English teachers of deaf and hard‐of‐hearing students in French schools: needs,barriers and strategies

This paper deals with English teachers who work with deaf and hard‐of‐hearing (D/HH) students. In France deaf students are required to attend foreign language classes – mostly English classes. The purpose is not to teach them British sign language (BSL) or American sign language (ASL), but written and/or spoken English. Indeed, sign languages are distinct from spoken languages and differ from country to country: there is no universal sign language. English teachers of the deaf are mostly hearing people. They work either in mainstream or special schools. Most of them have no specific qualifications. In this context, they are faced with the tremendous challenge of how to adjust their teaching to their students’ impairment and at the same time develop the latter's knowledge and skills in English. In order to analyse teaching practices in English classes, questionnaires, interviews and in‐class observations in several special and mainstream schools were conducted. Findings show that different teaching strategies are used in order to make English lessons accessible to D/HH students: teachers have to adapt their teaching language and also use written and visual supports to accommodate D/HH students. Obviously teacher training needs to be improved.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

How the medical professionals impact ASL and English families’ language planning policy

This article explores the journey of eight hearing families of bimodal-bilingual deaf children as they navigate the decision-making process reflecting their beliefs and values about American Sign Language (ASL) and English through their family language policy framework. The resources offered to families with deaf children often reflect a medical view, rather than a cultural perspective of being deaf. Because medical professionals, educators, and specialists who work with deaf and hard-of-hearing children have a strong influence on family members’ opinions, beliefs, and attitudes about being deaf, it is even more crucial to correct misconceptions about ASL and empower families to develop a family language policy that is inclusive of their deaf and hard-of-hearing children. This article informs researchers, teachers, and other professionals about the potential benefits and challenges of supporting the families’ ASL and English language planning policy.     

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.     

Three suggested teaching strategies for students who are deaf or hard of hearing

This paper addresses current issues in deaf education including poor academic progress and employment outcomes of individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) as well as provides suggestions for improving overall academic achievement of this population. Specifically, three instructional strategies are recommended for teachers: choral responding, response cards, and peer tutoring. These three strategies have been shown to increase active student responding in classrooms for children who are typically developing and children who have disabilities. For international deaf students in countries that may rely on volunteers who lack basic requisite skills these general education teaching strategies are easy to use even by novice teachers. Recommendations are tendered for how teachers can include these simple teaching strategies in classrooms serving students who are D/HH.     

Adapting the Assessing British Sign Language Development: Receptive Skills Test into American sign language

Signed languages continue to be a key element of deaf education programs that incorporate a bilingual approach to teaching and learning. In order to monitor the success of bilingual deaf education programs, and in particular to monitor the progress of children acquiring signed language, it is essential to develop an assessment tool of signed language skills. Although researchers have developed some checklists and experimental tests related to American Sign Language (ASL) assessment, at this time a standardized measure of ASL does not exist. There have been tests developed in other signed languages, for example, British Sign Language, that can serve as models in this area. The purpose of this study was to adapt the Assessing British Sign Language Development: Receptive Skills Test for use in ASL in order to begin the process of developing a standardized measure of ASL skills. The results suggest that collaboration between researchers in different signed languages can provide a valuable contribution toward filling the gap in the area of signed language assessment.     

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.     

The effects of American Sign Language as an assessment accommodation for students who are deaf or hard of hearing

Students who are deaf or hard of hearing (SDHH) often need accommodations to participate in large-scale standardized assessments. One way to bridge the gap between the language of the test (English) and a student's linguistic background (often including American Sign Language [ASL]) is to present test items in ASL. The specific aim of this project was to measure the effects of an ASL accommodation on standardized test scores for SDHH in reading and mathematics. A total of 64 fifth- to eighth-grade (ages 10-15) SDHH from schools for the deaf in the United States participated in this study. There were no overall differences in the mean percent of items students scored correctly in the standard vs. ASL-accommodated conditions for reading or mathematics. We then conducted hierarchical linear regression analyses to analyze whether measures of exposure to ASL (home and classroom) and student proficiency in the subject area predicted student performance in ASL-accommodated assessments. The models explained up to half of the variance in the scores, with subject area proficiency (mathematics or reading) as the strongest predictor. ASL exposure was not significant with the exception of ASL classroom instruction as a predictor of mathematics scores.     

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.     

Literacy development in deaf students: case studies in bilingual teaching and learning

A bilingual model has been applied to educating deaf students who are learning American Sign Language (ASL) as their first language and written English as a second. Although Cummins's (1984) theory of second-language learning articulates how learners draw on one language to acquire another, implementing teaching practices based on this theory, particularly with deaf students, is a complex, confusing process. The purposes of the present study were to narrow the gap between theory and practice and to describe the teaching and learning strategies used by the teachers and parents of three elementary school children within a bilingual/bicultural learning environment for deaf students. The findings suggest that strategies such as using ASL as the language of instruction and making translation conceptual rather than literal contribute to literacy learning. Findings further indicate that some inconsistencies persist in applying a bilingual approach with deaf students.     

Modality of language shapes working memory: evidence from digit span and spatial span in ASL signers

Deaf children who are native users of American Sign Language (ASL) and hearing children who are native English speakers performed three working memory tasks. Results indicate that language modality shapes the architecture of working memory. Digit span with forward and backward report, performed by each group in their native language, suggests that the language rehearsal mechanisms for spoken language and for sign language differ in their processing constraints. Unlike hearing children, deaf children who are native signers of ASL were as good at backward recall of digits as at forward recall, suggesting that serial order information for ASL is stored in a form that does not have a preferred directionality. Data from a group of deaf children who were not native signers of ASL rule out explanations in terms of a floor effect or a nonlinguistic visual strategy. Further, deaf children who were native signers outperformed hearing children on a nonlinguistic spatial memory task, suggesting that language expertise in a particular modality exerts an influence on nonlinguistic working memory within that modality. Thus, language modality has consequences for the structure of working memory, both within and outside the linguistic domain.     

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.     

Integration of computers and related technologies into deaf education teacher preparation programs

The study examined how computer technology is used, modeled, and taught in programs that prepare future teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Data were collected through two self-reported survey instruments sent to participants from two different groups: (a) deaf education faculty (n = 233) and (b) administrators of programs serving students who are deaf or hard of hearing (n = 100). Among the faculty who responded to the survey, 99% said they used computers and printers for instruction during class, 84% said they used VCRs for instruction during class, and 56% said they used video cameras for instruction during class. The information that was reported on how technology was being used for instruction and how its use was being taught to students in deaf education teacher preparation programs indicates that the need persists for integration of technology into these programs. A need likewise continues for improved instructional strategies relative to computers and technology.     

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.