National survey of accommodations and alternate assessments for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in the United States

This paper reports the results of the National Survey of Accommodations and Alternate Assessments for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in the United States (National Survey). This study focused on the use of accommodations and alternate assessments in statewide assessments used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. A total of 258 participants responded to the survey, including 32 representing schools for the deaf, 168 from districtwide/school programs, and 58 from mainstreamed settings. These schools and programs served a total of nearly 12,000 students who are deaf or hard of hearing nationwide. The most prevalent accommodations used in 2003-2004 statewide standardized assessments in mathematics and reading were extended time, an interpreter for directions, and a separate room for test administration. Read aloud and signed question-response accommodations were often prevalent, used more often for mathematics than in reading assessments. Participants from mainstreamed settings reported a more frequent use of accommodations than those in schools for the deaf or districtwide/school programs. In contrast, schools for the deaf were most likely to have students participate in alternate assessments. The top three alternate assessment formats used across all settings were out-of-level testing, work samples, and portfolios. Using the National Survey results as a starting point, future research will need to investigate the validity of accommodations used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. In the context of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 accountability policies, the accommodations and alternate assessment formats used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing may result in restrictions in how scores are integrated into state accountability frameworks.     

The functional assessment of deaf and hard of hearing students.

The study reports on a set of questions added to the 1997-98 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth designed to take into consideration the functioning of children in their classroom in nine functional areas. Basing information on 30,198 students, the study describes prevalence rates of reported limitations in these functional areas for deaf and hard of hearing students, compares these to rates resulting from the reporting of categorically defined additional disabilities, and examines interrelationships among the items. Results of school estimates of students' functional hearing abilities are presented. The study's findings suggest a broader range and higher prevalence of functional limitations than would be assumed by analyzing categories of additional disabilities alone. The study's findings support the viability of functional assessment through large surveys. The discussion emphasizes the importance of functional assessment for the provision of appropriate educational services to deaf and hard of hearing children.     

Comparing practical knowledge storage of deaf and hearing teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing

Especially in the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing, teachers' practical knowledge storage is almost never measured. The Survey of Practical Knowledge was used to compare the practical knowledge storage of deaf and hearing teachers of these students. Surveyed were 48 deaf and 115 hearing individuals at the preservice and in-service experience levels. Practical knowledge storage was defined as images, rules of practice, and practical principles. Results indicate that deaf teachers tend to view students as equals but are more likely to emphasize control over classroom behavior than hearing teachers. Hearing teachers tend to stress efforts to engage students in subject matter by providing variety and relating it to life experiences. Given the trend toward high-stakes testing of teachers, further research is encouraged on role differences between deaf and hearing teachers working with students who are deaf or hard of hearing.     

Professional concerns of beginning teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students

The professional concerns of beginning teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing were examined. Five first-year teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students served as participants. Two of the participants were itinerant teachers; three taught in self-contained classrooms. Participants were selected from programs serving deaf and hard of hearing students in rural and urban areas of the midwestern and southwestern United States. To interview the study participants, the researcher used an in-depth phenomenological method employing semi-structured questions and guided by a constructivist paradigm. Data were analyzed using qualitative analysis strategies (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Results showed that concerns of beginning teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students are specific to service delivery models and geography. Participants provided specific recommendations for addressing the concerns of beginning teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students.     

Accommodations use for statewide standardized assessments: prevalence and recommendations for students who are deaf or hard of hearing

The Second Annual National Survey on Assessments and Accommodations for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing investigated the types of testing accommodations used on 2004-2005 statewide standardized assessments as well as recommendations for best practices. A total of 444 participants who served over 9,000 students as teachers, administrators, or other educational professionals responded to the survey. The most widely used accommodations were small-group testing, interpreting test directions, and extended time. With the exception of interpreting or reading test items aloud, accommodations were largely used for both reading and math assessments. Participants perceived all listed accommodations as both valid and easy to use. Participants recommended that student academic level, communication mode, and additional disabilities be taken into account when choosing accommodations for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.     

Preparing today's teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing to work with tomorrow's students: a statewide needs assessment

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is explicit in its mandate that students who receive special education services have opportunities to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum. Teachers providing instruction to students who are deaf or hard of hearing are expected to comply with this federal mandate. To determine if teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing throughout the state of Georgia felt adequately prepared to educate this population, a statewide needs assessment survey was conducted. Questionnaires were reviewed from 110 experienced teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. More that half of the teachers who responded judged their teacher preparation program to be appropriate. Specific suggestions for modifications to teacher preparation programs are provided.     

Subgroup differences in educational placement for deaf and hard of hearing students.

This study presents crosstabulations of educational placement variables by selected demographic characteristics and reports the different patterns of educational placement for subgroups of the deaf and hard of hearing population. Type of school, amount of academic integration with hearing students, and the number of deaf or hard of hearing students attending the same school building were considered as dependent variables in the analysis. Degree of hearing loss, age, ethnic and racial background, and additional handicap status were considered as independent variables. Data from the 1990-1991 Annual Survey of Hearing Impaired Children and Youth were analyzed. Results indicate that subgroups defined by each of these variables differ markedly with regard to patterns of educational placement. The importance of paying attention to subgroup statistics, as opposed to global population statistics, in the formulation of educational policy is discussed.     

How prepared are transition-age deaf and hard of hearing students for adult living? Results of the transition competence battery

One result of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and related legislation is that most deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students attend local public schools. Although such placements may provide greater access to general education classrooms and curriculum, DHH students' specialized needs are less likely to be addressed. Using the Transition Competence Battery (TCB; Reiman, Bullis, & Davis, 1993), the researchers examined the transition strengths and needs of 53 middle and high school DHH students attending public schools. It was found that the students had substantial transition competence deficits and that none reached the recommended competence levels on more than 4 of the 6 subtests. The TCB is an important transition tool that fulfills requirements under the 2004 Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act Amendments to use age-appropriate and results-oriented transition assessments that document program and intervention outcomes.     

Inclusion of students who are deaf or hard of hearing in government schools in new South wales, australia: development and implementation of a policy

The inclusion of students who are deaf or hard of hearing in Department of Education and Training (government) schools in the state of New South Wales, Australia, is supported through a policy known as the Special Education Policy (NSW Department of School Education, 1993). The policy is operational for all students with disabilities, learning difficulties, or behavior disorders, regardless of their educational provision. This article focuses on how the policy and continuum of services have developed and the attitudes of stakeholders toward both policy and practice. The article begins by framing the policy in terms of legal mandates and then gives an overview of current educational provisions, followed by a discussion of attitudes toward inclusion as held by stakeholders in New South Wales government schools. The article concludes by attempting to assess the potential effects of both policy and practice on students who are deaf or hard of hearing.     

Results of two national surveys of leadership personnel needs in deaf education

Seventy university teacher preparation programs and 100 instructional programs serving at least 120 deaf and hard of hearing students were surveyed separately to (a) determine the demand for additional doctoral-level leadership personnel in deaf education, (b) obtain guidance for university leadership preparation programs in deaf education for the purpose of recruiting leadership personnel, and (c) identify experiences that would be relevant to the positions for which prospective leadership personnel are preparing. Data representing 54% of teacher preparation programs and 65% of instructional programs serving deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States evince the need for additional doctoral-level personnel for faculty positions in university teacher preparation programs in deaf education, as well as the need for leadership positions in instructional programs serving deaf and hard of hearing children. Data also provide direction for leadership preparation programs in addressing the leadership personnel needs of the field.     

Assessing resilience in students who are deaf or blind: Supplementing standardized achievement testing

Although testing accommodations for standardized assessments are available for students with disabilities, interpretation remains challenging. The authors explored resilience to see if it could contribute to the interpretation of academic success for students who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision. High school students (30 deaf, 11 blind) responded to the Resiliency Scales and a school-specific resilience survey. Student ratings were within 1 SD of those who were not deaf or blind; resilience was positively correlated with academic success (grade point average). Resilience information may contribute to the interpretation of academic success in students who are deaf or blind and may provide insight into potential interventions. This is the first time students who are deaf or blind have been assessed on a published measure of resilience. Results defy stereotypes and affirm that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision have more in common with the hearing and seeing world than is often recognized.     

Examining metacognition in hearing and deaf/hard of hearing students: a comparative study

The metacognitive performance of 87 hearing and 20 deaf/hard of hearing students was examined. The hearing students consisted of 42 males (mean age 15.6 years) and 45 females (mean age 15.4 years). The deaf/hard of hearing students consisted of 13 males (mean age 16.9 years) and 7 females (mean age 15.9 years). Metacognition was conceptualized in terms of choosing the best response to problematic situations drawing upon problem-solving and logical reasoning skills. In the test, pictures represented various daily life interactions. There was no significant difference between hearing and deaf/hard of hearing students in metacognitive performance, nor was there a gender-based significant difference among the deaf/hard of hearing students. However, hearing female students scored significantly higher on the metacognitive test than hearing male students. Further analysis of the study findings possibly would show students' overall performance on the metacognitive test to be independent of grade point average. Analysis did show, however, a significant negative correlation between test performance and grades in Arabic among deaf/hard of hearing students.     

Using online glossing lessons for accelerated instruction in ASL for preservice deaf education majors

Teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students must serve as language models for their students. However, preservice deaf education teachers typically have at most only four semesters of American Sign Language (ASL) training. How can their limited ASL instructional time be used to increase their proficiency? Studies involving deaf and hard of hearing students have revealed that glosses (written equivalents of ASL sentences) can serve as "bridges" between ASL and English. The study investigated whether glossing instruction can facilitate hearing students' learning of ASL. A Web site was developed in which ASL glossing rules were explained and glossing exercises provided. Posttest scores showed the experimental group improving from 39% to 71% on ASL grammar knowledge. These findings indicate that online glossing lessons may provide the means to obtain ASL skills more readily, thus preparing deaf education teachers to serve as ASL language models.     

Approaches to teaching in mainstream and separate postsecondary classrooms

The study examined attitudes toward teaching reported by university instructors who normally teach hearing students (with the occasional deaf or hard of hearing student) and by instructors who normally teach deaf and hard of hearing students at the same institution. Overall, a view of instruction as information transmission was associated with a teacher-focused approach to instruction, whereas viewing instruction as a means of promoting conceptual change was associated with a student-focused approach. Instructors in mainstream classrooms were more oriented toward information transmission than conceptual change, whereas instructors experienced in separate classrooms for deaf and hard of hearing students reported seeking to promote conceptual change in students and adopting more student-focused approaches to teaching. These results are consistent with previous findings concerning instructors' approaches to teaching and deaf and hard of hearing students' approaches to learning, and may help explain recent findings regarding student outcomes in separate versus mainstream secondary classrooms.     

How physical education teacher education majors should be prepared to teach students with hearing loss: a national needs assessment

A national needs assessment survey is described that gathered information on current practices in physical education in both center-based schools for the deaf and mainstream programs serving deaf and hard of hearing students, grades K-12. The manner in which deaf and hard of hearing students are being served in physical education programs, the depth and breadth of curricula, and the credentials needed to teach are described. The study compares similarities and differences among physical education programs in center-based deaf institutions and mainstream schools. In summary, the study identifies areas of concentration needed in curriculum, and methods of teaching appropriate for student teacher candidates. This information has value for physical education programs that are considering revising their curricula to prepare teacher candidates who wish to work with deaf students.     

Suggestions for preparing itinerant teachers: a qualitative analysis

Increasing numbers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing receive educational services in general education classrooms. This placement shift has altered the way teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing work, causing an increase in the number of itinerant teachers. As placement trends for students who are deaf or hard of hearing and teachers' job responsibilities have changed, the field of deaf education has only slightly modified professional standards for licensed teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Most teacher preparation programs continue training preservice teachers to work in self-contained classrooms, leaving itinerant teachers feeling underprepared. Interviews were conducted with 25 experienced itinerant teachers to determine which content and experiences should be included in preparation programs for preservice teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing who plan to become itinerant teachers. Results indicate that changes in course work and practical are necessary to best prepare these teachers.     

Pragmatic language in deaf and hard of hearing students: correlation with success in general education

Deaf and hard of hearing children have shown delays and difficulties in pragmatic behaviors due to insufficient exposure to common daily discourse and underlying impoverishment in all components of language development. In a study in a school district in a southeastern U.S. state, the researchers investigated the relationship between sociolinguistic pragmatic competence in 81 deaf and hard of hearing students and these students' degree of hearing loss, communication mode, and degree of success in general education. Two measures, one devised by the state's department of education and one developed within the local school system, were used: the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (Georgia Department of Education, 2000) and the Socio-Pragmatic Skills Checklist for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students (Cobb County School District, 1997). The researchers found that whether the students used spoken language or signed language, socio-pragmatic language had a high, positive correlation with academic outcomes.     

The Changing Role of Teachers of Students Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: Consultation as an Increasing Part of the Job

ABSTRACT

The majority of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students are educated at least part of the day in general education classrooms taught by teachers who may not have any experience working with this population. DHH students make up a unique, heterogeneous group with a wide range of communication modalities, technology utilization, early intervention experiences, and educational placements. In addition to providing direct service to support these students, teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing (ToDHH) collaborate and consult with classroom teachers and school staff on classroom accommodations and modifications. However, recent research shows that ToDHH often feel unprepared to engage in the consultative aspect of their role. Since the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed 43 years ago, the field of deaf education has increasingly called for research on consultation models to apply to their unique population and to teach in their teacher preparation programs. This article identifies the characteristics of DHH learners and synthesizes current research on consultation in the field of deaf education. Three consultation models are examined to determine their level of fit within the field of deaf education. The author ends with a call for future research that can best be met through an interdisciplinary research approach between the field of deaf education and the fields of educational and psychological consultation.     

"Globaleyes": a partnership between The Nippon Foundation (Japan) and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (United States)

In a rapidly changing world where postsecondary educators of men and women who are deaf face myriad challenges preparing these men and women to enter a global economy, there is a pressing need for multinational collaboration and partnerships that view current and emerging challenges with "globaleyes." The National Technical Institute for the Deaf at the Rochester Institute of Technology and The Nippon Foundation of Japan formed a foundation/education partnership that led to the establishment of the Postsecondary Education Network International (PEN-International), a collaborative and cooperative network of colleges and universities around the world that provide postsecondary education for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The network now consists of more than 25 institutions in nine countries.