Social Processes and Outcomes of In-School Contact Between Deaf and Hearing Peers

Transcription

1 Social Processes and Outcomes of In-School Contact Between Deaf and Hearing Peers Thomas N. Kluwin Gallaudet University Michael S. Stinson National Technical Institute for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology Gina Mason Colarossi Pennsylvania School for the Deaf Studies of social processes and outcomes of the placement of deaf students with hearing peers cannot be easily summarized, but can be grouped into a least four major categories of focus: social skills, interaction and participation, sociometric status and acceptance, and affective functioning. We review 33 studies available since 1980 in which a mainstreamed or included deaf sample was compared to another group. Studies indicated (1) that hearing students were more socially mature than deaf students in public schools, (2) that deaf students interacted with deaf classmates more than hearing ones, (3) that deaf students were somewhat accepted by their hearing classmates, and (4) that self-esteem was not related to extent of mainstreaming. There was a tendency for studies to use observational methods with very young children, teacher evaluations with middle school children, and questionnaires with older children. Three major areas of methodology limit general conclusions: samples, measurements of variables, and experimental manipulations. The reviewed studies provide a basis for understanding the social processes and outcomes in these placement situations; however, it is not possible to make broad generalizations about effects of placement. On the surface, problems in social interaction for deaf or hard-of-hearing students in local public schools might appear to be solely limited to communication mode problems; that is, the hearing child speaks and the deaf child does not (Hallahan & Kaufman, 1994); however, Gaustad and Kluwin (1992), Kluwin and Stinson (1993), and Messenheimer-Young and Kretschmer (1994) have Correspondence should be sent to Thomas N. Kluwin, Department of Educational Foundations and Research, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C ( Thomas.Kluwin@ Gallaudet.edu) Oxford University Press reported that deaf and hearing students have several alternatives to overcoming apparent communication barriers. Nonetheless, deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public school programs have often failed to establish close relationships with their hearing peers (Antia, 1982; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Libbey & Pronovost, 1980, Saur, Popp-Stone, & Hurley-Lawrence, 1987). As a result, college-age deaf students who have been through local public school programs report having experienced isolation and loneliness in school (Foster, 1988; Mertens, 1989; Saur et al., 1987). We review studies of the social processes and outcomes of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in classes with hearing peers. Considerable discussion and some research about the appropriateness of this educational practice can be subsumed under four general areas of concern: (1) social skills, (2) interaction/ participation, (3) sociometric status/acceptance, and (4) affective functioning. The categories of social skills, sociometric status/acceptance, and affective functioning were used by Gresham and MacMillan (1997) in a review of the literature on the social competence and affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities, primarily students with learning disabilities. The category of interaction/participation is an additional category for this review. Studies of interaction/participation may not be of as much interest to educators and researchers who work with students who have mild disabilities as they are to those who work with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Students with mild disabilities are less likely to experience the communication bar-

2 Social Processes 201 riers that deaf and hard-of-hearing students face in interaction with hearing peers, and these barriers have implications for interaction and participation. Social Skills A key issue in the category of social skills is the ability of the student to meet other peoples standards, such as those of teachers (Gresham & MacMillan, 1997). In studies of the social functioning of deaf and hard-ofhearing students in mainstream settings, researchers have used measures of social maturity to tap this ability to meet standards. Social maturity is observed when individuals demonstrate age-appropriate behavior (Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Kluwin & Stinson, 1993). If an individual knows what is appropriate for a situation, he or she likely will demonstrate appropriate behavior. Social Interaction/Participation This dimension concerns the extent that deaf and hearing peers in class interact with each other and participate in activities together. Educators have regarded greater participation by the two groups as a desirable outcome. Social interaction is usually measured by the observed frequency of contact between an individual and others, although the quality of contact can also be measured (Ladd, Munson, & Miller, 1984). In contrast, participation is defined as one s perception of the frequency and nature of contact with peers (Kluwin & Stinson, 1993). Consequently, an independent observer might conclude that a child has little contact with his peers, but the child may, or may not, perceive himself or herself as participating in many activities. Sociometric Status/Acceptance The extent to which mainstreamed students are accepted by their classmates has been an issue of concern among educators and researchers, and it relates to sociometric status and acceptance (Stinson & Antia, 1999). Although participation in activities may be a basis for the development of close friendships, it may also be ultimately unfulfilling if the social interaction is superficial (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). We have classified two sets of measures under the general concept of peer acceptance. One set of measures pertains to peer ratings of the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual as desirable or as having a particular position in the classroom social hierarchy (Hagborg, 1987; Ladd et al., 1984). The second set of measures pertains to perceived social acceptance, that is, the deaf or hard-of-hearing child s own evaluation of his or her acceptance by class peers. As with the distinction between interaction and participation, sociometric status is based upon external observer s social judgments and perceived acceptance is based on one s subjective interpretation of social experience (Kluwin & Stinson, 1993; Maxon, Brackett, & van den Berg, 1991; Rittenhouse, 1987; Stinson & Whitmire, 1991, 1992). Affective Functioning Affective functioning refers to general personal dispositions, including self-concept, locus of control, achievement motivation, and so on. Affective characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students that have been investigated include loneliness, perceived social competence, and self- image. Loneliness is the self s emotional response to a lack of social participation (Murphy & Newlon, 1987). Perceived social competence is concerned with perceptions of ability to establish and maintain good social relationships. Finally, self-image is the perception of the self as a social being or a socially desirable being (Coyner, 1994; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Jacobs, 1989; Shaffer-Meyer, 1990). This article considers research on the social outcomes and processes related to the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students together with hearing students and analyzes it with respect to theoretical and methodological issues. We have organized the review around the above four dimensions and the associated constructs within the dimensions that have been used in comparison studies of the education of deaf and hardof-hearing children in classes with hearing peers. Some studies of social processes and outcomes have addressed more than one of these dimensions. In this case, we discuss the study under more than a single dimension. Table 1 lists in summary form the four dimensions, the data sources that the studies used to investigate the dimensions, and the constructs associated with the dimensions.

3 202 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:3 Summer 2002 Table 1 Organization of review: Four dimensions, data sources, and constructs related to the dimensions Dimension Social skills/social maturity Social interaction/participation Sociometric status/acceptance Affective functioning Sources and constructs 1. Teacher ratings of social maturity 2. Self-reports of social maturity 1. Researcher observation of interaction 2. Self-reports of participation 1. Peer ratings of acceptance 2. Self-reports of perceived acceptance 1. Self-reports of loneliness 2. Self-reports of social competence 3. Self-reports of self-image and self esteem Search Procedure We conducted a computerized search of the ERIC and Psych Abstracts databases using a combination of the frequently used terms for social outcomes interaction, acceptance, social maturity, self-image as well as the terms deaf or hard-of-hearing and mainstreaming. In addition, we included studies that appeared to fit the general criteria for the review included in the bibliographies of the reviewed articles. Studies were included if they used quantitative measures, if they were published after 1980, and if they used a comparison group that included deaf or hard-ofhearing children in some kind of local educational or day care program and another of several possible comparison groups: normal hearing peers, residential school peers, or deaf students in self-contained classes. We selected 1980 as the cutoff date because it was not until the late 1970s or very early 1980s that large-scale integration of deaf children into local public schools with the use of manual communication took place (Moores, 1992). We found 33 studies that fit these criteria. Review of Studies for the Four Dimensions Social Skills/Social Maturity Research on social skills in deaf education has primarily used the concept of social maturity. Meadow-Orlans (1980, 1983) defines social maturity as those behaviors that are associated with performing competently, functioning independently, relating well to others, and acting responsibly. As defined by Meadow-Orlans, social maturity is an overt rather than an internalized state; thus, it is amenable to measure by an independent observer. With Meadow-Orlans conceptualization, a child s failure to exhibit age-appropriate behavior assumes that the individual does not know the appropriate behavior. In this conceptualization, a child traumatized or simply overwhelmed by events who does not exhibit age-appropriate behavior would be considered socially immature even when the child knows the appropriate behaviors. Of the four studies of social maturity we located, three used the Meadow-Kendall Social Emotional Inventory. Farrugia and Austin (1980) used the earlier research version of the Meadow-Kendall in order to study 200 children ages 10 to 15 years old. In the earlier version of the Meadow-Kendall, there was a specific subscale for maturity. Farrugia and Austin reported that all public school educated deaf students were rated as less socially mature than public school hearing children. Farrugia and Austin did not indicate in their report whether they controlled for the critical variables of age and school achievement. If the students in the mainstream program had different achievement levels and were of different ages than the hearing students, these differences might explain the lower scores of these deaf students in the public school programs. Kluwin and Stinson (1993) combined the subscales of the commercial version of the Meadow-Kendall into a single score, based on a factor analysis, in a longitudinal study of 425 deaf high school students in 15 school districts around the United States. Kluwin and Stinson (1993) compared mainstreamed deaf students with deaf students in separate classes and reported that the separate class students were less socially mature than the mainstreamed deaf students. This finding would raise some questions about the proportion of separate class

4 Social Processes 203 and mainstreamed students in Farrugia and Austin s study (1980). Based on Kluwin and Stinson s finding, if Farrugia and Austin had used a large percentage of separate class students in their public school group, then we might expect a lower mean score on the measure of social maturity. Shaffer-Meyer (1990) used the Meadow-Kendall in her dissertation study of 48 deaf students in local public schools in Colorado to determine whether social maturity varied with school setting. She reported no statistically significant difference between the groups on the basis of school placement. It is possible that Shaffer- Meyer did not find a significant difference because that study s sample size was substantially smaller. Maxon, Brackett, and van den Berg (1991) examined the social functioning of 22 hearing and 41 deaf or hard-of-hearing children ages 7 to 19 who were in regular education classes in local public schools. The items in the study s measure suggest that the investigation examined several components of social maturity. They used a revised version of their own Social Awareness Measure, which is a 50-item inventory consisting of statements with cartoon style Likert-like responses. Ten of the 14 subscales of their instrument included items that appeared to represent the construct of social maturity: emotional repression, emotional expression, assertiveness, verbal aggression, physical aggression, cooperation, needs assurance, needs assistance, adversity, and self-control (the other four subscales are addressed later). Of the 10 subscales, only emotional expression differentiated the deaf or hard-of-hearing children from the hearing children in that the deaf or hard-of-hearing children reported that they were more likely to express their emotions. What makes this study (Maxon et al., 1991) unique is that other studies of social maturity have used third person (usually teacher) assessments, while this study used students self-reports. This approach suggests that a study comparing teacher ratings versus self-ratings or peer ratings of social maturity might give us a better sense of the validity of the studies that have used teacher ratings. Summary. In regard to the question of whether deaf students demonstrate age-appropriate social behavior, the studies suggest that middle school hearing peers may be more socially mature than deaf peers, but differences between the peer groups are apparent only when teacher evaluations of social maturity are used. In addition, one study indicated that adolescent mainstreamed deaf students are more socially mature than self-contained deaf students, but deaf students are selected for mainstream classes on the basis of their social maturity. The difference in the age range of the participants may also have affected the results. Social Interaction and Participation The extent that deaf and hearing peers interact together has been examined from two perspectives. The first perspective focuses on the observation of behavior in peer interactions. The second perspective focuses on the deaf individual s subjective perceptions regarding extent of participation. Social interaction. We identified 12 observational studies of interaction some of which used play as a measure of the quality of the interaction that can be divided into one of two types of studies: investigations or intervention evaluations. Many of these investigations occurred during the 1980s in Dallas, either at the Callier Center or at a local school program whose children were probably served at some time by the Callier Center (Lederberg, Chapin, Rosenblatt, & Vandell, 1986; Lederberg, Rosenblatt, Vandell, & Chapin, 1987; Lederberg, Ryan, & Robbins, 1986; Minnet, Clark, & Wilson, 1990; Vandell & George, 1981). An exception to the Dallas studies is Antia (1982), who used a live observation instrument to study 32 deaf or hard-of-hearing children and 84 hearing children in grades one through six in five urban public schools in an observational study. The Dallas studies are generally of children with an average age of 4 years and involve either live observation coding or coding of short videotaped segments of children interacting. A further exception to all the previous observational studies is the work of Ladd, Munson, and Miller (1984), who tracked the progress of 48 secondary school deaf students as they entered mainstream programs. Vandell and George (1981), the earliest of the Dallas studies, videotaped the interaction patterns of 16 deaf and 16 hearing children with an average age of about 4 years during two 15 minute play sessions and coded the

5 204 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:3 Summer 2002 videotapes using a play quality rating system. Agreement between raters correlation coefficients ranged from.81 to 1.00, depending on the category being observed. Vandell and George reported that like dyads, that is deaf-deaf or hearing-hearing pairs, played together longer as measured by both the length of an interactional bout and the number of turns within a bout. They also reported that when interacting with a deaf peer, a deaf child exhibited the same social skills as a hearing peer with a hearing peer. The largest difference they noted was that in deaf /hearing dyads, the deaf child was more likely to receive an inappropriate initiation such as the hearing child talking to the deaf child s back. Using a live observation system, Lederberg and her associates (Lederberg et al., 1986, 1987) studied 29 deaf and 33 hearing 4-year-olds during free play. Lederberg and her associates observed for 5 minutes per child on each of four separate occasions. Like the Vandell and George (1981) study, observer reliability was high. Using the same site, same general population pool, and basically the same situation play groups, Lederberg replicated the Vandell and George findings in that deaf and hearing children preferred friends of the same hearing status. The additional findings of the two Lederberg studies were that both deaf and hard-of-hearing 4-yearolds preferred playmates of the same sex, race, and age, not only of the same hearing status. In another study, Lederberg (Lederberg et al., 1987) observed 14 deaf and 21 hearing 4-year-olds in a series of contrasting friendship dyads. In this study, a focal deaf child was paired in sequence with one of four playmates: another deaf child, a hearing child familiar to the focal child from home, a new hearing child who has had experience with deaf children, and a hearing child who was unfamiliar to the deaf child and who was not experienced with deaf playmates. In addition, cross-sex and same-sex comparisons were built into the design. As in the other studies, observer reliability was very high. The results replicated the earlier findings that deaf children do have social skills and do prefer to play with like peers. A deaf child will interact more with another deaf child than with an inexperienced hearing child as measured by the length of an interaction, the number of turns within an interaction, and the conceptual complexity of the play. The most recent of the Dallas studies is the work of Minnet, Clark, and Wilson (1991), who conducted a live observation study of 30 deaf and 30 hearing 4-year-olds interacting in free play and during centers or organized work groups in a classroom. Like the previous Dallas studies, coding of videotapes was done using a play observation protocol with good reliability. They replicated the Lederberg findings that like children interacted with each other. A difference between the Minnet, Clark, and Wilson study and the Lederberg (1986) study is the reliability of the observation system. Lederberg reported generally higher rater reliabilities for her study, and we also note that the standard deviations for her categories are generally smaller in proportion to the mean for the same category than the standard deviations in the Minnet, Clark and Wilson study. The Lederberg study suggests a higher degree of interaction between the deaf and hearing peers than does the Minnet, Wilson, and Clark study. A study by Ladd, Munson, and Miller (1984), who tracked the progress of 48 secondary school deaf students as they entered mainstreamed programs, appears to be unique within the interaction studies, given the age of their subjects and their method of data collection. The Dallas and Antia studies tended to use category counts of videotaped observations. Ladd, Munson, and Miller used a narrative observation technique instead, but still reported good observer reliability. They found that, in general, deaf students increased the quantity of interaction with hearing peers during the second year in the mainstream program; however, a ceiling effect appeared to take place in that deaf students who had a high rate of interaction during the first year did not increase their rate the second year. Antia and Kreimeyer (1988) and Antia, Kreimeyer, and Eldredge (1994) conducted studies that used observation of interaction as a measure of the success of an intervention. Antia and Kreimeyer, in four single-subject studies, used a modification of an instrument used by Antia (1982) to code videotapes of four single subjects during an intervention program. They used a sequential withdrawal design to evaluate a social skills training project. For all four subjects, the number of linguistic interactions with peers increased following the gradual withdrawal of training; however, the authors noted that the duration of the project was relatively short, the chil-

6 Social Processes 205 dren were somewhat older than previous preschool populations studied, and the children had less severe hearing losses than previous subjects. Antia, Kreimeyer, and Eldredge (1994; also Antia & Kreimeyer, 1997) used the same instrument and coding procedures as Antia and Kreimeyer (1988) in a study of two different forms of teacher interventions to improve social skills. They examined the effects of the interventions on the social interaction of 51 deaf or hard-ofhearing children in 13 different preschools, kindergartens, and first grade programs. These interventions were either integrated activities or social skills training. Total positive peer interaction increased during the intervention, but declined when the interventions were withdrawn. Both studies show that interventions can affect interaction patterns. Levine and Antia (1997) used a subgroup of the children in the Antia et al. (1994) study in an examination of free play of deaf and hard-of-hearing children in groups with deaf or hard-of-hearing partners, in groups with hearing partners, and in mixed groups. They coded videotapes for the quality of the interaction in terms of the cognitive level of the play, as well as coding the tapes for the quantity of interaction. They found that the deaf and hard-of-hearing children had the highest level of cognitive play, which the investigators labeled dramatic play, when they were in mixed groups. When these children only had partners of the same hearing status, the play was not at as high a level. These results suggest that the level of interaction, as well as the quantity of interaction, should be considered in mainstream settings. Even though the deaf and hard-of-hearing students did not interact as much with their hearing peers, they seemed to benefit from it. Johnson and Johnson (1986) were able to increase the social interaction between 30 deaf and 30 hearing third graders in a comparison of cooperative versus competitive instruction. As a result of cooperative learning, observations indicated that both individual interactions as well as comments to the entire group increased; furthermore, deaf and hearing students showed greater interpersonal attraction to each other under the cooperative condition than under the individualistic condition. This project differed from the Antia and Kreimeyer studies (1986, 1994) in that older children, randomly assigned to treatments, were used. Perceived social participation. Studies have also investigated deaf students perceptions of participation. While interaction is the third person observer s tally of contact between individuals, participation is the subject s own report of interaction with others. Stinson and his colleagues (Kluwin & Stinson, 1993, Leigh & Stinson, 1990, Stinson & Whitmire, 1991, 1992; Stinson, Whitmire, & Kluwin, 1996) used measures of participation and of other dimensions to examine perceptions of social relationships of deaf or hard-of-hearing students in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. (Results for these other dimensions, relatedness and perceived social competence, are discussed elsewhere.) The scale used by Stinson and his colleagues to assess participation and other dimensions has been called the Social Activity Scale. Stinson et. al. (1996) used the Social Activity Scale in a study of 275 deaf adolescents from 16 public school program in the United States and Canada. Results for the measure of perceived participation mimicked the earlier findings of the Dallas studies in that deaf and hard-of-hearing students rated themselves as interacting more frequently with deaf and hard-ofhearing peers than with hearing peers. However, there was an important qualification to the overall difference in participation in that ratings changed with the extent that students were mainstreamed. More students were primarily in self-contained placements but went out for a single class in which they exceled (usually math) or for a nonacademic class (such as gym or art). Fewer, but still a substantial number, were mainstreamed for two or more academic classes. Ratings of participation with hearing students increased from the less frequent level of mainstreaming to the most frequent one. The changes in participation may have partly reflected opportunities for interaction, since the most frequently mainstreamed deaf students had greater interaction with hearing peers and less interaction with deaf peers (Stinson et al., 1996). Stinson and Whitmire (1991) used essentially the same measures as Stinson et al. (1996) in a study of 84 deaf and hard-of-hearing adolescent students in mainstream programs in England. These students completed the measure of participation, as well as additional measures, and students were again categorized in terms of extent of mainstreaming. One difference between the English and the American samples is that the English

7 206 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:3 Summer 2002 students generally experienced more mainstreaming than did the Americans. For the measure of participation, students reported participating in class activities more with hearing peers than with deaf ones. This result contrasts with those for the American study, which found students reporting more overall participation with deaf peers, but the difference may be explained by the greater mainstreaming of the English sample. The basic interaction pattern between extent of mainstreaming and reported participation for the English study was similar to that for the American one. Self-reported participation was associated with extent of mainstreaming. Ratings of participation with hearing peers increased significantly with greater mainstreaming, and those with deaf peers decreased significantly with greater mainstreaming. These results provide further support for the proposition that rated participation reflected opportunities for interaction. Musselman, Mootilal, and MacKay (1996) administered a version of the Social Activity Scale developed by Stinson et al. (1996). As in the previous Stinson et al. studies, they obtained self-report data on participation with deaf and hearing peers, and they grouped students in terms of extent of mainstreaming. Musselman et al. found that a group of students mainstreamed less frequently reported significantly more participation with deaf than with hearing peers. The study did not, however, report this comparison for a second, more frequently mainstreamed group, and thus, it is not clear if reported participation with deaf and hearing peers changed as a function of mainstreaming for this group. In addition, communication skills were related to selfreports of relationships. Proficiency in American Sign Language (ASL) was positively associated with greater participation with deaf peers. Furthermore, proficiency in spoken English was positively related to greater participation in activities with hearing peers. Using a revised version of their Social Awareness Measure (described earlier), Maxon, Brackett, and van den Berg (1991) studied the perceived interaction and social acceptance of hearing and deaf or hard-of-hearing children who were in regular education classes in local public schools. Four of the 14 subscales measured either perceived interaction or social acceptance: interaction, isolation, integration, and personal acceptance. Of these four measures, only interaction showed a significant effect for the hearing status of the child. The deaf children reported that they were more likely than the hearing children to interact with peers. It was not clear, however, whether this interaction was with deaf, hearing, or both groups of peers. Summary. For observational studies, there appear to be fairly consistent patterns in the interactions between deaf and hearing peers. Deaf students tend to interact more frequently with deaf classmates than with hearing ones. In addition, exposure of deaf and hearing peers to each other over time may increase interactions. Studies also indicate that specially designed interventions, such as certain types of cooperative learning, can increase interaction. These studies have collectively employed a variety of age groups, observational systems, settings, and experimental manipulations. Results regarding self-reports of participation, conducted primarily with adolescents, are in some respects similar to those for the observational studies, conducted primarily with young children. Deaf students generally report themselves as interacting more often with like peers, in line with the findings for observational studies. Self-report studies have also shown, as have observational studies, that deaf students participation in social activities with hearing classmates may increase when these groups have greater contact with each other. Social Acceptance Studies of social acceptance between deaf and hearing peers have used two perspectives. One set of studies has used peer ratings and the second set has used selfratings of the perceived quality of peer relationships as judged by the deaf students, themselves. Studies with peer ratings. Four studies looked at social acceptance and used comparison groups: Antia and Kreimeyer (1997), Coyner (1994), Kluwin and Gonsher (1995), and Ladd, Munson, and Miller (1984). Ladd, Munson, and Miller used the Peer Rating Scale, which has four subscales: disruptive-attention-seeking, motivation maturity, social ability, and considerateness. This study used measures that recognized that the basis for attraction between peers can in fact be very specific, as opposed to other peer rating studies that use a more

8 Social Processes 207 global measure based on simple preference in a situation (see Kluwin & Gonsher, 1994). For example, in taskoriented situations, a person who is not disruptive or attention-seeking and has mature motivations is desirable; however, in a social context these traits may be less important because an emphasis on the ability to get along well with others, social ability and considerateness, would be more useful. Ladd, Munson, and Miller recognized these two possible settings in their ratings, which differentiated between task or work situations and social situations. They reported that over time hearing peers rated deaf peers as being more considerate, but did not find any significant differences among the other three measures. Coyner (1994), in a dissertation study of 25 hearing and 10 deaf or hard-of-hearing students in a junior high program in Arizona, found no main effect for hearing status in peers global ratings of each other. She reported, however, that there was an interaction between gender and hearing status, with deaf females being rated as the most socially desirable and deaf males being reported as the least socially desirable. The study suggests that the social experiences of deaf students in regular classes may sometimes differ as a function of gender. Kluwin and Gonsher (1994) used a peer nomination procedure in a study of a single kindergarten using team teaching. Each child was asked to select up to three children with whom he or she would prefer to interact in a specific setting such as eating lunch or playing with a friend. Kluwin and Gonsher computed an analysis of variance using the number of times each child was selected as a desirable companion at the end of the study by his or her peers. In the class of 25 children, the theoretical score range for any child could be between 0 and 24. The scores for the deaf children were not distinguishable from the scores for the hearing children. The Antia and Kreimeyer (1997) study involved the same 45 deaf students and 91 hearing students reported previously (Antia et al., 1994). They showed each participant Polaroid photos of each child and asked (1) if the child in the picture was familiar, and (2) how much they would like to play with that child. They had two groups of children. Those in one group had participated in a social-intervention training and therefore were familiar with those deaf and hearing children who participated in the training. Those in the other group had not participated in the training and were less familiar with the other children, although they were in the same setting. They found that deaf children in the trained group were more likely to recognize hearing peers who also participated in the trained group than hearing peers who participated in the untrained group. The same pattern occurred for hearing children with respect to recognition of deaf peers. In regard to acceptance, however, the deaf students had significantly lower acceptance scores than the hearing peers. The intervention program did not affect acceptance. Perceived social acceptance. Studies of perceived social acceptance have used measures of relatedness, which refers to self-appraisals of the emotional security of one s relationships with significant others (Kluwin & Stinson, 1993). Individuals high in relatedness report that they are happy or relaxed in a particular social setting. In these situations, the subject will express feelings of cooperativeness, reciprocity of feeling with the others in the setting, and a degree of trust that permits individuals to reveal their true feelings (Ainsworth, 1989). Stinson, et al. (1996) found that deaf or hard-ofhearing students assigned higher overall ratings of relatedness with deaf or hard-of-hearing peers than with hearing peers. These results were consistent with those for participation, in that both indicated a more favorable response to deaf peers than to hearing peers. The pattern of ratings as a function of mainstreaming, however, was different for participation and relatedness. Ratings of relatedness with deaf peers increased with greater mainstreaming, in contrast to the ratings of hearing peers, which did not change as a function of mainstreaming. These results, in conjunction with those for participation, suggested that these frequently mainstreamed students were more comfortable in their relationships with deaf peers, but they interacted significantly less with these peers that they wanted to be with, compared to their less frequently mainstreamed school mates. The Stinson and Whitmire (1991) study of students in England also included a measure of relatedness. As in the American study, the students in England reported that they were more emotionally secure with deaf than with hearing students. Again, there was no evidence

9 208 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:3 Summer 2002 that increased mainstreaming promoted identification and relational bonds with hearing classmates. The Musselman et al. (1996) study of perceptions of relationships obtained findings that are generally consistent with those in the Stinson and Whitmire (1991) and the Stinson et al. (1996) studies. Musselman et al. also found that the group of students without mainstreaming experience, as well as that with less mainstreaming experience, reported greater relatedness with deaf than with hearing peers. For the more frequently mainstreamed group, however, there was not a significant difference in relatedness with deaf and with hearing peers. Summary. Studies with measures of peer rated acceptance, conducted with a variety of age groups, have yielded mixed findings. Results for three studies indicated that hearing peers accepted deaf students in mainstream classes, although factors such as extent of contact and gender may have an effect. In a fourth study, however, the deaf students were not as accepted as the hearing students and an intervention had no effect. The studies of self-perceptions of relatedness suggest a different perspective on acceptance. Even though in the above studies hearing peers often showed acceptance in their ratings, the deaf students may have viewed their relationships with hearing peers as less than fully satisfying. The Musselman et al. (1996), Stinson and Whitmire (1991), and Stinson et al. (1996) studies suggest that, in general, deaf students report greater relatedness with deaf peers than with hearing ones. Adolescents were the participants in these studies. A qualification here is that perceptions may vary as a function of extent of mainstreaming and characteristics of the sample. Results for perceptions of relatedness also differed from those for perceptions of participation. Although reported participation increased with greater contact between deaf and hearing peers, relatedness often seemed to be independent of participation. The relationship might be summarized by the adolescents most often studied this way as I like them alright, but I d prefer my own kind if I have a choice. Some of this may be an effect of studying adolescents who place so much emphasis on personal discovery and definition through peer interaction and thus would prefer a like group as a benchmark; or it may be a more general human phenomenon paralleling the preferences of the preschoolers who would rather interact with someone of the same race, sex, age, and hearing status. Finally, the pattern of results may also reflect the effect of the frequent difficulties deaf and hearing students have in communicating with each other and establishing close relationships. Affective Functioning Affective functioning refers to personal dispositions of indviduals (Gresham & MacMillan, 1997). Dimensions of affective functioning that have been investigated for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in mainstream settings are loneliness, perceived social competence, and self-image. Loneliness. Murphy and Newlon (1987) reported an investigation of this issue for deaf or hard-of-hearing students who had chosen regular higher education programs. Murphy and Newlon used a matched groups design but offered no information on the selection criteria or matching procedures for the hearing students. They reported that the deaf or hard-of-hearing students were significantly more lonely than the hearing comparison group. Kluwin (1999) administered the Childhood Loneliness Scale to children who had been in a coenrollment situation for 1 5 years. In this setting, approximately five deaf or hard-of-hearing children were in a class with 15 hearing children. A teacher of the deaf and a regular education teacher taught this class jointly. Kluwin found no difference in loneliness between deaf and hearing peers. Perceived social competence. Perceived social competence pertains to perceptions of ability to establish good social relationships and perceptions of having had such social relationships. Content of items in the scale developed by Stinson et al. (1996) was in some respects similar to that tapped by a loneliness questionnaire developed by Asher, Hymel, and Renshaw (1984). Stinson et al. found a significant interaction for perceived social competence between grade level and degree of mainstreaming. The oldest and most frequently mainstreamed students saw themselves as less socially competent than the youngest and least frequently mainstreamed students. One interpretation of these results is that the ratings for those

10 Social Processes 209 who were oldest and most frequently mainstreamed may have reflected decreased satisfaction with social skills. It is possible that these students had been repeatedly frustrated and discouraged socially during high school because while they were most comfortable in relationships with deaf classmates, they were often in social environments where their only relationships were with hearing peers and they experienced repeated rejection and neglect (Gresham, 1986). It is also possible that older students had more sophisticated and rigorous views of social competence, and these perceptions contributed to these older, mainstreamed students judging themselves more harshly. Self-image and self-esteem. Shaffer-Meyer (1990) used the Piers-Harris scale in a study of 48 deaf children in eight local public school programs in Colorado. The sample ranged in age from 8 to 20 years in grades one through twelve. Shaffer-Meyer reported a main effect for placement and an interaction effect for placement and degree of hearing loss. Fully mainstreamed students with less than profound hearing losses had the highest self-images, while fully mainstreamed students with profound losses had dramatically lower selfconcepts. In a similar type of dissertation study in Indiana, Jacobs (1989) reports no statistically significant difference on the Piers-Harris between 34 mainstreamed deaf students and 33 residential school deaf students ranging in ages from 8 to 18. Cohen (1991) reported in a dissertation study of 79 deaf or hard-of-hearing children ages 12 through 21 in the New York City schools that there were no differences between mainstreamed and self-contained placements on the Piers-Harris scale. Kluwin (1999) also used the Piers-Harris measure in his study of students in a coenrollment program. He found no difference between deaf or hard-of-hearing peers and hearing peers on the measure. Van Gurp (2001) investigated the effects of school setting on the self-esteem of 90 deaf students using a modified version of the Self-Description Questionnaire developed by Marsh (1986). Although her findings indicated that variation in some dimensions of self-esteem may occur when deaf students change their educational setting, the findings generally suggested that setting does not affect self-esteem. Van Gurp compared selfesteem for three groups of high-school students: (1) those who were in a separate institution for deaf students; (2) those who were in a new facility for both deaf and hearing students, but who had previously been in a separate school for deaf students (called the congregated program); and (3) those who were in resource programs that included special classes and opportunities for integration in regular classes. She found that students in the resource program reported higher selfesteem on the dimensions of Reading and General School than did those in the congregated program. She interpreted this result as being specific to the change in setting of the students in the congregated program because these students now could be comparing themselves with their hearing peers, in contrast to the separate setting where this comparison had not been possible. In support of this interpretation, van Gurp found no differences in self-esteem when she compared students who varied in extent of placement in regular classes. Van Gurp found no other differences in selfesteem as a function of the three school settings. Two dissertation studies, using less known selfimage measures and measures of ability, also yielded results that showed no group differences for placement. They did, however, find interaction effects for placement and student characteristics. In a study of 100 deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the Los Angeles area using the Primary Self-Concept Inventory, Larsen (1984) reported no main effect for placement (mainstreamed vs. separate class) but found IQ differences related to placement. Gans (1995), in a study of 1,072 deaf school children ages 5 to 20 years in Colorado, reported no main effect for self-image. Two immediate limitations to interpreting the Gans study are that she used a local measure, the Colorado Individual Performance Profile (CIPP), as her measure of self-image and that she used an adult rating as the source of the information. What is interesting in the Gans study is the interaction effect between the child s rated English language skill and the child s adult-rated self-image. For mainstreamed students, those with better language skills had more positive self-images, but for the segregated students there was not a statistically significant difference. The association between language skills and teacher ratings suggests that adult ratings of deaf or hard-ofhearing children s self-images may in part be a function of the child s ability to communicate and the adult s

11 210 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:3 Summer 2002 judgments of how that level of functioning would relate to the child s self-image in the particular educational setting. Summary. The studies we reviewed indicate no general difference in self-perceived self-image, or self-esteem, as a function of segregated versus mainstream classes. A qualification here is that rated self-image may vary with the setting when the child s language skills are taken into consideration as well. A change in the setting, such as from a school with only deaf students to one with both deaf and hearing students, may also affect self image. Perceived social competence may also vary with the setting, except in this case, age needs to be taken into consideration as well. An addition consideration is the age of the participants, as the studies used primarily adolescents for their sample. Methodological Issues In reviewing these studies, we found recurring methodological limitations that contributed to difficulties in drawing conclusions and in synthesizing findings across various studies. Three major issues are (1) the relation between the study s samples, such as those for comparison groups, and the results obtained; (2) connections between the particular methodologies employed to measure variables and the results; and (3) differences in experimental manipulations and interventions that may have affected results. Sample Selection Issues The confounding of setting and sample is a problem in some of the studies. For example, Farrugia and Austin (1980) reported that the social maturity of deaf students in public schools was lower than that of hearing students. This result may have been influenced by the specific sample of public school students employed. If the students in the public schools were primarily in special classes, they may have had lower levels of social maturity than if they were primarily in classes with hearing students. Kluwin and Stinson (1993) found such a difference in comparing students in different placements in public schools. In the Murphy and Newlon (1987) study, the authors reported that deaf and hard-of-hearing college students rated themselves as more lonely than hearing students. They collected the data for the deaf students but used published norms for the hearing sample. They provided no information regarding characteristics of their own sample other than that the students self-identified themselves as deaf or hard-of-hearing, and they provided no information regarding the characteristics of the hearing sample. One would be more confident in drawing conclusions if there were information indicating that the participants in the two samples were similar, except for hearing status. These concerns point to a need for careful descriptions and control of the characteristics of participants in comparison groups, a concern that was also noted by Gresham and MacMillan (1997) in their review of research on students with mild disabilities. Measurement-Related Issues In interpreting studies in this area, it is important to attend to differences in the measurement of constructs that appear conceptually similar. For example, both social maturity and self image have been assessed by ratings of familiar observers, such as teachers, and also by subjective responses of students (e.g., Kluwin & Stinson, 1993, vs. Maxon et al., 1991; Shaffer-Mayer, 1990, vs. Gans, 1995). Results have varied with different assessment approaches. For example, Farrugia and Austin (1980), who used teachers ratings, found a difference between the social maturity of deaf and hearing students, but Maxon ( Maxon et al., 1991), who used subjective responses, did not. Variables such as communication skill and academic achievement may be more closely associated with measures when individuals such as teachers do observations than when students do self-ratings. Even if measures tap the same group of individuals (such as in self-ratings), the wording of items or of ratings may affect results, even when the measures are intended to assess similar constructs. For example, Rittenhouse (1987) in a study of mainstreamed deaf students asked questions about handicapped students, and this wording may have yielded different results that if he had worded the questions to ask about deaf students. In comparing results across studies, it is also necessary to consider the use of different measures with different age groups. For example, with regard to the extent of acceptance or social integration, studies with young children tend to use observation or sociometric