Participation of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in classes with hearing students

This project identified key issues concerning participation of deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) students in regular (mainstream) classes. In one study, qualitative data were collected from 40 participants in focus groups consisting of interpreters, teachers of the deaf, and notetakers. In a second study, repeated field observations were made of four elementary-level D/HH students who were participating in small-group learning activities with hearing classmates. Focus group comments indicated that regular classroom teachers, interpreters, teachers of the deaf, hearing classmates, and D/HH students contribute to active participation by the D/HH student. Focus groups identified specific barriers that interfered with participation of each of these groups of individuals, and they also identified specific strategies to facilitate participation. Qualitative analyses of field observation data yielded results consistent with the comments collected from the focus groups participants. The observations identified accommodations that regular classroom teachers, teachers of the deaf, and interpreters can make to promote integration of the D/HH student. A summary synthesis of the data presents 16 specific strategies for overcoming barriers to participation.     

Attachment and individuation of deaf/hard-of-hearing and hearing young adults

This study examined differences between deaf/hard-of-hearing (D/HH) and hearing persons with regard to two interrelated and continuous developmental processes: attachment (Bowlby, 1969) and individuation (Mahler, 1963). The study also examined intergroup differences in two personal variables assumed to be influenced by these processes: self-esteem and well-being. Participants comprised 38 D/HH and 42 hearing persons aged 18 to 35 years from middle and upper-middle socioeconomic classes. All the D/HH participants had graduated from mainstreamed educational programs. Findings showed that D/HH participants expressed more fear of attachment and more fear of individuation than did hearing participants. D/HH participants also revealed a lower self-esteem and lower level of well-being compared to hearing participants. Higher fear of attachment correlated with lower levels of self-esteem and well-being. Results supported the theorized relationships between attachment and individuation processes and between these two processes and personality characteristics such as self-esteem and well-being.     

Written language of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools

We obtained data on the writing of 110 deaf or hard-of-hearing students attending public schools who completed the spontaneous writing portion of the Test of Written Language. The average written quotient for the sample was in the below-average range but within 1 standard deviation of the test mean. Forty-nine percent of the sample received written quotients within or above the average range. Mean scores for the three subtests of contextual conventions, contextual language, and story construction were within the low-average range; between 55% and 68% of students scored within the average or above-average range for the subtests. Predictors of writing quotients were eligibility for free lunch, grade, degree of hearing loss and gender; however, only 18% of the variance in total writing quotients was explained by these variables. The data indicate that attention needs to be paid to the writing ability and instruction of many public-school students regardless of degree of hearing loss.     

Academic attainment in deaf and hard-of-hearing students in distance education

This study compared outcomes in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students and nondisabled students taking courses by distance learning with the UK Open University in 2012. DHH students who had no additional disabilities were more likely to complete their courses than were nondisabled students, and they were just as likely to pass the courses that they completed and to obtain good grades on the courses that they passed. DHH students who had additional disabilities were less likely to complete their courses, less likely to pass the courses that they completed and less likely to obtain good grades on the courses that they pass than were nondisabled students. It is concluded that hearing loss itself has no effect on academic attainment, but that additional disabilities may have an impact on DHH students’ academic performance.     

Considerations in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings

This article provides an overview of key issues pertinent to an inclusive approach to the education of deaf students in order to establish a context for interpreting and integrating the articles in this issue. It discusses definitions of inclusion, integration, and mainstreaming from placement-related, philosophical, and pragmatic perspectives. The article provides demographic information pertinent to an inclusive approach. It also compares perspectives on inclusion in the general field of special education with those in the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. It considers the challenges of using an inclusive approach to achieve academic and social integration of students, as based on research on the learning and adjustment of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in regular classes. The article concludes with an overview of the topics addressed in the issue.     

Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: past, present, and future

The first large-scale, nationwide academic achievement testing program using Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford) for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the United States started in 1969. Over the past three decades, the Stanford has served as a benchmark in the field of deaf education for assessing student academic achievement. However, the validity and reliability of using the Stanford for this special student population still require extensive scrutiny. Recent shifts in educational policy environment, which require that schools enable all children to achieve proficiency through accountability testing, warrants a close examination of the adequacy and relevance of the current large-scale testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This study has three objectives: (a) it will summarize the historical data over the last three decades to indicate trends in academic achievement for this special population, (b) it will analyze the current federal laws and regulations related to educational testing and special education, thereby identifying gaps between policy and practice in the field, especially identifying the limitations of current testing programs in assessing what deaf and hard-of-hearing students know, and (c) it will offer some insights and suggestions for future testing programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.     

Parenting styles of mothers with deaf or hard-of-hearing children and hearing siblings

The present study aims to determine whether rearing a deaf or hard-of-hearing (d/hh) child would differentiate the parenting and disciplinary preference of parents between the d/hh and the hearing child. The parenting styles of 30 hearing mothers from Cyprus were assessed using the Greek version of the Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire. Additionally, mothers rated sibling interactions using the sibling inventory of behavior. The results indicated that the dominant parenting style for both the hearing and the d/hh children among the participating mothers was the authoritative type and the least prevalent parental types were the permissive and the strict. Moreover, mothers' perceptions of sibling relationship were found to be a significant factor in predicting mothers' reported parenting styles in this sample. The contribution of the present findings to our knowledge of the parenting characteristics and practices of families who have a d/hh child along with their possible implications for child and family services are discussed.     

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.     

When parents are deaf versus hard of hearing: patterns of sign use and school placement of deaf and hard-of-hearing children

This paper investigates the importance of knowing whether or not deaf and hard-of-hearing students have one or more deaf or hard-of-hearing parents. As noted by Mitchell and Karchmer (2004), deaf and hard-of-hearing school-age children and youth in the United States with at least one parent identified as "hearing impaired" are nearly evenly split between having at least one deaf parent and having at least one hard-of-hearing parent. However, there is no literature on the importance, if any, of this distinction. Findings from the investigation reported herein suggest that the distinction between having a deaf versus a hard-of-hearing parent is quite substantial, particularly as it pertains to the use of signing in the home. Further, signing in the home, which is reliably predicted by parental hearing status, is a significant predictor of the school setting in which the student is currently placed and the instructional use of signing in the classroom. Limitations related to the available measure of parental hearing status are discussed.     

Hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing Israeli adolescents' evaluations of deaf men and deaf women's occupational competence

This study examined 74 deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) and 91 hearing high school students regarding their own occupational aspirations and their evaluations of occupational competence (EOCs) for deaf adults. In the EOC, participants rated the suitability of 25 occupations (varying according to prestige and required level of communication) for deaf men and women. The results showed that occupations requiring intensive communication levels, regardless of their prestige, were evaluated as much less suitable for deaf individuals than were those requiring less communication. D/HH adolescents did not find highly prestigious occupations as suitable for deaf adults even when communication barriers were irrelevant. Both D/HH and hearing participants expressed biased evaluations of deaf women's competence, but no further evidence emerged for stereotypic attitudes. Higher educational aspirations among hearing adolescents, especially hearing males, correlated with a higher EOC of deaf adults. No such associations emerged for D/HH participants. No gender effects emerged. Implications of these outcomes for career development, especially for females, were discussed.     

Validity of indirect assessment of writing competency for deaf and hard-of-hearing college students

Indirect tests of writing competency are often used at the college level for a variety of educational, programmatic, and research purposes. Although such tests may have been validated on hearing populations, it cannot be assumed that they validly assess the writing competency of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This study used a direct criterion measure of writing competency to determine the criterion validity of two indirect measures of writing competency. Results suggest that the validity of indirect writing tests for deaf and hard-of-hearing baccalaureate-level students is weak. We recommend that direct writing tests be used with this population to ensure fair and accurage assessment of writing competency.     

Engagement during reading instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in public schools

An observational study of reading instruction was conducted in general education, resource, and self-contained classrooms, grades 1-4, in public schools. Participants included students who were deaf or hard of hearing and their reading teachers. Results indicated that time engaged in reading and/or academically responding varied significantly by grade level enrolled, reading curriculum grade level, and instructional setting, but not level of hearing loss or presence or absence of concomitant conditions. Students working with reading curriculum one grade level below spent significantly less time in reading instruction and reading than students working on grade level or two levels below. Students in general education settings spent significantly more time in reading instruction and reading silently than students in self-contained settings. The probability that students would engage in reading was significantly increased by several teacher and ecological conditions more likely to be observed in general education settings.     

Academic status of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools: student, home, and service facilitators and detractors

We examined facilitators and detractors of academic success of 25 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) students selected from a pool of 187 students attending general education classes and enrolled in a study of academic progress. Interviews with their teachers of DHH, general education teachers, principals, parents, interpreters, and students themselves were analyzed for child, family, and school facilitators and detractors of academic status. Facilitators included student self-advocacy and motivation, high family and school expectations, families' ability to help with homework, and good communication between professionals. Detractors included additional disabilities and poor family-school communication. A comparison of above- and below-average students revealed no single distinguishing facilitator or detractor. Each above-average student had many facilitators, whereas each below-average student had several significant detractors.     

Phonological awareness and decoding in deaf/hard-of-hearing students who use visual phonics

Visual phonics, a system of 45 hand and symbol cues that represent the phonemes of spoken English, has been used as a tool in literacy instruction with deaf/hard-of-hearing (DHH) students for over 20 years. Despite years of anecdotal support, there is relatively little published evidence of its impact on reading achievement. This study was designed to examine the relationship between performance on a phonological awareness task, performance on a decoding task, reading ability, and length of time in literacy instruction with visual phonics for 10 DHH kindergarten through Grade 3 students receiving academic instruction with sign-supported English and American Sign Language. Findings indicate that these students were able to use phonological information to make rhyme judgments and to decode; however, no relationship between performance on reading ability and length of time in literacy instruction with visual phonics was found.     

Coteaching deaf and hearing students: research on social integration

Coteaching, also known as team teaching, offers an alternative to the dilemma of choosing between the residential school, which offers a deaf community but sometimes a poor record of achievement, and inclusion, which promises better achievement but results in increased social isolation. Under a coteaching arrangement, deaf or hard of hearing students can share a deaf peer group while being exposed to the social contact and academic requirements of a mainstream class. The study sample consists of the deaf or hard of hearing students at one elementary school on the West Coast with extensive experience with coteaching, plus a random selection of their hearing peers. Students were administered the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (Franklin, 1981), My Class Inventory (Fisher & Barry, 1985), and the Childhood Loneliness Scale (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984). Consistent results indicated that while age differences appeared, there were no negative social consequences of coteaching for deaf students. The study indicates that on the basis of social benefits, coteaching warrants further systematic research.     

Learning via direct and mediated instruction by deaf students

Four experiments investigated classroom learning by deaf college students receiving lectures from instructors signing for themselves or using interpreters. Deaf students' prior content knowledge, scores on postlecture assessments of content learning, and gain scores were compared to those of hearing classmates. Consistent with prior research, deaf students, on average, came into and left the classroom with less content knowledge than hearing peers, and use of simultaneous communication (sign and speech together) and American Sign Language (ASL) apparently were equally effective for deaf students' learning of the material. Students' self-rated sign language skills were not significantly related to performance. Two new findings were of particular importance. First, direct and mediated instruction (via interpreting) were equally effective for deaf college students under the several conditions employed here. Second, despite coming into the classroom with the disadvantage of having less content knowledge, deaf students' gain scores generally did not differ from those of their hearing peers. Possible explanations for these findings are considered.     

Relative earnings of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals

Much has been written, over several decades, about the economic damage done by hearing loss. This article compares earnings of male and female deaf or hard-of-hearing college graduates to those of the general population with the same levels of education. Although those hard of hearing appear to reach lower levels of education, with education there is little or no evidence of an earnings lag relative to those without hearing loss.