura University. 3. Evaluation of professional-preparation courses should be conducted to determine whether or not they are actually providing the prospective teachers with competen- cies that are needed in the public intermediate and second- ary schools to enable them to function effectively. 4. There is a need to evaluate other aspects of the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al-Qura University (such as the processes of student-teacher sel- ection, the choice of teaching as a career, and so on) that were not evaluated by the graduates in this study. 5. There is a need for extensive evaluation of the secondary teacher preparation program at Umm Al—Qura University by different groups (such as student teachers, college supervisors, supervising teachers,and the same gradu— ates) in order to discover the differences among those groups in their evaluation of the three aspects of the program. 6. The 56 foreign students who graduated in 197°— 79 should be followed up for their evaluations of the secondary teacher education program, since information about their addresses is available. APPENDICES L_ APPENDIX A LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE 2I w‘” --. '7 m?!— _w APPENDIX A LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY \IN IIHAH NH-Il)\Al 'HzACHIN I-I)l'(lA'll0\' (il‘NlFR April 13, 1981 Saudi Arabian Educational Mission 2425 West Loop South Houston, Texas 77027 Dear Sir: I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Sulaiman M. Al-Wab11,who is at present a graduate student working on his Ph. D. in the Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development under my direction. In addition to required course work, we require that all students write a dis- sertation based on original research. Mr. Al- Wabli has proposed a study of ”The Evaluation of Selected Aspects of the Secondary Teacher preparation program at the Umm Al— —Qura University, Makkah, " based on a follow up of the 1978-1979 graduates. He plans to return to Saudi Arabia to do his research during the Spring quarter of this academic year, for three months, beginning early in May, 1981. I strongly recommend that Mr. Al— Wabli' 5 request be approved as soon as possible. Also, we have just received the ratings for Mr. Al- Wabli' 5 Comprehensive Examina- tion and you may be pleased to hear that he passed all areas. - Sincerely, sit/Z Judd F. Field Associate Professor and Doctoral Advisor JFF/dr cc: Dr. Hatfield Mr. Al—Wabli Address: Room 224, BCCE, 746 Purdy Street, Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (313) 646-8530 MSU IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION 190 191 W Dear Graduate: Follow-up study of the graduates of teacher—prepara— tion programs is one of the methods employed in working toward improvement of such programs. This questionnaire is an instrument for a doctoral dissertation entitled "An Evaluation of Selected Aspects of the Secondary Teacher Preparation Program at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah, Based on a Follow-up of the 1978—1979 Graduates." It consists of the following five parts: I. General Information II. Teaching Skills III. Professional Preparation Courses IV. Student Teaching Experience V. Recommendations Your thoughtful response to the items and questions on the following pages will be of great help and will be much appreciated. I solicit your cooperation toward that end. Gratefully, Sulaiman M. Al-Wabli Researcher 192 I. General Information On each of the following items, please choose only one answer. 1) 2 V 3 v 4 v 5 v Your sex: a) Male b) Female College from which you graduated: a) College of Education b) College of Islamic Law Semester during which you graduated: a) First semester, 1978 (1398) b) Second semester, 1979 (1399) Level you are teaching now: a) Intermediate b) Secondary Field you prepared to teach: a) Religion b) Arabic Language C) History d) Geography e) English Language 193 f) Biology g) Mathematics h) Physics i) Physical Education j) Art Education k) Chemistry 1 v Specify any other teaching field: 6) Type of degree you received: a) B. A. Ed. degree b) B. S. Ed. degree 7) Your average grade upon graduation: A B 194 II. Teaching Skills Directions: To what extent did the secondary teacher education program at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah, prepare you as a prospective teacher in relation to the following skills and abilities? Please circle the number that best describes your evaluation of how well you were prepared in each skill area according to the following scale? 1) Very poorly 2) Poorly 3) Average 4) Well 5) Very well 8) Ability to communicate with students with different levels of ability. 9) Ability to work effectively with the school administration l 10) Ability to use the Arabic language effectively. ll) Skill in handling discipline problems in the classroom. 12) Skill in motivating students who are uninterested. l3) Skill in using a variety of teaching methods. >1 r—I H H O .--I O (I) (D Q: {>4 0‘ 3 a m >1 #4 H H >1 H O (D H H a) o :> a.) o > a. «a s > 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14) 15) l6) l7) 18) 23) a) C) 195 Ability to construct appropriate tests. Ability to use teaching materials effectively. Ability to construct an appropriate lesson. Skill in using audiovisual aids. Skill in budgeting time in the classroom. Skill in evaluating the students' academic progress. Skill in keeping official records. Ability to use school resources. Ability to use school library resources. Are there any teaching skills the program did not m r—I n H o H o o o Q a m 3 H n w u n H > n o o H H o o > o o > m m B > 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 pro— vide that you feel you need as a teacher? please describe: If so, 196 III. Professional Preparation Courses Directions: Indicate your evaluation of how valu- able each of the following professional-preparation courses that you have had at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah, was in helping you become an effective teacher. Please circle the number that best describes your evaluation of each course according to the following scale: 1) Of no value 2) Of little value 3) Uncertain 4) Valuable 5) Very valuable o 5 H a) . 3 9; > . --I (1) £1 5 m H -a o H > u m H m u u b > o -H u m c H o 5 m o H u m m c m o O O D > > 24) Introduction to Education and l 2 3 4 5 Psychology 25) Social and Philosophical l 2 3 4 5 Foundations of Education 26) Development of Educational Thought 1 2 3 4 5 27) Developmental Psychology 1 (Childhood and Adolescence) 28) Educational Psychology 29) Curriculum Principles 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35 V 36 V 197 o s H o m H m > D 5 m H o c 5 o H H o H > w m H m u u b > o -H H m c H o 5 a o H H m m c m o O O D > > Teaching Methods I l 2 3 4 5 Education Media 1 2 3 4 5 Education in Saudi Arabia 1 2 3 4 5 and the Arab world Educational Administration 1 2 3 4 5 and Planning Introduction to Counseling 1 2 3 4 5 and Mental Hygiene Curriculum Development 1 2 3 4 5 Teaching Methods II 1 2 3 4 5 IV. Student Teaching Experience Directions: Please indicate your evaluation in response to each of the following questions concerning the student teaching you have undertaken as part of your preparation for the teaching profession. Please circle the number that best describes your evaluation in response to each question according to the following scale: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Uncertain Satisfactory Very Satisfactory 37) 39) 40 V 41) 42) 198 How did you find the Curriculum and Methods of Teaching Department assignment to a secondary school (grades 7—12) for student teach— ing, in terms of convenience? How did you find your student— teaching experience in the junior year How did you find your student— teaching experience in the senior year? How did you find the overall supervision of your student- teaching experience in the senior year? How did you find the effectiveness of your college supervisor in working with you in student teach— ing in the senior year? How did you find the effectiveness of your supervising teacher in working With you in student teach— ing in the senior year? >1 5.. 0 >1 P H 0 O ‘6 >3 +J LI—E L4 0 0') O >~| f0 -:-4 4—I H 1H -I-’ O O U) TU r6 Q 4.) .H U) ‘H -r-| U 4.) C: U) (D (U ([3 D -r-I 4J ‘H m JJ H U) >‘l m (I) -H >4 H m 0 # H <1) £1 :1 (U (I) > D D m > 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 43) 44) 45) 46) 199 Did the teacher—preparation program at the Umm Al— Qura Univers;ty, Makkah, offer any kind of orienta— tion to your student-teaching experience? a) Yes b) No If your answer to question 43 is Yes, do you consider this orientation adequate? a) Yes b) No How many days a week did you teach (part-time) in your senior year? a) One day d) Four days b) Two days e) Five days c) Three days How long did you work in the school, part—time student teaching, during the senior year? a) Full school day b) Half school day How many classes did you teach during your student— teaching experience in the senior year? a) One class every d) Three classes a week two weeks Four classes a week v b) One class a week e Five classes a week v 0) Two classes a _____ f week More than five classes a week v g 48) 49) 50) 51) 52) 200 Evaluating your experience observing teaching before you started actually teaching, yourself, do you feel this observation experience was adequate? a) Yes b) No How many times did your college supervisor observe your student teaching in the senior year? a) Once d) Four times b) Twice e) More than four times c) Three times Do you think the number of these observations was adequate for preparing you to be an effective teacher in your field? a) Yes b) No Do you think that there is a general consistency between what you have learned in profe551onal— preparation courses and the instruction you re— ceived from the supervisor of student teaching? a) Yes b) No Did you feel free to discuss student-teaching problems with your college superv1sor? a) Yes b) No 201 V. Recommendations Directions: As you consider improvements in the secondary teacher preparation program at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah, please indicate your responses to the following recommendations for improving this program, in— cluding student teaching. Please circle the number that best describes your feelings about each item according to the following scale: 1) Strongly disagree 2) Disagree 3) Undecided 4) Agree 5) Strongly agree 53) There should be more emphasis on subjects in the teaching fields. 54) There should be more emphasis on 1 2 3 4 practical rather than theoretical approaches in the teacher— preparation program. 55) There should be more emphasis on 1 2 3 4 recent trends in curriculum and methods. (D 8 C) (1) «5 <1) U) H .H m U w w >1 (I) 0) >1 :-| (U 'U :—I 51 H -r-I D" f: O O (I) C: O (U Q) G) O H U) "O H H D -H c m D m D D <2 U) l 2 3 4 5 5 5 57) 58) 59) 60) 61) 62) 63) 202 There should be more emphasis on understanding children and/or adolescents. There should be more instruction in evaluation of student behavior (tests and measurements). Cooperating schools should be selected for student teaching in the residential district where the prospective teacher lives. School principals and classroom teachers should be invited to orient student teachers who are assigned to their schools. There should be more emphasis on a semester of full—time students teaching in schools that would include seminars on related student-teaching problems. There should be more classroom observations by the classroom teacher during the first student teaching experience in the junior year. Supervision should be assigned to the classroom teacher instead of the college supervisor by the Curriculum and Methods of Teaching Department There should be a written evalua- tion after every observation of student teaching. o o H U o m o W H “d "d :5 m o o m H o w H m H -H m C. Us 0 (D c: o w o o o H m c H H u -H c m p m D D < m l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 64) 65) a) b) 66) a) b) 203 j o o n m o m o m u .H m c m U h o o w H m U H m u -H m c m o o c o o o o o H m c H H # -H c m u m D D < m There should be in—service l 2 3 4 5 education by the same class— room teachers and methods instructors who teach on campus to help beginning teachers. Did you encounter any problems in teaching for which the program did not adequately prepare you? If so, please describe: What additional suggestions would you make in order to improve the teacher education program at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah? APPENDIX B TRANSLATION APPROVAL AND ARABIC VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B TRANSLATION APPROVAL AND ARABIC VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE King Abdulazix University Educational & PsychologicaI Research Genter g/‘Jrgfigfizruu / u -- ,vw _ ( @QTONfiEL293L' Lia;;rkiglisauuhem fl —— r’ll Dale:—_ éu‘ TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN We hereby certify that Mr. Sulaiman M. Al—Wabli has translated into Arabic language the English version of the questionnaire used as a tool in his research for his Ph.D. dissertation entitled ”An Evaluation of Selected Aspects of the Secondary Teacher Preparation Program at the Umm Al—Qura University, Makkah: Based on a follow up of 1978— 1979 Graduates". We hereby verify that the translation is honest, accurate and valid. It gives us great pleasure to state that during the period he spent among us in Saudi Arabia from June 1981 to the end of August 1981 collecting his data for the dissertation he made tremendous effort to accomplish his objectives that he came for. We are looking forward to benefit from his findings and to have him as a collea- gue. We do wish him the best of luck. /L// ”% gQZcMW.€_/OX(1.€M4WV Dr. M. A. Ghamdi, Dr. Farouk S. Abdulsalam, Director: Educational 5 Associate Professor, Psychological Research C;r Educational 5 Psychological Umm Al-Qura University -search Center Makkah, Saudi Arabia Al-Qura University, :h, Saudi Arabia. P 0 BOX: 407 at 715 \ "D/l'. . l I VlL CABLE: JAMEAT AEDULAZIZ - MAKKAH TELEX : 440026 IAMMKA SJ 205 HJJ'WJ-J' LU' (~21 ‘ ‘ .. i .. | ” coo L—figfl‘ 94,971.); a 000 6.36”.) LL“ to)” M” PM! only: / .~,.....L...J,. I aim 4......Lo...’ .. " I cold..." 99...... my,“ occlxdl'fiu WHJWV’ “MI WI PI (,4 coal) Leta—«J» Haul)... M (...—4.. " O'H ilJJSSJ by? KIJI Jodgog 0:...- 5JJ| 'LLLYI (J! v—3 11:..qu gym: “Nominal: 9,341.4: JIAI-I tau)... at... Lou-4.29.94: 41s.. (34303-7! own; e—Ls/szuu 2.45) 635-“ ... no» -: 9‘ ¢ pL-JI L» on a.,-“w .93.: "(Mum/VA) awn/u Wy- LU wl—aJ—Lno ; iJl HJJLJI lel—cfo ; 9.9L: 53...,le 4|»?! 4|)... 3 L_‘..JL.’J MI 4.3....le :9ny ; Lat—5 3.3.1.. inn-if! It» I.” ULSIJcoIJLUI .15 9.15 log-SI 91.4..on! ¢.__>L.,.JI (hr—JDIJJI W QL-o—a—lu JP’P geLé EIJiJ: t’.‘.-_>L._JL_. ling w: I l Col. 4 5 8-9 10 ll 206 ..\_. . 'a'_..:_; QLAJJ...‘ 3 U Ju'J '4'le 2.13: Jul-:5: as,” . "cum: guys...“ 0: 3.931,?) -1 5.9-Ln...” ‘JLo-l-L’ QIHI a.“ uJJ ( / )MN‘ :0); dl‘rJS—l 9445-“ —I em (:1 —— 354 (I) —— '. L646 re.»- 9;“ Leis-J l —\’ Lei-VI hafiJIir-IS (T) — 1.4524! "la-15 (I) —— gags}: 6.1.1: 9.93.1: Jain _\- (.a\n1/M}V;L$JIJ.¢JJI(V)_. (awn/u) JJYIJA-Ul (I) — '. o” Lev Oar-.245 5.2L“ “ii-“4' -1 sew: m —— was»: u) — . “fig-L4 SWIM: J43 ..o was. (v: — ...... m _- "we-'9 (A: — - Lnxw m — 32,-3H,) A-HJ-l (1) — to” \Y) _— t..- 2...): (w— ...-“,1. <2: — 'L-..‘-“-:S(11)-— LfJ~IhJ (o) a)! (H)—— H.911: ,4: (1, __.. ILQ-PJ-‘gr-h’w-J' led-w Keri-ll —': "ewe-n ammo-341,444: 3+.» m — 1.4qu w (wwim-ILSHI 3a.)» (n _— '. dew dr!’ 9‘5‘3-“4' .43.... -Y 3L3“ (I) — IA.» 4.? (r) — 4—.> (r) _- tpil (1)—— -1:— tr-eJ-h-J" I OUR-6 '. L—..-"L3 '. HR): 2.34;“41 WflQMIJ W: 41.1.: 314,415...) .5451 4,1441. «__.a. (2.451.111 2...,41 2..15/2..._,;..11 2.45) 6,111.11 f1 2.99.- 25.54.11, 52,—4,1,“: 25....144.I4.'1C.14_,._41 145019.511464..5912._,5.41 44.55.114.421 (45.11.)? by...» 1L5,“ . 2.11.2.1: .51).;141 J1 ..1JL4441 -; 9114-41 Jt....1.1 1.2.1,, 5.4.1:» 2J4..." 44444.4... I 1.2—.44-: IA—eé—e—I Ned-.4" —o .._.5 —1 .1._.J.5 —I' . ' I I} I 5 5134114.» .3‘ ' 1‘ 3 o s 1' T 1 .51J4541J14m445413yui11ui. .5114: o t \' 1’ 1 ."11...J4..412_,1.121 3.1.1.1154: ,1: '6ng 'L_.‘c.IL~J.nJI'u.LII ”45.4-I ".11: 704.341 . 2.41.54. 414.94.: .1441 1:4 .W1omwmubajm1 94.31.11 41.41.1241 .145»: bu: 9.1. 555.11 . H.514 1,... WEE o i 1' 1' ‘ .LanuHJubb {1455.19.15 b44141 «DI—JLMJ'lgL—BAJIQLQWYI‘A‘A: U4. b.5441 .__.......L.41 41,...“ ,1....1,_.1.. 344-1“ . 9.04.41 1.1.5.115 0 £ \" ‘. ‘ VJ4____1JA___..L44¢L>C¢JU.L; 94.1..” o i I' ‘. ‘ .WI J._‘.L.._,Jl {IQ—5.1.! U4; b.1241 o i Y Y ‘ Hal—NI tubuledfil Ma‘JJ'szJL‘I-‘J' 4JI *Uul ' “I o I T t ‘ .4me wIJ4JI Juneau—II 9.0.3:. ”it b44141 I‘ T ‘ 'a'____,.._)44.Jl 91%| (1455.19.15 ZJJJI ° ‘ . 54.55.41,.1. 1.1.4.115 LoJowJLFJMI 44.25441 (lat-.1 v.1; '0'ng . 35,—.254 I —-A - I'l — IY — IA -11 -\'v 208 _r_ ' “Wan—WIJ WI 41451 c214,. (3L4 wwulJfiJl 1:4)an ell—24,11: ..fl' b.4414”. ...! 2.,524125...(2...5L.1124.,4412..45/ 2...,5412...15,.5Ji.11f.l ..-_ 41.1,... as,“ ...-1:406 1.11 Y 2.94.5 L...»L5.¢,i1,.,.ich1:.1J. 11...".I .53....‘241414ail 41).. ; LULS. ,_1 L445”. 91‘, ,3... 9:41, 2.4L41,5‘,._,:41414;111¢. 251.. ,JS ......2. n.1,.“ ~LJ4415414I451 In", Whig—.994 LJSQI 45.4.11;le was—Lou.“ 4I4.5I cal—3)., _,1_....1.I L14J 2.1L. .1514...» "p.11... 61.11.15.111 9,413,. 2,s1.1..1.1.4- " 0. ,4 -, ,JL.:.J1 ’t '1, , 214.152.1514 _,.'1 (2 1.. .__._. (I ——.5- £1,241 14.1» 3 : ‘_ ¢——aL-JL-: ‘3 1] _ 34.4.1.3 2.19....) (a 4..——,1-La “I 'J 1" j 1 .. Sol. a .4 AJSLZA x95 (1' 27 o i I" I’ I ,——-L'-Jl f__l.&_, 2__.._,...LI I——->'-u-‘I _ Ii 28 o z r 1 1 Leaf-U "6.4-J4“; 21.—...:ny .....11 _ y. 30 a s 1' 1 1 (2.211,.J 21,11.) H521,_L~41 f.._1. —rv 31 a z 1' 1' 1 a.,—H.H! .,-—————E-JI .———L= - TA 32 o t r 1 1 €214.41,_.1 - H 33 o i I" I' I (1)9..J4Jl Lia—b _ r. 34 a z r '1 1 ......1....11 J__..4L.,.11 _ 1'1 35 a g I' t I wal PJI—l-“J Wlw—JHLo—JI -Tr 36 .o z 1' 1' 1 4.14-241,, 2...”,541 1,1511 _ n- 37 o t r 1' 1 2....14—11 2.44.11" .11___‘J$1 v.4 2.4.1.2.. .. rt 38 g z r 1 1 you...“ 4H...“ .. to 39 o t 1' 1 1 (T)u-.-!.)-3:‘Jl a} - 1": 209 2.44. 4,41 ., ......) L492), ,411 2.44.41 2...):41. 4.1.44.11 2...:L--.J1 2.1.4111 ,1. 2.4211 11.2,.“ 6.2.1: 42.2211 4,.“ .1,» 24124422,,4 .,._J.1;412..44.:.-:¢12.1,2‘,.25 '.1,;J'—"-J| 4.4-U. 4.3 241...: 1 2.441.» 2...... «'12—: .1.__...- .... V‘J‘Jr‘ (i '#¢f (1 1 . .i‘ 1‘ 1‘ '°?1:‘J‘J-r-‘ (° w—Jf (1' 1‘ 1 ' "5 '2.15L'4J..z (1- .. 1 :1 o i Y 1' 1 .1..le 2...).J1JCDL42JIHJIJ2J4L24J24L2_VV l—.,JL..:J.2.‘..!I__14.2.54‘,JI 21:1.J.'.2.!I J1 '2..J.L‘..!I 5..le . bIJJlU—OO‘ 2.42.2.1“. 12...);J1’L431 a i \' \' 1LOMh-1AIJI L—J—JIUAWI 9‘12.“ .th’hLLuJ—fl—dl—d -\"A Y 2.45.“ ”.2 24441441,...4 o g 1r 1' 1 2._,,.L2.2J124._,.J1-L4.4.....51,.J12J424J.L2.J.2.L2_r1 95.45.!1921241JJ1 “2441954455445 0 z r 1' 1 41,444.4qu 2..J..Jl,J.sL.-IJ.)1JLL2.J.2.I.2_1. '2'._..5.!1¢.2 5.2.1JJ1544J19554S 1.2.2.4 WI 4,41 YPL‘PUJ‘ g 1 1‘ 1' 1 fldJLHAJrJI 244L.2Jl 2.4qu5_11 2.2.1}:..41,....5L.2..2.4.412.,.J.J1,J.2_45J1 0 W14)» 0 1 Y 14' ‘ IL__2.5! 9.1.18.2”! h‘JA-n UmeLA—JLLAaJul—o _11’ ' '2'_.2.1 l 2....“ 44.51.2445 24.1.2.2.“ 2... I u—-‘ J'J S?’ Ups 93.61.11 1'.» ¢__JLJL. Col. 46 47 51 210 Win...“ Jléfil cal—'rJ-dJ '43 J. 154A...“ 3.35)..” “rig—....” "Ql 51.33 (Lee‘N-yli-lu‘ru‘ 4515/...sz 7.45) ”an ,u 2...... ggwg L_?ngm OEJLBYIJI 993;“ 93M Q.¢f.¢I. L33ul EL. Y WI 3‘ (U— 9“ (U— 0; 53.3.“ IADQI “M515 : f-l-a (Y |Jl’3m.“ ubylfi.“ QB |.'H 99.56 ALI-‘9‘“ 3| 4.93.2.“ HH— ' rum— d—:_-1J:J| 33.3.9 .Jfl'» Leg—DWJAJJH 0,943.3.” a.,-SI g.» 1")?! P5 Y L#EJI¢H KLAJJI thIHJCJS Lhn¢ L,uuu| err-W (Eric-.91 (i) — an“ .5 M: m (H —— arr-NH (“1" 0‘5 (0) wit... a“)?! (V) _— WSL. fgf'ofi (r) _— 37,—.4“ J35 2.9qu 9:. «__..b 3.4....w ~-...s._;;..u ”.4: dywsqzs *: 2.45.1.9. 1.1.,“ 2.41.3.3 ...... WI 2...,le exd‘im— 445,31“).— a___..L...JI 3...,ng buds; L._a_,.,.l wdgwfigs “3,5 YWlwl-ylflimlwugéuu WYHW cw' (0) —-- o—MJ-r' ~15 2...“, w (H — win..»».» (1) —— ere-l J5 34"; m (V) -'-— w’u-oi o. .255‘ (V) —— and“! 9'4” (Y) — W" 5?. wil—{wofi (i) _— thfll if‘JJS" H—rwwl 35.3w Wei—10:334.)» —1A 3‘ 3.4.5 “Ha-*3 n.2,! Jug: 2.4....1 im— P(‘)—-— €1,341 I4. ——a|—:-Jl—.' 211 3:44...“ 3._.,J.".JI 33.331.135le 4514 3.45M loads}; 3).. ,5 Y3._.1SJI¢..34.IJJI 3;..leé446u44s m.» 84' m— bub-m— my to' w 35' (a) cat-Zr (Y) — “£035 (Y)— 3__ll_u 3.34.. 4|4:Y 93$:OIJLJ‘3-H g4 44...“ lhgl U.4.3.3.6. JD 3.._.' _3._,;3J| 4| ......J" I 3?” 334.341.. ,_~,=., H.513: 411.34 ‘31 “4.3.3.... " J.» ‘2 WI 34.3.4! ”.14 3.935.113.3343..wa 3.35..“ fl(T)—— .949“)— SOL-{JALLAJI 4L..1L.h.l| .54» 4.35 I44... 3,,45JI 3.33:... HU— rum— oL_=-A3:.JI 1 L436 o\' wH—Lu—H‘, ”4.4.-4.“ Jlul C‘ufiWV‘UVSJu‘JI 4ald3l..'.".sl__« 341(541-3! hafil irJS/MJSJI 3445)¢;3Jl fl haw... .J_,_.p 3,.JL.‘3J|4.L»J.'.3..LJ.14.,L~'-I ““WJ-‘o‘ vuJJl . hJSa—ll 414.)qu . WI MfuIs-Uévlmcaufidl halo“ 3% waqu cadJH-iln-thA—HWSI HJJI J3» 33,-Id ”44m JJIJI a! (1 1.3.33. 5.3131 (3 3.3.13. 5.31,! ‘1 (c .3-“4‘ (Y ‘53in (T 61 62 63 64 LS._L—." "‘ «E‘s‘jib 51......J131 1 L‘J'Di )' “1 't': 1-, L2.61 .1 U (I (_o Y Y Y Y .0———|._.—‘Is---o .-. — .- 212 "V- '0. . Ml JIJJUJFJ—SJ-JL—Jawu‘rw 3.1.9 L.:,.L..1...1_J|......L.|_.j1._1|v.1; 3.4.3... .1434 935..., Q! v.14... ~45le Mai—h 41.1411 caldfuadJLLJl Q4 L.,.........."3..:°..'...1.>..Jl 31.9.4231 1.7-J5 34.53.; .41....) U35... 0| We 30.43.1441 53153 E41.4.41 1'. ......L 1.9—3) ._'~_,.._L..LJ " g-lJJ-J‘ .1-:->-—-‘ " ‘ p—u- '4—~*—~'..‘..‘ 34.....11 3....JLJI 2.41.1: Lg...) 35...: .5le 3.5.L.4..4 1 .5-4 .131» 14.4.11 3....J41 43..."... 3.4144 34.134 4.4.15 ...-1' . 63.41.11 .14.: bf“... J). J...“ 3.344 314.13.. 4.434.: ‘L_'_‘;l 3.44.41 .. ‘,. . . .. _ .. .. . 1.51 ”3‘ ......) 1.94.1.5... 6441 443......“ Q.» 114., J...1J| ...-3.1.. ‘ II V.‘..0.J ’—-—. ‘ v .31 °-)L-'.'..-; J; .L-h-f sari—D t.'._...,_,)._. J” U u" Ql " -. .. “I‘- 43.3.... 4...... 4.4.3.31 41.4-34.4..U 234.434.. .4le; 1.1: H... .. ....b- 4.43443 3.44.4 1 3..., ,.4“ 1 .41: 3.1.44.1 1 1+4.” - . 3.454ng4441 L9,)" 03 00 0'1 0V 0A 0‘1 '11 ‘H' 'W ‘11. 213 96 I O f» l .0 Gab 9.1-1. J O J . ... "on on A 9:» 1r‘ 4.11.-.11... 5| .144... ‘1 I U" . J J5 L.- L.‘ .. o '. £4.13?» ’ L’JJ We" , 1 ( 311.4345 . o no ' anLJH' " . duh—I)- (\ (Y (T éJjJI f’l 4.8.0 L: , 9.9va .W he...» great r-U-J . I o I . ‘2' L: n u m (wfldl Luj' a)” .. l 3.45 9L, n / L I La 4.45 .. ) U (T (T (i (o (‘l (V (A (‘1 -'1'1 214 c—QSJ‘ 15x); .... 341.5)” 3.1.1139» 95.4; (.3141 .HlJ—f—ll 43.3 :4...”wa MAM—H Lia—H 9.4104 3.3:l‘, 1.5—gag): W H4 " '0'an “4.335) .593be 3|.“ 3541,34: 9.4.4ng ‘t_"..L".—Yl ¢| 1“ 3.3.1.? U4 34.34413 3.3414119444940441 41.1.31 C..1.4_,.,.41.... 5.3.4.... . 4,541 35.... (3,431.11 44,241 545/ 44,411 4,415) 6,411 -. 95. r.1....‘.'1 mic-14.954935; "(pHV‘i/VA; AWN/M gee...» 34.1.; 44.3.1.“ -_ $31 wJuI 4.1341,. 1 1.441.”. . 53.95.“ 41.4431 4|)... ; 1:41.“. ...... a.,-'41 -. L41. 944,441 - 1.41.» 3.3.1.. 11443445114493 3.1.4.31JMJUJI 45,1; 3.1.311 95.-1431...: Q1 ”4.5.1.4410. 314.41.. to ow‘ 24.344347: uwpyyj 2.44.1J ...»ng £5,414.45 alga) 3.).“54414414411 1.1m $114,449.41; 1_,_.54 3.9-“4‘“? 3L5 éIJJJI I53 215 ...}... ‘, 3J1 corduyJSJm 3491') Aubl JLg-Zél ‘QJ-H . L4L4J1.-.L.,.L.41 Q. 5.14.31 9.. .LW15J44uq1y4144J19431/13.» 1IT-3 COL . 34 aim (1) _— 5 Lynx-1114,21 2...... r m __... 6 (41111/1114wId-a-U111) _— 7 3.3-5&1 (1) _— 1—9 44.51....) (V) _— ‘nge-‘v (A) _— 3401-1!) L“); (‘1) —— 3......) ‘91-); (1°)— ‘Lrws 1H)— 6?‘ (W)— 10 ll '. 94441 4111—— 2.43.11 37,-45(1).— New»: L5.1.11 s-r'U-‘J' .1441 (awn/«AMJYIJo-UI (1; _— flagging-J I 2.1.,41 1‘)— : LgJJ-"I-J “1| [fink—J. .. i J.” ow) (11 “~45 M111 8.)“ (V) H41)“: ((1 HJ-J-h'lé-BJ (o) 14.214; ('1) 31.34.154.1494124441 4J4. ° ‘-J-"-” 931w4‘1wJ-x4flk5v-‘1 '4?» (11 —— . 9M ...1 (...-#1454415.» 3.5.» m _— -. do» .-~.-> .4514" ...... 31.3.4.4 U) 14.4.9111 A—.~.>(T}——— 35.)." (i) -1' —1 —-O -'1 -—V .. ._ .4;— _— 216 9294;“ 9IJLQA '. I—H..'L3 V—J LIA—H.H) £933.01...“ HJ‘JJ 'rA—LI‘JI JIA‘I coI—UJ-I W)» J’I sJJL__-_L£L_« 6.4—4 6? a MJSA—II 64+(uflayan1f-JI LAS/LHIL—ls )JJJIUI 9| tub ’3.._..JL.".JI¢.I,.1.‘1.JI J1 aIJLP—ll WWJJ—LJI «4.9—11.14.41 .u' 3.1.4,..41 1;“ 01 4.4.4; m} 3JJ—3JI )I SJLQJ—II 3.444446414411441‘1? if“; c. 6L?J_Il 144,411.14 _-_ 9.11.411 ,1...4.1,, 44444.1 ‘ .1 j; ...-.1 (z 1.5-...? (1 COL 1) J :1 IA?“ (0 . -\——.a? (1' h—uH 1T l2 0 \- 1 . '.____1.1.>..' ' .1,.1.'1,.'1...31b C‘ J..1.....1-1 ,1. 5,411.11 13 o r 1 . L____..,.1..11 2,1.41 8.1—4.4" 1 u.1. 3,141 14 a r 1 .1_..,.14 11.41 4,41 3.41.11 f1.1.s.-'..1..,.1. 2,111.11 15 o 'r 1 .J___AJJI 95.14.41.354414915 21,...“ 16 o \- 1 W4¢4 034.11.313.11 91.1441 3,1..1 U.1. 5,..411 l7 0 \- 1 . '..___3' ,4... 0.4,... 1'in 91.15....”1uJ4 3,431.11 18 a y 1 . 431—14.! 3.4.441 141.41.43.31 9...: ”.1; 3,441 19 o ‘- 1 41.-5.11.5 4.4.-41 41,41 (1.15.4.1 ,1; 3,111.11 . 3:... 94,...“ 20 a ‘- \ .,,.1..LJ 34.14.31.59991; 3,451.11 21 a \- 1 . 3.4.1.141 d414,.“ 91344.1 1.1-1‘ 3,1411 22 o 1' 1 ‘U-S' 31.4411 err” 1,134,.“ c435 1.5 bad-11 .WJQJI ’LLuI 23 a 1' 1 ...;1134 s,..1,.1.11 4:45.411 4,544 3,441.11 24 o r 1 .441. .14.,141 5,4,...“ 4,541 5.1.45 1.4 3,1441 25 o 1' 1 4.44.1.4 4.,.141..1,__...,>.;41 r1..."~..~4..1 9.1. 5,341.11 4 fingfla—IIJ 26 a y 1 .BWIIuJJWJL—JJ‘JIWIHfiL-l ”.1; 3,4541 —IT —IY —I‘I —\'0 —\'T 217 15H.“ 91 3.11.1.4, W1 41.1.1 @4va J... “91.)... ,1 ..1JL1... 15mg... .11- 151:1..IJJ‘L41 1.1.5.1”. 9.J ’A.._,$.J121$...('L._..3.11‘4._.J:JI£._15/ ...)..114151 3151.13.64 FLeJJI 1:11.34 (,1: 1.11 ‘3me L90... Qil 4.4.3 (1 (1' (T dfij’JHIJYI 4|). _L_"'.JL.S 1.4.2.). ¢IJ 5... 9:413 LJLLJI 15).):le 51.1.91! al.,. O. 3.11.. J5 9.....11. ’QJJI 0¢JJASJJ14J| V" LQ..L_.J1_4J1;...)UA LAJSAJI flaw-4.1.4.1411 41.1.“ Cal—Dry J1_'..M_L1 L'ILBJ OJUJSJMLJAHGAJI 1.110.971 ‘49le J3) OJLIJJJAJVACQ .., _-, ...-lum 1; '3)" 1‘ .‘ j #545” J3 (t 1.1.? ...-... (1 ...ELflng‘L: 3 3 .‘J ‘ 34‘” “Jo-.14 (0 +40 (1 COL j 1 1 :1 45““ J4 11~ 27 o 2 1' 1' 1 ,—LJ1 1.1-a, Lfluru 11......51 28 a z 1' 1r 1 A—«J—U W13 Lat-.1211 will 29 . z 1- 1 1 awful Jib—11,35: 30 o z r 1 1 (mix: “#1 1.41.241 1.1-Lb” p—u 31 o i 1' 1 1 dxf-H 0.1.51 p-L: 32 o z r 1 1 can...“ ...-1 33 o .z 1- 1 1 1'1) ...);le 15.15 34 o (z r 1 1 ......14J1 124,51 5 a it 1' 1 1 1.2241“ r.11....11, 25.1....“ s.,1'1r....1....~..11 36 o g 1~ 1 1 1412531.: 11.x)...” 3,1431 37 a g \- 1' 1 3.4L.“ Ml) JLZJYI 1?" 1.1.1.11. 38 c z 1' v 1 3.1.411 when" 39 o z 1' 1 1 (Haw-1:41 (U9 1'1 1'1' Yo T1 218 13.5 1...». 5,1141 1.1...» 21...)... 334...: 21.41.41 3.1.1.11 ,1. 11.1.11 v1.,11' -1- 3......“ “war-J! '. 1.11.1I Mu... 15.21.“ JAIN! (1.0).“ J). '4')“.wa a. ”H.245“ 3344513.”le -. vJL."..H‘)1.__..11.1.1J LUJ WI H.HJSJI (,9 3.)“! 0.1.1.! b..L.‘>6'1‘,.'._!11.’m c~——»1_.-Jt.. COL ‘ ”V‘J‘J-r‘ s-r-‘b‘ 3:4 _‘R ‘-‘--’ 11".)» 42 44 4 H‘bJ‘ .2“ (i '4? 95¢ 11 ‘4? 1.9.»; 1° 1r—-°. 'J‘ (T L_,.Lu.!1 21.5,.” €131.qu H,1,.1L!.J...,a.". L. 1......" “ 9:41 a.,-...! 1,1 3.3.1.1.]! 21..an ...»... S‘blflwg. W1 ...,1J1 ‘LJJ WWJAJL. 11...! ...,m L. 1.1,-1....151wul a,.1.1.-.1..,L L. 1: 11.9541, 'AQJL’JI a...“ v9.1.5.1... 1.4.1....“ ...,LJI Q. 1......51 v:..!1:1_’...5..1.I.».1.1._,_11; L. SWIwh-‘I'JJI M|QJ...SL5.LJ '.__....!1. 11......“ 1.4.11 u...1_,:_11.!.-1..,11; L. mums...“ 9.6.2.5 1.1.1.2:- L1,...51 #191” S‘ .L.,~..'.L,J; «45.11, 1.6....“ 111.! 1.34.1.3 5;.“ 3.1;...“ 3...!sz P... 1.1.15 L..Jl@1;.~$LaA.JA..LLu-J|A..JLJIU.U&._.J$J1 1: 21.15.11 o» «.131 11.1.11 5,341.4...“ U9.1.. 3.11.1.1, ”1...! 4.1.0.1.; 1.. L.__-.1,Jl 2.415,»...5 1.1.1.1.... W1 11..le 9W1¢4 -1'1/ ——TA --21 —£\' EIJJJI Ii» who-He m6 COL 46 47 48 49 50 51 -0.— giogm-LEQJI JIJ‘I col—'UuéU‘oJJJD 15.-la...“ Agni—J] #91 d—J —£‘r LJSAJIZSH (193-$1 up: 2,...15/ 5.9.41 31.15) Q’UI (I hale 5‘ 2,34..." 3,...”le yam)?! _,l Legal 9.. 5.9-36' ’ (U— 1““)— Q—ouéJl IJLBQIJJLIISJA:rnétrdl'leulnleaJl¢|—Slél Swag any: J: 3,9,...“ ’ (Y)—— r“ (H— a.,.luJ Iggy! 3H J3; qu'WJuJL, ”4...: 5,... an vb 9).”. ,5 9W|whlfilwlwgéuu ark-”H rL-x' 54' (t) — w“ 9" ”'4 u: (U —- ctr-’9 a“): (Y) —-— wig. ngI a“? (o) bra-3L3 (Lgl’ can (T) __.— L393! 3J3 J3} LJA‘JI 9" QMQJWI ‘93,...“ JJb‘bLSHQS Y'arllewhfIJJI wnwwuu 32.4.45” rx“(?)— .1».pr (H— ? LJSJ loo hy'fl' "La—J" I wag—.6 0,:qu JS '3le inflh) __.. 0'?“wa 34' (0) w’HWW-i' (1‘) — 9...“... 3‘4".» “4’ m — are-3| «wag-a3 cr- J—S‘ (Y) ---- 5:939 ow» (Y) -— W’wafi (t) — WI 3+,qu Bfidfléwujwfl wwt w¢gfiy HU— Mm— —£0 .41 451,—...“ I.» COL . 52 53 54 55 1...... 5.5.4! 3,4,4! zydfiw! Jél.) WIQJLJJJIJ 3,..5 _m 93.45.! IwLHIJJ! 3.5.4 I95“: My 54' (i) — 34".: 3x (H — our (V) —— 9'4» cw' 0» J35' (0) callaéfliQT)—— JMVJJWWJM My? 915:9ng)_’| 93.5.3.4! I.LBQI 5.35.3.5!» -0. (I -I- HU— 1W“)— vm— PU)— JJ’LA to WI LurJl JSLLQ “Li-a?) QflbwfiulJP‘P -O\' 9‘)...le 1.4M!»I:.5.St.355.s 3.45.1! xm— PM)“ oL.___,¢n‘,.'.‘_Jl ; Lab 'ol Lute... W‘s-1| 414;! cal—bf ngéJL—ZAJI ..Dl dJLéfilqt ”a,“ o'é-oJSA-H as... (a.,-“L” 1::de 1945/ "guy-J! 3.45) 35,-DI L34 C‘DJ‘J‘ IéAth- J)» 253.1%.“ any sLuLA—Lul 5.5.3 C‘bJ" 5.3—H JAJS| ‘54).” Jy 3J$IJ¢LLEJ¢0 C“ . WI *fl‘ M59.» -, $4;le 444.4! 435,051.45 yum!“ any! (x wé-i'U' (\ 4.5!... 5.5g! 3! (a .3“)! (Y 0.5.x” 3 (T 3.4.1113.» -‘->’—.-’L-.' gal-5 COL 1.315.331,” 3.5L," y ‘5‘}.3‘ y (”__..—9' ‘ t“)! L41...“ 5.31)! 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67‘ '44 d ...-... -44” .3. ‘5‘— 221 €54.41?)le 31.9531 ”.13 £5,144.13 ¢’5._. $19.34.... °u-:J"-:-“ 13.15.) ..JAJLoJIstLhJI Wwfififlmwul 9.9.... .(3.._,1_4.'~311 WL-Hri—“J OJSJQ' gnu-awash 1.3... 95.95.11,)1541Jw1 3.4.41 ufllqupwu 3.3.3.341, ,J1w1'IJw3W3y44mwsgg1vg4. 9.3 3.4.4 1 3...,41 3.414 3.1....3.___,5 91.5.3! .444!) ° Lew-1444b 5254' 9.1.,qu .1315- 3.43.41 ”ta-4J2! 4515:... 3.1.3144 3.41,. 3.14.1; u.11 . 'a',.'.'..i1J I 3.3.13 ofldfiwMIWJa Haul". 3.13).); ‘UJ! Ml .UJJYIWJJJ-J! ulfiwgl 93...... 3.4.3.4! 3.4,..11 U.13..11,‘:111 3...);41 '3... 434.541.3441 0.: 8.3.; Mic-J4... 3 15.15.". 4.4.3.31.“ ...-we 3.1.. .15 news-9 wflmmw .5... '4'...La.-Jl 5.454431...» 4.1.23.1! WJW 1.....J4JQIJJJ 3.339... 1 jwaw! 3J1. 3.35141, 3.4.4! 3.4414444! _oy _1. 222 3A.} 441.45.. 9.1.; I.L.“; 4.11 . M. 4.51 .1431 f“. n.” u‘ .. . | c.1444 3 OJ ' . . 1 94.3.. W)” e» ' ' ...»- 435' a“ I..a I 6' , I '81:... "JV“ I _. f . ”lo ...,sl-S (1 (Y (T (4'64:an 4.154 . .4 9.1.4 M 1+3 9". ,44 . I (‘ 3 33,554 ' I ' ' . D. .... . (Wyn-VI 3440' “J: ' u A l u . IdfyI 64.15 . I 3.45 “do .. )GJ-U -Tl I (I APPENDIX C OFFICIAL LETTERS APPENDIX C OFF IC IAL LETTERS .Khtg abdoulazL-Unlverulty '1‘???" 22"” I 3‘va Public Relations Dopaflmont /ng, ‘ M3905 III DJJJJQ) 771%“. SM flzaflc‘a ..Jz.\".§-’jQ , QWH=VMLCQM - 15¢» ‘39::337 Ref. :._-_..._____.._ \/§ 0\J /\ / Q A-/..\_—:_\’_{zrv;. Dote- 23_<\.o.\ IqfiLgu. my). CID/fl) OJ.” ......J‘Sch {MI "" ' ‘ "‘UJI {SLLJ I' )Lglnl- “WLtLrJ‘JIQLLuw _ M51...) ' I.“ fl) ‘5‘]; rid . Qw‘ut’! U L—-—r-‘9".’)° 0535.1.” UL...) dI49JI¢~JhJ)UI ~9pr ”LI,“ 4.»... @bqymb «Layludurfl WI JIJFI Cub), fish-M PA: )‘ -°‘III‘l/‘U\ r” w)- Wb~( “p'é-twru‘: ‘32:“ @225 dfi-“r ‘JIf'JTWIrgJIJ: wWO‘r-IpI (”L-3J5 rfiIqJI 15.-L...“ jwlu . ° (~34: r53“): cu U__———-3I.:.=~3fJI.¢L C_____—-o 223 - —~‘...._- ~ ---‘a-—- ._ .. ‘, 224 King} Abdulaziz Unlvorslty awoijp) U, 1 w\2__,,d\'o._$u’ ‘- '33—" Public Relations Doparhnont W.Saadé;4mé’£a Ref. ;_..________ \lqun/VAIL\“—V—PP)I Dote- ‘9‘3'E42IXJ—éu' ,___'e,.JI gulhwi QIxQuLnJIoprIrkx¢3al4w uL——..——A—g3o 4.35.”, LI.“ “a” ri—II-rL-II ULOJ QIJrS’é-Mu“ ‘31!le “OLA... / db...“ WI” @pIWrUWJMI .JIJsIC.L:xcaI.~UéJ-_,Jfiés ) ”4,45,05,5qu ‘H/‘IA rt aeP': lax—3' a’w‘ wfi- Lab: ( dfl'r'h-Laawéw': f—": J'ng owpoq”): WI MdflJL-J .54.; chat...” . I-1~.~’ ‘l‘I/‘IA {Ln—I vale-«wawfl‘ UHJ" o rihfiwI’A-JI BIL r1355- y {SMJJ’ Pl‘J‘rS'L‘ICJ‘JSL‘: cu r—JLAJL’aJU. C‘_" 225 King Abdulaziz Untvotulty JQMMILL'KU. ’ 0 I fl A ’ wwow m; 1.141,..J\1=~,-3\1¢m\ . 1S9 Department 0! Fetolgn Missions 7716664. SMW Ref. - ' . VQO V /\ I VA/_\_.._\’_§;. ,3). Dote- MI [Ali-Law. ,___;,.JI ewlwrwlfiyugflauw wlrw 1115;, . . . rum...» L1... 0.1:“, 6:11.41»! 915,510.; {...-I5), app Pb) oIJ’fiqJI UL.) dew ULI,JI MOI-2.4“ “firm, 91,-.“ Mgplrlug... a.,,JLzJI,a..Ia..._,;.JI 045,11 WI J1...“ aa/ ‘IA wfibqtqufi-J'd-a. . 6.:JL..JJ¢_.)')UI chJanL 0+);MIWI99Q ukfiO'”)I . ....)Uarxw If.) gaudy «219‘ fighlw;u ‘C‘ Han-Nth? 226 King AbdulsuIUntvenny z/‘Jl‘i—quI-‘Z Department eIFeteIgn Missions .. I ’QJCQWJM‘Q) I J o mecca. 54% W QWIWIWI-1_K:» \ Ref. 1 40 Vl\{ ( AAA—PP). Dote- deH_&(4—.QUI «1.11224. gym “"2...- ”er-4‘4- - Ix.» 34L... ~L_—._.n..:,o (36):, I.LII my.» {5.4; fl...” WIrSgI: ... ijIrigkaq Wfififiuwlaubl L——¢-‘>-6r "»5-*-"U'-;‘ d”:- W JAM-‘4“ um)“ Meta-L- a..____¢,.:I::JI: dang! “slurJJ WI glut-Igbx obwrgs) ‘I‘I/‘IA w)“§~5h5~1(fiwfl'3rfiawrwu) «521“ g5 a...» ‘41:):ka Makasbfiaxb‘a‘fibfi ark-El“ ko'rfi . Jul,.J,S.LJu..-...1J cw‘ JS 05.25.25,...) £4...)- >U1 ‘2pr 9L)“- ol‘ JW':¢~U-0'r pf-l-JJH ° Lev. WJJ'WU‘ . w.) U596 . #IVNLJ L9,. IPJgUIrikj... egfllriQWI “’51.; uc L———JJI._-AJUA.IIL t..__. ®o¢¢JBJIOWIBJIJIfi¢ " ‘ u—LJaJI WC-JL" 4...... 227 KIM“ AlululuzitUnlvot-slty /,/’w I (HUG 'Cuwcy W Jim} @V—IIW‘WI - 15:; Public Relation: Department WHSW Ma Ref. . \/go \I /\ I Q A—Hv—‘I—V—r’fl Date. M4HI-‘éI—QUI .4.“ng ..pusqrgavézgu... J 0 C xijka-MrMI up} JIqrw 6.1.41th ,4... up,“ ”OLA“, JLLYI WI °——L-:5-J‘o=-=-I’;~U oe-Ja-J‘ «Wad-ye why-Arab) Lt-wr‘béw rL; gear—$- LEE... - eij'U: mart-1‘ lie-5 ( ufiJ'r'Tu-le-e «gym-1'; oat/tA ‘—--.5-J"5-*3-E-'- U5 can“: u-er' 7w."- ”no.4... JfiJ‘JIOI‘L‘f") . a...) rJ'DUIJLSTY qq / ‘IA rL-JJ . Let-N gum-gm new». we. was»): . rsbgwi,fiplr&m1w;u cu r__._"oI.,a~J‘de.p- 6“” deofiJb-Jlawtw L”; efib 228 King Abduluziz Unlvernlly #55:. //LL) X Z'J‘ ’ L,’ Public Relation: Department ’ y“: - . W I: 77am. saw W (W; ,9ng gym) Ref. .._____ VQO v /\ I (A / «44.4192. Dale:____ WWJ—gju. 3__.LIIo.Ei-I 4J___.n_..,r,J.-CJI,.1.3JL.__~ ;__.JL.,J dupe...) .SJ..JI an,» umgIOLFL. / Jt:__...ch.....-..,.JI édylwgwml .ahul ctfichMFis) My). ebij-lJI ”__.stLquq. «PI-4,5: w;tz_..5( gJUIrIulq-qegfL‘JI: o-‘H'H/1A 3.:_____., an... ”5W5 ”flying. dlggjulotw) . ¢——-‘--.-J{5>U'JLW Att/ufla—U . Let-H J-‘WLW'BQ'MFv-rfla-‘e-‘ri .rmficflbfifllrimleu uucu . .>_———~'Ir->~3Lfi“‘ 'J'L-‘ia 2.5... ire-)UJ'L'vu-‘f/«Jlij'ébg-k \" \ a " . ~~.—/: .7— _im , 5‘— ,i7 ,_r v», 229 King Abdul-slIUntvu-Mty {/‘Jl‘g’ I 611;}:Li I Miss! -. I ‘ . , , Department 0! Fora ya on: ' EQJOK’JJAJQJ Qwfiflmsfim - 25;; ”(£664. Sand/4145a Ref. - ' VQOVfil V App—49?); Dote- SQW'QUI 3__Ul..ki... d___.$UnJl. Wkkiah...» ...;m, .. 05,,¢U|L.,,rS,J;r)L—~Jl LIL—...; an,“ .11..“ ”fire... ULIgaOLrL. /,3L~...¥l¢...:....Jl *L-v-J'uJ’r-U can-1““ “'4“ cbx°L~Mr¢3~= ) LR?)- Obi-5*“ rL-‘u'xfih-et-v - fi-tr‘J'iv-QWJ-‘J’w (Ufl'f’z‘nlfikjwb . -MY1‘l/1A d—Jw'm u‘W': wfl'h-rt- Ji‘9‘tNJJS'LJ'O'WJ . WfJDUIJLfYa 11/1ArL-JJ «A»: a» atru—J'zmwaap- w»; . rigi~1¢U|3FJQ"r£L:a'wJSL__—$ . ucu o r—Jw‘fiJL-c. LWJN'GW'z 'J' J. I'" “g .p ""-’/C 230 King Abdul-uh Untvonlty {2}” I 31:945. Public Relations 0090mm 0w , r l] )9 _gjjfi) 77km.$aagld;4m&a U, '; 4,...J\1=~,J\ '4’ 14 , ’43 Ref. : \ffion I Y MAX—PP}. Dote- ?§&W9Ul 2-'__.U|¢J'=.i... aJ._____g.,eb.,Jlr.la;,.a.BaLn_—.- --:~’-'-:: 0- ‘SfiJéM'bJarLbrL-‘J' L._.JL.,J $49.»; .11...“ u,” ”my! 4...... 01.4.. / Juylwl .L__..,;.JI¢,.:.L..J_U WI alal cbflgpwfib )Lma, .95..“ fL—Jg—e-gé Z-i-zh-e o «a.,-film; Mag-4U.“ ( ufiJ'f‘uLfiLywb 0"}Y‘1/1A w ...}... u‘aéfA-J': wfl' z....,L-.. J'kb-wg-U'o'w: . ...—SQH'DUIJLSV‘ .b‘qlqArL-JJ .w»: w'obwwm-waao: «as»; .. rS-Llngd—JJ'JfiJSJIrfiLLb'wJSL-‘v uuu o Hwy“ 'M) 231 King Aluluuzix University . gypwmxu. ' CJL'DJCVWJEDJJ @W\1=~/S\m\ - 23.1. Public Relations Department 771““. Saudi/4145a Ref. , Vic \l A/ Y A—l—PAHL P). °°'°' 4%HH4—w LU‘LEL» ufl'filefiluxq.34Lau an“; ,I;_..c..,J&L.JI ”up uu,» 4.... 01.54.. / Jaymwu ..L...,;.JI ”al.,.u WI gauguxagflfia: ) 11.9%,”),54“ rL—fi u~fi1~t~ ° ‘eHJ‘J' UDWr-J‘J ( wfl'r'h-laeyw': - . aa/aA “P's-“L‘- uv‘ mix—“J5 us‘r-sf-J' b..,L-.. u“ 0:52 Jam-J'o'é-H-J . WU'DU! J63.» flfl/QA rLJI—U ° Heb-“v JU'WLW'ZQQ ‘45:}: rJvJ-qu- Jaw-5»); o tibia: O—Ubgfl'é‘slb‘ WJSL: cu r——7L~D~3&fiJU- h... ¢$ngoungpu~guapJI,.u to U) h) ——‘ _ z/‘dlqwtuté ‘ - cyfl'bcyw my) 3:54,...M74/M11Ah- 21.9 Khug Abduhuu University Department 0! Foreign Missions 77W. 54% W a». 1 V<°V /‘ / gA/A—Jt—filr"). Date- WQUI :.____UI..£.;.. dJLLJlgeh‘JlrrL-gga 341...... ”4..., .. c. ,, .mz..,,rs.4.r>l_..m up; ‘_,;u_..¢....,J .11..“ an,» 0&1!th any, gummy u—~.--J|ae=1-JJ cad-h” aw can-Mrs: um»)- «Lysw r'—-"u‘-‘O‘3--el'—: . W'WJWJ-U'w(vfl'r1l~lheiwb «barn/u rL-U ¢LLJI21L;. 3W5 wfl'u-k- duel-ufé-J'o'é»: . ca—Jp'DU'Jl-SY Jun/1A . try-... anal-954' unoawrji-o- draw-m: ..rih~.ugr,,9I,SLLuuwSt__..: uuuu 0 U— LLanfiJli-t.‘ ”“r/t B IBLIOGRAPHY 'fl- BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdel—Waisia, A. Education in Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, 970. Best, J.W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Bord, Walter. Moving Toward Effective Teacher Education: One Man's Perspective. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1975. Burgess, Tyrell, et al. Dear Lord James: A Critique of Teacher Education. London: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1971. Burr, James B., et al. Student Teaching in the Elemen- tary School. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1950. Cosper, C. Student Teaching: Theory and Practice. New York: Greenwich Book Publishers, Inc., 1965. DeGaury, G. Faisal. London: Arthur Parker, Ltd., 1966. Flowers, J.G., et al. School and Community Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education. Oneonta, NY: The Association of Teachers Colleges, 1948. Friedman, Myles, et al. Improving Teacher Education: Resources and Recommendations. New York: Long- man, Inc., 1980. Good, Carter. Dictionary of Education. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. King Abdulaziz University. Directory of King Abdulaziz University, Part I. Campus at Makkah. Makkah, 1977. Leher, S. Leaders, Teachers and Learners in Academies: Partners in Educational Process. New York: Meredith Corp., 1970. Nyrop, Richard F. Area Handbook for Saudi Arabia. Foreign Area Studies, 3rd Ed. Washington D.C.: American University, 1977. Peck, R.F., and Arthur, J.A. Research on Teacher Educa- tion, in Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, Ed. Robert M. Travers. Chicago: Rand-McNally and Co., 1973. 233 234 Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Stiles, L., et al. Teacher Education in the United States. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1960. Troyer, M.E., and Pace, R.C. Evaluation in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1944. Walpole, Norman, et al. Area Handbook for Saudi Arabia. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. Periodicals Allen, D.W., and Hawkins, G.W. Reconstruction of Teacher Education and Professional Growth Programs. The Journal of Secondary_Education 15(September 1970): ll. Al-Riyadh. Daily Newspaper. Riyadh, December 18, 1971. Barr, A.S., and Singer, A. Evaluative Studies in Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education 4 (March l953):65-73. Beaty, Edgar. Follow—up of Teacher Education Graduates as a Basis of Institutional Improvement. Agri- culture Educational Magazine, l97l. p. 298. Bledsoe, J.C. Personality Characteristics and Teaching Performance of Beginning Teachers as Related to Certification Status. Journal of Research and Development in Education 2(1)(Fall l968):3—48. Campbell, Roald. The Professional School of Education and Its Relevance. The Journal of Teacher Edu- cation l9(Winter l968):500. Clifford, Don P. Our Readers Write. NEA Journal 55 (December l965):5-9. Coppedge, Walter. Education: Begin With Student Ex- perience. Phi Delta Kappan 52(October l970):2. Cyphert, F.R., and Walter, L.G. The Delphi Technique: A Case Study. Phi Delta Kappan 52 (January l97l):232. 235 Dejnozka, Edward L. Some Prescriptions for Improving Teacher Education: Abraham Flexner Assisting. Peabody Journal of Education (October l978):46—8. Denemark, George. Teacher Education—-Repair, Reform or Revolution. Educational Leadership 27 (March l970):543. Gallegos, Arnold M. Teacher Training: The Realities. The Journal of Teacher Education 23 (Spring 1972): 44—6. Goodlad, John I. An Analysis of Professional Laboratory Experiences in the Education of Teachers. The Journal of Teacher Education 16 (September 1965): 263-70. Henson, Kenneth T. Improving Courses in Methods of Teaching. School and Society 99 (November 1971): 413. Horton, Lowell. Teacher Education: By Design or Crisis. The Journal of Teacher Education 22 (Fall 1971): 265. Huber, H., and Williams, D. A Follow-up Study Provides Information for Evaluation. The Agriculture Educational Magazine (February l97l):l94. Jordan, A.C. Improving Student Teacher Evaluation. Peabody Journal of Education 45 (November 1967): 139-42. Joyce, Bruce, R., et al. Preservice Teacher Education Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977. p. 21 (ERIC Ed 146—120) Lemons, Lawrence A. Education Courses. NEA Journal 54 (October l965):26—8. Nash, Robert J., et al. The Foundations of Education: A Suicidal Syndrome? Teachers College Record 78(3)(February l977):299-310. Preston, Ralph C. Education Graduates View Education and Academic Courses. School and Society 92 (Summer l964):233-7. Shields, James J. Social Foundations: The Problem of Relevance. The Record (October l968):77—87. Taylor, Robert L. Teacher Education: Put it Where the Action Is. Clearing House (May l97l):532—4. 236 The Committee of the Professional Preparation of Educa- tion Commission. What Teachers Think of Educa— tion. Michigan Education Journal 41(14)(March l964):20. Thompson, Ralph. Where Teacher Education Programs Fail. The Journal of Teacher Education 21 (Summer 1970): 264. Trial, 6., and Winder, R. Modern Education in Saudi Arabia. History of Education Journal I(3) (Spring 1950):125. Urban, Wayne J. Social Foundation and the Discipline. The Record 7l(2)(December l97l):l99. Public Documents Arab League, General Secretariat, Cultural Department. Collection of the Arab League Council Resolutions on Cultural Affairs to be Executed by the Arab Countries, l946—l966. Arab Organization for Education, Culture and Science, Department of Education. A Conference on Pre- paring Arab Teachers, From January 8 to 17, 1972 Cairo: Al—Takadom Press, 1973. College of Education in Twenty—five Years—-l952—l976. Makkah, 1976. College of Education. A Report of the Meeting of the Committee for the College of Education Project. Makkah, 1980. College of Education. The Curriculum and Methods of Teaching Department Bulletin. College of Educa- tion, Iakkah, 1977. College of Education. The Recommendations of the First Teacher PreparatiEn Conference in Saudi Arabia. Makkah, 1974. King Abdulaziz University. Directory of King Abdulaziz University! Part I. Campus at Makkah. Makkah, 1980. Ministry of Education. The Educational Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, 1974. 237 UNESCO. International Conference on Public Education. Geneva, 1968. Unpublished Materials Abul—Azm, Fattouh M. "Proposals for Improving the Stu— dent Teaching Program for the Prospective Sec- ondary School Teachers at Cairo Teachers College, United Arab Republic." Ed.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1964. Al-Ahmad, Abdulrahmon. "A Study of the Effectiveness of the Teacher Preparation Program at Kuwait Univer- sity, Based on a Follow—up of 1976 Graduates." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978. Al-Badr, H.A. "Public Relations Activities at Two Saudi Arabian Universities." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michi— gan State University, 1972. Al-Dayil, A.S. "A Study to Identify Ways of Increasing the Enrollment of Saudi Male Elementary School Teachers in Teacher Training Institutes and Im— proving the Quality of Instruction in Those In- stitutes." Dissertation Abstracts 40(3-4)(l979): l758-A. Al-Khateeb, Ahmad. "The Development of Guidelines for the Teacher Education Program in Jordan." Ph.D. Dissertation, Illinois State University, 1977. Al—Marsouqi, H.A. "A Facet Theory Analysis of Attitudes Toward Handicapped Individuals in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. Al-Roushad, M., and Abdulatif, A. "The Colleges of Edu- cation: Role in Teacher Preparation." Paper presented at the First International Conference on Islamic Education, March lB-April 7, 1977. Jeddah: King Abdulaziz University Press, 1977. Al—Wabli, S.M., Al-Marsouqi, H., and Ghamdi, A. "A Col- lege of Education in Saudi Arabia: A Close Look at its Teacher Education Program." Unpublished seminar paper, Michigan State University, 1979. 238 Freed, Harvey F. "Role Expectations of the College Su- pervisor of Student Teaching as Perceived by Supervisors, Principals, Cooperating Teachers and Student Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts 37(1—2)(l976):233-A. Ghamdi, M.A. "A Study of Selected Factors Related to Student Dropouts in the Secondary Schools of Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Graff, Paul. "A Follow-up Study of Graduates and Their Opinions of the Secondary Teacher Education Pro— gram of the University of Iowa l970-76." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1976. Hammad, M. "The Educational System and Planning for Manpower Development in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, 1973. Havard, Harold. "A Follow-up Study of the 1961—1968 Graduates of Howard Payne College Who Obtained Certification to Teach." Dissertation Abstracts 31(0-3)(1970):lll6-A. Holt, Kenneth G. "A Consideration of the Revision of College Managed Student Teaching Programs Based on the Views of Secondary School Cooperating Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts 39(1-2)(l978): 700-A. Kardaman, B. "Higher Education in Sudan." Ph.D. Disser- tation, University of Kansas, 1975. Kessinger, Kenneth B. "An Appraisal of Selected Aspects of the Secondary Teacher Education Program at Augustana College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota." Ed.D. Dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1975. Mahmoud, Layla. "A Proposed Program for the Improvement of Teacher Education in Bahrain." Ph.D. Disser— tation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1978. Mattson, R. "An Evaluation of the Teacher Education Pro- gram at Montana State University by Graduates of That Program." Ph.D. Dissertation, Montana State University, 1973. McCommons, L.L. "A Study of Student Teacher Perceptions of Teacher Preparation Program at the University of Georgia." Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, 1969. 239 Mikel, M.T. "An Evaluation of Certain Aspects of the Four-year Teacher Education Program at Colorado State Colleges as Perceived by its Graduates." Ed.D. Dissertation, Colorado State College, 1969. Morris, Carol A. "An Alternative Secondary Teacher Edu- cation Program at Michigan State University." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Pharr, G.R. "The Study of Certain Skills and Competen- cies Which are Useful to First-year Secondary Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts 34(7—8)(l974): 4066-A. Radcliff, K.A. "A Study of Attrition from the Teaching Profession of Michigan State University Graduates Who Taught in Michigan Public Schools in 1972-73, But Not in 1973-74." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michi- gan State University, 1976. Reese, Marilyn A. "Evaluation of the Supervision of Student Teaching as Performed by Cooperating Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts 36(7-8)(l975): 5213-A. ' Sabie, Mohammed. "A Proposed Professional Curriculum For the Preparation of Men Teachers of Physical Education and Health at the University of Baghdad, Iraq." Dissertation Abstracts 22(7—9)(l961): 3106-A. Salem, Ezzat H. "Assignment of Student Teachers in Se- lected Egyptian Institutions of Elementary Teacher Education." Dissertation Abstracts 27 (ll-12)(1966):3762—A. Schafer, R.N. "An Evaluation of the Teacher Education Program at Parson's College." Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1961. Sheehan, M.R. "Junior High School Teachers' Evaluation of Pre—service Preparation.“ Dissertation Ab— stracts 30(0-4)(l97l):l460-A. Stafford, Norman J. "A Study of Selected Aspects of Teacher Education Programs at Institutions of Higher Education in Louisiana." Dissertation Abstracts 39(11—12)(l978):6457-A. Zafer, Mohammed I. "An Investigation of Factors Which are Associated with the Enrollment and Non- enrollment in Teacher Education Programs of Public Education in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. Dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Wifliflilfl‘fliljiflllwflvMW @4329 v._.,,..-,.-: »»»»»»»»»