THE ATTITUDE S OF HEARING IMPAIRED AND NORMAL HEARING CHILDREN TOWARD INTEGRATIVE STUDIES (UG Research Project

8/7/2019 THE ATTITUDE S OF HEARING IMPAIRED AND NORMAL HEARING CHILDREN TOWARD INTEGRATIVE STUDIES (UG Res

1/34

THE ATTITUDE S OF HEARING IMPAIRED AND

NORMAL HEARING CHILDREN TOWARD

INTEGRATIVE STUDIES

A Small Research Submitted for Academic Requirement as Part of Fieldwork

By

Ahmed Nuri Musa

[III yr Student]

Placed at Ashray-Akruti

A Volunteer Organization working for Hearing Impaired Children

Roda Mistry College of Social Work and Research Centre [ICSW-AP]


2/34

Declaration

I declare that the Research entitled THE ATTITUDES OF

HEARING IMPAIRED AND NORMAL CHILDREN TOWARD

INTEGRATINVE STUDIES is a record of independent researchwork carried out by me under the supervision and guidance of Dr. B.V.

Jagdish.

This has not submitted for the award of any previous diploma, degree or

any other purpose.

Ahmed Nuri Musa,

3rd year student of BSW

RM College of social work and Research Centre

Hyderabad,

February, 2009


3/34

Certificate

I certify that this study, entitled THE ATTITUDES OF

HEARING IMPAIRED AND NORMAL CHILDREN TOWARD

INTEGRATINVE STUDIES , submitted to Roda Mistry College of

Social Work and Research Centre [ ICSW-AP], for academic

requirement and as party of field work, carried out by Mr. Ahmed N.

Musa, a third year student of RM College, under my supervision and

guidance.

This has not previously submitted for the award of any degree, diploma

or any other title.

Hyderabad,

February2009 Dr. B.V Jagdish,

Faculty supervisor


4/34

Acknowledgement

I dedicate my sincere thanks to Dr. BV Jagdish, the faculty supervisor,

whose guidance, supervision and kind support has encouraged me to take up this

small study for academic purpose, with much interest and enthusiasm.

I also wish to thank Ashray-Akrutis Director, Mr. Babu and the agency

supervisor, Miss Shilpa, the School Principal, Mr. Eshwar Prasad and the other

teachers for their kind support and for allowing me to collect the required data

from the school. I really appreciate their support during the whole year I was

doing fieldwork in their Agency.

I finally would like to acknowledge the help I have received from my co-

worker, Mr. Vijay Kumar, whose company was beyond mere description.


5/34

Table of Contents

Topic Page

1. Declaration 1

2. Certificate 2

3. Acknowledgement 3

4. Abstract 4

5. Introduction 5-8

6. Statement of the problem 9

7. Literature Review 10-12

8. Scope of the study 13

9. Objectives 14

10. Hypothesis 115

11. Definition of concepts 16-17

12. Methodology of the study 18

i. Research Design

ii. Sampling

iii. Tools and Method of Data collection

iv. Source of data


6/34

13. Data Processing 19

i. Coding 20-22

ii. Master chart 23

14. Tabulation and analysis 24-38

15. Major findings 39-42

16. Bibliography 43

17. Reference 45

18. Appendix [Questionnaire]


7/34

Abstract

This study investigates the attitudes of Hearing Impaired children and the Normal Hearing

peers toward integrative schooling. Twenty students, ten Hearing Impaired and ten Normal

Hearing, are selected from class 6th,7th,8th and 10th of Ashray-Akrutis Little Angels School for

The Deaf, to investigate their attitude towards integration.

Analysis revealed that 95% of the pupils admitted that they make friendship with their

peers of differently hearing. 90% of them also stated that they communicate with each other

through hearing aid devices, whereas only 10% said that they use Sign Language tocommunicate.

On the other hand, the study showed that there is a relationship between social interaction

among the integrated pupils and their able peers, and the extent of familiarity among them. This

was shown in Table 1.1, where 50% of the respondents, that is 35% Hearing Impaired and 15%

Normal Hearing, stated that they came familiar with their friends family through them.


8/34

Introduction

Education of the deaf in the World have been of the view thatplacement of the deaf students in classrooms with their hearing peersoften may not be conducive to their social and academic development.This is because the two groups often experience difficulties in

communication with each other and that such difficulties often includeloneliness, rejection and social isolation. These experiences asobserved by the educators dont promote social and academicdevelopment.

Theoretical Background of the Topic

The philosophy of mainstreaming, which was originally articulated with respect

to children who are educable but mentally retarded children, has spread to include allcategories of exceptional children, including those who are deaf and hard of hearing.

{Jones and Murphy, 1972}

Mclesky, Henry and axelord, {1999] also stated that students with hearing

disabilities educated in less restrictive settings

In fact, the integration of students with hearing impairment into regular classes continues to

be an important education trend in the World today.

Severely and profoundly deaf children are now been placed in ordinary schools, whereas

previously they would almost certainly have been placed in special ones, {Lynas 1984}.According to Jenkins Etal {1989}, handicapped child may acquire age-appropriate skills by

observing and imitating developmentally advanced peers in the class. Steele, 1992, also

suggested that social learning through the role models provided by mainstream peers is a

powerful and important experience for children with severe learning difficulties. This view

further supported bye Hegasty and Pocklington{ 1981}, who proposed that ordinary school

placement gives a great deal of benefits for students with special needs together with the gain in


9/34

self-confidence and independence.

However, Parish, Dyek and Koppes {1979}, argued that the goals of integration are

somewhat unrealistic and the laws were not attempted to take into consideration the feelings or

biases of others associated with these handicapped children in these mainstream classrooms so

as to remediate any negative attitude.

However, to provide differently-able children with equal opportunities, policieswere enacted to start integrated schools and inclusive and mainstreaming concepts have

come up in the Global Education System. Here Sign Language is not encouraged and

those integrated schools adopted an oral-aural method by using speech therapy.

In contrary to the above statement, the United Nations Convention on the

Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of the person with disabilities,

adopted in March2007, recognizes the right of the Deaf People to equal access toeducation and upholds their right to be educated in Sign Language.

Article24 of the Convention states[3] b. Facilitating the learning of sign language and promotion of

the linguistic identity of the deaf.

[3] c. Ensuring that the education of persons and in particular

children, who are blind, deaf and deafblind, is delivered in the

most appropriate languages and models and means of

communication for the individual and on environments whichmaximize academic and social development.

In addition to that, some activist believe strongly that first and foremost need ofthe deaf child is language, which he or she can master easily, quickly and comfortably,

only then the will child have the linguistic tools to effectively master a second language,

strengthening the students first and most accessible language will their learning in otherlanguage.

Reich, Hambleton and Houldin [1977], found that integration is beneficial to academic

development, but not to personal and social development. Lynas[1986], also commented

that the integrated hearing impaired children might feel isolated and unhappy, because he

had not got anyone who is similar to him could share his special problem. He might feelmore frustrated daily because of his own inadequate in relation to other pupils.

However, the achievement of there goals depends upon the attitude of the publictowards people with disability as well as the extent of traditional, physical and social


10/34

barriers facing people with disability are eradicated.

Statement of the Problem

According to Cohen [1980], attitudes have affective [feeling], cognitive [beliefs],and behavior dimension. Although expressed beliefs may not always totally consistent

with or internal feelings, they nonetheless provide as estimate of persons attitude and an

indication of their possible behaviors. For example lower level of childs achievement

may result from a lower level of teacher demand. [Johnson 1962]

In addition, the social competency of children with normal hearing and children

with hearing impaired who attend an integrative school has been observed in this study.

The social interactions of these groups are gauged.

The research question addresses the social and academic interactions due to

language barrier that leads to isolation and loneliness on the part of the deaf.

Finally, the problem was formulated to study the effects of the respondents

attitudes on their academic performance and how this in turn affects the social interaction

between the two groups.


11/34

Review of Literature

Here are listed the significant writings on the research topic. These are the previous

studies that the researcher reviewed for better understanding of the phenomena.

1. United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights andDignities of the Persons with Disabilities [March2007]

2. Canadian Association of the Deaf [ Report on Inclusion Education in Canada,

2000]3. UNESCO [2001]

Including the Excluded [meeting diversity in education, Exempt from

Uganda], Paris2001

4. Together is better, Specific Tips on how to include Children with various typesof Disabilities. [Annual Edition by Russel-fox .J]

5. Institute of Mother and Deaf Children, run by Rotary West, Banglore.

6. Hearing-impaired children in the ordinary school [London, by Webster A.,Ellwood J.

7. Challenges and considerations, educating deaf children in an inclusive setting in

Kenya by Peter Oracha Adoyo, Ph.D8. Alexander, C. and Strain, P.S [1978], Attitudes towards handicapped children

and the concepts of mainstreaming. Psychology in the school

9. American Annals of the Deaf10. Fuchs, D. and Fuchs. L. S [1994], inclusion schools Movement and the

radicalization of Special Education Reform

11. Horne, M.D [1982], attitudes and learning disabilities, a literature reviewed forschool psychologists

12. Hong Kong SAR [1995], White Paper on Rehabilitation; Equal opportunities and

full participation A better Tomorrow for All13. Journal of Communication Disorder [1978]

Listeners impression of normal hearing and hearing impaired children14. Chrisensen, K. [1997], a special education in a school for all, African Journal of

Speical Needs Educations, Vol.2

15. Johnson et al [1989], unlocking the curriculum principles for achieving Access in

Deaf Education Working Paper, Washington DC. Gallaudt Research Institute.16. Moores D. [1996], educating the Deaf Boston Houghon Mifflin

17. UNESCO [2005]. Guidelines for Inclusion Ensuring Access to Education for All

18. Antia, S. and Stinson M. [1999], some conclusions on the education of students ininclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

19. Baker, J. and Zignmond , N. [1995]. The meaning and practice ofinclusion for students with leaning disabilities


12/34

Scope of the Study

The study is carried on for academic purpose and as part of the fieldwork.

Therefore, its scope is relatively limited and it is only confined to the Ashray-AkrutisLittle Angels School for the Deaf, which caters 153 students, of which a hundred and

six are Hearing-Impaired. The sample is selected from the school and the universe is thus

the 153 students of the school.

However, the generalization of the study can be used to view the attitudes of thehearing impaired and normal hearing students in any integrative settings. Because the

findings of so many researchers in the field shown similarities. They all highlighted thesame facts and findings.

Anyway, the study is being carried out for the academic purpose and as part of thefieldwork.


13/34

Objectives of the Study

1. To study the social interaction between students of Hearing-Impairment andNormal Hearing students, in Ashray-Akhrutis Little Angels School for the

Deaf

2. To study and find out the outlook of both groups, the hearing impaired and the

normal hearing, towards integration.3. To study if the primary goal of integration, which facilitating contact between

hearing impaired and normal peers, is achieved in Little Angels School for the

Deaf4. Finally, to study the extent of social interaction and familiarity between the two

groups, the hearing impaired and the normal hearing.


14/34

Hypothesis

1. Those in special schools due to the increased number of exposure to normalhearing norms of spoken language and educational standards.

2. Are there any differences in intermediate students of Little Angels School for the

Deaf towards their hearing-impaired and normal peers.

3. Are the differences affected by the experience of contact with hearing-impairedand normal classmates?

4. Because of the special communicative consequences of deafness, deaf people risk

being isolated if they are put together with hearing pupils who dont know how to

sign and that a deaf individual has no chance of real participation if he or she issurrounded by people who dont know how to sign.


15/34

Definition of concepts

I. Integration

Integration may be defined as system which caters fro the special needs of

handicapped children within the ordinary schools framework and is

supported by a range of facilities geared to meeting the needs of childrensuffering from different kinds and degrees of handicap, including such

separate attention and protective arrangement as my be required.\

Snowdon Report, 1979

Integration means thousands things. It means the absence of segregation. Itmeans social acceptance.

II. Hearing-Impairment

A hearing-impairment or hearing loss is a full or partial decrease in the

ability to detect or understand sounds, caused by a wide range of biological

and environmental factors. Loss of hearing can happen to any organism thatdetects sound.

III. Inclusion

The term inclusion education has attracted attention in the recent years. An

examination of theory and practice has revealed that the term has come to

mean different things to different people.

According to UNESCO [2005], the term refers to the diversity of needs of

all learners through increased curriculum content, approaches, structures and

strategies, with a common vision which covers all children of theappropriate age range and conviction that it is the responsibility of the

regular system to educate children.

It is a process of reforming schools and attitudes, which ensures that every

child receives quality and appropriate education within the regular schools.

In this way, inclusion is more complex than mere physical placement ofchildren with special needs in the regular classroom.


16/34

As Jenkins, Pious and Jewell, [1990], put it inclusion implies that the regularclassroom should change to accommodate all different learners and in

process, desirable services be offered to all children within the regular

classroom.


17/34

Methodology

i. Research Design

The researcher adopted and followed descriptive research Design

ii. Sampling Plan

The sample was selected from a universe of 153 pupils by Quota Sampling [non-

probability sampling]. The researcher used this sample to ensure inclusion of the two

different groups, the hearing-impaired and the normal hearing, of the population.

iii. Method and Tools of Data Collection

The method of data collection that was deployed in the research is Mail Survey and the

tool was Questionnaire [Interview Schedule].

iv. Source of Data

The primary data was collected from Sample of twenty students of Ashray-AkhrutisLittle Angle School for the Deaf.


18/34

Data Processing and Analysis

I. CodingII. Preparing a Master Sheet

III. Data

IV. Tabulation

Data Processing

The researcher processed the by coding each response and then preparing the code

book. Then the researcher prepared the Master Sheet from the Code Book and continuedthe processing of the data and finally tabulated it.


19/34

Code Book

Q.No. Variable

NO.

Information

Sought

Responses Code Column

RespondentNumber

- 1-3

1. 1 Age a.10-15b. 15-20

c. 20-above

12

3

4

2 2 Gender a. Female

b. Male

1

2

5

3 3 Level of

Education

a. class 6-8

b. class 8-10

1

2

6

4 4 Religion a. Hindub. Muslim

c. Christian

d. Others

12

3

4

7

5 5 Caste a. Forward

b. Backwardc. ST

d. SC

1

23

4

8

6 6 Classmate a. Yesb. No

12

9

7 7 Communication a. Yesb. No

12

10

8 8 Friendship a. Yesb. No

12

11

9 9 How often doyou talk with

your peer?

a. Once in a dayb. Once in a week

c. On occasion

d. Never talk

12

3

4

12

10 10 Friendship

outside of the

class

a. Yes

b. No

1

2

13

11 11 Friends Family a. Yes

b. No

1

2

14

12 12 Change in

Attitude

a. Yes

b. No

1

2

15

13 13 Studying with

peers with

hearingdifferent

a. Good

b. Normal

c. Not goodd. Dont know

1

2

34

16

14 14 How happy are a. Very happy 1 17


20/34

you with the

school?

b. Hapy

c. Unhappyd. Very unhappy

2

34

15 15 How do yourate your

participation inthe class?

a. Very activeb. Active

c. Averaged. Dont want to tell

12

34

18

16 16 How was your

academic

performance inlast

examination?

a. Distinction

b. First Division

c. Second Divisiond. Third Division

r. Fail

1

2

34

5

19

17 17 Will you

continue

studying withyour peer after

10th

Class?

a. yes

b. No

1

2

20

18 18 Is co-studying

important

a. Yes

b. No

1

2

21

19 19 What do youwant to be in

the future?

a. Doctorb. Engineering

c. Accountant

d. IT Professionale. Others

12

3

45

22

20 20 Do you think your

impairment will

get to your wayofachievement?

a. Yesb. No

12

23

21 21 Do you discussand share

academic issues

with yourpeers?

a. Yesb. No

12

24


21/34

Master Sheet

RespondentNumbers

Age

Gender

LevelofEducation

Religion

Caste

Classmates

Communication

Friendship

howoftendoyoutalk

friendship

Friend'sfamily

Attitudestowardsintegration

Studyingwithpeerofdifferenthearing

howhappyareyouwiththeschool

Classparticipation

AcademicPerformance

continuationafter10th

Isco-studyimportant?

Ambition

Impairment

AcademicIssue

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

4

0 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

0 0 2 2 2 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1

0 0 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1

0 0 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1

0 0 5 2 2 2 4 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 1

0 0 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1

0 0 7 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 1

0 0 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1

0 0 9 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1

0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1

0 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 1

0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1

0 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 1

0 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 5 2 1

0 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 5 2 1

0 1 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 5 2 1

0 1 7 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 5 2 1

0 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 1

0 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 1

0 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1


22/34

Tabulation and Analysis

Table 0.1

Distribution of Respondents by Age

Age No. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

10-15 6[30] 10[50] 16 80

15-20 4[20] 0[0] 4 20

20-above 0[0] [0] 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

The sample is represented by 50% of Hearing-Impaired respondents, of which 30% is of

the Age between 15-15 years and the other 20% is in the range age of 15-20 years. Noneof the sample members belong to the age range Above 20 years.

The minimum age of the selected sample is 10 years and the maximum age is 20 years.Therefore, the researcher developed these ranges.

Table 0.2Distribution of respondents by Gender

Gender

No. of Respondents

Hearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Female 5[25] 3[15] 8 40

Male 5[25] 7[35] 12 60

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As seen in Table 0.2, the sample is presented by 40% of females and 60% male

respondents. 25% of the female respondents are hearing impaired whereas 15% of themare normal. On the other hand, 25% of the male respondents hearing impaired and 35%are normal hearing.


23/34

Table 0.3Frequency distribution showing the education level of the respondents

Education

Level

No. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Class 6-8 4[20] 8[40] 12 60

Class 8-10 6[30] 2[10] 8 40

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As shown in Table 0.3, 60% of the respondents are studying I the range 6-8. 20% of this

proportion is hearing impaired respondents while the rest 40% is normal pupils.

On the other hand, 40% of the respondents are selected from the class range 8-10; of

which 3e0% are hearing impaired and the other 10% are of normal children.

This variable, education level, is being chosen to measure and find how pupils attitudes

are being changed by the knowledge and the level of their education. Childrens

experience in the integration increases with the increase in their education level.

Table 0.4

Frequency distribution showing the Religion-wise distribution of the Respondents

Religion

No. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Hindu 8[40] 10[50] 18 90

Muslim 1[5] 0[0] 1 5

Christian O[0] 0[0] 0 0

Others 1[5] 0[0] 1 5

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

Majority of the respondents, that is 90% belong to the Hindu Religion. 40% of them are

hearing impaired whereas the other 50% are normal children. Only 5% of the respondents

are Muslim and none of them belong to Christianity. But there 5% of the them belongingto other Religion.\


24/34

Table 0.5

Frequency of Caste-wise Distribution

CasteNo. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Forward caste 4[20] 3[15] 7 35

Backward caste 2[10] 6[30] 8 40

ST 1[5] 1[5] 2 10

Sc 2[10] 0[0] 2 10

Minority 1[5] 0[0] 1 5

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As can be seen in Table 0.5, 35% of the respondents are from the Forward Caste. 20% of

them belong to the hearing impaired while the other 15% are normal hearing.

On the other hand, 40% the respondents belong to Backward Caste, of which 30% are

normal hearing and 10% are hearing impaired. 10% of the respondents are from

Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 5% are Scheduled Castes [SC].

Table 0.6

Frequency Distribution showing whether the respondents have classmates of hearing

impaired and the vice-versa

Response

No. of Respondents

Hearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Yes 10[50] 10[50] 20 100

No. 0 0 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

All the respondents, 100%, have responded that they have classmates of differentlyhearing and vice-versa. The hearing impaired pupils stated that they have Normalstudents in their classes and the Normal responded that they also have Hearing Impaired.

Therefore, all the respondents have differently hearing students in their classes.


25/34


26/34

Table 0.9Distribution of Respondents by the Frequency of talking to their peers

Response

No. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Once in a day 6[30] 6[30] 12 60

Once in a week 0[0] 2[10] 2 10

On occasion 4[20] 2[10] 6 30

Never 0[0] 0[0] 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As can be seen in Table 0.9, 60% of the respondents replied that they talk with their

opposite classmates once in a day. This is 30% of Hearing Impaired and 30% of theNormal Hearing. This does not mean they always speak once in a day their peers, butgenerally they speak to their peers if need by. This variable was selected to gauge the

amount interaction and the extent of social contact between these groups. Interaction is

more in times of extra curricular activities and sports where everybody communicateswith anybody regardless of their category.

On the hand 30% of them showed that they only speak to their peers on occasion, forinstance during class activities and sports. 20% of this proportion is Hearing Impaired

and the other 10% are Normal Hearing. The remaining 10% of the respondents pointed

out they do speak with their peers once in a week.

Table 1.0

Frequency Distribution showing Friendship outside the class

Response

No. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Yes 7[35] 6[30] 13 65

No 3[15] 4[20] 5 35

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As shown in the Table 1.0, 65% of the respondents, that is 35% of Hearing Impaired and

30% Normal Hearing, responded that they have friends differently able outside the class.

On the other side, 35% of the respondents said they dont have friends outside theclassroom that is 15% Hearing Impaired and 20% of Normal Hearing Respondents.


27/34

Table 1.1Frequency Distribution by Knowledge of friends family through him or her

Response No. of RespondentsHearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Yes 7[35] 3[15] 10 50

No 3[15] 7[35] 10 50

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As presented in Table 1.1, 50% of the Respondents, that is 35% of Hearing Impaired and

15% of Normal Hearing, have said that they come to know about their friends family

through him or her.

On the other hand, the same proportion [ 50%], that is 15% of Hearing Impaired and 35%Normal Hearing, did say that they have not come to know about their friends familythrough him or her.

Table 1.2

Distribution of Respondents by Change in their attitudes towards integration

ResponseNo. of Respondents

Hearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Yes 10[50] 9[45] 19 95

No 0[0] 1[5] 1 5

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As presented in Table 1.2, majority of the respondents [95%], said that they found change

in themselves regarding their idea towards integration. They stated that as their

knowledge about integration increases, so does their adaptation. Only 5% of them didntfind change in their attitude towards integration. This proportion belongs to the Normal

Hearing children.


28/34

Table 1.3Distribution of respondents by feeling towards co-studying

Response No. of RespondentsHearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Good 10[50] 9[45] 19 95

Normal 0[0] 1[5] 0 0

Not good 0[0] 0[0] 0 0

Dont know 0[0] 0[0] 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As shown in the above table, majority of the respondents [95%], are of the opinion that

co-studying is good. They believe educating the deaf and the normal in same setting is

good and importance. Where as only 5% of the respondents dont agree with the majorityand but believe that it is normal. None of them did say that co-studying is not good.

Table 1.4

Frequency distribution showing how happy the respondents are with the school [Ashray-

Akrutis Little Angels School for the Deaf

Response

No. of Respondents

Hearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Very happy 7[35] 10[50] 17 85

Happy 3[15] 0[0] 3 15

Unhappy 0 0 0 0

Very unhappy 0 0 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As can be seen in Table 1.4, 85% of the respondents admitted that they are very happy

with their school. This proportion is composed of 35% Hearing Impaired and 50%Normal hearing. 15% of the respondents, that the Hearing Impaired pupils replied thatthey are just happy with school.

None of the respondents showed their unhappiness towards the school. All responded that

they are happy with their school [ in this case, the Ashray-Akrutis Little Angels Schoolfor that Deaf.


29/34

Table 1.5

Distribution of respondents by participation I

Response

No. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Very active 7[35] 7[35] 14 70

Active 2[10] 1[5] 3 15

Average 1[5] 2[10] 2 15

Dont want to tell 0[0] 0[0] 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As shown in Table 1.5, 70% of the respondents replied that they participate in class

activities very actively. This proportion is composed of 35% of Hearing Impairedrespondents and 35% Normal Hearing students. Whereas, 15% of the respondents, that is

10% of hearing impaired and 5% normal hearing did respond that they are active in classparticipation.

On the other hand, another 15% of the respondents answered that they participate in classactivities averagely. This is 5% hearing impaired and 10% normal hearing students.

Table 1.6Frequency Distribution of respondents by their academic performance in the last

examination


Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Distinction 2[10] 1[5] 3 15

First division 5[25] 3]15] 8 40

Second division 3[15] 1[5] 4 20

Third division 0[0] 5[25] 5 25

Fail 0[0] 0[0] 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As can be seen from the above table [Table 1.6], 15% of the respondents, that is 10% of

Hearing Impaired and 5% of Normal Hearing, have performed in their last examination

distinctively, and 40%, that is 25% Hearing Impaired and 15% Normal Hearing, got firstdivision in their last examination. On the other side, 20% of them, that is 15% Hearing

Impaired and 5% Normal Hearing, got second division, whereas 25% of the respondents


30/34

got third division.

This variable is chosen to study the performance of the hearing impaired studentscompared with their fellow normal hearing. This results shows that more students with

hearing impaired performed better than those of normal hearing impaired. For instance,

10 % of the hearing impaired got distinction whereas only 5% of normal hearing gotdistinction. In addition to this, 25% of the hearing impaired students got first division

comparing with 15% of normal hearing. None of the hearing impaired students got third

division whereas 25% of the normal hearings have gotten third division.

Table 1.7

Frequency distribution showing whether the respondents are willing to continue co-

studying after passing out 10th

RespondentsNo. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Yes 8[40] 10[50] 18 90

No 2[10 0[0] 2 10

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

90% of the respondents that is 40% of Hearing Impaired and 50% of Normal Hearing,

replied that they are willing to continue studying in integrative schooling after completing

10th class. Only 10%, which all Hearing Impaired stated that they didnt want continue

studying in integration after 10th class.

Table 1.8

Frequency distribution showing the importance of co-studying to the respondents

Response

No. of Respondents

Hearing-

Impaired

Normal

Hearing

Total Percentage

Yes 9[45] 8[40] 17 85

No 1[5] 2[10] 3 15

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

As can be seen in Table 1.8, 45% of the hearing impaired children felt co-studying isimportant and significant, whereas 40% of the normal hearing felt the same. Overall, 85%of the respondents are of the opinion that co-studying is important.

On the other hand, 15% of the respondents believe that co-studying is not important. Thisproportion is composed of 5% of the hearing impaired and 10% of the normal hearing.


31/34

Table 1.9

Frequency distribution of respondent by their future ambition

Response

No. of Respondents

Hearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Doctor 0[0] 2[10] 2 10

Engineer 6[30] 1[5] 7 35

Accountant 4[20] 0[0] 4 20

IT Professional 0[0] 0[0] 0 0

Others 0[0] 7[35] 7 35

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

Majority of the Hearing Impaired students[30%] said that they want to be Engineer in thefuture, where 20% of the hearing impaired desire to be Accountant. 35% of the Normal

Hearing aspires to take up other professions other then those provided, such as lawyer.While 10% of the normal hearing said they want to be doctor.

Overall, 10% of the respondents want to be doctors, 5% engineer, 20% accountant and

35% opted for other courses.

Table 2.1

Frequency distribution showing whether the respondents discuss and communicateacademic issue with their peers in the class


Hearing-Impaired

NormalHearing

Total Percentage

Yes 10[50] 10[50] 20 100

No 0[0] 0[0] 0 0

Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

All the respondents [100%], stated that they discuss and communicate academic issues

with their fellow students. The hearing impaired said they discuss and communicate

academic issues with their normal hearing students.


32/34

MAJOR FINDINGS

1) It was found that majority of the respondents are of the group 10-15, (80%). All the

normal hearing respondents where in this age group.

2) It was discovered that 60% of the respondents were male. 30% of this portion are

normal hearing whereas the remaining 25% are hearing impaired.

3) It was found that of the female respondents are hearing impaired (25%).

4) Majority of the respondents are in the class group 6-8 ( 60%). Only 20% of the hearing

are normal pupils are studying in the class group 6-8.

5) It was found that 90% of the respondents belong to the Hindu Religion.

6) Majority of the respondents are from Forward and Backward castes, 35% and 40%

respectively.

7) All the respondents said that they have classmates of hearing impaired and normal

hearing (100%)

8) 90% of the respondents responded that they communicate with their classmates

through hearing aid devices. The hearing impaired children stated that they use thehearing aid devices while communicating with their classmates of Normal Hearing pupils

9) 95% of the respondents make friendship with their classmates. All the Normal Hearingrespondents responded that they make friendship with their hearing impaired peers whileit was found that 45% out of 50% of Hearing Impaired children make friendship with

Normal Hearing classmates.

10) Also it was found that 65% of the respondents make friendship outside the class with

their Differently Hearing peers. 35% of Hearing Impaired pupils stated that they make

friendship outside class with Normal Hearing pupils whereas 30% of the Normal Hearinghas the Hearing Impaired friends outside the class.

11) It was found that majority of the respondents (50%) come to know their friends

family through them.

12) Majority of the respondents responded that they saw change in their attitudes towards

integrative study. 95% of them stated that their attitudes towards co-studying have beenchanged and shaped during the course of time.

13) 95% of the respondents feel good towards the integration and co-studying. AllHearing Impaired (50%) are found to feel good about the integration.


33/34

14) Majority of the respondents (85%) are found to be very happy with the school Ashray

Akrutis Little Angel School for the Deaf.

15) 70% of the respondents are found to be very active in participating in the class

activities of which 35% are Hearing Impaired and the other 35% are Normal HearingImpaired.

16) It was found that majority of the respondents, (40%) got First Division in the lastexam, 25% of this proportion are also Hearing Impaired children. It was also found that

only 15% of the respondents got distinction.

17) 90% of the respondents are found willing to continue studying in integration schoolafter completing the 10th class.

18) Majority of the respondents are found to view co-studying important. Only 15% did

not see integration important.

19) It was found that 35% of the respondents have an ambition of becoming Engineers,whereas another 35% want to take up other professions rather than those provided in the

questionnaire schedule.

20) All the respondents , 100% are found that they discuss and communicate theacademic issues with their classmates of Different Hearing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I) Webster A, Ellwood S. The Hearing Impaired Child in the Ordinary School, 1985

II) La Porta M. Mainstreaming Pre-schoolers Children with Hearing Impairment. A

Guide for Teachers, Parents and other who work Hearing Impaired ChildrenUSADepartment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1976.

III) Google Search Engine, Wikipedia and other Search Engines from the Internet.

IV) Previous research works in the field such as the one done by Peter Oracha Adoyo, a

Kenyan professorChallenges and Considerations in Educating Deaf Children in a

Inclusive Setting.


34/34

REFERENCES

I) Bilek S., The Hearing Impaired Children in regular Classroom, 1992.II) Adoyo (2002) Emergent Approach towards Integration in Kenya.III) Anita S. and Stinson M. (1999) Some Conclusions on the Education of

Students in Inclusive Settings. Journal of Deaf Education.

IV) UNESCO (2001) Including the Excluded Meeting Diversity in Education.

V) UNESCO (2005) Guidelines for Inclusion-Insuring Access to Education for

All.VI) Google and Wikipedia and other online search engines and also e-

Encyclopedia.

Documents

THE ATTITUDE S OF HEARING IMPAIRED AND NORMAL HEARING CHILDREN TOWARD INTEGRATIVE STUDIES (UG Research Project