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]

 Declaration

I declare that the Research entitled “THE ATTITUDES OF

HEARING IMPAIRED AND NORMAL CHILDREN TOWARD
INTEGRATINVE STUDIES “is a record of independent research
work 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
 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
 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-Akruti’s 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.
 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

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]

 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-Akruti’s “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 to
communicate.

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.
 Introduction

Education of the deaf in the World have been of the view that
placement of the deaf students in classrooms with their hearing peers
often 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 include
loneliness, rejection and social isolation. These experiences as
observed by the educators don’t promote social and academic
development.

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 all
categories 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
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, policies

were 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 to
education 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 which
maximize academic and social development.

In addition to that, some activist believe strongly that first and foremost need of
the 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 student’s first and most accessible language will their learning in other
language.

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 feel
more frustrated daily because of his own inadequate in relation to other pupils.

However, the achievement of there goals depends upon the attitude of the public
towards people with disability as well as the extent of traditional, physical and social
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 person’s attitude and an
indication of their possible behaviors. For example lower level of child’s 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.
 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 and
Dignities 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 types
of 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.D
8. 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 Deaf
10. 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 for
school psychologists
12. Hong Kong SAR [1995], White Paper on Rehabilitation; Equal opportunities and
full participation “ A better Tomorrow for All”
13. Journal of Communication Disorder [1978]
“Listener’s impression of normal hearing and hearing impaired children
14. 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 in
inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
19. Baker, J. and Zignmond , N. [1995]. The meaning and practice of
inclusion for students with leaning disabilities
 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-Akruti’s
“Little 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 the
hearing impaired and normal hearing students in any integrative settings. Because the
findings of so many researchers in the field shown similarities. They all highlighted the
same facts and findings.

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

1. To study the social interaction between students of Hearing-Impairment and

Normal Hearing students, in Ashray-Akhruti’s “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
Deaf”
4. Finally, to study the extent of social interaction and familiarity between the two
groups, the hearing impaired and the normal hearing.
 Hypothesis
1. Those in special schools due to the increased number of exposure to normal
hearing 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-impaired

and 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 don’t know how to
sign and that a deaf individual has no chance of real participation if he or she is
surrounded by people who don’t know how to sign.
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 children
suffering 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. It

means 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 that
detects 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 the
appropriate 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 of
children with special needs in the regular classroom.
As Jenkins, Pious and Jewell, [1990], put it inclusion implies that the regular
classroom should change to accommodate all different learners and in
process, desirable services be offered to all children within the regular
classroom.
 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-Akhruti’s
“Little Angle School for the Deaf”.
 Data Processing and Analysis

I. Coding
II. 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 continued
the processing of the data and finally tabulated it.
 Code Book
Q.No. Variable Information Responses Code Column
NO. Sought
Respondent - 1-3
Number
1. 1 Age a.10-15 1 4
b. 15-20 2
c. 20-above 3
2 2 Gender a. Female 1 5
b. Male 2
3 3 Level of a. class 6-8 1 6
Education b. class 8-10 2
4 4 Religion a. Hindu 1 7
b. Muslim 2
c. Christian 3
d. Others 4
5 5 Caste a. Forward 1 8
b. Backward 2
c. ST 3
d. SC 4
6 6 Classmate a. Yes 1 9
b. No 2
7 7 Communication a. Yes 1 10
b. No 2
8 8 Friendship a. Yes 1 11
b. No 2
9 9 How often do a. Once in a day 1 12
you talk with b. Once in a week 2
your peer? c. On occasion 3
d. Never talk 4
10 10 Friendship a. Yes 1 13
outside of the b. No 2
class
11 11 Friend’s Family a. Yes 1 14
b. No 2
12 12 Change in a. Yes 1 15
Attitude b. No 2
13 13 Studying with a. Good 1 16
peers with b. Normal 2
hearing c. Not good 3
different d. Don’t know 4
14 14 How happy are a. Very happy 1 17
 you with the b. Hapy 2
school? c. Unhappy 3
d. Very unhappy 4
15 15 How do you a. Very active 1 18
rate your b. Active 2
participation in c. Average 3
the class? d. Don’t want to tell 4
16 16 How was your a. Distinction 1 19
academic b. First Division 2
performance in c. Second Division 3
last d. Third Division 4
examination? r. Fail 5
17 17 Will you a. yes 1 20
continue b. No 2
studying with
your peer after
10th Class?
18 18 Is co-studying a. Yes 1 21
important b. No 2
19 19 What do you a. Doctor 1 22
want to be in b. Engineering 2
the future? c. Accountant 3
d. IT Professional 4
e. Others 5
20 20 Do you think a. Yes 1 23
your b. No 2
impairment will
get to your way
of
achievement?
21 21 Do you discuss a. Yes 1 24
and share b. No 2
academic issues
with your
peers?
Master Sheet

Studying with peer of different hearing

how happy are you with the school
Attitudes towards integration

Academic Performance
continuation after 10th
Is co-study important?
Respondent Numbers

how often do you talk

Level of Education

Class participation

Academic Issue
Communication

Friend's family
Classmates

Impairment
Friendship

friendship

Ambition
Religion
Gender

Caste
Age

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 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
Tabulation and Analysis

Table 0.1
Distribution of Respondents by Age

Age No. of Respondents

Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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. None
of 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 0.2
Distribution of respondents by Gender

No. of Respondents
Gender Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 them
are normal. On the other hand, 25% of the male respondents hearing impaired and 35%
are normal hearing.
Table 0.3
Frequency distribution showing the education level of the respondents

Education No. of Respondents

Level Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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. Children’s
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

No. of Respondents
Religion Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 belonging
to other Religion.\
Table 0.5
Frequency of Caste-wise Distribution

No. of Respondents
Caste Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 differently
hearing and vice-versa. The hearing impaired pupils stated that they have Normal
students in their classes and the Normal responded that they also have Hearing Impaired.
Therefore, all the respondents have differently hearing students in their classes.
Table 0.7
Frequency distribution showing the channels or medium of communication between the
hearing impaired and the normal hearing

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
Sign Language 0[0] 2[10] 2 10
Hearing aid device 10[50] 8[40] 18 90
Don’t communicate 0[0] 0[0] 0 0
Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

90% of the respondents communicate with their classmates by using the hearing aid
device. All the Hearing Impaired respondents use the hearing aid device while
communicating with Normal Hearing classmates. 40% of the Normal Hearing children
use hearing aid device to communicate with their peers.

Only 10% of the respondents use Sign Language to communicate with their peers. All the
10% are Normal Hearing. However, one medium of communication may not be possible
and the combination of the two is always at reach.

Table 0.8
Frequency Distribution showing Friendship between Normal and Hearing Impaired
Respondents

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
Yes 9[45] 10[50] 19 95
No 1[5] 0[0] 1 5
Total 10[50] 10[50] 20[100] 100

95% of the respondents have admitted that they make friendship with one another, while
only 5% responded that they didn’t make friendship with other students. All the Normal
students, that is 50%, stated that they always establish friendship with their Hearing
Impaired students, whereas 45% of the Hearing Impaired responded the same. Only 5%
of the Hearing Impaired replied that they don’t make friendship with their Normal
Hearing peers.
Table 0.9
Distribution of Respondents by the Frequency of talking to their peers

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 the
Normal Hearing. This does not mean they always speak once in a day their peers, but
generally 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 communicates
with anybody regardless of their category.

On the hand 30% of them showed that they only speak to their peers on occasion, for
instance 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

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 don’t have friends outside the
classroom that is 15% Hearing Impaired and 20% of Normal Hearing Respondents.
Table 1.1
Frequency Distribution by Knowledge of friend’s family through him or her

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 friend’s 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 friend’s family
through him or her.

Table 1.2

Distribution of Respondents by Change in their attitudes towards integration

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 didn’t
find change in their attitude towards integration. This proportion belongs to the Normal
Hearing children.
Table 1.3
Distribution of respondents by feeling towards co-studying

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
Good 10[50] 9[45] 19 95
Normal 0[0] 1[5] 0 0
Not good 0[0] 0[0] 0 0
Don’t 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 don’t agree with the majority
and 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-
Akruti’s “Little Angels School for the Deaf”

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 that
they 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-Akruti’s Little Angels School
for that Deaf.
Table 1.5
Distribution of respondents by participation I

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
Very active 7[35] 7[35] 14 70
Active 2[10] 1[5] 3 15
Average 1[5] 2[10] 2 15
Don’t 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 Impaired
respondents 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 class
participation.

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

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

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 first
division 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
got third division.

This variable is chosen to study the performance of the hearing impaired students
compared 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 got
distinction. 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

No. of Respondents
Respondents Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 didn’t want continue
studying in integration after 10th class.

Table 1.8
Frequency distribution showing the importance of co-studying to the respondents

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 is
important 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. This
proportion is composed of 5% of the hearing impaired and 10% of the normal hearing.
Table 1.9
Frequency distribution of respondent by their future ambition

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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 the
future, 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 communicate
academic issue with their peers in the class

No. of Respondents
Response Hearing- Normal Total Percentage
Impaired Hearing
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.
 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 the
hearing aid devices while communicating with their classmates of Normal Hearing pupils

9) 95% of the respondents make friendship with their classmates. All the Normal Hearing
respondents responded that they make friendship with their hearing impaired peers while
it 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 Hearing
has 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 been
changed and shaped during the course of time.

13) 95% of the respondents feel good towards the integration and co-studying. All
Hearing Impaired (50%) are found to feel good about the integration.
14) Majority of the respondents (85%) are found to be very happy with the school Ashray
Akruti’s 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 Hearing
Impaired.

16) It was found that majority of the respondents, (40%) got First Division in the last
exam, 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 school
after 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 the
academic 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 Children—USA
Department 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 professor—Challenges and Considerations in Educating Deaf Children in a
Inclusive Setting.
 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.