It is natural that students usually prefer to socialize with peers of the same hearing status who use the same communication methods (Lloyd, 1999b). Thus, some Deaf and hard- of-hearing people may face great difficulties in establishing sustainable relationships with hearing people and may feel socially rejected because of the lack of good relationships and opportunities to interact with people from the same group, which could result in some form of isolation (Gregory et al, 1995). Human beings are social creature and cannot live
69
in isolation. This is the basis of the main goal and objectives of inclusion. Inclusive education for DHH students aims to provide them with equal opportunities to emulate positive behavioural examples (Al-Rousan, 1998). Mainstream programmes have been launched to remove any type of stigma and socialize this group of students within mainstream school settings, where the opportunity to have friends from all backgrounds is much higher than in special schools. There is some evidence that inclusion improves the level of social adaptation among the Deaf and hard of hearing (Madden and Slavin, 1993; Roberts and Zubric, 1992; Lynas, 1994; Powers, 2001). These studies indicate that in mainstream schools, Deaf and HH students have more chances of social interaction with their hearing peers and educators, and that they thus acquire the basic skills for social inclusion. Additionally, Hadjikakou (2002) found that the majority of DHH children integrated in mainstream schools had very promising results regarding their emotional and social adaptation and self-esteem.
However, other researchers have argued that mainstreaming has negative effects on the social development of DHH children. For example, Stewart and Kluwin (2000) argue that integration can influence the identity and self-esteem of students with hearing loss and that it isolates them from their society and culture. Furthermore, others argue that the education of DHH students should take place in special schools because their hearing problems limit their participation in mainstream classes. DHH students are isolated from the mainstream school environment and this can have implications for their psychosocial development (Jarvis et al, 2003; Sinka et al, 2003). Similarly, Nunes et al. (2001) found that Deaf students who were recently included in mainstream schools were more likely to be neglected by their hearing peers due to the absence of common communication ground between them. In their interviews with Deaf students, some raised concerns about bullying and the fear of being bullied due to the lack of an adequate medium of communication. This prompts concerns about moving all Deaf and HH students into schools that are not well prepared to accept and welcome them, because inclusion should be understood as a goal, not just a process (RNID, 1999). The absence of new and effective communication strategies, lack of additional supporting services, absence of a Deaf person (as a teacher or teacher assistant) who could be seen as a role model for Deaf students, a school ethos that fails to promotes a positive Deaf self-image or to assure
70
interaction between Deaf and hearing students may harm their self-image and lead them to see themselves as failed hearing persons (Moore, 1999; NDCS, 1990; Ladd, 1991).
In addition, Arnold and Atkins (1991) conducted a study of Deaf social and emotional adaptive behaviour at an inclusive primary school, using the Children’s Behaviour Questionnaire (CBQ) and Bristol Social Adjustment Guide (BSAG), on a sample of ninety students. Having compared a control group of 23 hearing students with a group of Deaf students (with a mean hearing loss of 67 decibels), they conclude that these measures showed little difference between the groups for emotional development, but a difference for social development. However, it is uncertain if this is a reliable finding, given the relatively small differences measured.
Some parents of children without disability believe that their children can benefit both socially and academically from inclusion because of the increased availability of additional supporting services and enhanced teaching resources inside the classroom (e.g. ElZein, 2009; Tichenor, 1997). In the USA, Giangreco et al. (1991) surveyed 81 parents of typically developing children attending an elementary school with a peer having a severe disability. The results indicated that over 80% of parents believed that inclusion enhanced their child’s social/emotional growth, while over 90% reported that their children had a positive experience from the presence of a child with severe disability in the class. Additionally, parents of typically developing children believed that their children learnt about and accepted individual differences through inclusive education (Bennett, 1997; Gallagher et al., 2000).
Angelides and Aravi (2007) investigated the views and experiences of 20 Deaf and hard- of-hearing people who had studied at special and mainstream schools in Cyprus, in order to compare the two systems from the viewpoint of those involved. They were also interested to explore the possible implications of these views and experiences for the development of the educational system in Cyprus regarding inclusive education. Data analysis indicated that the impression prevailed among DHH students that mainstream schools had a higher academic level and provided more opportunities for learning. However, ex-pupils of special schools pointed out that they had more opportunities to develop interpersonal relations with their educators and peers, in contrast to those who had attended mainstream schools, who appeared to be isolated from their environment.
71
Additionally, the latter suffered from marginalization and exclusion. The authors concluded that attendance at mainstream schools has the great advantage of providing more opportunities for learning than attendance at special schools, notwithstanding some problems at mainstream schools related mainly to communication and alienation.
Kliewer (1998) explored the benefits of full inclusion for students with severe SEN (including the Deaf). He reports that such students are more likely to acquire functional skills in areas such as communication, ICT, team-working, presentation and problem solving if they study in inclusive classrooms. Hence, it is important that students should move away from isolated classrooms. He adds that these high performance skills would possibly be achieved in classrooms similar to other social institutions, where SEN students and their peers communicate and learn cooperatively. However, in a comparative study of the education of Deaf students in Australia and Norway, Hyde, Ohna and Hjulstad (2004) report that results in Australia showed very good levels of academic attainment, but that a majority of Deaf and HH students had difficulties with socialization; two-thirds were rated by their teachers at competitive levels academically, but only one- third as being socially well integrated. In Norway, observation of classes suggested that there was little interaction among deaf and hearing children.
In conclusion, it is worth mentioning that several factors appear to affect the social and behavioural development of D/deaf students. For example, Vetter et al. (2010) compared inclusion experiences of German elementary DHH students in separate educational settings (n=31) with those of counterparts at the same level in integrated settings (n=26) and evaluated psychosocial behaviour, semantic-lexical abilities and communicative skills. They found that the only difference between the samples was on self-reported wellbeing at school, which favoured the integrated students, who also demonstrated a higher level of integration experience, associated with fewer psychosocial abnormalities and better communicative skills. The authors argue that the educational setting is not the only factor influencing DHH students’ perceived wellbeing. Other contextual factors may also have contributed, such as the hearing status of parents, dominant communicative skills used at home and school, and collaborative work by teachers and parents to facilitate the literacy development of Deaf students (Swanwick and Watson, 2005), which can have a similar positive impact on integration experiences.
72