بررسي مقايسه‌اي كمك‌طلبي تحصيلي و معناي تحصيلي در دانش‌آموزان ناشنوا، نابينا و عادي

Comparison of the Academic Help-Seeking and Meanings of Education in Deaf, Blind and Normal Students

سابقه و هدف مطالعه حاضر با هدف مقايسه كمك طلبي تحصيلي و معناي تحصيلي در دانش آموزان ناشنوا، نابينا و عادي انجام شد. مواد و روش ها روش پژوهش علي-مقايسه اي بود. جامعه آماري شامل تمام دانش آموزان نابينا، ناشنوا و عادي دبيرستاني شهر اصفهان در سال تحصيلي 99-1398 بودند كه با توجه به محدوديت تعداد افراد ناشنوا و نابينا و بر اساس ملاك هاي ورودي با استفاده از روش نمونه گيري در دسترس 36 نفر انتخاب شدند و در دو گروه (18 نفره) قرار گرفتند. سپس 18 دانش آموز عادي نيز انتخاب شدند. ابزار پژوهش پرسش نامه كمك طلبي تحصيلي ريان و پنتريچ (1997) و مقياس معناي تحصيلي كينگ و اسميت (2006) بود. داده ها با روش تحليل واريانس، آزمون تعقيبي توكي و نرم افزار SPSS نسخه 24 تحليل شد. يافته ها يافته ها نشان داد در بعد اجتناب از كمك طلبي، تفاوت معناداري بين دانش آموزان ناشنوا (19/7)، نابينا (15/52) و عادي (16/58) وجود دارد. همچنين در مولفه معناي تحصيلي بين دانش آموزان ناشنوا (309/11)، نابينا (201/7) و عادي (298/76) در ابعاد حرفه، استقلال، آينده، يادگيري، خود، گام بعدي، اجتماعي و دنياي پيرامون تفاوت معناداري وجود دارد (0/05

Background and Objectives: The present study aimed to compare the academic help-seeking and meaning of education in deaf, blind, and normal students. Materials and Methods: The research method was causal-comparative. The statistical population included blind, deaf, and normal high school students in Isfahan. A total of 36 students were selected using the convenience sampling method and then divided into two groups (18 people) due to the limited statistical population of deaf and blind and input criteria. In the following step, 18 normal students were selected. Data were collected using Ryan and Pentrich's (1997) academic help-seeking and King and Smith's (2006) meaning of education (MOE) Scales and analyzed MANOVA, Tukey’s test, and SPSS Software (Version 24). Results: The results indicated that the three groups were significantly different in the avoidance of help-seeking and meaning of education (P<0.01). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the general components of meaning of education in the profession, independence, future, learning, self, next step, social, and the world terms (P<0.05). But no significant difference was observed in the component of adaptive and escape between groups (P<0.05). Conclusions: The results revealed that deaf students avoid help-seeking and use less cognitive and metacognitive strategies when faced with academic difficulties. Blind students have also problems with the meaning of education. Therefore, based on the results, it is suggested that help-seeking strategies and improving beliefs in the meaning of education in the profession, independence, hope for the future, learning, and social interaction should be considered to promote cognitive and metacognitive processes in deaf and blind students.