An Analysis of the Perception and Educational Needs of Special Education Teachers' Teaching Competencies in the Intelligent Information Society
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objectives This study aimed to analyze special education teachers' perceptions and educational needs regarding the instructional competency required in the intelligent information society, and to explore ways to strengthen the instructional competencies needed for the future. Methods Through a literature review, four competency domains and 30 sub-items were developed. A survey was conducted with 135 special education teachers to analyze their perceptions, followed by Borich's needs assessment and the Locus for Focus model analysis to identify educational needs. Results Significant differences were found between the importance and performance of competencies in all areas, including basic knowledge, lesson design, lesson execution, and lesson evaluation. Some differences were also observed based on background variables of the teachers. The most prioritized and needed competencies were “behavioral intervention,” “interaction with students,” and “use of various assessment methods and tools. Conclusions To enhance the instructional competencies of special education teachers in the intelligent information society, it is essential to provide tailored training that reflects practical lesson design, incorporates the use of the latest educational technologies, and considers the digital transformation of the educational environment.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- An Analysis of the Perception and Educational Needs of Special Education Teachers' Teaching Competencies in the Intelligent Information Society
- Date Crossref
- 15/11/2024
- Éditeur
- Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.