Nothing for us without us: Student-identified approaches that can support the inclusion of deaf students in South African secondary schools

ABSTRACT

Since 1994, the South African government has committed itself to transforming its entire education system with global initiatives related to inclusive education. One of these changes has seen increased support for deaf students in inclusive education settings, as deaf students are increasingly being educated in mainstream classrooms along with their hearing peers. Establishing learning environments that address the unique needs of deaf students is essential for their success but to date little research has included their voices. The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of four deaf students, educated in mainstream secondary schools in one South African province, to understand the unique features of their learning needs. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews focused on the generation of information regarding the students’ beliefs, knowledge and feelings about their educational experiences. Participants’ responses are presented in terms of how mainstream teachers might adapt their teaching strategies, teaching materials and assessment tasks, not to dilute educational standards but to give deaf students equal opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge. Our work offers insights into how teachers and schools could implement classroom-level changes, that could perhaps contribute to systems-wide transformation in South African mainstream schools.

KEYWORDS:

• Deaf
• students
• auditory-oral
• inclusion
• education
• adaptations
• mainstream
• Critical Disability Theory

Introduction

Currently, in South Africa there are more than four million deaf people (Western Cape Government, 2022). While the South African deaf community represents individuals from diverse cultures, genders and creeds, it largely consists of those from more vulnerable, lower socio-economic and less privileged circumstances (Penn & De Andrade, 2017). For many deaf people in South Africa, access to relevant basic education, appropriate post-school training and equitable employment opportunities is not guaranteed (Bell & Swart, 2018). Concerningly very few profoundly deaf students complete secondary schooling, and it is considered exceptional if any of these students attain a tertiary education or attend post-school training (Bell et al., 2016; Mdepa & Tshiwula, 2012). As a consequence, deaf people may experience a non-sympathetic employer public, and while this fact primarily affects deaf individuals, there is undoubtedly a loss of valuable human capital to the South African economy (Chelius et al., 2022). As far back as 1997, the Integrated National Disability Strategy (INDS) report published by the South African Office on the Status of Disabled Persons stated:

If society cannot cater for people with disabilities, society must change. Government has a responsibility to ensure that concrete steps are taken to ensure that people with disabilities are able to access the same fundamental rights and responsibilities as any other South African. (INDS, 1997, p.7)

But in the ensuing 25 years, little appears to have changed as no official intervention has been launched to specifically address the socially and economically precarious plight of the deaf in South Africa (Young et al., 2019). A lack of progress in providing interpretation services, access to health care, and gaps in effectively responding to mothers’ suspicions of their children’s deafness (Storbeck & Young, 2016), together with limited success in newborn hearing screening programmes underscore the ongoing challenges in improving the life choices of the deaf in South Africa (Storbeck & Young).

In order to prepare, assist and empower deaf students in South Africa to have better life choices, improvements in the education system could be implemented. One key improvement would be access to an inclusive education. Inclusive education responds to student diversity in ways that avoid marginalisation in the classroom, by offering unconditional recognition and acceptance of all students (Hoffmann et al., 2021; Spratt & Florian, 2015). In light of this philosophy, deaf students are expected not only to have access to the general curriculum but to master it. Inclusive education demands the effective presentation of curricula materials and many opportunities for engaging with and learning from them, to help close the gap between educational outcomes for deaf and hearing students, while responding to the special characteristics of deaf students (Mapepa & Magano, 2018). Marschark et al. (2015), in their research investigating the factors contributing to secondary deaf students’ academic achievements in the United States, highlighted the significance of recognising the diverse strengths and needs of deaf students for educators to tailor their teaching methods. The researchers also indicated the importance of conducting further research to determine the correlation between the academic achievement of deaf students and various school interventions and support services.

Inclusive education has been accepted internationally, including in South Africa, as best practice for education. However, acceptance of an ideal practice does not necessarily translate into what actually occurs within classrooms (Engelbrecht, 2020). In a study conducted in 2015, Vaz and colleagues discovered that the success of inclusion in mainstream classrooms depends on the attitudes of teachers, particularly if the students have disabilities. By surveying 74 primary school teachers, Vaz et al. (2015) found that negative attitudes were more prevalent among older teachers, male teachers and those with limited training or low self-efficacy in inclusive practices. On the other hand, they observed that teachers who have received training on supporting students with disabilities showed a more positive attitude towards inclusion. Teachers’ uncertainties and misunderstandings of the benefits of inclusive education can rise if they become concerned with completing curriculum requirements rather than differentiating their instructions and implementing strategies that support the learning of all students, but specifically those with disabilities (Meltz et al., 2014). According to Bornman and Rose (2010, p. 7), “[a] general lack of support and resources, as well as the prevailing negative attitudes toward disability, all contribute to the general bewilderment in South African schools towards inclusion”.

While much of the recent research into the inclusion of students with disabilities in South Africa has focused on the views and experiences of teachers (Adewumi & Mosito, 2019; Engelbrecht et al., 2017; Kelly et al., 2022; Makuya & Sedibe, 2021; Matolo & Rambuda, 2022), there has been limited (if any) research undertaken solely with students with disabilities. Hence the current study aims to make a significant contribution to this research gap as it shares the views and experiences of four profoundly deaf South African students on curriculum adaptations that could better support the successful inclusion of deaf students in mainstream South African secondary schools.

Methodology

Theoretical framework: critical disability theory

One model based on social theory that has been developed as a theoretical tool to explain the personal identities and experiences of diverse people in a society, is critical theory (Goodley, 2016). Since first proposed, critical theory has come to include a wide range of descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry which have the practical aim of maximising human freedom and ending the domination of some groups by others defined by class, power, race or other social constructs. Unlike traditional theory, critical theory makes no claim to be normatively objective – its purpose is to explain oppression and to transform society with the objective of human emancipation (Goodley et al., 2019).

A critical theoretical perspective opens one’s eyes to injustices, highlighting the need to help educators examine contradictory practices within their educational contexts in the hopes of constructing an education that is robust and transformative and that promotes social reform through individual and collective activism (Slee, 2018). Given these characteristics, the use of a critical theoretical lens can help educators unpack and interrogate inequities that marginalise different populations. One application of critical theory in education is critical disability theory (CDT). CDT explains disability as a social construct rather than a consequence of disability (Annamma et al., 2018). It questions the entrenched notion of disability as an inherent personal tragedy or biological deficiency and it opposes the medical model that sees disability as a misfortune and implies prevention and cure or rehabilitation, rather than equality and inclusion (Love & Beneke, 2021). The research team chose CDT because it enables a focus on societal constructs rather than individual disabilities (Annamma et al., 2018) and provides a framework for understanding the challenges faced by deaf students, which could lead to positive change regarding inclusive education in South Africa.

This study also employed a qualitative methodology, namely phenomenology (Johnson & Christensen, 2004), in order to explore the educational experiences of four profoundly deaf students who were educated in mainstream South African secondary schools. Phenomenological research aims to capture the consciousness and experiences of individuals in relation to a particular phenomenon, to obtain a view into the life worlds of research participants and to understand the personal meanings they derive from their “lived experiences” (Johnson & Christensen, 2004, p. 19). The current study was guided by one overarching research question: What classroom adaptations can support the successful inclusion of profoundly deaf students in South African Secondary schools?

Participants

Study participants were selected through purposeful sampling (Cohen et al., 2018), which allowed the first author to invite participants to consider participating based on possession of particular characteristics of interest. To be invited to participate in the study, students were required to meet the following criteria: being profoundly deaf; communicating with an auditory-oral approach; receiving initial education in a specialised unit; graduating from a mainstream high school. All four participants utilised an auditory-oral approach (Adam et al., 1990) to develop their spoken language, meaning that participants utilised a hearing technology such as a cochlear implant (n = 3) or hearing aids (n = 1), together with any residual hearing. This communication approach is based on the fundamental premise that acquiring competence in spoken language, both receptively and expressively, is a realistic goal for deaf children, and is best developed in an environment where spoken language is used exclusively. Further participant details are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of study participants.

Information	Participant A	Participant B	Participant C	Participant D
Gender	Male	Female	Female	Female
Age when interviewed	21	25	25	26
Qualification	BSc (Civil Engineering)	BCom (Management)	BCom (Accounting)	BCom (Accounting)
Primary Education	Specialised unit for deaf students in regular primary school	Specialised unit for deaf students in regular primary school	Specialised unit for deaf students in regular primary school	Specialised unit for deaf students in regular primary school
Secondary Education	Mainstream transferred in Grade 7	Mainstream transferred in Grade 6	Mainstream transferred in Grade 7	Mainstream transferred in Grade 7
Post-Secondary Education	University (2^nd year)	University (5th year)	University (4th year)	University – undergraduate & postgraduate (6 years)
Age when received Cochlear Implant	13yrs	9yrs	8yrs	Bilateral hearing aids, no cochlear implant
Communication Mode	Auditory-oral approach	Auditory-oral approach	Auditory-oral approach	Auditory-oral approach
Access to Sign Language?	No	No	No	No
Family Background	Monolingual hearing family	Monolingual hearing family	Monolingual hearing family	Monolingual hearing family
Language(s) used at home	English only	English only	English only	English only
Age and Identification of Profound Deafness	Deaf from birth identified during 1st year by specialists	Deaf from birth identified during 1st year by specialists	Deaf from birth identified during 1st year by specialists	Deaf from birth identified during 1st year by specialists
Support Services Post-Identification	Hearing assessment and management by audiologists & speech therapists	Hearing assessment and management by audiologists & speech therapists	Hearing assessment and management by audiologists & speech therapists	Hearing assessment and management by audiologists & speech therapists
Motivation for Mainstreaming	Family preference preparation for “real world” & oral language development	Family preference preparation for “real world”	Family preference preparation for “real world”	Family preference preparation for “real world” & oral language development
Interview Language(s)	Spoken language – English	Spoken language – English	Spoken language – English	Spoken language – English

All participants were known to the first author, as the participants’ early education occurred in a specialised unit for deaf students in a regular primary school, where the first author had previously been a teacher. All participants had attended mainstream secondary schools in KwaZulu-Natal province. Participation in the study was voluntary, and of six students selected for the study, four agreed to participate. To further mitigate potential coercion, the research participants were made aware of their right to withdraw at any time without any consequences.

Data collection

Data for this study were collected through individual, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews (Adeoye-Olatunde & Olenik, 2021), that focused on the participants’ beliefs, knowledge and feelings about their educational experiences. Each interview contained 14 questions related to teaching and learning supports for regular lessons, as well as assessment tasks, and probing questions were asked if more information was needed (see Appendix 1). Interviews were conducted by the first author, were approximately 60 min in duration and were audio-recorded with permission of participants. The interviews were transcribed in full by the first author and each interviewee reviewed their transcript to ensure accuracy, and validate reliability through member checking.

Ethical approval was obtained from the College of Education Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Africa, with approval number 2013APR/33935130/CSLR. The participants gave informed consent and participated on a voluntary basis. Both the anonymity of the participants and the confidentiality of the data were strictly upheld (Manti & Licari, 2018).

Data analysis

In this study, Braun and Clarke's (2008) six-phase approach to thematic analysis was employed to systematically analyse the data. The six phases include (1) familiarisation with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) refining and reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) writing qualitative results. Braun and Clarke's (2008) methodology was chosen based on its systematic and rigorous framework for analysing qualitative data. The first author read and re-read the interview data and coded them to identify common themes. The themes captured the essence of the segments of each interview. With each subsequent reading, the categories, patterns and themes were refined, and the coding was altered to adjust for any refinements. NVivo 12 was used for thematic exploration and applied an iterative analysis process. The analysis team discussed all codes and categorisations and the possibility of interconnection between codes to streamline the coding process. This inductive technique enabled the identification of themes within the participants’ responses to the research question (Belotto, 2018). Data saturation was achieved when further analysis yielded no new themes. The validation techniques of inter-coder reliability (multiple researchers coding) and member check (giving participants a chance to review transcripts) were utilised to ensure the trustworthiness of findings and rigour of analysis (Merriam, 2015).

Results

This section presents the results using quotations from participants that exemplify themes and provide a direct glimpse into participants’ perspectives and experiences. Participants’ data are presented in three sections (1) adapting teaching strategies; (2) adapting teaching materials; and (3) adapting assessments, and are refined in terms of three types of supports: visual supports, peer supports and classroom supports.

Adapting teaching strategies

Visual supports. All participants agreed that deaf students would be better supported with more non-verbal cues (gestures, signing, lip-reading, facial expressions) to assist with the comprehension of vocabulary and concepts. Participants also believed that to optimise students’ perception of spoken language, teachers should gain the learner’s attention, speak clearly, and use more gestures:

It is important to speak face-to-face, using just simple signs, like pointing at the board, is very important to help deaf learners understand whether they follow the teacher correctly. I think teachers need to include it in their teaching, they need to remember about it. (Participant C)

Participants mentioned how important it was for the teach to ensure that deaf students had access to visual communication with others, keeping in mind that deaf students often depended on visual cues. Participants also commented on the importance of providing deaf students with prior written instructions as these assisted with topic comprehension:

I am sure it helps everyone. Sometimes what you are thinking is not what the educator expects from you. It [writing instruction] is good for deaf students because they will know while they are writing that is what they must focus on, this is what they should write about (Participant B).

The educator also can provide written instructions for deaf students, the teacher can hand out a piece of paper that has instructions on instead of telling students what to do, I think it would be a very effective strategy. (Participant A)

Peer supports. Two participants mentioned the importance of the school’s “buddy system” in supporting positive socialisation and acceptance of deaf students by their hearing peers:

I was allowed to ask the other learner sitting next to me if I misheard something or didn’t get the instruction … I think allowing other learners to help is very important. From my own experience, I relied on that a lot during my school time, and even still today at university, if I didn’t hear something correctly, I would always ask someone. (Participant A)

I think it is a good idea to allow deaf students to talk to others because at the same time it is helping them to keep up with what the teacher is saying, so they know what is happening in the class. (Participant B)

Participants commented that buddy systems work best when buddies are willing to undertake that role, for example:

You know, if people are forced to do it, they won’t do it. If deaf learners make friends, it is better that they educate their friends about their problem, it makes them want to help deaf students. (Participant B)

If you have someone who is willing to help, it is really good. (Participant D)

Classroom supports. All participants reported they experienced difficulties working in groups. They emphasised that in group settings students often tended to speak simultaneously, which made it difficult for deaf students to follow discussions:

In a group discussion if only one person is speaking, then it is fine, but if there is more than one person speaking then it becomes difficult. (Participant A)

When you are in a group, there are two or three people talking at the same time, sometimes you can’t keep up with what’s happening. (Participant B)

The participants suggested that only a small number of students (around five) should be grouped for different activities, and two mentioned that during group activities teachers should either instruct other students how to behave during group discussions or allow deaf students to choose their group participants:

I think the only thing that could help deaf students is to choose people who they think can help them, teachers might think that we are going to choose our friends only, but those people are people who know us, who understand us and who can help. (Participant B)

If educators encouraged only one person to talk at a time, it would be much easier to understand. (Participant A)

Adapting teaching materials

Visual supports. When participants were asked whether teachers highlighting important terms on worksheets assisted them to identify key concepts, two participants noted that they would prefer to highlight important aspects themselves:

My advice would be to go through the worksheet with the whole class and while talking to the students tell them what they must highlight, so they can do things together. If the educator works together with the students it is much more effective than the deaf students working by themselves. (Participant A)

I would prefer to highlight the most important parts of the worksheet by myself. (Participant C)

All participants agreed that deaf students would benefit from more visual presentations of new materials as they relied heavily on their visual modality. One participant mentioned that teachers in her high school often used video presentations to provide explanations for new scientific concepts; however, it was not always possible to follow the content of these presentations. She suggested that teachers either choose videos with close captions or provide deaf students with written explanations of the material to assist with understanding.

Classroom supports. All participants commented on the role of the classroom environment in supporting their learning. For example they emphasised that teachers needed to make sure that they either stood or sat facing students, and did not cover their faces when talking. Participants also stated that deaf students should be seated as close as possible to teachers, and that the lighting in the classroom should be bright enough to ensure that deaf students could see teachers’ faces, hands and lips. They suggested:

It is important for the teacher to face the class … . When the teacher is staying at the back of the classroom you can’t hear them properly, you can’t lip-read as well. I always used to sit in front of the classroom to see the teacher. (Participant B)

When communicating with deaf students, you have to face them. They need to see you properly. They also should sit closer to the front of the classroom. (Participant A)

Additionally, participants mentioned the negative impact of background noise on deaf students’ understanding of the school material.

A fan, an aircon, screaming might affect deaf learners’ hearing, when the classroom is noisy it is very difficult for a deaf student to understand the teacher. (Participant C)

If all background noises were eliminated it would be perfect, but in today’s society you always have noisy classrooms or some students talking in the background. In a public school, like I was, you always have students talking. (Participant A)

Finally participants spoke about the benefits gained when teachers used an FM amplification system, but two participants highlighted that teachers needed to ensure that it was worn correctly on their person and was in good working order:

In the case of a noisy classroom, the FM system is very effective, as it eliminates all background noises. (Participant B)

The FM system helps a lot, you can’t hear background noises, you can focus on the educator’s voice. I used the FM system a lot in high school. The educators were quite happy to use it, the problem was that they sometimes kept forgetting to switch it on, I had to remind them to switch the system on from time to time. (Participant C)

Adapting assessments

Classroom supports. When participants were asked their thoughts on assessment tasks they suggested that they would have appreciated the opportunity to choose the format of assessments.

I think if the deaf students want to write a traditional test they can do it if they want to present portfolios or projects, it could also be accepted by the teacher because sometimes difficult tests that take a long time could be a real problem for deaf students. (Participant C)

But one concern participants raised was that if deaf students were allowed to present alternative (or shorter answers), was that they might experience future difficulties adjusting to real world expectations.

I think it is important for us, especially at school, to learn how to write properly, how to understand instructions. It is important for us to master it because when we go out to work, we will be required to do these things, not everything is going to be short and easy (Participant B).

Deaf learners will be part of the hearing world, they need to be ready for the future, and they need to master as many skills as possible at school. (Participant C)

One participant also noted that providing deaf students with tasks requiring short answers might impede their ability to express themselves in writing.

By giving deaf students tasks that require short answers, you do not allow them to develop their writing skills and improve their written communication. (Participant D)

Participants were asked if extra time to complete assignments and tests would be a useful support, and all agreed on the utility of extra time to complete tasks. Two suggested:

I wouldn’t mind extra time. At university I get extra time for my exams, it helps me a lot to do better. Also in primary school, for example, when the educator gave us timetable test, she would speak and everyone had to write down the answers, having a little bit of extra time for that helped me a lot, I think, yes. (Participant A)

You are losing time when you look up at the educator and then look down at your paper, I think extra fifteen minutes will really help. (Participant D)

Finally, when participants reflected on whether modifying examination questions would be a welcome support for deaf students, they indicated that long essay-type examination questions could potentially give rise to comprehension difficulties. They suggested that modifying test papers was a support that could better assess the students according to their level of ability. These modifications might include multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blank questions, true-false questions or short-answer essay questions.

I agree, it is very effective, particularly, if the educator not only modifies the questions, but also rephrases them to ensure that their meaning is clear for deaf learners. (Participant A)

One of the participants also added that teachers should be extra careful when they modify test papers, as they could make it even more complicated for deaf students to complete.

I think sometimes true-or-false questions are more difficult to do than normal questions. Multiple choice questions can also be very difficult, especially with negative marking. (Participant D)

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the educational experiences of four profoundly deaf students, to understand what adjustments could better support the successful inclusion of deaf students into mainstream South African secondary schools. The students identified several supportive modifications and strategies, and these findings are discussed below.

Adapting teaching strategies

All participants in this study identified adapting teaching strategies as useful for supporting deaf students in mainstream classrooms and noted that educators need to consider the individual abilities of deaf students. When viewed through critical disability theory, the participants’ suggestions challenge ableist, standardised teaching methods and advocate for an inclusive approach that respects and celebrates the unique learning needs and abilities of deaf students, empowering them to actively participate in their education (Naraian, 2021). This finding is in keeping with Morningstar et al. (2015) who observed 65 inclusive classrooms across six diverse Knowledge Development Sites (KDS) using a customised tool, the Inclusive Classroom Observation Tool (ICOT). Morningstar et al. (2015) found some of the most frequently observed curriculum adaptations to be visual changes to teaching materials (e.g. large print, different formats), environmental adjustments, and response adaptations. Additionally, the authors reported that the most frequent curricular modifications were reductions in cognitive demands, together with increased use of visuals to depict content and manipulating learning tools. While the participants of the current study clearly stated they did not need curriculum content to be simplified, they nonetheless emphasised the importance of using visual cues and hints. They emphasised that in order to optimise deaf students’ perception of spoken language, teachers needed to use different visual cues and hints, such as gaining students’ attention, speaking clearly and using gestures.

The current participants concurred that oral discussion was a helpful strategy for preparing deaf students for any writing activities. In addition, they highlighted the importance of providing deaf students with written instructions to help them obtain prior information about the topic at hand. These findings are supported by a study conducted by Wolbers et al. (2020), which employed a multiple-baseline probe single case design to assess the impact of the Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) on the writing abilities of six deaf students. The implementation of the multiple-baseline design enabled the sequential introduction of SIWI to each participant, allowing researchers to assess whether changes in writing skills were linked to the intervention. Their findings provided some evidence that collaborative writing with teachers and peers during SIWI results in some global, untargeted language benefits for students, because they have multiple opportunities to see various linguistic features being demonstrated in the construction of an authentically communicated message.

Morningstar et al. (2015) also found that cooperative learning and interventions that engaged peers in learning together were contributing factors leading to higher levels of student participation. Student support was evident in a variety of learning arrangements, with whole-class instruction and flexible groupings (e.g. centres, small groups, paired learning) found to be the most successful (Morningstar et al., 2015). Participants in the current study reported on the importance of peer supports and emphasised that a “buddy system” is key for the development of positive socialisation and acceptance of deaf students by hearing peers. However, they suggested that only a small number of students (around five) should be placed in a group and proposed that teachers should instruct group members how to behave during collaborative group discussions and allow deaf students to choose their group participants.

Adapting teaching materials

Participants in the current study agreed that another important element of teaching support for deaf students was for teachers to provide additional or different materials in a variety of modalities. Interpreting this through the lens of critical disability theory reflects a call for diversity rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. This transformative practice recognises the challenges of the way to acquire knowledge. It positions students with disabilities as active participants in their learning journey, recognising their autonomy in navigating educational spaces adapted to their unique knowledge and learning (Naraian, 2021).

As far back as 2010, Bornman and Rose confirmed that adapting teaching materials involved making changes to equipment and supplies that would help deaf students complete tasks. Participants in the current study also stated that adapting materials promoted their comprehension of tasks, and assisted them in the discrimination of words, phrases and sentences which enhanced their learning processes.

A study by Domínguez et al. (2014) examined the reading strategies of deaf adult readers who regularly read books and newspapers. They found that a significant percentage (65.38%) had not reached a reading level equivalent to that of hearing 5th–6th graders. The study discovered that these readers often used a “key word strategy” which entailed relying primarily on the most frequent content words, while generally disregarding function words. They also found that while participants’ reading proficiency was positively collated with vocabulary development, their syntactical ability did not evolve in the same way. Using “key word strategy” helped to develop vocabulary but it did not have an impact on syntactic knowledge because sentences were not syntactically analysed. This highlights the importance of explicitly teaching syntactic rules and patterns to deaf students, and clearly explaining how these rules form the meaning of sentences. Furthermore, some of the participants of the present study noted that they would prefer to follow the teacher’s explanations and highlight the most important aspects themselves.

In 2010, Bornman and Rose found that the physical environment (factors such as classroom spaces, classroom infrastructure, arrangement of furniture, level of noise and class size) could create barriers to learning for deaf students. Participants in the current study also mentioned that it was critical for teachers to consider these factors when trying to meet the needs of deaf students.

As recently as 2020, Materechera investigated primary school teachers perceptions of inclusive education to gain an understanding of the relationship between student support and teacher experiences in inclusive classrooms. Materechera’s research involved in-depth interviews with nine teachers from two schools as well as questionnaires administered to 59 teachers across four schools in one of South Africa’s district municipalities. Materechera (2020) found that in mainstream settings teachers are faced with the realities of big class sizes, and these learning environments make it difficult for teachers to provide adequate support (without compromising academic quality) and time for deaf students as well as the other students in their classrooms. Participants in the present study suggested that deaf students would benefit from using an FM (frequency modulated) amplification system in a noisy classroom emphasising that teachers needed to ensure it was worn on their person all the time and that it was in good working order.

Adapting assessments

In this study, participants reported that they required some additional accommodations during testing situations. They noted they did not expect teachers to lower standards to accommodate specific educational needs, but to provide reasonable opportunities for students to demonstrate what they knew. Through the lens of critical disability theory, this feedback can be understood as an appeal to dismantle the ableist testing structures, which often equate standardisation with fairness. The participants advocate an equitable approach that recognises the different ways in which students, particularly those with disabilities, participate and demonstrate knowledge (Baglieri, 2022). This is not about reducing the rigour of the academic system, but rather about reimagining the assessment methodology to be more inclusive and representative of all students’ abilities.

The current participants suggested they could be allowed to perform alternative forms of assessment, for example, presenting a research project or portfolio in lieu of tests or exams. This particular finding aligns with recent South African research conducted by Ayaya et al. (2021), who found that teachers should keep detailed records of students’ achievements, including different forms of assessment, rather than using predetermined assessments and penalising students for what they cannot do, due to disability. Ayaya et al. (2021 employed a critical participatory action research (PAR) method involving 20 participants, including teachers, school administrators, and students, utilising various methods of data collection comprising interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. Ayaya et al.’s (2021) study confirmed that the aim of assessment should be to respond to the individual needs of students by focusing on their strengths rather than their weaknesses.

Current participants also stated that it is important for educators to be specific about the outcomes of the assessment and to match assessment strategies with the specific characteristics of deaf students. They mentioned that assessments should be modified to allow assessing deaf students’ performance according to their level of ability. These modifications could include multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blank questions, true-false questions or short-answer essay questions. Love and Beneke (2023) confirmed that these multi-faceted assessments could include oral and written work, research and acting out methods, experiments and questions that help students demonstrate what they have learnt by testing other levels of competencies.

Finally, participants agreed that allowing deaf students extra time in tests or examinations was beneficial for successful outcomes. However, a concession such as providing deaf students with tasks that only required short answers was an issue of concern, as participants worried that this strategy might impede the development of their writing skills and create difficulties with their transition to the adult world.

Limitations

This study's findings are limited to secondary education and cannot be applied to all South African schools because the participants were only integrated into a mainstream environment during their secondary education. Furthermore, this sample is small and cannot claim to be representative of the deaf South African population. The study participants were highly educated, hence these research results may not be representative of students from lower socio-economic statuses (SES) or those who read at a high school level. Equally, the study's scope was limited to a single province (KwaZulu-Natal) in South Africa, as all participants were educated in schools located in this province. The research focused on the experiences of students, with suggestions made for teaching practices, and it did not incorporate the views of parents or other relatives of deaf students. Additionally, this study was limited by its sole focus on the experiences of participants who communicated using an auditory-oral approach. It is likely that these experiences do not represent those of profoundly deaf students who communicate with sign language. Finally, all participants were known to the first author, potentially introducing unique biases into the data collection and analysis processes.

Conclusion

The inclusion (or lack thereof) of students with disabilities into mainstream South African classrooms is currently conceptualised as a human rights issue. This theoretical-philosophical reconceptualisation has to find its way into reforming educational practices (Donohue & Bornman, 2014; Engelbrecht, 2020). The findings of this study come at an opportune time to contribute to this important process by offering support to deaf students and their educators. The present study highlights the specific adaptations that could be implemented as strategies for ensuring the effective inclusion of deaf students into mainstream schools. These adaptations include modifying teaching strategies, teaching materials and assessment tasks to make them suitable for the unique needs of profoundly deaf students. Provision of appropriately adapted teaching and learning materials could go a long way to ensuring that barriers to learning for deaf students are well addressed. The results of this unique study not only lend credence to listening to the voices of deaf students when designing and evaluating classroom-level changes, but also to including their lived experiences as essential elements of a systems-wide transformation of South African schools. Additionally, by interpreting the results through the lens of critical disability theory, this study can be considered as a step towards disrupting ableist norms and structures and advocating for an inclusive, responsive, and respectful educational system for all South African deaf students.

Availability of data and materials

All questions relating to data and materials should be addressed to the first author [email protected].

Ethical approval

Prior to data collection, ethics approval was granted by the ethics committee of the University of South Africa.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Iliana Skrebneva

Dr Iliana Skrebneva is a Lecturer in Inclusive Education in the School of Education at Macquarie University. Bringing with her an extensive experience from her time in the field before joining academia, Iliana has cultivated a deep understanding of the multi-faceted nature of Inclusive Education. Her research interests lie within this broad domain, with a specific focus on developing teaching methods and services that can successfully support students with diverse needs in mainstream classrooms.

Loraine Fordham

Dr Loraine Fordham is a Senior Lecturer in Education in the School of Education at Macquarie University. Loraine’s research interests are inclusive education; family-centred practices; children’s social and emotional well-being; high-quality early childhood education and care. Loraine has worked for many years as an academic, researcher and speech pathologist in a range of early childhood, academic, health and community organisations.

Appendix 1

Interview questions

1. What verbal cues, such as gestures, signs, facial expressions, and lip reading were beneficial in improving your understanding of school content?

2. Did your hearing peers assist you in comprehending the schoolwork? How effective was their assistance?

3. What are your thoughts on working in groups with students? Did you find it helpful?

4. How do you think group work could be improved?

5. Would it be helpful to participate in oral discussions before engaging in writing activities?

6. What is your opinion on highlighting specific key terms for better comprehension of the difficult terminology?

7. Do you believe that accessing the teachers’ notes beforehand would help in preparing for your lessons? If so how?

8. Would incorporating aids like whiteboards, pictures, and posters assist you in grasping concepts? If so how?

9. Do you think that modifying or adapting the classroom environment to support your learning process would be beneficial?

10. Considering assessments, do you think having different forms of assessment would be valuable to you?

11. Should deaf students have the opportunity to provide various types of responses during assessments?

12. What are your thoughts on having additional time to complete assessments if needed?

13. Could examination questions be specifically tailored for deaf students? If so how?

14. Do you have any further ideas or recommendations regarding the subjects we have been discussing?