outcomes) came first in rating (high level). This
is also due to the students’ achievement of the
internship outcomes, in terms of their high ability
to carry out the educational process, and their
professional readiness for the future. The phrase
I can accept people with disabilities scored the
highest mean (2.915), which reflects the
internship students’ acceptance of PWDs, despite
the difference and diversity of disabilities in the
field.
The field supervisor dimension ranked second
(M = 2.606), which is consistent with the
findings by Aletewey (2016). This may be
attributed to the importance of field supervisors
and their roles in the success of internships.
These roles include preparing students for the
teaching task in addition to offering support,
follow-up, mentorship, problem-solving, and
assessment according to the standards agreed
upon with the faculty member (the academic
supervisor). The phrase There is a good
relationship between the field supervisor and the
trainee student scored the highest average
(2.815), which reflects the unlimited support of
the field supervisors in improving students’
performance and preparing them for the future.
This was also confirmed by Fakhro (2016), who
indicated that the cooperating teacher cooperated
with the internship students and supported them
appropriately.
The third-place rating was scored by the training
environment dimension (M = 2.575). The reason
for this result may be attributed to the suitability
of the internship environment for the students, in
terms of the location of the training site, students’
freedom to choose it, the interaction and the
positive relationship between internship students
and school personnel, including administrative
staff and teachers, appropriateness of the
classroom environment and its readiness, and
availability of an appropriate number of students
in the classroom. The phrase I gained
information about the nature of the school
environment and its work rules scored the highest
average (M = 2.849), which is contrary to the
results reported by Aletewey (2016), who
demonstrated a moderate level of student
satisfaction for the potential or training
environment dimension.
The academic supervisor dimension ranked
fourth (2.531), as most of the phrases in the
dimension scored high from the point of view of
the internship students. This may be attributed to
the importance of the academic supervisor’s role
in solving students’ problems and evaluating
them fairly using clear-cut criteria, providing
them with feedback, and encouraging their
professional growth. The results also showed that
the satisfaction level of students was moderate
regarding the number of visits by the academic
supervisor (3 visits during the training period).
They also showed moderate satisfaction
regarding the adequacy of the academic
supervisor’s visits to determine the performance
level of the trainee student, which means that the
academic supervisor may be present fewer than
three times during the training period, and his
visits are not sufficient to determine the
performance level of the trainee student. This
result is consistent with that of Al-Ali (2017),
who indicated minor problems in internships
related to academic supervisors. The findings are
also in agreement with Al-Sharaa’s (2019) study,
whose results showed that the academic
supervisor was the lowest dimension in the
internship problems faced by students. Further,
Fakhro (2016) indicated that one of the problems
faced by field education students is the lack of
sufficient visits by the academic supervisor to
students in internship programs to assess them
appropriately.
The academic background dimension came at the
end of the list (M = 2.387), although its rating
level was also high. The reason for this may be
ascribed to the fact that the academic background
helped students learn the characteristics and
abilities of children with disabilities in light of
the theoretical studies that were addressed in the
special education program. The observation may
also result from their knowledge of modern
teaching strategies, which helped them learn how
to develop multiple educational aids to meet the
needs of PWDs, and their willingness to work in
the field. The results of the current study also
showed that the phrase The theoretical side was
compatible with the practical one and had a
moderate rating level in students’ evaluation of
the academic background of the special
education program. These results are consistent
with those of Al-Ali (2017), who confirmed the
existence of a difference between a theoretical
study and a practical one. However, the findings
are contrary to what was reported by Fakhro
(2016), who referred to the incompatibility of the
theoretical side with the practical side, since
students feel a big gap between the two sides due
to the disparity between theory and practice
during the study phase.
The results also showed that students moderately
rated their knowledge of practical field
experiences before starting their internships.
Students reported a moderate level of satisfaction
with the adequacy of micro-teaching in teacher