External influences: attitudes, expectations and

The dominant feature of discussion relating to the Interaction dimension of learning in the classroom was the management and effective use of

audiological equipment including the students’ hearing aids or cochlear implant processors as well as assistive devices such as radio aids and sound field systems. See (9.2.1.4). It was also reported to be the focus of the training teaching assistants had attended. Clearly ensuring that deaf students who communicate using any level of spoken language are able to hear, to the best of their ability, what is being said is a fundamental part if the interaction

process. It also in part begins to address one of the ‘barriers to learning’

(Department for Education and Department for Health, 2014) that occur within the mainstream classroom. However the benefits the technology is able to provide were frequently over estimated.

Different members of the classroom community, including teachers, were regularly presented by the teaching assistants as having incorrect expectations of the interaction capabilities of a deaf student within the classroom

environment. They noted that teachers, parents and peers frequently did not understand the limits of the audiological technology (Vincenti et al., 2014, Archbold, 2010, Wilson, 2008) and there was a misperception that it allowed the user to function as a hearing person. Interestingly a number of the teaching assistants also revealed their own limited knowledge in this regard.

Personal experiences of hearing loss and deafness will shape an individual’s attitudes towards managing communication with a deaf person. As deafness is a low incidence disability many educational professionals will not have worked with a deaf child and will have little experience of deafness in childhood. Most of their experience with deafness is likely to be as a result of encounters with older members of the population who develop a degenerative hearing loss. Until relatively recently hearing loss in childhood would have been discernible through the speech patterns of the individual, reflecting what they were able to hear, or through their use of sign language. New technologies, by providing full access to speech, have allowed many deaf individuals to develop speech patterns that do not alert a listener to their hearing loss. This may lead to incorrect expectations of the deaf student’s linguistic capabilities and their ability to communicate effectively within the classroom environment (Wheeler et al., 2004). None of the technology has the capacity to replace normal hearing and whilst some deaf students may be able to function very effectively in a one to one discussion in an acoustically favourable environment supported by their hearing technologies (Nicholas and Geers, 2013) their ability to follow a

conversation is easily compromised by the introduction of more conversational partners or the presence of background noise, particularly other voices

(Hochberg et al., 1984, Boothroyd, 2002, Ching et al., 2006).

If mainstream educational practitioners do not recognise the nature and extent of the difficulties with communication that deafness presents a student they are less likely to actively acquire the knowledge and understanding required to adapt their interactions and pedagogical practices. This would seem to be supported by the teaching assistants’ description of poor use of audiological equipment and limited implementation of communication strategies. The mainstream teachers reinforced this with several stating they expected the teaching assistants to take responsibility for the audiological equipment and ensure the equipment was functioning effectively so as teachers they were able

to concentrate on other matters. The deaf students described being frustrated by the poor use of the equipment and also by teachers not recognising their need to lip-read; speaking too quickly and speaking for extended periods of time. This mirrors the findings of Wheeler et al. (2004) in their investigations of deaf cochlear implant users’ experience of mainstream secondary settings. In an environment specifically dedicated to interaction and the transfer of information from one individual i.e. the teacher, to a number of others i.e. the students, the attitude and expectations of the teacher will influence the quality and effectiveness of the interaction with individual students. It would seem reasonable to suggest that for an effective working relationship to develop between a student and a teacher that the teacher needs to interact directly with the student to develop their understanding of the students’ language and

communication skills. It is important to note that those students who are judged most likely to experience difficulties interacting effectively within a classroom are the ones who will receive the highest level of support from a teaching assistant. The teaching assistants commented that for many teachers the presence of the teaching assistants significantly reduced that amount of time the teacher engaged directly with the deaf student and supports similar findings (Giangreco, 2007, Blatchford et al., 2009b). This may be particularly

challenging to address in a secondary setting because of the limited time any one teacher spends with an individual student. It would be valuable to

investigate educational professionals’ perceptions of deaf students’

communicative capabilities and how it informs their approach and pedagogical practices within the classroom.

The teaching assistants also considered the influence of parents’ attitudes on their students’ interactions within the classroom even though the parents are not directly involved within it. Several of the participants felt they detected a negative attitude from home particularly towards the use of audiological technology which resulted in some students’ reluctance to wear their devices. Others reported a more positive attitude. Parents’ influence and impact on the development of deaf students and in particular their language skills has been widely documented (Geers and Brenner, 2003, Spencer, 2004). It has

predominantly centred on the child’s early development and the nature of the linguistic environment of the home (Sarant et al., 2009, Zaidman-Zait, 2007). Research into spoken language development has included the impact of parents’ attitudes towards the use of personal audiological technology such as hearing aids and cochlear implant processors (Archbold, 2009, Novaes et al.,

2012). Parents receive support from a wide number of services in the preschool years to assist them in supporting their deaf child. Traditionally within the UK this support has transferred almost exclusively to the professionals and child within their educational setting once they start in full time schooling. During a child’s formative years parents can significantly influence the attitudes of young students and support them in overcoming their reluctance to use audiological technology. However as young people become more autonomous, in their teenage years, such influence may not be as effective and the youngsters may be more influenced by their peers. The teaching assistants also discussed this potential source of pressure but considered that behaviour management in schools, including clear policies on bullying, meant that this was less likely to be the cause of the problem than the attitude of parents.