A Study of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Placement Decisions by Teacher and Computer

An expert system was developed to make decisions about the educational placement of deaf and hard of hearing students within a limited real‐world domain. Teachers of deaf students and the literature were used to delineate factors that influence the placement of deaf and hard of hearing students. A hypothesis based on these factors was then created to guide the development of an expert system referred to as the HISAT Advisor. The placement decisions of the HISAT Advisor for 10 deaf and hard of hearing students were compared with the placement decisions of 10 teachers of deaf students for the same students. The HISAT Advisor decision matched the majority decision of the teachers in 90% of the cases. Faced with an ever‐increasing number of factors to consider when rendering a placement decision, teachers and administrators should examine the value of a systematic theory and an expert system in this decision‐making process.     

Identification, assessment, and intervention strategies for deaf and hard of hearing students with learning disabilities

The purpose of the study was to ascertain methods of identification used by teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing who were working with students with learning disabilities, the training these teachers had received, and the accommodations and modifications they had implemented for their students. A 10-item survey was designed to solicit opinions and implementation procedures. Surveys went to teachers in a four-state region of the Midwest; 91 responded. Teachers indicated the use of various criteria to identify deaf and hard of hearing students with learning disabilities, and indicted that they incorporated a variety of accommodations to meet these students' needs. The survey showed that 50% of respondents did not feel adequately prepared to teach deaf and hard of hearing students with learning disabilities. Teachers expressed a desire for more training in identification, assessment, and intervention.     

Student perceptions and instructional effectiveness of deaf and hearing teachers

The study examined the views of deaf and hard of hearing secondary-level students when asked about their preferences for deaf vs. hearing teachers. It also compared elementary- and secondary-level students' achievement scores based on the hearing status of their teachers. Deaf and hard of hearing secondary-level students showed greater preference for deaf teachers, with deaf students showing greater preference for deaf teachers than hard of hearing students did. No significant differences were found in the achievement levels of students based on differences in teacher hearing status. The study supports the limited research done in the past.     

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.     

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.     

Patterns of spelling in young deaf and hard of hearing students

The study examined the invented spelling abilities demonstrated by kindergarten and first-grade deaf and hard of hearing students. The study included two parts: In Part 1, the researcher compared three groups (deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing) using posttesting only on the Early Reading Screening Inventory, or ERSI (Morris, 1998), and in part 2 collected and analyzed samples of the spelling of deaf students in a Total Communication program. Analysis showed that the deaf group performed significantly differently in three areas: concept of word, word recognition, and phoneme awareness ("invented spelling"; Read, 1971). The deaf group outperformed the hearing and hard of hearing groups in concept of word and word recognition. But in phoneme awareness, the deaf group performed significantly less well than the hearing group. Therefore, the deaf group's spelling was followed for 1 year. Deaf students' spelling patterns were not the same as those of hearing and hard of hearing students. Deaf students' spelling miscues were directly related to the cueing systems of lipreading, signing, and fingerspelling.     

Measuring practical knowledge among prospective and current teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students

Research on teaching and teacher research has a long history. However, in the field of the education of deaf and hard of hearing students, this research is limited. The study addresses one particular area of research on teaching and teacher research: practical knowledge of teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students. Practical knowledge is defined as how educators think about their classroom practice. By means of a survey designed and tested by the researcher, four hierarchical groups (beginning education students, graduating education students, novice teachers, and experienced teachers) in the education of deaf and hard of hearing students were surveyed on their practical knowledge. Practical knowledge codified as images, rules of practice, and practical principles. Results were measured to demonstrate for categories and characteristics of practical knowledge storage among prospective and current teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students. The instrument was designed as an assessment tool to measure aspects of this knowledge, apply it to levels of pedagogical expertise, and expand research in this area.     

A "consumer" survey of educational provision for deaf and hard of hearing students

The researchers report the results of a survey of 140 deaf and hard of hearing students attending integrated or self-contained high school classrooms in the state of New South Wales, Australia. The survey was designed to gather information about educational experiences and preferences for various types of educational placements. There were no gender differences in placement, but there were hearing status differences (81.6% of the students in segregated placements had severe or profound hearing losses, compared to 52.4% of the students in integrated settings). Even though students were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different placement options, 80% indicated that they were generally satisfied with their current placement. One implication is that a range of options seems to be more appropriate than a one-size-fits-all model, at least from students' perspectives. The views and preferences of students should be considered when educational provisions are designed for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.     

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.     

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.     

The experiences of deaf and hard of hearing students at a Queensland University: 1985–2005

This article reports on the experiences of deaf and hard of hearing students at a Queensland university, which offers an extensive deaf student support program. Seventy‐two current students and graduates since the program’s inception twenty years ago completed a survey about their experiences, highlights, challenges and use of communication tools and support services at university. Findings indicate, both quantitatively and qualitatively, that students valued the specialised support services they received, although challenges in accessing the academic curriculum remained for many students. In the important area of social factors, many students reported enjoying satisfying friendships and a sense of belonging with other deaf people, often for the first time, while others experienced feelings of social isolation in a largely hearing peer group. Overall, deaf and hard of hearing students who had attended Griffith over the 20 years had a high rate of graduation, comparing favourably with other university students.     

Deaf and hard of hearing students' performance on arithmetic word problems

There has been limited research into the intersection of language and arithmetic performance of students who are deaf or hard of hearing, although previous research has shown that many of these students are delayed in both language acquisition and arithmetic performance. The researchers examined the performance on arithmetic word problems of deaf and hard of hearing students in the South-East Queensland region of Australia; they also examined these students' problem-solving strategies. It was found that performance on word problems was similar for deaf and hearing students, but that deaf students experienced delays in achieving successful performance on word problems relative to their hearing peers. The results confirm the findings of other studies showing that students who are deaf or hard of hearing experience delayed language acquisition, which affects their capacity to solve arithmetic word problems. The study conclusions stress the need for greater use of direct teaching of analytic and strategic approaches to arithmetic word problems.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Inquiry-based science instruction and performance literacy for students who are deaf or hard of hearing

Deaf and hard of hearing students, who cannot successfully access and utilize information in print, experience various difficulties in conventional science instruction, which heavily relies on lectures and textbooks. The purpose of the present review is threefold. First, an overview of inquiry-based science instruction reform, including the so-ciohistorical forces behind the movement, is presented. Then, the author examines the empirical research on science education for students who are deaf or hard of hearing from the 1970s to the present and identifies and rates inquiry-based practice. After discussing the difficulty of using science texts with deaf and hard of hearing students, the author introduces a conceptual framework that integrates inquiry-based instruction and the construct of performance literacy. She suggests that this integration should enable students who are deaf or hard of hearing to access the general education curriculum.     

Child maltreatment and trauma exposure among deaf and hard of hearing young adults

The purpose of the present study was to examine the prevalence of child maltreatment and lifetime exposure to other traumatic events in a sample of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH; n = 147) and matched hearing (H; n = 317) college students. Participants completed measures of child maltreatment (CM), adult victimization and trauma exposure, and current symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Overall, DHH participants reported significantly more instances of CM compared to H participants, with 76% of DHH reporting some type of childhood abuse or neglect. Additionally, DHH participants reported experiencing a higher number of different types of CM, and also reported increased incidents of lifetime trauma exposure and elevated PTSD symptoms. Severity of deafness increased the risk of maltreatment, with deaf participants reporting more instances of CM than hard of hearing participants, and hard of hearing participants reporting more instances of CM than H participants. Among DHH participants, having a deaf sibling was associated with reduced risk for victimization, and identification with the Deaf community was associated with fewer current symptoms of PTSD. A regression model including measures of childhood physical and sexual abuse significantly predicted adult re-victimization and accounted for 27% of the variance among DHH participants. DHH participants report significantly higher rates of CM, lifetime trauma, and PTSD symptoms compared to H participants. Severity of deafness appears to increase the risk of being victimized. Being part of the Deaf community and having access to others who are deaf appear to be important protective factors for psychological well-being among DHH individuals.     

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.     

A survey of the appropriateness of instructional language materials used with deaf students.

A questionnaire survey was conducted of the instructional language materials used by educators in programs for deaf and hard of hearing students. The results indicated that over half (51%) of the materials used are not developed specifically for use with deaf students. The majority of the respondents (67%) cited problems finding age- and interest-appropriate materials. Dissatisfaction with current language materials was one reason many educators (60%) made their own materials. Their comments emphasized the need to develop language materials and assessment tools specifically for deaf and hard of hearing students.     

Do deaf and hard of hearing youth need antitobacco education?

Little research has focused on tobacco use among deaf and hard of hearing youth. Findings are reported from a first-ever tobacco-related survey, completed by 226 California middle and high school students using either a written questionnaire or the Interactive Video Questionnaire, an interactive multimedia computer video technology. Rates for current smoking (3.1%), ever smoking (45.1%), and multiple types of tobacco use (10.6%) were found to be lower than among high school students generally; mainstreamed students were likelier to have ever tried smoking than their deaf school peers (57.8% vs. 31.8%). No statistically significant associations were found between ever smoking and race/ethnicity, gender, school performance, or prelingual vs. postlingual deafening; a quarter of the sample experienced occasional peer pressure to use tobacco products. Tobacco use covariates, exposure to cigarette marketing and antismoking programming, and tobacco education needs of deaf and hard of hearing youth are discussed.