School Teachers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Towards student interaction

School Teachers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Towards student interaction

Author/s

Ali Mahmod Qasim Saleh

Faculty of Department of Special Education, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj Saudi Arabia

Ahmed Yousif Al-Aqbi

Faculty of Department of Special Education, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj Saudi Arabia

Saedi Falih Katib

Faculty of Department of Special Education, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj Saudi Arabia

Abstract

The attitudes and epilepsy-related knowledge of teachers are an important component of the educational experiences of children with epilepsy. Unfortunately, however, the exploration of teacher attitudes and knowledge has been extremely limited. The knowledge and attitude of school teachers can affect significantly the academic achievement, social development and the quality of life of epileptic students. However, this study is aimed to assess the knowledge and attitude of school teachers towards students with epilepsy. Therefore, this cross-sectional study used a pretested, self-administered, 5-item questionnaire to evaluate the basic knowledge and attitude of Elementary, intermediate, and secondary schools‟ teachers as regards epilepsy. Schools were chosen at random and included private and public schools for male and female students. Meanwhile, the study included 342 teachers. 98.8% of the respondents heard about the disease, with no significant association with age (p = 0.205) or gender (p = 0.593). The common reported causes for epilepsy included mental disease (62.6%), spiritual possession (11.1%), electric charges in the brain (9.9%) and disturbed nerves (5.3%). 71.3% of respondents were willing to provide first aid during fits and objected to prevent epileptic students from studying (97.7%). Age was significantly associated with knowledge about causes of epilepsy (p = 0.008) and readiness to provide first aid (p = 0.012). Gender was not significantly associated with neither knowledge nor attitude of the respondents. In conclusion, it was found that knowledge of teachers about causes of epilepsy was not adequate. Also, most of them would treat epileptic students differently from their peers. Educational programs should be provided to school teachers to correct wrong beliefs about epilepsy and to train them on first aid measures during epileptic fits, which to focus remedial education and outreach efforts are identified.

Keywords

Attitude; Beliefs; Epilepsy; Knowledge; Students; Teachers.

To cite this article

 Saleh, A.M.Q., Al-Aqbi, A.Y., &  Katib, S.F. (2019). School Teachers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Towards student interaction, International Journal of Management, and Social Sciences Review (IJMSSR). Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1-10. Doi:10.31219/osf.io/mksu2

Copyright

Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

  1. BENT, H. A. 1984. Uses (and abuses) f mdels in reaching chemistry. Jurnal of Chemical Education, 61: 774–777. [Google Scholar]
  1. BRWN, D. W. 1994. Facilitating conceptual change using analgies and explanatry mdels.International Jurnal of science Education, 16: 201–214. [Google Scholar]
  1. CLEMENT, J. 1993. Using bridging analgies and anchring intuitions t deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30: 1241–1257. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  1. COSGROVE, M. and SCHAVERIEN, L. 1997. “Models f science education”. In Exploring Models and Modelling in Science and Technology Education: Contributions from the MISTRE Group, Edited by:Gilbert, J. 20–34. Reading, UK: Faculty of Education and Community Studies. The University of Reading. [Google Scholar]
  1. DAGHER, Z. R. 1995. Analysis of analgies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32: 259–270. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  1. DE JONG, O and VAN DRIEL, J. H. Developing preservice teacher’ content knowledge and PCK of models and modelling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. March25-28, St. Louis, USA. [Google Scholar]
  1. DEL RE, G. 2000. Models and analogies in science. HYLE-An International Journal of the Philosophy of Chemistry, 6: 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  1. DUTT, R. and GLYNN, S. 1996. “Mental modelling”. In Research in Science Education in Europe: Current Issues and Themes, Edited by: Welford, G., Osborne, J. and Scott, P. 166–176. London:Palmer. [Google Scholar]
  1. ERDURAN, S. Modeling in chemistry as cultural practice: a theoretical framework with implications for chemistry education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April13-17, San Diego, USA. [Google Scholar]
  1. ERDURAN, S. Philosophy of chemistry: an emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Paper presented at the 5th International Hisotry, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference. September15-19, Pavia, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  1. FRANCOEUR, E. 1997. The forgotten tool: the design and use of molecular models. Social Studies of Science, 27: 7–40. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]
  1. GILBERT, J., ed. 1993. Models & Modelling in Science Education, Hatfield, UK: The Association for Science Education. [Google Scholar]
  1. GILBERT, J. 1997. “Models in science and science education”. In Exploring Models and Modelling in Science and Technology Education: Contributions from the MISTRE Group, Edited by: Gilbert, J. 5–19.Reading, UK: Faculty of Education and Community Studies, The University of Reading. [Google Scholar]
  1. GILBERT, J. and BOULTER, C. Stretching models too far. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association. April18-22, San Francisco, USA. [Google Scholar]
  1. GILBERT, J. and BOULTER, C. 1997. “Learning science through models and modelling”. InInternational Handbook of Science Education, Part 1, Edited by: Fraser, B. and Tobin, K. 53–66.Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  1. GILBERT, J., BOULTER, C. and RUTHERFORD, M. 1998. Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses?. International Journal of Science Education, 20: 83–97. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  1. GILBERT, S. W. 1991. Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28: 73–79. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]
  1. GLYNN, S. M. 1991. “Explaining science concepts: a Teaching-with-Analogies Models”. In The Psychology of Learning Science, Edited by: Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H. and Britton, B. K. 219–240.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  1. GLYNN, S. M. and DUTT, R. 1995. “Learning science meaningfully: constructing conceptual models”. In Learning Science in the Schools, Edited by: Glynn, S. M. and Duit, R. 3–33. Mahwuh, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  1. GLYNN, S. M., BRITTON, B. K., SEMRUD-CLIKEMAN, M. and MUTH, K. D. 1989. “Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks”. In Handbook of Creativity, Edited by:Glover, J. A. 383–398. New York: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
  1. GLYNN, S. M., DUTT, R. and THIELE, R. B. 1995. “Teaching science with analogies: a strategy for constructing knowledge”. In Learning Science in the Schools, Edited by: Glynn, S. M. and Duit, R.247–273. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  1. HARRISON, A. G. 2001. How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students?. Research in Science Education, 31: 401–435. [Google Scholar]
  1. HARRISON, A. G. and TREAGUST, D. F. 1993. teaching with analogies: a case study in Grade-10 optics. Journal of research in SCience Teaching, 30: 1291–1307. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]
  1. JUSTI, R. and GILBERT, J. 2002. Modelling, teacher’ views on the nature of modelling, implication for the education of modellers. Internationl Journal of Science Education, 24: 369–387. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  1. JUSTI, R. and GILBERT, J. in press. Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education[Google Scholar]
  1. LUISI, P. L. and THOMAS, R. M. 1990. The pictographic molecular paradigm – pictorial communication in the chemical and biological sciences. Naturwissenschaften, 77: 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  1. NORMAN, D. A. 1983. “Some observations on mental models”. In Mental Models, Edited by:Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L. 7–14. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  1. PRATHER, J. P. 1992. “Educational implication of the Kuhnian concept of normal and revolutionary science”. In History and Philosophy of Science in Science Education, Edited by: Hills, S.vol. 2, 299–312. Kingston, Ont: Queen’s University. [Google Scholar]
  1. Rouse, W. B. and MORRIS, N. M. 1986. On looking into the black box: prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100: 349–363. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  1. SHULMAN, L. S. 1997. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Revieiv, 57: 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  1. SUTTON, C. 1992. “Teaching science with language in mind: Chemistry and English”. In Open Chemistry, Edited by: Atlay, M., Benett, S., Dutch, S., Levinson, R., Taylor, P. and West, D. 229–242.Buckingham: Open University Press. [Google Scholar]
  1. TOMASI, J. 1988. Models and modeling in theoretical chemistry. Journal of Molecular Structure (Theochem), 179: 273–292. [Google Scholar]
  1. Treagust, D. F., DUIT, R., JOSLIN, P. and LINDAUER, I. 1992. Science teachers’ use of analogies: observations from classroom practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14: 413–422. [Web of Science] [Google Scholar]
  1. VAN DRIEL, J. H. Teachers’ knowledge about the nature of models and modelling in science.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Education. April19-22, San Diego, USA. [Google Scholar]