Pre-service special educators’ levels of readiness to learn sign language

Omar A. Alawajee 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Special Education, College of Science and Arts, Qassim University, Ar Rass, SAUDI ARABIA
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 13, Issue 2, Article No: e202311.
OPEN ACCESS   617 Views   647 Downloads   Published online: 31 Jan 2023
Download Full Text (PDF)


Sign language is critical to deaf individuals’ education and mental health, as it provides them adequate opportunities to communicate well in school and express themselves and their feelings to others. Pre-service special educators should be able to use sign language effectively with their future deaf students. This study aimed to determine whether pre-service teachers are ready to learn sign language. A questionnaire comprising four readiness domains–motivation to learn sign language and social, personal, and kinetic aspects–was used in this study. Participants were 72 female pre-service teachers enrolled in a special education bachelor’s program at a university in Saudi Arabia. No statistically significant differences were observed in participants’ readiness to learn sign language based on their academic paths or academic grade point averages. This result indicates that the pre-service special education teachers possessed the necessary social, personal, and kinetic aspects of readiness to learn sign language and were highly motivated to learn sign language. The findings help advance the current literature on pre-service preparation programs. Recommendations for future practice are discussed.


Alawajee, O. A. (2023). Pre-service special educators’ levels of readiness to learn sign language. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(2), e202311.


  • Alawajee, O. (2021). Influence of COVID-19 on students’ sign language learning in a teacher-preparation program in Saudi Arabia: Moving to e-learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), ep308.
  • Alawajee, O. (2022). Exploring the sign language proficiency of university undergraduate students in a preservices preparation program for teachers of deaf students. Higher Education Pedagogies, 7(1), 65-87.
  • Altakhyneh, B. (2020). The impact of using Bruner’s approach, supported by total communication, on the mathematics achievement of students with hearing disabilities in Amman schools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(12), 63-78.
  • Alwedinani, J. (2016). Gender and subject choice in higher education in Saudi Arabia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of York.
  • Alzahrani, A. H. (2005). An investigation of the social development of students with hearing impairment in the special schools for the deaf and public schools in Riyadh City in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas].
  • Codina, C., Buckley, D., Port, M., & Pascalis, O. (2011). Deaf and hearing children: A comparison of peripheral vision development. Developmental Science, 14(4), 725-737.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.
  • Delafield-Butt, J., & Trevarthen, C. (2013). Theories of the development of human communication. In P. Cobley, & P. Schultz (Eds.), Theories and models of communication: Handbooks of communication science (pp. 199-222). De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Dewey, J. (1960/2004). Democracy and education. Aakar Books (Original work published in 1960).
  • Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American sign language. Language, 51(3), 696-719.
  • Fromm, J. (2004). The emergence of complexity. Kassel University Press.
  • Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
  • Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Harvard University Press.
  • Hewes, G. W., Andrew, R. J., Carini, L., Choe, H., Gardner, R. A., Kortlandt, A., Krantz, G. S., McBride, G., Nottebohm, F., Pfeiffer J., Rumbaugh, D. G., Steklis, H. D., Raleigh, M. J., Stopa, R., Susuki, A., Washburn, S. L., & Wescott, R. W. (1973). Primate communication and the gestural origin of language. Current Anthropology, 14(1/2), 5-24.
  • Horwitz, E. K. (2013). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language learning and teaching. Pearson.
  • Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research. SAGE.
  • Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. Routledge.
  • Middleton, A., Niruban, A., Girling, G., & Myint, P. K. (2010). Communicating in healthcare setting with people who have hearing loss. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 341, 726-729.
  • Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39(2), 158-177.
  • Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  • Robinson, A. (1995). The story of writing. Thames & Hudson.
  • Syuhada, M. I. (2014). Culture and teaching Arabic to non-speakers of other languages. Lisanudhad [Additions], 1(2).
  • Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.
  • Trevarthen, C., & Delafield-Butt, J. (2013). Biology of shared experience and language development: Regulations for the inter-subjective life of narratives. In M. Legerstee, D. Haley, & M. Bornstein (Eds.), The infant mind: Origins of the social brain (pp. 167-199). Guilford Press.
  • Wilcox, S. (2009). Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to signed language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 89-110.
  • Wilcox, S., & Occhino, C. (2016). Historical change in signed languages. Oxford University Press.
  • Yueqin, H. A. N. (2013). Research on fostering intercultural communication competence of foreign language learners. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(1), 5-12.