Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Self-concept and intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation of deaf secondary students in different educational… Van Gurp, Susan Ann 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-251772.pdf [ 8.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054603.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054603-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054603-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054603-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054603-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054603-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054603-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054603-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054603.ris

Full Text

SELF-CONCEPT A N D INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION OF D E A F SECONDARY STUDENTS IN DIFFERENT E D U C A T I O N A L SETTINGS by S U S A N A N N V A N GURP B.A. Dalhousie University (1979) M.Ed. University of British Columbia (1991)  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES D E P A R T M E N T OF E D U C A T I O N A L PSYCHOLOGY A N D SPECIAL EDUCATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A September, 1997 <c) Susan Ann van Gurp, 1997  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment  of the requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by his or  her  representatives.  It  is understood that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be ajlowed without my written permission.  Department of t&XftTlQfr'ftl  • T^rC^UXOf ^  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DET6  (2/88)  $RPT  (3  /T7  ^PECxftL  &VVCf\TlbXJ  11 ABSTRACT With the move toward de-segregation of all special groups of students, more deaf students are attending regular school classes and some segregated schools have closed. Resource programs located in regular schools continue to grow and new programs, such as the "congregated"-setting, have been established. In order to make informed decisions regarding future program development and student placement, current research is needed. The main purpose of this study was to examine the effects of these educational settings on the self-concept and intrinsic / extrinsic (I/E) orientation of deaf secondary students. Previous research examining self-concept of deaf students in different school settings is more than 15 years old and used measures based on a uni-dimensional theory. The current study is the first to examine specific dimensions of self-concept using a multidimensional measure and the I/E orientation of this special population. Therefore, relationships among dimensions of these constructs were investigated. In this study, the Self-Description Questionnaire (Marsh, 1986) and the Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom (Harter, 1980) were linguistically modified and sign language videos produced for those using sign communication. Ninety-one students from segregated, congregated, resource, and itinerant programs participated in the present study. Examining dimensions of self-concept, the results identified academic advantages in attending resource programs and social advantages in attending segregated settings. The lower scores of those attending the congregated setting may be due to the fact that this setting has recently been established and the students are experiencing negative effects of the change from a small segregated school to a large one in which they are a minority. Overall, deaf students who are integrated with hearing students have a more internal orientation and better self-perceptions of reading ability. Continued research is warranted to replicate these findings and to determine if the largely negative results from the congregated setting are merely an artifact of transition. Additional analyses with subsamples of deaf students found no significant differences between those with deaf or those with hearing parents, nor between those using aural/oral or sign communication in any dimension of self-concept or I/E orientation.  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  ii  LIST  OF T A B L E S  vi  LIST  OF FIGURES  .  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  vii viii  I. B A C K G R O U N D T O T H E P R O B L E M A N D P R O B L E M S T A T E M E N T Attitudinal and Educational Changes Self-Concept and Intrinsic/Extrinsic Orientation Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Background Information on Deafness Etiology and Additional Educationally Handicapping Conditions Degree of Hearing Loss Language Development and Mode of Communication Parental Hearing Status Definition of Terms Terms to Describe Individuals With A Hearing Loss Terms Denoting Educational Programs Available to Deaf Students Communication Methods Overview of the Thesis  1 2 4 6 7 8 8 9 9 11 13 13 13 15 16  II. R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E  17  Educational Developments and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Deafness Educational Developments Socio-Cultural Aspects of Deafness Self-Concept: Theory and Measurement Intrinsic / Extrinsic Orientation: Theory and Measurement Relationships Between Self-Concept and I/E Orientation Previous Research With Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Self-Concept Intrinsic / Extrinsic Orientation Limitations of the Research Summary Research Questions and Hypotheses  18 18 19 21 25 28 29 30 38 43 45 46  iv  III. METHOD Study 1 Background: Study Instrumentation Participants Procedures Results Discussion Main Study Participants I nstrumentation Procedures Data Analysis. IV. RESULTS Examination of the Data Reliability and Validity of the Measures Self Description Questionnaire Intrinsic / Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom Predictors of Self-Worth Self-Concept Dimensions I/E Dimensions Possibly Confounding Variables Parental Hearing Status: Hearing vs. Deaf Degree of Student Hearing Loss Method of Communication School Setting Differences Self-Concept I/E Orientation Degree of Integration With Hearing Students Self-Concept I/E Orientation Reading and Mathematics: Intergration vs. Non-Integration School Settings and Degree of Integration: Relative Importance  49 49 49 53 54 54 58 59 60 61 63 63 65 65 65 65 68 71 71 72 74 74 74 75 75 75 77 78 78 80 ....81 82  V. DISCUSSION 88 School Settings and Degree of Integration 88 Self-Concept 89 Mathematics and Reading Self-Concept: Integration vs. Non-Integration. .92 I/E Orientation 94  V  School Factors as Predictors of Self-Concept and I/E Orientation Self-Concept I/E Orientation Possibly Confounding Variables Parental Hearing Status Degree of Student Hearing Loss Method of Communication Predictors of Self-Worth.. Reliability and Validity of the Measures.... Implications for Practice Limitations of the Research Future Research  98 98 101 102 103 104 105 107 107 109 112 113  REFERENCES  116  APPENDICES A . Modified Self-Description Questionnaire B. Modified Self-Description Questionnaire -Sign Gloss C. Control Score Summary Sheet D. Interview Questions E. Modified Intrinsic/Extrinsic Orientation F. Modified Intrinsic/Extrinsic Orientation - Sign Gloss G. Student Information Form H . Parent Permission Letters I. Results....  125 131 136 138 139 145 150 151 160  a) b) c) d) e) f) g)  Means and Standard Deviations: SDQ-1 Means and Standard Deviations: I/E Orientation Inter-Item Correlations: SDQ-1 Inter-Item Correlations: I/E Orientation Parental Hearing Status: Deaf vs. Hearing Parents Degree of Hearing Loss: Group Differences Communication: Aural/Oral vs. Sign  ".  161 162 163 167 168 169 171  vi  LIST OF T A B L E S Table 1: Table 2: Table3: Table 4: Table5: Table 6: Table7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27:  Summary of Self-Concept Among Deaf Students in Different School Settings Summary of the Six Control Scores  38 55  Summary of Interview Responses 56 Items Which Required Further Explanation 57 Video Usage and Control Score Summary ....58 Summary of Participants 60 Internal Consistency of SDQ-1 Subscales 66 SDQ-1 Inter-Subscale Correlations 67 Self-Concept: Sex Differences 68 Internal Consistency of I/E Orientation Sub-Scales .....69 I/E Orientation Inter-Subscale Correlations 70 Correlations Between Academic Self-Concept and I/E Orientation Sub-Scales 71 Self-Concept Dimensions: Correlation Matrix 72 Self-Concept Dimensions Predicting SelfrWorth 72 I/E Orientation Dimensions: Correlation Matrix 73 I/E Orientation Dimensions Predicting Self-Worth 73 School Setting: SDQ-1 Means and Standard Deviations 76 A N O V A Analyses of School Setting Differences: Self-Concept 76 School Setting: I/E Orientation Means and Standard Deviations 77 A N O V A Analyses of School Setting Differences: I/E Orientation 78 Degree of Integration: SDQ-1 Means and Standard Deviations 79 A N O V A Analyses of Integration Group Differences: Self-Concept 79 Degree of Integration: I/E Orientation Means and Standard Deviations 80 A N O V A Analyses of Integration Group Differences: I/E Orientation 81 Reading and Mathematics Self-Concept: Integration vs. Non-Integration 82 Multiple Regression Analyses: School Settings and Degree of Integration as Predictors of Self-Concept 84 Multiple Regression Analyses: School Settings and Degree of Integration as Predictors of I/E Orientation 86  vii  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1. Representation of Hierarchical Organization of Self-Concept  22  Vlll  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  This dissertation was truly a collaborative effort, with many students, teachers, support staff, administrators, university faculty, and friends assisting me with its completion. The many deaf children and adolescents whom I have had the privilege of teaching over the past 15 years, from those in rural Mexico to those in cosmopolitan Montreal and Vancouver, provided the research questions and initiated the drive to understand how we, as educators, can provide programs which will best serve their academic and psychological needs. The teachers, support staff, and administrators, because of their dedication to the education of deaf students, supported this project by organizing testing times and providing their insights in interpreting the results. Deaf staff at the B.C. Provincial School for the Deaf and the residence, especially Eileen Edgar and Doug Lambert, assisted in translating the measures from English to Sign Language and in producing the videos. I want to thank Dr. Perry Leslie, who encouraged me to pursue my goals and who, together with Dr. Janet Jamieson, gave me invaluable support and advice from the inception of this project. I want to thank Dr. Shelley Hymel for the support she gave me with the theoretical aspects of the study and Dr. Nand Kishor, who guided me through the analysis procedures (and many statistics courses!) One person who has always 'been there' for me, from the beginning of my teacher training to the completion of this dissertation is Dr. Bryan Clarke. He has shared his experience, wisdom, and humour with many professionals and students in this field and has guided me through many career and academic decisions. Lastly, I want to thank my family, Jim and Willy, for being understanding and supportive through the process of completing this dissertation.  1  I. B A C K G R O U N D TO THE P R O B L E M A N D P R O B L E M STATEMENT  After 1975, when Public Law 94-142 was passed in the United States, mandating that all students be educated in the "least restrictive environment", there was a move toward de-segregation of all students. As a result, changes occurred in educational settings and placements for deaf and hard of hearing students in Canada and the United States. Some residential schools have closed, increasing numbers of students have been mainstreamed in their neighbourhood schools, and new programs have been established. There has been a growth in early family intervention programs, providing families of deaf children with support groups, instruction on effective communication methods, and preschool classes for the deaf children. Many deaf children are now entering school with better communication skills and improved family support than they did in the past. As society at large becomes aware of the presence of a Deaf  1  population, hearing  loss is becoming less of an "invisible handicap" than it was in the past. Use of sign language in television programs, advertisements featuring Deaf actors, interpreters at public events, and the increasing availability of sign language courses for the general public are some of the ways in which deafness is becoming more visible. American Sign Language (ASL) has been accepted as a distinct language, and is being taught in some school programs. As these social and educational changes take place, it is important to examine their effects on the psychological well-being of deaf children and adolescents. Those who determine policies will benefit from empirical research results on which to base educational program development decisions. The main purpose of this study was to examine differences in dimensions of selfconcept and I/E orientation (motivation, judgment, and criteria for success/failure) among groups of deaf students attending the four educational settings with specialized support available in Western Canada: segregated, congregated, resource, and itinerant. Because of the measurement difficulties identified in previous studies of self-concept with a deaf population, a linguistically modified multi-dimensional measure, supported by a sign language video of the items for students using sign communication, was tested for internal reliability and the results supported its continued use in research and practice. The data 1  In this paper, Deaf, with a capital "D" refers to members of the Deaf community.  2  from the main study provided new information regarding dimensions of self-concept with deaf secondary students. There appeared to be no previous studies examining I/E orientation of deaf students, and, therefore, a secondary purpose was to examine differences in this construct among the four groups of students. Two additional factors, not previously tested for their effects on self-concept and I/E orientation, were examined: the number of subjects for which students are integrated with hearing students and the method of communication used by the deaf students. A final purpose was to examine relationships among dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation with this special population.  Attitudinal and Educational Changes  Attitudes about deafness and educational practices for deaf and hard of hearing students have changed significantly over the past 20 years. Before the 1970s, the communication policies of most educational programs were based on an aural/oral approach, emphasizing use of residual hearing and speech (Moores & Sweet, 1990). Literacy levels among deaf individuals were low and Chomsky (1968) suggested that, because language was an innate human ability, the poor literacy achievement of deaf students must be due to inadequate language input rather than deafness itself. Consequently, many of these aural/oral programs were supplanted by those using signed communication. Although the findings are inconsistent, some professionals in the field argued that the literacy levels of deaf students in these programs still remain at the same low level as when the students used an aural/oral teaching approach (Stewart, 1993; Strong & Charleson, 1987). Since A S L , a visual-spatial language used by the Deaf community, was recognized as a distinct language, different from English and with its own structure and syntax (Padden, 1980), a number of Bicultural-Bilingual (hearing and Deaf cultures, English and ASL) programs have been established, with common goals of increasing students' literacy levels, awareness of Deaf culture, and knowledge of A S L . Whether in fact these programs lead to improved literacy has yet to be established. Mainstream society has become more aware of the Deaf community than previously as the media now includes Deaf actors and actresses and interpreters are provided at staged performances and community meetings. These changes have resulted in a greater public awareness of the unique aspects of deafness and recognition of A S L as the language of the  3 Deaf community. As well, government support for early intervention programs has assisted families with deaf children in understanding deafness and making informed decisions regarding communication methods to use with their deaf children. A n important aspect of these programs is instruction for parents on how to communicate effectively with their infants and children, be it through sign language or aural/oral methods. Hence, many of these deaf children are now entering school with better communication skills than those who entered school before these early intervention programs were available. Over the past 25 years, researchers and parents have lobbied for changes in educational placement patterns for all special needs students. With the passing of PL 94142 in the United States, there has been a trend throughout Canada and the U.S. to educate special needs students in regular education programs. This law states that special needs students should be placed in the "least restrictive environment", a term which is often interpreted as the mainstream setting. Many deaf students report feeling isolated in mainstreamed settings (Foster, 1989) because of the difficulty they experience in communicating and developing friendships with their hearing peers. The high cost of maintaining segregated programs during a time of economic restraint may be another incentive for the inclusion of special needs students in regular educational programs. In Canada, some of the segregated schools for the deaf have closed, leaving the students with only mainstream placement or self-contained classes as options. A n alternative model, the "congregated" setting, was recently established in British Columbia, where the Provincial School for the Deaf was housed together with regular programs for hearing students in elementary and secondary facilities. Self-contained classes for deaf students and team-teaching situations with deaf and hearing students are available to these students, who have access to both a Deaf and hearing community. A n aural/oral resource program at the secondary school provides students with a peer group with similar language and speech challenges. The few research studies conducted with deaf students in different school settings (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Reich, Hambleton, & Houldin, 1977; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978) are almost 20 years old, and with the development of programs and social changes that have taken place, new research is sorely needed. Evaluation of the effects of educational programs can be approached in different ways, academic achievement being the most obvious outcome. However, this singular approach has limitations. As stated by Good and Brophy (1986) in their comprehensive  4  review of the literature on school effects, "student achievement on standardized test scores can hardly be equated with effectiveness per se" (p. 570). While this applies to all students, with or without a hearing loss, the special circumstances of those with hearing losses begs even greater consideration of socio-emotional evaluation. "The need to consider other indices of school effectiveness, such as socio-emotional growth, is particularly critical for deaf students who are at grave risk of being socially isolated in public school programs in which they constitute a minority." (O'Donnell, Moores, & Kluwin, 1992, p. 197). Although other factors, such as those measuring family relations, are valuable indicators of emotional well-being, self-concept and intrinsic/extrinsic orientation were chosen as outcome measures in the present study, because of their additional impact on academic achievement. Students with positive academic self-concepts perform better academically, have higher self-esteem, and are happier than those who have a less positive self-concept (Harter, 1987). Students who are intrinsically oriented vs. extrinsically oriented also perform better and derive greater satisfaction from learning (Nicholls, 1979, 1983).  Self-Concept and Intrinsic / Extrinsic Orientation  Since the beginning of the century, educational practices have generally been closely linked to psychological theories. Theories of intelligence were developed in the late 1800s by Galton, and in the early 1900s Binet and Simon constructed an intelligence test to identify children who would benefit from "normal" education. For many years, the emphasis in education was on cognitive processes. With the behaviourist theories of J.B. Watson in the 1920s, education followed the lead of psychology and moved away from the inner workings of the self to observable stimulus-response theory through linear programmed instruction. Then, as a reaction against this narrow view of behaviour, the humanistic psychologists began to speak out. In the 1950s, Carl Rogers presented a series of books, lectures, and articles on his form of non-directive psychotherapy in which the self is considered the central aspect of personality and in education, Jerome Bruner promoted " discovery oriented instruction." This was followed by a resurgence of interest in cognitive outcomes, and later by a renewed emphasis on humanistic aspects in education (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). Social psychology theories were popular in the 60s and 70s and researchers emphasized the importance of the affective dimension on  5  learning. Over the last 25 years, issues of self-concept and motivation have become more prevalent in the educational research literature than previously. Although educational researchers have been interested in self-concept because of its proposed relationship with academic achievement, Hansford and Hattie (1982) by means of a meta-analysis, found that general self-concept was only weakly correlated with achievement (r =.2). In 1976, Shavelson et al. proposed a multi-dimensional model of selfconcept, consisting of both academic and non-academic dimensions and some years later Marsh (1986) and Harter (1982) developed new measures based on this model. Subsequent research has resulted in considerably higher correlations (r =.57) between matched areas of self-concept and academic achievement than those previously found using the general self-concept model (Marsh, 1992). Specific dimensions of interest, such as self-concept of peer or parent relations can be isolated to provide a deeper understanding of the complexity of self-concept and its relationship with contributing factors. With these advances in self-concept theory, continued research with multi-dimensional measures provides new information on dimensions of self-concept. Another construct affecting academic achievement is I/E orientation, as popularized by Harter (1980a, 1980b, 1981), which includes a motivational and an informational component (based on motivation and attribution theories). Motivation is concerned with the reasons for working on a task, is a key construct in education, and is essential in instruction and learning (Wahlberg & Uguroglu, 1980; White, 1959). The reasons for working on a task have been proposed as varying in orientation from intrinsic to extrinsic (e.g., preference for challenge vs. easy work, curiosity and interest vs. pleasing the teacher, independent mastery vs. dependence on the teacher) and the benefits derived from attempting the task vary as a function of these reasons (Harter, 1980a). Perceptions of competence (i.e., academic self-concept) have been found to correlate with motivational orientation (Harter, 1986) which affects learning outcomes. The research on student motivation has focused primarily on non-handicapped students from middle-class backgrounds (Stinson, 1984). There appear to be no published studies specifically examining the motivational orientation of deaf and hard of hearing students. The informational component examines the degree to which the individual relies on his/her own vs. others'judgments of the value or quality of work and criteria utilized to evaluate success/failure. Although some research (Bodner & Johns, 1977; Koelle &  6 Convey, 1982; Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986) has been conducted with deaf and hard of hearing students examining locus of control (the degree to which an individual feels internal or external control over life's events), none has specifically addressed this informational component as it relates to academic situations.  Statement of the Problem  As educational programs for deaf and hard of hearing students evolve, empirical research is needed to assist with further program development and student placement decisions. The research conducted on self-concept with deaf students has focused mainly on comparisons between deaf and hearing populations and the results have been inconsistent. Some researchers have found that deaf and hard of hearing students have scored lower than hearing students on self-concept measures (Garrison, Tesch, & DeCaro, 1978; Leigh & Stinson, 1991; Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986; Maxon, Brackett, & van den Berg, 1991), while others have found no significant differences (Cates, 1991; Koelle & Convey, 1982). A crucial limitation of these studies has been the difficulty the students experienced with the linguistic demands of the measures (developed for hearing students) and the inability of those administering the measures to effectively communicate with the participants. Although most self-concept research with deaf and hard of hearing students has focussed on differences between those with and without a hearing loss, some studies have examined differences among students in a range of school settings (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Reich et al., 1977; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978). No clear picture emerges from these studies and interpretation is limited because self-concept was measured using different tests (some of which were not true measures of self-concept), linguistic modifications were not made, and possibly confounding variables were not controlled. In order to address these limitations in the present study, linguistic modifications were made to the outcome measures and variables previously identified as possible confounds were controlled through participant selection. As with the early research using hearing participants, the measures used in previous studies with deaf and hard of hearing students were based on a uni-dimensional self-concept theory. No studies were found specifically examining I/E orientation of deaf students. However, some researchers have examined  7  attributional orientations (attributing internal or external reasons for outcomes) of deaf students, using locus of control measures which focus on causation of outcomes (in abstract situations using hypothetical others as referents). Their results suggest that deaf students, compared with hearing students, feel less personal control over outcomes (Bodner & Johns, 1977; Leigh & Stinson, 1991; Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986) and have a relative lack of ability to spontaneously generate self-motivating goals (Elliot & Vegely, 1969). Previous studies examining self-concept of deaf and hard of hearing students in different educational settings (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Reich et al., 1977; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978) are at least 15 years old, did not use measures based on a multidimensional model of self-concept, and in most cases, the language of the measures was too difficult for the deaf students. Therefore, generalization of the results to today's population is inappropriate. Current research on school setting differences, using a linguistically modified, multi-dimensional self-concept and an I/E orientation measure focussing on school situations, provides new empirical evidence on which to base program development decisions.  Purpose of the Study  The purpose of this study was to examine differences in dimensions of selfconcept among groups of deaf secondary level students attending school settings ranging from fully segregated to fully integrated. Only deaf students attended the segregated setting. The resource and congregated settings enrolled both deaf and hearing students and deaf students attended all, some, or no classes with hearing students. In the itinerant setting, deaf students attended all classes with hearing students. A secondary purpose was to examine differences in I/E orientation among these four groups of students. These constructs were examined using linguistically modified measures, supported with sign language videos of the items, and, therefore, reliability and validity testing of the measures was a necessary preliminary purpose. Because some students in the four programs attended classes with hearing students, the data were examined for differences in selfconcept and I/E orientation, depending on the degree of student integration. The effects of communication (sign or aural/oral) have not previously been investigated for their effect on  8 self-concept and I/E orientation and, therefore, they were also examined. The final purpose of this study was to explore relationships among dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation with this special population. The results of this study have both practical and theoretical applications. On the one hand, it is hoped the results will assist with practical issues, such as program development and also provide new information about the congregated setting. In terms of theoretical significance, the results of this study add to theory development because no research appears to have been conducted examining the dimensions of self-concept, I/E orientation or the relationship between these constructs, with deaf secondary students.  Background Information On Deafness  The following section has been included for those unfamiliar with education of students with a hearing loss to clarify some of the issues which need to be taken into account when conducting research with this very diverse population. Within the population of deaf and hard of hearing students there exist a range of hearing losses, possible additional educationally handicapping conditions, and differences due to methods of communication and parental hearing status. Therefore, careful consideration of these possibly confounding variables is essential both when reviewing previous research and designing new studies.  Etiology of Hearing Loss and Additional Educationally Handicapping Conditions The impact of hearing loss on an individual's speech and language varies depending on such factors as etiology and presence of additional handicaps. Causes of hearing loss can affect students' abilities to perform academically and fall under four major categories: (a) genetic, (b) caused by disease such as rubella or meningitis, (c) caused by drugs, and (d) caused by a trauma, such as anoxia (Boothroyd, 1982). In approximately one-third of all cases of childhood hearing loss, etiology remains unknown (Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, 1989). Students whose loss was caused by genetic factors are less likely to have other handicapping conditions than those whose loss was caused by disease. Wolff and Harkins (1986) report the prevalence of additional handicapping conditions among individuals with a hearing loss as approximately three times as large as in the  9 general population, with the most common disabling conditions being: (a) developmental disabilities, (b) specific learning disabilities, (c) behavioural problems, and (d) visual problems. Before applying their data to the current school-aged population, consideration should be given to the fact that it included many multiply-disabled individuals who were born during the rubella epidemic of 1963-1965, and are no longer in school. Although current data are not available, it is likely that the incidence of multiple handicaps is greater among the deaf than the hearing population. Students reported to have additional disabilities were excluded from the present study.  Degree of Hearing Loss Degree of hearing loss, which can vary from mild to profound, affects ability to communicate orally through speech and residual hearing and may be categorized as: mild (27-40 dB loss), moderate (41-55 dB loss), moderate to severe (56-70 dB loss), severe (71-90dB loss), and profound (> 91 dB loss) (Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, 1989). Hearing loss can be acquired before, during or after birth and age at onset of loss is an important factor in the development of language. Those who develop a loss before the development of spoken and auditory language are called prelingually deaf and comprise about 3% of the total hearing impaired population (Schein, 1989), and those who acquire auditory language before a hearing loss are called postlingually deaf. In the present study, analyses were conducted to determine if there were significant differences among groups of students with differing degrees of hearing loss.  Language Development and Mode of Communication For a child born with a severe to profound hearing loss, the absence of auditory stimulation generally causes delays in the development of spoken language (Quigley & Paul, 1984). Although some researchers have suggested these spoken language delays influence affective development (e.g., Harris, 1978), others have hypothesized that limited auditory stimulation directly influences affective development (Altshuler, Deming, Vollenweider, Rainer, & Tendler, 1976). Some of the characteristics that have been associated with deafness are impulsivity, lack of understanding the dynamics of interpersonal relations, egocentrism, and emotional immaturity (Schlesinger, 1978). The effects of early language deprivation on language acquisition become obvious  10 when comparing the superior literacy levels of deaf children of Deaf parents (who acquire an early language — ASL) with those of deaf children of hearing parents. Although some hearing parents learn to communicate adequately with their children, the communication skills of these parents generally develop after their children have experienced a crucial period with little communication. Therefore, these children will lag behind those born to Deaf parents in terms of communicative competence (Israelite, Ewoldt & Hoffmeister, 1992; Paul & Gromeley, 1986). Overall, reading performance of deaf students, whether they have hearing or deaf parents, has been found to be lower than that of hearing students (Balow, Fulton, & Peploe, 1971; DiFrancesca, 1972; Goetzinger & Rousey, 1959; Pintner & Patterson, 1916; Trybus & Karchmer, 1977). In large part, for this reason, much of the emphasis in educational programs for deaf and hard of hearing students continues to be language learning, particularly English. Communication methods used by deaf and hard of hearing individuals can be classified broadly as aural/oral and sign communication. The aural/oral approach relies on the use of residual hearing, speech, and speech reading, in contrast to sign communication which is expressed through manual codes. (For more detail, see Definition of Terms at then end of this chapter). Arguments about the relative benefits and superiority of each approach have raged for 200 years and continue to be debated. Although most of those who rely on an aural/oral mode are hard of hearing, some profoundly deaf individuals prefer this approach and the potential it may offer to interact with hearing persons without using an interpreter or writing. Until the 1970s the aural/oral method of communication was prevalent in educational programs for deaf and hard of hearing students. As a reaction to the low literacy levels among the deaf, many educators felt that a manual form of communication might alleviate the problem and English-based sign systems used in conjunction with spoken English became common in North America. Currently a range of manually coded English communication systems are used, from "Signing Exact English" (SEE), which involves signing each English word, including endings, to signing English sentence structure with the addition of A S L features. Among members of the Deaf community, the language of communication is American Sign Language (ASL), a distinct language with its own linguistic structure, different from English (Padden, 1980). Many members of the Deaf community and some educators (Duffy, 1987; Israelite etal., 1992; Luetke-Stahlman, 1986; Mason, 1994;  11  Svarthlom, 1993) believe that the continued low literacy levels are due to the difficulty of trying to fit a visual/spatial language (manual communication) into a linear mode (English syntax) and that use of A S L as a first language, followed by written English as a second language, will improve literacy. However, this has yet to be sufficiently supported by research. Students participating in the present study use a variety of methods to communicate. Most of the students in itinerant programs use aural/oral communication, those in segregated and congregated programs use sign communication, and those in resource programs make use of both forms of communication. In order to include sufficient numbers of students from a range of programs, sample selection could not rule out the possibly confounding effect of mode of communication. On the other hand, including this variable in analysis could provide new information. Therefore, differences in dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation were examined among students using different methods to communicate (aural and sign). This appears to be the first study to examine these differences from this perspective.  Parental Hearing Status More than 90% of deaf children are born to normally hearing parents (Kluwin & Gaustad, 1992). These parents often suspect that something is wrong long before a firm medical diagnosis is established. Confusion of hearing loss with other disabilities such as developmental disabilities or emotional disturbance is upsetting to parents who may be told by physicians that their suspicions are false (Williams & Darbyshire, 1982). These early experiences contribute to a feeling of helplessness and incompetence on the part of parents and affect parents' interactions with their infants. Upon diagnosis, hearing parents often go through a period of shock and grieving, which may continue for many years (MeadowOrlans, 1987). Schlesinger (1985) commented on a sense of powerlessness when parents feel unable to to influence their child's destiny, a feeling which intensifies when their attempts to communicate with their child do not meet with the expected results. A common response of hearing parents is to become more domineering in interactions with their deaf child than they would normally be. Obviously, not all parents react the same way and responses may vary depending on early information and support, attitudes toward deafness and familiarity with other Deaf people (Meadow-Orlans, 1987).  12 The first major obstacle that parents need to overcome following the diagnosis is the decision regarding communication approach. Some professionals feel very strongly that an aural/oral approach, emphasizing speech and use of residual hearing, is superior; others claim that using sign language is the only appropriate method. Parents are left to make a choice about communication methodology, which has been a topic of controversy since the education of deaf students began over 200 years ago. For all parents, the issue of communication is crucial and places considerable strain on the family, especially when parents differ in their opinion about the best approach. These issues affect parent-child interactions. Eight studies, conducted between 1970 and 1986, comparing interactions between hearing mothers and their deaf children with hearing mothers of hearing children, found those with deaf children were more dominating, intrusive, tense and antagonistic with their children than mothers of the hearing children, and the deaf children were described as less compliant, less attentive and less responsive than the hearing children (see Meadow-Orlans, 1990, for a review of these studies). Communication difficulties may account, at least in part, for the tendency of hearing parents to be overprotective and more strict with their deaf child than they would be with a hearing child. Hearing parents of deaf children reported a narrower range of disciplinary techniques, more reliance on spanking and more frustration with child rearing than did a comparison group of parents with hearing children (Schlesinger & Meadow, 1972). Effective early communication minimizes the sense of isolation a deaf or hard of hearing child feels and facilitates important interaction between the parents and child at a crucial stage in development. Deaf children of Deaf parents, who comprise less than 10% of the population of deaf children (Kluwin & Gaustad, 1992), are exposed to a formal form of language from birth, unlike most deaf children of hearing parents, who do not have easy access to their parents' spoken language. Deaf parents have been reported to accept more easily their child's hearing loss than hearing parents (Meadow & Meadow, 1971), and Deaf mothers have been found to communicate with their child following a pattern that is similar to hearing parents with hearing children (Jamieson & Pederson, 1993). Koelle and Convey (1982) found that deaf children of Deaf parents had more positive selfconcepts, were more internally controlled and were better achievers than those of hearing parents. Deaf parents may adjust more easily to having deaf children than do hearing  13 parents because of their familiarity with a common communication system, support from other Deaf adults and shared identity as Deaf individuals (Jamieson, 1994). Deaf parents act as role models and their children often become role models for their peers (Padden, 1980). In order to control for the effects of parental hearing status, only those students with normally hearing parents participated in this study.  Definition Of Terms  Terms Used to Describe Individuals With a Hearing Loss  Deaf: When written with a capital" D", the term Deaf indicates those people who are part of the Deaf community, sharing common values and using American Sign Language (ASL). Extent of hearing loss is not a factor in determining membership in the Deaf community. One may, for example, be audiologically hard of hearing but culturally Deaf.  deaf: Deaf, with a lower case "d", refers to degree of hearing loss and is used in this paper to encompass both severe and profound losses. "A deaf person is one whose hearing is disabled to an extent....that precludes the understanding of speech through the ear alone, with or without the use of a hearing aid" (Frisina, 1974).  Hard of Hearing : "A hard of hearing person is one whose hearing is disabled to an extent...that makes difficult, but does not preclude, the understanding of speech through the ear alone, with or without a hearing aid" (Frisina, 1974).  Terms Denoting Educational Programs Available to Deaf Students  Decisions regarding placement of deaf or hard of hearing students in the various education settings in Western Canada are generally made by representatives from the programs in collaboration with parents. Criteria for admission may include degree of student hearing loss, method of communication, and hearing status of parents. Both Alberta and British Columbia have provincial programs (using sign communication) with a residential component available to students who live beyond commuter distance. Residence  14  and school are provided free of cost to the parents. The following terms describe educational options available to deaf and hard of hearing students living in Western Canada.  Segregated Programs: Only deaf students are enrolled in these programs, which consist of both educational and residential components. Aside from the students who live in residence, other students living within commuter distance travel to and from the schools on a daily basis.  Congregated Program: Replacing the previously segregated program, a new provincial program has been established in British Columbia. It includes a residential and an educational component. The educational program consists of elementary and secondary divisions, which are housed in the same facilities as regular programs for hearing students and students may choose to attend classes in the program for the deaf, the hearing, or in both. Opportunities for social interaction with hearing students exist in these programs. At both the elementary and secondary levels, deaf students have some social activities on their own and some combined with hearing students.  Resource Programs : Resource programs have been established in regular public schools with students commuting daily. These programs offer the deaf students the opportunity to integrate with hearing students for all, some, or none of all their classes, with support in separate resource rooms if needed. Opportunities for social interaction with hearing students exist in these programs.  Itinerant Programs: Itinerant programs are those in which students are fully integrated in regular classes in their neighbourhood schools and receive support from itinerant teachers trained to teach deaf and hard of hearing students. Although most of the students in itinerant programs use the aural/oral form of communication, some use sign communication and have interpreter/assistants working with them in the classroom.  Mainstream Programs: Deaf students who are mainstreamed are fully integrated in regular school programs, but unlike those in itinerant programs, do not receive support from  15  teachers specialized in education of deaf and hard of hearing students. The decision not to provide support is based on the students' abilities to function adequately in the regular classroom.  Communication Methods Used by Individual with Hearing Losses  Aural/oral Communication: The emphasis is on the use of residual hearing, speech and speech reading, without support of any form of sign communication.  Sign Communication: This approach, also referred to as sign language, refers to the use of any manually coded form of communication, including ASL, contact varieties, and English-based signing:  American Sign Language (ASL): a visual-gestural language which incorporates facial grammatical markers, physical affect markers, spatial linguistic information, and fingerspelling, as well as signs made by the hands. A S L is a distinct language with its own grammar and syntax which is not based on, nor derived from, a spoken language.  Contact Varieties: a form of communication which evolves as a result of prolonged contact between members of different linguistic communities. It includes code-switching, code-mixing, and lexical borrowing.  English Based Signing: a generic term used to refer to a variety of signing systems based on English grammatical structure, rather than the structure of A S L . (For additional information on these sign forms, see Humphrey & Alcorn, 1995)  16  Overview of the Thesis  The first chapter provided background information, the problem statement and purpose of the study. Chapter Two consists of a review of the literature pertaining to the dependent and independent variables in the study, as well as the research questions. It begins with a discussion of changes in educational programs and socio-cultural issues pertaining to deaf and hard of hearing individuals, followed by information on recent developments in self-concept theory and measurement and I/E orientation and measurement. The literature on self-concept and research related to I/E orientation with deaf and hard of hearing students is reviewed and limitations in the research are discussed. Finally, the research questions for the present study are posed. Chapter Three provides an outline of the methods used to analyze the data. It begins with a summary of the initial study conducted in May, 1994, on the modified selfconcept measure and sign language video presentation of the items and continues with the design for the main study. Participants, procedures, test selection and modification are described and data analysis methods are presented. In Chapter Four, the results of the analyses are presented. Chapter Five begins with a summary and discussion of the results and their implications, and is followed by suggestions for future research.  17 II. REVIEW OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E  The main purpose of this study was to examine differences among dimensions of self-concept of deaf secondary level students attending four educational settings, ranging from segregated to fully integrated. The secondary purpose was to examine differences in I/E orientation among deaf secondary students in these settings. Examination of relationships among dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation, with this special population, was a third purpose. Therefore, this review includes literature pertaining to self-concept, motivation, and locus of control theory and measurement, as well as previous research examining these constructs with deaf secondary students. Compared with those conducting research with a hearing population, researchers working with a deaf population are faced with considerable difficulties, the main one being the limited size and the diverse nature of the population from which to draw a sample. As stated by Stinson (1994, p. 52) The research literature regarding affective and social development of deaf individuals must be treated with caution due to: (1) the failure of some research to take into account the diversity of the population, (2) measurement difficulties, and (3) recent extensive changes in educational practices and in the social climate.  Because this population is relatively small and extremely diverse, it is essential that possibly confounding factors (i.e., degree of hearing loss, method of communication, hearing status of parents, and additional handicapping conditions) be controlled in any study examining sub-groups of the population. Overall, deaf individuals have low reading levels as compared with hearing individuals, and, therefore, written measures developed for a hearing population without linguistic modifications are seldom appropriate for deaf individuals. Much of the research on self-concept and I/E orientation of deaf students is more than fifteen years old (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Reich et al., 1977; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978). With the many recent socio-cultural and educational changes that have occurred (including growth of the Deaf community, use of A S L , school program development, and increased early intervention), one cannot assume that previous research results apply to today's population. This chapter is a review of the literature on self-concept and I/E orientation theory  18  and measurement and the previous research investigating these constructs with deaf and hard of hearing students. In order to provide the background to understand clearly the limitations of this literature, information regarding educational and socio-cultural changes with regard to the deaf population is presented at the outset.  Educational Developments and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Deafness  Educational Developments Until the last half of the 20th century all deaf students were educated in one of three types of programs: (a) public day schools, (b) public residential schools, and (c) private residential schools. For the most part, day programs served children with mild to moderate losses while students at residential schools had congenital deafness or onset before age two. In all settings the teachers used aural/oral methods of communication: listening, speech reading and spoken language (Day, Fusfield, & Pintner, 1928). After World War II, self-contained classes were opened in schools for hearing students. Technological advances in hearing aids resulted in complaints from parents and professionals about what they perceived as negative effects of signing and they pushed for oral methods and more day programs. Until the 1970s most programs employed an oral policy but shortly afterwards changed to manual (sign language) policies. In 1974, U.S. Public Law 94-142 called for education of handicapped students in the "least restrictive environment", which was often interpreted as mainstream settings. However, for many deaf children a mainstream setting results in isolation from other deaf peers and in 1988 a report of the Commission on Education of the Deaf claimed that placement of some deaf children in a mainstream or regular class setting can severely restrict their opportunity for an appropriate free public education (Moores, Cerney, & Garcia, 1990). Currently there are four types of educational settings available to students in Western Canada: (a) segregated, (b) congregated, (c) resource, and (d) itinerant programs. In these four types of programs there are opportunities for a range of academic integration for deaf and hard of hearing students with hearing students, from none at all (segregated setting) to complete integration (itinerant programs). Opportunities for social integration also vary among the settings. The segregated setting enrols only deaf students, but in the  19  itinerant settings individual deaf students attend classes with hearing peers. Those in resource and congregated programs can chose to socialize with either deaf or hearing peers, and may attend some, none, or all of their classes with hearing students.  Socio-Cultural Aspects of Deafness Being Deaf usually means the person has some degree of hearing loss. However, the type or degree of hearing loss is not a criterion for being Deaf. Rather the criterion is whether a person identifies with other Deaf people, and behaves as a Deaf person. (Padden, 1980, p. 95)  Deafness, in a socio-cultural sense, consists of more than hearing loss. The factors which identify members of the Deaf community include linguistic differentiation, attitudinal deafness, behavioural norms, endogamous marriage patterns, historical awareness, and voluntary organizational networks (Reagan, 1990). The most consistent feature of members of the Deaf community is their preference for A S L , even though they may also use English based sign systems and be literate in English. "Attitudinal deafness" encompasses a commitment to the Deaf community and culture, a factor which may eliminate other audiologically deaf people from the community. Behavioural patterns such as eye contact, rules governing physical contact, and gestures, which are socially acceptable in the Deaf community, may be misinterpreted by hearing people. Between 86% and 90% of Deaf people marry within the Deaf community (Erring, 1978), despite a historical resistance to intermarriage, and about 90% of the children born to Deaf couples are hearing (Schein, 1987). The Deaf community, therefore, is extremely important to Deaf adults, in that it provides a social network of individuals who share common problems and with whom they can easily communicate. In 1981 Jack Gannon wrote Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America. This book was helpful in bringing a history, which had been previously transmitted only through sign language, to the general public. Other books documenting Deaf culture and history have been written since Gannon's book and some schools now teach Deaf heritage to deaf children. In these ways a historical awareness among and about Deaf people is growing. It is largely through the residential schools that students have had an opportunity to socialize and communicate in the language with which they are most familiar and where  20  much of the sense of community has evolved. However, the future of residential schools is uncertain as increasing numbers of deaf students attend neighbourhood schools and, as a consequence, many residential schools close. One group which does not belong to the Deaf community, but shares many of the frustrations and life experiences of Deaf people, is audiologically deaf persons (those with a profound hearing loss) who prefer to identify with the hearing population. They are generally rejected by Deaf people, who have a derogatory sign to describe deaf people who think like hearing people (Reagan, 1990). Many audiologically deaf persons have been educated in oral programs or have lost their hearing after acquiring language. When developing educational programs, it is important to consider on the one hand, the experiences these individuals share with Deaf persons and, on the other, the issue that often they do not fully fit into either community, Deaf or hearing, despite their preference to identify with the hearing population. It is mainly through the segregated residential schools, where deaf students socialize and communicate easily with their deaf peers, that the Deaf community continues to grow. Kelly (1989) documented life-long patterns of social relations within a Deaf community and found that these patterns develop early, primarily in the residential schools, and continue through old age. While the congregated setting also has a residential program and both it and resource settings provide a peer group of deaf students, the difference between these settings and the segregated settings is the presence of an additional peer group of hearing students. Mainstream settings, on the other hand, provide only hearing peer groups. Special school programs enrolling groups of deaf students play an important role in providing the students with early access to a Deaf community. Therefore, changes in school settings, in particular the closure of many residential schools and increased use of sign communication, can be expected to impact oh the Deaf community.  21 Self-Concept Theory and Measurement  In general terms, self-concept is our perception of ourselves; in specific terms, it is our attitudes, feelings and knowledge about our abilities, skills, appearance, and social acceptability (Jersild, 1965; Labenne & Green, 1969; West & Fish, 1973). Accordingly, the early work of Lecky (1945) identified the self-concept as the nucleus of one's personality. The perceptions that we hold about ourselves are derived from our social environment and are believed to provide the culminating force in directing our behaviour; this behaviour in turn, influences the way we perceive ourselves. (Byrne, 1984).  Until the late 1970s researchers examined self-concept with measures based on a uni-dimensional or general self-concept model, and individuals scored along a continuum from positive to negative general self-concept. More recently, factor analytic studies have identified a number of components, which develop differentially. In their seminal article, Shavelson et al. (1976) identified a distinct difference between students' academic and nonacademic factors of self-concept and found that each contained a number of subcomponents. They described the self-concept in very broad terms as individuals' perceptions of themselves, which " ...are influenced especially by environmental reinforcements and significant others" (p. 411). In their thorough review of previous research, these authors identified the following characteristics of self-concept: • It is a multi-faceted sub-system of internally consistent, hierarchically organized concepts contained in a broader conceptual system. • It develops out of experience, particularly out of social interaction with significant others. • It is a dynamic process which changes with experience and assimilates increasing amounts of information. • It is an organized system of awareness, and maintenance of this organization is essential for functioning. • One aspect of self-concept is the basic need for self-esteem. • Two functions of the self-concept are that it organizes the data of experience, particularly that of social interaction, into sequences of action and reaction and that it facilitates attempts to fulfil needs while avoiding disapproval and anxiety.  22  Unlike previous views of self-concept as a general factor, Shavelson et al. (1976) presented a theoretical definition of self-concept, separate dimensions (based on previous empirical and theoretical research), and a description of how these dimensions may be hierarchically organized. Their model, which has been used by Harter (1985) and Marsh (1986) for the development of new multi-dimensional measures of self-concept, is presented in Figure 1.  General Self-Concept  Academic Self-Concept  Non-Academic Self-Concept  Others  States  Evaluation of behaviour in specific situations  Figure 1. Representation of Hierarchical Organization of Self-Concept (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976) Marsh (1986) developed the Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) based on this model. The questionnaire contains the following components: physical appearance, physical ability, peer relations, parent relations, reading, mathematics and general school. Confirmatory factor analysis of the measure supported the seven-factor model, with high factor loadings for each variable on the dimension it is supposed to measure and low on the other factors (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985). There is also a general-self component, which measures general self-worth, based on the Rosenberg (1979) scale. Self-esteem or self-worth has an evaluative component which results in an emotional response. James (1890) described it as "the ratio of our actual  23  accomplishments to our perceived potentialities", in other words, what people feel they can do or be in relation to what they would like to be able to do or be. The things people would like to be able to do or be are determined by what they value as important and these values develop through their interactions with significant others and through their cultural values. Harter (1987) applied this theory to students and found that those with greater discrepancy between importance of a dimension and perceptions of competence in that dimension had lower self-esteem and were more likely to suffer from psychological distress than those with less discrepancy. Examining the contribution of the different self-concept dimensions to self-worth, Harter (1990b) found that physical appearance was the most important contributor, for both elementary and middle school students. Social acceptance was the next important dimension, and scholastic competence, athletic competence, and behavioural conduct contributed the least. Self-worth is determined by both the degree to which one feels competent in the areas where success is important and perceived positive regard from significant others. James' (1890) cognitive-analytical model stands in contrast to the "looking glass self" as proposed by Cooley (1902), who described the role of others as a "social mirror". He believed that people's self-concept develops from what they believe others think of them. This social interactionist perspective was also argued by Mead (1934) and Sullivan (1953). With the development of measures based on the multi-dimensional model, researchers have begun investigating the effects of social comparison on specific dimensions of self-concept. Harter (1992) also emphasized the importance of social comparison, whereby children's self-concepts are affected by those with whom they compare themselves. Looking at two groups of 'special' populations, she found that mainstreamed learning disabled students had lower academic self-concept scores than non-disabled students because they compared themselves with their non-disabled peers. In contrast, even mainstreamed developmentally disabled students' scores did not differ from the norm, apparently because they compared themselves to other developmentally delayed students. A possible explanation for the difference between these two groups is that the learning disabled students had been labelled at a later age and spent more time in regular classes than the developmentally delayed students, who were diagnosed at an early age, and overall, spent more time in special classes. In another study (Pike, 1985) hospitalized asthmatic children scored within the norms on self-concept, including physical appearance and ability  24  dimensions. Considering their physical limitations, this result was surprising. A possible explanation was that either these children compared themselves with similar peers or used unconscious denial of their physical condition to bolster their self-perceptions. It is apparent that this issue is complex. Although social comparison plays a significant role in determining self-concept, the groups with which students compare themselves are not necessarily those with which they have the most immediate contact. Depending on school setting and degree of integration, deaf students will be educated with like peers (special classes), hearing peers (integrated classes), or a combination (some students in the congregated and resource programs). Foster (1989), interviewing post-secondary deaf students regarding their school experience, found that those who were fully integrated with no deaf peers experienced loneliness, rejection, and social isolation. If deaf students compare themselves with others in their school classes, students who are taught with deaf peers may be expected to have more positive peer and academic self-concept scores than those who are taught with hearing peers. Although results have been somewhat contradictory, this hypothesis has been supported in some previous research with deaf students in different educational settings and will be discussed later in the chapter. However, previous studies used uni-dimensional measures of selfconcept and so the present study is the first to examine differences in self-concept dimensions, depending on school setting and subjects for which the deaf students are integrated with hearing students. Academic self-concept is affected by both an external and an internal frame of reference (Marsh, Walker, & DeBus, 1991). The external frame of reference involves an individual's comparison of perceived academic abilities with perceived skills of other students. Looking at the effects of educational placement on academic self-concept, Marsh (1991) found that equally able students attending high ability schools had more negative academic self-concept than those who attended regular programs because of comparison with their with high achieving peers. He referred to this as the "Big-Fish-Little-Pond" (BFLP) effect. Comparing matched groups in different settings, he found these negative effects for students of all ability levels, across a variety of outcome variables, including academic achievement and subsequent university attendance. Given the difficulties deaf students have in English language development and their subsequent difficulties with written content in subject areas, the B F L P effect, when applied to deaf students in  25  integrated settings, should lead to lower self-concept of academic abilities than equally able deaf students in special classes for the deaf. However, testing this hypothesis is difficult because, in general, deaf students who are integrated with hearing students are placed in these classes because of their high academic abilities, and so direct comparison with those in special classes may be confounded by ability. Using an internal frame of reference, students compare their self-perceived mathematics skills with their self-perceived verbal skills and base perceptions of ability in each area on comparison with the other. For example, for a student who excels in mathematics, the perceptions of high mathematics ability will negatively impact on perceptions of verbal ability (and vice versa). Although mathematics and verbal achievement are generally correlated at (.5 - .8), self-perceptions in these areas have a weak correlation (.05) (Marsh, 1986). This argument has been supported by research with hearing students from Australia, Canada, and the U.S. (Marsh, Walker, & DeBus, 1991). Examination of these social and academic self-concept dimensions requires use of a multi-dimensional measure. By deriving only a general score, uni-dimensional measures of self-concept mask dimension specific information. A uni-dimensional measure results in a score somewhere along a continuum from negative to positive general self-concept. The fact that two individuals can have the same general self-concept score (an aggregate of the dimension scores) and have very different scores on separate dimensions, highlights the importance of using multi-dimensional measures and examining each dimension separately.  Intrinsic / Extrinsic Orientation: Theory and Measurement  The facets of I/E orientation examined in this study are based on motivation and ' attribution theories. Early psychologists believed that motivation was based solely on instincts or physical drives, such as the need for food, warmth and sleep. The research of Pavlov (1927) and Skinner (1953) was based on the belief that tissue deficit was the impetus for action and the reward was satisfaction of these needs. However, by the 1950s researchers began to question why individuals whose physical needs were satisfied still displayed goal- oriented behaviour. In a seminal paper, White (1959) argued that competence was an important aspect missing from motivation theory and that the "...motivation needed to attain competence cannot wholly be derived from sources of  26  energy currently conceptualized as drives or instincts" (p. 297). Using Piaget's work and psychoanalytic ego psychology as sources, he derived a new motivational construct which he called effectance motivation. White's theory is based on the belief that the organism is impelled toward competent performance of a challenging task and is satisfied by feelings of efficacy. This, in turn, results in inherent pleasure ~ in other words, it is intrinsically motivated. Most achievement motivation theorists have argued that intrinsic motivation is more desirable than extrinsic motivation (performing tasks for approval or reward) because external reinforcement is not always available (Stipek, 1993). Intrinsically oriented students are more involved with the process of performing tasks, engage in more risktaking or challenging tasks and derive satisfaction from their own feelings of competence. In contrast, those with an extrinsic orientation are more outcome and ego-focused, choosing tasks which are easy and depending on external evaluation and reinforcement (Nicholls 1979,1983). The intrinsically oriented students also used more effective problem solving and active metacognitive strategies than those who were ego-oriented. Inability to solve problems does not affect the problem solving strategies of task-oriented students, but undermines the effective problem solving of ego-oriented students. Conditions that foster intrinsic motivation also appear to support greater creativity (Amabile, 1983) and cognitive flexibility (McGraw & McCullers, 1979). The study of individual differences in attributions stems from social learning theory and Rotter's (1966) research on locus of control, which discriminated between internal and external control of events. Interned control is based on the belief that outcomes depend on effort or ability, whereas external outcomes are viewed as being beyond a person's control, as with luck, influence of others, or task difficulty. Locus of control was viewed as a relatively stable trait. Benware and Deci (1984) found that intrinsically oriented students believed that their success was caused by interest and effort, rather than comparison with others. These students had a greater conceptual understanding of tasks than did extrinsically oriented students. Although both locus of control and I IE information (as measured in Harter's I/E Orientation in the Classroom) are based in attribution theory, they differ in that locus of control focuses on results (i.e., internal vs. external causes of events), whereas I/E information focuses on process (i.e., whether students use independent judgment vs. reliance on the teacher and internal vs. external criteria for  27 success or failure. Just as individuals who are intrinsically motivated experience more enjoyment and better learning than those who are extrinsically motivated, students who inform themselves through internal sources experience better learning than those who rely on extrinsic sources of information. Using internal criteria for success or failure means that students can independently assess the effectiveness of strategies they use when undertaking tasks and know when to change or adapt these strategies. Those who rely on external criteria cannot self-regulate their learning in this way. Metacognition, or "knowing when you know or don't know", has a positive impact on learning (Borkowski & Muthurkrishna, 1992). Encouraging students to "take control" of their learning by teaching them metacogrtitive strategies and enhancing feelings of personal control by making them part of the decision making process should increase their intrinsic orientation. Characteristics of the educational setting such as task difficulty, evaluation, use of rewards, student autonomy, and social context affect the development of I/E orientation of students (Stipek, 1993). Therefore, teaching style, particularly degree of imposed control, and expectations that teachers have of their students are likely to affect the students' I/E orientation. The school settings attended by the participants in the present study differ in degree of academic integration (number of subjects with hearing students) and social integration (presence or absence of deaf peers). Differences in I/E orientation among groups of deaf students, depending on the amount of time they spend in "regular" or special classes for the deaf, provides initial information on whether school setting affects deaf students' I/E orientation. Stipek and Weisz (1981) conducted an extensive review of the literature on perceived control and academic achievement and concluded that more work was needed with children in real-life (classroom) situations because previous studies had focused on artificial experimental settings.Weiner (1979) stressed the importance of distinguishing between self-attributions and attributions about hypothetical others. In response to the paucity of instruments to measure dimensions of attitude, motivation and personality in children, Harter (1980b) developed the Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom, which consists of three motivational subscales (preference for challenge vs. easy work, curiosity/interest vs. pleasing the teacher/getting grades, and independent mastery vs.dependence on the teacher) and two informational subscales (independent vs. teacher  28 judgment and internal vs.external criteria for success or failure). Factor analysis of the scale found support for the five factors, with no items systematically loading on factors which they were not intended to measure (Harter, 1980b). The language used in this measure is relatively simple and the items refer to real classroom situations using self, rather than other, referent questions. For these reasons, I chose the Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom for use in the present study. The measure was linguistically modified and sign language videos were produced as support for signing students.  Relationships Between Academic Self-Concept and I/E Orientation  Few studies have been conducted to examine relationships between self-concept and motivation. Phillips (1984), studying the illusion of academic incompetence of academically competent children, found that children's self-perceptions of abilities (which could not be explained by differences in their actual abilities) bear a critical association with their achievement motives and orientations as well as the influence of perceived abilities. Harter (1981) examined relationships between perceived competence and I/E orientation, with the expectation that the higher one's perceived competence, the more intrinsic one's motivational orientation. Correlational data supported her hypothesis that perceived competence would be strongly related to intrinsic orientation: challenge (r = .57), curiosity (r = .33), and independent mastery (r = .54). She found lower correlations with the informational components ~ independent judgment (r =.03) and internal criteria (r = .26). Students who perceive themselves to be scholastically competent manifest more intrinsic motivation compared to those who perceive themselves to be less scholastically competent. This has been supported in research over a range of grade levels (three to nine) and populations (average, gifted and learning disabled). In further research to examine causal relationships among sources of self-worth, affect and motivation, Harter (1986) found support for a model in which perceptions of competence and social support have an equal impact on self-worth. Self-worth causes affect, which impacts on motivation. These studies support a positive relationship between dimensions of academic self-concept and I/E orientation, at least among hearing samples.  29  Previous Research With Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Few disabilities have proved as resistant to psychological inquiry as early sensorineural deafness. This obtains for clinical examination as well as for research. Impediments to clinical examination.. .include lack of adequate instruments of examination; lack of normative criteria of evaluation; lack of trained workers; and lack of communicative relations-in-depth between worker and the deaf subject. (Levine, 1965, p. 496) Harlan Lane (1988) identified some of the problems in the historical development of the "psychology of the deaf" and pointed out areas of weakness: test administration (unfamiliar procedures), test language (misunderstood instructions and content), test scoring (examiner bias), test content and norms (usually normed on the hearing population) and subject populations (a heterogeneous group). In order to remedy the testing situation, it would appear that there are alternatives, namely either developing tests specifically for the deaf population or revising those developed for the hearing. The first requires a large population from whichtodraw a sample and establish norms, reliability and validity, and the second a careful examination and modification of the language used. When necessary, linguistic modifications which do not alter item content should be made to match the language of the test with that of the subjects and those administering the tests should be able to communicate fluently with the subjects, so that any difficulties in the understanding of the testing procedures may be monitored and remedied. Considering these difficulties, a critical review of previous research with deaf and hard of hearing individuals must include examination of the measures used and whether or not adequate linguistic modifications were made. Researchers have conducted studies of self-concept with deaf and hard of hearing students for a variety of reasons: to determine predictors of self-concept; to compare selfconcept of deaf and hard of hearing students with those of hearing students; to examine the role of self-concept as a predictor of achievement; to examine differences among students in different educational settings; and to test modified measures. Throughout the literature, issues of measurement difficulties appear as the most consistent limitation of the research. Over the past 30 years only a few studies were published which examined motivation and  30  locus of control of deaf and hard of hearing students, but none were found that specifically examined I/E orientation. Because of the measurement difficulties and recent changes in educational programs and social climate, the results of research on affective and social development of deaf and hard of hearing students must be treated with caution (Stinson, 1994). The following discussion focussed on relevant research findings, the limitations of these findings, and suggestions for improving these difficulties in the present study.  Self-Concept Much of the literature pertaining to self-concept of deaf and hard of hearing students involves comparison of deaf and hearing populations and, not surprisingly, most of the results have been largely in favour of hearing students (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Garrison & Tesch, 1978; Gibson-Harman & Austin, 1985; Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986). However, other researchers have found no significant differences between these two groups (Cates, 1991; Koelle & Convey, 1982). Realizing the linguistic difficulties deaf students have with measures developed for hearing students, researchers have also tested modified measures (Garrison, Tesch, & DeCaro, 1978; Gibson-Harman & Austin, 1985; Koelle & Convey, 1982). A few studies have focussed on differences among students across a range of educational settings (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Reich et al., 1977; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978). Although these studies provide some insight into school setting differences, they have many limitations, and none of the studies is recent enough to reflect the educational and attitudinal changes that have occurred over the past 20 years.The following summary of the literature includes discussion of measurement issues (language and multi-dimensionality of self-concept), differences between deaf students with deaf and hearing parents, and differences among students attending school settings varying with respect to degree of integration. Measurement Issues. In a review of all the research studies examining self-concept of deaf and hard of hearing students conducted over the past 30 years, three measurement issues surfaced. First, measures were developed for hearing students. In most cases, linguistic modification was required in order for the deaf students to understand the questions clearly. Three studies were conducted to address this issue specifically. The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS) (Fitts, 1965) is a 100-item Likert Style instrument measuring self-conceptand including personality/adjustment subscales  31 (defensive, positive, general maladjustment, psychosis, personality disorder, neurosis, and personality integration). Using the TSCS with post-secondary deaf students (attending the National Technical Institute for the Deaf), Garrison et al. (1978) found their scores lower than the norms previously established with hearing students. Retesting a sample from the original group two weeks later resulted in weaker stability than was previously found with hearing students, and so they decided to examine the language level of the TSCS. Separating the group by reading level, the authors noted that those students with higher reading had more stable scores, and, therefore, the language of the measure may have interfered with accuracy of responses. To examine this issue further, they conducted a second study, in which they interviewed a sample from the original group and found that only half of the students clearly understood any given item. For this reason, the authors suggested that the results of the first study were invalid and the TSCS, without linguistic modifications, is inappropriate for use with deaf students. Some years later, Gibson-Harman and Austin (1985) tested a linguistically modified form of the TSCS for reliability through test-retest with three groups of students, aged 12 to 21 years: normally hearing, hard of hearing, and deaf. In the first phase of testing, they administered the original and the modified tests to normally hearing students and the modified test to the hearing loss groups on two occasions. Although correlations for the two tests were somewhat lower with the deaf group than with the other two groups, positive correlations were found for all groups, suggesting that the modified form is true to the original form and reliable for use with all of the students aged 12-21. They suggested that further research, comparing matched groups differing in only one variable, such as school setting or degree of hearing loss, was warranted. This issue is the foundation of the current research study. Finally, in a study by Koelle and Convey (1982) the reliability of a linguistically modified Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (CSC) (Piers & Harris, 1964) was tested with 90 deaf adolescents enrolled in residential schools. They administered both unmodified and modified measures to a small sample of hearing students and the results supported reliability of the modified CSC. To examine this further, they tested groups of grade 11 and 12 hearing and deaf students. For the deaf group, directions were supplemented by sign language and interpreters were available to assist with understanding of the items. With both groups, although scores on the modified CSC were slightly higher  32  than the original form, correlations between the two were high. Although the hearing students scored higher than the deaf students on both forms of the CSC, differences were not statistically significant. With secondary deaf students, the Piers-Harris in its original form, with sign language support, appears to be appropriate. From this literature review, it becomes obvious that when using measures developed for a hearing population with deaf participants, the language level must be examined before use in the original form, and, if modifications are made, the modified measure should be examined for internal consistency. The second measurement issue which arises from the literature is the self-concept theory on which the measures are based. As discussed previously, in 1976 Shavelson et al. proposed a multi-dimensional model of self-concept, subsequently supported by research and used in the development of two new measures, the SDQ-1 (Marsh, 1986) and the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1982). Until this time all measures were unidimensional, deriving an overall score which placed the student somewhere on a continuum from negative to positive self-concept. Therefore, the results of these older studies do not give information about the separate dimensions of self-concept. Two later studies with deaf participants used the older measures (Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986; Cates, 1991) and one (Yachnik, 1986) used a multi-dimensional measure, the SDQ-3 (to be reviewed in the next section). One recent study (Oblowitz, Green, & de V. Heyns, 1991) reported development of a self-concept measure specifically designed for students with a hearing loss, the SelfConcept Scale for the Hearing Impaired (SSHI). The researchers based their measure on the multi-dimensional theory of self-concept and grouped the items together in each of the four selected dimensions (i.e., personal, physical, academic, and social — consisting of teachers, peers, family, hearing society). Validity was tested through convergence with with a rating form completed by professionals who knew the students (reliability coefficient was 0.32). Further validity testing was done by testing 42 hearing boys and comparing with their scores on the Coopersmith (1967) Self-Esteem Inventory (reliability coefficient was 0.52). Exploratory factor analysis yielded ten factors, nine of which corresponded with the selected dimensions and an additional factor, which was labelled "communication." No factors were extracted for the selected "teachers" dimension. Although most items loaded on one or another factor which could be related to a dimension of self-concept selected in development of the scale, some items loaded on unexpected  33 factors (e.g., two of the "personal" items clustered with the "academic" items and two of the "physical" items clustered with the "social" items). Only two of the ten factors had more than three items with loadings of 0.50 and above. Although the SSHI showed promise because it was developed as a multidimensional measure for use with deaf and hard of hearing students, it was rejected for use in the present study for the following reasons: (a) the results of factor analysis were poor, (b) the answer format, consisting of happy and sad faces, was questionable; (c) there may have been bias and inconsistency when testing for reliability, because the tests were administered by different teachers who explained items using sign communication; and (d) the validity testing was conducted with hearing rather than deaf students. The third issue which arises from the literature is whether or not the tools used to measure self-concept have construct validity. Although direct comparison of results from studies using a range of different self-concept measures demands careful scrutiny, two studies were found which purported to measure self-concept but, in fact, did not. The study most often quoted in self-concept research with deaf students (i.e., Craig, 1965), used a perceptual sociometric measure adapted for deaf students. It compared predicted sociometric ratings with actual sociometric ratings to give an index of perceived self. Students were shown two illustrations, a beach and a classroom situation. First they were asked who they would select to accompany them to the beach or sit with in class, and second, if each of the other students participating in the study would choose them to go to the beach or to sit with. The responses were used to score four different measures: (a) "self-accuracy" was obtained by summing the errors of each individual in his/her perception of how others would choose him/her; (b) "self-direction" was a summation of differences between each student's predictions of how each other member would rate him/her and the actual ratings of others; (c) "general self-acceptance" was obtained by summing the predictions of each individual of how others would rate him/her without regard to the accuracy of prediction; and (d)" social expansiveness" was obtained by summing each individual's ratings of others. These four measures were described as selfconcept. A second study (Warren & Hassenstab, 1986) used the Picture Game (Lambert & Bower, 1979) as a measure of self-concept. This self-rating picture choice test consists of 72 pictures depicting normal home, school, or play situations and the answer format  34  requires the child to circle a corresponding happy or sad face. A third study which examined self-esteem (Farrugia & Austin, 1980) used a research edition of the MeadowKendall Social Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students (Meadow, 1983). This instrument asks teachers to rate the degree to which 69 items measuring maturity, social adjustment, emotional adjustment, and self-esteem describe each student's behaviour, and scores are derived for each of these areas. Although this is a valid instrument of socialemotional adjustment, it is a teacher rating scale with a limited number of items referring to self-esteem, and, therefore, comparison with research using student rating scales of selfconcept is questionable. This body of literature identifies some of the measurement issues which need to be addressed in future research on self-concept with deaf students: (a) language level of the scales, (b) adherence to a multi-dimensional model, and (c) construct validity. The following summary of relevant literature identifies parental hearing status and degree of hearing loss as factors which may confound research results and, therefore, need to be taken into consideration when designing research studies with deaf students. The issue of degree of heating loss arose in school setting literature and will be discussed in the section on school settings. Parental Hearing Loss. The following two studies, which examine the effects of parental hearing loss, were conducted with deaf secondary and post-secondary students. Yachnik (1986) compared the self-concept of two groups of deaf post-secondary students - those with hearing parents (dH) and those with deaf parents (dD), using the SDQ-3 (Marsh & O'Neill, 1984). The language level of these groups of university students was such that the researcher felt linguistic modifications of the measure were unnecessary. There were significant differences between the two groups, with the deaf children of Deaf parents (dD) group scoring higher than the deaf children of hearing parents (dH) group in general self-worth, same sex-self concept and opposite sex self-concept. Although the means of the dD group were considerably higher than the dH group in academic, physical appearance, and parent relations self-concept, with Bonferroni adjustments to decrease the likelihood of Type I errors (alpha .05/6 = .008) they were not statistically significant. Koelle and Convey (1982) examined differences among students with deaf and hearing parents and also found that students with deaf parents had higher general selfconcepts in comparison to those with hearing parents. There were no significant effects for  35 age, gender, socioeconomic status or, contrary to other studies, type of school previously attended (residential, or public). The reason for this last finding may be explained as the over-riding effects of current school placement because students were attending university with other deaf students when tested. As stated by Shavelson et al. (1976), self-concept is dynamic, changes with experience and assimilates new information. This dimensionspecific information, which could be identified with the multi-dimensional measure, would have been masked had a uni-dimensional measure been used. The differences between students with deaf parents and those who have hearing parents is not surprising, considering the differences in patterns of early communication between parent and child in these two groups. In her review of research studies between 1970 and 1986 with parent-child interactions, Meadow-Orlans (1990) reported that hearing parents who experience shock and grieving on diagnosis of their child's hearing loss and who are frustrated in their attempts to communicate with their child, respond in a more domineering and antagonistic manner than parents who have hearing children. Some of these interaction patterns may be changing, with a possible positive effect on the children's feelings about themselves, as more support to hearing parents of deaf children, in the form of education about deafness and effective communication skills, is currently available than was 15 years ago. School Settings. Four studies were found which examined differences in selfconcept among deaf and hard of hearing students attending different school settings. The first study (Craig, 1965), most often cited in the literature was discussed previously with concerns regarding the construct validity of the measure employed. Although the study reports testing self-concept, Craig used peer nominations, which assess peer acceptance rather than self-concept. The participants were three groups of students aged 9-12 years all with hearing losses over 65dB: (a) deaf students enrolled in residential (segregated) programs, (b) deaf students in day schools, and (c) hearing students in a regular program. The two groups of deaf students were less accurate than the hearing group in predicting how others would rate them. The segregated deaf group had the highest ratings of selfacceptance and social expansiveness, followed by the hearing group, and then the deaf day school group. A second study (Reich et al., 1977) examined differences among 195 students (using an aural/oral mode of communication) who attended four programs varying in  36 amount of integration: (a) mainstreamed (77 elementary and 12 secondary), (b) itinerant with support of specialized teachers (42 elementary and 17 secondary), (c) resource program involving placement in a special program for students with a hearing loss, but some integration into regular classes (11 secondary only), and (d) group integration — placement in special classes within regular schools for hearing students (36 elementary only). Self-concept was measured with an unmodified North York Self-Concept Battery (Crawford, 1972). A t the elementary level, there were no differences in self-concept among the three groups (mainstreamed, itinerant and group integration) and at the secondary level, there were no differences between the resource group and the other two groups (mainstreamed and itinerant). However, the mainstreamed group scored lower in self-concept than the itinerant group. As well, mainstreamed students' self-concept scores declined over time. Data were also collected on academic achievement, and overall, students who were mainstreamed performed better in language and academic achievement but had more personal and social problems. As the authors pointed out, the outcomes can not directly be compared because of differences in personal and social characteristics among the groups, in particular, degree of student hearing loss (it should be noted that the mainstream and itinerant students had considerably more hearing than those in group integration). In response to the Reich et al. (1977) study, which found some academic but not social advantages to mainstreaming, Farrugia and Austin (1980) conducted a study to examine differences in socio-emotional adjustment among four groups of students in two different school settings, segregated residential and public schools. The 200 participants, aged 10-15 years, in this study were: (a) segregated (residential school) deaf students, (b) mainstreamed deaf students, (c) mainstreamed deaf and hard of hearing students, and (d) normally hearing students. In order to control for background characteristics, only those with hearing parents and no additional known handicaps were included. The outcome variable was measured with the Meadow-Kendall Social-Emotional Assessment Inventory (Meadow, 1983), a teacher report of students' behaviour that consists of four components: maturity, self-esteem, social adjustment, and emotional adjustment. The deaf students in public schools were ranked lower by teachers than the other three groups on all four scales. Although the hearing and hard of hearing students scored consistently higher than the segregated deaf students on maturity, social and emotional adjustment, there were no  37 significant differences among these three groups. There was a significant difference on the self-esteem component, with the segregated and hearing group ranked highest, followed by the hard of hearing and the lowest ranking for the mainstreamed deaf students. These findings are consistent with the findings of Craig (1965) and Reich et al. (1977), suggesting that mainstreamed students may suffer from isolation and social rejection. Because Cates (1991) found a low correlation between students' and teachers' reports, for both hearing and deaf students, with a greater difference for the deaf than for the hearing students, there is some difficulty comparing these studies. A teacher rating of behaviour may not measure a student's self-esteem as accurately as does a self-report measure. A final study comparing self-concept of deaf and hard of hearing students in different educational settings was conducted by Sarfaty and Katz (1978), using the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, translated into Hebrew but not modified to simplify the language because the authors claimed that the language level was appropriate for these students (yet, Garrison et al. (1978) found it to be to be too high for post-secondary students). The participants were the total population of eighth and ninth grade students with a hearing loss in Israel, including: (a) 21 students in a segregated school for the deaf, (b) 13 students in a special class located in a regular school — resource, and (c) 14 students mainstreamed in regular schools. There were no significant differences among the three groups in the self-acceptance scale scores; however, in the other eight scaled scores the segregated group had the lowest mean score and the resource students the highest scores. The authors argued that the latter group had the benefits of access to both hearing and deaf peers, and, therefore, more realistic self-perceptions. As with the previous study, the authors suggested that another possible explanation for the results was that the differences may have been due to degree of hearing loss, rather than school setting, because the resource students had considerably lesser hearing losses than the other two groups. Although some common findings can be identified in the review of school settings differences, accurate comparison of results is difficult because the studies used different measurement scales and school setting descriptions. Furthermore, groups of students in the settings varied in degree of hearing loss. Two of the three studies in which both segregated and mainstreamed students were included found that those in mainstream settings had significantly more negative self-concepts. Results of the study by Sarfaty and Katz (1978) suggested the opposite. Of the three studies including students in resource and  38  mainstream programs, two found no significant differences and again, the study by Sarfaty and Katz had contrasting findings, with the resource group scoring higher than the mainstream group. Generalizing from these results is not possible because of the inconsistency of measures and participant characteristics. What can be learned from these studies, however, is the importance of matching groups of students in order to make accurate comparisons. As discussed previously, self-concept measures need to be chosen according to their theoretical basis (multi-dimensionality) and construct validity, examined for language level, and possibly linguistically modified to match the language level of those who will be tested. Table 1 is a simplified summary of the results, approximating matches between age and hearing loss. Some studies included groups of hearing students, but because the focus of the present study lies in differences within the population of students with a hearing loss, the hearing student results are not included. Table 1 Summary of Self-Concept Among Deaf Students in Different School Settings Research Study & degree of hearing loss  School Settings  segregated  Craig(1965) (>65dB loss)  1  Reich et al. (1977) (range of losses)  -  Farrugia & Austin (1980) (>65dB, except HH)  1  Sarfaty & Katz (1978) (>65dB, except resource)  3  resource  2  2  itinerant  -  -  1  -  1  mainstream HH deaf 2  2  2  3  2  Note: 1- 3 : most to least positive self-concept scores  Intrinsic/Extrinsic Orientation In the present study, I/E orientation was measured using Harter's (1980b) Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom, a measure she developed based on attribution and motivation theories. Examining I/E orientation of students who attended different  39 school programs, she tested two groups of hearing students: 26 students in an "open school" which emphasized intrinsic interest in learning, curiosity, and setting personal goals and a second group matched for age and sex, in a "traditional" school setting. In four subscales of the test (challenge, curiosity, independent judgment, and internal criteria) the "open" school group had significantly (p< .001) more intrinsic scores than the "traditional" group. Independent mastery was also significant, but at a lesser alpha level (p < .05). It is apparent from this study that teaching style impacts on hearing students' I/E orientation. In a second study Harter, Silon, and Pike (1980) examined the I/E orientation of grade five-six educably mentally retarded children, educated in a segregated school setting. The results supported the expectation that these students would have more extrinsic scores than the normative data (derived from a sample of 1554 students). The greatest difference was in the informational component (independent judgment and internal criteria) where the extrinsic scores revealed considerable reliance on teacher judgment and external criteria for success/failure. When compared with mental-age peers, this special group also scored more extrinsically in all subscales except independent judgment, which was low for both groups. The reasons for the differences between this special group and a "normal" student population are not clear and could be either due to the characteristics of this special group or the school setting in which they were educated. There are no documented studies examining I/E orientation (as measured by the Harter, 1980 scale) with deaf or hard of hearing students. Because I/E orientation contains components derived from attribution and motivation theories, research conducted with deaf and hard of hearing students in the areas of locus of control (which is derived from attribution theory) and general motivation to perform tasks will be discussed. As with selfconcept, most of this research has focussed on differences between deaf and hearing students and found that deaf students are more externally controlled and less schoolmotivated than are hearing students. As with the research on self-concept, positive effects of having deaf parents were found: the students with deaf parents were more internally controlled than those with hearing parents. Only one study was found which examined linguistic modifications of a locus of control scale, and none which compared groups of students in different school settings. Locus of Control. The subscales of I/E Orientation in the Classroom, based on attribution theory, are independent vs. dependent judgment and internal vs. external  40  criteria. "Independent judgment" measures the degree to which a student feels capable of making judgments about what to do in school situations (contrasted with depending on the teacher's judgment). "Internal criteria" measures the degree to which a student can evaluate success or failure in school tasks (as opposed to relying on the teacher's criteria). Although both these components and locus of control involve internal vs. external attributions, judgment and criteria focus on processes while locus of control is concerned with outcome — the extent to which an individual feels that life's events are controlled by external causes, such as luck or influence of others, or internal causes, such as ability and effort. A number of research studies have been conducted with deaf or hard of hearing participants to examine locus of control. Two studies, comparing deaf and hearing participants, found that the deaf group scored more externally than the hearing group. Bodner and Johns (1977) compared locus of control among hearing and deaf adults and children using the Bialer-Cromwell Children's Locus of Control Scale (Bialer, 1960), supported by a signed English video of the items for the children and the (unmodified) Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) for adults. Because the reliability for the children's scores was unacceptably low, the researchers discarded the results. Reliability for the adult scores was also low (KR 21 = . 12), which the authors suggested was due to low reading levels of many participants who might have misunderstood the items. Therefore, they selected only the scores of better readers for further analysis and with this group found adequate reliability (KR21 = .51). This "high reading" deaf adult group scored significantly more externally than the hearing adult group. Additional analysis was conducted within the deaf sample to compare those who had previously attended both day programs (mainstreamed) and segregated schools and no statistically significant differences were found. The difficulties encountered with reliability in this study support the data from the self-concept literature review, that psychological measures need to be examined for language level before use with deaf participants. More internal locus of control for hearing than deaf students was found also in a study by Koelle and Convey (1982), who administered a linguistically modified Rotter Locus of Control to adolescents. Although the deaf group was more externally controlled, their scores fell within the norms for a hearing population. As well, deaf students who had deaf parents were more internally controlled than those with hearing parents. To compare  41 the original and modified measures, the researchers administered the scales to both hearing and deaf students. Correlations between the two measures were lower with the deaf than hearing group and the internal consistency of the modified measure dropped with the hearing group and rose with the deaf group. It is apparent from these studies that internal consistency and reliability need to be calculated when using modified scales, before interpreting results. In a third study, Loeb and Sarigiani (1986) administered a linguistically modified, shortened form of the Nowicki-Strickland Children's Locus of Control (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) to three groups: normally hearing, visually impaired and hearing impaired students. They reported that the scale had been linguistically modified for use with a deaf and hard of hearing population but did not report reliability data. Unlike previous studies, they found no main effects for locus of control and explained this as a result of using an instrument which differed from those used in previous studies and this may have permitted the students in their study to represent their feelings more accurately than students in previous studies. Another study which examined deaf students' attribution for success and failure in school tasks was conducted by Wolk (1985), who presented 422 deaf college students with a paragraph describing a college freshman's academic experience. Students were asked to to rate the causes of the situation outcome, depending on whether the teacher was deaf or hearing. When the teacher was described as hearing, the successful outcome was rated as caused by student ability and effort, whereas when the teacher was described as deaf, the students rated the outcome as caused by the teacher or luck. When a failure outcome was described in a situation with a hearing teacher, the deaf students attributed it to the teacher and luck, whereas in the situation with a deaf teacher, the outcome was attributed to luck. Because students who have experience with deaf teachers are those in special classes, it appears that these students differ in their attributional orientation from those who have been in classes for hearing students. Locus of control is an individual's perception of internal or external control over outcomes, while motivation is the reason (intrinsic or extrinsic) why an individual performs a task. A n individual who attributes success or failure outcomes to external causes (such as chance) is likely to have a different motivational orientation than one who attributes outcomes to internal causes (such as ability) and these feelings of personal causation may  42  affect the motivation to attempt new tasks (deCharms, 1976; Stinson, 1992). Motivation. Only a few published studies have examined motivation of deaf and hard of hearing students. The 1977-78 High School and Beyond National Survey in the U.S. included 514 students with a hearing loss. The factors used to measure school work motivation were: quantity of academic course work, extracurricular activities, time spent on homework, and television viewing per day. Overall, results indicated that deaf students manifested greater academic difficulties, took fewer academic courses, evidenced less school motivation, did less homework, were less school motivated, and less (materialistically) goal-oriented than hearing students (Gregory, Shanahan, & Wahlberg, 1985). Stinson (1974) compared responses of normally hearing students with deaf students in a setting where performance criteria were based on the norms of the reference group. The deaf students, given a choice of tasks, consistently chose easy tasks compared with hearing students who preferred challenging social-comparison tasks (Stinson, 1974). In a study with older deaf students, Hayes-Scott (1987) examined relationships among deaf college students' academic motivation to improve writing, college degree plans, and locus of control, and compared the results with those of previous studies with hearing college students. The previous literature supported significant relationships between college degree plans and academic motivation on the one hand, and college degree plans and locus of control on the other. With the deaf sample, however, the relationship between college degree plans and academic motivation to improve writing skills was not significant while the relationship between locus of control and academic motivation for improving writing was significant. From this body of literature it appears that, in general, deaf students feel more externally controlled and show less school motivation than do hearing students. Deaf children with hearing parents often experience limited communication, and the parents tend to exert more control over their children (Meadow-Orlans, 1990). If these communication difficulties continue in a school situation, it is likely that teachers will also exert more control over deaf than they would with hearing students. As found in the Harter (1981) study, teaching style affects students' I/E orientation. In order to develop a feeling of personal control and an intrinsic motivation to perform tasks, children need to be encouraged to work independently and have high expectations set for them by their teachers and themselves.  43  Limitations of the Research Measurement Issues. The most consistent limitations to previous research studies examining the self-concept of deaf and hard of hearing students are difficulties with measurement, primarily the linguistic demands of measures designed for hearing students. The work done by Garrison et al. (1978) and Gibson et al. (1985) using the TSCS clearly supported the need for linguistic modifications to this measure. Even with modifications to the language, some deaf students may have difficulty understanding the items and the administration procedures, and yet only three studies provided sign language support for the measures (Cates, 1991; Joiner, Erickson, Crittendon, & Stevenson, 1968; Koelle & Convey, 1982). Therefore, it is important that language level be examined, modifications made, and sign language support be provided to those students being tested who use this form of communication. A second measurement issue is whether or not the measures themselves are appropriate indicators of self-concept. Craig (1965) used a socio-metric measure, claiming it measured self-concept. Farrugia and Austin (1980) used teachers' ratings as indicators of students' self-concepts, a questionable procedure considering the high incongruence between teacher and student ratings found in the study conducted by Cates (1991). In a third study (Warren & Hassenstab, 1986), self-concept was measured by requesting young children to circle happy and sad faces in response to the items, an answer format which may be biased by children's misunderstanding of the task and general preference for happy faces. The other concern is that none of the studies with school-aged deaf and hard of hearing students used a multi-dimensional measures of self-concept. Uni-dimensional measures mask dimension specific differences and, therefore, provide very limited information about the different components of self-concept. Therefore, measures should have construct validity and be based on a multi-dimensional theory of self-concept. Researchers working with deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students have examined motivation-related constructs, such as locus of control (Bodner & Johns, 1977; Dowaliby & Saur, 1984; Hayes-Scott, 1987; Koelle & Convey, 1982; Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986), goal orientation and motivation to perform tasks in school (Gregory et al., 1985), motivation to improve writing (Hayes-Scott, 1987), and task choices (Stinson, 1984). As in the research with self-concept, linguistic measurement issues also arise in this body of literature. Therefore, the language level should be examined, modified if necessary, and  44 supported by sign language for those who use this form of communication. However, the main limitation to research on I/E orientation, with respect to the present study, is that none exists with this special population. As identified in the research by Sarfaty and Katz (1978) and Reich et al. (1977), another issue which arises from the literature is the need to control possibly confounding background factors, such as parental hearing loss and degree of student hearing loss. Educational and Social Changes. The recent changes in educational settings warrant continued research to examine the effects of these changes on the students. Most previous studies compared deaf with hearing students and included deaf and hard of hearing participants from a single type of setting: university, mainstream or residential settings. Two studies (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980) included both segregated and day school deaf students and two included a cross-section of the population. These inclusive studies were conducted by Sarfaty and Katz (1978), who looked at students from segregated, group integration and mainstream settings, and Reich et al. (1977) who compared students using the oral method of communication from itinerant, resource, group integration and mainstream settings. There have been many educational changes in programs for deaf and hard of hearing students over the past 20 years, and yet, only four studies examined differences in self-concept among students in different settings, with the most recent conducted in 1980 (Farrugia & Austin). No studies were found examining I/E orientation among deaf students in different school settings. Although school settings vary in the amount of academic and social contact that deaf students have with hearing students, within the settings there is variance in the degree of integration that individual students have in hearing classes. The number of subjects for which deaf students are integrated reflects the amount of contact they have with hearing students during class time. Because self-concept (academic and social) is affected by social comparison, the degree of integration deaf students have with hearing students might affect their self-concept and I/E orientation. No previous literature was found examining differences in self-concept or I/E orientation depending on degree of integration. Similarly, differences in self-concept and I/E orientation, depending on method of communication, have not previously been examined. Considering the impact that self-concept and I/E orientation have on learning, it is surprising to find so little research with the deaf population. As new programs develop and  45  sign language becomes more prominent in educational settings, it is time that research was conducted using linguistically appropriate I/E orientation and multi-dimensional selfconcept instruments, and controlling for possibly confounding variables. The results of this study will, it is hoped, rekindle interest pertaining to self-concept and initiate interest in I/E orientation of deaf and hard of hearing students.  Summary Previous research results from studies examining self-concept of deaf students are inconsistent and fraught with measurement difficulties, in particular, linguistic demands and uni-dimensionality of the tests. Despite rapidly changing educational programs for deaf students, no recent studies (i.e., since 1980) were found which examined differences in self-cOncept among deaf students in a variety of settings. The research conducted with this population in the area of motivation is limited in scope and number, with none specifically examining I/E orientation. Because educational settings for deaf students continue to change rapidly, it is important that policy-makers have empirical research results on which to base program development decisions. This study provides new dimension-specific information on differences in the self-concept and I/E orientation of secondary level deaf students attending four different educational settings. Relationships among dimensions of self-concept, I/E orientation, and self-worth of this special population have not previously been investigated and in this respect it is hoped that findings from the present study will add to theory development. Linguistically modified measures of I/E orientation and multi-dimensional measure of self-concept (with the accompanying sign language video support) used in the present study will add to the limited number of appropriate psychological measures available for use with deaf students. Despite the long-standing debate on the issue of appropriate communication method for deaf students, no research was found in the literature which specifically examined differences in self-concept and I/E orientation between those who used sign and aural/oral communication, and, therefore, this study provides new information on this issue. Within the school settings, deaf students attend special classes for students with a hearing loss or are integrated with hearing students (part or full-time). In segregated programs all the students are deaf and in itinerant programs the deaf or hard of hearing students are fully integrated with hearing students. Resource and congregated settings have  46 a mixture of normally hearing, deaf, and hard of hearing students and provide opportunities for social and educational integration. In these latter programs, the amount of time any particular deaf or hard of hearing student spends in a regular classroom varies among individual students. Therefore, differences in self-concept and I/E orientation were examined, depending on the number of subjects for which the students were integrated. As well, differences in reading, math, and academic self-concept between groups of students who were and were not integrated for these areas were investigated. Neither of these factors (number of subjects integrated and differences between those in regular and special classes for mathematics, English, and general academic subjects) have been investigated previously. The paucity of recent research with deaf students, using self-concept and I/E orientation measures based on current theory begs for new research. This study provides empirical research of both a theoretical and practical nature to begin addressing issues of self-concept and I/E orientation with this special population.  Research Questions and Hypotheses  Question 1: (a) Are there significant differences in any of the dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation among groups of deaf secondary students attending segregated, congregated, resource, and itinerant programs ?  (b) Are there significant differences in any of the dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation among groups of deaf secondary students depending on the number of classes for which they are integrated ?  Self-concept develops through interactions with significant others and through social comparison. If deaf students are educated primarily with like peers (segregated settings and those who are integrated for 0 - 3 classes) their comparison groups for peer and general school self-concepts are expected to be other deaf students (with whom they share a similar method of communication) and their self-concepts are expected to more positive than the self-concepts of deaf students who compare themselves with hearing students. Previous research has reported that students in segregated settings have more positive self-concepts  47 than those students who are fully integrated (Craig, 1965, Farrugia & Austin, 1980). Fully integrated students have reported feelings of loneliness, rejection, and social isolation (Foster, 1987).  Hypothesis 1: (a) Deaf students attending segregated settings will have significantly more positive peer relations and general school self-concepts than those in the other three settings.  (b) Deaf students who are integrated for 0-3 classes will have significantly more positive peer relations and general school self-concepts than those integrated for 7-8 classes.  Question 2: Are there significant differences in reading or mathematics self-concept between students who are integrated with hearing students for English and mathematics and those who are not?  Marsh and Parker (1984) reported that high ability students who were educated with other high ability students had less positive academic self-concepts than high ability students who were educated with less able students because students compare themselves with their classmates. Deaf students, on average, have lower English language levels than do hearing students, therefore, deaf students in integrated classes are likely to be among the lower achieving members of the class, particularly in English classes. They are expected to compare themselves with their classmates.  Hypothesis 2: Students who are integrated for English or mathematics will have significantly lower reading self-concepts than those who are not integrated for English or mathematics.  Question 3: Are there significant differences in any of the dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation among deaf secondary students, depending on the method of communication which they use (aural/oral or sign communication) ?  48  Previous research has not examined differences in self-concept and I/E orientation between deaf students who use aural/oral and sign communication. Method of communication is not expected to affect self-concept and I/E orientation.  Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant differences in dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation between students who use aural/oral communication and those who use manual communication.  Question 4: What is the relative importance, among deaf students, of each dimension of self-concept and each dimension of I/E orientation in predicting overall self-worth ?  Previous research with hearing students (Harter, 1990b) has reported that among the dimensions of self-concept, physical appearance is the best predictor of self-concept, followed by social acceptance (peer and parent relations). No research was found which examined dimensions of I/E orientation as predictors of self-worth.  Hypothesis 4: Among the dimensions of self-concept, physical appearance will be the best predictor of self-concept, followed by social acceptance (peer and parent relations)  Question 5: Do the modified measures (SDQ-1 and I/E Orientation in the Classroom) have adequate reliability (internal consistency) and validity ?  Hypothesis 5: The modified measures (SDQ-1 and I/E Orientation in the Classroom) have adequate reliability (internal consistency) and validity.  49 III.  METHOD  The main purpose of this study is to examine differences among dimensions of self-concept of deaf secondary level students attending four educational settings, ranging from fully segregated to fully integrated. A second purpose is to examine differences in I/E orientation among these groups. Due to the lack of appropriate instruments available, the measures used in this study were linguistically modified and, therefore, required reliability and validity testing. With these measures, which are based on current theory, relationships between self-worth, dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation were examined. Within the school settings, academic integration of deaf students with hearing students varies and, therefore, differences in self-concept and I/E orientation dimensions were examined, depending on number of subjects for which the students were integrated. One limitation to the previous research was the possibly confounding effects of uncontrolled variables. In this study, the confounding variables identified in the literature were controlled through sample selection. Students use either aural/oral or sign communication, and so differences in dimensions of self-concept or I/E orientation were examined between groups using different methods to communicate. In preparation for the main study, a multi-dimensional self-concept measure was linguistically modified and a signed video of the items for students using sign communication was produced. Internal reliability was tested by comparing results of the control scores (which measured consistency of responses on correlated items, positivity and negativity biases, and other controls) with previously established results and the results of the present study were satisfactory. This initial study, conducted in May-June, 1994, is presented first and is followed by the main study.  Study 1  Background: Study Instrumentation To address the difficulties identified in previous studies, a number of self-concept measures were reviewed for their language level and theoretical basis. Among these were the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967), Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (Piers & Harris, 1964), the Self Concept Scale for the Hearing  50  Impaired (Oblowitz et al.,1991), the Self Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1982) and the Self Description Questionnaire -1 (Marsh, 1986). Both the Coopersmith and Piers-Harris measures were rejected because of their uni-dimensional bias as neither of these measures were developed with an a priori design to tap specific dimensions. Factor analysis of the Coopersmith by Marsh and Smith (1982) found no support for any subscales. Although the Piers-Harris does show several different factors, Harter (1983) found that the loadings were low and cross loading was evident. The Self Concept Scale for the Hearing Impaired (Oblowitz et al., 1991) appeared to show promise because of its relatively recent development and its specific design for a hearing impaired population. As discussed in Chapter Two, this measure was rejected due to the limitations in reliability and validity testing, the answer format, and factor loadings. The two measures considered the most appropriate for the present study were the Self Perception Profile for Children and the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1). Both of these measures were developed following the Shavelson et al. (1976) multi-dimensional model and both have been thoroughly field tested, and reliability and validity established for each. Marsh and Gouvernet (1989) conducted a multi-trait, multi-method analysis of the two measures and found significant convergent and discriminant validity. Harter (1990a), Marsh (1986), and Byme (1988) have concurred that the measures are similar and that the reasons for choosing one over the other should depend on the dimensions of interest. In this case the SDQ-1 was chosen because the language and answer format are less complex than in the Self Perception Profile, and, unlike the Harter measure, it contains a parent relationship dimension. In addition, control scores have been designed to measure whether subjects respond appropriately or not. Control Scores. (The following section is summarized from the SDQ-1 manual, pp. 24-26): The control scores designed for the SDQ-1 are calculated to see if the child has responded appropriately to items on the measure. Noncontingent responding refers to responses that are independent of the item content and manifests itself as random responses, in other words, the same responses independent of content or some other nonrandom response pattern. Positivity or negativity biases refer to the tendency to use the agree or disagree ends of the scale, independent of the item content. Norms are based on responses of 3,562 children from New South Wales, Australia, including children from diverse regions of metropolitan Sydney: working class, middle class and upper class areas;  51  were students in grades 2-4 (388 males and 408 females) and grades 5-6 (1,583 males and 1,185 females). The percentile and T - scores reported in this pilot study are based on the breakdown in gender and grade level. Control Score 1 - Inconsistency of Correlated Item Pairs: Scores on this scale can vary from 0 to 80 and appropriate responding should lead to low scores. In the total normative sample, 10% of the responses were over 20 and 5% were over 23. Scores over 23 may be indicative of noncontingent responding, other than giving the same response to each item. Control Score 2 - Consistency of Uncorrelated Item Pairs : Appropriate responding should lead to high scores. Scores can vary from 0 to 80. In the total normative sample, 10% of the responses were less than 11 and 5% were less than 7. Scores lower than 7 may be indicative of giving similar responses to all items independent of content. Control Score 3 - Noncontingent Summary : This score is control score 2 minus control score 1 with a possible range from -80 to +80. Appropriate responding should lead to high scores. In the total normative sample 10% of responses were less than 1, and 5% were less than -2. Scores less than -2 may indicate that the responses are invalid. Control Score 4 - Negativity Bias : In each pair, one score is a response to a negatively worded item (after it has been reverse scored) and the other is the raw scale score (based on positively worded items from the same scale). Appropriate responses should lead to low scores and can vary from 0 to 40. In the total normative sample 10% of the responses were greater than 15 and 5% were greater than 18; therefore, scores greater than 18 suggest inappropriate responding or problems with the demands of responding to negatively worded items. This is often a problem with younger children and care must be taken in interpreting this score with young children. With this group, the best strategy is to use the negativity bias score to test interpretations based on other control scores. Control Score 5 - Positivity Bias: Scores can vary from -40 to +40, but appropriate responding should lead to scores close to 0. In the total normative sample only 5% of responses were greater than 9 and such scores could indicate a tendency to agree with items independent of whether they are positively or negatively worded. Only 5% were lower than -11; such scores may indicate a negativity bias, the tendency to disagree with items regardless of whether they are positively or negatively worded. This score should also be interpreted cautiously with younger children.  52 also be interpreted cautiously with younger children. Control Score 6 - Individual Profile Variation : This score is the standard deviation of the original seven scale scores of an individual. Appropriate responding leads to moderate to high scores because the seven scales are relatively independent of each other. Very low scores suggest that children are inappropriately responding, not differentiating among the scales or that they truly have self-concepts that do not vary among the scales. Scores can vary from 0 to 15 or more, but only 10% of the total normative sample responses were less than 2.7 and only 5% less than 2.0. Scores less than 2.0 may indicate inappropriate responding, but scores must be interpreted cautiously because a low score may accurately reflect a child's self-perceptions. This score should be used to test interpretations based on other control scores. Language Modifications. Previous researchers have identified limitations of using measures designed for hearing students with a deaf and hard of hearing population. The main concern has been the language level of the measures, because deaf and hard of hearing students generally have reading levels well below those of their hearing peers. Another area of concern has been the inability of those administering tests to communicate effectively with deaf signing students. For these reasons, the language of the measures used in this study was modified, and sign language video tapes of the items and administration procedures were produced in order to provide consistent administration and support to students using manual forms of communication. Language modifications of the SDQ-1 were initially made with the input of Deaf and hearing professionals working with Deaf students. Copies of the original instrument were circulated at a provincial conference for teachers of the deaf and additional copies distributed to personnel at the elementary program of a provincial school for the deaf. The participating professionals suggested modifications which they felt would be necessary in order for their students to understand the items easily. Next, two Deaf adults, working independently, translated the modified measure into sign language and subsequently consulted with each other and other Deaf adults who work with students at the residence of the B.C. Provincial School for the Deaf to make a final decision on the appropriate translation. A gloss of the signed interpretation (Appendix B) was examined and translated back into English. Minor modifications of the original measure were required to make it match the  53  signed version and still maintain a relatively low reading level. Three words were replaced with simpler words: mathematics was replaced with math, school subjects with school work and quickly with fast. The answer format was changed from "false, mostly false, sometimes false/sometimes true, and true" to "NO, no, sometimes, yes, and Y E S " . This revised format was used in a study by Hymel (personal communication, 1994) because students found it easier than the original form. A sign language video presentation was developed (without sound or captioning) of the items in order to assist understanding and maintain consistency over presentations. The instructions, sample items and test items were filmed in a studio using a high-8 video camera. In order to provide a balanced presentation, odd-numbered items were signed by a Deaf man and even-numbered items were signed by a Deaf woman. A number of different coloured backdrops (beige, black and blue) were tried and it was decided by the Deaf adults, the researcher and photographer that the blue backdrop was most pleasing to the eye and distracted least from the hand movements.The presenters were illuminated by a 1,000 watt colour-tran softlight. In an editing studio, the video was transferred to a 3/4-inch master tape and then each person's presentation transferred to separate 3/4-inch tapes. The items were then alternately dubbed on VHS, with 10 seconds of black inserted between items. The purpose of this initial study was to test the internal reliability and validity of the modified measure. Six internal control scores were analyzed to check for inconsistency on correlated item pairs, noncontingent summary, negativity bias, positivity bias, and individual profile variation. As well, interviews were conducted to provide additional convergent and content validity data.  Participants Ten participants were randomly chosen from a group of 8 - 13-year-old deaf students attending a "congregated program" at a provincial school for the deaf. Two of the students had Deaf parents and three of the ten lived in a residential setting while the others lived at home. Any difficulties understanding the administration or language used in the measure would most likely surface with this young group, and, for that reason, older students (aged 14-17) were not included in the sample.  54  Procedures The test was administered individually or in small groups. Students were given a pencil and test form, instructed in sign language to answer to the best of their ability and assured that their responses would be kept confidential. They were told not to look at each others' papers and dividers were placed between the students who worked in close proximity. The answer format was explained and students completed the sample questions. They were instructed to try to watch the item in the video and make a response without communicating with each other but they could ask for clarification if they encountered difficulty. Testing took 20-25 minutes. After administering the test, interviews with all the students were conducted to obtain content and convergent validity data. These interviews consisted of questions regarding the administration of the test and two questions from each of the seven dimensions. Interview questions can be found in the Appendix [D].  Results As may be seen in Table 2, most of the students responded within the acceptable limits for the control scores. However, the results of students 7 and 8 cause concern. Both of these students responded with the most positive choice of answers and appeared to be presenting themselves in a favourable light. Information regarding the background and family life of these students surfaced after the testing was completed and provided some insight into their responses. Student 7 was removed from his home at an early age by social services workers and had lived in a number of foster homes. Due to his disruptive behaviour, he had a full-time assistant working with him in the classroom. One week before completing the test he was placed with a new family, which probably caused emotional turmoil. Because of all these factors, his test results may not be accurate measures of his self-concept. Student 8 was also being cared for by a foster parent. Over the years her teachers have been concerned about her emotional and behavioural stability and there is some question as to whether her academic and social problems are related to fetal alcohol syndrome, although there has been no firm diagnosis. Again, her positive responses may indicate a desire to present herself positively and so may not be an accurate indication of her true feelings. From these results, it is evident that test scores from students with additional special needs should be carefully monitored and interpreted with caution. The only other student  55  who had one of the six control scores outside the norms is student 10, an 8 year old whose teacher expressed concerns about her communication level and ability to complete the test. Although five of the six control scores fall within the norms, control score 1 (inconsistency of correlated pairs) was slightly above what is considered acceptable. This student's limited language ability and family background (English as a second language) may account for this discrepancy.  Table 2 Summary of the Six Control Scores Score 2  Score 1 raw % T  raw % T  Score 3  Score 4  Score 5  Score 6  raw % T  raw % T  raw % T  raw % T  1. 23  5  34  31  65  54  5  20  42  17  2. 16  21  42  21  33  46  5 20  42  10 43  6 35 48  6  2  29  5  38  47  6  92  64  3  12  38  67  54  64  25  46  49  21  75  57  9  53  51  7  93  65  7  11  38  35  35  76  15 56  52  12  27  44  1 75  57  8  78  58  5. 12 44  49  12  0  23  10 43  3.  4 92  4. 20  4 37  0  6. 11  50  50  22  36  46  11  7 36  15  7.  0  98  71  0  -  22  0  -  -  16  8.  0  98  71  0  -  22  0  -  -  4  9. 16  21  42  12  11 37  4  17 40  1 28  39  84  11 42  10. 28  60  48  48  7  2  29  5 38  47  12 38  -3  47  49  5 38  47  8 37  -  27  0  -  23  -16  91  64  -4  39  47  0  -  23  10 43  48  2  80  58  2  4  33  13 21  42  2  80  58  5  38  47  There were two children with additional special needs and one additional borderline special needs case (which showed up because of control scores). Therefore, when administering the test special provisions will have to be made for these children (e.g., individual administration) and others with educationally significant disabling conditions in addition to hearing loss. Interview Results. Students were asked whether they found the test "easy", "sort of easy /sort of hard" or "hard" to do. Eight of the ten said it was "easy" and two responded that it was "sort of easy/sort of hard". When asked if they understood the signing in the video and the written items, nine said "yes" and one responded that some of the written questions were difficult. Seven of the students enjoyed doing the test and three said they "sort of" enjoyed it. The second part of the interview consisted of 14 questions. In the test itself, the  56  items are presented as statements; in the interview the items were transformed into question format and the students were asked to respond with "yes"," sort of" or "no". The consistency of responses between the interview and the test ranged from 2 to 14. The two students with the lowest consistency were the eight-year-old student (#10) who replaced "yes" and "no" in the test with "sort of" in the interview. The summary of responses from the interviews is reported in Table 3. Students 1 and 10 had the least consistency between interview and test responses. Student 1 appeared to be unwilling to commit herself in a face to face situation. Her teachers reported that her general behaviour suggests a lack of selfconfidence in daily school situations, which may account for the results. The language level of student 10 appeared to be lower than that of the test items and the interview results were similar to her test results, reinforcing the need to test younger children or those with a low language level individually and to review their control scores. Table 3 Summary of Interview Responses Case# 1  Consistent 6  Inconsistent 8  Comments responded with "sometimes", rather than "yes" or "no"  2  11  3  3  11  3  responded with "sometimes", rather than "yes" or "no"  4  9  5  3 responses changed from "yes" or "no" to "sometimes"  5  13  1  6  12  2  7  14  0  responded in a positive direction on all items  8  13  1  responded in a positive direction in all but one item  9  10  4  4 items answered "sometimes" in the test, were answered "yes" in the interview  10  2  12  half way through the interview, started to respond "sometimes" to all the items  Observations in the Testing Situation. Before beginning the test, the answer format was explained and the students completed the sample questions. They appeared to have no difficulty with this five-choice format and reported that they understood the instructions. The examples on the video allowed them to practice the sequence of watching, reading, answering and looking up for the next item and by the fifth example they all appeared to be  57  comfortable with the sequence and the time allotted for answering. Aside from student 10, all students were encouraged to follow along and ask for clarification when needed. Because of the age and language level of student 10, the items were repeated for her. In general, the video ran with little interruption. When asked for clarification, the video was stopped and items were replayed and explained, when necessary. The words or items which required explanation and the number of students who asked for help with them are reported in Table 4.  Table 4 Items Which Required Further Explanation item  number of students  1.  good looking  1  4.  marks  2  14. make friends  1  20. look forward to  1  34.  If I have children, I want to raise them like my parents raised me.  3  37. in general  2  52. I have more friends than most other kids.  2  60.  popular  1  Although all students were encouraged to follow the video presentation and answer items at the speed of the video, three different patterns of responding emerged. One student decided early on that he could read the items and did not require the video, and so he moved along at his own pace. His teacher reported that this student generally prefers to do things his way and not follow the teacher's instructions. Four of the students followed the video most of the time but occasionally went ahead, using the video as support when they had difficulty with the written form. Five students followed the sequence of the video consistently. A record of students' usage of the video presentation and a summary of appropriate responding, according to the control scores of their tests, is reported in Table 5.  58  Table 5 Video Usage and Control Score Summary Student Video  Written  none  X  none  X  3  Control Score Concerns none  X  1 2  Video Support  X  4  none  5  X  none  6  X  none  7  X  yes  8  X  yes  9  X  none  10  X  yes  The video serves different purposes for different students and whether they use it consistently, for support or not at all depends on their needs. From this limited sample of 10 students it appears that usage does not consistently affect results and, therefore, the video should be provided with the understanding that some students will use it more than others. In larger studies, where different people may administer the measure, the video will provide consistency in signed presentation of the items. Only a few items required further clarification and so when the measure (accompanied by the video) is administered by different people, students should receive relatively consistent information.  Discussion Although generalization of the results are obviously limited by the small sample size, the modified SDQ-1 and video presentation appear to be appropriate for use with deaf students. As with hearing students, the results from those of a young age and those with additional special needs should be carefully examined through calculation of the control scores. The video serves two purposes: first, it standardizes presentation and ensures consistency of sign language; second, it provides support for students whose reading skills are low or who desire visual confirmation to help in their understanding of the items. Students should be encouraged to follow along with the video, but probably there is little to prevent capable students from going ahead if they feel confident of their reading skills. Testing may take place in small groups of up to five but with younger children, those with  59 special needs or those with lower language levels who might require more assistance, individual presentation would probably be more appropriate. Two issues arise from the interview situation. First, in order to compare results with the test items, it would be beneficial to present a similar answer format. In the interview, the answer format was changed from five to three choices, which made comparison problematic. Second, students may answer more freely and be less concerned with pleasing the interviewer if it is someone with whom they have had little contact than someone they know. In the present study the students knew the test administrator and this may have affected results. For example, student 1 responded with "sort of" to many of the interview items which on the test she answered in a more definite manner: "yes" or "no". Previous research with deaf students has resulted in findings that suggest that they have lower self-concepts and are more extrinsically oriented than hearing students. The inadequacy of measurement instruments has often been cited in the literature, and results have been questioned as possible artifacts of the testing situation. Most of the studies have used instruments based on a uni-dimensional model of self-concept, which does not provide sufficient information about specific dimensions. In light of recent advances of self-concept theory, initially posited by Shavelson et al. (1976), future research needs to be conducted with measures developed to identify specific dimensions of self-concept. The results of this initial study of a modified self-concept instrument support its use with deaf students.  Main Study  The purpose of this study was to examine differences in dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation among deaf secondary students attending educational programs ranging in amount of integration with hearing students, from none at all (segregated programs), to some integration (congregated and resource programs) to full integration (itinerant programs). Before contacting school districts, approval to conduct the study was granted by the University of British Columbia Ethics Committee. School district and program administrators in Edmonton, Alberta and Burnaby, Vancouver, and Langley, British Columbia, gave approval for their students to participate, upon parental permission. Copies of permission letters are included in the Appendix [H].  60  Participants To maximize group comparability, program administrators were asked to limit participants to those who (a) had a severe to profound hearing loss, (b) had no additional educationally handicapping conditions, and (c) had attended the program for at least two years. Letters of permission were sent to parents. In the Vancouver School District, which has many English as a Second Language families, letters were translated into Spanish, Vietnamese, and Mandarin and sent to parents. Parental permission was granted for all the students selected in the segregated (27), congregated (28), and resource (27) settings. However, the parents of only 9 of the 50 students in itinerant programs responded to the request for permission. Because administrators at the Vancouver School District, where most of these students attended school, restricted parent contact to the initial letters, the researcher was unable to contact teachers or parents directly to obtain additional participants. The following demographic data were collected from student records: age (in months), sex, degree of aided and unaided hearing loss in both ears, parental hearing status, primary mode of communication (aural/oral, sign communication), and degree of integration: subjects integrated with hearing students. A review of the students' files showed that 17 students had hearing losses in the mild to moderate range and 9 had deaf parents; therefore, differences in self-concept and I/E orientation according to degree of student hearing loss and parental hearing status were included in the analyses. A summary of the participants is reported in Table 6. Table6 Summary of Participants School Setting  N  students with loss < 70dB*  students with deafparent(s)  students with both: loss > 70dB & hearing parents  segregated  27  1  5  22  congregated  28  4  1  24  resource  27  4  3  20  itinerant  9  8  0  1  Total  91  17  9  * Note: < 70 dB: hearing loss less than severe to profound  61 After testing, one subject was deleted from the self-concept analyses and two from the I/E orientation analyses due to inappropriate completion of the measures. There were 90 correctly completed self-concept and 89 I/E orientation tests, and no outliers among these.  Instrumentation Self-Concept. The rationale for choosing the SDQ-1 (Marsh, 1986), a description of the linguistic modifications, and the production of a sign language video can be found in Study 1. As in the first study, the sign language video presentations of the test items were played for those students who used sign communication and the test items were read to those who use oral communication. Intrinsic / Extrinsic Orientation. A number of intrinsic/extrinsic measures were reviewed before deciding on the scale Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom (Harter, 1980b). The Sydney Attribution Scale, developed by Marsh, Cairnes, Relich, Barnes and DeBus (1984) was based on Weiner's attribution theory and includes 12 subscales. Questions in two content areas (mathematics and reading) deal with perceived outcomes (success or failure) and the their perceived causes (ability, effort and external factors). This measure was rejected because it appears to be used only once, in a study with 559 grade five students (Marsh et al., 1984) and does not include an examination of motivational aspects. A second measure, Why I Do Things - Self-Regulation Questionnaire by Ryan and Connell (1989) was also considered. Questions are divided into three categories - internal, intrinsic and external. The internal component consists of introjected reasons (for self or other approval), identified reasons (to satisfy self-valued goals or personal importance) and the intrinsic component contains items dealing with intrinsic reasons (enjoyment or fun). Items in the external component deal with rule-following and punishment. The outcomes address perceived locus of causality and the measure uses self as referent. This measure showed promise because the questions are motivational in nature, asking why the subject undertakes certain actions; however, it has not been widely used and reliability and validity have not been firmly established. For these reasons, this measure was rejected. The measure which was chosen for adaptation was the Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom (Harter, 1980b). It contains motivation components (preference for challenge vs. preference for easy work, curiosity/interest vs. pleasing the  62  teacher/getting grades and independent mastery vs. dependence on the teacher) and informational components (independent judgment vs. reliance on the teacher's judgment and internal criteria vs. external criteria). Both components provide valuable information regarding student motivational orientation and degree of independent judgment used by the students. Other desirable aspects of this measure are that items refer to real classroom situations and self, rather than other, as referent. Over the past 14 years, it has been widely used with hearing students and reliability and validity have been established. Factor analysis revealed average loadings between .46 and .53 and no items systematically crossload on other factors. Using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20, internal consistency reliabilities range from .78 to .84 (challenge), .68 to .82 (independent mastery), .70 to .78 (curiosity), .72 to .81 (judgment) and .75 to .83 (criteria). The scale was tested with over 3,000 students grades 3 to 9 in California, Connecticut, New York and Colorado. In order to avoid socially desirable response tendencies, children are presented with a structured alternate format, with the implication that all children are different and there is no correct way to be. First the student decides which of two statements is most like him, for example: "Some kids like hard work because it's a challenge" B U T "Other kids prefer easy work that they are sure they can do", and then how strongly the student identifies with the statement "Really true of Me" or "Sort of True of Me". Answers are scored from 1 (most extrinsic) to 4 (most intrinsic) and recorded on individual profiles. Because of the developmental and component differences it is important that scores be tallied separately for each component and not for a total scale score. As with the self-concept measure, linguistic modifications were originally made with input from professionals working with deaf and hard of hearing students. The modified scale was translated into sign language separately by two Deaf adults and a certified interpreter, and then the three met to decide on the final version. The sign language gloss was translated into English and compared with the original and modified versions. Only minor modifications to the original measure were required to make it match the sign version and maintain a relatively low reading level. The answer format was also changed from "Really True for Me" to "ME" and "Sort of True for Me" to "me". A copy of the original and modified form and sign language gloss is included in the Appendix. A sign language video presentation of the items was produced to provide consistency and support for those with a low reading level. Production techniques were the  63 same as for the Self-Description Questionnaire. Because each item has a two choice format, one choice was signed by a Deaf man and the other by a Deaf woman with ten seconds of black inserted between each item. The length of the video is about 20 minutes.  Procedures In order to have consistent administration, all the data were collected by the researcher (between January and June, 1996). Students were told that the study in which they were participating would examine how students in different educational settings felt about themselves (self-concept) and why they performed academic tasks (I/E orientation). They were told that the individual results would be kept confidential, were given a paper and pencil form, and administration instructions, including practice with sample questions (with video support for those who use sign communication). After ascertaining that the students understood the answer format by looking at their answers and checking them with verbal/sign repetition, the formal testing began. Those students who relied on sign communication were presented with the sign language videos of the items, while those relying on aural/oral communication had the items read aloud to them. A l l answered on the paper form of the test. Testing of the self-concept measure, followed by the I/E orientation measure, took approximately 30 minutes. Students in the segregated, congregated, and resource settings were tested in groups of up to six. Those in itinerant settings were tested individually.  Data Analysis To determine reliability and item homogeneity of the measures, internal consistency was calculated with coefficient alpha. Subscale inter-item correlations were examined to establish that each subscale item was measuring the dimension which it was designed to measure. Validity testing was conducted by examining intercorrelations among subscales and sex differences in self-concept dimensions and comparing the results with those found previously (Hattie, 1982; Marsh, 1993, 1994).With the I/E orientation measure, correlations between perceived scholastic competence (general school self-concept) and subscales of I/E orientation were examined and compared with previous findings (Harter, 1981). Previous research has not examined dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation as predictors of self-worth with this special population. Therefore, simultaneous multiple  64  regression analysis was used to investigate these relationships. Although participant selection was intended to control for degree of hearing loss and parental hearing status, of the students tested some (n = 17) had losses less than severe and some (n = 9) had deaf parents. Analyses were conducted to examine whether or not self-concept and I/E orientation dimensions differed as a function of these variables. Differences between groups of students who used aural/oral vs. sign communication were also examined. The primary analyses in the present study were conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences in dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation (a) among groups of students attending different school settings and (b) among students who were integrated for differing numbers of classes. Because only one student in the itinerant setting had a severe to profound loss, this setting was deleted from the analysis. Although the A N O V A analyses provided information about group differences, they did not provide predictive information at the individual level nor identify the relative importance of the combined effects of school setting and degree of integration, and so subsequent investigation of these variables was conducted utilizing simultaneous multiple regression.  65 IV.  RESULTS  This chapter consists of the results of analyses outlined in Chapter Three. It begins with a presentation of preliminary analyses conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the self-concept and I/E orientation measures and the intercorrelations among the various self-concept and I/E orientation subscales. Subsequently, analyses conducted to answer the research questions are presented.  Examination of the Data  Means and Standard Deviations Self Description Questionnaire. Means and standard deviations of items within each subscale were examined and no outlying or extreme means were found. The SDQ-1 norms were based on an elementary level school sample (n=3,562) and, therefore, should not be used to compare deaf and hearing students' self-concepts. The means and standard deviations of the self-concept dimensions from this study and those reported in the SDQ-1 manual (Marsh, 1990) are presented in Appendix 1(a). I/E Orientation in the Classroom. Examination of means and standard deviations for I/E orientation items and subscales revealed no extreme or outlying means. In the I/E orientation manual, the norms are based on over 3,000 students from California, Colorado, and New York. A break-down by grade is given of the California sample, and so the means and standard deviations of the secondary school group was examined. Although direct comparison is not appropriate due to the age differences between the two groups (grades seven to nine vs. grades seven to twelve respectively), the means and standard deviations from the present study and those reported by Harter (1980b) have been included in Appendix 1(b).  Reliability and Validity of the Measures  Self Description Questionnaire Reliability - Internal Consistency. Internal consistency for each subscale was calculated with coefficient alpha and compared with those reported in the SDQ-1 manual  66  (Marsh, 1990). The purpose of comparison was not to compare deaf and hearing student scores, but rather to determine if internal consistency observed within the present deaf sample was comparable to that observed with hearing students. In five of eight subscales, higher alpha levels were found in the current study than those reported by Marsh. In three subscales (physical appearance, peer relations, and mathematics), coefficients were slightly lower in the present study but nevertheless comparable and certainly adequate for research purposes. The total scale coefficient was not reported by Marsh and in the present study was high (.94). Overall, the coefficients were high (ranging from .80 to .92) and very close to those found previously. Therefore, the modified SDQ-1 has acceptable internal consistency.  Table 7 Internal Consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) of SDQ-1 Subscales: Marsh (1990) vs. Present Study Marsh Sample  Present Study  Subscale  (n = 3,562)  (n = 90)  Physical Abilities  .83  .88  Physical Appearance  .90  .87  Parent Relations  .80  .82  Peer Relations  .85  .82  Reading  .89  .92  Mathematics  .89  .80  General School  .86  .90  General Self  .81  ,87  -  .94  Total Scale- 64 items :  Inter-item correlations were calculated to determine if every item was significantly correlated with the other items designed to measure the same facet of self-concept. Only 2 out of 224 inter-item correlations were not significant at the p < .05 level (28 and 52, 13 and 20). Overall, the inter-item correlations in the present study were greater than those reported by Marsh, further supporting the internal reliability of the subscales in the modified measure.The correlation matrices from this study and the Marsh studies are presented in Appendix 1(c).  67  Inter-Subscale Correlations. Correlations among the SDQ-1 subscales were also calculated. Those from the present study and those reported in the SDQ-1 manual (Marsh, 1990) with a group of fifth and sixth grade students (n = 528) are presented in Table 8. No obvious discrepancies between the Marsh and present study correlations were noted.  Table 8  1  SDQ-1 Inter-Subscale Correlations: Marsh (1990) vs. Present Study 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  1. appearance  2. ability  .41 .45  3. parents  .44 .18  .21 .12  4. peers  .65 .53  .41 .48  .29 .23  5. reading  .25 .13  .08 .01  .10 .29  .14 .10  .29 .20  .21 .26  .27 .24  .27 .20  .09 .06  7. school  .40 .27  .23 .19  .27 .35  .32 .26  .30 .45  .72 .55  8. self  .76  .40  .52  .61  .27  .28  .40  Note: Marsh (1990) study correlations in italics, n = 528 No correlationsfor general selfand other subscales were reported.  Validity. In order to determine validity, sex differences were examined to see if they followed the patterns observed in previous research with hearing students. Consistent with previous findings with hearing students (Hansford & Hattie, 1992; Marsh, 1994; Stevenson & Newman, 1986), the males in the present study males reported higher mathematics and physical abilities self-concepts than females, whereas females reported higher verbal (reading) self-concepts than males. The mean scores and standard deviations for males and females in each dimension of self-concept are reported in Table 9.  68  Tabic 9 Self-Concept: Sex Differences Males  Females  (n = 52)  (n = 38)  M  SD  M  SD  Physical Abilities  33.02  6.55  27.39  8.98  Physical Appearance  30.50  5.22  29.71  5.95  Parent Relations  32.90  4.84  30.87  5.73  Peer Relations  30.52  5.51  29.50  5.41  Reading  29.67  7.50  31.03  6.47  Mathematics  29.27  8.62  26.16  8.98  General School  27.88  6.62  27.50  6.28  General Self  33.29  4.91  32.76  5.18  Intrinsic /Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom Reliability - Internal Consistency. The I/E Orientation in the Classroom measure has not been as widely used as the SDQ-1 and fewer data are available for comparison with the results found in the present study. However, internal consistency (inter-item correlations) using coefficient alpha was determined for each subscale and compared with those reported by Harter (1980a) from her studies with over 3,000 hearing students (grades 3 to 9) in Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and California. The results are presented in Table 10. Although some of coefficients in the present study were slightly lower than those reported by Harter, overall subscale reliability was acceptable (.64 - .84) and total scale consistency was high (.85). The total scale coefficient for the Harter study was not reported.  69  Table 10 Internal Consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) of I/E Orientation Subscales: Harter (1980) vs. Present Study  Subscale  Harter Samples (n = 3,000)  Present Study (n=89)  Challenge  .78 -.84  .84  Curiosity  .70 - .78  .64  Mastery  .68 - .82  .71  Independent Judgment  .72 - .83  .68  Internal Criteria  .75 - .83  .65  Total Scale  —  .85  Inter-item correlations were calculated to determine if each item was significantly correlated with the other items designed to measure the same aspect of I/E orientation. Of the 75 correlations, 55 were significant at the p < .05 level. Unfortunately inter-item correlations collected in previous research were not available in the literature and so comparisons could not be made. Those observed in the present study are adequate and reflect acceptable inter-subscale correlations. The inter-item correlations are reported in Appendix I [d]. Inter-Subscale Correlations. Correlations among the I/E orientation subscales were also calculated. Those from the present study and those reported in Harter's (1981) California sample of grade 3 - 9 students (n = 739) are presented in Table 11. Only one correlation (judgment and challenge) was not significant at the p < .05 level. In both the present and previous studies, the subscales within the two components of I/E orientation (motivation - challenge, curiosity, and mastery; and information - judgment and criteria) are highly inter-correlated while those between the two components are weakly correlated. Thus the subscales measure the component which they were designed to measure.  70  Table 11 I/E Orientation Inter-Subscale Correlations: Harter (1981) vs. Present Study  Subscale  1  2  3  4  1. Challenge 2. Curiosity  .59 .39  3. Mastery  .49 .48  .34 .34  4. Judgment  .09 -.10  .20 -.05  .29  5. Criteria  .22 .27  .25 .07  .49 .24  .27 .39  Note: Harter study correlations in italics  Validity. Because of the positive relationship previously found between perceived scholastic competence and motivational orientation (Harter, 1981), correlations between academic dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation were examined in the present study. Harter's results indicated that intrinsic orientation declines with age for students from grades 3 to 9. Because of the age differences (grades 3 - 9 vs. grades 7- 12) and the different measures used to determine scholastic competence, direct comparison of her findings with those in this study need to be made cautiously. The correlations from both the Harter study and the present study are reported in Table 12.  71  Table 12 Correlations Between Academic Self-Concept and I/E Orientation Subscales: Harter (1981) vs. Present Study Perceived Scholastic Competence Harter (n = 739)  Present Study (n= 89)  Challenge  .57  .48  Curiosity  .33  .47  Mastery  .18  .19  Judgment  .03  -.11  Criteria  .26  .30  In both studies, the correlation between perceived scholastic competence and mastery was lower than between perceived scholastic competence and challenge, curiosity, and criteria. Internal judgment and perceived scholastic competence had a low correlation in the Harter study and a negative correlation in the present study. The similarity in relationships between perceived scholastic competence and I/E orientation dimensions between the Harter and the present study support the validity of the modified I/E orientation measure.  Predictors of Self-Worth  Self-Concept Dimensions The next analysis was conducted to see which dimensions of self-concept had the greatest predictive value in determining self-worth (general self-concept). To this end, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted, predicting overall self-worth scores from self-concept scores in seven different dimensions (physical appearance and ability, peer and parent relations, mathematics, reading, and general school ability). Results of this analysis, as presented in Table 13, reveal that approximately 63% of the variance in overall self-worth (Multiple R squared= .81, Adjusted R squared^ .63, F (7, 82) = 22.79, p < .001) was predicted by self-concept across these seven dimensions. However, reported self-concept in only three of these dimensions appeared to significantly predict overall self-worth: appearance (t = 5.08, p < .001, beta = .48), parent relations  72  (t = 3.04, p < .01, beta = .22) and peer relations (t = 2.06, p < .05, beta = . 18) The correlation matrix and regression results are presented in Tables 13 and 14.  Table 13 Self-Concept Dimensions : Correlation Matrix Subscale  2.  1.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  1. Appearance 2. Ability  .41  3. Parents  .44  .21  4. Peers  .65  .41  .29  5. Reading  .25  ,08  .10  .14  6. Mathematics  .29  •21  .27  .27  .09  7. School  .40  .23  .27  .32  .30  .72  8. Self  .76  .40  .52  .61  .27  .28  .40  Table 14 Self-Concept Dimensions Predicting Self-Worth (n = 90) Variable Ability Appearance Parent Peer Reading Mathematics School Constant  B .04 .44 .21 .16 .06 -.02 .06 3.99  SEB .05 .09 .07 .08 .05 .05 .08 2.65  Beta .06 .48 .22 .18 .08 -.04 .08  t .86 5.08 3.04 2.06 1.84 - .43 .77  t prob. .400 .000* .003** .043*** .240 .670 .443  Note: Multiple R = .81; R Square = .66; Adjusted R Squared = .63; F (7,82) = 22.79,2 *2<.001.  **E<01.  ***2<05.  I/E Orientation Dimensions The next analysis was conducted to see which dimensions of I/E orientation had the greatest predictive value in determining self-worth (general self-concept). A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted, predicting overall self-worth scores from I/E orientation scores in five different dimensions (challenge, curiosity, mastery, independent judgment, and inter criteria). Results of this analysis, as presented in Table 12, reveal that  73  approximately 22 % of the variance in overall self-worth (Multiple R squared= .47, R squared = .22, Adjusted R squared= .17, F (5, 82) = 4.55, p < .01) was predicted by I/E orientation across these five dimensions. However, reported I/E orientation in only one of these dimensions appeared to significantly predict overall self-worth: internal criteria (t = 2.47, p < .05, Beta = .29). The correlation matrix and regression equations are presented in Tables 15 and 16.  Table 15 I/E Orientation Dimensions and Self-Worth: Correlation Matrix Subscale  1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  1. Challenge 2. Curiosity  .59  3. Mastery  .49  .34  4. Judgment  .09  .20  .29  5. Criteria  .22  .25  .49  .27  6. Self-Worth  .31  .34  .15  .19  .32  Table 16 I/E Orientation Dimensions Predicting Self-Worth (n = 89) Variable  B  SEB  Beta  t  t prob.  Challenge  1.49  .85  .23  1.76  .082  Curiosity  1.46  1.01  .18  1.44  .154  Mastery  -1.55  .99  -.20  -1.57  .121  Judgment  .94  .84  .12  1.11  .270  Criteria  2.25  .91  .29  2.47  .016*  Constant  20.65  3.18  Note: Multiple R = .47, R Square = .22; Adjusted R Squared = 17; F (5, 82) = 4.55, p_< .01 * p_< .05.  74 Possibly Confounding Variables  As discussed previously, sample selection was intended to control for possibly confounding variables (parental hearing status and degree of student hearing loss). However, a review of student files identified eight students with deaf parents and seventeen students with hearing losses less than severe. Rather than eliminate these cases from the study, the data were examined to see if there were statistically significant differences between students with deaf and hearing parents, and among students with differing degrees of hearing loss. Generalization of the results is limited because of the small number of students with deaf parents and less than severe hearing losses. Therefore, subsequent analyses of the main research questions controlled for these variables by including only students with hearing parents and a severe to profound hearing loss.  Parental Hearing Status - Hearing vs. Deaf Of the students tested, none of the itinerant students and only one in the congregated setting had deaf parents and, therefore, these settings were deleted from the analysis. In order to evaluate whether students with deaf vs. hearing parents differed in the variables of interest, a series of t-tests were conducted, comparing subjects with hearing parents (n = 45) and subjects with deaf parents (n= 8) in terms of both self-concept (eight subscales) and I/E orientation (five subscales). Given the number of comparisons made, Bonferroni adjustment for alpha levels was used. Although parent relations had a 2-tailed probability of .03, after adjustment for Type I errors, the results did not indicate any statistically significant differences in either self-concept or I/E orientation between students with hearing vs. deaf parents. The results are reported in Appendix I[e].  Degree of Student Hearing Loss Using the better ear average of 500Hz, 1000Hz, and 2000Hz, most of the participants had hearing losses at the severe to profound level (i.e., greater than 71dB). A l l 91 students were included in the analysis of group differences with three groups compared: students with profound (> 91dB) hearing loss (n = 38), students with severe to profound (71dB - 90 dB) hearing loss (n =41), and students with mild to severe (27dB - 70 dB) hearing loss (n = 12). Specifically, these groups were compared in a series of Oneway  j  75  A N O V A s , with eight self-concept subscales and five I/E orientation subscales serving as dependent variables. Results did not indicat any significant differences (p > .05) between the three groups on any dimension of self-concept or I/E orientation. The results are reported in Appendix I [f].  Method of Communication Previous research has not examined variations in self-concept or I/E orientation as a function of whether or not students rely on aural/oral or sign communication, making such comparisons a novel contribution of the present study. Within the present sample, however, students in the segregated and congregated settings primarily relied on sign communication whereas students in the itinerant setting relied primarily on aural/oral communication, making comparisons across communication groups impossible in these contexts. However, in the resource setting, some students (n = 13) relied on aural/oral communication and some students (n = 14) relied on sign communication. Accordingly, these two subsamples of students were compared using a series of Oneway A N O V A s , with eight self-concept subscales and five I/E orientation subscales serving as dependent variables. Given the number of analyses conducted, the alpha level was adjusted using the Bonferroni method. Results indicated no significant differences in any of the self-concept or I/E orientation subscales across these two groups. Additional analyses conducted with students in the resource setting who had hearing parents and severe to profound hearing losses also did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups in any dimension of self-concept or I/E orientation. The results are reported in Appendix I[g].  School Setting Differences  The main question of interest in this study was whether or not there were differences in dimensions of self-concept and I/E orientation among students attending four different school settings. Oneway A N O V A (with Tukey post hoc analyses to identify pairwise differences) were utilized to examine if there were significant differences among the school setting groups.  76  Self-Concept To examine comparable groups and limit possibly confounding variables, only students with a severe to profound hearing loss and with hearing parents were included in the initial analyses. The itinerant setting group (n=9) had only one student with a severe to profound hearing loss and therefore this group was deleted. The means and standard deviations and the results of A N O V A analyses of differences in self-concept dimensions for the segregated (n = 27), congregated (n = 28), and resource (n =26) groups are presented in Tables 17 and 18. Table 17 School Setting Groups: SDQ-1 Means and Standard Deviations Subscale Appear. Ability Parent Peer  Read.  Math.  School  Self  Setting  Segregated  M SD  32.15  31.70  32.44  31.44  29.89  27.11  28.19  34.00  4.62  6.21  4.89  4.96  7.47  8.71  6.25  4.22  29.18  29.14  31.29  28.86  29.14  25.89  25.89  31.61  5.04  7.54  4.79  4.89  6.22  8.83  6.67  5.34  30.23  32.04  33.69  30.31  30.92  31.04  28.96  33.88  5.85  7.20  4.43  6.31  7.38  8.51  5.93  4.99  Congregated  M SD Resource M SD  Table 18 A N O V A Analyses of School Setting Group Differences: Self-Concept Subscale  D.F.  MS b  MSw  F Ratio  F prob  Ability  2, 62  61.87  49.09  1.261  .29  Appearance  2,62  85.82  27.70  1.55  .22  - 2, 62  35.11  21.27  1.65  .20  Peer Relations  2, 62  48.75  26.04  1.87  .16  Reading  2, 62  53.76  46.78  1.15  .32  Mathematics  2, 62  286.94  62.38  4.60  .01*  General School  2, 62  120.93  33.83  3.58  .03*  General Self  2, 62  46.53  25.37  1.83  .17  Parent Relations  Note: * p_< 05.  77  Tukey's post hoc analysis was utilized to determine which groups significantly differed from each other. The results indicated that the resource group had significantly more positive mathematics and general school self-concept scores than the congregated group. Subsequent analyses conducted with the total sample (n = 90) did not indicate any significant differences among the four school setting groups (including the itinerant setting group) in any dimension of self-concept.  I/E Orientation Initial A N O V A analyses were conducted with comparable groups (students with a severe to profound hearing loss and with hearing parents), excluding the itinerant group. The means and standard deviations and the results of A N O V A analyses of differences in I/E orientation dimensions for the segregated, congregated, and resource groups are presented in Tables 19 and Table 20.  Table 19 School Setting Groups: I/E Orientation Means and Standard Deviations Subscale i  Challenge  Curiosity  Mastery  Judgment  Criteria  2.73  3.10  2.35  2.78  2.11  .77  .53  .59  .61  .44  2.74  2.76  2.52  2.81  2.18  .73  .59  .62  .72  .58  2.73  2.91  2.65  2.82  2.65  .88  .64  .67  .56  .67  Setting  Segregated  M SD Congregated  M SD Resource M SD  78  Table 20 A N O V A Analyses of School Setting Group Differences: I/E Orientation Subscale  D.F.  MS b  MSw  F Ratio  F prob  Challenge  2, 62  .25  .60  .41  .67  Curiosity  2, 62  .99  .33  3.04  .05  Mastery  2,62  .82  .39  2.12  .13  Judgment  2,62  .00  .41  .00  .99  Criteria  2,62  1.69  .34  4.98  .01*  Note: * _ E < .05.  The results of Tukey's post hoc analysis indicated that the resource group had significantly more internal scores in the criteria dimension than the segregated or congregated groups. Subsequent analyses with the total sample ( n = 89) indicated the only significant differences among the four school setting groups in any dimension of I/E orientation was in the internal criteria subscale. Tukey post hoc analyses indicated that the itinerant and resource groups had significantly more internal scores than the segregated and congregated groups.  Degree of Integration With Hearing Students  From the previous analysis there appeared to be benefits in attending a resource program over attending a segregated or congregated program. Among the four settings there is variance in the amount of academic and social contact that deaf students have with hearing students and within these settings there is variance in the degree of integration that any individual student has in hearing classes. Therefore, additional analyses were conducted to determine if there were differences in self-concept and I/E orientation, depending on the number of classes for which the deaf students were integrated with hearing students (no integration, 1 -3 classes, 4 - 6 classes, 6 -8 classes). Published research has not reported data related to this variable.  Self-Concept To limit the effects of possibly confounding variables and to have comparable groups, in the initial analyses for differences in self-concept dimensions as a function of  79  degree of integration, only those students with severe to profound hearing losses and hearing parents were included. Degree of integration was determined by the number of classes for which students were integrated in hearing classes (0 classes: n = 26; 1-3 classes: n = 18; 4 -6 classes: n = 10; 7 - 8 classes: n=12). Means and standard deviations of the four integration groups and A N O V A results are presented in Tables 21 and 22.  Table 21 Degree of Integration: SDQ-1 Means and Standard Deviations Subscale # classes integrated  Read  Math  School  Self  Appear Ability Parent  Peer  30.42  30.60  31.19  30.54  28.62  26.73  27.92  32.58  6.43  . 7.28  4.78  5.86  7.89  8.17  6.09  5.52  29.89  31.11  31.44  30.33  30.00  26.00  26.17  31.83  4.07  5.90  4.72  4.17  5.34  6.76  5.34  5.22  30.60  31.60  34.20  31.40  29.90  29.10  26.60  34.30  4.14  8.29  5.03  6.24  7.59  11.73  8.37  4.40  30.92  31.33  32.50  29.67  33.92  31.00  29.75  34.67  5.45  7.68  3.97  4.60  5.35  8.77  4.25  4.40  0 classes  M SD 1-3 classes M SD 4 - 6 classes  M SD 7 - 8 classes M SD  Table 22 A N O V A Analyses of Integration Group Differences: Self-Concept F Ratio  F prob  Subscale  D.F.  MS b  MSw  Ability  3,62  2.71  51.37  .05  .98  Appearance  3, 62  2.78  28.%  .10  .96  Parent Relations  3, 62  24.59  21.79  1.13  .34  Peer Relations  3,62  5.61  28.02  .20  .89  Reading  3, 62  77.51  46.35  1.67  .18  Mathematics  3, 62  75.55  73.10  1.03  .38  General School  3, 62  35.04  36.15  .97  .41  General Self  3, 62  26.46  25.99  1.02  .39  80  No significant differences among the degree of integration groups were identified for any dimension of self-concept. Subsequent analyses, including all students (n = 90), also yielded no significant differences. I/E Orientation To limit the effects of possibly confounding variables and to have comparable groups, in the analyses for differences in I/E orientation dimensions as a function of degree of integration, only those students with severe to profound hearing losses and hearing parents were included. Degree of integration was determined by the number of classes for which students were integrated in hearing classes (0 classes: n = 26; 1-3 classes: n = 18; 4 - 6 classes: n = 10; 7 - 8 classes: n=12). Means and standard deviations of the four integration groups and A N O V A results are presented in Tables 23 and 24.  Table 23 Degree of Integration: I/E Orientation Means and Standard Deviations Subscale Challenge  Curiosity  Mastery  Judgment  Criteria  2.59  2.97  2.31  2.77  2.17  .71  .49  .60  .56  .42  2.89  2.81  2.61  2.64  2.18  .79  .70  .53  .72  .54  2.77  2.88  2.57  3.03  2.45  .96  .72  .78  .74  .75  3.01  2.92  2.83  3.07  2.82  .64  .51  .62  .48  .79  # Classes Integrated  0 classes M SD 1-3 classes  M SD 4 - 6 classes  M SD 7 - 8 classes M SD  81  Table 24 A N O V A Analyses of School Setting Group Differences: I/E Orientation MSw  F Ratio  F prob  .58  .58  1.00  .40  3,62  .10  .36  .27  .85  Mastery  3,62  .81  .38  2.15  .10  Judgment  3, 62  .62  .39  1.58  .20  Criteria  3, 62  1.34  .35  3.89  .01*  Subscale  D.F.  MS b  Challenge  3,62  Curiosity  Note: *_E < .05.  Tukey post hoc analyses identified that the group which was integrated for 7 - 8 classes had significantly more internal criteria scores than both groups which were integrated for 0 and 1-3 classes. Subsequent analyses including all students (n = 90) yielded similar results in the criteria dimension.  Reading and Mathematics: Integration vs. Non-Integration The initial examination of differences among students integrated for differing numbers of subjects provided an overall picture but did not distinguish among the students according to whether they were integrated for specific subject areas (i.e., English and mathematics). Therefore, subsequent analyses examined differences in reading self-concept as a function of whether or not students were integrated for English and in mathematics self-concept as a function of whether or not they were integrated for mathematics. In order to maximize comparability between groups, only students with hearing parents and a severe to profound hearing loss were included in the analysis. The results of analyses for differences between students integrated for English and mathematics vs. students not integrated for English and mathematics are reported in Table 25.  82  Table 25 Reading and Mathematics Self-Concept - Integration vs. Non-Integration Reading Self-Concept  n  M  SD  integrated for English  15  34.67  5.05  not integrated for English  51  28.82  6.86  integrated for Math  16  30.38  9.74  not integrated for Math  50  26.80  8.06  t value  df  2 - tail prob.  -3.06  64  .003*  - 1.47  64  .15  Mathematics Self-Concept  Note: * p_< .001.  Students with a severe to profound hearing loss and hearing parents who were integrated for English had significantly more positive reading self-concepts than those who were not integrated for English. In contrast, significant differences were not found between the group of students which was integrated for mathematics and the group not integrated.  School Settings and Degree of Integration: Relative Importance  The analyses on differences in self-concept and I/E orientation, depending on school setting and degree of integration, provided information on group differences. To explore the combined effects of degree of integration and school setting, at the individual level, simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted. Whereas A N O V A considers group means, regression provides predictive information at the individual level and more information on effect size (regression coefficients, proportion of variance) (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In the present study, the purpose for conducting regression analysis was to derive information about the relative importance of the both the school settings (segregated, congregated, and resource) and the degree of individual student integration. To limit the effects of possibly confounding variables, the sample which was selected included only those students with hearing parents and a severe to profound hearing loss. The dependent variables were the self-concept and I/E orientation subscales and the predictor variables were degree of integration and school settings (segregated, congregated, and resource). Because only one student in the itinerant setting had a severe to profound  83 hearing loss, the itinerant setting was virtually eliminated from the analysis and, therefore, selected to act as the reference (its mean was the constant). Degree of integration (coded 0 to 8 classes) reflected how many classes deaf students attended with hearing students, with eight classes reflective of full integration. School settings (segregated, congregated, and resource) were dummy coded. Because dummy coding was used, partial rather than standardized regression coefficients were examined. The partial regression coefficient for each variable is the relationship between the variable being predicted (the subscale) and each of the independent variables (settings and degree of integration), with other variables held constant and, as such, indicates the weight to be applied to the independent variables. Because dummy coding was used, the t-values provide significance tests of the difference between the reference group and the mean of each of the other groups. When the F for the set of variables is not significant (p < .05), significant t-values should be ignored. The results of the multiple regression analyses are presented in Tables 26 and 27.  84  8  8.  n  II  t3 CT  00  <  .P  5  s  djusltedR  00  co vo co ec  o  fi  C O  c  vT p ll  n Oo VO* g cr  in * m 2 o vo rco •* oo r~  O »  pQI oo o\ »i (<i h  »  9  8  <$  - p S3 £ 5  vo  PH  oo  VO M  in  CN  Pi  cs cs  II  , oo cs — r- cs  W  u  io <o —> co  5  N (j o oo v> m  w vi wi vi  CA  IT)  II  a, n j co r--  vi  *-H  VO 3".  II PH  Pi  cs cs  S, o\ „. « m l  h  >o <-? 2  K>  ^ cs  < = > vd H  S-  II  ^  <L>  U  "S, •a  •a  3  s  CO  1  5  o <u o c o  o Z  5  CO o  3.  2o  II T3  '•3 CT  cT  00  Pi  OA  o  •4 ~*> •—  c  CO  J 8 2 2 8!  0  "to  8  h  S  ON 00  Q  ifl n « xi vi vj  1  1 cn  1c  T t  a -  ~  -13  OA  pa w  g  00  00  o  cs  VO  r-  £  cn P  ?  O —i  s  II  c  < a  8 2  o  1  PH T3  ll a  PQI  vd  Oi h  vi  CW  Wj  v>  3 p Cj JO  «  93 "2 £2 co CA pal vo t ^ co r-' H oo ' cq  | 00  1 0^ ^ 0  $  "S.  u *f  s  •fi  <u C O Pi 3  o CO  II  o. Pi v>*  vo  .  1 sr.  8  cr 00  &  S3 $  £  o  <s  4  o\  T3 U  1  S  8  S  C) Q  (5 Ifl  ^ ifl  ? 8  2  J  H  8  CN  ni § s  n  s  CO  ^  g oi  PQ o £R <s <o § oo o\ od oo" oo'  pq  CT ||  col i/j  ^  Pi  u 3. •a 3 «  ,Q  O  00  i/>  i/5  CN  —i  co vo i/5  «. ~ * * " S  2-  ro  00  >o co o  d  M  i  £j  i  CO  I  .3 o U  » 0 ec! U  cr  1  oo  J *  v>  n  n  1  -H H  VO Ov  C\ CO  Ov  VO  vo O  00  vo  00  00  lO CO  00  00  vo vo  VO  CO  -o  1  CO  m  o  •—' -—' ^t" o  r-  ro  o  -"T  r-' H  a s a  v5 S  p  $ CO  4>  cr 00 Pi  II  oo  U  P4  .0  u  D.  3  •S 00  &  •o II II  O  I  11  <N rS.  5  o  T  vo ^  01  m  VO  w . CQI  ?! n  O  . . PI  CO  vo  8  3 CN  86  s II  •a  3  <s <o r-  «0  vo  r-  io  Ifl VO  N Ol VO V}  o vo co 3  VO  >  w 00  8  8  3  o  CQI P 4>  ro  «3 "c8 o «=  C  Of  i  B  co  c <u •c O  1  8 U.Q Pi  •! 1 .3 U  O U  w  o  8  CO  l-H  3 •a  •a  2  2co cd  £~ ro Ov Ov  O  cr co Pi •a  o 8 eg cs •a" co  cr co  Pi  CO  O  3  00 •a  a < Q c '5 c5 o CO  e  ox  VO  CN  ^  o  "I  =  ^  «j  OO  Q co  88 S3 "8 2 So S VO  5 vo § ^  5* « Pi  * II  <u  ml  w R  55 3  3  S  CO &.  mi ^  b  cx  oi'-'  vo  CD -  VO  a,  CO  B  Pi  i  2  U  U  .3 5  00  Pi  OX  Ico  •o  ^  o\ «—<  11  0  01  99  8  Si  •I*a<U  §8 5  3  11 M I B &  8  oo U  8 8  Pi  S | « § U U  i  <* . "3. « ,  w  3 S  o  •z  tin  O  n  CI  N  o cs ?5  H  rt  fs  O  3 £  «n oi CT\ VO VO <0 3  3  in o r-~ mi 8 r- to o r-  d o U  r^ r~ «o ro ro o , o r- o\ o w  |  M  "1  C;  01  a  •8  I  1  ml w r- vo vo &0;  mi  fN  ro 3  S  0  O  o Pi u  o u  88 V. DISCUSSION  Over the past 20 years many educational changes have taken place which may have an effect on the self-concept and I/E orientation of deaf students. More deaf students are being educated in school settings which provide opportunities for integration with hearing students, new school programs have been developed, the use of sign communication in educational settings has increased, and the hearing population is becoming increasingly aware of deafness as sign language classes, interpreters at public events, and deaf persons on television become more prevalent, than in the past. Despite these changes, the most recent research conducted to examine self-concept of deaf students in different educational settings is almost 20 years old and no research exists examining the I/E orientation with this special population. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine differences in self-concept and I/E orientation dimensions among groups of deaf secondary students attending school settings which vary in degree of social and academic integration.  School Settings and Degree of Integration  Deaf students from four secondary school settings participated in the present study. Among the settings, degree of social and academic integration of deaf students with hearing students varies. In the segregated setting, students attend all academic classes and socialize with deaf peers. Deaf students in the resource and congregated settings have the opportunity to socialize and attend classes with hearing students or attend special classes for deaf students. Within the deaf student population at the congregated setting, most were educated in a segregated school and then made the change in 1991 to the new setting, which enrols approximately 60 deaf and 2,000 hearing students. This setting has both separate and combined administrative systems, parent groups, student councils, and social activities. Resource programs are established in regular secondary schools and most activities in the schools are organized for the whole population, not separating the students by hearing loss. In itinerant settings, deaf students are fully integrated with hearing students for academic and social events and receive support in the form of regular visits from a teacher specialized in education of deaf students.  89  Self-Concept For many years, the literature on self-concept theory has identified the importance of social comparison on the development of self-concept (Cooley, 1902; Harter, 1986; Mead, 1934; Sullivan, 1953). When examining the self-concept research with special populations, it becomes obvious that identification of comparison groups is a complex issue. For example, Harter (1986) reported that mainstreamed learning disabled students had lower academic self-concept scores because they compared themselves with nondisabled students. In contrast, the academic self-concept scores of developmentally disabled students (even those in mainstream settings) were within the norms because they compared themselves with other developmentally disabled students. Pike (1985) reported that hospitalized asthmatic children also used like peers as a comparison group and similarly had academic self-concept scores within the norms. The limitations of previous research examining differences in self-concept among groups of deaf students have included use of measures with inappropriately high linguistic demands, inclusion of possibly confounding variables, and in some cases, use of measures which did not actually measure self-concept. Comparison among these studies is restricted by their differences in student sample characteristics, school setting descriptions, and the measures used to determine self-concept scores. Keeping these limitations in mind, in two out of three studies which included students educated in segregated and itinerant settings (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978), the segregated students had the higher self-concept scores. Academic and social comparison affects self-concept. Because students in segregated settings (who had deaf peers) had higher self-concept scores than those in itinerant settings (who had hearing peers), it appeared that deaf students compared themselves with peers in their immediate environment. From the selfconcept literature on the effects of social comparison and the previous research on selfconcept of deaf students in different school settings, it was expected that, in the present study, students in the segregated setting would have more positive peer relations and academic self-concepts than the students in the other three settings (congregated, resource, and itinerant). To examine if there were differences in self-concept dimensions among the students attending different school settings, initial analyses were conducted with comparable groups, including only students with a severe to profound hearing loss and with hearing  90 parents. There was only one student in the itinerant group with a severe to profound hearing loss, and so this group was deleted from the analysis, leaving the segregated, congregated, and resource groups for comparison. No previous research has been conducted with students from a congregated setting and the previous research which included students from both segregated and resource settings (Craig, 1965; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978) had conflicting results. However, because the study by Craig (1965) did not use a true measure of self-concept, it is difficult to compare results with the Sarfaty & Katz (1978) study. Contrary to expectations, in the present study the only significant differences identified among dimensions of self concept among the three school setting groups were in academic areas, the mathematics and general school dimensions. What was particularly unexpected was that the significant differences were between the resource and congregated settings, the two settings which were the most similar. The resource setting group had significantly more positive mathematics and general school self-concept than the congregated setting group. Compared with the segregated setting, where there is no academic integration, in the congregated and resource settings deaf students have both deaf and hearing peers and opportunities for social and academic integration. To determine if degree of integration had an effect on self-concept, subsequent analyses for differences in self-concept dimensions were examined among students (a) with no integration, (b) who were integrated for 1 - 3 classes, (c) who were integrated for 4 - 6 classes, and (d) who were integrated for 7 - 8 classes. No significant differences in self-concept dimensions among these groups of students were identified. Therefore, the differences among school settings appeared to be specifically a function of school setting, rather than degree of integration. A possible explanation for the significantly higher scores of the resource setting over the congregated setting in general school self-concept was that the students in the congregated setting changed their school location from a segregated school to a school where there is a large hearing population five years previous to testing, while most students in the resource settings had attended programs with mixed deaf and hearing peer groups from the beginning of their schooling. This experience of a drastic change in peer group, from the "protected" environment of a combined elementary and secondary segregated school for deaf students to a large, cosmopolitan secondary school where deaf students are  91  the minority, may have had a lasting negative impact on the general school self-concept of the deaf students in the congregated setting. The argument that the lower self-concept scores are due to this change, rather than the setting itself, is supported by the fact that one of the resource groups (an aural/oral program) is situated in the same facility as the congregated setting group. Students in this resource setting were enrolled in the school prior to the establishment of the congregated model and, therefore, did not experience such a drastic school setting change as did the congregated setting group. Additional analysis conducted to investigate if there were differences among the three resource setting groups yielded no significant differences. A t this point, only hypotheses may be made and, to investigate this issue, future research should be conducted with secondary level students who have attended the congregated setting from early elementary school. If indeed the differences are due to the change in setting, then there would be no significant differences between students who have attended the resource and congregated groups from elementary school onwards. The other self-concept dimension which significantly differed among the three school setting groups was mathematics. The resource setting group had significantly higher scores than the congregated setting group. In the present study, the correlation between mathematics and general school self-concepts was (.73), whereas the correlation between reading and general school was (.30), therefore finding significant differences among settings in the general school dimension would lead to an expectation of finding significant differences in mathematics self-concept. In support of the internal frame of reference, (whereby students internally compare their abilities among school subjects) posited by Marsh et al. (1991), the correlation between reading and mathematics self-concept was low (.09). Secondary analyses, conducted to investigate whether or not there were differences in dimensions of self-concept with the total sample (n = 90) indicated no significant differences in any dimension of self-concept among the four groups. Previous literature reported that fully integrated students experience loneliness and isolation (Foster, 1987) and have more negative general self-concepts than those who are educated with like peers (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980). In the present study the itinerant students (who were fully integrated and attended school settings with only hearing peers) did not differ in peer relations self-concept from students who were educated with deaf peers. While this is  92  an optimistic finding, the sample of itinerant students was small and further investigation into the effects of school settings, with larger groups of itinerant students, is needed before generalizing the results to a larger population.  Mathematics and Reading Self-Concept: Integration vs. Non-Integration The previous analysis yielded no significant differences in self-concept dimensions among groups with differing degrees of integration. Degree of integration was determined by counting the total number of classes which the deaf students attended with hearing peers, and included both academic subject area (e.g., biology, physics, mathematics, English, etc.) and non-academic subjects (e.g., woodwork, physical education, art, etc.). To explore the effects of integration on specific subject areas, analyses were conducted to determine if there were differences in reading self-concept between those students who were and those who were not integrated for English, and in mathematics self-concept between those who were and those who were not integrated for mathematics. The effects of academic comparison have been reported by Marsh (1991) in his work with the "Big-Fish-Little-Pond" effect; Applying his theory to the present study, one would expect that academic comparison of deaf students with their hearing counterparts in integrated classes would yield lower scores in dimensions of academic self-concept than among those who are educated with deaf peers. The present sample differs from that in the Marsh study, however, in that these students have not been matched by intelligence or achievement. Although, in most cases, deaf students who have high academic achievement spend more time in academic classes with hearing students than those whose achievement is lower, some high achieving deaf students, especially those in the segregated setting, may have chosen non-integrated classes in order to have a deaf peer group and education using sign communication. Therefore, overall degree of integration cannot be directly equated with ability or achievement. To explore the effects of integration for specific academic subjects, differences in reading and mathematics self-concepts were examined, depending on whether or not students were integrated for English or mathematics. To have comparable groups, only those students with hearing parents and a severe to profound hearing loss were included in the analyses. Based on the "Big-Fish-Little-Pond" effect, the integrated groups, as compared with the non-integrated groups, were expected to have lower self-concept scores  93 in the dimensions for which they were integrated. There were no significant differences in mathematics self-concept between the integrated and non-integrated groups. Reading selfconcept differed significantly between the integrated and non-integrated groups but in a direction contrary to expectations. The group which was integrated for English had significantly higher reading self-concepts than the group which had no English integration. Ability to read affects success in all academic areas and in finding employment and, therefore, is of major concern to educators, parents, and students. In general, deaf students graduate from high school with an average grade three to four reading level (Schildroth & Hotto, 1994), and the difficulty these students experience with the English language has become the focus of attention in education with this population. For a deaf student to achieve at a satisfactory level in a regular English class with hearing students requires reading skills above the average for deaf students. The deaf students in this study who attended English classes with hearing students had significantly higher self-perceptions of their reading ability than those who attended special classes. It is unlikely that their reading levels were overall superior to those of their hearing classmates; therefore, one explanation for this finding is that these deaf students compared themselves with other deaf, rather than hearing, students. They realized that attending regular classes meant that their abilities were superior to those who did attend special classes, and, therefore, had significantly more positive reading self-concept scores than those who were not integrated. There were no significant differences between those who were integrated for mathematics, than those who attended special classes. Placement in integrated classes is dependent on ability to maintain a satisfactory level of achievement and, therefore, those integrated are likely to be more capable in the subject area for which they are integrated than those in special classes for deaf students. Skill in mathematics is less dependent on linguistic competence (the primary area of difficulty for deaf students) than is skill in reading. Deaf students who attend English classes with hearing peers are likely to have considerably greater linguistic competence than those not integrated, while those integrated for mathematics may not differ from those in special classes to as great a degree. If this is so, one explanation for the significant differences in reading as opposed to mathematics self-concept, between deaf students integrated and not integrated, is that the students integrated for English had skills which were superior to those not integrated and perceived their abilities accordingly.  94 Another possible explanation for the difference between the reading and mathematics dimensions is the value placed on reading abilities. The secondary students in the present study were preparing to enter a hearing world, where literacy skills are extremely important for success. Combined with the emphasis that educational programs for deaf students place on literacy, the secondary students who were able to succeed in regular English classes may have placed more value on their reading ability than those who attended regular mathematics classes placed on their success in regular classes. The results of analyses examining differences in self-concept as a function of school settings and degree of integration were contrary to expectations. Based on selfconcept theory, specifically the effects of social comparisons and the previous research conducted with deaf students in different school settings, students who were educated with like peers were expected to have more positive peer relations and general school selfconcept scores than those who attended integrated classes. However, the issue of social comparison is complex, as reported in the literature review with other groups of special students (Harter, 1992; Pike, 1985). The effect of discrepancy between the value an individual places on a dimension and the individual's actual accomplishment in that dimension, which was not examined in the present study, also affects self-concept. Future research, specifically asking the students with whom they compare themselves and which dimensions they value most, may shed some light on these issues. The previous research with deaf students is about 20 years old, had many limitations and utilized uni-dimensional measures. One reason why the results of the present study contradicted some of the previous findings may be due to the difficulty of comparing results between studies employing uni-dimensional and multi-dimensional measures.  I/E Orientation As with the previous analyses, comparable groups were utilized to examine differences in dimensions of I/E orientation among students in different school settings. By including only students with hearing parents and a severe to profound hearing loss, the itinerant setting group was deleted from the analyses. Only one dimension of I/E orientation, internal criteria, differed significantly among the three school setting groups (segregated, congregated, and resource). Students in the resource setting had significantly more internal scores than those in either the segregated or congregated setting students.  95  Subsequent analyses with the total student sample (n = 89) yielded significantly more internal criteria in the itinerant and resource setting groups than in the segregated and congregated setting groups (groups which have spent much of their education in special classes). Therefore, examination of differences as a function of degree of integration were conducted and identified significantly more internal criteria scores in the group integrated for 7 - 8 classes than the group integrated for 0 - 3 classes. Overall, the students who have experienced the greatest degree of academic integration had significantly more internal criteria scores than those who experienced lesser or no integration. From these results it appeared that integrated vs. special classes for deaf students differed in some way that affected the students' internal criteria. Internal vs. external criteria refers to the degree to which students can independently assess their success and failure in academic tasks, and as indicated by the analysis for determinants of self-worth, it was the only I/E dimension which significantly predicted self-worth. Students with an internal orientation in criteria for success and failure know the effectiveness of strategies they use when undertaking tasks and, therefore, know when to change or adapt these strategies. This metacognitive skill of "knowing when you know, or don't know" implies active control over knowledge and enhances problem-solving abilities (Brown, 1980). A teaching style which includes characteristics such as close monitoring and imposing goals can increase students' external orientation (Stipek, 1993). Teachers who encourage student autonomy have more internally oriented students and these students perceive their instructors as providing more encouragement of personal responsibility and internal control (Deci, Nezlak, & Sheinman, 1981). The significantly more internal scores of students who spent more time in integrated classes vs. special classes for deaf students leads to the question of whether there are differences in teaching style between teachers in special classes vs. those in "regular" classes. Two factors which might contribute to these differences are degree of teacher control and emphasis on product rather than process. Although no literature was found which specifically examined the effect of teaching style on the I/E orientation of deaf students, some studies have been conducted examining differences in conversational control and teaching style between teachers of deaf and hearing students. Researchers in the United Kingdom reported that, compared with teachers of  96 hearing students, teachers of deaf students exerted considerably more conversational control over their students (Wood, Wood, Griffiths, & Howarth, 1986). Teachers of deaf students more frequently stopped the students to "repair", or clarify what had been said and the deaf students seldom exercised listener control by stopping the teacher. "Either they were understanding everything said to them (which seems rather doubtful), or they did not know how to seek clarification; or the asymmetry of power between the teachers and children inhibited them from taking control of the conversation." (p 61). Among teachers of hearing students, the frequency of conversational repair was between 6 % and 10 % of their moves, while among teachers of deaf students it was between 14 % and 68 % of their moves. Teachers of deaf students generally resorted to questions rather than contributions, further increasing their conversational power over the students. Although many of the communication difficulties were the consequence of the students' hearing loss, the researchers reported that the students' problems were exacerbated by styles of teacher control. Although these research results pertain specifically to conversational control between teachers and students, the imbalance of power in conversations may generalize to an overall power imbalance. If deaf students do not experience autonomy in the classroom, they will become increasingly extrinsic in their orientation, i.e., dependent on their teachers. In a study by Kluwin (1992) with 215 students with an average severe to profound hearing loss, comparisons were made between teaching styles of 63 teachers in regular vs. special classes for deaf students. In the regular classes, teachers gave more oral presentations, made greater use of positive feedback, and devoted more time to whole group instruction, while those in special classes assigned more seatwork, asked more questions, and provided more individualized work. Examining the determinants of successful classes, he found that in regular classes they were degree of oral presentation and less seatwork, and in special classes they were less teacher to group talk and more work. Teaching style factors in the regular class vs. the special class which may contribute to greater internal orientation are the greater use of positive feedback, which informs students that they are progressing successfully, and less seatwork. In special classes, the teachers asked more questions and successful classes were characterized as having less teacher to group talk. For students to take an active role in their learning, they need to participate in discussions, rather than "be talked to." Although there are advantages to  97 attending both a regular and a special class, the factors which appear contribute to internal orientation are the emphasis on making the learning process overt, including awareness of success or failure of different strategies, and opportunities for self-directed leaning. Large vs. small groups of students provide a greater wealth of ideas to share; whereas a small group of students allows a teacher to individualize instruction to a greater extent than in a large group. Whether or not teachers use these advantages is a question which requires more investigation. Another aspect of teaching style which may account for the greater degree of internality found in the itinerant and resource groups (who also had greater degrees of integration) over the segregated and congregated groups (who had lesser degrees of integration) is the approach to teaching language, common among teachers of deaf students. Although it is changing, the emphasis in teaching language to deaf students has emphasized form and product, rather than content and process. Language lessons focussed on syntactic drills, rather than conveyance of thoughts, ideas, and messages (Clarke & Stewart, 1986) and it is possible that that this approach was applied in other academic subjects as well. Metacognitive strategies, which involve knowing when you know or don't know, are taught by initially "thinking aloud" the steps involved in problem-solving and then, moving the "thinking aloud" to inner speech. If teachers focus on the product, rather than the process of problem-solving, then these process-oriented strategies may not become internalized as quickly or as well as they do in students whose teachers focus less on process. Without this inner feedback system, the student relies on external criteria of success and failure. As stated by Senior (1991) Many hearing-impaired students, like their hearing peers, have been exposed to schooling which places an emphasis on the answer rather than the process by which an answer is reached. Thus these students have had limited experience in analyzing their cognitive actions in order to gain conscious control over them. (p. 414)  Communicating information about the product of an activity requires less complex language than discussing the thinking processes involved in problem-solving in order to reach the product. Although the emphasis on product over process has been common to both teachers of hearing and deaf students, the communication difficulties encountered between teachers (mostly hearing) and deaf students may have contributed to less emphasis  98  on process than might be found in classes where both teachers and students are hearing. Considering the role of inner language in self-regulated learning, another possible explanation for differences in criteria scores among the deaf students in this study may be the students' level of linguistic competence. If students have a low level of external linguistic competence (using either sign or aural/oral language), their inner language may also be restricted. Data on students' linguistic competence were not collected in the present study, so analyses could not be performed to examine the effect of this variable. Students who were integrated for 7 - 8 classes had more internal criteria scores than those who had less integration. Because success in "regular" classrooms depends, in part, on linguistic competence, it is possible that the differences between those with greater degrees of integration and those with less integration are due to the students' linguistic competence, rather than the teaching style used in the classroom. This appears to be the first study examining differences in I/E orientation dimensions among deaf students in different school settings, and, as such, provides novel information. From the results it appears that variables at the classroom level, rather than school setting level, have an effect on the I/E orientation (specifically internal criteria) of deaf secondary students. Future research investigating classroom level variables, such as degree of imposed control and emphasis on product vs. process, will further explain the differences identified in the present study.  School Factors as Predictors of Self-Concept and I/E Orientation  Self-Concept The previous analyses were conducted to see if there were any significant differences among students attending four school settings and with groups with differing degrees of integration. To examine the relationships among these variables in more detail, subsequent analyses were conducted utilizing simultaneous multiple regression which provides coefficients for each variable so that their importance, relative to the other variables in predicting individual students' scores, can be determined. The analyses were conducted with students who had hearing parents and a severe to profound hearing loss. The total amount of variance that the three school settings and classes integrated accounted for in predicting the outcome variables was relatively small (ranging from 5 % in self-  99  concept of physical abilities to 14 % in the self-worth and mathematics dimensions). If the adjusted R square was a realistic approximation of the variance accounted for by these school factors in the population, then a sample size of 262 would increase the power required to obtain significant results. Including other factors (e.g., parental child-rearing attitudes) might have increased the R square. However, the purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify relative importance among the school factors (school settings and degree of integration), not to include all the factors which account for the variance in selfconcept nor examine levels of significance. Because only one student in the itinerant setting had a severe to profound hearing loss, this setting was virtually eliminated from the analysis and, therefore, was selected to act as the reference group, with its mean as the constant. Degree of integration was coded from 0 to 8 classes. Although the fully integrated students in this matched group analysis attended school settings where there were other deaf students and, therefore, did not necessarily experience the isolation reported by mainstream students (Foster, 1987), this variable provided information on the relative effects of integration. Attending the segregated setting had advantages over the other two settings in predicting scores in physical appearance, peer relations, and self-worth. In the segregated setting all the students are deaf, use the same method of communication, and appear to make comparisons amongst themselves. Students in the congregated setting were educated in a segregated setting until the move to the new school five years before testing took place. After the move, teachers commented on how the deaf students began to drastically change their style of dressing to match the fashions they saw among the hearing students in the new school. From this behaviour, it appears that the deaf students compared their physical appearance with those around them and tried to "fit in" by copying dress styles and conforming with the majority group. The students in congregated and resource settings had a considerably larger population of hearing students in their immediate environment with whom to compare their appearance than those in the segregated setting, who compared with only a small population of deaf students. The lesser degree of competition to "look good" may be the factor which contributed to the higher predictive scores in physical appearance in the segregated over the other two settings. Similarly, the segregated setting had a small population of deaf students, who socialize and communicate easily amongst themselves, while the congregated and resource  100  settings had large populations of both deaf and hearing students. For this reason, students in the segregated setting may have felt more positive about peer relations than did students in the other two settings. Analysis conducted to determine predictors of self-worth identified appearance as the self-concept dimension with the greatest predictive value and peer relations next in relative importance. Attending the segregated setting predicted higher scores in appearance and peer relations than did attending the other two settings, and, therefore, it also predicted higher scores in self-worth. Previous research conducted with uni-dimensional measures of self-concept had identified students in segregated settings as having more positive general self-concepts than students in resource or mainstream settings (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Reich et al., 1977 ). Although the effects of school setting in the multiple regression analyses were not significant in predicting self-worth or peer relations, they did identify the segregated setting as relatively more predictive of self-concept scores in these dimensions than the other two settings, supporting the previous research and expectations. Compared with the other two settings, attending the resource setting predicted higher scores in physical ability, mathematics, and general school self-concept. The coefficients for parent relations were very close in value for all three settings. Overall, there appeared to be no advantages in attending the congregated setting over the other settings in any dimension of self-concept other than appearance (where the coefficient was slightly greater than that of the resource setting). As discussed previously, the drastic change in academic setting for the congregated students, after moving from a "protected" environment to a large school with a very high proportion of hearing students, may account for their overall low scores in all self-concept dimensions. Degree of integration had the greatest relative importance in predicting self-concept of reading abilities. The A N O V A analyses identified significantly higher reading selfconcept scores among students who were integrated for 7 - 8 classes than those integrated for 0 - 3 classes and among students who were integrated for English vs. those in special classes. The value placed on reading abilities and the probability that deaf students integrated for English vs. attending special classes, in fact, had better reading skills, suggested that deaf students compare their reading abilities with other deaf students. Among the three settings, the segregated setting (which enrols only deaf students) had the highest coefficient for reading, further supporting the argument that deaf students compared  101  their reading abilities with deaf peers.  I/E Orientation Degree of integration and school settings were examined for their relative weight in predicting scores on dimensions of I/E orientation. The motivational component consists of three subscales: challenge vs. easy work, curiosity and interest vs. pleasing the teacher, and independent mastery vs. teacher reliance. In previous A N O V A analyses, there were no significant differences in these subscales among students in different school settings nor among groups with different degrees of integration. In predicting scores on the challenge subscale, degree of integration and school settings had coefficients very close in weight. Attending the segregated setting predicted more internal curiosity vs. pleasing the teacher scores than the other two settings. Although degree of integration was close in relative importance, attending the congregated setting predicted more independent mastery vs. teacher dependence scores than attending the other two settings. In this subscale, the differences in relative importance among the school settings were considerable, with the segregated setting predicting the greatest reliance on the teacher. Overall, students in the resource and congregated settings experience more integration than those in the segregated setting, which may account for their greater degree of independence. In the two subscales in the informational component — judgment and criteria, degree of integration was considerably more predictive than school settings. Both of these subscales involve the degree to which students depend on the teacher. The first refers to the degree to which students feel they are capable of making judgments about school situations (what to learn, scheduling, student vs. teacher opinion) and the second refers to the degree to which students can assess their success or failure in tasks independently. As with the locus of control construct, the informational component is based on attribution theory, which focusses on internal vs. external control of events. Previous research indicated that deaf students reported more feelings of external control than did hearing students (Bodner & Johns, 1977; Koelle & Convey, 1982; Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986). Although the present study did not compare between deaf and hearing students, it did examine the importance of degree of integration with hearing students and found that the deaf students with a greater degree of integration vs. lesser integration have a more internal orientation. Research conducted with another "special" group of students  102  educated in special classes (deveiopmentally disabled) reported that these students had significantly more external orientation on all subscales of I/E orientation than the norm, and, as in the present study, the greatest difference was in the informational component (Harter etal., 1980). Teaching style and degree of imposed control has been reported to affect the orientation of hearing students (Stipek, 1993). Those who experience autonomy are more likely to feel confident about their judgments in academic decisions as compared with those who experience greater external control, thereby relying more heavily on teacher judgment. Likewise, encouragement of student independence provides experience in developing internal criteria for success or failure in academic tasks. Orientation is affected by school experience; hearing students have a more internal orientation than deaf students; and among deaf students, degree of integration with hearing students predicts orientation. Previous discussion has outlined differences in teaching style between teachers of deaf and teachers of hearing students. A logical conclusion is that the experience of students (deaf and hearing) in regular classes differs from that of students in special classes for deaf students in a way which enhances their internal orientation. Although the research on conversational control (Wood et al., 1986) provides some support for this argument, more research specifically addressing student orientation and teaching style variables is required to clarify this issue.  Possibly Confounding Variables  The deaf population is small in number and very diverse. When conducting research with deaf participants, possibly confounding variables (i.e., parental hearing status, degree of hearing loss, and additional handicapping conditions) need to be controlled. Although these variables were expected to be controlled through sample selection, there was a subgroup of 9 participants with deaf parents and 17 with hearing losses less than severe. These participants were deleted from the analyses to answer the main research questions; however, additional analyses were conducted to examine whether or not there were significant differences in self-concept and I/E orientation dimensions as a function of these variables.  103 Parental Hearing Status Examination of differences between students with deaf vs. hearing parents was conducted with the students attending the segregated and resource settings (the settings with the greatest number of deaf parents). Previously researchers had reported that deaf children of deaf parents have more positive general self-concepts (Koelle & Convey, 1982), and (with a post-secondary sample) more positive general self, same and opposite sex self-concepts (Yachnik, 1986) than do deaf children of hearing parents. In the current study with 53 participants, the only dimension of self-concept which appeared to differ significantly between students with deaf vs. those with hearing parents, was parent relations. However, when the probability level was adjusted for Type I errors, no statistically significant differences were identified between the groups with deaf and hearing parents for any dimension of self-concept or I/E orientation. Compared with previous studies, which found advantages of having deaf parents over hearing parents, the results of this study may be explained, at least in part, by the changes that have taken place over the past 15 years or so in early support for families of deaf children. Early intervention programs provide hearing parents with emotional support by arranging support groups with other parents who have deaf children and professional counselling in dealing with the stress that having a deaf child places on families. Families receive professional guidance in learning how to communicate with their deaf infants and make informed decisions about appropriate methods of communication and future educational programs. Preschool sessions give the young deaf children and their siblings the opportunity to interact with other deaf peers and learn socialization skills, while the parents learn also how to enhance their children's social interactions. These support systems may be lessening the pain and grieving that parents of deaf infants experience after diagnosis of the hearing loss and, in turn, facilitate better communication between parent and child than has previously been reported. Although this explanation is plausible, data will need to be collected to determine whether or not the hearing parents of the students in the present study received early intervention support. Another factor which might have contributed to the lack of significant differences is parental child-rearing attitudes. The review of studies by Meadow-Orlans (1990) comparing hearing parents of deaf children with those of hearing children, identified the parents of deaf children as more domineering, controlling, antagonistic, and intrusive. The  104  study by Jamieson & Pederson (1993) found that deaf parents interacted with their deaf children in a manner similar to that of hearing parents with their hearing children. Taken together, these studies suggest that the interactions between parent and child are more negative when the parents are hearing than when they are deaf. Previous studies (Koelle & Convey 1982; Yachnik, 1986) found that children with deaf parents had more positive self-concepts than the children with hearing parents. The initial results of the current study give a more optimistic picture of the relationships between hearing parents and their deaf children. However, due to the small sample of students with deaf parents in the present study, the results need to be replicated before generalizing to a larger population. Additional data on parental child-rearing attitudes and interactions with these two groups of parents will provide useful information with which to interpret results.  Degree of Student Hearing Loss Within the group of participants in the present study were 17 students who had hearing losses less than severe to profound. Although no studies were found in the literature directly examining the effects of hearing loss on self-concept and I/E orientation, a number of researchers reported that this factor may have affected their results (e.g., Reich et al., 1977; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978). Therefore, analyses were conducted to determine if there were significant differences in dimensions of the two psychological constructs, as a function of degree of hearing loss. Students were classified in three hearing loss groups: profound, severe to profound, and mild to severe. Among these three groups, no statistically significant differences were found for any dimensions of self-concept or I/E orientation. Degree of hearing loss affects the ability to receive auditory language. If language is presented through audition alone, a profoundly deaf child's receptive language will be restricted. Despite their limited auditory input, some profoundly deaf individuals communicate sufficiently well using their residual hearing while others rely on sign communication. Self-concept is affected by interactions with significant others and social comparison. Previous studies, comparing deaf and hearing individuals, reported that those with a hearing loss had less positive self-concepts than those with normal hearing (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Garrison et al., 1987; Gibson- Harman & Austin, 1985; Loeb & Sarigiani, 1986). Although presence or absence of a hearing loss was the factor by  105 which the two populations differed, these studies did not include examination of mediating factors such as ability to communicate and parent-child interactions, factors which may have a greater impact on self-concept than hearing loss alone. The present study examined differences in self-concept and I/E orientation within a sample of students with hearing losses, rather than between those who had a hearing loss and those with normal hearing. Among the three hearing loss groups, no statistically significant differences were found in any dimension of self-concept and I/E orientation, and so, from these results, it appears that degree of hearing loss alone does not affect selfconcept and I/E orientation. Future research examining the role of mediating factors, such as communicative ease and parent-child interactions, would provide valuable information about the possible effects of these factors on self-concept and I/E orientation.  Method of Communication For over 200 years, the most controversial issue in the education of deaf students has been the appropriate method of communication. Until the 1970s, most students with a hearing loss were educated with an aural/oral approach and then the pendulum swung to sign communication. Nevertheless, some auraj/oral programs continued and most students fully integrated in regular classes continued to communicate orally. Within the group that espouses sign communication, the debate currently focusses on which type of signed communication (English based or ASL) to use in school settings. Despite the arguments defending each of the methods of communication, surprisingly, no previous studies were found in the literature examining differences in self-concept between students using aural/oral and sign communication. In the present study there was a subgroup of students in resource programs who used either sign or aural/oral communication, and so self-concept and I/E orientation were examined to determine if there were significant differences in any dimensions, as a function of communication method. Analyses of data from two samples in the resource setting (one including only students with hearing parents and a severe to profound hearing loss and the other including all students) yielded no significant differences in any dimension of selfconcept or I/E orientation dimensions. Most severely to profoundly deaf students who use sign communication rely on either an interpreter or writing to communicate with hearing people. Because of their  106  common language, communication among those who sign is generally more fluent and easy than between those who use sign and those who don't. For this reason, students who use sign communication socialize more amongst themselves than with hearing students. Students who use aural/oral communication communicate directly with hearing people and may be restricted in their fluency (depending on their intelligibility and receptive skills). In general, these students socialize with their aural/oral peers and hearing students, rather than with students who use sign communication. Self-concept is affected by interactions with significant others and social comparison and an essential aspect of social interaction is linguistic communication. If an individual has difficulty communicating with significant others, this factor may affect his or her self-concept, particularly in the social dimensions (peer and parent relations). In the present study, no statistically significant differences in self-concept were found between the students who used aural/oral and sign communication, therefore, method of communication alone does not appear to have an effect on self-concept. As discussed previously, communicative competence with significant others may be the more important factor in determining self-concept. The effect of social comparison also needs to be considered when interpreting the results. Students who use sign communication socialize primarily amongst themselves and those who use an aural/oral method generally socialize with those who use this method of communication, be they deaf or hearing. However, the issue of social comparison is complex and caution needs to be taken when making assumptions about social comparison groups. Although deaf students who use sign communication primarily socialize with like peers, if they are educated in a setting which has both deaf and hearing students, they have regular contact with hearing peers and, therefore, their comparison group may be greater than just those with whom they socialize. The students included in the present analysis attended resource settings, which enrolled both deaf and hearing students. Within this group of deaf students there were individual differences in the degree to which they were integrated. Both degree of integration and method of communication may have an effect on determining students' comparison groups and their self-concepts. Therefore, degree of integration was also examined for its effect on self-concept and I/E orientation. Future research on self-concept and I/E orientation of deaf students, using larger samples and  107  including examination of factors such as communicative competence and identification of social comparison groups, will inform those who argue the merits of one communication approach over the other.  Predictors of Self-Worth  To explore the relative importance of the self-concept dimensions in predicting selfworth scores, multiple regression analysis was used. Approximately 63 % of the variance in self-worth was accounted for by the seven self-concept dimensions, three of which (appearance, peer and parent relations) significantly predicted self-worth. In her research conducted with hearing students, Harter (1990b) reported that with hearing elementary and middle school students, of all the self-concept dimensions, physical appearance contributed the most to students' feelings of self-worth. The importance of social regard of significant others (peers and parents) on feelings of self-worth has been argued in the literature for many years (Cooley, 1902; Harter, 1988; Mead, 1934; Sullivan, 1953). This is the first study to investigate dimensions of self-concept as predictors of self-worth with a deaf sample and the results were consistent with previous research conducted with hearing students. No studies were found which examined relationships between I/E orientation and self-worth with hearing or deaf students. In the present study, approximately 22% of the variance in self-worth scores was accounted for by the I/E dimensions. The only dimension which significantly predicted self-worth scores was internal criteria. Students who independently assess their success or failure in performing school tasks, as opposed to those who rely on external assessments, were more likely to have positive feelings of selfworth. This initial examination of I/E orientation dimensions as predictors of self-worth with deaf students provides additional and novel information for theory development.  Reliability and Validity of the Measures  From the review of the literature, it is obvious that most psychological measures developed for hearing students cannot be used with deaf students without modification of the language and subsequent reliability and validity testing. The reliability and validity  108  testing in the present study indicated that the modified measures were functioning adequately. Internal consistency in both the total scales and subscales provided sufficient support that the students understood the items and answered consistently. Correlations among the subscales showed the same pattern of relationships as reported in the manuals (Harter, 1981; Marsh, 1990). Additional support for the modified self-concept measure was established by finding sex differences among the subscales which were comparable to those previously reported in the literature. As reported by Marsh (1986) and supported in the present study, students' self-perceptions of ability in reading and mathematics were weakly correlated.  (  Validity of the I/E orientation measure was also supported by comparing relationships between perceived scholastic competence and I/E orientation in the present study with those reported by Harter (1981). Although comparison between the two studies is limited because of age differences (the students in the present study were older), one notable difference was the correlation between independent vs. teacher judgment and perceived academic competence. In Harter's study the correlation was close to zero whereas in the present study the correlation was negative. Compared with hearing students, deaf students with high perceptions of academic competence rely more heavily on their teachers' opinions and judgment of what to do in school than they do on their own. One possible explanation is that deaf students may be accustomed to a greater degree of imposed external control in school situations and thereby do not have as much confidence in their own ability to make judgments regarding decisions in the classroom as do hearing students. Future research, examining these relationships between deaf and hearing students matched by age, would clarify whether, in fact, these differences exist in a larger population. Overall, the data provided sufficient support for the internal consistency and validity of the two modified measures. With the paucity of appropriate psychological measures for use with a deaf population, these two modified measures and the sign language videos of the items add to the limited resources available to researchers and psychologists working in this field.  109  Implications  Over the past twenty years, there has been a move toward increased integration for all "special" students. Among many members of the Deaf community, parents of deaf children, and educators, this trend has caused great concern as some segregated schools have closed and more deaf students have been placed in mainstream settings. Resource programs continue to provide special and integrated class options and the new congregated setting also has opportunities for both types of classes. Previous research reported that mainstreamed students feel isolated and rejected (Foster, 1989), and that students in segregated settings have more positive self-concepts than those in mainstream settings (Craig, 1965; Farrugia & Austin, 1980). Despite the changes in educational settings, communication approaches, and social attitudes toward deafness, no recent research is available to examine the effects of these changes on students' self-concepts and I/E orientation, leaving those who determine policies with little or no empirical data on which to base their decisions. The present study provides information to guide future research. Although the purpose of the present study was to examine differences among four school settings (segregated, congregated, resource, and itinerant), due to the small number of students from itinerant settings who participated, most of the results focussed on the other three settings. A multi-dimensional measure of self-concept was used, thereby providing information specific to the eight dimensions (physical appearance and ability, peer and parent relations, reading, mathematics, general school, and self-worth). Analyses were conducted to see if there were significant differences among the school settings and among groups of students integrated for differing number of classes. Additional analyses identified the relative importance of school factors (each school setting and degree of integration) in predicting self-concept scores. From these analyses, advantages of the school settings and statistically significant differences among school settings were identified. Despite the similarity between the congregated and resource settings, students in the resource setting had significantly higher scores in mathematics and general school selfconcept than those in the congregated setting. The new congregated setting offers both academic and social integration with hearing students, which, judging by the overall positive scores of the resource students, appear to be beneficial. The general school self-  110  concept differences between these settings may be explained by what appears to have been a negative impact on the students when they moved from a relatively sheltered segregated school to the new facility where the majority of students are hearing. Until future research is conducted with participants from the congregated setting, who have attended the program from early elementary, no conclusions should be drawn regarding the benefits or drawbacks of this new school setting. Subsequent analyses examining the relative importance school factors in predicting self-concept dimension scores identified advantages of attending each of the school settings and experiencing integration in classes with hearing students. Although the results were not statistically significant, attending the segregated setting predicted relatively higher scores in peer relations, physical appearance, and self-worth, than attending the other two settings. Having a peer group which was deaf, rather than hearing and deaf, students in the segregated setting compared themselves with like peers and interacted with students who had similar communication needs. Degree of integration and opportunities for social interaction with hearing students varied among the students in the different settings and, because self-concept develops through social interaction and comparison, this variable was examined for its effect on selfconcept. Degree of integration was relatively more important than school setting in predicting higher reading self-concept scores. As well, deaf students who were integrated in English classes had significantly higher reading self-concept scores than those who had no English integration. This may be explained by the importance placed on reading abilities and the probability that the integrated students had higher reading levels than the students in special classes, rather than as a result of attending regular English classes. I/E orientation is affected by school factors at the classroom level, such as task difficulty, evaluation, use of rewards, and degree of student autonomy. Internal criteria, the dimension of I/E orientation which measures students' abilities to independently assess their success and failure in academic tasks, was significantly more internal among students in the resource setting than among those in the segregated and congregated settings. In predicting scores of both subscales in the informational domain (independent judgment and internal criteria), the number of subjects integrated had a greater effect than school setting attended. Students who were integrated in classes with hearing peers had a more internal orientation toward schoolwork. Although more research examining teaching style in classes  Ill  for deaf and hearing students would be beneficial to clarify this issue, one explanation for these differences is that teachers in the small "special classes" for deaf students may impose more control over their students' learning than do those who teach large groups of hearing students. Having fewer opportunities to experience independent learning, the students' orientation to school work becomes external and they do not develop the skills to independently assess their success and failure, nor feel confident about their abilities to make decisions regarding schoolwork. A l l students, hearing and deaf, benefit from a teaching approach which encourages independent learning. Teaching students specific strategies for solving academic tasks by "talking through" the processes and steps involved until the students internalize the language will increase their internal orientation. However, deaf students may need more explicit teaching than do hearing students in order to internalize this language. Teacher training programs should provide prospective teachers with background knowledge on the importance of these metacognitive skills, as well as specific suggestions on how to teach their students to develop this style of strategic learning. Other variables which were examined in the present study were parental hearing loss and method of communication. Although the sample of students with deaf parents was small, comparison of their self-concepts and I/E orientation with those of students who have hearing parents yielded no significant differences. If this finding is supported by future research with larger samples, it paints a positive picture for deaf children of hearing parents. It is often argued that these children, compared with those who have deaf parents, are at a great disadvantage. A possible explanation for the results is the increase in early intervention programs with hearing parents. Although this explanation for the lack of differences between students with deaf vs. hearing parents needs further investigation with larger groups of students, the overall benefits of early intervention to both children and their parents should not be underestimated. Parents of deaf children need to have sufficient opportunities for early intervention so that they learn appropriate methods of communicating with their deaf children. One of the most contentious issues in the field of education of the deaf students is the impact of communication method on students' emotional well-being and academic success, with both sides (those supporting oralism and those supporting sign communication) steadfastly defending their positions. The preliminary results of the present  112  study suggest that neither method of communication has superiority over the other in terms of its effect on self-concept or I/E orientation. What may be more important than method of communication is competence in communication, be it through voice or sign. In summary, while the debate over appropriate school settings for deaf students continues, those who develop policies and programs need to take into consideration the effects of academic and social integration. Students who are integrated with hearing students vs. those in special classes, rely more on their own than their teachers' judgment and are better able to independently assess their success and failures in academic tasks. Being able to independently assess success and failure is highly predictive of positive selfworth and important to academic success. In terms of school settings, resource settings provide deaf students with opportunities for socializing with deaf and hearing peers and have academic benefits, while segregated settings are valuable in providing a social environment where students communicate comfortably with other deaf peers. Whether these students are as prepared for integration into the hearing world upon graduation as those in resource settings is a question yet to be answered.  Limitations of the Research  The population of deaf students is small and diverse, and, therefore finding large samples to participate in research studies is difficult. With the relatively small sample size and low power in the present study, it is possible that some additional differences among groups were not identified. Although letters of permission were sought from parents of more than 50 students in itinerant settings the number who responded was minimal. The school district administration did not allow the researcher to contact the parents and when the students were matched for hearing status, this group virtually disappeared. Therefore, many of the analyses were limited to students in the segregated, congregated, and resource settings. School administrators were asked to identify students with hearing parents, severe to profound hearing losses, and no additional educationally handicapping conditions to participate in the study. However, 17 students who did not meet the criteria (hearing losses less than severe and/or deaf parents) participated and so analyses of the primary research questions were conducted by deleting these cases. Because the data on these students provided an opportunity to examine these factors as they relate to self-concept and I/E  113  orientation, secondary analyses of differences as a function of these variables were conducted. However, the small sample size limits the generalizability of these secondary results to a larger population. The complexity of defining students' comparison groups was evident in the present study and although there were indications of whom the students were comparing themselves with, no clear definition existed. Collecting data on comparison groups by asking the students with whom they compare themselves might prove useful, but difficult for the students to answer because comparison groups might vary among dimensions. Explanation of group differences in the I/E orientation measure was limited to assumptions, based on previous research and theory. In particular, the question of possible differences in teaching style between teachers of hearing vs. deaf students can only be hypothesized. More data on teaching style (e.g., degree of imposed control, student autonomy, use of reward systems) would be required to explain the differences between students taught in regular classes and those taught in special classes for deaf students.  Future Research  With no other current research examining self-concept and I/E orientation of deaf students available, the analyses in this study should be replicated with other groups of deaf students attending similar school settings. In particular, because it was not anticipated in the initial design of this study, the significance testing for parental hearing status and degree of student hearing loss was conducted with small groups and, therefore, needs replication before generalizing to the population. Including information regarding the amount of early intervention for hearing parents would provide a better understanding of whether this factor plays a significant role in closing the previously identified gap between the self-concept of deaf children with hearing and deaf parents. From a theoretical perspective, future research with path analysis or structural equation modelling may explain causal relationships among I/E orientation, self-concept dimensions and self-worth. The inclusion of family factors, such as parental child-rearing attitudes and communication ease between parents and children, would further inform the nature of causal relationships. In their research looking at the effects of school setting on academic self-concept,  114  Marsh and Parker (1984) identified the importance of classmates as an academic comparison group. Unlike this study, their groups were matched by ability level. Because most deaf students who are integrated for academic subjects have higher ability levels than those in special classes, finding a sufficiently large matched sample would probably be difficult. However, if matched groups were located, the "Big-Fish-Little-Pond" effect could be tested with deaf students. In the present study, it appeared that deaf students in integrated English classes had higher achievement levels that those in special classes and the self-concepts of both groups reflected their actual ability levels. Collecting data on the reading achievement levels of the students integrated and in special classes would be useful to test this hypothesis. The complexity of social comparison, especially when examining differences among groups of students who spend time with both deaf and hearing peers, became obvious from the analyses of differences between those integrated for academic subjects and those attending "special" classes. Although students may have difficulty clearly identifying their comparison groups for academic and social dimensions, it would be worthwhile, in future studies, to ask them this information. To better understand the effect of integration on criteria orientation, differences between teachers in regular vs. special classes, especially degree of teacher control vs. autonomous student learning, should be examined in future research. The comparison among school settings identified disadvantages of attending the congregated setting over the resource setting. These results were unexpected because both settings have a mixed deaf and hearing student population and opportunities for academic integration. The relatively recent development of the congregated setting and the change for the students from being segregated to being placed with a large hearing population may have negatively affected their self-perceptions. Therefore, a longitudinal study, including students who have been in the congregated setting from kindergarten onwards and comparing their scores with those of students in the other two settings, will eliminate these possibly confounding effects. In summary, this study has presented initial results to better understand the relationships among self-concept, self-worth, and I/E orientation of deaf secondary students and the effects of school settings and academic integration on these psychological constructs. Although more research should be conducted with this special population to see if these results can be replicated and to investigate the new research questions which arose from the analysis, the present study does provide new empirical data of use to both  115  administrators and researchers in the field of education of deaf students. The present study also adds to self-concept theory, by providing new information on the relative importance of self-concept and I/E dimensions as predictors of self-worth, and the relationships between perceptions of scholastic competence and dimensions of I/E orientation with a sample of deaf students. The two modified measures with sign language video support will add to the limited supply of psychological measures available for use with deaf students.  116  REFERENCES Altshuler, K . Z . , Deming, W.E., Vollenweider, J., Rainer, J.D., & Tendler, R. (1976). Impulsivity and profound early deafness: A cross cultural inquiry. American Annals of the Deaf. 121. 331-345. Amabile, T. (1983). The psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Balow, B., Fulton, H . & Peploe, E. (1971). Reading comprehension skills among hearing-impaired adolescents. Volta Review, 73, 113-119. Battle, J. (1977). Test-retest reliability of the Canadian self esteem inventory for children. Psychology Reports, 38, 1343-1345. Benware, C , & Deci, E. (1984). Quality of learning with an active vs. passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21. 755-765. Bialer, I. (1960). Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded and normal children. Ann Arbour: University Microfilms. Bledsoe, J.C. (1967). Self concepts of children and their intelligence, achievements, interests and anxiety. Child Education,43, 436-438. Bodner, B. & Johns, J. (1977). Personality and hearing impairment: A study in locus of control. The Volta Review, 79. 362-372. Borkowski, J.G. & Muthurkrishna, N . (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom: "Working models" and effective teaching strategy. In M . Pressley, K . R . Harris, & J.T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 477-501). Toronto: Academic Press. Bragman, R. (1982). Review of research on test instruction for deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 143 , 337-346. Byrne, B. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomonological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427-456. Byrne, B . M . (1988). Measuring adolescent self-concept: Factor validity and equivalency of the of the SDQ-3 across gender. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 23, 361-375. Cates, J. (1991). Self-concept in hearing and prelingual, profoundly deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 136, 352-359. Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies. (1989). Annual survey of hearing impaired children and youth, 1988-1989. Washington, D . C : Gallaudet University. Clarke, B. R., & Stewart, D. (1986). Reflections on language programs for the hearing impaired. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 153-165. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed. pp ). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chomsky, N . (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Javanovich.  117  Cooley, C H . (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W . H . Freeman. Craig, H. (1965). A sociometric investigation of the self-concept of the deaf child. American Annals of the Deaf, 110. 456-470. Crawford, P. (1972). North York self-concept inventory: A preliminary set of norms and technical analysis. North York: Board of Education Research Report. Day, H . , Fusfield, I. & Pintner, P. (1928). A survey of American schools for the deaf 1924-1925. Washington, D . C : National Research Council. deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York: Irvington. Deci, E., Nezlak, J., &Sheinman, L . (1981). Characteristics of the rewarded and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111. Deci, E . L . & Ryan, R . M . (1992) The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A. Boggiano & T. Pittman (Eds.) Achievement and motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowaliby, F.J., & Saur, R. (1984). Locus of control characteristics of mainstreamed students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the New England Educational Research Organization, Rockport, M E . Duffy, J.T. (1987). Ten reasons for allowing deaf children exposure to A S L . (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. 296489) Elliot, L . , & Vegely, A . (1969). Effect of reward on speed of coding for normal and hearing impaired children. Psychonomic Science, 15,73-74. Erting, C. (1978). Language policy and deaf ethnicity in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 19, 139-152. Farrugia, D., & Austin, G. (1980). A study of socio-emotional adjustment patterns of hearing-impaired students in different educational settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 535-541. Fitts, W. H . (1965). Tennessee self-concept scale manual. Nashville, Tennessee: Counsellor Recordings and Tests, Department of Mental Health. Foster, S. (1989). Social alienation and peer identification: A study of the social construction of deafness. Human Organization, 48, 226-235. Frisina, R. (1974). Report of the committee to redefine deaf and hard of hearing for educational purposes. Washington, D.C. (mimeo). Gannon, J.R. (1981). Deaf heritage: A narrative history of deaf America. Silver Spring, M D . : National Association of the Deaf. Garrison, W. & Tesch, S. (1978). Self-concept and deafness: A literature review. The Volta Review. 80, 457-467.  118 Garrison, W., Tesch, S., & DeCaro. (1978). A n assessment of self-concept levels among post-secondary deaf adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 968-975. Gibson-Harman, K . , & Austin, G. (1985). A revised form of the Tennessee selfconcept scale for use with deaf and hard of hearing persons. American Annals of the Deaf, 130. 218-225. Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K . D . (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1986). School effects. In M . C . Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 570-602). New York: MacMillan. Gregory, J.F., Shanahan, T., & Wahlberg, H.J. (1984). Mainstreamed hearing impaired high school seniors: A reanalysis of a national survey. American Annals of the Deaf, 129, 11-16. Hansford, B.C. & Hattie, J.A. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement / performance measures. Review of Educational Research, 52, 123-142. Harris, R.I. (1978). Impulse control in deaf children: Research and clinical issues. In L . Liben (Ed.), Deaf children: Developmental perspectives (pp. 137-156). New York: Academic Press. Harter, S. (1980a). A model of mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, 14, 215-243. Harter, S. (1980b) A scale of intrinsic vs. extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Manual. Denver, Co.: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic vs. extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17. 300-312. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development. 53, 87-97. Harter, S. (1983). Socialization, personality, and social development. In M . Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed. pp. 276-367). New Y o r k : Wiley and Sons. Harter, S. (1985). The self-perception profile for children: Revision of the perceived competence scale for children: Manual. Colorado: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A . Greenwald (Eds.) Psychological perspectives on the self, (Vol. 3, pp. 137-181). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harter, S. (1987). The determinants and mediational role of global self-worth in children. In N . Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporary issues in developmental psychology (pp. 219-242). New York: Wiley.  119  Harter, S. (1988).Developmental processes in the construction of the self. In T.D. Yawkey and J.E Johnson (Eds.) Integrative processes and socialization: Early to middle childhood (pp. 45-78). London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Harter, S. (1990a). Issues in the assessment of the self-concept of children and adolescents. In A . M . L a Greca (Ed.) Through the eyes of the child: Obtaining self reports from children and adolescents (pp 292-325). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harter, S. (1990b). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds..) Competence considered, (pp. 67-97). New Haven: Yale University Press. Harter, S., Silon, E. & Pike, R.G. (1980). Perceived competence, intrinsic vs. extrinsic orientation, and anxiety in the educable mentally retarded child: A comparison of mainstreaming and self-contained classrooms. Unpublished manuscript., University of Denver. Hayes-Scott, F (1987). Hearing-impaired college students' academic motivation, college degree plans, and locus of control- A relationship? Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 21, 29-32. Hotchkiss, D. (1989). Demographic aspects of hearing impairment: Questions and answers (2nd ed.). Washington, D . C : Gallaudet Research Institute. Humphrey, J., & Acorn, B. (1995). So you want to be an interpreter ? Amarillo, T X : H & H Publishers. Hymel, S. (personal communication, February, 1994). Israelite, N . , Ewoldt, C , & Hoffmeister, R.( 1992).Bilingual/bicultural education for deaf and hard of hearing students. A review of the literature on the effects of native sign language on majority language acquisition. Ontario : Queen's Printer. James, W. (1890).Principles of psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Jamieson, J. (1994). The impact of hearing impairment. In J. Katz, (Ed.) Handbook of clinical audiology (4th ed. pp. 596-615). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Jamieson, J. & Pederson, E. (1993). Deafness and mother-child interaction: Scaffolded instruction and the learning of problem-solving skills. Early Development and Parenting, 2, 229-242. Jersild, A.T. (1965). Social and individual origins of the self. In D.E. Hamachek (Ed.), The self in growth, teaching, and learning (pp. 196-208). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Joiner, L . , Erickson, E., Crittendon, J. & Stevenson, V . (1968). The Journal of Special Education, 3, 425-431. Kelly, A . B . (1989). Baltimore's deaf senior citizens. Unpublished manuscript, Gallaudet University, Department of Linguistics, Washington , D.C. Kluwin, T. (1992). Considering the efficacy of mainstreaming from the classroom perspective. In T. Kluwin, D . Moores, & M . Gaustad (Eds.), Toward effective public school programs for deaf students, (pp. 175-193). New York: Teachers' College Press.  120  Kluwin, T., & Gaustad, M . (1992). How family factors influence school achievement. In T. Kluwin, D. Moores, & M . Gaustad (Eds.), Toward effective public school programs for deaf students, (pp. 66-82). New York: Teachers' College Press. Koelle, W. & Convey, J. (1982). The prediction of achievement of deaf adolescents from self-concept and locus of control measures. American Annals of the Deaf, 127, 769-779. LaBenne, W.D., & Greene, B.I. (1969). Educational implications of self-concept theory. Pacific Palisades, C A : Goodyear. Lambert, M . , & Bower, E. (1979). A picture game. Monterey, CA.: Publishers Test Service. Lane, H . (1988). Is there a psychology of the deaf ? Exceptional Children, 55,719. Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Island Press. Leigh, I., & Stinson, M . (1991). Social environments, self-perceptions and identity of hearing-impaired adolescents. The Volta Review, 93, 7-22. Levine, E. (1965). Studies in psychological evaluation of the deaf. The Volta Review. 69, 496-512. Lipsitt, L.P. (1958). A self concept scale for children and its relationship to the children's form of the M A S . Child Development, 29. 463-469. Loeb, R., & Sarigiani, (1986). The impact of hearing impairment on the selfperceptions of children. Tlie_VcltaRewe^ Marsh, H.W. (1986). Self-description questionnaire manual & research monograph. New Y o r k : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Marsh, H.W. (1990a). Confirmatory factor analysis of multi trait-multi method data: The construct validation of multidimensional self-concept responses.Journal of Personality, 58, 661-691. Marsh, H.W. (1990b) Self description questionnaire -1 manual. University of Western Sydney, MacArthur. Marsh, H.W. (1991). Failure of high ability schools to deliver academic benefits commensurate with their students' ability levels. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 445-480. Marsh, H.W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35-42. Marsh, H. W. (1994). Using the national longitudinal study of 1988 to evaluate theoretical models of self-concept: The self-description questionnaire. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 439-456. Marsh, H.W., Cairnes, L., Relich, J., Barnes, J., & DeBus, R. (1984). The relationship between dimensions of self-attribution and dimensions of self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 3-32.  121  Marsh, H.W., & Gouvernet, P. (1989). Multi-dimensional self-concepts and perceptions of control. Construct validation responses by children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81. 57-69. Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar,D. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of multi-trait multi-method matrices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 231-248. Marsh, H.W., & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self-description questionnaire III: The validity of multi-dimensional self-concept ratings of late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153-174. Marsh, H . , & Parker, J.W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213-231. Marsh, H.W., & Smith, I.D. (1982). Multi-trait multi-method analyses of two selfconcept instruments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,430-440. Marsh, H.W., Walker, R., & DeBus, R. (1991). Subject-specific components of academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16. 331345. Mason, D. (1994). Bilingiual / bicultural education is appropriate. A C E H I Journal, Occasional Monograph Series #2. Maxon, A . , Brackett, D., & van den Berg, S. (1991). Self-perceptions of socialization: The effects of hearing status, age and gender. The Volta Review, 93, 7-17. McGraw, K., & McCullers, J. (1979) Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285294. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meadow, K . (1983). Meadow-Kendall social-emotional assessment inventories for deaf and hearing-impaired students. Washington, D . C : Gallaudet Research Institute. Meadow, K.P., & Meadow, L. (1971). Changing role perceptions for parents of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 38, 21-27. Meadow-Orlans, K . (1987). Understanding deafness: Socialization of children and youth. In P . C Higgins & J.E. Nash (Eds.) Understanding deafness socially. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Meadow-Orlans, K . (1990). Research on developmental aspects of deafness. In D. Moores & K . Meadow-Orlans (Eds.) Educational and developmental aspects of deafness (pp. 283-299). Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press. Moores, D. (1992). A n historical perspective on school placement. In T. Kluwin, D. Moores, & M . Gaustad, (Eds.) Toward effective public school programs for deaf students, (pp 7-29). New York: Teacher's College Press,  122 Moores, D., Cerney, B., & Garcia, M . (1990). School placement and least restrictive environment. In D. Moores & K.P. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.) Educational and developmental aspects of deafness (pp. 115-137). Washington, D . D . : Gallaudet University Press. Moores, D., & Kluwin, T. (1986). Issues in school placement. In A . Schildroth & M . Kartchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America (pp 105-123). San Diego, CA.: College Hill Press. Moores, D., & Sweet, C. (1990). Factors predictive of school achievement. In D. Moores & K . P. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.). Educational and developmental aspects of deafness (pp. 154-201).Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press. Nicholls, J. (1976). The development of the concept of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814. Nicholls, J. (1979). Quality and inequality in intellectual development: The role of motivation in education. American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1083. Nicholls, J. (1983). Conception of ability and achievement motivation: A theory and its implications for education. In S. Paris, G. Olsen & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 211-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nowicki, S. & Strickland, B.R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-155. Oblowitz, N . , Green, L., & de V. Heyns. (1991). A self-concept scale for the hearing impaired. The Volta Review, 93, 19-29. O'Donnell, A . , Moores, D., & Kluwin, T. (1992). Identifying contributions of school factors to the success of deaf students. In T. Kluwin, D. Moores & M . Gaustad (Eds.), Toward effective public school programs for deaf students (pp 194-216). New York: Teachers College Press. Padden, C. (1980). The deaf community and the culture of deaf people. In C. Baker & R. Battison (Eds.) Sign language and the deaf community. Silver Spring, M D : National Association for the Deaf. Paul, P., & Gromely, C. (1986). Is reading proficiency in L l really necessary for reading proficiency in L2 especially when L l has no written from?: A perspective on A S L and English. Paper presented at the University of Delaware Symposium on Language. Pavlov, LP. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press. Phillips, D. (1984). Socialization of perceived academic competence among highly competent children. Child Development, 58, 1308-1320. Piers, E.V., & Harris, D. (1964). Age and other correlates of self-concept in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 91-95. Rawlings, B . , & Jensema, C. (1977). Two studies of the families of hearing impaired children. Series R, Number 5. Washington, D . C : Gallaudet University, Office of Demographic Studies.  123  Reagan, T. (1990). Cultural considerations in the education of deaf children. In D. Moores & K.P. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.), Educational and developmental aspects of deafness, (pp. 73-85). Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press. Reich, C , Hambleton, D., & Houldin, B. (1977). The integration of hearing impaired children in regular classrooms, American Annals of the Deaf, 122, 534-543. Rogers, C R . (1951). Client centered therapy. New Y o r k : Houghton Mifflin. Rosenberg, M . (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609). Ryan, M.R., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761. Sarfaty, L. & Katz, S. (1978). The self-concept and adjustment patterns of hearingimpaired pupils in different school settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 438-441. Schein, J.D. (1987). The demography of deafness. In P . C Higgins and J.E. Nash (Eds.), Understanding deafness socially, (pp. 3-28). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Schein, J.D. (1989). At home among strangers. Washington, D.C. : Gallaudet University Press. Schildroth, A . N . , & Hotto, S.A. (1994). Inclusion or exclusion ? Deaf students and the inclusion movement. American Annals of the Deaf, 139, 239-240. Schlesinger, H.S. (1978).The effects of deafness on childhood deafness: A n Ericksonian perspective. In L. Liben (Ed.), Deaf children: Developmental perspectives. New York: Academic Press. Schlesinger, H . S. (1985). Deafness, mental health and language. In F. Powell, T. Finitzo-Hieber, S. Friel-Patti, & D. Henderson (Eds.), Education of the hearing impaired child. ( pp 103-116). San Diego: College Hill Press. Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., & Stanton, G.C. (1976). Self-Concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46,407-441. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. New York: Macmillan. Stevenson, H.W., & Newman, R.S. (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes in mathematics and reading. Child Development, 57, 646-659. Stewart, D. (1993). Bi-Bi to M C E ? American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 331-337. Stinson, M . (1974). Maternal reinforcement and help and the achievement motive in hearing and hearing-impaired children. Developmental Psychology, 10, 348-353. Stinson, M . (1984). Research on motivation in educational settings: Implications for hearing impaired students. Journal of Special Education, 18, 177-198.  124  Stinson, M . (1992). Motivation related perceptions and communication ease as predictors of academic achievement in deaf adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, San Francisco, C A . Stinson, M . (1994). Affective and social development. In R. Nowell & L . Marshank (Eds.). Understanding deafness and the rehabilitation process (pp. 51-82). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stipek, D. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon. Stipek, D., & Weisz, J. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 51. 101-137. Stott, D. H . (1971). Bristol social adjustment guides manual: The social adjustment of children (4th Ed.). London: University of London Press. Strong, M . , & Charlson, E.S. (1987). Simultaneous communication: Are teachers attempting an impossible task? American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 272-275. Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Svartholm, K . (1993). Bilingual education for the deaf in Sweden. Sign Language Studies, 81. Linstock Press. Wahlberg, H.J., & Uguroglu, M.E. (1980). Motivation and achievement: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 16,375-389. Warren, C. & Hassenstab, S. (1986). Self-concept of severely to profoundly hearing-impaired children. The Volta Review, 88, 289-295. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25. v  West, C.K., & Fish, J.A. (1973). Relationship between self-concept and school achievement: A survey of empirical investigations (Final report). Urbana, IL: National Institute of Education. White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-323. Williams, D., & Darbyshire, J. (1982). Diagnosis and deafness: A study of family responses and needs. The Volta Review, 84, 24-30. Wolff, A . B . , & Harkins, J.E. (1986). Multi handicapped students. In A . N . Schildroth & M . A . Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America. San Diego: College Hill Press. Wolk, S. (1985). The attributional beliefs of hearing impaired students concerning academic success and failure. American Annals of the Deaf, 130, 32-38. Wood, D., Wood, H , Griffiths, A . , & Howarth, I. (1986). Teaching and talking with deaf children. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Yachnik, M . (1986). Self-esteem in deaf adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 131, 305-309.  125 Appendix A - Modified Self-Description Questionnaire I  Administration Instructions - for Students Using Manual Communication  1. Tell the students their responses will be kept confidential and not made public. 2. Give a pencil, eraser and copy of the questionnaire to each student. Help them to fill in name, gender, school, age,teacher and date. 3. Tell them: This is not a test. This is a chance to think about yourself. There are no right or wrong answers. Everyone will have different answers. Your answers will tell how you feel about yourself. Do not show them to anyone. We will watch some sentences on a video. After each sentence there will be a break. You can read the sentence on your paper and think if it is the same as you. Then pick the best answer and put a circle around it: NO= F A L S E , NOT T H E S A M E A S M E no = a little false, a little not like me sometimes = sometimes the same as me yes = a little true, a little the same as me YES = T R U E , REALLY THE SAME AS M E First we will do some examples.The first example is "I like to read comic books". A student thinks this is really the same as him, because he loves to read comic books. He circled YES. Now we will look at the video and you will circle the best answers. If you have questions, we can stop the video and I will help you. Start the video. After doing the five examples, stop the video and check if the students understand what to do. Then tell them: We will look at each sentence on the video, then you will have time to read the same sentence and put a circle around your answer. If you have a problem, leave the answer blank and I will help you later. If you want to change an answer, cross it out and circle the right answer. Only circle one answer for each sentence. Do not show your answers to anyone. Be careful to answer the right sentence. If more than one student seems to be having problems understanding a sentence, stop the video and explain it to them, but try not to change the sentence too much. When the video is finished, tell the students to finish any answers they left blank. Make sure all answers are done.  126  II  Administration Instructions - for Students Using Aural/Oral Communication  1. Tell the students their responses will be kept confidential and not made public. 2. Give a pencil, eraser and copy of the questionnaire to each student. Help them to fill in name, gender, school, age,teacher and date. 3. Tell them: This is not a test. This is a chance to think about yourself. There are no right or wrong answers. Everyone will have different answers. Your answers will tell how you feel about yourself. Do not show them to anyone. I will read some sentences to you. After each sentence you can read it on your paper and think if it is the same as you. Then pick the best answer and put acircle around it: • NO= F A L S E , NOT T H E S A M E AS M E no = a little false, a little not like me sometimes = sometimes the same as me yes = a little true, a little the same as me Y E S = T R U E , R E A L L Y T H E S A M E AS M E First we will do some examples.The first example is "I like to read comic books". A student thinks this is really the same as him, because he loves to read comic books. He circled YES. Now I will read the other sentences to you and you will circle the best answers. If you have questions, we can stop and I will help you. After doing the five examples, stop and check if the students understand what to do. Then tell them: I will read each sentence then you will have time to read the same sentence and put a circle around your answer. If you have a problem, leave the answer blank and I will help you later. If you want to change an answer, cross it out and circle the right answer. Only circle one answer for each sentence. Do not show your answers to anyone. Be careful to answer the right sentence. If more than one student seems to be having problems understanding a sentence, stop and explain it to them, but try not to change the sentence too much. When the test is finished, tell the students to finish any answers they left blank. Make sure all answers are done.  Self-Description Questionnaire (modified) Your Name  Circle One:  School:  • •'  Boy  Girl  Age:  Teacher:  '  Date:  This is not a test.  The questions are about you, your friends and your family.  There are no right or wrong answers. Read the sentences and pick one answer to show how you feel: NO = FALSE  no = a little false  sometimes = sometimes false, sometimes true yes = a little true  YES= T R U E  EXAMPLES: 1.1 like to read comic books.  1. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  2.1 like to clean up my room.  2. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  3.1 like to watch T.V.  3. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  4.1 like to play alone.  4. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  5.1 like to swim.  5. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  DO NOT SHOW YOUR ANSWERS T O OTHER STUDENTS.  128  1.1 am good looking.  1. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  2.1 am good at all SCHOOL WORK.  2. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  3.1 can run fast.  3. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  4.1 get good marks in READING.  4. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  5. M y parents understand me.  5. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  6.1 hate mathematics.  6. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  7.1 have lots of friends.  7. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  8.1 like the way I look.  8. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  9.1 like to work in all SCHOOL WORK.  9. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  10.1 like to run and play hard.  10. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  11.1 like R E A D I N G .  11. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  12. M y parents are often unhappy and disappointed with what I do.  12. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  13. Work in mathematics is easy for me.  13. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  14.1 make friends easily.  14. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  15.1 have a nice face.  15. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  16.1 get good marks in all SCHOOL WORK.  16. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  17.1 hate sports and games.  17. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  18.1 am good at READING.  18. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  19.1 like my parents.  19. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  20.1 look forward to mathematics.  20. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  21. Most kids have more friends than I do.  21. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  22.1 am a nice looking person.  22. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  23.1 hate all SCHOOL WORK.  23. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES'  24.1 enjoy sports and games.  24. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  25.1 am interested in READING.  25. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  26. M y parents like me.  26. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  27.1 get good marks in mathematics.  27. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  129 28.1 get along with kids easily.  28. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  29.1 do lots of important things.  29. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  30.1 am ugly.  30. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  31.1 learn things fast in all SCHOOL WORK.  31. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  32.1 have good muscles.  32. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  33.1 am dumb at READING.  33. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  34. If I have children, I want to raise them like my parents raised me.  34. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  35.1 am interested in mathematics.  35. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  36.1 am easy to like.  36. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  37. Overall, I am no good.  37. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  38. Other kids think I am good looking.  38. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  39.1 am interested in all SCHOOL WORK.  39. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  40.1 am good at sports.  40. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  41.1 enjoy doing work in READING.  41. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  42. M y parents and I spend a lot of time together.  42. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  43.1 learn things fast in mathematics.  43. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  44. Other kids want me to be their friend.  44. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  45. In general, I like myself.  45. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  46.1 have a good looking body.  46. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  47.1 am dumb in all SCHOOL WORK.  47. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  48.1 can run far.  48. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  49. Work in R E A D I N G is easy for me.  49. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  50. M y parents are easy to talk to.  50. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  51.1 like mathematics.  51. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  52.1 have more friends than most other kids. 52. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  53. Overall, I am proud of myself.  no  sometimes  yes  YES  53. NO  130  54.1 am better looking than most of my friends.  54. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  55.1 look forward to all SCHOOL WORK.  55. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  56.1 am a good athlete.  56. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  57.1 look forward to READING.  57. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  58.1 get along well with my parents.  58. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  59.1 am good at mathematics.  59. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  60.1 am popular with kids of my own age.  60. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  61.1 do everything wrong.  61. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  62.1 have nice nose, eyes and hair.  62. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  63. A l l S C H O O L W O R K is easy for me.  63. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  64.1 can throw a ball far.  64. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  65.1 hate R E A D I N G .  65. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  66. M y parents and I have a lot of fun together.  66. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  67.1 can do things as well as other people.  67. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  no  sometimes  yes  YES  \  /  68.1 like mathematics work.  68. NO  69. Most other kids like me.  69. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  70. Other people think I am a good person.  70. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  71.1 like all SCHOOL WORK.  71. NO  no  sometimes  yes  YES  72. A lot of things about me are good  72. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  73.1 learn things fast in READING.  73. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  74.1 am as good as most other people.  74. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  75.1 am dumb at mathematics.  75. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  76.1 do things well.  76. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  131  Appendix B -Modified Self-Description Questionnaire-1 and Sign Gloss (Modifications are presented below original items. A S L gloss is in italics.) EXAMPLES: 1.1 like to read comic books. me like read comics  1. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  2.1 like to clean up my room. me like clean-up my room  2. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  3.1 like to watch T.V. me like watch t.v.  3. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  4.1 like to play alone. me like play alone  4. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  5.1 like to swim. me like swim  5. N O  no  sometimes  yes  YES  TEST I T E M S : 1.1 am good looking. 1. me good looking 2.1 am good at all SCHOOL SUBJECTS I am good at all SCHOOL WORK. 2. me good school work 3.1 can run fast. 3. me can run run fast 4.1 get good marks in READING. 4. me get good marks read read 5. M y parents understand me. 5. my mom dad me understand 6.1 hate mathematics. 6. me hate mathematics hate 7.1 have lots of friends. 7. me have lots lots friends 8.1 like the way I look. 8. me like my looks 9.1 enjoy doing work in all SCHOOL SUBJECTS I like to work in all SCHOOL WORK. 9. me like work all school work 10.1 like to run and play hard. 10. me like run run play play  11.1 like R E A D I N G . 11.me like read read 12. M y parents are usually unhappy and disappointed with what I do. M y parents are often unhappy and disappointed with what I do. 12. my mom dad often not happy disappointed me do 13. Work in mathematics is easy for me. 13. mathematics work easy for me 14.1 make friends easily. 14. me make friends easy easy 15.1 have a pleasant looking face. I have a nice face. 15. me have nice face 16.1 get good marks in all SCHOOL SUBJECTS. I get good marks in all SCHOOL WORK. 16. me get good marks school work 17.1 hate sports and games. 17. me hate sports games hate 18.1 am good at READING. 18. me good read read 19.1 like my parents. 19. me like my mom dad 20.1 look forward to mathematics. 20. me look-forward mathematics 21. Most kids have more friends than I do. 21. most kids (there) more friends than me alone 22.1 am a nice looking person. 22. me nice looking face body 23.1 hate all SCHOOL SUBJECTS. I hate all SCHOOL WORK. 23. me hate all schoolwork hate 24.1 enjoy sports and games. 24. me enjoy sports games 25.1 am interested in READING. 25. me really interested read read 26. M y parents like me. 26. my mom dad like me 27.1 get good marks in mathematics. 27. me good marks mathematics  133  28.1 get along with kids easily. 28. me get-along kids easy 29.1 do lots of important things. 29. me do lots things important 30.1 am ugly. 30. me ugly 31.1 learn things quickly in all SCHOOL SUBJECTS. I learn things fast in all SCHOOL WORK. 31. me learn fast all school work on-on 32.1 have good muscles. 32. me good muscles 33.1 am dumb at READING. 33. me dumb read read 34. If I have children of my own, I want to raise them like my parents raised me. 34. if have children own bring-up same mom dad bring-up me 35.1 am interested in mathematics. 35. me really interested mathematics 36.1 am easy to like. 36. people easy like me 37. Overall, I am no good. 37. general look-me lousy 38. Other kids think I am good looking. 38. other kids think me good-looking 39.1 am interested in all SCHOOL SUBJECTS. I am interested in all SCHOOL WORK. 39. me really interested all school work 40.1 am good at sports. 40. me good sports 41.1 enjoy doing work in READING. 41. me enjoy work read read 42. M y parents and I spend a lot of time together. 42. my mom dad me together lots time 43.1 learn things quickly in mathematics. I learn things fast in mathematics. 43. me learn fast mathematics on-and-on 44. Other kids want me to be their friend. 44. other kids want me-them friends  45. In general, I like being the way I am. In general, I like myself. 45. general like myself 46.1 have a good looking body. 46. me good-looking body 47.1 am dumb in all SCHOOL SUBJECTS. 47. me dumb all school work 48.1 can run a long way without stopping. I can run far. 48. me can run far 49. Work in R E A D I N G is easy for me. 49. work read read easy for me 50. M y parents are easy to talk to. 50. me chat with mom dad easy 51.1 like mathematics. 51. me like mathematics 52.1 have more friends than most other kids. 52. me many friends than other kids 53. Overall, I have a lot to be proud of. Overall, I am proud of myself. 53. general me proud myself 54.1 am better looking than most of my friends. 54. me better-booking than other friends 55.1 look forward to all SCHOOL SUBJECTS. I look forward to all SCHOOL WORK. 55. me look-forward all school work 56.1 am a good athlete 56. me good athlete 57.1 look forward to READING. 57. me look-forward read read 58.1 get along well with my parents. 58. them-me get-along mom dad 59.1 am good at mathematics. 59. me good mathematics 60.1 am popular with kids of my own age. 60. me popular kids same age 61.1 can't do anything right. I do everything wrong. 61. me things mistake mistake me  62.1 have nice features like nose, and eyes and hair. I have a nice nose, eyes and hair. <52. me nice nose, eyes, hair 63. Work in all S C H O O L SUBJECTS is easy for me. A l l S C H O O L W O R K is easy for me. 63. all school work easy for me 64.1 am good at throwing a ball. I can throw a ball far. 64. ball can throw far 65.1 hate R E A D I N G . 65. me hate read read hate 66. M y parents and I have a lot of fun together. 66. mom dad me-them together lots fun 67.1 can do things as well as most other people. 67. me can do things same other people same 68.1 enjoy doing work in mathematics. I like mathematics work. 68. me enjoy work mathematics 69. Most other kids like me. 69. most kids like me 70. Other people think I am a good person. 70. other people think me good person 71.1 like all S C H O O L SUBJECTS. I like all SCHOOL WORK. 71. me like all school work 72. A lot of things about me are good. 72. lots things about me good 73.1 learn things quickly in READING. I learn things fast in READING. 73. me learn fast read read on-on 74.1 am as good as most other people. 74. me good same other people same 75.1 am dumb at mathematics. 75. me dumb mathematics 76. When I do something, I do it well. I do things well. 76. me do things good  136  Appendix C- Control Score Summary Sheet Score Calculation and Summary Name:  .  Individual Scale Scores: Physical Abilities Self  Physical Appearance  Peer Relations  Parent Relations  Reading  Item  Item 3  1  7  5  4  Item 13  2  29  10  8  14  19  11  20  9  45  24  15  28  26  18  27  16  53  32  22  36  34  25  35  31  67  40  38  44  42  41  43  39  70  48  46  52  50  49  51  55  72  56  54  60  58  57  59  63  74  64  62  69  66  73  68  71  76  Item  Item  General General School mathematics  Item  Item Item  Raw Scale Totals:  Total Non Academic: 4 Physical Abilities  Physical Appearance  Peer Relations  =  Parent Relations  Total Non Academic  Total Academic: 3 = Reading  mathematics  General School  Total Academic  Total Self:  + Total Non Academic  .  '=__  ' — 2 =  Total Academic  Total Self  Control Scores: control 1 inconsistency correlated pairs norms:  control 2 control 3 consistency noncontingent uncorrelated pairs summary  control 4 negativity bias  control 5 positivity bias  control 6 individual deviation  137 5% > 23  5% < 7  5% < -2.0  5% > 18  5% < -11  5% < 2.0  Control Score 3: #3  #48  #10  #2 Score 2  #38  #54  #15  #58  #44  . #69  #5  #16  Score 1 Score 3  Control Scores 4  & 5:  Reverse item values: 1=YES 2=yes, 3= sometimes, 4=no, 5=NO #41  #57  #43  #19 x8= physical  #17  #43  #59  #16  #5 x8  #48  #56  #24  #62  #22  #46  #7  #20  #21  peers  #33  read x8  #19  #26  #58  #13  #18  #49  #68  #7  #6  mathematics  #23  school x8 appearance  #30 #9  #71  #26  #31  !=  #12 #3  #56  #54 .  parents  #19 x8 #65  #14  #28  read  #19  #36  x 5 mathematics  #75 #41  #11  #66  #2 x8 #47  #27  #59  #2  #24  #55  #71  #35  #7  #15  #22  #38  #10  -8 Total Absolute Value  Control Score 4 Negativity Bias #60  #69  #52  #24  #11  #25  #13  #26  #35  #51  #9  -  #16 #2 Control Score 1:  school  =_ #64  #59 #58 Control Score 2:,  -8 Total Signed Value  Control Score 5 Positivity Bias  Controi Score 6: Calculate the standard deviation of the 7 scales.  138  Appendix D - Interview Questions: Study 1 1. Was the test easy, sort of easy or hard to do? 2. Did you understand the sentences in the video? Did you understand the sentences on the paper? 3. Did you enjoy, sort of enjoy or not enjoy doing the test ? I want to ask a few questions about how you feel about yourself.Let me know if your answer is yes, sort of or no: 4. Do you enjoy sports and games? 5. Are you a good athlete? 6. Do you think you are good looking? 7. Do other kids think you are good looking? 8. Are your parents easy to talk with? 9. Do you have fun with your parents? 10. Do you like to do work in reading? 11. Are you good at reading? 12. Is mathematics easy for you? 13. Do you like to do work in mathematics? 14. Do you learn fast in all your school work? 15. Do you enjoy all school work? 16. Do you feel proud of yourself? 17. Do you think other people think you are a good person ?  139 Appendix E - Modified Intrinsic/Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom I  Administration Instructions for Students Who Use Signed Communication  1. Tell the students their responses will be kept confidential. 2. Give each student a paper, eraser and pencil. Help them fill in the top information section of the first page. 3. Tell them: Here are some sentences that tell what students like to do in school. There are no right or wrong answers. Students are all different and you will all pick different sentences. We will try the examples together. The first two sentences tell about different students. Show the first example on the video. Think about both sentences and decide which one is like you. Go to the side of the paper with the sentence that is like you. If the sentence is R E A L L Y like you, put a circle around M E . If the sentence is a little like you, put a circle around me. Discuss answers and make sure the students understand the task. You will try the other examples. Each time be sure you put a circle around only one M E or me. Sometimes you will circle on side of the paper and sometimes you will circle on the other side of the paper. Do you have any questions? Let's try the second example. Show the second example on the video. Check that the students understand the task. Repeat this with the other examples. If the students seem to understand, tell them: Now we will do the other sentences. Turn the page. I will show you the sentences on the video. You will pick the sentence that is most like you and put one circle around the me or M E for each sentence. Any questions before we start? Don't show anyone your papers. Go through the sentences one by one, showing the video first and making sure the students circle only one word for each item. If they don't understand a sentence, explain it with as few changes as possible.  140  II  Administration Instructions for Students Who Use Aural/Oral Communication  1. Tell the students their responses will be kept confidential. 2. Give each student a paper, eraser and pencil. Help them fill in the top information section of the first page. 3. Tell them: Here are some sentences that tell what students like to do in school. There are no right or wrong answers. Students are all different and you will all pick different sentences. We will try the examples together. The first two sentences tell about different students. Read the first example. Think about both sentences and decide which one is like you. Go to the side of the paper with the sentence that is like you. If the sentence is R E A L L Y like you, put a circle around M E . If the sentence is a little like you, put a circle around me. Discuss answers and make sure the students understand the task. You will try the other examples. Each time be sure you put a circle around only one M E or me. Sometimes you will circle on side of the paper and sometimes you will circle on the other side of the paper. Do you have any questions? Let's try the second example. Read the second example. Check that the students understand the task. Repeat this with the other examples. If the students seem to understand, tell them: Now we will do the other sentences. Turn the page. I will read the sentences to you. You will pick the sentence that is most like you and put one circle around the me or M E for each sentence. Any questions before we start? Don't show anyone your papers. Read the sentences one by one, making sure the students circle only one word for each item. If they don't understand a sentence, explain it with as few changes as possible.  141  In The Classroom Pupil's Form (modified) Name:  Age:  School:  Grade:  Circle One:  Boy  Birthday: month. Teacher:  day.  ;  .  Girl  This is not a test. The sentences tell how students feel about schoolwork.  There are no right or wrong answers. Read the sentences and pick which one is like you. If the sentence is a little like you, put a circle around me. If the sentence is R E A L L Y like you, put a circle around M E . Examples: ME  ME  me  me  Some kids like to play sports. Some kids think school is hard work.  BUT  BUT  a) M E  me  Some kids like to play outside in their free time.  b) M E  me  Some kids like hamburgers B U T more than hot dogs. BUT  c) M E m e  Some kids like to draw pictures.  BUT  Other kids don't like sports.  me  ME  Other kids think school is easy.  me  ME  me  M E  Other kids like hot dogs more than hamburgers.  me  ME  Other kids prefer to play games.  me  ME  Other kids like to watch T.V.  DO NOT SHOW YOUR PAPER T O OTHER STUDENTS.  142  1. M E m e  Some students like hard work B U T because it's a challenge.  2. M E m e  When some students don't understand something right away they want the teacher to tell them the answer.  3. M E  me  Some students work on problems to learn how to solve them.  4. M E  me  Some students almost BUT always think that what the teacher says is OK.  5. M E  me  6. M E  BUT  BUT  Other students prefer easy work they are sure they can do.  me  Other students prefer to try and figure it out themselves.  ME  ME  Other students work on problems because you're supposed to  me  ME  Other students sometimes think their own ideas are better.  me  M E  Some students know when B U T they've made mistakes without checking with the teacher.  Other students need to check with the teacher to know if they've made a mistake.  me  M E  me  Some students like hard BUT problems because they enjoy trying to figure them out.  Other students like don't like to figure out hard problems.  me  M E  7. M E  me  Some students do their school B U T work because the teacher tells them to.  Other students do their school work to learn new things.  8. M E  me  When some students make a BUT mistake, they prefer to figure out the right answer themselves.  Other students prefer to ask the me the teacher the right answer.  9. M E  me  Some students know whether or nor they are doing well in school without looking at their marks.  Other students need to look at their marks to know how well they are doing in school.  10. M E  me  BUT  me  me  ME  ME  ME  Some students agree with the B U T teacher because they think the teacher is right about most things.  Other students sometimes do not me agree with the teacher because they think their idea is better.  ME  11. M E  me Some students do not like hard B U T schoolwork because they have to work hard.  Other students do like hard me work because they like to figure things out.  ME  12. M E  me Some students like to learn things on their own that interest them.  BUT  Other students think it is better to learn things that the teacher thinks they should learn.  13. M E  me Some students read things because they are interested in the subject.  BUT  Other students read things because the teacher wants them to.  me M E  me M E  143  14. M E  me Some students need to see their B U T report cards to know if they are doing well in school.  15. M E  me If some students get stuck on a problem, they ask the teacher for help.  16. M E  me  Some students like to go on to harder work.  Other students know if they are doing well in school before they see their report cards.  B U T Other students keep trying to figure out the problem on their own. BUT  Other students prefer to do easy work.  me M E  me  M E  me M E  17. M E  me Some students think: What the teacher thinks about my work is most important.  B U T Other students think: What I think about my work is most important.  18. M E  me Some students ask questions in class because they want to learn new things.  B U T Other students ask questions me M E because they want the teacher to notice them.  19. M E  me Some students only know they did good work when they see their marks.  B U T Other students know how well they did before they see their marks.  me M E  20. M E  me If schoolwork is hard to understand some students want the teacher to explain it.  B U T Other students first want to try to understand it themselves,  me M E  21. M E  me Some students think they should also decide what work to do in school.  BUT  me M E  22. M E  me For some school work it's easy B U T For other schoolwork you to just learn the answers. Some have to think hard and try students like that work. to figure it out. Other students like that schoolwork.  me M E  23. M E  me Some students aren't sure if B U T Other students know if it's their work is really good or not good before the teacher until the teacher tells them. tells them.  me M E  24. M E  me Some students like to try to figure B U T out their schoolwork by themselves.  25. M E  me Some students are curious. They think that a lot of schoolwork is interesting.  B U T Other students are not curious about schoolwork.  26. M E  me Some students think its best if they decide when to work on each subject.  B U T Other students think the teacher me M E is the best one to decide when to work on things.  27. M E  me Some students know they didn't their best work when they give the work to the teacher.  B U T Other students don't know they didn't do their best work until the teacher tells them.  Other students think the teacher should decide alone,  me M E  Other students prefer to ask the me M E teacher how to do it. me M E  me M E  144  28. M E  me Some students don't like hard schoolwork because they must work hard.  BUT  Other students like hard school work because they think it is more interesting.  me M E  29. M E  me Some students like to do their schoolwork without help.  BUT  Other students like the teacher to help them.  me M E  30. M E  me Some students do schoolwork because the teacher tells them.  BUT  Other students do schoolwork me M E because they can learn interesting things.  145  Appendix F - Modified Intrinsic/Extrinsic Orientation - Sign Gloss  Modifications appear below original items. A S L gloss is in bold. The following are changes made throughout the test: would rather = prefer  kids = students  grades = marks  EXAMPLES:  a) M E  me  Some kids like to play outside in their free time.  BUT  b) M E me  Some kids like hamburgers more than hot dogs.  BUT  c) M E me  Some kids like to draw pictures.  Other kids like to watch T.V.  me  ME  Other kids like hot dogs more than hamburgers.  me  ME  BUT Other kids prefer to play games.  me  ME  TEST ITEMS: 1. Some students like hard work because its a challenge. Some students work it hard, like challenge. Other students prefer easy work they are sure they can do. Other students like work easy can answer easy. 2. When some students don't understand something right away they want the teacher to tell them the answer. Some students paper don't understand, ask teacher tell answer. Other students prefer to try and figure it out by themselves. Other students paper struggle, figure out....success. 3. Some students work on problems to learn how to solve them. Some students work problem , mathematics, science, social studies, want learn problem solve how. Other students work on problems because you're supposed to. Other students work problem why ? tell me, have to. 4. Some students almost always think that what the teacher says is OK. Some students think, teacher idea always right. Other students sometimes think their own ideas are better. Other students think sometimes own idea better, not same teacher. 5. Some student know when they've made mistakes without checking with the teacher. Some students look paper, know mistake, know, ask don't have to. Other students need to check with the teacher to know if they've made a mistake. Other students write, not sure, show, check, if mistake.  146  6. Some students like difficult problems because they enjoy trying tofigurethem out. Some students like hard problems because they enjoy trying to Figure them out Some students look paper when hard, like figure out, enjoy. Other students don't like tofigureout difficult problems. Other students don't like tofigureout hard problems. Other students look paper, when hard, yuck. 7. Some students do their school work because the teacher tells them to. Some students work, write why ? teacher tell you. Other students do their schoolwork to find out about a lot of things they've been wanting to know. Other students do their schoolwork to learn new things. Other students work, paper write, why ? curious, learn things. 8. When some students make a mistake they prefer tofigureout the right answer by themselves. Some students notice mistake, myself struggle, answer. Other students prefer to ask the teacher how to get the right answer. Other students look, ask teacher, for me, answer. 9. Some kids know whether or not they're doing well in school without looking at their marks. Some students school, all together, good or not, know. Other kids need to look at their marks to know how well they are doing in school. Other students school good, bad, don't know, wait see report card know. 10. Some students agree with the teacher because they think the teacher is right about most things. Some students agree agree , teacher almost always right. Other students don't agree with the teacher sometimes and stick to their own opinions. Other students sometimes do not agree with the teacher because they think their idea is better. Other students sometimes disagree teacher, think you right. 11. Some students don't like difficult schoolwork because they have to work too hard. Some students don't like hard schoolwork because they have to work too hard. Point, hard some students don't like, why ? have to work hard. Other students do like difficult schoolwork because they like to figure things out. Other students do like hard schoolwork because they like tofigurethings out Other students hard work , like, struggle, figure out. 12. Some students like to learn things on their own that interest them. Some students like learn, learn, learn own things fascinating. Other students think its better to do things that the teacher thinks they should be learning. Other students like teacher teach me. 13. Some students read things because they are interested in the subject. Some students read read read, fascinating. Other students read things because the teacher wants them to. Other students read read why ? because teacher tell me.  147  14. Some students need to get their report cards to tell how they are doing in school. Some students need to see their report card to know if they're doing well in school. Some students don't know good, bad, wait get report card...oh, I see Other students know for themselves how they are doing even before they get their report cards. Other students know if they are doing well in school before they see their report cards. Other students know good, bad, report card don't need. 15. If some students get stuck on a problem they ask the teacher for help. If problem, some students stuck, ask teacher help. Other students keep trying to figure out the problem on their own. Other students try solve problem self, not ask teacher. 16. Some students like to go on to new work that's at a more difficult level. Some students like to go on to harder work. Some students hard level like go on and on. Other students prefer to stick to the assignments which are pretty easy to do. Other students prefer to do easy work. Other students prefer stay easy, don't want hard. 17. Some students think that what the teacher thinks of their work is the most important thing. Some students think "What the teacher thinks of their work is the most important thing." Some students think teacher opinion important. For other students what they think of their work is the most important thing. Other students think: "What I think about my work is most important." For other students, own opinion important. 18. Some students ask questions in class because they want to learn new things. Some students ask, ask, why ? want learn new things. Other student ask questions because they want the teacher to notice them. Other students ask, ask, ask, because want teacher attention. 19. Some students aren't really sure if they've done well on a test until they get their papers back with a mark on it. Some students only know they did good work when they see their marks. Test some students not sure good, bad, get back Oh I see, paper. Other students pretty much know how well they did even before they get their paper back. Other students know how well they did before they see their marks. Other students know test good, bad before get back. 20. If a school subject is hard to understand some students want the teacher to explain it to them. If a school subject is hard to understand some students want the teacher to explain it. If paper hard, not understand, some students want teacher explain. Other students would first like to try to understand it themselves. Other students want understand, prefer not ask teacher.  148  21. Some students think they should have a say in what work they do in school. Some students think they should also decide what work to do in school. Some students want involved decisions school work, not only teacher. Other students think that the teacher should decide what work they should do. Other students think that the teacher should decide alone. Other students want teacher decide, decide for them. 22. Some students like school subjects where its pretty easy to just learn the answers. For some school work it's easy to just learn the answers. Some students like that work. Some students like easy work, easy answer. Other students like those school subjects that make them think pretty hard andfigurethings out. For other schoolwork you have to think hard and try tofigureit out. Other students like that schoolwork. Other students like schoolwork think, think, figure out. 23. Some students aren't sure if their work is really good or not until the teacher tells them. Some students good, bad, mathematics reading ss, don't know, wait teacher tell them. Other students know if it's good or not before the teacher tells them. Other students know good, bad, mathematics, reading, ss, mmmmm 24. Some students like to try to figure out how to do school assignments on their own. Some students like to try tofigureout how to do school work on their own Some students like try figure out work self Other students prefer to ask the teacher how it should be done. Other students prefer to ask the teacher how to do it. Other students prefer ask teacher how, point paper. 25. Some students are curious andfindthat a lot of things they can learn in school are really interesting. Some students are curious. They think that a lot of schoolwork is interesting. Some students curious, many things interesting, learn school. Other students are not very curious about the things they learn in school. Other students are not curious about schoolwork. Other students not interested, curious school work. 26. Some students think its best if they decide when to work on each school subject. Some students best decide self when mathematics, reading, ss, schedule, not teacher. Other students think that the teacher is the best one to decide when to work on things. Other students think best teacher decide schedule mathematics, reading, ss, schedule. 27. Some students know they didn't do their best on an assignment when they turn it in. Some students know they didn't do their best work when they give their work to the teacher. Some students know not good point paper pass in. Other students have to wait until the teacher grades it to know that they didn't do as well as they could have. Other students don't know they didn't do their best work until the teacher tells them. Other students have to wait teacher marks know paper so-so.  28. Some students don't like difficult schoolwork because they have to work too hard. Some students don't like hard schoolwork because they have to work hard. Some students don't like hard work why ? have to work hard. Other students like difficult schoolwork because they find it more interesting. Other students like hard schoolwork because they think it is more interesting. Other students like hard work because learn, learn, interesting. 29. Some students like to do their schoolwork without help. Some students prefer school work self, not help. Other students like to have the teacher help them do their schoolwork. Other students like teacher help me, work write. 30. Some students do their schoolwork because the teacher tells them to. Some students do work why ? because teacher tell me. Other students do schoolwork so they can learn a lot of interesting things. Other students like work learn, learn, learn interesting things.  150 Appendix G - Student Information Form  Background Information  Name:  School: birthdate: sex:  -  '•  .  ;  \  . •  male  female  method of communication in school: sign language deaf family members: no  yes: who ?  integrated with hearing students:  no  from files:  voice  yes: which subjects ?  degree of hearing loss, better ear unaided average:  both  Appendix H -Parent Permission Letters a) English b) Vietnamese c) Spanish d) Mandarin  153  Parent / Guardian Consent Form I have read about the Research Project on Self-Concept and Motivation of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in which my child has been asked to participate. I understand that my child's participation is voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time. I understand that all personal information will remain confidential and that I may register any complaint I may have about the study directly with the researcher, Susan van Gurp.  Name of Student:  I, the undersigned parent or guardian of the above-named student, consent to my son/daughter participating in the following specific research project:  Self-Concept and Motivation of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Research Project  April-June. 1996 Date  Vancouver School District Place  Date  Signature of Parent / Guardian  155  Phieu Uhg Thuan cua Cha Me / Giam Ho  Toi da duoc doc Du An Nghien Ciiu ve Y Niem Tit Nga va Dong Luc cua Cac Hoc Sinh Bi Diec va Lang Taj ma con toi da duoc yfiu cau tham gia. Toi hieu rang viec tham gia cua con toi la do tu nguyfin va co thi rut ten tham gia bat cu luc nao. Toi hieu rang tat ca cac chi tiet ca nhan deu duoc giQ kin va neu toi co bat cii van de than phfen khieu nai nao ve cuoc nghien ciiu nay thi t6i co the lien lac true tiep voi: i nha nghien cthi:'Susan van Gurp  Ten Hoc Sinh:  Toi ky ten duoi day la cha me hoac giam ho cua hoc sinh co ten tren day, ifhg thuan cho phep con trai/con gai toi tham gia vao dU an nghien ciiu sau day:  Y NiSm TU Nga va Dong Luc cua Cac Hoc Sinh Bi Diec va Lang Tai Du An Nghien Ciiu  Thang Tu-Thang Sau. 1996 Thdi Gian  Dia Hat Hoc Dudng Vancouver Dia Diem  Chu Ky cua Cha Me / Giam Ho  157  Formulario De Consentimiento Y o he leido acenca del proyecto de investigation llamado Auto-Evaluacion Y Motivation De Estudiantes Sordos Y Con Problemas Para Oir. en el cual se ha souctado la participation de mi hijo/hija. Y o entiendo que la participation de mi hijo/hija es voluntaria y que se podra retirar del estudio a cualquier momento. Y o entiendo que toda la information sera confidential y que yo podre quejarme con la investigatora: Susan van Gurp.  Nombre de Estudiante:  Yo el padre/rnadre o guardian del estudiante nombrado anivba consiento oara due mi hi in/hi i» parucipe en el proyecto de investigation descrito abajo: P*™ que mi hijo/hija c o n s i e n t o  Investigation: Auto-EvaluaciAi Y Motivation  TV  P^diantes  Cnn P r n h i ™ . ,  p.., ^  i r  Fecha: Abril - Junio, IQQ^ Lugan Districto de F.srnelas de Vanmnvrr  Fecha  Firma De Padre/Madre O Guardian  159  ^  ^  *  Jx W>  J£ it)  &  f  ° *L  %  1  /  &  #  f  .St ^  '1  fi.  0  ,  / i. n ^ % %-%  ^  ^  A . feS  *  £  ^  ^  ^  ^  & *V * - ^  £  tf-  i  *  ^  ^  *  &  Appendix I - Results a) Means and Standard Deviations: SDQ-1 b) Means and Standard Deviations: I/E Orientation c) Inter -Item Correlations : SDQ-1 d) Inter-Item Correlations: I/E Orientation  (a)  item# 3 10 24 32 40 48 56 64 total  item # 5 19 26 34 42 50 58 66 total  item # 4 11 18 25 41 49 57 73 total  item # 2 9 16 31 39 55 63 71 total  Means and Standard Deviations: SDQ-1 Marsh and Present Study Comparisons Physical Abilities X SD Marsh vG Marsh vG 1.28 1.17 3.84 3.66 1.22 1.07 4.14 4.15 4.44 .86 .85 4.66 3.48 1.26 1.23 3.71 1.06 1.05 4.28 3.98 1.37 3.82 3.42 1.21 1.30 1.32 3.89 3.68 .99 1.40 4.36 3.69 30.50 32.70  item # 1 8 15 22 38 46 54 62 total  Parent Relations X Marsh vG 3.96 4.38 4.80 4.44 4.65 4.79 4.30 3.62 4.10 3.56 3.92 4.21 4.09 4.53 3.77 4.34 32.01 35.45  SD Marsh vG 1.02 1.01 .87 .66 .87 .66 1.25 1.36 .96 1.20 1.07 1.11 .89 .91 1.05 .98  item #  Reading X Marsh 3.78 3.96 3.95 3.96 3.87 3.94 3.82 4.04 30.28  SD Marsh vG 1.17 1.00 1.02 1.32 1.20 1.08 1.28 1.11 1.14 1.31 1.15 1.10 1.35 1.22 1.16 1.13  item #  SD Marsh vG 1.10 .98 1.37 1.20 1.18 .95 .91 1.18 1.22 1.28 1.22 1.32 1.30 1.18 1.30 1.18  item #  vG 3.74 4.08 3.90 3.97 3.56 3.67 3.70 3.66 31.22  General School X Marsh vG 3.35 3.82 3.56 3.24 3.42 3.63 3.77 3.66 3.38 3.79 3.64 3.30 3.12 3.40 3.35 3.63 27.50 28.56  7 14 28 36 44 52 60 69 total  13 20 27 35 43 51 59 68 total  29 45 53 67 70 72 74 76 total  Physical Appearance SD X Marsh vG Marsh vG 3.86 1.28 .89 3.53 3.93 1.40 1.01 3.64 .91 3.82 1.38 3.39 1.39 .84 3.43 3.99 3.69 1.42 1.05 3.23 3.80 1.45 1.02 3.42 3.00 1.40 .95 3.15 1.33 .92 3.70 3.98 30.07 27.49 Peer Relations X Marsh vG 4.46 4.13 4.46 4.13 4.10 3.89 3.73 3.82 3.98 3.84 3.35 3.11 3.44 3.98 3.96 4.02 29.27 31.63  SD Marsh vG 1.01 L01 1.26 1.17 1.12 .92 1.04 1.27 1.21 .92 1.39 1.11 1.23 1.00 1.17 .92  mathematics X Marsh vG 3.52 3.81 3.22 3.23 3.75 3.68 3.38 3.64 3.76 3.49 3.62 3.48 3.76 3.56 3.51 3.54 28.16 28.79  SD Marsh vG 1.33 4.42 1.37 1.58 1.02 1.21 1.48 1.39 1.28 1.28 1.43 1.50 1.27 1.26 1.42 1.49  General Self X Marsh vG 3.74 4.04 4.35 4.25 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.08 4.06 4.08 4.05 4.03 4.16 4.23 4.19 4.23 32.98 32.99  SD Marsh vG 1.14 .88 1.10 .97 1.07 .88 1.05 .93 .88 1.09 .85 1.08 .96 .78 .96 .78  (b)  Means and Standard Deviations: I/E Orientation Harter and Present Study Comparison  challenge curiosity mastery judgment criteria  Mean H 2.55 2.17 2.66 2.71 2.85  SD yG 2.76 2.92 2.55 2.81 2.39  Ji .64 .62 .57 .54 .59  vG .79 .62 .65 .62 .64  163  (c)  Inter - Item Correlations : SDQ-1 Marsh and Present Study Comparisons Note: Marsh study correlations in italics  Physical Abilities 3  10  24  32  40  48  56  10  .50 .27  24  .21  .61  .20  .29  .41  .39  .34  .38  .31  .21 .  .43  .61  .72  .41  .50  .34  .45  .40  .50  .44  .61  .31  .50 .27  .45 .42  .50 .52  .44  .57  .64  .43  .55  .32  .33  .43  .77 .62  .52 .67  . Al .29  44 .27  .45 .27  .46 .34  .49  .44 .37  .45  46  54  32 40  48 56 64  .40  .38  Physical Appearance  I 8  8  15  22  38  .50 .54  15  .46  .52  .59  .52  22  .51  .55  .64  .57  38  .49  .38 .43  .58 .57  .54  .50  .51  .50  .60  .50  .46  .59  .51  .57  .61  .55  .31  .33  .32  .28  .32  .52  .45  .49  .54  .56  .53  .33  .62  .51  .53  .57  .53  .46  .49  .52  .48  .54  46  54 62  .69 .67 .54  62  Parent Relations 5  19  26  34  42  50  58  19  .23 .27  26  .40 .27  .66 .47  34  .22 .23  .20 .21  .24 .26  42  .39 .30  .27 .26  .36 .32  .26 .27  50  .65 .42  .26 .24  .38 .33  .38 .29  .46 .37  58  .33 .39  .54 .36 .  .41 .44  .33 .34  .55 .44  .51 .51  66  .33 .29  .38 .27  .46 .35  .21 .31  .60 .52  .38 .41  .52 .50  52  60  66  Peer Relations 7  14  28  36  44  14  .59 .42  28  .31 .39  .45 .50  36  .41 .28  .54 .37  .38 .43  44  .52 .36  .49 .38  .48 .43  .57 .45  52  .49 .37  .45 .38  .16 .36  .28 .43  .39 .43  60  .50 .35  .62 .37  .36 .37  .47 .42  .44 .43  .47 .40  69  .46 .38  .39 .42  .49 .46  .43 .47  .56 .49  .23 .46  .47 .50  69~  Reading 4  11  18  25  41  49  57 •  11  .59 .38  18  .75 .57  .68 .48  25  .55 .36  .82 .67  .64 .47  41  .49 .37  .70 .60  .49 .48  .64 .64  49  .55 .50  .52 .41  .58 .58  .42 .44  .44 .46  57  .53 .38  .69 .62  .50 .47  .63 .68  .73 .65  .47 .44  73  .69 .46  .59  .65 .55  .59 .45  .50 .48  .66 .58  .52 .49  43  51  59  71  Mathematics 13  20  27  35  20  .19  27  .21 .62  .68 .45  35  .21 .45  .81 .7i  .71 .49  43  .32 .59  .59 .47  .69 .67  .65 .50  51  .21 .49  .83 .71  .71 .50  .88 .77  .68 .53  59  .23 .65  .66 .50  .77 .69  .77 .56  .72 .66  .82 .60  68  .21 .45  .76 .71  .75 .47  .86 .73  .68 .49  .91 .76  .80 .56  68  General School 2  9  16  31  39  55  63  9  .60 .34  16  .75 .52  .53 .32  31  .52 .39  .38 .32  40 .42  39  .59 .35  .69 .55  .51 .35  •47. .39  55  .54 .32  .70 .55  .44 .37  .43 .35  .73 .65  63  .46  .30 .33  .31 .49  .46 .50  .40 .39  .36 .39  71  .56 .34  .61 .57  .54 .36  .50 .36  .80 .67  .77 .69  .38 .43  70  72  74  71  General Self 29  45  53  67  45  .31 .75  53  .45 .29  .59 .39  67  .44  .27 .27  .41 .33  70  .32 .30  .36 .33  .34 .49  .41 .35  72  .46 .32  .51 .38  .53 .47  .53 .35  .44 .53  74  .43 .27  .33 .32  .42 .39  .60 .55  .55 .47  .58 .45  76  .54 .25  .28 .27  .38 .32  .53 .33  .46 .39  .50 .39  .62 .35  76  (d)  Inter-Item Correlations: I/E Orientation Challenge  6 11 16 22 28  1  6  11  16  .26 .56 .62 .36 .50  .38 .42 .36 .50  .59 .44 .63  .52 .52  22  28  25  30  24  29  21  26  23  27  Curiosity  7 13 18 25 30  3  7  13  18  .37 .25 .16 .22 .31  .22 .10 .37 .31  .16 .15 .24  .14 .05  Mastery  8 15 20 24 29  2  8  15  20  .38 .22 .20 .40 .25  .22 .08 .36 .13  .37 .41 .36  .38 .38  Judgment  10 12 17 21 26  4  10  12  17  .38 .21 .21 .17 .39  .21 .17 .27 .22  .26 .27 .20  .46 .27  Criteria  9 14 19 23 27  5  9  14  19  .38 .38 -.00 .17 .28  .50 .19 .31 .18  .17 .28 .19  .19 -.01  fe) Parental Hearing Status : Deaf vs. Hearing Parents Self-Concept (n = 90) Ability hearing parents  n 81  M 30.38  SD 6.96  deafparents  9  33.00  6.40  Appearance hearing parents  81  29.82  5.47  deafparents  9  33.33  5.22  Parent Relations hearing parents  81  31.65  5.31  deafparents  9  35.56  3.90  Peer Relations hearing parents  81  30.01  5.46  deafparents  9  30.78  5.78  Reading hearing parents  81  29.94  7.18  deafparents  9  33.00  5.59  Mathematics hearing parents  81  27.80  8.68  deafparents  9  29.33  10.87  General School hearing parents  81  27.60  6.34  deafparents  9  28.78  7.70  General Self hearing parents  81  32.90  5.09  deafparents  9  34.56  4.07  df 88  2 - tail prob. .28  88  .07  88  .04  88  .69  88  .22  88  .63  88  .61  88  .35  df 87  2 - tail prob. .85  87  .85  87  .79  87  .99  87  .60  I/E Orientation (n = 89) Challenge hearing parents  n 81  M 2.76  SD .80  deafparents  8  2.71  .67  Curiositv hearing parents  81  2.92  .61  deafparents  8  2.96  .68  hearing parents  81  2.54  .66  deafparents  8  2.61  .63  hearing parents  81  2.81  .62  deafparents  8  2.81  .68  81 8  2.40 2.81  .65 .68  Mastery  Judgment  Criteria hearing parents deafparents  169  (D Degree of Hearing Loss: Group Differences Self-Concept: Means and Standard Deviations Subscale Ability Appear .Peer  Parent  Read.  Math.  School  Self  Hearing Loss Mild-Severe 28.59 6.65 SD SeveretoProfound 31.26 M SD 6.73 Profound 31.00 M SD 7.20  M  28.53 6.49  29.00 6.46  30.88 7.43  29.41 8.11  28.00 10.21  27.76 7.89  33.00 5.16  30.50 4.76  30.35 5.57  32.18 4.54  29.35 6.78  28.26 8.46  27.62 6.51  32.94 4.83  30.59 5.69  30.33 4.96  32.44 4.88  31.38 6.87  27.67 8.81  27.79 5.85  33.21 5.21  Self-Concept: A N O V A Analyses Subscale Ability  DF 2, 87  MSb 44.94  MSw 47.96  F Ratio .94  FProb .40  Appearance  2,87  28.16  30.51  .92  .40  Peer  2, 87  12.43  30.21  .41  .66  Parent  2,87  14.76  28.37  .52  .60  Reading  2, 87  44.76  50.17  .89  .41  Math  2,87  3.27  80.22  .04  .99  School  2,87  .30  42.50  .00  .97  Self  2,87  .68  25.61  .02  .97  170  Degree of Hearing Loss: Group Differences I/E Orientation: Means and Standard Deviations Subscale Challenge  Curiosity  Mastery  Judgment  Criteria  2.97 .72  2.53 .76  2.80 .60  2.61 .73  2.83 .62  2.65 .56  2.73 .66  2.33 .60  2.98 .57  2.46 .68  2.89 .61  2.34 .63  F Ratio  Fprob  Hearing Loss Mild-Severe U 2.73 SD .93 Severe to Profound M 2.76 SD .78 Profound M 2.77 SD .75  I/E Orientation: A N O V A Analyses Subscale  D.F.  MS b  MSw  Challenge  2,86  .00  .63  .01  .98  Curiosity  2,86  .23  .38  .59  .56  Mastery  2,86  .33  .43  .78  .46  Judgment  2,86  .23  .39  .58  .56  Criteria  2,86  .51  .41  1.25  .29  171  (g) Communication: Aural/Oral vs. Sign Self-Concept (n = 26) Ability sign  n 14  M 34.36  SD 6.63  oral  12  29.33  7.14  Appearance sign  14  30.00  7.09  oral  12  30.50  4.25  sign  14  33.50  4.75  oral  12  33.92  4.23  sign  14  30.93  6.18  oral  12  29.58  6.65  Reading sign '  14  31.86  6.90  oral  12  29.83  8.07  sign  14  28.57  9.51  oral  12  33.92  6.40  sign  14  28.07  6.81  oral  12  30.00  4.79  General Self sign  14  34.36  5.49  oral  12  33.33  4.52  df 24  2 - tail prob. .08  24  .83  24  .82  24  .60  24  .50  24  .11  24  .42  24  .61  df 25  2 - tail prob. .96  25  .68  25  .64  25  .14  25  .99  Parent Relations  Peer Relations  Mathematics  General School  I/E Orientation (n = 27) Challenge sign  n 14  M 2.73  SD .89  oral  13  2.74  .91  sign  14  2.86  .71  oral  13  2.96  .58  sign  14  2.71  .73  oral  13  2.59  .63  sign  14  2.98  .59  oral  13  2.65  .50  sign  14  2.66  .66  oral  13  2.65  .71  Curiosity  Mastery  Judgment  Criteria  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054603/manifest

Comment

Related Items