Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kluwin, T. N.
Right arrow Articles by Colarossi, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kluwin, T. N.
Right arrow Articles by Colarossi, G. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:3 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press


Theory/Review Articles

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.

Correspondence should be sent to Thomas N. Kluwin, Department of Educational Foundations and Research, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 (e-mail: Thomas.Kluwin{at}Gallaudet.edu).

Received November 13, 1997; revised August 15, 2001; accepted August 21, 2001


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationHome page
J. A. Luckhurst
Professional Preparedness for Provision of Auditory Oral Programs to Children With Hearing Loss: Results of a Survey
Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation, April 1, 2008; 15(1): 18 - 28.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
L. N. Wauters and H. Knoors
Social Integration of Deaf Children in Inclusive Settings
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., January 1, 2008; 13(1): 21 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
J. Lukomski
Deaf College Students' Perceptions of Their Social-Emotional Adjustment
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., October 1, 2007; 12(4): 486 - 494.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.