شبكة المعلومات العربية التربوية

The present study aimed to reveal the profile of thinking styles preferred by each of the students of special education high and low amplitude substances, and also to identify the differences in each of the ways of thinking emanating from the theory of Harrison and Bramson and the ability to decide between students of special education high and low amplitude mental, and finally study the relationship between the ways of thinking and decision-making capacity of students special education high and low mental capacity. The study sample consisted of basic (150) students from undergraduate students, Department of Special Education, Faculty of Education in Ismailia, Suez Canal University of them (82) students high capacity mental, and (68) students, low-amplitude mental, for the academic year (2013-2014 AD) The average age of time (00.00) years and a standard deviation of $ (0.00) years. Applying the test ways of thinking for Harrison and Bramson translation Magdy Habib (1995), and the measure of the ability to take the preparation / researchers, as well as test forms intersecting to measure the capacity of mental: Translation / happiness Banna and Hamdy al-Banna (1990), using the methods of statistical treatment such as averages, standard deviations, and testing "T. "The Pearson correlation coefficient through the program (Spss V. 21) pointed to the results: different profiles of ways of thinking according to the model of Harrison and Bramson among students in special education depending on the capacity of mental (high - low), it was found that there are differences and clear differences between the mean scores of the performance of students of special education high capacity mental, we find that way of thinking unrealistic received the highest average scores (55.41), grade (and occupied the first place), followed by thinking compositional (54.53), grade (and occupied the second place), and after that comes the way of thinking analytical (53.23), grade (and occupied the third place), and then thinking pragmatic " pragmatic "(53.15), grade (and finished ranked fourth), while it was the way of thinking ideal fewer ways of thinking (52.57), grade (and occupied respectively the fifth and final), as was also found that there are differences and clear differences between the mean scores of the performance of students of special education low Capacity mental, we find that way of thinking unrealistic received the highest average scores (54.61), grade (and occupied the first place), followed by thinking ideal (54.17), grade (and occupied the second place), and after that comes the way of thinking analytical (53.89), grade (The ranking third), and then thinking compositional style (53.77), grade (and finished fourth ranking), while pragmatic way of thinking was "pragmatic" ways of thinking less (51.69), grade (and occupied the fifth and final ranking). The study also found that a large percentage of students of different amplitude Substances (62% in high capacity of mental health, 60% in low-volume substances) was Profil thinking they have is thinking one-dimensional., Followed by Profil thinking flat where the ratio was similar in both (19 % among high students mental capacity, 21% of students low mental capacity), then followed by a profile of a two-dimensional thinking, and was accounted for close in both (16% of the students high mental capacity, 18% of students low mental capacity). Finally profile thinking trilateral dimension where she was very small percentage (3% of the students high mental capacity, 1% of the students low mental capacity). There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of students of special education high and low-amplitude mentality in the way of thinking ideal for low capacitance mental, and there are significant differences between the mean scores of students of special education high and low-amplitude mentality in the way of thinking pragmatic (practical) for high Capacity mental, while there were no statistically significant differences in ways of thinking (synthetic, analytical, and unrealistic) between the mean scores of students special education high and low mental capacity. There are no statistically significant differences in the ability to decide between students special education high and low mental capacity. There is a relationship between the ways of thinking and decision making ability of students special education high and low mental capacity. (Published abstract)