Advertisement

Critical Reflections: Concluding Thoughts and Future Possibilities

Chapter
  • 207 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)

Abstract

This chapter highlights some of the findings of the study. It reasserts the view that blind and sighted students do not differ in respect of their self-esteem, adjustment, and academic achievements. The students were found to be confident, capable of shouldering responsibilities, adaptable and determined. Among several factors, parents and teachers played a dominant role in shaping the behaviour of students. Ecological analysis of non-integrated schools for blind students showed that architectural and instructional barriers such as lack of barrier free environment, adequate and appropriate study materials such as non-availability of Braille books, necessary support services, adequate transport services, lack of continuous funding, restrictions on the legislative measures undertaken for the empowerment of people with disabilities, lack of follow up procedures for their implementation and so on emerged as some of the loopholes in the implementation of these educational programmes.

Keywords

Comparison School Family Self 

References

  1. Allgood-Merten, B., Lewinson, P. M., & Hops, H. (1990). Sex differences and adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 55–63.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M., & Hughes, H. M. (1990). Parenting attitudes and the self-esteem of young children. Psychological Abstract, 77(6), 1431.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: connection, regulation and autonomy in family, school and neighborhood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaty, L. A. (1993). Adolescents self-perception as a function of vision loss. Psychological Abstracts, 80(2), 768.Google Scholar
  5. Behl, D. D., Akers, J. F., Boyce, M. J., & Taylor, M. J. (1996). Do mothers interact differently with children who are visually impaired? Journal Visual Impairment and Blindness, 90, 501–511.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–334.Google Scholar
  7. Conger, K. J., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (1997). Parents, siblings, psychological control, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(1), 113–138.Google Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University Of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dodds, A. G., Ferguson, E. P., Ng, L., Flannigan, H., Haubs, G., & Yates, L. (1994). The concept of adjustment: A structural model. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88, 487–497.Google Scholar
  10. Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.Google Scholar
  11. Dote-Kwan, J. & Hughes, M. (1994, Jan–Feb). The home environment of young blind children. Journal of Visual lmpairment and Blindness, 31–42.Google Scholar
  12. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gecas, V. (1986). The motivational significance of self-concept for socialization theory. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 3, pp. 131–156). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein, H., & Cisar, C. L. (1992). Promoting interaction during sociodramatic play: Teaching scripts to typical preschoolers and classmates with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 265–280.Google Scholar
  15. Haider, I. (1990). Adjustment of visually handicapped children in two settings. Ph.D. thesis, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  16. Jangira, N. K. (1987). Small group work choices of hearing and hearing-impaired children in integrated settings. New Delhi, India: DTESEES, NCERT.Google Scholar
  17. Kapoor, P., & Sen, A. (1984). A comparative study of congenitally and adventitiously blind with their sighted peers on some psychological variables. In M. G. Hussain (Ed.), Problems and Potentials of the Handicapped. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.Google Scholar
  18. Kaur, Singh & Jain. (1984). A Study of Social and Emotional Adjustment of normal and blind children: Understanding and development of child. Agra: Agra Psychological Cell.Google Scholar
  19. Kernis, M. H., Brown, A. C., & Brody, G. H. (2000). Fragile self-esteem in children and its associations with perceived patterns of parent child communication. Psychological Abstract, 87, 2171.Google Scholar
  20. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Obiakor, F. E. (1986). Self-concept: An operational model for educators. Resources in Education, 27(7), 21.Google Scholar
  22. Obiakor, F. E., & Stile, S. S. (1990). The self-concepts of visually impaired and normally sighted middle school children. Journal of Psychology, 124(2), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pellegrini, A. (1984). The effect of dramatic play on children’s generation of cohesive text. Discourse Processes, 7, 57–67.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenblum, L. P. (2000). Perceptions of the impact of visual impairment on the lives of adolescents. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94(7), 434–445.Google Scholar
  25. Simmons, R., Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, M. (1973). Disturbance in the self-image at adolescence. American Sociological Review, 38, 553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinha, S. P. (1982). Personality adjustment of the blind students. Indian Journal of Psychometry and Education, 13, 37–47.Google Scholar
  27. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60(6), 1424–1436.Google Scholar
  28. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.Google Scholar
  30. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  31. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations, 7–24.Google Scholar
  32. Tennent, L., & Berthelsen, D. (1997). Creativity: What does it mean in the family context? Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 91–104.Google Scholar
  33. Turner, B. D., & Erchul, W. P. (1987). Visually impaired children I: Psycho-educational assessment issues. School Psychology International, 8, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wenz-Gross, M., Siperstein, G. N., & Untch, A. S. (1997). Stress, social support, and adjustment of adolescents in middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(2), 129–151.Google Scholar
  35. Williams, C. (1970). Some psychiatric observations on a group of maladjusted deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 11, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, J. M., Currie, C. (2000). Self-esteem and physical development in early adolescence: Pubertal timing and body image. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 129–149.Google Scholar
  37. Wright, B. (1983). Physical disability: A social-psychological approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  38. Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention of cumulative protection: effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loreto College, KolkataKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations