What Are the Instructional Considerations for Deaf ...



What Are the Instructional Considerations for Deaf Students and Those Who Are Hard of Hearing?

Our ability to hear sounds has an impact on virtually every aspect of our lives. If hearing is severely limited, there can be far-reaching effects on an individual’s capability to interact with the environment. This is especially true during a child’s formative years. When a young child is unable to hear sounds clearly, significant educational problems may develop. For example, if a child has a problem hearing certain speech sounds, he or she may not be able to produce those speech sounds accurately later in life. This can have a direct effect on literacy development. The inability to hear clearly can also have social impacts. A student who is deaf or hard of hearing may have difficulty in communicating with peers, developing relationships and friendships, and accessing the social intercourse so critical to emotional growth and development. Hearing loss, therefore, should be viewed not only from the educational perspective but also from the larger perspective of their effects on the child’s overall adjustment (Herer, Knightly, & Steinberg, 2002). Given the increase in inclusive education, it is apparent that educators should be aware of instructional considerations available to teach students with hearing losses.

Deaf students and students who are hard of hearing present unique challenges for several reasons. First, each group (deaf and hard of hearing) may have differing needs from the general population and from each other (Stewart & Kluwin, 2001). Second, each group represents a low incidence population; most educators do not receive extensive background knowledge in how best to educate such students (Heward, 2005). Third, students who are deaf or hard of hearing often require the use of technology to better access educational opportunities. Many educators may not be knowledgeable about these existing and developing technologies. Fourth, there is debate as to how best educate these students. It is desirable for educators to understand this debate in order to participate meaningfully in educational planning and programming. Finally, because of the presence of the Deaf culture and community (the capital D is used specifically to denote those who consider themselves members of this culture and community), special considerations are needed to demonstrate respect for diversity (Easterbrooks & Baker, 2001).

The overall purpose of this synthesis paper is to review the literature concerning instructional considerations for deaf students and those who are hard of hearing. Specifically, the purpose is to instructional approaches, the instructional environment, and the use of instructional technology and how these can best be employed or modified to educate students who are deaf or hard of hearing. (OR, I could write this as a research question asking: Which instructional approaches, environments, and technologies can benefit deaf students and those who are hard of hearing?). This paper should provide educators with an overview of the possible options available in providing an appropriate education for deaf students and those who are hard of hearing.

Instructional procedures in some regards are applicable to either deaf students or those who are hard of hearing while in other regards, as noted, the two groups should be discussed individually. There are a number of general considerations outlined by Easterbrooks and Baker (2001):

• How does the student communicate? If communication skills are not developing appropriately, then the IEP team may need to reconsider placement, language, and mode of communication.

• To what does the student respond? The student should be able to respond to both oral and visual information adequately.

• What were the student’s early communication experiences? If a child did not experience adequate communication early in life, then this may have repercussions for overall development as well as how the student is taught.

• How can educators make communication visually accessible to the student? Use of visual materials can ensure the student is receiving accurate content information in clear and comprehensible ways.

• Does the student interact with peers? The student should be able to express thoughts, feelings, and needs, as well as to interact socially with peers.

• Will the family be able to do the same things at home that are done at school? Mismatches in the language use at home and school can delay language development. Parents may need assistance in learning techniques used in school if they choose to defer to the choices made by educators.

• What are the expectations of the family for the student? The cultural and overall family aspirations for the student should be taken into account in the IEP and teaching.

• Do the student’s teachers have the necessary skills to instruct the student? Because communication skills are so important, all parties involved need to be prepared for the language and mode of communication that the IEP team determines is most appropriate for the student (Easterbrooks & Baker, 2001).

Also, as we have noted previously, whether a student and her/his family consider themselves to be members of the Deaf community and culture can have some bearing on instructional procedures, particularly where a student might be educated (Paddies & Humphries, 2005). There is also no universally accepted position on how best to educate deaf students in terms of language development and use of oral language.

Instructional Approaches

Perhaps no greater area of debate exists in this area of education than what is the best overall approach to teaching deaf students. For those who are hard of hearing, the debate is less sharp, but nevertheless has implications as to the best instructional approach. The beginnings of the debate can be traced back to the differences between Edward Gallaudet and Alexander Graham Bell. Should deaf students be taught to use oral English as their primary language? Should deaf students be taught primarily ASL as a first language? Should there be some compromise that emphasizes both ASL and English?

While experts in the field may distinguish between instructional approaches in various terms and emphases, there are three basic types differentiated by the communication methods used in each. Each has its advocates and detractors; each has its merits and challenges.

Oralism is an approach that emphasizes the development of speech, speechreading, and listening with amplification. Speechreading (sometimes referred to as lipreading) involves the ability to consider the situational context, facial expressions, gestures, body language, and lip and tongue movements to try to determine what a speaker is saying. ASL is not emphasized in this approach, but rather the development of language skills in English and the use of English in instruction and communication (Fiedler, 2001). Advocates of this approach might stress that learning and using oral language promotes social integration in a hearing society (Marschark et al., 2002). They might also suggest that there are also economic advantages to using and understanding oral language. Detractors might point out that speechreading is difficult at best for everyday use, that an oral only approach unnecessarily avoids learning ASL and greater opportunity for interaction with many other deaf people, and that learning ASL does not preclude learning English language skills as well for both communication and learning purposes (Marschark et al. 2002).

The Bilingual-Bicultural (sometimes referred to as bi-bi) approach emphasize the early use of ASL as the deaf child’s natural language. By this emphasis, advocates would argue it allows the child to progress through the early stages of language acquisition and development in more typical stages. In school, ASL is the language of instruction while English is taught through reading and writing. Fingerspelling may also be used with ASL. Fingerspelling involves the use of 26 different finger/hand positions denoting each letter of the alphabet. Users of ASL fingerspell words for which there is no sign or the sign is unknown.

Advocates of the bi-bi approach would point out that both ASL and English are valued as are Deaf and Hearing cultures (Fiedler, 2001). This duality is evident in the terms used to describe this approach “blingual-bicultural.” This approach emphasizes the legitimacy of ASL as a language in its own right and the first language for many deaf people. English is a second language for these students. This approach could also incorporate cued speech and signed English (Pittman & Huefner, 2001)..

Cued speech is supplemental to spoken English as many sounds in the language look quite similar on the lips. Cued speech involves the use of 36 different manual cues to aid in distinguishing between the 44 sounds in oral English. There are manual cues for vowels and consonants and in combination with one another (Marschark et al., 2002).

Signing Exact English (SEE) was developed to aid deaf students in learning English. It combines existing ASL signs with new signs specifically to create a manual code to aid in understanding English. This manual code represents English on the hands (Pittman & Huefner, 2001). There are two systems of SEE in use today, SEE I and SEE II. SEE is also an important tool in the third instructional approach, total communication.

Total Communication focuses on using the student’s preferred mode of communication. It can include oral and auditory approaches, as well as speechreading, sign language and other manual systems (Fiedler, 2001). In school, instruction may be based on a philosophy which involves the simultaneous use of ASL and spoken English, as well as the use of amplification as appropriate. Advocates of this approach might argue that it provides students with information from a variety of sources and is tailored to the individual preferences and needs of the student. Detractors might argue that a student may never become truly proficient in either English or ASL. Deaf students might benefit from other aspects of this approach after first having become proficient in ASL (Marschark et al., 2002).

Fiedler (2001) pointed out that there is no single best educational approach and that family history and characteristics may influence which approach is preferred. For example, most deaf students have hearing parents. These parents might prefer the oral or total communication approaches because of their significant emphasis on learning spoken English. Similarly, families that use both ASL and English for communication might prefer the total communication method. Also, families who have opted for cochlear implantation (see Instructional Technology section) might also prefer a method that stresses oral language skills. Families in the Deaf culture might prefer the bilingual-bicultural approach (Fiedler, 2001).

Curriculum Considerations

Stinson and Kluwin (2003) identified several important curriculum considerations for deaf students or those who are hard of hearing. First, the ecological validity of the curriculum will vary based on the perspective of the student and her/his family. Students and families involved in the Deaf culture might value certain curriculum emphases (e.g., ASL proficiency) more than other students or families might. Other possible considerations include:

• The frequently large discrepancy in reading and writing levels between deaf students and hearing peers.

• The primary mode of communication, the need for interpreters, and the limited limitations of interpreters as a primary basis for equitable and complete access to curriculum content.

• Dependency on visual information and a greater propensity to be visually distracted.

• Limitations in vocabulary and in the multiple meanings of words.

• Difficulties in simultaneously attending to visual information and communicating (e.g., constant switching from presented material to an interpreter).

• Potential differences from hearing peers in organization of knowledge and memory processes.

• Significant mismatches between the language and communication skills of the student and others in their environments.

• The possibility that children who are ethnically, racially, or linguistically diverse may be represented among deaf students.

It is important to understand that literacy skill development is a critical curriculum emphasis. Regardless of the educational approach adopted, the need to be able to effectively communicate with others, socially interact, and to use those skills to build a satisfying childhood, adolescence and adult lives is critical. These skills might focus on English only, English as a second language, or a simultaneous emphasis on manual and English skills.

Another area of importance can be that of Deaf studies. In Deaf studies, students acquire knowledge and understanding of the Deaf community and culture, improve their self-understanding as a Deaf person, and increase their skills and confidence in working within a hearing society (Stinson & Kluwin, 2003).

It is important for teachers to expand the curriculum objectives in traditional content areas (e.g., math, science, social studies) to include objectives related to cognitive and language development. Teachers should not rely on rote skill development (e.g., in math) but rely more on constructivist approaches that challenge students to think and apply skills and learn relationships among different curriculum areas. Adult-mediated, highly interactive learning in authentic contexts will aid students who lack the experiential background that hearing peers may possess. Finally, “Effective curriculum design for this group requires consideration of a wide range of learning characteristics that, in turn, determine specialized and individualized curriculum objectives. The goal of such differentiated objectives is not to achieve differentiated objectives but to ensure achievement of the same overall learning outcomes as all other students ….” (Stinson & Kluwin, 2003; pp. 48-49.).

Transition Considerations

As discussed throughout this text, the period of transition from school to adult life is a crucial one. This is especially true for those with significant hearing losses. Adjustment to postsecondary education or to employment can present new and different challenges.

Recent studies suggest as many as 25,000 deaf students and those who are hard of hearing attending U.S. colleges and universities. While accommodations should be available as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and vocational rehabilitation legislation, students who are hard of hearing do not always seek them, perhaps due to denial of their hearing loss, particularly if it is a relatively mild one. Some of the problems found in postsecondary education also included high attrition rates, underrepresentation of students from minority backgrounds, lack of attention for students who are hard of hearing and no national standards establishing best practices in support services (Schroedel, Watson, & Ashmore, 2003). Schroedel et al. (2003) derived from research literature several important areas to be studied in order to improve postsecondary education for students with hearing losses:

• .Academic and social factors affecting attrition.

• Support services benefiting students from various subgroups (e.g., deaf, those who became deaf later in their life, hard of hearing).

• Variables impacting classroom learning (e.g., use of interpreters in the classroom, grouping arrangements, technology use).

• Effective teaching methods.

• How to prepare students for college.

Bonds (2003)) identified several key factors in establishing curricula to better prepare deaf students and those who are hard of hearing for college and/or work. We outline some of these factors:

• The curriculum available to general education students should be accessible to those with hearing losses.

• Assessment of areas such as achievement levels and social-emotional adjustment should be done in reliable and valid ways.

• Career interests and aptitudes need to be adequately assessed. Student interests are a key component of transition and career planning.

• Career fairs and field trips should be used.

• Opportunities for career education should allow students to study all aspects of a career or industry.

• Internships and apprenticeships should be available to students with professionals in the community should be available.

• Expectations should be kept high and there should be a focus on students being self-motivated.

• A sense of reality should be maintained. Effort should be recognized but students need to understand the competitive and challenging nature of postsecondary life.

Instructional Environment

Fiedler (2001) outlined several overall considerations in determining the least restrictive environment for deaf students or those who are hard of hearing. These included:

• The communication needs of the student including use of residual hearing, communication mode, and what the student needs to communicate.

• Language and the communication mode including proficiency in spoken and written English as well as manual communication.

• Academic level including current skill levels and whether the student is able to work at the same level as hearing peers.

• Other needs including socialization and academic development as well as the student’s current developmental level.

• Opportunities for instruction in the student’s language and communication mode including whether the student can effectively communicate with adults and peers.

When an IEP team is deciding the least restrictive environment for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, there are at least two overall concerns. First, the team must take into account student and family preferences and how those might impact the decision on the environment most appropriate for development. It is important for the team to know whether these preferences lean toward an environment more reflective of Deaf culture, hearing culture, or some combination of the two. Second, the team must decide what types of instructional arrangements are most advantageous for learning, regardless of the type of school or classroom. This can include consideration of the use of interpreters or other human aides such as notetakers.

Student and Family Preferences

As we have discussed at some length, the Deaf community and culture places value on the preservation of its culture, traditions, history, and language. For students, families, and educators, the idea of a “critical mass” of students with hearing losses can be an influence on preferences. By a critical mass, we mean a sufficient number of students with hearing losses are present in the school district that allow the district to conduct special classes or programs specific to these students. The lack of such a critical mass of students certainly should not impact whether a student receives the services she/he needs in order to have an appropriate educational experience. However, in smaller districts where this mass does not exist, some students and their families who consider themselves members of the Deaf community and culture, may prefer a special school or other special program outside the district that is designed specifically for such students. This preference might also be evident in larger districts as well. Some authors have suggested that there is a lack of a sufficient research base to summarily conclude that the inclusion of deaf students fosters their integration into the larger mainstream of hearing society (Marschark et al, 2002). This does not mean that such placements might not be preferable. To date, differences among deaf students in achievement has not been adequately explained simply by comparing the type of placement in which students were educated (Stinson & Kluwin, 2003).

Separate schools for deaf students were the norm for the 19th and early 20th centuries in the U.S. Some adults identify closely with the special school they attended just as hearing adults identify with theirs. Such environments are arranged specifically for those with significant hearing losses including use of small groups, ensuring all students have a clear line of sight to the teacher, emphasis on literacy skills, and a language environment that is suited to the individual needs of students. However, IDEA ushered in an increasing emphasis on inclusion in neighborhood schools and enrollment in special schools for those with hearing losses has declined since the 1970’s. It is difficult to determine if such environments are more beneficial to deaf students as research is lacking. It may be that the students who prefer particular programs (e.g., special schools or inclusive classrooms) possess certain characteristics that make such programs a good match, confounding researchers in determining whether one environment is preferable over another (Marschark et al., 2002).

It is also important to discuss how inclusive environments might be arranged to enhance the learning opportunities for deaf students and those who are hard of hearing. Here, we will discuss what if any advantages such environments might provide versus more segregated settings as some students and families clearly prefer placement in neighborhood school programs.

One study examining the attitudes of hearing students toward their deaf peers in 22 schools in Spain. The researcher found that, in general, there was high acceptance of deaf students by their peers, particularly at the social level. Among older students, however, increasing academic demands led to some consideration as to whether deaf students might not receive more individual attention in a special school (Cambra, 2002).

In a review of studies examining differences in deaf students placed in segregated classes versus inclusive classrooms, Kluwin, Stinson, & Colarossi (2002) offered several observations. There is some conflicting evidence concerning whether there is greater social maturity among deaf students who attended special classes compared to those from inclusive classes. Deaf students tended to interact more frequently with deaf peers than with hearing peers, although this can be mediated through interventions and with greater exposure among deaf and hearing students. Similarly to Cambra (2002), these researchers found that a number of studies indicated general social acceptance of deaf students by hearing ones. However, there was also some suggestion that deaf students may have found the relationships with hearing students less satisfying. Finally, there was no indication in the research that deaf students in segregated versus inclusive classrooms differed in self-rated self-image or self-esteem although being self-ratings, the perceived competence of deaf students about themselves may be related to their competence in a particular type of educational setting or the students’ ages. The authors concluded that there are no general conclusions that can be extended to all deaf students or those who are hard of hearing in terms of which type of environment might encourage better developmental and academic outcomes (Kluwin et al., 2002).

Environmental Arrangements

There are some specific strategies for arranging the environment that educators can use that promote learning visually which is important for students with hearing losses. Luckner, Bowen, and Carter (2001) outlined these which include:

• Choose visuals the students will easily recognize.

• Use larger-size materials with younger students.

• Use a variety of visual materials such as line drawings, detailed pictures, written words, and photographs among others.

• Post classroom rules.

• Keep posted classroom job choices and menus.

• Use transition time cards/charts to establish and maintain routines.

• Keep task organizers posted or available which outline steps needed to complete tasks.

• Post or give students daily schedules.

• Use and teach students to use internet resources.

• Provide graphic organizers for content.

• Show hierarchical, conceptual, sequential, and/or cyclical patterns in learning (Luckner et al., 2001).

Of some importance as well is the use of interpreters in the classroom environment.

Stewart and Kluwin (2001) suggested several important considerations. First, discuss where the interpreter should be located based on the seating of the student and the types of classroom activities (e.g., lecture or demonstration). Consider whether the teacher will be moving about the classroom and if students will be mobile or stationary. Lighting in the room can also affect how well the each party can see the other. Providing an interpreter with advance knowledge about the activities and content within lessons can also be helpful. Some students may also use notetakers whose placement in the classroom with the student should also be reviewed.

Educators must also consider degree and type of hearing loss and how this should affect the student’s physical placement in the classroom. Placement to maximize residual hearing is important as well as providing unobstructed access to any visually presented materials. The use of technology is also a major consideration in arranging the physical environment for learning.

Instructional Technology

The use of instructional technology has significant implications for deaf students and those who are hard of hearing. The use of technology for these students can be conceived as having at least three major facets. First, some technology allows students to access speech and sounds better and aids in listening. Remember that most students with hearing losses possess some residual hearing that may be useful in learning through listening. Second, some technology aids students to access information visually and aids communication and learning accordingly. Another use of technology is for student production of work or projects.

Hearing Aids

A hearing aid is an electronic device powered by a battery that amplifies and changes sound. Hearing aids receive sound through a microphone, convert the sound waves to electrical signals, and then amplify the signals and send the sound to the ear through a speaker. Hearing aids do not restore normal hearing nor do they eliminate all background noise. Adjusting hearing aids for successful use in school and the community takes time and patience (NIDCD, retrieved 6/20/2005).

Hearing aids can be selected with the help of an audiologist. The audiologist will take into account the individual’s hearing ability, school and home activities, physical challenges, medical issues, and cosmetic preferences. Cost can also be a factor and whether the individual needs a single or two hearing aids (NIDCD, retrieved 6/20/2005). The degree of hearing loss and the loss at various frequencies is also an important consideration in achieving a best fit hearing aid for an individual (Harkins & Bakke, 2003).

The general purpose of a hearing aid is to amplify important sounds, such as speech, above the hearing thresholds of the user. However, this is not always easily achieved. Some problems hearing aid users encounter include noise reduction, loudness control, and feedback reduction. More modern digital hearing aids can be especially helpful in dealing with these problems. Most hearing aids are worn externally and can be removed easily. There are currently available implantable hearing aids which improve cosmetics, but have yet to be widely purchased and used (Harkins & Bakke, 2003).

Another problem area in the use of hearing aids is their maintenance. Malfunction rates can be quite high among students resulting from lack of information about hearing aids and their use as well as maintenance (Most, 2002). Intervention programs specifically designed to increase students’ and teachers’ knowledge in these areas can be effective in reducing malfunction rates. Teachers may also gain confidence in assuming more responsibility for checking and troubleshooting hearing aid problems (Most, 2002).

The NIDCD (retrieved 6/20/2005) made the following suggestions for the care of hearing aids:

• Do not expose a hearing aid to excessive heat and moisture.

• If the batteries are dead, replace them immediately.

• Turn off the hearing aid when not in use.

• Clean the hearing aid as instructed.

• Avoid using hairspray or other hair care products while wearing the hearing aid.

• Store the hearing aid and replacement batteries away from small children and pets.

Loop Systems

Loop systems, also known as FM systems are used in classrooms throughout the country. A loop system is a closed circuit one that allows FM signals from an audio system to be sent to an electronic coil in a hearing aid. The receiver in the hearing aid picks up the signals and sends the sounds to the listener. Loop systems can be especially useful in large classrooms, lecture halls, or other situations with substantial background noise and there may be substantial distance between a speaker and listener (Marschark et al., 2002). The teacher wears a microphone which picks up her/his voice and the FM signal created is transmitted to the hearing aid user making speech more intelligible in the presence of competing environmental sounds.

Cochlear Implants

Cochlear implants are designed specifically to aid listening in those individuals with sensorineural hearing losses associated with cochlear malfunction but who still have intact auditory nerves (. retrieved 6/14/2005). Unlike hearing aids, cochlear implants bypass the hearing mechanisms in the ear itself and directly stimulate the auditory neurons of the inner ear. A cochlear implant consists of a microphone, a speech processor, a transmitter, and an internal receiver/stimulator connected to an electrode array in the inner ear. The microphone is mounted on the user’s head (e.g., behind the ear) which collects sound. In turn, the signal is passed on to the speech processor also worn on the body. This processor is essentially a computer designed to convert the audio signals into a set of instructions for transmission to the internally worn receiver/stimulator for stimulating the electrodes in the inner ear. This processor must be individually fitted and adjusted. The devices can use different speech-processing strategies based on the preference of the individual or in what appears to work best in the case of younger children (Harkins & Bakke, 2003). Cochlear implants can aid understanding of speech alone or in conjunction with speech reading, although such outcomes are not guaranteed. The implants can also aid users in perceiving and understanding environmental sounds (Marschark et al., 2002).

Early Childhood Considerations: The Use of Cochlear Implants

Robbins (2003) suggested that the use of cochlear implants in profoundly deaf children younger than 3 years of age could yield benefits in communication development. The benefits derive from children experiencing an auditory environment at approximately the same age as a hearing child would. Therefore, the deaf child may be able to develop communication skills at a similar age as hearing children. However, Robbins also pointed out that such early implantation also presents challenges. From a medical standpoint, the use of anesthesia, surgical technique and the anatomy of young children presents issues. From an audiological perspective, the clinician should determine that hearing aids are insufficient and the implant is needed. As we discussed earlier, accurately assessing the hearing of very young children can be problematic. After implantation, the audiologist must also be able to document the benefits of the device. From a parental viewpoint, making a decision for such an invasive procedure may be difficult, particularly if the child has recently endured a severe illness or if the parents are grieving following a diagnosis of deafness (Robbins, 2003).

Diversity Considerations: Cochlear Implants and Deaf Culture

It might seem intuitive to hearing persons that the availability of cochlear implants is a wonderful opportunity for parents and their children. Within the Deaf culture, questions may arise about the appropriateness of such procedures. On the one hand, arguments could be made that if the implantation occurs early in life, the child will more likely derive greater benefit. However, some Deaf parents may believe that deafness is not a disability, but leads to differences in culture and language. Such parents might also point out that the evidence is not unequivocal that prelingually deaf children who receive implants greatly improve speech and language development (Brice, 2002). There are also considerations regarding the invasiveness of the procedure, the need for extensive follow-up and therapy, and costs (Marschark et al., 2002). Some in the Deaf culture might suggest that life with a cochlear implant leaves the individual neither fully hearing nor deaf, perhaps leading to issues in self-understanding and one’s place in the world. While parents who are hearing might be less likely than Deaf parents to consider such issues in making a decision about implantation, it is important to note that hearing parents may not fully understand what it means to be Deaf and that life as a Deaf person is not simply life without hearing (Marschark et al., 2002).

As we stated earlier, there are some uses of technology that are intended to by pass the need for hearing and make information available visually. These can take several forms.

Closed and Open Captioning

Closed captioning involves having spoken language in a video program typed along the bottom of a television screen so that an individual can read what is being said. Television manufacturers are now required to include a captioning decoder chip in all sets larger than 13 inches. Closed captioning can be turned off and on as desired. Closed captioning can be “built-into” recorded programs or be available in real time for live programming. Open captions are directly printed on the film or displayed openly on a video program, although not all programs are required to be captioned (National Association of the Deaf, 2002; Padden & Humphries, 2005).

Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS)

TRS uses an operator to facilitate communication primarily between deaf and hearing people. The telephones must be equipped with text capabilities. Text telephones (TTY) allow an individual to type information which can then be transmitted over the telephone system. TTY technology is also incorporating the use of personal computers into such systems although this is not yet universally available. The use of computer technology would allow the user to create a call-management system that would allow for storage of directories, automatic dialing, storing of conversations, and other valuable options (Harkins & Bakke, 2003).

When an individual has a TTY, she/he can call a central number and be connected to an operator. The operator places the call relays the conversations by typing the spoken words of a hearing person to the TTY of the deaf person and orally speaking the typed messages of the deaf person to the hearing person (Harkins & Bakke, 2003). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that this service be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Fax

Facsimiles of documents can be transmitted over telephone lines. This can be useful for both personal and other types of communication (e.g., legal information, forms). This technology is valuable when TTY’s are not available as may be in other countries (Harkins & Bakke, 2003).

Instant Messaging and Email

Instant messaging and email have grown increasingly popular for both home use and in the workplace. This technology helps bypass the need for an operator in using a relay service. It also allows those communicating to interact more freely than with a relay service. It also tends to be a faster form of communication (Bowe, 2002).

Internet Technology

The use of internet technology, like email and instant messaging, is also becoming widely available to people in the U.S. and many other countries. Because web design is primarily visual, this makes access generally quite good for those who are deaf or hard of hearing. A lack of captioning or a visual of someone signing oral information can be a potential problem area (Peters-Walter, 1998).

Internet technology, along with computer usage in general also has great potential in helping students produce work and materials. There are a number of basic learning technologies teachers and students can use that are of importance. We summarize the uses of these technologies from Stewart & Kluwin (2001).

Word Processing

Word processing is a widely available technology that can be of considerable assistance to students and teachers in the learning process. With grammar and spell check functions, these can also assist students in producing written work with fewer errors. Word processors can also be useful for producing newsletters which allow teachers to communicate with deaf parents as well.

Databases and Spreadsheets

Databases and spreadsheets can help teachers and students explore numerical concepts in very visual ways. They are also helpful in organizing, analyzing, and presenting data visually. They allow students to create their own data sets and to examine others’ databases for information. They can also help students learn to think about how to store, retrieve, and structure information for current and future use.

Computer-based Publishing

Computer-based publishing can be used for both electronic and desktop publishing. In addition, students may access or create their own webpages. The use of the computer for publishing can assist students in creating nicely finished written products for grading and presentations, as well as for personal use (e.g., family calendar of events) (Stewart & Kluwin, 2001)

A final note has to do with the use of voice for deaf people. In certain respects, many of these technologies provide a voice for deaf persons. In turn, this helps deaf people express their opinions and present their position in schools and society. New technologies will replace older ones and with those changes, some aspects of being Deaf may also be altered (e.g., Deaf actors sharing the stage with speaking actors as opposed to only having signing for a performance) (Padden & Humphries, 2005).

The purpose of this synthesis paper was to review ways to employ or modify instructional approaches, instructional environments, and instructional technology to provide the most appropriate education possible for deaf students and those who are hard of hearing. Another important consideration was respect for Deaf culture and community in planning and implementing an appropriate education. It should be apparent there are, in fact, a considerable number of factors and methods to consider and educators involved with these students should be aware of this array of options.

What I Learned from this Process?

This is a personal statement about what you learned about the process of synthesizing literature. I cannot provide an example, here, because it is so personal to each individual. Possible areas to be addressed could include:

• Knowledge gained about conducting your synthesis (NOT a rehashing of what you stated in your literature review)

• Skills gained in the process and why these are important in your career

• Disposition changes (changes in your values and beliefs about educational research)

Future Action Research Option

Were I to individually research a topic synthesized in this paper, I would likely select a qualitative option. I would be most interested in identifying students who are deaf or hard of hearing, their parents, and their teachers to address which options under each category (instructional approaches, instructional environment, and instructional technology) appeared to be most beneficial according to each group’s view (students, parents, and teachers). I would also be interested in determining if any of the group members consider themselves also to be members of the Deaf culture and community and how that might impact their perceptions regarding the benefits of the options selected.

I could also incorporate or choose a quantitative approach by providing selected participants with the various options available under each category of consideration (instructional approaches, instructional environment, and instructional technology) and solicit their ratings of the value of and preference for each option. Such a survey could also provide insight into current practices and beliefs. Additionally, such an approach might allow me to assess which options are used most frequently. This option would likely require more participants than the qualitative option.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download