Alimentación y respuesta animal durante la cría, recría y engorde

These four components of attitude were then broken down by the setting in which the teachers taught, either the special school (Al-Amal Institute), self-contained classrooms for the Deaf in mainstream schools, or self-contained classrooms for the hard of hearing in mainstream schools. This variable therefore encompassed both school type and deafness type. The mean scores for each group are given in Table 5.15 and illustrated in the bar chart Figure 5.1.

Table 5.15 Mean attitude scores by teaching setting/Deafness type Attitude

Components DHH and School Type/placement N Mean SD

Cognitive_Dim1

Deaf at Al-Amal Institute/Special School 44 3.07 0.72 Deaf at mainstream schools/self-contained

classrooms 22 2.73 1.01

Hard of Hearing at mainstream self-contained

classrooms 52 2.65 0.90

Affective_D

Deaf at Al-Amal Institute/Special School 44 3.06 1.19 Deaf at mainstream schools/self-contained

classrooms 22 3.48 1.32

Hard of Hearing at mainstream self-contained

classrooms 52 3.69 1.17

Affective_HH

Deaf at Al-Amal Institute/Special School 44 3.59 1.10 Deaf at mainstream schools/self-contained

classrooms 22 3.20 1.22

Hard of Hearing at mainstream self-contained

classrooms 52 4.17 0.84

Behavior_Dim3

Deaf at Al-Amal Institute/Special School 44 4.60 0.43 Deaf at mainstream schools/self-contained

classrooms 22 4.50 0.48

Hard of Hearing at mainstream self-contained

178

Figure 5.1 Bar chart of mean attitude scores by teaching setting/Deafness type

It is apparent from Table 5.15 and Figure 5.1 that the mean scores across settings were fairly similar for the cognitive component, and also for the behaviour component, but with rather more variation between settings for the affective components. To test the first theme of the first research question about the relationship between attitudes and setting/Deafness type, it was necessary to test whether any of these differences by setting were statistically significant. Before this could be done, it was necessary to ascertain whether the attitude scores were normally distributed; a normal distribution would indicate that parametric tests could be applied, whereas a non-normal distribution would indicate that non-parametric tests would have to be used.

The normality assumption was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The results indicated that the three components of attitude towards inclusion met the normality assumption: Cognitive (K-S statistic = 0.98, df = 120, p > .05), Affective (K-S statistic = 0.99, df = 120, p > 0.05) and Behaviour (K-S statistic = 0.98, df = 120, p > 0.05). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is a test for normality which assesses the normality of the distribution of scores (i.e. the degree of freedom of equal sample sizes) and which differs from the F test (measuring the degree of freedom of equal sample sizes minus the number of groups). Consequently, parametric tests could be used, in this case a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) because there were three independent variables corresponding to the three teaching settings. Table 5.16 displays the one-way ANOVA results for the three components of the attitude scale by teaching setting/Deafness type.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

COGNITIVE AFFECTIVE_D AFFECTIVE_HH BEHAVIOUR

Deaf at Al-Amal Institute/Special School

Deaf at mainstream schools/self- contained classrooms

Hard of Hearing at mainstream self-contained classrooms

179

Table 5.16 One-way ANOVA results for teaching setting/Deafness type Attitude Components Groups Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig Cognitive_Dim1 Between groups 4.41 2 2.2 2.97 0.055 Within groups 85.28 115 2.2 Total 89.68 117 Affective_D Between groups 9.67 2 4.84 3.32 0.04 Within groups 167.66 115 4.84 Total 177.33 117 Affective_HH Between groups 16.85 2 8.42 8.1 0.001 Within groups 119.55 115 8.42 Total 136.39 117 Behavior_Dim3 Between groups 0.33 2 0.17 0.79 0.456 Within groups 24.33 115 0.17 Total 24.66 117

From Table 5.15, for the component Cognitive_Dim1 the means for the three settings were 3.07, 2.73 and 2.65, respectively, which did not differ significantly from each other F = 2.97(2, 115), p = .055. Nevertheless, the fact that the value of p was not .05 shows that the differences on the cognitive component were not statistically significant and could be only a suggestive one and that future research may want to follow up on this. Thus, the slightly positive beliefs and knowledge about DHH inclusion held by the teachers at the Al-Amal Institute towards inclusion could not be considered as a significant difference from those of the teachers at the mainstream schools (discussed further at Chapter 7, sections 7.3.1 and 7.5.2).

On component Affective_D, teachers of the Deaf in Al-Amal Institute scored lower on average (M = 3.06) than did teachers of the Deaf at mainstream schools (M = 3.48) who, in turn, scored lower than teachers of the hard of hearing at mainstream schools (M = 3.69). Table 5.16 displays the results of the ANOVA test which shows that there were statistically significant differences among these mean scores on this affective component between teaching settings F(2, 115), = 3.32, p < .05.

Carrying out the same procedure for Affective_HH, teachers of the Deaf in Al-Amal Institute had a middling score (M = 3.59), teachers of the Deaf at mainstream schools the

180

lowest score (M = 3.20), and teachers of the hard of hearing at mainstream schools the highest score (M = 4.17). Again, there were statistically significant differences here F (2, 115) = 8.10, p < .01. In contrast, on the component Behavior_Dim3, the means for the three settings were 4.60, 4.50 and 4.64 respectively and there were no significant differences (F(2,115) = 0.79, p > .05.

The next stage was to use a post hoc test to identify where the significant differences between the means on the affective components lay. The most commonly used post-hoc comparison test is Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (Pallant, 2007), as shown in Table 5.17.

Table 5.17 Tukey’s Post Hoc test Attitude

Components Groups (Mean) Comparative Group (Mean)

Mean Difference

Sig

Affective_D Deaf at APSD (3.06)

D in SCC (3.48) 0.42 0.38 HH in SCC (3.69) 0.63 0.03 D in SCC (3.48) HH in SCC (3.69) 0.21 0.77 Affective_HH D at APSD (3.59) D in SCC (3.20) -0.39 0.31 HH in SCC (4.17) 0.58 0.02 D in SCC (3.14) HH in SCC (4.17) 0.97 0.01

This test indicated that the statistically significant difference (p < .05) between the means on Affective_D lay between teachers at Al-Amal schools and teachers of hard of hearing students in mainstream self-contained classrooms. The latter scored higher than the former, showing that teachers of hard of hearing students in mainstream self-contained classrooms had a more positive attitude on Affective_D than did teachers at Al-Amal schools.

For Affective_HH, there were two significant differences in mean scores between teaching settings. Teachers at Al-Amal Institute had a lower mean than did teachers of hard of hearing students in mainstream self-contained classrooms, which was statistically significant (p < .05), showing that the former teachers had a more negative attitude on Affective_HH than did mainstream teachers. In addition, teachers of the Deaf in mainstream schools had a statistically significant lower score on Affective_HH than did teachers of HH students in mainstream schools (p < .05), indicating that the former group had the more negative attitudes.

181

Overall, comparing by settings showed that teachers in all the school settings shared a similar level of knowledge about the inclusion of DHH students and a similar level of confidence in the practical aspects of teaching them (i.e. behavioural intentions). Where they differed was in their feelings towards inclusion of hard of hearing or Deaf students, with teachers at the Al-Amal Institute having a less positive attitude towards inclusion of Deaf children in mainstream schools than did the teachers of the hard of hearing in special classrooms in mainstream schools. As for teachers’ attitudes to inclusion of hard of hearing students in mainstream classrooms, teachers at Al-Amal Institute and teachers of the Deaf in mainstream schools held less positive attitudes than did teachers of the hard of hearing in mainstream schools.