Wednesday , February 21 2018
Home / Research Papers / Developing DEAF Islamic Studies and Programs

Developing DEAF Islamic Studies and Programs

DEVELOPING DEAF ISLAMIC STUDIES AND PROGRAMS

Author Note

Shukry Mahmood, a deaf teacher who is dedicated to empowering the deaf and deaf people with disabilities. He has a Master of Science degree in Deaf Education and Deaf Studies. He will plan to establish the Jericho Community Center of the Deaf in the Jericho, West Bank, Palestine. Contact: [email protected]

Abstract

“As long as we have deaf people on earth, we will have signs. And as long as we have our films, we can preserve signs in their old purity. It is my hope that we will all love and guard our beautiful sign language as the noblest gift God has given to deaf people.”—George Veditz, 1913.

Hence, the purpose of this research paper is demonstrating that deaf children have notable social challenges, DEVELOPING DEAF ISLAMIC STUDIES AND PROGRAMSespecially in contrast with their hearing peers, and the components that impact these social interactions should be checked to illuminate possible ways for intercession. Researching five key databases revealed three diaries and 14 notable papers that met the criteria for possible methods of addressing this problem. The primary variables researched were the deaf child’s communication competency, age, and level of mainstreaming, which were connected with peer interactions. The methodological nature of the articles was evaluated utilizing an adjusted agenda (Batten, 2013).

Key Words: Deaf, Education, Islam studies, Programs, Developing, sign language, courses, sign language education

INTRODUCTION

The importance of picking up a post-secondary education has never been greater and education passed the secondary school level is critical to an individual’s capacity to enter and effectively partake in today’s complex workplace. The number of students getting into post-secondary education in New Zealand has expanded consistently in recent years, including deaf students, who are entering post-secondary education in greater numbers than ever before (Batten, 2013). Determining the real number of deaf and hard of-hearing post-secondary education students in New Zealand is troublesome. There are no official figures accessible, yet in 2007, data from post-secondary institutions’ disability organizers as a feature of the obliged answering to the Tertiary Education Commission revealed there were roughly 800 enlisted deaf and hard-of-hearing students enrolled with the institution’s disability support center. Most institutions announced less than ten Deaf and 20 hard-of-hearing students (individual communications from Disability Support Officers in post-secondary institutions, 2013).

Islam does not provide adequate arrangements for those who are deaf. Even the announcements that can be found in beloved writings might be ambiguous and are often best read figuratively (Powell, 2013). As anyone might expect, these components are imparted to the next “Abrahamic” monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity. However, the colossally changed historical and current practice of Islam (by Muslims over the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and further afield) does meet or address the issues facing deaf individuals in their day-to-day existence (Mattson, 2012).  These Islamic practices and experiences might be documented in folklore, in legal rulings, in charitable practices, in spiritual practices, in medical science,  in other healing arts, in philosophical discussion, in commonsense discussion, in humor, and in numerous other media—each with some reference to writings in the Qur’an, the life and teaching of the prophet Muhammad, the formulations of early schools of thought on Islamic law and welfare arrangements, and current compositions of these sources. Some of these regular practices are like those of other major monotheisms; some are particularly Islamic (Mattson, 2012).

There are numerous parts of Muslims’ practices and lives that seem to have an association with deafness. This is an idiosyncratic selection of things, amassed amid somewhere in the range of 25 years of studies (Hannah, 2013). This grouping of practices in no way, shape or form exhausts the topic, however, draws something of the range attitudes towards deafness. A significant number of the writers are Muslims. The areas discussed are mostly in the major districts of Muslim populace, or in western scholastic investigations of established Muslim locales. Muslims living as minorities in Western countries and research students have likewise done a few reviews on the issue of deaf blind (Mattson, 2012). While a significant number of these are intriguing and insightful, there is an inclination to take a guarded or responsive position, either limiting contrasts to be more effectively absorbed into the host society or stating or overstating contrasts. Such reviews might be legitimate for parts of the Muslim diaspora and turn into a medium of significant change in the near future. They may also run the danger of distorting the customary and majorly comprehended practices of Islam (Mattson, 2012).

Indeed, it is sometimes hard to put forth broad impressions about deaf individuals, or about any of the world’s major religions, raising concerns about some researchers, some lay adherents, a few people with hearing loss, or a few women’s activists. The following explanations, are not suggested to give offense, nor to suggest anything injurious about Islam or Muslim devotees. Things are recorded for their material significance to deafness, Islam, and social reactions to these phenomena (Miles, 2007). The feelings communicated by creators are not approved or supported by the reality of posting them. Some normal historical practices would be unsuitable for many individuals now, whatever religion or philosophy (Miles, 2007). On the off chance that they are recorded beneath, these historical practices are proof of how individuals have carried on in past circumstances. Essentially, historical words, for example, ‘quiet’, ‘crippled’, ‘deformity’, have now been supplanted by different terms; yet they appeared here in their historical context (Miles, 2007).

There is no doubt that the practice and conduct of Muslims (as additionally of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, or adherents of other religions or philosophies), have often missed the mark regarding the most elevated measures instructed by every faith or belief. Both belief and practice are typically stirred up with common practices that are not as perfect (Hannah, 2013).

THE THEORY OF DEAF IDENTITY AND DEVELOPMENT

Identity is an unpredictable idea. Baumeister (1997) depicted identity traditionally as “representation of the self” while numerous other researchers (Hadjikakou and Nikolaraize, 2006; McIlroy and Storbeck, 2011) believed that the development of self is firmly associated with each individual’s available and past encounters, including the children’s family, school involvement and collaborations in the vicinity of oneself and the encompassing social environment.

To deaf people, identity is also a crucial concept. This idea underscores the deaf group with trademark ways that are separate from the hearing group and have risen to a different cultural and semantic identity of deaf people (McIlroy, 2008). As indicated by this thought, the impact strategies; the educational experience et cetera will impact the development of deaf identity. This issue was demonstrated by Glickman (1993) and Bat-Chava (2000). In the meantime, Glickman and Batchava have pointed out the differences and development of deaf identity in their reviews.

Glickman (1993) was the principal analyst who inspired the development of a deaf identity. He set out “to formulate and test a model for the development of culturally deaf identities” and “to construct an instrument, the Deaf Identity Development Scale, to measure cultural identity in deaf people.” After that he recognized four developmental phases of deaf identity considering these prior reviews. The “culturally hearing” which alludes to individuals who hold the overwhelming society’s mentalities and convictions about hearing misfortune, the “culturally marginal” which alludes to individuals who have moving loyalties and perplexity with respect to their relationship to the deaf and hearing universes, the “immersion identity” which alludes to the “radical or militant” deaf position, and the “bicultural identity” which alludes to people who have incorporated their deaf pride balanced into their full humankind. It should be stressed that his review reminded us, we ought to perceive right off the bat: deaf individuals and the “bicultural identity” which alludes to people who have incorporated their deaf pride balanced into their full humankind. His review also said deaf individuals and hearing individuals just have the “cultural difference,” and we should comprehend deaf culture as a sort of ethnic culture, which is equivalent to the next culture of the minority.

Expanding on Glickman’s hypothesis of deaf identity development, other ensuing scientists established their own discoveries. For example, Holcomb (1997) contrived seven identity classes a deaf individual may fall into depending on the degree of introduction to the deaf group. The adjusted bicultural identity applies to the deaf individual who feels great in both deaf and hearing societies, the deaf-prevailing bicultural identity alludes to the general population who is required to be in the deaf group. Although it relates well to hearing people, the hearing-predominant bicultural identity alludes to the general population who has constrained association in the deaf group but  can communicate serenely with deaf individuals, the culturally segregated identity alludes to the general population who rejects all inclusion with other deaf individuals, the culturally isolate identity applies to the general population who likes to collaborate with other deaf individuals however much as could reasonably be expected and keeps contacts with hearing individuals to a base. The culturally marginal identity applies to the general population who is not agreeable in either the deaf group or among hearing individuals, and the culturally hostage identity applies to the deaf individual who has had no chance to meet other deaf individuals and find out about deaf culture.

Even though Glickman, Holcomb and Melick formulated the diverse deaf identity characterization, there is a continuous flux of how far deaf individuals characterize themselves as people and individuals from their societies (Maxwell-McCaw, Leigh and Marcus, 2000). They have contradicting thoughts regarding deaf identity and the phase of the deaf identity development.

Most deaf individuals are born to hearing parents, who convey and instruct their children in talking dialect. Because of this there is a refutation about the deaf identity, the gesture-based communication and the style of the deaf in the person’s development environment. At that point, the deaf individual will comply with the surrounding environment, and distinguish the hearing society. With the enhancing awareness of the deaf individual, particularly after they meet other deaf people, they will feel like they can’t enter both hearing social and deaf impact or their identity will be disruptive. The more contact an individual has with the deaf group, the more settled, they become with themselves and submerge themselves in deaf culture.

Countries throughout the world attempted to give all the educational support and do their best to get excellent educational results. After all, the progress of nations and people groups originate from education’s different fields (Powell, 2013).  These countries looked for the most recent knowledge and aptitude to achieve the most elevated level of educational nature. There is a utilization of cutting edge educational procedures and the arrangement is making effective strides. The educational establishment accomplishes its objectives if it prevails with giving a fitting level of convenience and similarity amongst educator and student as well as the student and the curriculum, since it permits students better conditions for the development of intellectual, social and passionate development (Attya, 2001).

The Education Authority at the Supreme Council of Education in Qatar has focused on the significance of finding a proper and supportive learning environment, on enhancing the scholastic level of all deaf or hard of hearing, and to furnish these gatherings with scholarly and social involvement that fits with their capacities, energies and singular differences. The negative effect on learning difficulties develops in the deaf child so he needs unique methods for teaching (Issa, 2001). Late educational practices and quick development rely on many components, including the arrangement of professional development for teaching staff and their knowledge of the administrations that support them (Hallahan, Kuffman and Marteinez, 2005). This is where you urge them to be innovative in the work and research on effective encounters in the field (Lablanc, Richardson & Melntosh, 2005)

Al-Rayes (2006) confirmed that deaf education in Islamic context has seen an incredible furor. This is due to many factors, including the strategy for communication and the delivery of data to the researchers formulating the diverse deaf identity characterization. Rifai (2005) showed the low level of subjective abilities and the capability of professional mindfulness among instructors of deaf children (Powell, 2013).

The Supreme Education Council (SEC) in Qatar embraced supplying extra educational support needs to educational environments to accomplish quality in education and rapid development in the academic world. It is an approach that calls for enhancing the nature of teaching and learning, incorporating those who are deaf, keeping in mind the goal of making learning environments suitable to all.  Accomplishing a standard of education for all, where sharp groups are trying to fully incorporate a system for students with learning challenges depends on a leading survey procedure. The level of performance accomplished by the students, helps to decide the level of support required for the three levels, through an assortment of areas, such as school strategy, group in control, the curriculum, professional development, and school support for the family and the student (Supreme Education Council of Qatar, 2009).

The idea of extra educational support has seen extraordinary enthusiasm in the State of Qatar. Keep in mind, the end goal is to empower schools, give a supportive learning environment and provide an open door for all students to get the high caliber educational experience by considering singular contrasts. The rule of qualification includes the right of all students to get to an indistinguishable educational from their peers, to participate in all school exercises and to accomplish their maximum potential. Comprehensive education also looks to boost the participation of all learners in the life of their neighborhood school. Besides, it tries to make learning relevant and important for all students. Concentrating on applying extra educational support needs, the Supreme Education Council of Qatar progressively applies the rule of education for all, where this strategy depends on a sequential system inside different and coordinated stages as appeared in the Supreme Education Council of Qatar (Supreme Education Council of Qatar, 2009).

This stage plans to furnish the school with an instrument that empowers them to guarantee the viability of the strategies and methods embraced in extra educational support among students. It comprises a few spaces, such as school strategy, the group in control, the school curriculum, professional development, and school support for the family and student. These areas incorporate countless practice markers for the educational support that help the student get educational support through a complete approach by giving him/her a chance to connect with a wide scope of educational encounters delighted in by his/her colleagues.

During the period of a continual assessment of the student, the school maintains their scholastic record of every fundamental school day, including every one of the year’s concentrated, progressive arrangements for developing and accomplishing educational objectives that were already arranged. This stage is an immediate strategy and technique that gives students a chance to get educational subjects in a proper way that aligns with their capacities and energies. This stage also speaks to the adjustment and change that is needed or the curriculum and similarity between the curriculum and the capacities of the student.

Extra educational support group comprises of the important, the scholarly executive, and facilitator of the extra educational support, guardians, course organizer, course teacher, right hand teacher, innovation master, mental authority, social expert, early intervention pro, discourse and dialect pro, and different pros concurring on the gathering’s necessities and the attributes of the case (Luckner, et. al, 2005). Extra educational support can be characterized as an educational strategy with educational, social and authoritative targets through a few practical stages. These include the self-audit organization that gives the important practices and the reaction to intervention that decides the required level of support. This educational support also includes the series of arrangements and facilities that give educational encounters adequate support to the capacities and attributes of the learner (Supreme Education Council of Qatar, 2009).

Deaf students require impromptu teaching through utilizing changed teaching aids and methods, and more adaptable classroom practices with the speculation of their qualities to empower them to take in; the alteration incorporates: teaching methods, learning environment, school curricula, instructional techniques and technologies, and methods of assessment (Aqel, 2012).

Furthermore, the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), clearly demonstrates that deaf children have a right to a quality education that develops their potential, like all other children. In a video released on October 18, 2013, in conjunction with a general conference in Sydney on incentives for deaf people. Human Rights demonstrates a portion of the challenges confronted by deaf children and young people, and the accessibility sign language education offers them. Around the world, deaf children and young persons are often denied an education, including sign language. There is an absence of instructors trained in sign language, and much of the time guardians don’t realize their children have a right to go to class and that they can only learn properly if given the right tools. “Sign language is basic for deaf people to have the capacity to impart, convey what needs be, and realize,” said Shantha Rau Barriga, in his capacity as rights chief at Human Rights Watch. “Denying deaf people of the chance to learn sign language can condemn them to annihilating isolation.” Several deaf people, their families, government officials, and inability specialists have gathered in Sydney for a noteworthy conference on October 16-18 that was organized by the World Federation of the Deaf.

The Human Rights Watch reported instances of deaf children and young persons in Nepal, China, and Northern Uganda who were denied their entitlement to education in sign language. Some deaf children and young peoples encountered did not go to class at all. This might be because instructors and guardians often have the misconception that deaf children do not have the scholarly ability to learn. In concrete terms, this implies utilizing instructors who are qualified in the national sign language and preparing educators at all levels of education to work with deaf students. Fundamental to this approach is enabling deaf children, young persons and guardians to help design and complete education in sign language

POWER OF SIGN LANGUAGE

Without precedent for more than two decades, Harvard began offering an American Sign Language (ASL) course last fall. Assistant professor of linguistics Kathryn Davidson, who studies sign languages, joined the linguistics department in 2015 while students were calling for American Sign Language classes. She signed the paperwork to get the course approved. Davidson said that when she was a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego, sign language researchers were everywhere. At Harvard, American Sign Language is substantially less visible, and she hopes, through American Sign Language classes and interpretations at events, to make sign language “a more natural part of what’s going on” (Bolotnikova, 2017).  However, she doesn’t teach the class and language instruction has little to do with her research. Davidson isn’t a user of American Sign Language. Most linguists who conduct research on a language aren’t necessarily familiar speakers. Davidson is a semanticist, which means she’s interested in how human beings can hear (or see, because of sign languages) infinitely many new sentences they’ve never heard and understand them. She gesticulates in fervor when she talks about language, almost flailing: “What is this thing that we’re so good at?” (Bolotnikova, 2017).

Notwithstanding, for the educated, open understanding of what linguists do can be an ordeal. The simplest definition—that linguistics is “the scientific study of language”— does not say much. We all use language, so what could be so complicated about studying it? Individuals often assume that linguists are concerned with implementing prescriptive rules about language—one shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition, use a split infinitive, and so on—however, linguists have no interest in top-down rules (Griffin, 2011). They consider the naturally happening rules of language that individuals get effortlessly as small children a great deal more interesting. The individual’s innate capacity for language may also explain why it’s hard to understand what linguists study: we’re so good at internalizing the rules of language that it’s hard to surface them as rules that need studying (Bolotnikova, 2017).

Sign languages are a fertile region for answering questions about human language capacity because they stretch the medium of language transmission from the auditory to the visual. Individuals who had constrained aural language contribution as children often use them. While she was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Connecticut, Davidson studied the English abilities of deaf children with cochlear implants (Griffin, 2011). Many deaf children conceived in the United States are given such implants early to restore their hearing loss, with varying rates of success, and often their parents are advised to focus on English and avoid sign language. “The medical community has expressed repeated concern about ‘visual takeover,” Davidson explains. “Under this view, if you’re exposed to sign language, your brain will not put the effort into using the cochlear implant to process speech because sign language is just too easy in comparison.” Within the organized deaf group, cochlear implantation is an issue of some debate: restoring the hearing of deaf children allows them to communicate with the rest of society, without the use of an interpreter, yet it also threatens the survival of deaf culture, of which sign language is a central part (Bolotnikova, 2017).

To decide if fears of a “visual takeover” could be supported, Davidson and her coauthors Diane Lillo-Martin and Deborah Chen Pichler focused on a gathering of deaf children with cochlear implants, naturally introduced to deaf families, who had regular exposure to both American Sign Language from their parents and spoken English from outside the home. She gave them standardized English tests—for comprehension, articulation, basic vocabulary, and literacy—and compared the gathering’s results to a control gathering of hearing children destined to deaf parents who also grew up signing American Sign Language with their parents and using English elsewhere (Griffin, 2011). The deaf children performed just as well as the hearing gathering; in fact, they showed improvement in deaf children with cochlear implants who lack exposure to American Sign Language (Bolotnikova, 2017).  These findings appear to confirm Chomsky’s intuition about language capacity. “Early American Sign Language input was doing whatever bilingualism would naturally do, but it wasn’t putting [the deaf children] at any disadvantage for learning spoken language,” Davidson says. “They were processing English phonology very well. They were on the high end of cochlear implant users, and they did much better than would be predicted by their age of implantation and other factors about their implants. You might conclude that this is because they had sign language, not in spite of it” (Bolotnikova, 2017).

THE CURRENT SITUATION

Theories by The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) reveal that the enrollment rate and proficiency accomplishment of Deaf children is far below the average for the population at large. The absence of education and semi-proficiency are not joking issues among Deaf people. Without fitting education, headway in the public eye as an autonomous, used, contributing subject winds up hazardous. Without a strong educational and language base, it is difficult to prevail in today’s groups, commercial centers, and in the realm of innovation and information (Powell, 2013). The World Federation of the Deaf takes the unequivocal position that there is no reason for this disgraceful situation, since Deaf children have the same intrinsic scholarly, social and emotional limits as other children (Yousef Asi, 2016).

Even in industrialized nations, the greater part of Deaf education programs doesn’t regard the linguistic human rights of Deaf children. Undoubtedly, most Deaf education programs fall into the language deprivation class portrayed in theoretical models of education of linguistic minorities. “Language deprivation” for Deaf people implies neglecting the utilization of sign language as an essential communication, as a language of instruction and as a school subject. Because of this, the linguistic human rights of Deaf children are terribly abused in educational projects everywhere around the world (Batten 2013).

LINGUISTIC HUMAN RIGHTS

The United Nations bolsters the rights of understudies from minority societies, particularly the privilege to be educated in their mother tongue. This incorporates the privilege of Deaf children to the sign language of their nation. Linguistic human rights are a fundamental component of human rights, and vital to language acquisition. Such language acquisition is required to access education fully (WFD, 2006). The World Federation of the Deaf bolsters the privilege of Deaf children to procure full dominance of their sign language as their ‘mother tongue’, and additionally to take in the language(s) utilized by their family and gathering. Deaf children should likewise approach grown-up cases familiar with sign language (WFD, 2006).

The realization of linguistic human rights is connected to the realization of essential human rights to education, the opportunity of thought and expression, pleasure in a satisfactory way of life, protection from all types of mishandling, dismissal and exploitation, and flexibility from subjection to torment or other remorseless, inhumane or debasing treatment or discipline. A kid expresses his needs through the dominance of language(s) that empowers him to carve his needs.

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Numerous arrangement creators today strongly bolster full inclusion in education, which they decipher to mean full-scale mainstreaming of every single deaf understudy with all understudies in general schools that are close to their homes (Powell, 2013). While such an objective might be fitting for some incapacitated learners who can hear and collaborate with their companions and educators, World Federation of the Deaf has genuine contrasts in regards to implementation of this concept for Deaf learners. The World Federation of the Deaf holds that the least restrictive environment for a Deaf learner is whatever the most enabling environment is for that learner (Powell, 2013). Full inclusion for a Deaf learner means a totally supportive, signing and student-centered environment. This permits the learner to develop their full educational, social and emotional potential. This is stated also in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Yousef Asi, 2016).

Focusing on the fundamental principles of the two concepts of Merit: Education for All and Inclusive Education to ensure the right of all students to get and appreciate the same educational experiences of others and multiply the level of participation of all learners in the school environment, as confirmed by the international and local legislation for the rights of individuals who are deaf (Angelides and Aravi, 2007). Otherwise, inclusion as a simple placement in a regular school without meaningful interaction with classmates and professionals is tantamount to the exclusion of the Deaf learner from education and society. In such environments, the Deaf child is physically present but may be mentally and socially absent (Powell, 2013).

RECOMMENDATIONS

There is a need to sensitize teachers of deaf students to the importance of using additional support to educate them. This awareness has a clear part in activating the partnership with a multi-disciplinary team, parents of deaf students, and enhancing the quality and development plans (Yousef Asi, 2016).

There is also a need to encourage authorities to monitor the practice of the policy of additional educational Support needs among teachers of deaf students because of its positive impact on enhancing the education of the deaf and ensuring the development and quality in schools.

Institutions with small numbers of deaf and hard-hearing (DHH) students are not required to develop systems and procedures that can assist these students to be incorporated into the range of educational experiences. Neither are they required to empower students to wind up noticeably free and resilient. The factors of decision, access, and empowerment should be at the forefront of any advance toward inclusive postsecondary education if deaf and hard-hearing students are to be equal and valued participants.

References;
  • Batten, G., Oakes, P. and Alexander, T. (2013). Factors Associated with Social Interactions Between Deaf Children and Their Hearing Peers: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(3), 285-302.
  • Bolotnikova, M. (2017, May-June). A Language Out of Nothing – Searching for the nature of speech, sign, and universal grammar. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 28/7/2017 http://harvardmagazine.com/2017/05/a-language-out-of-nothing
  • Chen, G. (2014). Influential Factors of Deaf Identity Development. Electric Journal for Inclusive Education, 3(2), 1-12
  • Collazo, V. (2015, March 23). Deaf Education: A History of American Sign Language in the United States. [Online] CyraCom. Retrieved 28/7/2017 http://interpret.cyracom.com/blog/deaf-education-history-american-sign-language-united-states/
  • Gregory, S. (2010). Sign Language and the Education of Deaf Pupils. Batod.org.uk.
  • Griffin, T. (2011, November). The Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children in Ireland. National Council for Special Education. Retrieved from http://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DeafEducationReport.pdf
  • Hannah. S. N, Umat. C, and Shukri Mat The. K. (2013). Factors Affecting the Learning of the Holy Quran Among severely and profoundly Hearing-impaired Children with a Cochlear Implant: Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(1), 85-92. Retrieved 27/7/2017http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol2issue1/O0218592.pdf?id=5647
  • Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). The Relationship Between the Reading and Signing Skills of Deaf Children in Bilingual Education Programs. The Journal Studies Education, 13(4), 518-530. https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/13/4/518/497665/The-Relationship-Between-the-Reading-and-Signing
  • Jauregui, J. (2007). The Invisible Isolation of Deaf Women: It’s Effect on Social Awareness. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 8(2), 249-262. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=jssw
  • Johnson, R.E., Lidel, S.K. and Erting, C.J. (1989). Unlocking the Curriculum: Principles  for Achieving Aces in Deaf Education. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED316978.pdf
  • Mattson, I. (2012). “Deaf” in the Qur’an and in the Muslim Community. http://www.globaldeafmuslim.org/. Retrieved from http://ingridmattson.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012-Deaf-in-the-Quran-and-in-the-Muslim-Community.pdf
  • Miles. M (2007). Islam, Disability & Deafness: a modern and historical bibliography, with introduction and annotation. RASIT.
  • Poggio, J. (2013, October 17). Offer Deaf Children Education in Sign Language: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 25/7/2017 https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/17/offer-deaf-children-education-sign-language
  • Powell, D., Hyde, M. and Punch, R. (2013). Inclusion in Postsecondary Institutions with Small Numbers of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: Highlights and Challenges. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.
  • Yousef Asi, K. (2016). The Reality of Practicing the Policy of Additional Educational Support Needs among Teachers of Deaf Students in Qatar. International Journal of Learning and Development, 6(3) Retrieved 25/7/2017 http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijld/article/viewFile/9980/8095

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *