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

What Are the Instructional Considerations for Deaf Students and Those Who Are Hard ofcommunicating with peers, developing relationships and friendships, and accessing the social intercou

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

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, andmode 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 ApproachesPerhaps 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 itsmerits and challenges

Oralism is an approach that emphasizes the development of speech,

speechreading, and listening with amplification Speechreading (sometimes referred to aslipreading) 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 oflanguage 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 theearly use of ASL as the deaf child’s natural language By this emphasis, advocates wouldargue 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 forvowels 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 mightbenefit 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 spokenEnglish 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 considerationsfor 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

 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

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 cognitiveand 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 ofsuch 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 ofhearing 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 preparedeaf 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 tothose 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 EnvironmentFiedler (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 smallerdistricts 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)