Search results

Inclusion of deaf/hard of hearing (D/HH) students is more common than ever before. General education teachers need to be aware of strengths and needs of this particular group of students as well as have a few simple strategies to implement in the classroom. This chapter will present strengths and needs relative to language, social/emotional skills, and literacy. Language modalities, educational philosophies, as well as assistive listening technologies are discussed. We will further present important information on changes in technology and support personnel that may be used to improve the education of D/HH students.

The education of deaf and hard of hearing (d/DHH) students is largely dependent on the preferred mode of communication. Historically, the mode of communication for d/DHH students was determined by society rather than by students and families. This resulted in divisiveness between the Deaf culture and proponents of oral communication. The adoption of IDEA allowed family participation in the decision-making process. Advances in technology increased student access to sound, resulting in more educational placement options. Despite the positive changes, the complex nature of hearing loss and the wide variety in cultural considerations have made it difficult to determine the best approach to deaf education. Thus, educators and providers are left in a conundrum of which version of “traditional” deaf education is best for students.

Purpose– The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of the ways in which the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model has been enacted in the research and educational practices related to deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) children. While the term GRR is not used in the studies reviewed in this chapter, the interventions described in each study demonstrate core principles of GRR.

Methodology– The chapter provides a brief review of reading comprehension and writing intervention studies with DHH children, adolescents, and young adults. In searching for studies related to the GRR model, key words and phrases included ‘mediated/guided instruction.’

Findings– A critical review of the studies indicates an overall need for improved clarity of the ways in which educators decide when and how to release responsibility to students. In addition, the degree to which students are reported to internalize and independently apply newly learned literacy skills varies significantly. The variation prompts further examination of factors other than the instructional approach, such as intrinsic student characteristics, that might contribute to successful acquisition of skills.

Research limitations– The studies in this review represent educational practice across age/grade levels and educational settings and thus present evidence in support of the potential for implementation of a GRR model in the instructional practices of DHH students. However, because the number of studies is quite limited, we cannot generalize the findings to the diverse population of DHH students and the variety of educational settings within which DHH students are enrolled.

Practical implications– Releasing the responsibility of learning to DHH students, particularly students with a history of significant language delays and limitations, is a challenging task but certainly a possible outcome. Current educational practices are reported to all too often perpetuate a prolonged reliance of the student on the teacher. Educators are encouraged to reflect on different ways in which DHH students can be encouraged and supported in becoming more agentive in their own learning and development. A careful examination of interventions that have successfully supported students in adopting and applying effective learning strategies is needed to improve current practices.

Value– An initial search for literature related to the GRR model, that specifically addresses the needs of deaf students, produced few results. By making connections between existing reading and writing interventions and the GRR model, this chapter provides a means by which educators of deaf children can begin to frame evidence-based literacy interventions within the GRR model. Such a change may prompt deeper discussions of the need to move beyond explicit and guided instruction present in many interventions to instructional pedagogy that supports DHH students in moving toward independence.

General education and special education teachers may have limited experience working with students who are deaf/hard of hearing and be unaware of the professionals and specialist who may work with those students. When a student has a hearing loss, there are a variety of additional professionals with whom teachers must collaborate. The roles of these professionals may be different than those experienced by other educators. An understanding of the roles of these various professionals is important to ensuring the most appropriate service provision for students with hearing loss. This chapter will specifically discuss the roles of teachers of the deaf, interpreters, and audiologists as well as some other related service providers within the context of a fictional case scenario.

Using life history interviews with 10 college-educated Deaf women, this chapter investigates how the women saw themselves “between worlds” and how they balanced being both workers and mothers. While considering Gabel and Peters’ (2004) call for a theory of resistance in the field of disability studies along with Garland-Thomson (2004) who argues for a feminist disability studies theory, the author argues that when theorizing about the construction of a worker, which is a fluid identity, it is necessary to consider notions of gender along with ability and to note places where individuals resist stereotypes placed on them by the larger society. The women of this study resisted ideas of deafness as a “disability” and did things to show they were a linguistic minority and part of the Deaf community. Teaching, in certain contexts, was a place where they educated people about their deafness and became, in their words, “lifetime educators.” Those who worked in hearing offices developed strategies such as being lifetime educators, self-advocates, volunteering in these offices, and often denying a part of their Deaf identity.

Deafness and hearing impairments have a very interesting and ancient history. The term hearing impairments is used here to refer to any dysfunction of the hearing organ, regardless of the etiology, degree of hearing loss, and service provision implications. The history of hearing impairments can be traced back to centuries before Christ (BC). For instance, around 1000 BC a Hebrew law provided those with deafness and hearing impairments limited rights to own property and marry. Nonetheless, although this law protected people with hearing impairments from being cursed and maltreated by others, it did not grant them full participation in rituals of the temple (ASLInfo, 2010). People with hearing impairments were considered to be “subnormal” by great philosophers of that time. For instance, between 427 and 347 BC, Plato's philosophy of innate intelligence was the vogue. It claimed that all intelligence was present at birth. Therefore, all people were born with ideas and languages in their minds and required only time to demonstrate their outward sign of intelligence through speech. People with hearing impairments could not speak and were therefore considered incapable of rational thoughts and ideas. Indeed in 355 BC Aristotle was reported to have claimed that those who were born deaf would become stupid and incapable of reason. According to him, people with hearing impairments could not be educated because without the ability to hear, people could not learn. Greek which was spoken in his society was considered the perfect language and all people who did not speak Greek including people with deafness were considered Barbarians (ASLInfo, 2010).

Deaf communities including the Irish one, often identify the status of their signed languages as one of the defining indicators of their social standings. Thus, social justice measures must be intertwined with the status of signed languages. The social justice issues for Deaf communities identified here are: access to media, recognition of signed languages and education. These issues are based on several research data and are described in brief. The purpose of this paper is to locate the situational position of Deaf communities in Ireland.

To understand the way in which a more radical model of equality would work for the Irish Deaf community, the author discusses an equality framework developed by the Equality Studies Centre in University College Dublin, with the aim of advancing understanding of what equality of condition would mean for Deaf people in relation to the access to media, recognition of signed languages and education.

The evidence from research and literature shows the serious disadvantaged position held by the Deaf communities in Ireland and other countries. The data presented alone show how both discrimination and disadvantages are largely due to negative perspectives on deafness. These negative perspectives are obviously influenced by historical, medical and religious factors.

The article raises awareness of the implications of different levels of equality on the status of signed languages. These levels, by default, affect the socio‐economic statuses of Deaf communities. It is obvious from this study that equality of condition is the best option for Deaf communities to achieve. This option demands a level of recognition and respect for signed languages, equal to that afforded to national and dominant languages. This would help to minimise the belief that signed languages are mere compensatory tools, which in turn, would create more egalitarian treatment for Deaf people who wished to pursue their main identity through the use of signed languages.

Scholars have been calling for educational leadership that emphasizes socially just practices to restructure school policies and practices to create an equitable schooling experience for all students. The case of Davis K-8 exemplifies how a more traditional model of leadership (transformational leadership) coupled with a professional learning community model has created socially just practices that fully include the school's deaf and hearing-impaired students. Davis has recreated the school environment to truly value participation from all students. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, data were gathered that highlight the practices that drive the inclusive culture of the school. Implications for practice include the impact that a socially just vision can have in more traditional leadership models and provides a model for including students with disabilities into the school culture.

In this chapter, we describe how a rubric-style observation instrument for observing classroom writing instruction was used to focus and optimize collaborative video analysis sessions among teachers and researchers spread across six states. As part of a three-year Institute of Education Sciences (IES) development grant, we used videos of classroom instruction both as data for researchers studying the nature and impact of a specific instructional approach, Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI), and as a vehicle for collaborative teacher professional development – for both teachers and teacher leaders.

By tying video analysis to a shared observation instrument, we were able to target video clip selection for discussion and focus our analysis to support teachers across several states and school settings implementing a new approach to writing instruction. After a brief overview of the project for which videos were used, we describe the tools and protocols developed over time to ensure the efficient and powerful use of collaborative video analysis. We also share our experiences on the nature and outcomes of these collaborative sessions both in terms of teachers’ involvement and changes in practice over time.

We argue that the use of a common rubric to guide video clip selection, discussion, and analysis allowed teachers to strategically engage in “data reduction” – that is, not be overwhelmed by the amount of video data – and to use the videos as catalysts for conversations as well as evidence of what works well for individual students. As researchers, these sessions allowed us to ensure collaborative video analysis sessions were focused, efficient, and growth-oriented as well as sources of data for understanding trends in challenges and trajectories of growth for teachers implementing a new approach to instruction.

This work illustrates how researchers can use video for dual purposes – to conduct literacy investigations and to provide teachers with professional development involving video review and reflection.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the effects of algorithm teaching on the problem-solving skills of deaf-hard hearing students.

In this research, a pre-test and post-test problem-solving scale was applied to the single group (16 deaf-hard hearing students at a secondary school level) that had received algorithm education. Pre-test and post-test results were compared in order to see whether there was a significant difference among students in terms of their problem-solving attitudes. Students’ levels of performing the applications were examined through observation forms and their opinions about algorithm teaching were received.

As a result of the research, it was determined that implemented algorithm teaching had a significant effect on improving the problem-solving skills of the students.

Scratch training can be administered as either a compulsory or an optional course for hearing students as the Scratch programme offers the opportunity of teaching algorithmic reasoning with games, making the courses entertaining and giving students the chance to create their own designs which helps to improve their creative problem-solving skills and their motivation accordingly. Scratch teaching can be beneficial in developing students’ problem-solving behaviours and creativity.