KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA

LOCAL SETTING
In 2005, a legal issue was raised against Philippine Federation for the Deaf
regarding their status as a
non-profit foundation. It was registered as a non-stock, non-profit corporation, but its registration was
recently revoked after the Securities and Exchange Commission discovered that the PFD had not been
filing annual reports.
The PFD had been unable to file an annual report because first, none of the officers knew of
the requirement, and second, it could not afford to hire a regular accountant and auditor. As
Julius Andrada, president of the foundation, stated in a letter to SEC Chair Fe Barin: “The
consequence of our hearing impairment not a loss of sound but a loss of access to information.”
In late 2003 though, the PFD was able to secure some project funds that allowed them to hire an
accountant who then prepared a financial report. It was only after the report was filed with
the SEC that the foundation’s shortcomings were discovered. As penalty, the PFD was slapped
with a fine of
P21, 000, which it had to pay if it wished to retain its SEC registration.
In letters to Barin, Andrada notes that the PFD "has not had any fixed sources of income for the
past six years (and) our only current project is for three years (that) covers contractual employees
with fixed terms renewable every six months." The Php21, 000 fine, Andrada adds, could be "used
for other projects of the Federation which will help Deaf Filipinos
PFD is a national member of the World Federation of the Deaf. The group was founded on
October 19, 1996, in a meeting held at the Philippine School for the Deaf where 17 leaders of
different Deaf organizations nationwide participated. It was formally established during its
1st General Assembly held at the Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City on May 19, 1997
. Members of the assembly, composed of 100 Deaf leaders and Deaf representatives from 15
regions of the country elected its eleven Executive Board composed of Deaf persons for a term
of two years from 1997–1999.
PFD's vision list, among other things, empowerment of Deaf people to make them become
independent, united, equal and productive members of society; to represent the Deaf groups in
national and international meetings/forum and legislative bodies. PFD likewise aims to provide
training to its grass-roots self-help Deaf member-organizations specifically on organizational
management, community organization, advocacy techniques, leadership training, values
formation and other skills necessary for their development.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
CHAPTER II
FOREIGN SOURCE
In many countries, inclusion of children with disabilities, including deaf children, is a core element of
educational policy. If possible, deaf children are educated in mainstream settings. Given this policy,
it is surprising to see how few studies have been carried out into the social integration of deaf children.
Yet, social integration seems to be one of the major challenges for deaf children in inclusive settings.
Stinson and Antia (1999) define social integration as the ability to interact with, make friends with, and be
accepted by peers. From the studies available, it appears that deaf children in mainstream education ofte
n have few friends, have less interaction with hearing peers, and are more often rejected or neglected
than their hearing peers. In addition, they may feel isolated and lonely (Kluwin, Stinson, & Colarossi, 2002;
Musselman, Mootilal, & MacKay, 1996; Stinson & Antia, 1999; Stinson & Kluwin, 2003). For deaf children
in a co-enrollment program the image of social integration seems somewhat more positive
. Co-enrollment classes include both deaf and hearing children who are cotaught by a general education
and a special education teacher. In theory, co-enrollment programs provide the opportunity for intensive
contact between deaf or hard-of-hearing children and their hearing peers (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2003;
Kirchner, 1994) in an environment where they are not the only deaf or hard-of-hearing child. Although
deaf or hard-of-hearing and hearing children have been found to interact more with peers with the same
hearing status (Kluwin et al., 2002), interaction between deaf or hard-of-hearing and hearing peer
s increased during the co-enrollment program studied by Kreimeyer, Crooke, Drye, Egbert, and Klein
(2000). In the very few co-enrollment programs studied, mostly located in the United States, deaf or
hard-of-hearing children did not seem to feel lonely or isolated, did not have a lower self-esteem, and
did not differ from their hearing peers in how much their peers liked them (Kluwin, 1999; Nunes, Pretzlik,
& Olsson, 2001). However, Nunes et al. (2001) found deaf or hard-of-hearing children to be neglected
more often than their hearing peers and to have less friends in the classroom. Although Nunes et al. did
not explicitly identify the inclusive have studied as co-enrollment settings, it is clear form their description
that their settings entail the characteristics of co-enrollment programs Because research into social
l integration of deaf children is fairly limited and to a great extent focused on educational practices in the
United States, it is important to carry out additional studies, preferably in other countries with somewhat
differing educational policies. The Netherlands is such a country, characterized by a relatively high numbe
r of special schools for children with disabilities and a fairly reluctant position toward inclusion as an
ideologically motivated educational policy (Knoors, 2007). Forty-one percent of all hard-of-hearing and
deaf children are educated in a mainstream setting; the percentage for profoundly deaf children who are
mainstreamed is 13.5. However, as a consequence of the introduction of universal newborn hearing
screening and cochlear implantation, this percentage is increasing.

This article examines the social integration of deaf or hard-of-hearing children in both co-enrollment and
mainstream programs by focusing on peer acceptance, social competence, and friendship relations. In the
mainstream programs, there is only one deaf child in the classroom (the programs will be further
r explained in the (Methods section), whereas in the co-enrollment program several children are group
wise placed in a class with hearing classmates. Peer acceptance refers to the degree to which children are
liked or disliked by their peers. Social competence consists of three dimensions, prosocial behavior,
antisocial behavior, and socially withdrawn behavior that characterize children from an early age and
pervade many areas of functioning (Güroğlu, van Lieshout, Haselager, & Scholte, in press).
“Friendship relations” refers to the number of mutual friends (number of mutual antipathies is also taken
into account). Having at least one friend may diminish the negative influence of being rejected by most
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
of your peers (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003).
Children need relationships and friendships to develop social skills. These skills are necessary to develop
social relations later on in life (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). Children with different degrees of peer
acceptance, social competence, and friendship relations have been found to show differences in their
behavioral development (Gest, Graham-Burmann, & Hartup, 2001; Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003).
Popular children, who are well liked by many peers and seldom disliked, show many prosocial behaviors
(such as cooperating, helping, being considerate); they are more sociable; often display behaviors such as
associative play, friendly approaches, and social conversation; and they are seldom engaged in aggressive
behaviors. Rejected children, who are frequently disliked and seldom well liked, often display aggressive
and antisocial behaviors (such as bullying or victimizing) and are seen as arrogant by their peers. Rejected
children are at greater risk of negative developmental outcomes than other children. Neglected children,
who are neither liked nor disliked by their peers, have low social visibility. Not much information i
s available about their behavioral development. Apart from a general lack of sociability, they are hard to
distinguish from their popular peers. Controversial children, who are both liked and disliked, are highly
visible in the peer group and display behaviors that are characteristic of both popular and rejected children.
They are sociable and show high rates of positive interaction, but they are also aggressive and arrogant. A
neglected or controversial status seems to be less stable over time than the other categories.

Levels of peer acceptance may affect the opportunities to make friends (Gest et al., 2001) and
friendships provide the context for social, emotional, and cognitive development. Children with mutual
l friends generally show more sociable and prosocial behaviors and have higher self-esteem (cf. Hartup
, 1996). According to Van Lieshout, Verhoeven, Güroğlu, Haselager, and Scholte (2004), the number o
f mutual friendships and antipathies is related to peer acceptance and social competence. Children who
only have friendships (and no antipathies) usually are more socially competent and have a popular o
r average status (cf. Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). For children with both friendships and antipathies,
social competence is somewhat lower than for children with friendships only. These children generally
have a controversial or rejected status. Children who only have antipathies have low social competence
, show a high degree of antisocial behavior, and are usually rejected by their peers. Children who do not
have any friendships or antipathies are not very visible in the classroom and show a high degree of socially
withdrawn behavior. These children mostly have a neglected status. It is clear from these studies and
reviews that peer acceptance, social competence, and friendship relations are interrelated. Although peer
acceptance, social competence, and friendship relations already have been studied in deaf children (e.g.,
Kluwin et al., 2002; Nunes et al., 2001), the interrelations between these variables have not. Furthermore,
no previous studies have looked at these interrelations over time. Therefore, this article is the first to
examine the stability of and the interrelations between these variables over time in both deaf and hearing
students.
Relationships and friendships with peers are related not only to social and behavioral development
t but also to children's academic achievement (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003; Johnson, 2000). Children
with more friends have fewer adjustment problems, have higher self-esteem, report less loneliness, enjoy
wider peer acceptance, and display better school adjustment, positive attitudes toward school, and better
achievement (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). Children who are rejected by their peers are at risk for
school failure or drop out. Pellegrini (1992) found peer interaction in kindergarten to be positively related
to academic achievement in Grade 1. Wentzel, Barry, and Caldwell (2004) found that middle schoo
l students with mutual friends showed higher academic achievement than students who were friendless.
Hatzichristou and Hopf (1996) found that rejected children in elementary and secondary schools showed
academic difficulties and low achievement scores. Diehl, Lemerise, Caverly, Ramsay, and Roberts (1998)
found that peer acceptance and having friends significantly incremented the prediction of achievement
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
scores over the contributions of race, gender, attitudes toward school, and age for Grade 1–3 children.
Popular children with at least one friend had the best school adjustment.

This article focuses on the social integration of deaf students who are in an educational setting with hearing
nd peer nomination tasks, the deaf children will be compared to their hearing peers on peer acceptance,
social competence, and friendship relations. Although peer ratings and peer nominations were used
previously to measure peer acceptance of deaf children in inclusive settings, they were less often used to
social competence and friendship relations. Studies focusing on social competence in deaf students
mostly did so using self-reports of deaf students. Although self-reports provide valid information, deaf
students’ view of their own social skills might be very different from how they are perceived by their
peers. Friendship relations have not been studied in great detail. Most studies draw conclusions on dea
f children's friendships from the number of nominations the deaf child receives on being liked without
taking into account whether the deaf child also likes the child that nominated him or her. The only study
that looked at mutual nominations was the one by Nunes et al. (2001). However, their conclusions were
drawn from nominations on inviting a child to play at home, not on whether a child is your friend. This
article examines social competence and friendship relations in more detail.

Inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms has become the focus of extensive
research in education. It has both academic and social benefits for all students, such as providing
opportunities for communication and social interaction. The evaluation of teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusion appears to be a good method to determine the success of the programme. Although this has
been widely researched in many countries, the available evidence is not consistent. This study wa
s undertaken in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India, to measure and compare teachers’ attitudes toward
s the inclusion of children with hearing impairment in schools. Over the past two to three decades, in most
developed countries there has been a significant trend towards the placement of students with special
educational needs in mainstream schools rather than in segregated special schools and special classes.
This move has been referred to variously as integration, mainstreaming, and more recently, inclusion.
Inclusion refers to students with disabilities becoming part of the general education classroom, receiving a
meaningful curriculum with necessary support, and being taught with effective strategies (Smith 2004).

The basic premise of the integration/ inclusion movement is that principles of anti-discrimination, equity
, social justice, and basic human rights make it imperative that students with disabilities and special need
s should enjoy the same access as all other students to a regular school environment and to a broad
, balanced and relevant curriculum (UNESCO, 1994; Knight, 1999). Though the move towards integration
began in a few countries during the late 1960s and early 1970s, it became a worldwide movement in the
1980s and throughout the 1990s. A major influence was the promulgation of the Salamanca Statement and
Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994). The Government of India has played a
role in providing a comprehensive range of services for the education of children with disabilities. Initiatives
in the area of Inclusive Education can be traced back to the National Educational Policy (1986) which
recommended as a goal, ‘to integrate the handicapped with the general community at all levels as equal
partners, to prepare them for normal growth and to enable them to face life with courage and confidence’.
The Scheme of Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC) was started in 1974. It is implemented
in 27 States and4 Union Territories (UTs) through 41,875 schools, and benefits more than 133,000
children with disabilities (Ministry of Human Resource Development [MHRD] Report, 2002-2003).
A Survey (Disabled Persons in India, 58th Round, 2002) by the National Sample Survey Organisation
(NSSO) shows that there are 9,029 children with disability for every 0.1 million children in the age
group of 5-14 years.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA

Inclusion or organised placement of children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms has

been one of the major topics in education for the last two decades (Avramidis et al, 2000) and has
become the focus of extensive research (Jobe & Rust, 1996). Inclusion has academic and social benefits
for all students, whether with or without disabilities, such as increased communication and social
interaction opportunities, age-appropriate models of behaviour skills, more Vol 23, No.3, 2012; doi
10.5463/DCID.v23i3.117 www.dcidj.org 92 active participation in the school community, individualized
education goals, as well as access to the rich core curriculum (Grenot-Scheyer et al, 1996). It is believed
that integration into the mainstream enables students with disabilities to benefit from the stimulation
n of mixing with relatively more able students and to have the opportunity to observe higher models
of social and academic behaviour (Elkins, 1998). Those who oppose the adoption of such a model express
concerns about the lack of training, personnel and administrative support, and are uncertain about
academic and social gains (Lewis & Doorlag, 2003; Peterson & Hittie, 2003; Salend, 2001, 2005).
Although these issues are important, perhaps a better method would be to evaluate the attitudes of
those who form an important part of this dynamic system, namely the teachers, to determine the
success of the inclusionary programme (Rose & Cole, 2002). Indeed, teachers’ attitudes have been
found to influence the process and the outcome of inclusion to a great extent (Avramidis et al, 2000).
The factors which play a role in determining the attitudes of teachers include age, gender, qualifications,
experience, level of teaching, school management and proficiency. Diebold and Trentham (1987)
investigated teacher attitudes toward inclusion in Alabama, and found that regular educators wer
e positively inclined towards teaching students with disabilities, were confident about their skills and
sufficiency of time to carry out the mainstreaming programme in the regular classroom, and about the
effects of teacher inputs in the educational programme. Zambelli and Bonni (2004) also stated that tw
o factors are important in the formation of positive attitudes towards inclusion, namely, increased
knowledge and information about school inclusion and disabilities. Even Galis and Tanner (1995)
in their study concluded that it is both important as well as legally mandated, to make modifications
for those students who need it, to benefit from the educational environment. There are various
s opinions in literature regarding the relationship between a teacher’s gender and the attitude toward
s inclusive education. Several studies support the view that there is no correlation between the two
(Cornoldi et al, 1998; Avramidis et al, 2000; Kuester, 2000; Van Reusen et al, 2001). In a similar study,
Harvey (1985) concluded that gender was not a significant factor in determining a teacher’s attitude
toward inclusive education. However, some studies found that female teachers were more favourabl
y inclined towards the inclusion of students with disabilities into regular settings (Pearman et al, 1992
; Leyser & Tappendorf, 2001) and appeared to have higher expectations Vol 23, No.3, 2012; doi
10.5463/DCID.v23i3.117 www.dcidj.org 93 of these students than their male counterparts (Hodge &
Jansma, 2000).

In contrast, other studies found that male teachers were either significantly more confident than
emale teachers about their ability to teach students with disabilities (Jobe et al, 1996), or held more
positive views about inclusive education (Lampropoulou & Padelliadu, 1997). Factors which are major
impediments to the development of inclusive education in Andhra Pradesh are a limited understandin
g of the concept of disability, negative attitudes towards persons with disabilities and a resistance to
change. The inclusion of students with hearing impairment is even more challenging because of the
communication barrier between them and their non-impaired peers and teachers. McCain and Antia
(2005) of the University of Arizona compared the academic achievements, communication participation
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
n and social behaviour of five hearing-impaired students, five hearing-impaired students with additional
disabilities and 18 peers without hearing impairment studying in an inclusive classroom. It was found tha
t hearing-impaired students were not significantly different from their hearing peers in all the above areas,
indicating that co-enrolment is a possible model of inclusion for hearing-impaired students.

A hearing impairment is the absence or decreased ability of the auditory perception which can
impair an individual in processing linguistic information through hearing. A hearing loss occurs when any
problem with one or more parts of the ear or ears decreases or completely obstructs the ability to
receive auditory information (Myers, 2000). A hearing impairment is a deviation in auditory structure or
auditory function outside the normal range. Read (1984) states “hearing impairment and deafness
means all degrees of loss of hearing from minimum to total deafness”. The consequences of hearing loss
are many. Ansari (2004) says, “a reduced hearing acuity during infancy and early childhood not only
interferes with development of speech and language skills, but also adversely affects the developing
auditory nervous system. Often the language development of deaf students is delayed, which in turn a
ffects their communication skills, socialization and reading skills. According to Espeso, Owens, and
Williams (2006) hearing loss will interfere with acquisition of spoken language and social developent.
They further add that even moderate hearing loss will have significant affects on a child’s education
and social-emotional development. Lockwood (2001) argues that “hearing impairment obviously wil
l affect a child’s efforts to acquire and manipulate language normally”. Hearing impairment negatively
affects the development of communication skills of a child and ability to interact with others. As a result,
lack of communication skills will have impacts on academic performance and socialization of a deaf
child. It is important to detect any abnormality of hearing at a very early age because the age of a deaf
child when hearing loss is diagnosed is crucial for the development of speech-language. Bamford, Uus
and Davis (2005) point out that identification and intervention should be before six months of age as it
will reduce the effects of hearing impairment on child's language development, family functioning,
academic achievements, and social-emotional well-being. In 1998, Yoshinaga-Itano and Appuzzo
reported in a study that infants whose hearing loss was identified before the age of six months scored
significantly higher in expressive language and comprehension-conceptual sub tests than those, whose
hearing loss was identified after the age of 18 months. According to Lanfer (2006), early childhood
program will 10 be very helpful for the successful integration of children with hearing impairment in
regular classrooms.

2.3 Inclusive education

During the last few decades, there has been a changing concept world wide to provide
educational facilities for children with special education needs from segregated special schools to a more
inclusive approach. Now the term ‘inclusive education' has attracted much attention of researchers and
policy makers. The idea is to provide equal opportunities for special children to a quality education in
their neighbouring schools so that they can learn with and in the same way as their non-disabled
counterparts. The advocates of this concept believe that in regular schools, children with special
education needs will have better chance for daily interaction with peers and the ultimate result will be
the development of socialization skills. Peters, Johnstone, and Ferguson (2005) argue that inclusive
education is based on the philosophy that every individual has equal rights to a quality education in
relation to the development of their potentials and respect as a human being. The Salamanca
Declaration (1994) was a remarkable step towards setting up the principles of inclusive education as
it called the participant countries and organizations to endorse inclusive schools approach through
practical changes. The Dakar Framework for Action (2000) further leads this concept by emphasizing
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
to “create safe, healthy, inclusive and equitably resourced educational environments conducive to
excellence in learning, with clearly defined levels of achievement for all”. The inclusion policy urges on a
better understanding of the academic and social life situation of people with disabilities and acceptance
of the rights of disabled persons to play an active role in the society. Inclusive education is a challenging
and complex concept. It is more than just placing a child with special educational needs in regular school.
It is a way of thinking and behaving to offer special services within regular classrooms for all children
irrespective of their differences or special educational needs. Inclusion is about changes in schools to
improve the educational system for all students. It means changes in the curriculum, teaching methods
and interaction patterns in classrooms. The inclusive approach ensures that every individual participate
s fully in all aspects of life, physically, academically, socially and emotionally (Powers, 2002). Rustemie
r (CISE3 , 2002) says “inclusive education is all children and young people – with and without disabilities or
difficulties – learning together in ordinary pre-school provision, schools, colleges and universities with
appropriate networks of support” (p.1). This definition asserts that education facilities should be
provided for all children in one place with appropriate services according to the needs of the students.
Powers (2002) gives a working definition of inclusion which is based on the concept of ‘a system of values
’ rather than a ‘particular type of educational placement’. According to Powers, inclusive education is best
conceived as a response to student diversity based on principles of equity and acceptance that aim to give
all children equal rights to participation in mainstream curricula and communities, as valued, accepted,
and fully participating members of those communities, and also rights to achieve as much as they can
academically, physically, and in their social-emotional development. By accepting the rights of disable
d children, this definition demonstrates the inclusive education concept as a response to the diverse
learning needs of all children. This definition represents a vision of inclusive education as it covers all
basic human rights including equity, acceptance, participant in school life as well as in community and
dynamics of academic, physical and social emotional development. There is criticism regarding the
inclusion of children with special education needs in regular schools as opponents of inclusion argue that
inclusive education will slow the progress of normal students. Bateman and Bateman (2002) argue that
“full inclusion is not the best placement for all students”. A severe or profound disability can limit the
participation a student in the class. The feelings of being different from other may lower the self-esteem
of a disabled student. McCarty (2006) says that usually general education teachers do not have an
extensive training like special educators to assist the students with disabilities. This will put extra burden
on class teachers and quality of education will suffer. 3 Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education,

2.4 Inclusive education for deaf and hard of hearing students:

Nowell and Innes (1997) refer to inclusion of deaf students as the process of educating these
students in regular classrooms with hearing students. According to Marshark, Lang and Albertin
i (2002) inclusion of deaf students mean a full involvement of deaf students in all aspects of the
classroom and school life. In inclusive classrooms, regular class teachers make adaptations in the
curriculum and classroom environment with the help of a special educator in order to facilitate the
learning process for a diverse group of learners. The goal of inclusive education for deaf and hard
of hearing pupils is to achieve their academic and social integration (Stinson and Antia, 1999)
. According to Stinson and Antia (1999), academic integration refers to the academic
of a deaf or hard of hearing student and social integration is the ability to interact with other
s succesfully, to make friends and accepted by the peers. A deaf or hard of hearing student must
be able to participate and engage fully in academic and social activities. Moreover, he or she will be able
to develop and maintain secured relationships with their peers. Some times deaf and hard of hearing
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
students may not participate fully in lessons and social activities due to communication
difficulties (Stinson and Antia, 1999). This may result in feelings of loneliness which is a major
concern for social integration of deaf and hard of hearing students. Deaf and hard of hearing
students may also feel difficulties in making and keeping friends. The acceptance of a deaf or hard
of hearing student by his or her hearing peers will be an indicator of social integration of that
particular child.

2.4.1 Benefits of inclusive education for deaf and hard of hearing students:
Several benefits of inclusive education can be cited for deaf and hard of hearing students
relating to academic, personal, social, communication and language skills. Power and Hyde (2002)
argue that “with appropriate support from regular class teachers and itinerant teachers of the deaf
and hard of hearing, most seem to make satisfactory adjustment to academic and social life with
their hearing peers” (p.309). Powers (2002) asserts that deaf and hard of hearing students tend to
have higher levels 13 of academic achievements in regular schools than their peers who attend
special schools. Furthermore, in regular schools, deaf students are continuously surrounded by
language and having opportunities of interaction with a great variety of people in a broad
environment. In this way, they acquire the necessary skills for socialization in school as well a
s community life (Powers, 2002). The success of inclusive education is to enable students with
hearing impairments to become a part of classroom instead of a centre-piece as Swet and Ponte
(2007) point out that “students are participants in the learning process rather than passive
consumers”. The main thrust of inclusion has been to prepare general education teachers as well
as deaf and hard of hearing students for this education initiative. Another major question is the
provision of appropriate services for deaf and hard of hearing students in regular classroom
s (Stinson and Antia, 1999). Tufekcioglu (2000) has mentioned five prerequisites for the inclusion
of pupils with hearing impairment:
 Needs of children are met in general education system.

 Audiological needs of deaf children are met.

 Communication needs of deaf children are met.

 Supportive services are provided as necessary.

 Acknowledge of other needs as they arise, followed by due implementation. Kluwin, Stinson and
Colarossi (2002) have raised questions on the inclusion of deaf students and argued that integration
of deaf and hard of hearing students can influence their identity and self-esteem and may create
feelings of exclusion. Jambor and Elliot (2005) also asserted that the communication difficulties of
deaf students can have impacts on their self-esteem. They further added that repeated experiences
of ineffective communication may also lead to frustration and depress deaf individuals' self-esteem.
However, Nowell and Innes (1997) have different point of view as they argued that daily interaction
with hearing peers will be helpful for a deaf and hard of hearing student to develop better
communication skills because regular schools offer 14 more prospects of learning these skills through
interaction with normally hearing students. The development of communication skills and academic
achievements of a deaf student will increase positive self-esteem and remove the feelings of
exclusion (Antia, 1999). It should also be noted that placing the deaf or hard of hearing student in
regular school benefits not only that particular student but hearing students as well. It offers them
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
opportunities to come to terms with human differences and chance to develop some understanding of
hearing and deafness (Smith, Polloway, Patton and Dowdy, 2001). Moreover, a regular class teacher uses
different teaching strategies and techniques for a student with special needs and that also benefits all
students in a classroom. For instance, while regular teachers introduce adaptations to new concepts to
make their understanding easy for deaf students, hearing students also benefit by getting better
understanding of the concepts.

2.5 Classroom interaction:

Classroom interaction is one of the primary means by which learning is occurred in classrooms
. Classroom interaction is the conversation or talk that occurs in classroom between teachers and
students and among students. Peck, Odom and Bricker (1993) view the interaction as the process of
direct exchange of actions and argue that interaction can be verbal in terms of written or spoken
words and non-verbal in terms of gestures or facial expressions. They further point out that social
interaction is a chain of behaviors in which social partners contribute different behaviors in a sequence
. The first behaviour in a social interaction chain is called social initiation and subsequent behaviour is
called social response. Koster, Nakken, Pijl and van Houten (2007) view the interaction in classroom
as an important aspect of inclusion that motivates the parents to send their child with special needs
to a regular school. The parents assume that continuous interaction with peers will have positive
impacts on the child. They further argue that continuous interaction is essential for social inclusion
, integration and participation in the learning process. 15 In a classroom, teachers and students interact
with one another on a continued basis throughout the school day. This interaction contributes towards
the effective learning and sharing of information. According to Koster et al (2007), one of the roles of a
teacher in classroom is to facilitate and mediate learning through dialogue and collaboration. Moor
e (1989) has classified the framework of interaction in the following way. i. learner-instructor interaction
In learner-instructor interaction, student or students and class teacher are the participants. The teacher
plays the role of mentor or facilitator to provide information, guidance and encouragement to
students. The learner-instructor interaction in classroom can be one-by-one or in a group. ii. Learner
-learner interaction. In this type of interaction, two or more students engage in a discussion about a
subject, sharing information, ideas, viewpoints, experiences, or involvement in some curricular or
extra-curricular activity. iii. learner-content interaction. Within learner-content interaction,
a student interacts with content intellectually. An interaction with content results in a change in his o
r her understanding about a particular concept or an idea (Moore, 1989). Antia (1999) says that one of
the basic aims of inclusive education is to provide deaf pupils opportunities for daily interaction with
their hearing peers to improve their communication skills. The communication skills of deaf and hard oF
hearing students are not developed according to normal patterns due to hearing loss. It is
assumed that formal and informal communication with the teachers and peers will improve their
communication skills. As Stinson and Antia (1999) assert that in a classroom in which a deaf student
t has placed, “teacher-student communication and student-student communication are primary means
of learning in the classroom” (p.169). 16 Lanfer (2006) argues that hearing impaired students need
communication rich environment. In order to create a healthy classroom environment, regular teacher
s must have a clear understanding of unique learning needs of these students. Some adaptations such as
preferred seating, structured activities to encourage communication and participation of all students,
small group activities and monitoring the progress of the students closely can be useful to create a
communication rich environment. In addition, a class teacher must have enough information about
the nature and characteristics of the hearing loss of a particular student in the classroom (Lanfer, 2006
). A class teacher should use the communication methods that are most appropriate for a deaf student.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
Powers (2002) asserted that good practice in inclusion is characterized by the regular opportunities for
interaction between deaf students and hearing peers in an appropriate communication environment
according to the competencies and needs of the students. For deaf students, initiative behaviour from
teachers or peers is crucial in learning to responsive behaviour. According to Thompson et al (1993),
eye contact, listening, imitative behaviours, following directions, minimal receptive and expressive
communication skills are the requisites for a deaf student to interact appropriately in a classroom.
Kluwin, Stinson and Colarossi (2002) asserted that students with mild hearing loss are less likely to
experience the communication barriers that profoundly deaf students face in interaction with hearing
peers and these barriers have implication for interaction and participation. According to Stinson and
Antia (1999), participation of a deaf or hard of hearing student refers to his or her ability to participate
in classroom activities and discussions. The inability to participate can influence the academic
achievements and socialization of students with hearing impairments. A well academically integrated
deaf or hard of hearing student will be able to participate in class activities and discussions like his or
her hearing classmates. A class teacher can organize such structured activities and discussions that
allow the students to participate. A deep and lasting learning is fostered by active participation in such
discussions and activities. A deaf or hard of hearing student must also have opportunities to participate
in extracurricular activities outside the classroom for social and emotional development. According to
Powers (2002), involvement of deaf students in extra-curricular 17 activities will be helpful to develop
leisure interests and social skills. It will also be helpful to increase the interaction among the deaf and
hearing students. Extracurricular activities allow time for interaction outside the classroom and are
useful for the development of deep and lasting friendships, social skills and self-esteem. Stinson and
Liu (1999) stated that “it is important that teachers create opportunities to promote positive language
interaction for all students in the class”. The deaf students will be likely to get less benefit of regular
classrooms if teachers are not aware of necessary initiatives to promote language interaction. Antia and
Kreimeyer (1996) found in a study that interaction between deaf students and hearing peers increased
during interventions in integrated activities and social skills training and declined when interventions
withdrawn. The study showed that intervention strategies used by the class teachers can affect the
interaction patterns of deaf students and hearing peers.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA

FOREIGN SETTING
This study had two purposes: (1) to learn how hearing students in a mainstream college setting
perceive deaf students as classmates, and (2) to discover how those perceptions influence the integration
of deaf and hearing students on campus. Thirty full-time students at the Rochester Institute of Technology
in Rochester, New York, were interviewed using in-depth, open-ended interview strategies. It was found
that even in this setting, designed expressly to integrate deaf and hearing students, full integration did not
occur. Deaf students were successfully placed on the campus with hearing students for educational
purposes; however, social integration did not occur. This examines social integration of deaf children in
inclusive settings in The Netherlands. Eighteen Grade 1-5 deaf children and their 344 hearing classmates
completed 2 sociometric tasks, peer ratings and peer nomination, to measure peer acceptance, social
competence, and friendship relations. Deaf and hearing children were found to be similar in their peer
acceptance and friendship relations, but differences occurred in social competence. Deaf children scored
lower than hearing children on prosocial behavior and higher on socially withdrawn behavior. Structural
equation modeling showed peer acceptance, social competence, and friendship relations to be stable over
time, and the structure of interrelations between variables at 2 measurements were found to be the same
for deaf and hearing participants. Many deaf children were once educated in special schools, which catered
specifically to students with hearing loss. According to Loes Wauters of the Institute of Signs, Language and
Deaf Studies, "Nowadays, most deaf children are educated in mainstream settings where social integration
is one of the major challenges for these children."

One of the most helpful ways in which a deaf child can feel more a part of an inclusive classroom
is to make an effort to educate the other students on what it means to be deaf, according to KidsHealth.
If the other students can understand and sympathize with the deaf child's struggles, then they are more
likely to feel connected to the child and more willing to help them in the classroom. A good activity to
introduce children to the concept of hearing loss is to get ear plugs for each person in the class. As the
class discusses something non-academic, possibly what they did over the summer, each child can take a
few minutes to experience the discussion with the ear plugs in their ears. Just a few moments of losing that
sense can help the children to understand and empathize with the deaf student.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
If the teacher has explained the deaf child's disability to the class, and the child is still
being bullied or left behind in activities, parents can encourage the child to go to their teacher for help.
Still, deaf children often deal with feelings of isolation and loneliness in an inclusive classroom. To build
up their self-confidence and help them to reduce stress, it's helpful for the whole family to engage
in activities with other families who have a member with hearing loss.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
LOCAL SOURCE
Mr. Julius G. Andrada, current vice president of the Philippine Federation of the Deaf (PFD) was the
guest speaker for the event. He praised PAIDE's noble work of recognizing the dedicated hearing
people who serve as their allies. Speaking on Deaf identity and culture, Mr. Andrada encouraged
everyone in the audience to learn both sign language and Deaf culture as the two are inseparable. He
appealed for greater support so that the larger society will come to respect and accept the unique
identity of the Deaf. In his closing message, Mr. Ricardo B. De los Santos, PAIDE Sign Language Training
Consultant, affirms Mr. Andrada's pride for the Deaf identity saying that the "dumb" refers to the
people who refuse to accept and recognize that sign language is a legitimate language. As Julius
Andrada, president of the foundation, stated in a letter to SEC Chair Fe Barin: "The consequence of our
hearing impairment is not just a loss of sound but a loss of access to information. “In late 2003 though,
the PFD was able to secure some project funds that allowed them to hire an accountant, who then
prepared a financial report. It was only after the report was filed with the SEC that the foundation's
shortcomings were discovered. As penalty, the PFD was slapped with a fine of P21, 000, which it had to
pay if it wished to retain its SEC registration. In letters to Barin, Andrada notes that the PFD "has not
had any fixed sources of income for the past six years (and) our only current project is for three years
(that) covers contractual employees with fixed terms renewable every six months. “The P21, 000 fine,
Andrada adds, could be "used for other projects of the Federation which will help Deaf Filipinos. “But
in his letter, Andrada says that they wish to retain their name and identity as this is "recognized by the
government and the World Federation of the Deaf, our mother organization."
When we think of the deaf, the first thing that comes into our minds might probably be sign language.
Since they cannot communicate through speech and sound, they have to resort to gestures and hand
movements. But, is that the long and short of it? That's the deaf? I beg to disagree.
I never dreamed of being engrossed with the deaf, much less being near them. But I was
fascinated by their language. It's soo beautiful. Every movement has meaning. The graceful flow of
hands, moods of body, flickering of fingers, all suggest a variety of definition. I believe most of my
colleagues would agree that we all started to love the deaf by loving their language first.
Deafness to some medical doctors is an incurable disease. Any residual hearing should be
capitalized in order for the disease to be at least "superficially covered." Hearing aids, cochlear
implants, therapy, etc. are needed in order to make the deaf appear "normal." These are their
pathological assumptions.
After my first brief encounter with Charvie Arreola,a deaf student during a Campus Crusade for
Christ Youth Camp last 1992, I began to look for ways to get near a true blooded genuine deaf. Three
short years later, after completing my studies at Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, taught
and mastered sign from my boss whom I hold in high esteem, Ms. Rosalie Maracaig of Gallaudet
University, experiencing interpreting stints at "Kapwa Ko Mahal Ko" TV program and Sunday morning
"Lagare" (doing many things at the same time) at Capitol City Baptist Church, Project 6 Baptist Church
and Lighthouse Baptist Church (at least they are all Baptist churches) lighter moments withMs. Tess
Buenaventura (our English Instructor and one of my closest friends) and of course having a deaf best
friendNonoy and now Ervin Reyes whom I shared the gospel of salvation and accepted Jesus Christ as
his Savior, I more or less acquired and loved their culture.
I believe that no culture is better than another culture. But deaf culture is a highly debated
one. Most of us who are involved with the hearing impaired in this country don't believe that there
exists such a culture. But let me first enumerate the attributes of a culture as compared to the so
called "Deaf Culture".
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
Based on these facts, it is to be believed that deaf culture exist. Rutherfords, "The Culture of American
Deaf People" study indicates that the primary objectives of Deaf Culture are the successful adaptation
and survival of the group in its specific environment. The other is the maintenance of the groups'
identity and unity through time.

The deaf cannot rely on their residual hearing to absorb information. Thus, eyes and
body movement are generally used. Some tribes in Africa uses these gestures to convey a
message or warn against danger. But for the deaf, it's a necessity. Modern amenities help
them communicate well. The visual technology like captioned TV, use of TTY's (text
telephones), flashing alarm clocks, vibrators, doorbells and telephone alerting lights,
computers and modems all help in communications for the deaf. But sad to say, Filipino deaf
don't have the luxury of having much less using these highly technical facilities. They
completely rely on their own radars and satellites, the deaf way.

Another hotly contested issue is the Filipino Sign Language. The Deaf community
believes, and we are in unity with them, that there is a sign language native to the Filipino
deaf. Other skeptics believe that these are only homemade signs or some bastardized
Signing Exact English.

We don't think so. In fact, MCCID is one of the advocates of the use of Filipino Sign
Language both inside the classroom as well as in our daily conversations with them. They are
more at ease with it. Staunch supporters of PSL/FSL are now documenting the vocabulary
and will be releasing them soon. For our part, MCCID is now in the process of producing a
book on sign language in computer terms. We invited some deaf who are working in computer
companies and are in constant use of computer words.

For those who don't believe in PSL, try to observe the deaf communicating with
another deaf. If the unbelievers can reverse interpret them with ease and freely flowing, then
there is no PSL. But if not, well, you have to reconsider your ideas. The deaf has their own
word order, signs and idioms peculiar to them.

One of the parents of our deaf student told a story of her daughter celebrating her
birthday at a certain date. They didn't plan to celebrate her birthday until about one week
before. She was surprised when so many deaf attended her party at such short notice. They
came from various places even as far as Pampanga and Cavite. That is how they can contact
their deaf friends through their own network.

In my subject, Deaf Culture ( MCCID is the only school in the country that has this
subject ) we gathered ten distinct characteristics of deaf people. They are:

1. When mainstreamed with hearing people, without moving, they can be mistaken as
hearing.

2. They make peculiar movements when communicating. You can differentiate them by
comparing a genuine deaf from a hearing who knows sign language.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
3. They show feelings in exaggerated appearance. A very happy mood is easily noticed
from an excited one.

4. Views the surroundings and happenings in the world in a different way according to
what they see, resulting to incomplete information.

5. Keen on gossiping and making stories about other persons. (most hearing people are
also guilty of it !!!)

6. They show marked respect to teachers and other higher authority.

7. They easily feel the change of mood and feelings of another person within their
surroundings.

8. It is imbedded in their emotions the feeling of deprivation due to discrimination from

the hearing people. Some feel sorry for their predicament.

9. Most of them are suspicious of their surroundings and friends.

10. They are very loyal to the people who understands their plight.

This is definitely and incomplete explanation of this very rich and exciting culture. I
have only discussed an overview of it. MCCID always believe that the deaf has their own
place under the sun and it's up to us hearing to give them their rightful place. The history of the
Deaf community can be explained through waves of influence beginning in the 1900s, they
include contact with religious organizations, educators and international non-governmental
organizations. In the early 1900s the Manila School for the Deaf (which would later become
the Philippine School for the Deaf) and the Philippine Association for the Deaf was
established. It was during this period that the Deaf community was recognized as a minority by
the government. This period is characterized by the first contact of the indigenous sign
language with ASL and the convergence of the Philippine Deaf in Manila in a school setting,
as the Manila School for the Deaf was the only option for education for deaf individuals at that
time.
Starting with the 1960s religious organizations began to have an interest in the deaf members
of society. This wave was characterized by the founding of the Deaf Evangelistic Alliance
Foundation, the Laguna Christian College for the deaf and the Bible institute for the Deaf. This
would mean that the Deaf community would also interact in religious settings in addition to
educational ones.The past ways of viewing Deaf culture has been one of a medical/infirmity
model, one where deaf individuals are considered hearing impaired or handicapped, thus
taken as separate from mainstream society and needing special treatment in terms of . It can
be seen though the language that was used in the time periods for example in this American
account on describing the students of the Manila School for the Deaf:
“
During the year 1907-08 the Bureau of Education opened in Manila a school for
defectives providing at first for a number of deaf children, and later for the blind.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
As the parents of these children were usually unable to pay the expense of maintenance
away from home, the government made provision to subsist and clothe them, so that they
were given a chance to develop into self-reliant, and self-supporting members of society.
Basketry, hat-making, and other handicrafts were taught, as well as academic subjects

The Deaf were seen as defective, not normal, and different. They were also remarked as a
burden to society and to their parents because the cost of raising a deaf child when compared
to a hearing one was more expensive, so the government had to step in to make them
contributing members of society. It can also be seen that in recognizing the Deaf as a minority
during the 1900s this marked the start of discrimination of the Deaf, as this was the first time
they were integrated into the rest of Philippine society.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA

SYNTHESIS
Inclusion is an educational option where children with disabilities pursue all or part of their
education within a standard school program with their peers who are not disabled. In this
model, support is provided to both students and teachers in order to facilitate optimal access
to learning in the classroom. An equivalent term, mainstreaming, implies similar educational
processes and has traditionally been used by educators of children with hearing loss in order
to refer to the education of these children in classrooms with hearing peers (Antia & Stinson,
1999). Inclusion focuses on the acceptance rather than exclusion of children with various
types of disabilities in the classroom, school and wider social community. The inclusive model
also supports and promotes the growth of the child within these environments. Inclusion is
seen as having overall beneficial effects and has been reported as a desirable option by
parents, educators and integrated students with a variety of disablities (Andrews & Lupart,
2000; Biklen, 1992; Bunch, Lupart, & Brown, 1997; Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993; Green, 1990;
Lipsky & Gartner, 1989; Lombardi, Nuzzo, Kennedy & Foshay, 1994; Northcott, 1973; Stoker
& Spear, 1984; Winzer, 2002).

Studies examining the academic achievement of children and youth with disabilities in
inclusive programs have demonstrated that these children consistently outperform students
with similar disabilities educated in segregated special education settings (Allen, 1986, 1999;
Allen & Osborn, 1984; Geers, 1990; Jensema, 1975; Kluwin & Moores; 1985, 1989; Wang &
Baker, 1985-86). These children have disabilities such as intellectual handicap,
developmental delay, learning disabilities and hearing loss. Other advantages of inclusion
consist of attending a neighborhood school, increased involvement in extracurricular activities
with neighborhood peers and greater parental involvement in the education of their children
(Bodner-Johnson, 1986; Northern & Downs, 2002). Students without disabilities are exposed
from an early age to students with differing ability levels, leading to greater understanding and
acceptance of difference among all children. Inclusion is thus seen as a means of eliminating
the deleterious effects of segregation and the stigma often attached to the student with a
disability (Bunch et al., 1997; Gartner & Lipsky, 1989; Guralnick, 1986; Guralnick & Groom,
1986; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Stainback & Stainback, 1990)

Hearing loss present at birth or occurring in early childhood often represents a significant
barrier to the natural acquisition, development and use of spoken language. The degree of
hearing loss as well as any delay in fitting the child with appropriate amplification are two
important factors that impact directly on spoken language acquisition. The resulting language
delay often found in children with hearing loss has been seen as an underlying cause of
reduced academic performance (Moores, 1987, 1996; Maxon & Brackett, 1992). Due to this
often significant language delay, the placement of students with hearing loss into inclusive
settings has been a controversial and highly debated educational alternative.

Nevertheless, since the 1970s, the number of students with hearing loss educated in
inclusive settings has increased substantially. According to recent U.S. statistics, over 79% of
school-aged children with hearing loss are being educated in inclusive settings
(Easterbrookes, 1999; Luckner, 1991; Nowell & Innes, 1997). Public Law 94-142,
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
The Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed in the United States in 1975,
mandated free and appropriate education for all children with disabilities. This law stipulated
procedural safeguards to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their families and
called for non-discriminatory testing, the assurance of an annual Individual Education Plan
(IEP) and the provision of educational services in the least restrictive environment appropriate
to the needs of the child (Moores, 1987; 1996; Northern & Downs, 2002). The passing of
Public Law 94-142 had a great impact on educational programming available for children with
hearing loss, resulting in increased trends toward education of these children in schools with
typical hearing peers rather than in separate day schools, residential schools and private
programs for children with hearing loss (Easterbrookes, 1997; Moores, 1987, 1996).

The goal of an appropriate educational placement for a child with hearing loss is to match
the needs of the student to the continuum of services available in a school or school district.
No single placement option can or should be considered ideal or even desirable for all children
with hearing loss. Instead, an appropriate educational placement should provide specific
services as needed, exert minimal limitations on the social and academic growth of the child,
stimulate self-sufficiency and responsibility and provide for the development of the skills,
abilities and behaviors required for functioning in the least restrictive environment possible
(Sanders, 1993).

A variety of educational placement options should therefore be available for students

with hearing loss within their school districts, representing a continuum of services ranging
from minimal to maximal support, depending on the needs of the individual child (Ross, 1990;
Tye-Murray, 1998). These placement options range from specialized residential or day school
environments, special classrooms for children with hearing loss within a regular school,
standard school placement with special resource room support, standard school placement
with services of an itinerant teacher of deaf and hard of hearing students, and standard school
placement with only those services accessible to all other children in the school. The latter
three educational options constitute various forms of inclusion, where the child with hearing
loss spends all or part of the day in classroom with hearing peers. In these options, some
accommodations to the educational program may include testing modifications, classroom
support and access to assistive listening devices. However, the curriculum is not usually
modified, and children are expected to perform at the same level as their peers with typical
hearing in academic subjects (Moores, 1987, 1996; Ross, 1990; Tye-Murray, 1998).

Advantages of inclusion specific to orally educated children with hearing loss include the
promotion of social interaction with the hearing world, the availability of typical linguistic and
behavioral models provided by their peers, a stimulating and highly oral environment with a
richness of linguistic input, an increased opportunity for learning opportunities and access to
wider curriculum possibilities than might be offered in a segregated environment (Gresham,
1982; Ladd, Munson, & Miller, 1984; Maxon & Brackett, 1992; Nolan & Tucker, 1981;
Northcott, 1984; 1990; Nowell & Innes, 1997; Ross, 1990). Inclusion provides children with
hearing loss the opportunity to interact and establish social relationships with their peers with
typical hearing, conditions that have been shown to have positive effects on social
acceptance, self esteem and the ability to form mature social relations (Antia, 1998). In order
to derive maximum benefit from the inclusive environment, students with hearing loss must be
provided with and take advantage of the numerous opportunities for interaction with peers,
teachers and educational materials that exist in the educational setting.
 KOLEHIYO NG LUNGSOD NG LIPA
Predictors of successful inclusion for children with hearing loss have typically centered on
individual characteristics of these students themselves (Brackett, 1993; Geers, 1990; Geers &
Moog, 1989; Goldgar & Osberger, 1986; Moores & Sweet, 1990; Northcott, 1990; Pflaster,
1980, 1981). These characteristics include early identification of hearing loss, early and
consistent use of amplification, early family-oriented infant/preschool programming, an
auditory/oral approach to language learning using speech as the primary mode of
communication and early placement into regular school (between the ages of 3 and 6) with
regular support services as required (Geers, 1990; Geers & Moog, 1987; Northcott, 1990;
Ross, 1990; Watkins, 1987; White & White, 1987). Although degree of hearing loss has often
been cited as an important predictor variable (Allen & Osborn, 1984; Brackett, 1993; Geers &
Moog, 1987; Karchmer, Milone, & Wolk, 1979; Karchmer & Trybus, 1977; Strong, Charlson, &
Gold, 1987 ; Wolk, Karchmer, & Schildroth 1982), this is not supported by all studies (see for
example Geers, 1990; Biro et al, 1986; and Goldberg & Flexer, 1993). Some researchers
argue that age at intervention rather than degree of hearing loss is a significant predictor of
language outcomes for these children (Apuzzo & Yoshinaga-Itano, 1995; Calderon & Naidu,
2000; Moeller, 2000; Yoshinaga-Itano, 1999). Parental involvement as an essential co-
condition to early identification in achieving positive language outcomes for children with
hearing loss is also receiving considerable research attention (Calderon, 2000; Meadow-
Orlans, Mertens, & Sass-Lehrer, 2003; Moeller, 2000; Yoshinaga-Itano, 2000).

Reading and writing ability as well as high levels of speech intelligibility have also been
frequently cited as important individual characteristics that impact directly on successful
inclusion into mainstream educational placements (Allen & Osborne, 1984; Geers, 1990;
Goldgar & Osberger, 1986; Holt, 1993).

Although traditional perspectives on the indicators of success in the inclusive environment

attribute such characteristics as residing primarily within individual students themselves, this
view has been criticized for ignoring the potential influences of educational and societal
contexts on the successful inclusion of children with various types of disabilities. In addition,
such traditional perspectives place undue burdens on the students themselves, holding them
primarily responsible for their own success or failure in the mainstream. Some recent studies
reject the view of disability as residing solely in the acts or characteristics of individuals and
attempt instead to describe disabilities in terms of societal reactions to these behaviors and
characteristics (Antia, 1998; McDermott & Varenne, 1995; Mehan, Hertweck & Meihls, 1986).
According to this expanded view, factors external to the child such as the attitudes of teachers
and peers toward their disability and the abilities of conversational partners to organize and
adapt interactions and discourse structures to respond to the communicative needs and
abilities of these students are equally important considerations in the development of a model
of effective educational inclusion. Available research shows that teacher attitudes toward the
inclusion of students with disabilities impact directly on the effectiveness of this educational
approach (Bunch et al., 1997).