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.     

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.     

Unique issues faced by deaf individuals entering substance abuse treatment and following discharge

Several barriers can frustrate a deaf individual's intention to enter a substance abuse treatment program. Because few specialized programs work with the Deaf, it is difficult to determine the factors that influence a deaf individual's desire to maintain sobriety following completion of a residential treatment program. A sample of 100 individuals was drawn from the Minnesota Chemical Dependency Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Individuals, a model hospital-based inpatient treatment program. The study participants were asked to complete pretreatment and posttreatment surveys upon admission and discharge, respectively, in addition to a follow-up survey, to help determine which background factors might be associated with different treatment outcomes for deaf and hard of hearing persons who completed treatment in the program. Results are presented for the pretreatment and posttreatment assessments, and for the follow-up survey. Study limitations are discussed and recommendations are given for future treatment programs serving deaf and hard of hearing individuals.     

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.     

Assessments to evaluate bilinguals: The overdue discussion of the deaf and hard of hearing student population in the United States

Assessment is a major part of the United States schooling system. Legal requirements make assessment a large part of practitioner responsibilities. The significance of assessment is, even more, the case for special populations such as bilingual hearing and Deaf and Hard of Hearing students, groups that are often the target of concern for English language development delays, differences, and/or disorders. In this article, we discuss the issues around assessing the language of Deaf and Hard of Hearing bilingual students in the United States. We highlight parallels between Deaf Education and hearing bilingual education in regard to language assessment, as well as discuss important distinctions such as the placement of Deaf Education within Special Education and working with two or more language modalities (e.g., signed, spoken, and written). In addition, alternative language assessment practices are discussed. We close this article by proposing ways for practitioners to satisfy legal and field mandates to assess Deaf and Hard of Hearing students while also applying best practices for assessing language skills in bilingual populations.     

Accommodations for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in Large-Scale, Standardized Assessments: Surveying the Landscape and Charting a New Direction

Students who are deaf or hard of hearing (SDHH) often use test accommodations when they participate in large-scale, standardized assessments. The purpose of this article is to present findings from the Third Annual Survey of Assessment and Accommodations for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. The "big five" accommodations were reported by at least two-thirds of the 389 participants: extended time, small group/individual administration, test directions interpreted, test items read aloud, and test items interpreted. In a regression analysis, language used in instruction showed the most significant effects on accommodations use. The article considers these findings in light of a more proactive role for the National Survey in providing evidence for the effectiveness of accommodations with SDHH.     

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.     

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.     

Deaf and hearing individuals' beliefs about the capabilities of deaf people

The study explored the beliefs of 100 residents of Greece about the capabilities of deaf people living in that country. Participants included deaf adults who communicated in Greek Sign Language (GSL), deaf adults who communicated orally, hearing adults who attended GSL courses, and hearing adults who did not attend such courses. Beliefs were explored through the ODP (Opinions About Deaf People) scale (Berkay, Gardner, & Smith, 1995) and an open-ended interview. All participant groups viewed deaf people's capabilities positively, but Deaf users of GSL expressed the most positive beliefs. The findings suggest that less positive beliefs reflect diverse ideological views toward GSL and Deaf culture or an awareness of the obstacles preventing deaf people from developing their potential. The Deaf community's role in empowering deaf people and the role of GSL courses in promoting awareness regarding deaf people are also discussed.     

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.     

Beliefs and practices of itinerant teachers of deaf and hard of hearing children concerning literacy development

A qualitative case study examined beliefs and practices of itinerant teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students concerning literacy development, the match between these teachers' beliefs and practices, and the impact of itinerant settings. Five itinerant teachers and 15 students participated. Hearing losses were mild to profound. The research addressed 5 areas: sociocultural aspects of literacy development; effects of hearing loss on literacy development; beliefs about teaching and literacy development; practices used to develop literacy; the impact of itinerant settings on literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing learners. Five themes emerged from the data: Itinerant teachers used a variety of practices to develop literacy; itinerant teachers played a supporting role in developing literacy; most of the teachers' beliefs about literacy development were matched in their practices; the itinerant teachers were lifelong learners; the impact of itinerant settings on literacy development took many forms.     

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.     

Improving flexible thinking in deaf and hard of hearing children with virtual reality technology

The study investigated whether rotating three-dimensional (3-D) objects using virtual reality (VR) will affect flexible thinking in deaf and hard of hearing children. Deaf and hard of hearing subjects were distributed into experimental and control groups. The experimental group played virtual 3-D Tetris (a game using VR technology) individually, 15 minutes once weekly over 3 months. The control group played conventional two-dimensional (2-D) Tetris over the same period. Children with normal hearing participated as a second control group in order to establish whether deaf and hard of hearing children really are disadvantaged in flexible thinking. Before-and-after testing showed significantly improved flexible thinking in the experimental group; the deaf and hard of hearing control group showed no significant improvement. Also, before the experiment, the deaf and hard of hearing children scored lower in flexible thinking than the children with normal hearing. After the experiment, the difference between the experimental group and the control group of children with normal hearing was smaller.     

The impact of maternal deafness on cradling laterality with deaf and hearing infants

A recent article in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (Leigh, Brice, & Meadow-Orlans, 2004) explored attachment between deaf mothers and their 18-month-old children and reported relationship patterns similar to those for hearing dyads. The study reported here explores a marker of early mother-child relationships: cradling laterality. Results indicated that, overall, the cradling bias of deaf mothers is similar to that of hearing mothers, but that there are significant differences among deaf mothers related to the hearing status of their own parents and, in a complex way, to the hearing status of their children. Deaf mothers of deaf parents showed a strong leftward cradling bias with both hearing and deaf children, whereas deaf mothers of hearing parents showed a leftward cradling bias with hearing children and a rightward cradling bias with deaf children. Possible explanations for these patterns of behavior 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.     

Master teachers' responses to twenty literacy and science/mathematics practices in deaf education

Under a grant to improve outcomes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing awarded to the Association of College Educators--Deaf/Hard of Hearing, a team identified content that all teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing must understand and be able to teach. Also identified were 20 practices associated with content standards (10 each, literacy and science/mathematics). Thirty-seven master teachers identified by grant agents rated the practices on a Likert-type scale indicating the maximum benefit of each practice and maximum likelihood that they would use the practice, yielding a likelihood-impact analysis. The teachers showed strong agreement on the benefits and likelihood of use of the rated practices. Concerns about implementation of many of the practices related to time constraints and mixed-ability classrooms were themes of the reviews. Actions for teacher preparation programs were recommended.     

HIV/AIDS knowledge and information sources among deaf and hearing college students

A sample of 34 deaf undergraduate college students at Gallaudet University and 46 hearing undergraduate college students at the University of Maryland Baltimore County completed a questionnaire that asked about their knowledge and sources of information concerning the human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). The deaf students had significantly lower scores on an "HIV/AIDS Knowledge Index" than the hearing students. This difference could not be explained by the deaf students' gender, class standing, family structure, or father's or mother's education level. The deaf students obtained more of their information about HIV/AIDS from family and friends than the hearing students, who relied to a greater extent on teachers, television, and reading material. The interpersonal sources used by the deaf students are more prone to factual errors than formal sources. Deaf students need methods of educating themselves about HIV/AIDS that are more accurate and that recognize the importance of sources as well as the content of information.