Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20

Download by: [ Jordan Univ. of Science & Tech] Date: 19 July 2016, At: 22:01

Early Child Development and Care

ISSN: 0300-4430 (Print) 1476-8275 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Current state of the curriculum in Jordaniankindergartens for children with hearingimpairments

Eman K. Al-Zboon

To cite this article: Eman K. Al-Zboon (2016): Current state of the curriculum in Jordaniankindergartens for children with hearing impairments, Early Child Development and Care, DOI:10.1080/03004430.2016.1187604

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1187604

Published online: 19 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Current state of the curriculum in Jordanian kindergartens forchildren with hearing impairmentsEman K. Al-Zboon

Special Education Department, Queen Rania Faculty for Childhood, Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan

ABSTRACTAn appropriate curriculum for children with hearing impairments (HIs) isvital in establishing effective educational programmes for such children.This study aimed to describe the current status of the kindergarten (KG)curriculum for children with HIs in Jordan. Content analysis was appliedto the curriculum plans and weekly schedules and in-depth interviewswith 15 teachers were conducted. The findings revealed confusion andconcern regarding the curriculum for children with HIs. One majorrecommendation is a comprehensive reform process to enhance thecurrent state of the curriculum for children with HIs in Jordanian KGs.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 11 April 2016Accepted 5 May 2016

KEYWORDSSpecial education;disabilities; childhood

Introduction

Early childhood is an important stage of learning. Kindergarten (KG) provides children with the oppor-tunity to acquire basic learning skills before entering the school setting (Ma, Shen, & Krenn, 2014;Wildenger & McIntyre, 2012). This stage influences how a child performs later, both academicallyand socially (Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003). The start of primary schooling is considered one of themost important transitions in a child’s life and a major challenge of early childhood (Vinila, Ravichan-dran, Prakash, Prakash, & Narender, 2013); it can be a critical factor determining how a child adjusts tothe demands of the school environment and affecting their future progress (Ghaye & Pascal, 1989).

This is especially relevant to children with hearing impairments (HIs): without special training,speech and language development may be delayed (Gearheart, Weishahn, & Gearheart, 1996). Theacquisition of speech skills by children with HIs requires early intervention (Akcamete & Kargin,1996). HI affects a child’s ability to process linguistic information through hearing; this in turnaffects her/his educational performance. Although the intellectual abilities of children with HIs aresimilar to those of their peers without disabilities (Williams & Finnegan, 2003), there may be a relation-ship between HIs and language ability, which could lead to low achievement (Kuder, 2003). Theaverage reading age of adult persons who are deaf is estimated to be approximately eight or nineyears (Traxler, 2000). El-Zraigat (2007) reported that students with HIs had poor expressive writingskills; in another study, El-Zraigat (2011) revealed that students with HIs lacked adequate readingskills in general.

HIs not only make it difficult for children to communicate with other people, but also slow or evenprevent the learning process. Hence, children with HIs require special help to learn (Messaria, 2002).HIs may also put children at risk for cognitive and social development (Schick et al., 2013) by making itdifficult for them to access experiences and information that enhance academic and literacy perform-ance and social–emotional development (Goldin-Meado & Mayberry, 2001).

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Eman K. Al-Zboon emank@hu.edu.jo Special Education Department, Queen Rania Faculty for Childhood,Hashemite University, Zarqa 13133, Jordan

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1187604

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

Children with HIs often lack ease in communication and opportunities for social interaction, whichis important in developing a positive self-concept. They are also deprived of the opportunity to learnsocial skills incidentally. As a result, there may be significant gaps in the social–emotional develop-ment of children with HIs. It has been estimated that, for an individual without HIs, 80% of infor-mation learned is acquired incidentally, and any type of HI interrupts this automatic path togaining information. Incidental information must thus be delivered directly to children with HIs(Denzin & Luckner, 1998).

An appropriate curriculum, focused on the needs of children with HIs, is vital in establishing effec-tive educational programmes for such children (Luetke-Sthlman & Luckner, 1991). There is no recipefor adapting a general curriculum (GC) to meet each student’s needs, and GCs need not always bemodified (Fisher & Frey, 2001).

Al-Zboon (2013) indicated that a curriculum for children with HIs includes several components.First, individual educational planning (IEP) is pivotal to special education planning and constitutesan important phase in the chain of actions aimed at securing the right to special education (Nilsen& Herlofsen, 2012). The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2001) reportedthat the IEP process is one of the most critical tools in ensuring effective teaching, learning andincreased achievement for all students with disabilities (Thompson, Thurlow, Qunemoen, Esler, &Whetstone, 2001). According to IEP, students between 3 and 21 years of age with HIs who have adocumented need for special education services are considered ‘eligible individuals’ for receivingsuch services (Iowa Department of Education, 2013). Most teachers without specialized training inHI are not qualified to address the unique needs of these students. Therefore, IEP team collaborationwith educational audiologists and teachers of students with HIs is necessary to address the academicand social instruction and the assessment of these domains (Denzin & Luckner, 1998). The secondcomponent is the GC, developed specifically for children without disabilities. In Jordan, El-Zraigatand Smadi (2012) reported that students with HIs in the deaf school study the same curriculumdesigned for students without disabilities.

The third component is the expanded core curriculum (ECC) for children with HIs. This componentis considered a resource for IEP teammembers when developing educational plans for a student withHIs, and is designed to enable teachers of children with HIs and educational audiologists to deal withdomains that either are not taught or require specific and direct teaching. For example, the Iowa ECCidentifies essential skills and concepts for all KG children, which are absent in the GC. They includeaudiology, functional skills, self-determination and advocacy, social–emotional skills and technology.The Iowa Core identifies essential skills and concepts for all students KG-12, including literacy, math-ematics, science, social studies and twenty-first century skills, and is aligned with the state-wide corecontent standards (Iowa Department of Education, 2013).

There have traditionally been three main kinds of communication style that schools utilize in theeducation of students with HIs: auditory–oral methods (in which the focus is on speech, listening and/or a speech reading), bimodal methods (in which artificial sign systems are utilized to representspoken language, for example, Signed English), and natural sign languages, such as British SignLanguage (Swanwick & Gregory, 2007).

Studies on the curriculum for children with HIs are scarce. Nevertheless, a few exist. Al-Zboon(2016) describes a KG curriculum for children with HIs, from the perspective of their teachers. Thestudy identifies a collection of proposed curriculum components: a general framework and outcomesdocument; textbooks for children, including on sign language; textbooks for teachers; and attachedlearning resources. In evaluating the national general KG curriculum for children with HIs from theirteachers’ perspectives, Al-Zboon (2015) reported that this curriculum is inappropriate and a modifiedcurriculum is needed. The teachers have suggested some corrections to the curriculum, in order torender it more appropriate for children with HIs. El-Zraigat and Smadi (2012) reviewed currentspecial education programmes and curricula as they relate to students with HIs. The results revealedthat educating students with HIs is challenging but that, nevertheless, students with HIs study thesame curriculum as those without disabilities.

2 E. K. AL-ZBOON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

Otis-Wilborn, Winn, Griffin, and Kilgore (2005) examined the attempts of special educationteachers to enhance access to the GC and participation in general education programmes.The special teachers reported that they struggled to gain access to comparable curriculartools that were provided to the general educators, and taught in classrooms segregatedfrom the general education classrooms and curricula (Roach, Chilungu, La Salle, Talapatra, &Vignieri, 2009). Al-Dosari (2006) investigated the effects of applying the GC to language devel-opment in first-grade students with HIs. The results revealed significant differences in thelanguage development of students pre-and post-test. In addition, Al-Matrody (1995) exploredthe curricula for children with HIs in Saudi Arabia. The results revealed a lack of an appropriatespecial curriculum for auditory and speech training.

Most previous studies focused primarily on school curricula; studies on KG curricula are morerare. The main aim of this study is thus to explore the KG curriculum, which presents infor-mation in a national context that is underrepresented in the literature on the education of chil-dren with HIs. It is hoped that this study will provide knowledge that could help in thedevelopment and improvement of curricula for HI children. The current study also contributesvaluable knowledge to the field of special education in Jordan. This is an important study inlight of increasing worldwide attention to curricula and the lack of studies on curricula for chil-dren with HIs. The Ministry of Education (MOE) and curricula planners will find this study aresource for improving the curriculum for children with HIs. Consequently, this study aims todescribe the current status of the KG curriculum in Jordan and the educational experiencesof children with HIs.

Jordanian context

KG was integrated into the Jordanian educational system in 1988 as a result of educational reformconvention (MOE, 2010). In 1999, Jordan established an official KG for children between the agesof four and six years of age (Slioa, 2005). In 2003, the MOE launched ‘Education Reform for the Knowl-edge Economy’. This process consists of four components, with the fourth focusing on KG (MOE,2013a). In 2004, MOE developed the national interactive curriculum for KG. In 2013, MOE releaseda modified outcomes document for KG to be suitable for children with HIs and to help teachersdesign activities and experiences for such children (MOE, 2013b).

Jordanian preschool education includes children from the age of three years and eight months tofive years and eight months. Preschool is non-compulsory and is offered by both private organiz-ations and the state (International Bureau of Education, 2010/2011).

El-Zraigat and Smadi (2012) maintain that students with HIs in Jordan (a) are taught by generalteachers who were prepared to teach students without disabilities and who mostly teach ingeneral schools supervised by the MOE, (b) study the same curricula as students without disabilities,or (c) study at schools unprepared and not designed for students with HIs.

Currently, there are 10 segregated schools – the Al-Amal Schools – for children with HIs inJordan. They serve more than 755 students from KG to Grade 6. Approximately 145 teachersprovide specialized services. Special education is provided in a dedicated unit in the school,participating with their peers in arts and sports activities and spending breaks with theirschoolmates. There are special primary schools and special classes in many of the generalschools for children with HIs (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013). Seven of these schools haveKGs (MOE, 2014). These KGs apply the ‘National Interactive Kindergarten Curriculum’, whichwas developed based on developmental standards for Jordanian children without disabilities(MOE, 2010). In addition, these KGs apply the ‘General Framework and General and Specific Out-comes for KG Curriculum of Children with HIs’, developed in 2013 (MOE, 2013b). El-Zraigat andSmadi (2012) reported that MOE assumed full responsibility of educating students with HIs andestablished The Directorate of Special Education, with 10 schools to meet the special needs ofthis group of students.

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 15 female KG teachers holding full-time teaching positions in deaf schools inJordan. Such a predominance of females is characteristic of the early childhood educational sector inJordan. The 15 plans and class schedules were analysed in terms of content representing each of thecurriculum experiences. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from Institutional Review Boardat the Hashemite University.

Data collection

Multiple data collection methods were used during this study. First, the researchers requested a copyof the teacher’s weekly schedule and an instructional plan. Second, the researchers conducted asemi-structured interview protocol consisting of questions about the participants’ perceptions ofthe curriculum, its components, academic experiences, the daily schedule, and ECC domains. Theinterview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. ECC domains were identified based on the ECC for stu-dents with HIs issued by the Iowa Department of Education (2013). Third, field observations weremade of KG practices in relation to the curriculum, such as learning resources, daily routine, learningenvironment and the corner system.

Data analysis

Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the data. For each piece of data, the initial codingconsisted of creating in vivo codes, or codes containing verbatim utterances from teachers. Thesecodes were then reviewed and compared across several pieces of data and several sources,leading to identification of themes in the curriculum (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Coding waschecked for substantive significance (Patton, 2002) and triangulation across participants and docu-ments was conducted before themes were finalized. All stages of data analysis proceeded usingthe Arabic language and only the emerging themes and some selected exemplary excerpts weretranslated into English. The multiple data sources were triangulated to enhance validity and reliability(Gay, Miles, & Airasian, 2009). Prior to analysis, transcripts were given to participants for memberchecking (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).

The content analysis of the plans and class schedules involved carefully scrutinizing each of theirtexts for evidence of curriculum content. Each incidence was recorded. Descriptive analysis was thenused to produce percentages and frequencies.

Research findings

Data were codified according to specific categories. Four themes were identified from the data ana-lytic process: state of confusion in relation to the curriculum, learning domains, ECC, GC, cornersystem, and teachers’ concerns about the curriculum.

State of confusion in relation to the curriculum

Analysis of the interviews revealed that there is a state of confusion, inconsistency and heterogeneityamong KGs in relation to the curriculum. Teachers reply regarding their own experience in impartingthe curriculum content. No general framework exists whereby the KGs are organized and coordinatedand there is no reference book, teacher guidebook or ECC for instructing children with HIs. Althoughthere is a document entitled Outcomes for KG of Children with HIs, developed by MOE in 2013, most of

4 E. K. AL-ZBOON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

the schools do not receive it or it remains abandoned in school stores or bookcases. They receiveneither training nor even an instructive meeting with MOE.

Some KGs depend on the outcomes document; others, on their plans. Few depend on the GC. Ingeneral, none uses IEP or IIP, considering these to be burdens. They fail to admit their importance as acornerstone of programmes for children with HIs. In addition, examination of the plans in each KGrevealed that all KGs used general plans, similar to those used in regular KGs. One KG lacked evena weekly schedule, with instruction depending solely upon the teacher. Teachers are free in theirschedules.

The following excerpts exemplify participants’ sentiment on these issues.

Suha1 indicated: ‘I need support, I need someone tell me about which road Ishould follow. I feel that I am lost.’

Salma said: ‘There are some plans and papers which I collected through mycareer history. However, they are not sufficient at all’.

Laila related the following: ‘ECC?! We don’t develop it; we depend on our own plans. Wedevelop our learning material and resources.’

Learning domains

Data analysis of weekly schedules revealed that types of academic learning experiences variedslightly among Jordanian KGs. Table 1 shows the time (in number of weekly periods) assigned foreach domain in each KG.

The results indicate that, overall, non-academic experiences accounted for 36.6% of the day. Ofthat, the most time, 40%, was devoted to language experiences, while the least time, 23.3%, wasdevoted to academic experiences (Table 1).

The results indicate that 26.6% of time periods are devoted to speech treatment. Art, and scienceaccounted for 10% of the day. Writing, Physical Education, and English accounted for 6.6% of the day.Mathematics accounted for 13.3% of the day, whilst the least time, 3.3%, was devoted to HearingTraining, Religion, Speaking, Social Sciences, playing, and free activity (Table 2).

Field observation and plans analysis revealed that writing is used in most of the instruction. Allsubjects have linked material with printed words.

Analysis of instruction plans and field observation revealed the nature of academic learn-ing experiences. Almost all KGs are similar in their approach to teaching language. The tea-chers teach reading and writing Arabic letters, the shapes of each letter, short and longsyllables, tracing practices to draw shapes, reading and writing simple words, such as achild’s name, and expressing phrases for self and directions. In mathematics, they teachpre-mathematics or readiness concepts, such as tall/short, shapes, times concept, coloursand numbers (such as number concept, automatic counting, reading and writing numbersand number ordering).

For English, teachers teach children minimal skills. Most KGs do not teach English as a secondlanguage. For Islamic religion education, teachers teach children short verses from the Quran inprint format and SL, Islamic greeting and the importance of thanks to God. KGs that teach scienceinclude lessons on natural phenomena, such as the seasons, clouds, familiar animals, plants and

Table 1. The types of learning experiences occurring in KGs and the timeallotted in number of weekly periods for each learning experience.

Domain Frequencies (%)

Academic 7 (23.3%)Non-academic 11 (36.6%)Language 12 (40%)

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

plant life cycles. In the speaking domain, some KGs teach scientific concepts, such as body parts,atmosphere, vegetables, fruits and animals. Other KGs teach children useful sentences in communi-cation, such as the child’s sex, places and how to follow directions.

In speech treatment, children are taught how to pronounce letters and simple words. In hearingtraining, children are trained in breathing control, voice awareness, intensity and tone of voices,feeling and awareness of pronunciation parts, voice production, improving residual hearing, voicediscrimination and voice direction. In the social sciences, teachers teach children about family,their country and the rational consumption of resources. Analysis did not reveal the nature of experi-ences in physical education, art, playing and free activity. However, these four domains are men-tioned in weekly schedules.

Expanded Core Curriculum

Findings from analysis of the interviews, plans analysis and weekly schedules revealed that thesetypes of ECC experiences are scarce in the KGs studied here. There is no systematic instruction ofECC domains. Teachers teach some domains of ECC based on their personal experience. Teacherswere surprised when asked about ECC, and requested an explanation about the meaning of ECC.This is true for most of its domains: Audiology, Career Education, Communication, Family Education,Functional Skills for Educational Success, Self-Determination and Advocacy, Social-Emotional Skillsand Technology (Iowa Department of Education, 2013).

The findings from instruction plan and field observation analysis revealed the nature of ECCexperiences. First, Audiology: children are taught to understand and accept their hearing loss byfocusing on being thankful to God. In relation to Amplification Management, teachers reportedthat they record the number and the kind of amplification aids, teach the child to recognize theirhearing aid, and guide them on what to do if it is lost or if the battery runs flat. In relation to Environ-mental Management, the child trains by accidents based on degree of hearing; this is applied only inthe school.

Second, Career Education: children are taught the roles of family members, group work, dealingwith money and daily skills. Third, Communication: children are taught non-verbal communication,finger spelling, body language, speaking and investment of residual hearing. Fourth, Family Edu-cation: there are difficulties in his domain; however, KGs conduct meetings at the beginning ofthe year, then monthly. There is a lack of family involvement. Families are generally unaware ofsign language or of how to communicate with their child and they do not adequately assist theirchild to progress.

Fifth, Functional Skills for Educational Success: children receive training on only language con-cepts, such as self-concept (me, I), questions and answers, performing some actions and

Table 2. Types of learning experiences occurring in KGs and the time allotted innumber of weekly periods for each learning experience.

No. Subject Frequencies (%)

Writing 2 (6.6%)Hearing training 1 (3.3%)Physical education 2 (6.6%)Science 3 (10%)Religion 1 (3.3%)Math 4 (13.3%)Art 3 (10%)Speaking 1 (3.3%)Social sciences 1 (3.3%)Playing 1 (3.3%)English 2 (6.6%)Free activity 1 (3.3%)Speech treatment 8 (26.6%)

6 E. K. AL-ZBOON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

communicating. Sixth, Self-Determination and Advocacy: this domain is significantly lacking. Childrenare taught to advocate their rights appropriately, such as taking back their property from their class-mates. Seventh, Social-Emotional Skills: KGs concentrate on this domain, training children to treatwith others with respect and to build friendships. Eighth, Technology: this domain is lacking. KGsdo not possess technology devices. Teachers do not know the concept of assistive/adaptive technol-ogy for children with HIs.

In general, results revealed that there is a shortage in teaching ECC for children with HIs. However,ECC experiences are introduced to children by accident. The domains most lacking include self-deter-mination, family education and technology.

General curriculum

Interviews revealed that not all teachers implement the GC. Many use picture cards and curriculumtextbooks as activity papers. Two teachers indicated that they never consulted the GC. All teachersreported lacking sufficient knowledge related to all GC components and link this with the activitybooks only. For example, Shadia reported: ‘We sometimes used GC, its picture cards and lettercards’. Amal said, ‘I don’t use GC at all; I develop my own curriculum’.

Corners system

Field observation revealed that none of the classes used the corners system in implementing curri-culum experiences. These methods are considered as classes for older students; tables and chairs areused to direct instruction. One KG has a separate room called the Corners Room, which is consideredas a resource room and contains bookcases with aids, games and toys. Teachers have weekly slots touse the room to teach children.

Teacher concerns related to the curriculum

Interview analysis revealed that teachers have concerns about the curriculum of children with HIs.These include the absence of a suitable curriculum, having to depend upon personal experiencein developing curriculum material, insufficient training related to the curriculum, and a shortage ofspecialized supervision –most supervisors are not specialized in teaching HIs or in special education.Other concerns include the unsuitability of GC for HIs, and the lack of technology and resources thatassist in curriculum implementation. Supportive services, such as speaking treatment from special-ized professionals, are lacking, although some teachers do introduce this service. Another concernis the lack of follow-up from families, which slows curriculum development.

Discussion

The aim of the current study was to conduct an in-depth investigation of the state of the KG curri-culum for children with His in Jordan. A state of confusion about the curriculum was revealed. Tea-chers depend upon their own experiences in developing the curriculum. There is no generalframework according to which to coordinate KG curricula. These results are consistent with previousstudies, which indicate confusion in relation to curricula in the field of deaf education (Al-Matrody,1995; Matar, 2004). It is a challenge to educate students with HIs, a challenge often exacerbatedby a lack of remedial and educational programmes, as well as instructional and assessment tools(El-Zraigat & Smadi, 2012).

Teachers reported that they did not use IEP or IIP in teaching. All KGs used general plans, similar tothose implemented in regular KGs. Teachers considered IEP and IIP a burden. This is consistent withAl-Zboon (2016), who reported that teachers did not consider IEP a curriculum component for chil-dren with HIs. However, many studies reveal a problem with the IEP practices of teachers. For

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

example, El-Zraigat and Smadi (2012) reported that teachers are not well trained in the IEP domain.Fisher and Frey (2001) found a disconnection between the information of the students’ IEPs and theactual curriculum and instruction provided to students with HIs. Rittenhouse (2004) indicated thatteachers of children with HIs often lack the skills necessary to develop IEP; however, the IEPprocess is a critical tool for ensuring that effective learning and increasing achievement occur forall students with disabilities (Thompson et al., 2001). In order for IEPs to serve as the primarymeans of facilitating curricular access and to improve student academic outcomes for studentswith disabilities, educational systems need to provide professional development and increase IEPquality monitoring to ensure that the goals and services outlined in the IEP are monitored andimplemented as planned (Roach et al., 2009). From another perspective, Theeb, Mehedat, and Al-Zboon (2014) suggested that pre-service teachers believe in the importance of IEP. Research isrequired in the field of teacher competency in IEP preparation.

Furthermore, results showed that, overall, most time was devoted to the language experiences indeaf KG. Little time was devoted to writing, physical education, art, English, mathematics, hearingtraining, religion, speaking, the social sciences, playing and free activity. This is not unexpected, asHI affects a child’s ability to process linguistic information through hearing; this in turn affects his/her educational performance. The acquisition of speech skills by children with HIs requires early inter-vention with regard to speech development (Akcamete & Kargin, 1996). Lartz and Litchfield (2005)argued that speech and hearing training is the primary need for children with HIs, and that other sub-jects can receive less attention. Huish (2014) reported that more is expected from children with HIs inthe subjects of mathematics and science.

This is consistent with a previous study of a regular KG, which found that KGs emphasized aca-demic experiences (e.g. reading, writing and mathematics) rather than non-academic experiences,such as playtime (Ahmad, Fayez, & Al-Zboon, 2014). They also revealed that academic experiencesaccounted for 70% of the school day. Of that time, the most, 21%, was devoted to teachingArabic, whereas the least, 10%, was devoted to teaching science. Daily, Burkhauser, and Halle(2012) indicated that one of the challenges in training young children is a high focus on languageand mathematics and often exclusion of domains such as social–emotional development.

Field observation and plans analysis revealed that writing is used in most of the instruction. Allsubjects have linked material with printed words. This practice is consistent with recent research(e.g. Hoffeister & Caldwell-Harris, 2014), which describes a theoretical model of how childrencould, in principle, acquire a language via reading and writing. The model describes the stages oflearning, which represent the successive, conceptual insights necessary for the second/foreignlanguage learning via print. The model highlights the logical difficulties present when one cannotpractise a language outside of reading/writing, such as the necessity of translating to a first language,the need for explicit instruction, and the difficulty that many children who are deaf experience inunderstanding figurative language. Language acquisition is thought to require social interaction,with meaning cued by extra-linguistic context. Therefore, the ability of some persons who are deafto acquire language through print represents an overlooked human achievement worthy ofgreater attention by cognitive scientists.

Analysis revealed some ignorance of vital domains considered a main characteristic of the KGphase, such as physical education, art, playing, free activity and the corners system. However,modern trends in KG depend on playing, activity and the corners system in implementing the curri-culum (Katz & Schery, 2006). El-Zraigat and Smadi (2012) reported that schools for students with HIsare inappropriately designed and ill-equipped. Most schools exist in normal buildings designed forhousing and lack the facilities required by students with HIs.

The results revealed that ECC experiences are scarce in these KGs. There is no systematic instruc-tion of ECC domains. Teachers teach some domains of ECC, based on their personal experience. Thisis consistent with El-Zraigat and Smadi (2012), who revealed that the planning and implementingextended curricula are generally inadequate.

8 E. K. AL-ZBOON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

Surprisingly, the results revealed that teachers do not implement GC, in conflict with modernaccepted practices in the field of deaf education (e.g. Fisher & Frey, 2001; Roach & Elliot, 2006). Cur-rently, there is a general consensus that, to the greatest extent possible, the curriculum for studentswith HIs should be the same as that of students without disabilities (Iowa Department of Education,2013; Moores, 2001; Roach & Elliot, 2006).

Furthermore, the results reveal that teachers have many concerns related to the current KG curri-culum for children with HIs. These concerns include the absence of a suitable curriculum, having torely on their personal experiences in developing curriculum materials, insufficient training related tothe curriculum, and a shortage of specialized supervision, as most of the supervisors are non-special-ists in teaching HIs or special education. This is consistent with the findings of El-Zraigat and Smadi(2012),who reported that teacher require training in order to develop and acquire the skills neededfor working with children with HIs, and that The Directorate of Special Education does not offer anykind of supervision to teachers working at schools for students with HIs.

Another concern is the lack of technology and resources currently available to assist with curricu-lum implementation. There are no supportive services, such as speech therapy with specialized pro-fessionals. Some teachers introduce this service. However, these domains are identified as vital in theeducation of those with HIs (e.g. Iowa Department of Education, 2013).

Another vital concern is the lack of follow-up from families, which undermines curriculum pro-gress. This result is consistent with Al-Khateeb (2011) and Baarat and Zureiqat (2012), who reportedthat parental involvement remains relatively limited in programmes for children with disabilities.There is evidence in the education literature (e.g. Abdullah, 2003; Smadi, 2001) of the efficacy ofthe programme with the participation of the family: their roles were supportive in the implemen-tation and success of programmes for children with disabilities. Nationally, the MOE and the USAgency for International Development have launched a call for the parental involvement invitationin 2003 to improve parenting skills (Kaga, 2007). However, results of this study indicate that KGsfor children with HIs might be ignored in parental involvement programmes.

Conclusion

There is confusion about the state of the KG curriculum for Jordanian children with His, and a com-prehensive reform process is required. This process should emphasize many areas. First, MOE shouldinclude IEP and IIP, GC access (academic and non-academic aspects) and ECC domains in the edu-cation of children with HIs. Second, MOE should emphasize the vital domains considered main fea-tures of the KG phase, such as art, playing, free activity and the corners system. Third, MOE shoulddeal with teachers’ concerns related to the curriculum of children with HIs. MOE should provide suffi-cient training in relation to the curriculum, specialized supervision, technology and resources helpingin curriculum implementation, supportive service and parental involvement programmes.

A limitation of the current study is its dependence on written plans in determining the type andtime allotted for curriculum experiences. Further research is required to determine the differencesbetween these written experiences and actual experiences. Future studies could use the observationtechnique to observe daily routines and identify experiences, instead of relying upon the contentanalysis of plans and interview data.

Note

1. All names are pseudonyms.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

Notes on contributor

Eman K. Al-Zboon is an assistant professor at Queen Rania Faculty for Childhood. She received her PhD in Special Edu-cation from the University of Jordan in 2012. Her research interests focus on children, women with disabilities, andcurrent trends in special education.

References

Abdullah, M. (2003). Individual educational plan for children in mainstream schools and institutes of education in intel-lectual areas of southern Saudi Arabia. Journal of Arab Children, 5(17), 33–45.

Abu-Hamour, B., & Al-Hmouz, H. (2013). Special education in Jordan. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(1),105–115.

Ahmad, J., Fayez, M., & Al-Zboon, E. (2014). The type of curriculum activities implemented in Jordanian preschools. EarlyChild Development and Care, 185(5), 807–823.

Akcamete, G., & Kargin, T. (1996). Assessing the needs of mothers of children with hearing loss. Ozel Egitim Dergisi, 2, 7–24.Al-Dosari, M. (2006). The effects of applied the general curriculum on language development in students with hearing impair-

ments in al-Riyadh (Unpublished MA thesis). King Saud University, al-Riyadh.Al-Khateeb, A. (2011). A proposed model for developing educational programs and services provided to intellectually disabled

and autistic children in special education centers and institutions in Jordan according to international standards(Unpublished MA thesis). Amman Arab University, Amman, Jordan.

Al-Matrody, K. (1995). The problems of curriculum of al-Amal schools for deaf in Saudi Arabia from teachers’ views(Unpublished PhD thesis). King Saud University, al-Riyadh.

Al-Zboon, E. (2013). Current trends and issues in special education. Amman: Dar al-Fiker.Al-Zboon, E. (2015). An evaluation of the national interactive curriculum of kindergarten and general framework and

general and specific outcomes for kindergarten curriculum of children with hearing impairments from perspectivesof their teachers: A qualitative study. Jordanian Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(1), 40–51.

Al-Zboon, E. (2016). Kindergarten curriculum for children with hearing impairments: Jordanian teachers’ perspectives.Deafness & Education International, 18(1), 38–46. doi:10.1080/14643154.2015.1133006

Baarat, M., & Zureiqat, I. (2012). The degree of satisfaction of parents for their children mainstreaming into regular schoolsand its relationship to gender and scientific qualification and the number of family members. Journal of Association ofArab Universities and Educational Psychology, 10(3), 229–250.

Daily, S., Burkhauser, M., & Halle, T. (2012). School readiness practices in the United States. National Civic Review, 100(4),21–24.

Denzin, P., & Luckner, J. (1998). In the mainstream: Adaptations for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Perspectivesin Education and Deafness Practical Ideas for the Classroom and Community, 17(1), 45–49.

El-Zraigat, I. (2007). Assessing performance level of students who are deaf and hard-of-hearing in expressive writing skillsin Jordan and its relation to some variables. International Jordanian Journal in Education, 3(4), 435–448.

El-Zraigat, I. (2011). Assessing reading skills among hearing-impaired students in Jordan and its relation to some vari-ables. Derassat, 38(3), 1276–1292.

El-Zraigat, I., & Smadi, Y. (2012). Challenges of educating students who are deaf and hard-of-hearing in Jordan.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(8), 1–9.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 22, 148–157. doi:10.1177/074193250102200303

Gay, L., Miles, G., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson Education.

Gearheart, R., Weishahn, W., & Gearheart, J. (1996). The exceptional student in the regular classroom (6th ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ghaye, A., & Pascal, C. (1989). Four-year-old children in reception classrooms: Participant perceptions and practice.Educational Studies, 14(2), 187–208.

Goldin-Meado, S., & Mayberry, R. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 16(4), 222–229.

Hoffeister, R., & Caldwell-Harris, C. (2014). Acquiring English as a second language via print: The task for deaf children.Cognition, 132(2), 229–242.

Huish, M. (2014). The mainstream kindergarten teacher’s perspective of pragmatic skills of children who are deaf or hard ofhearing aligned with common core standards. All graduate plan B and other reports (Paper no 395). Retrieved fromhttp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1401&context=gradreports

International Bureau of Education. (2010/2011).World data on education seventh edition. Retrieved August 20, 2014, fromhttp://www.ibe.unesco.org

Iowa Department of Education. (2013). The expanded core curriculum for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. DesMoines: State of Iowa Department of Education.

10 E. K. AL-ZBOON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6

Kaga, Y. (2007). Parents breaking new ground in Jordanian kindergartens. Paris: UNESCO, Division of Basic Education.Retrieved from www.usaidjordan.org/upload/features/ParentsParticipation.pdf

Katz, L., & Schery, L. (2006). Including children with hearing loss in early childhood programs. Young Children, 61(1), 86–95.Kuder, S. (2003). Teaching students with language and communication disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Lartz, M., & Litchfield, S. (2005). Administrators’ ratings of competencies needed to prepare reservice teachers. American

Annals of the Deaf, 150(5), 433–442.Luetke-Sthlman, B., & Luckner, J. (1991). Effectively educating students with hearing impairments. New York, NY: Longman.Ma, X., Shen, J., & Krenn, H. (2014). Effects of preschool intervention strategies on school readiness in kindergarten.

Education Research Policy Practice, 14(1), 1–17.Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CT: SAGE.Matar, L. (2004). The effectiveness of using games in reading skills of students with hearing impairments (Unpublished MA

thesis). Al-Zazeq University, Cairo.Messaria, T. (2002). The schooling situation of hearing impaired pupils in four regular schools of Bahirdar and Debretabor

towns (Unpublished MA thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.Ministry of Education. (2010). Learning environment in kindergarten and the first three classes. Unpublished documents.

Amman: Author.Ministry of Education. (2013a). General framework and the general and specific outcomes for the kindergarten curriculum.

Amman: Curriculum administration, MOE.Ministry of Education. (2013b). General framework and general and specific outcomes for kindergarten curriculum of children

with hearing impairments. Amman: Curriculum administration, MOE.Ministry of Education. (2014). Ministry of education’s projects in Jordan (Unpublished documents). Amman: MOE.Moores, F. D. (2001). Educating the deaf. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Nilsen, S., & Herlofsen, C. (2012). National regulations and guidelines and the local follow-up in the chain of actions in

special education. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 136–147.Otis-Wilborn, A., Winn, J., Griffin, C., & Kilgore, K. (2005). Beginning special educators’ forays into general education.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 143–152.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CT: SAGE.Pianta, R., & Kraft-Sayre, M. (2003). Successful kindergarten transition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Rittenhouse, R. (2004). The beginning teacher of the deaf in the United States. In R. K. Rittenhouse (Ed.), Deaf education at

the dawn of the 21st century (pp. 180–199). Hillsboro, OR: Butte Publications.Roach, A., & Elliot, S. (2006). The influence of access to education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of

students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 181–194.Roach, A. T., Chilungu, N., La Salle, T. P., Talapatra, D., & Vignieri, M. (2009). Opportunities and options for facilitating and

evaluating access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 511–528.Schick, B., Skalicky, A., Edwards, T., Kushalnagar, P., Topolski, T., & Patrick, D. (2013). School placement and perceived

quality of life in youth who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(1), 47–61.Slioa, S. (2005). Designing the learning programs for children in preschool. Amman: Dar al-safa.Smadi, J. (2001). Evaluate the effectiveness of special education centers in the United Arab Emirates. King Saud University

Journal, 13, 129–165.Swanwick, R., & Gregory, S. (2007). Sign bilingual education: Policy and practice. Coleford: Douglas McLean.Theeb, R., Mehedat, M., & Al-Zboon, E. (2014). Professional competencies among practicum students in special education

and the level of their practices of these competencies from their perspectives. Education, 134(3), 195–205.Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., Qunemoen, R., Esler, A., & Whetstone, P. (2001). Addressing standards and assessments on state

IEP forms (Synthesis report 38). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Traxler, C. (2000). Measuring up to performance standards in reading and mathematics: Achievement of selected deaf

and hard-of-hearing students in the national norming of the 9th edition stanford achievement test. Journal of DeafStudies and Deaf Education, 5, 337–348.

Vinila, V., Ravichandran, A., Prakash, S., Prakash, S., & Narender, K. (2013). Parental needs of transition of children usingcochlear implants from preschool to inclusive school. International journal of special education, 28(1), 33–46.

Wildenger, L., & McIntyre, L. (2012). Investigating the relation between kindergarten preparation and child socio-behav-ioral school outcomes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 169–176.

Williams, B., & Finnegan, M. (2003). From myth to reality: Sound information for teachers about students who are deaf.Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(3), 40–45.

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jord

an U

niv.

of

Scie

nce

& T

ech]

at 2

2:01

19

July

201

6