JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS 12 ( 1979), 245 - 25 1

INTERACTION

245

OF DEAF AND HEARING PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

DREW ARNOLD AND ANN TREMBLAY George Peabody College for Teachers,

Nashille,

Tennessee 37203

Hearing and hearing-imparied children attending an integrated preschool were observed in a free-play situation. The principal objective was to discern how hearing and deaf children interacted and modified their communication skills as a function of hearing status. The data indicate that hearing children interact more frequently with other hearing children on several behavioral categories (approaches, vocalizations, social play, and physical contact). Although there was a tendency for deaf children to approach other deaf children more frequently than they approached hearing children, they showed no preferences for other interactions as a function of peers’ hearing status. These findings are consistent with those of research on other exceptional children, such as the mentally retarded. m showing that, while hearing-impaired children showed no peer preference, they were least preferred by normal peers.

Introduction Much effort hds been expended by educators to provide the hearing impaired with the skills necessary to communicate with both their normal and hearjngimpaired peers. Techniques of manual and oral instruction have been used to develop the vocabulary, grammar, and other language skills that are prerequisities for communication interactions. r addition, educators have become aware that environmental variables that are lot instructional in the formal sense may facilitate the development of the ab ‘ty to communicate through social interaction. In an effort to provide a more intensive communication environment, some schools have integrated both hearing-impaired and normal children in the same classroom, There is some evidence that integrated classrooms may be beneficial to the general cognitive development of the deaf. Raniv et al. (1973) found that deaf children in integrated classrooms were superior to segregated deaf children on Piagetian tasks of logical ability. Raniv et al. believed that the greater intellectual stimulation provided by the instructors in the integrated classrooms accounted for this difference. Educators often assume that, beyond possible effects of integration on educational programming, the hearing impaired benefits from social interactions with hearing children. These interactions could be expected to require a greater range of communication skills than interactions with other hearing-impaired children. There has not been, however, an analysis of interacAddress correspondence to: Ann Trembl ay , Box 328, Nashville, Tennessee 37203. * Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1979

002 l-9924/79/03245-07$01.75

DREW ARNOLD and ANN TREMBLAY

tional patterns that would provide insight into the nature of the social contacts that are assumed to occur. The present exploratory study is to provide a framework for further questions. Hearing and deaf children attending an integrated preschool were observed in a free-play situation. The principal objective was to determine the frequency and modality of communicative interactions. While no observational studies have been done comparing these populations, experimental research suggests interactional patterns that may be observed. Hoeman ( 1972), for example, compared deaf and hearing children on several tasks that required cooperation and communication. He found, as did Herrin and Cohn ( 1972) in a similar study, that the deaf were significantly handicapped in peer-peer communications. In addition, adorn et al. ( 1973) investigated the interpretation of emotion-arousing situations ,B’deaf and hearing children. Based on the more inaccurate interpretations of the deaf. it was concluded that the lack of verbal information and interpretation ot social cues that the deaf are deprived of, reflect important factors in the development of social awareness. While this result may be specific to the experimental manspuIations used (cf. Schiff and Saxe, 1972), it suggests that the hearing impaired are not as likely to attend to signals necessary for the initiation and maintenance of’ social interactions. ft may therefore be hypothesized that the hearin, (r-impaired children will not be involved in initiations of social behavior as frequently as hearing children. Furthermore. when interactions do occur. they will be less likely to be followed by er social -.:xchange. Met hod

Subjects available for the study were six hearing and six hearing-impaired Idren 4 and 5 years of age. The children were enrolled in an integrated preschool program at the Bill Wilkerson Center for Speech and Hearing, in Ndwille, Tennesee. for at least 4 months prior to the study. All children were nctioning in the normal developmental range (with the exclusion of their hearndicap). The school program emphasized a broad range of communication 1%. including both manual and oral communication. 6ne child from each pulation was excluded from the analyses. The hearing child, being 3 years wa.. excluded due to age. The other child was only moderately hea,ring aired. The deaf population used in final analysis were profoundly hearing

e children were videotaped during a 30-min outdoor recess period for 3 Each child was targeted for 5 min three times at 3-day intervals. A list of

~NTERACTIONOFDEAFANDHEARINGCHILDREN

247

the children

was arranged in random order. At the beginning of the 3O-min period, the first name on the list was targeted. After 5 min had elapsed, the next child on the list became the target, and so on until each child had been target three times. Videotaping began as soon as the children came outside (usually at 10: 15 each morning). During data collection the chidren were free to engage in unstructurkd play. Teachers and practicum students were present and interacting with the children (although these data were not analyzed). The playground was a small enclosed area approximate]) 30 x SO feet. Swings, jungle gym, slide, and tricycles were available to the children. The video camera was located on the northern side of the playground to allow for adequate lighting of the subjects. Audio recording was done using a directional microphone that reduced interference and allowed improved recording accuracy from a distance.

After all the data were collected, two observers coded the videotapes for thtl following behaviors of a given target chiild: 1. Vocalization: any verbalization or utterance directed toward anotkr cbi td. 2. Gesture: signalinr or gross hand gestures. 3. Approach: movekent of a child to a stationary position in proximity to another child, meeting the fol’lowing criteria: (a) the child approaches within ;trm’s reach and comes to ;t complete stop, or (b) the child contact5 an object with which other children are already ir contact (e.g.. slide, see-s;icc 1. 4. Physical contact: any nonaccidental ph: 4 contact with another child (modified from Smith and Connolly, 19721 5 c . Imitate: repetition of an act performed oy a peer within ;t IO-set period. 6. Social play: positive reciprocal interaction between peers requiring both initiation and responses from all individuals engaging in the interaction. ’ 7. Take object: taking an offered object from another person’s hand. 8. Give object: an object held in the child’s hand tx hands is held out and thm released, or the object may then be placed in another.3 lap. 9. Aggression: any nonaccidental contact in which one child attenjpted to physitally injure another or deprive him/her of some object.

R&l ts Observer reliability was computed across categories of behavior using a Pearson product-moment correlation. Reliability was based on the ratings oi‘ four observational sessions, the remaining two sessions being coded by only one observer. The interobserver reliability wds 0.90. Two types of analysis are presented. Initial analysis was based on the frequency

of occurrence of behavior,

DREW ARNOLD and ANN TREMBLAY

248

regardless of whether the targeted subject was the initiator or recipient of the havior. For this purpose a 2 (hearing status of target subject) x 2 (hearing tus of interactant) was performed on each category. The means of all ries are reported in Table 1. In addition, secondary analysis explored the ionality -of the interaction.

While the groups did not differ significantEy on the number of approaches initiated or received, the interaction of hearing status of targeted subject and interactant w;1s significant [F (13) = 9.54, p

Interaction of deaf and hearing preschool children.

JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS 12 ( 1979), 245 - 25 1 INTERACTION 245 OF DEAF AND HEARING PRESCHOOL CHILDREN DREW ARNOLD AND ANN TREMBLAY Geor...
831KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views