Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access originally published online on March 15, 2008
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2008 13(4):485-502; doi:10.1093/deafed/enn006
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Academic Status of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in Public Schools: Student, Home, and Service Facilitators and Detractors
University of Arizona, Tuczon
Correspondence should be sent to Shirin Antia, University of Arizona, College of Education, Tucson, AZ 85721-0069 (e-mail: santia{at}u.arizona.edu).
Received July 5, 2007; revised February 10, 2008; accepted February 11, 2008
We examined facilitators and detractors of academic success of 25 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) students selected from a pool of 187 students attending general education classes and enrolled in a study of academic progress. Interviews with their teachers of DHH, general education teachers, principals, parents, interpreters, and students themselves were analyzed for child, family, and school facilitators and detractors of academic status. Facilitators included student self-advocacy and motivation, high family and school expectations, families’ ability to help with homework, and good communication between professionals. Detractors included additional disabilities and poor family–school communication. A comparison of above- and below-average students revealed no single distinguishing facilitator or detractor. Each above-average student had many facilitators, whereas each below-average student had several significant detractors.
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 TOP Introduction MethodsResultsDiscussionFundingAppendixReferences |
|---|
The purpose of this paper is to examine the variables that influence the academic success of deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) students in general education classrooms. Approximately 85% of all DHH students in the United States are educated in public school programs with 43% spending most of the school day in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, & Office of Special Education Programs, 2004
). Despite the large numbers of DHH students receiving much of their instruction in general education classrooms, there is considerable debate about, and sometimes opposition to, such placement. Professionals and the Deaf community have expressed fears that students will be "dumped" in classrooms without support and that their language, communication, and social needs cannot be met in a public school environment (Innes, 1994). Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to conduct research on these students because most attend their local public schools; subsequently, they are widely scattered and difficult to locate (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2006). Another possible reason for the comparative lack of research interest in this population is that a high percentage is hard of hearing rather than deaf. About 56% of the total population of DHH students have mild or moderate hearing loss (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2005), and over 80% of DHH students in general education classrooms have less-than-severe hearing loss (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). Historically, most research has been conducted on those children who have severe or profound hearing loss (Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002). Because many hard-of-hearing students use spoken English as their preferred mode of communication, they often are perceived as having more in common with hearing rather than deaf students and having less need for intervention. Consequently, they may not be of primary interest to researchers and service providers. As early as 1981, however, a review on the academic achievement of this population showed that even students with moderate hearing loss had depressed achievement (Davis, Shepard, Stelmachowicz, & Gorga, 1981).
In general, the average academic achievement of DHH students is considerably below that of their hearing peers (Traxler, 2000). However, averages mask the wide range of achievement; some DHH students make academic gains commensurate with the general school age population (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). Variables that enhance or depress academic achievement have been examined by several researchers (Luckner & Muir, 2001; Mitchell & Karchmer, 2006; Powers, 2003). Variables examined include demographic variables such as degree of hearing loss, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status; family variables such as parental support and resources; and classroom and school variables such as degree and kind of special education support.
In a study to identify the characteristics of successful DHH students, Luckner and Muir (2001) interviewed the parents, teachers, and other professionals working with 20 students in general education classrooms. The students were identified as successful if they had age-appropriate academic skills in most subjects, good relationships with friends, and positive self-perceptions. All the students in this study had severe-to-profound hearing loss and were between 12 and 18 years of age. Variables that professionals identified as contributing to the success of these students were good family support, student determination to succeed, and an outgoing personality (Luckner & Muir, 2001). Professionals also believed that exposure to the general education curriculum and high expectations on the part of teachers contributed to success. Parents of these students placed a high value on communicating with their children and on the presence of skilled and caring professionals providing services. Additionally, parents strived to involve their children in extracurricular activities.
In a synopsis of characteristics that influence student achievement, Karchmer and Mitchell (2003) identified low family socioeconomic status, greater degree of hearing loss, and the presence of additional cognitive or behavioral disabilities as negatively impacting academic achievement. Powers (2003) specifically examined the influence of factors predictive of academic outcomes on the academic performance of DHH students in England, as measured by the General Certificate of Secondary Education examination. He obtained information on students' gender, degree of hearing loss, etiology of hearing loss, age at onset, age at diagnosis, additional handicapping conditions, hearing status of parents, ethnicity, language used in the home, family socioeconomic status, family social class, family size, type of educational placement, and students' special education needs. Degree of hearing loss was not associated with overall examination results; however, students with profound loss sat for fewer examinations than students with mild or moderate hearing losses. Risk factors included lower family socioeconomic status, minority ethnic status, use of a language other than English in the home, and the presence of additional handicapping conditions. Generally, students who were in general education classrooms receiving support services performed better than those in special education units where most of the instruction was provided by teachers of DHH (Powers, 2003).
In addition to student and family characteristics, school and classroom characteristics and specific special education support services can contribute to student success. Although there is some literature on school factors that affect academic success of students who are DHH, there is a substantial body of literature that addresses successful practices for other students with disabilities in general education classrooms. School factors that promote success for students with disabilities include administrative support, adequate resources, adequate scheduled time for teachers to plan with special educators and to make adaptations, and scheduled periodic in service or other training for general education teachers (Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994). Classroom factors promoting success for students with disabilities (including students who are DHH) include amount of classroom time devoted to the academic curriculum, teacher attitudes toward inclusion, teacher support of peer relationships, relationships between general educators and special educators that are based on respect of each other's roles and competencies, special education assistance that is not disruptive and takes into account the culture and practices of the general education classroom, and clarity and flexibility of teacher and paraprofessional roles and responsibilities (Antia, 1998; 1999; Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; O'Donnell, Moores, & Kluwin, 1992). Specific support services that are likely to influence academic achievement of DHH students include degree and type of support provided by the teacher of DHH, access to classroom communication and academic information through appropriate amplification and/or accurate sign language interpreting and note-taking, appropriate visual and acoustic environments, and adequate opportunity and transportation to participate in school extracurricular activities (Luckner & Muir, 2001; Schick, Williams, & Kupermintz, 2006; Stinson & Antia, 1999).
Finally, the school effects research suggests that school academic press and school social support affect achievement outcomes for all students. School academic press refers to those aspects of the school environment that press students to perform academically, such as teacher expectations, school policies, and academic standards. School social support includes shared values among administrators, teachers, and students; positive teacher–teacher and teacher–student relationships; and teacher support to help students meet academic demands (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Lee & Smith, 1999; Murphy, Weil, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1982).
Although specific variables (such as degree of hearing loss or mode of communication) may influence the academic achievement of DHH students, anecdotal reports of educators and observations of the researchers suggest that these variables frequently are not independent of each other. For example, age of diagnosis of hearing loss may be related to the degree of hearing loss; students with mild hearing loss may be diagnosed at later ages than those with more severe hearing loss because their deficits in speech and language may not be noticeable until a later age. Students with mild and moderate hearing loss are more likely to be in general education classrooms where they typically have greater exposure to the general education curriculum. Families at low socioeconomic levels may not be able to garner the resources needed for effective early intervention. Families who cannot communicate comfortably in the majority language may be unable to communicate with school personnel to advocate for services their children need. Thus, although it is important to look at specific variables, it may also be important to examine the clusters of variables that impact achievement. One way to obtain a complete picture is to conduct a series of case studies. Case studies can be used to explain causal links in real-life situations that are too complex for survey or experimental strategies (Yin, 1994).
This paper reports on the results of in-depth case studies of 25 of 187 students involved in a larger longitudinal research study of DHH students attending general education classrooms in Arizona and Colorado. For purposes of this research, each child is considered a case. The data for each case included interviews conducted with teachers, parents, and students and student demographic and achievement data. The case studies were specifically designed to obtain an overall picture of the variables perceived to facilitate or inhibit academic and social success and progress of students in general education classrooms. However, the purpose of this paper is to examine only the variables influencing the academic success of DHH students in general education classrooms.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionFundingAppendixReferences |
|---|
As mentioned previously, the data in this study were collected as part of a large longitudinal study of academic and social progress of DHH students in general education classrooms. Twenty-five students were selected from the larger study sample for in-depth case studies. Case study students were interviewed along with their general education teachers, teachers of DHH, interpreters (when used), parents, and school administrators. In addition to (and separately from) the interviews, demographic data and data on academic achievement were obtained on each student. The demographic data were used only to provide information on student characteristics; the academic data were used to determine students' academic status.
Participants
Students were eligible to participate in the longitudinal study if they (a) had an identified bilateral or unilateral hearing loss, (b) did not have additional severe cognitive disabilities, (c) received direct or consultative services from teachers of DHH or had an Individual Education Plan (IEP), (d) attended general education classrooms in public schools for two or more hours each day, and (e) were in grades 2–8 at the beginning of the study. Students were recruited from Arizona and Colorado through state agencies and school districts. Requests to allow students to participate in the study were sent to parents of all eligible students. Initially, permission for participation in the longitudinal study was obtained for 187 students. From this pool, a subset of 25 students was selected to participate in the case studies. To select case study students, we used a stratified random sampling process, which was conducted by categorizing all 187 students enrolled in the longitudinal study first by age (elementary or middle school), then by minority status (minority or nonminority), and finally by the degree of hearing loss (mild/moderate or severe/profound). Students were then chosen randomly from each cell until the requisite 25 students were identified. The parents or guardians of these students were contacted and gave separate consent for the students to additionally participate in the case studies.
Demographic information on the students was obtained through a form mailed to each student's teacher of DHH who collected the data from the student's files, completed the form, and returned it to the researchers. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the case studies, both for the overall group of 25 students and for the groups subsequently classified by academic achievement. (Note that students were not selected for the case studies based on their academic achievement; selection of case study students occurred prior to collection of academic achievement data.) As Table 1 shows, the overall group is approximately equally divided by gender and grade level and includes students with hearing loss ranging from high frequency and unilateral loss to severe and profound hearing loss. Six students had a home language other than English. Most of the students used spoken communication either alone or in combination with sign language.
|
Research Design
A multiple case study design was chosen as this approach provides an opportunity to examine the complexity and interdependence of multiple factors across cases (Yin, 1994
). This approach allowed us to frame the case study students' stories within their real-life context (Merriam, 1998) and allowed patterns and themes to emerge from those stories. The purpose of the case study interviews was to allow in-depth exploration, by systematic interviewing, of the perceived reasons behind students' academic performance. Initially, individual cases were analyzed by themes emerging from the interviews. Following the individual case analysis, we completed a cross-case analysis to examine common themes. Finally, we divided 25 students into three groups (academically above average, academically average, and academically below average) based on their academic profiles obtained from standardized achievement tests and teacher ratings of academic competence. We then compared the themes for the academically above-average and below-average students.
Instruments and Procedures
Interviews.
The interview protocols were developed on theoretical assumptions drawn from the successful schools literature in general education (Baker, Bridger, Terry, & Winsor, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Murphy et al., 1982) and the inclusion literature in education of DHH students (Antia & Stinson, 1999; Kluwin & Stinson, 1993; Luckner & Muir, 2001; Stinson & Antia, 1999; Stinson & Antia, 1999). These assumptions were that school academic press (the value placed on achievement by faculty and administrators), school inclusion policies, the quality of support services for DHH students, and parental attitudes and support of the school program would contribute to the academic achievement of the DHH students.
Separate interview protocols were developed for the following groups of individuals: general education teachers for core subjects (English, Social Studies, or Mathematics), teachers of DHH students, administrators (school principals, special education administrators), interpreters, parents, and the case study students themselves. We developed the interview protocol by creating questions for each group of interviewees that tapped their perceptions of the theoretical assumptions. The Appendix presents the major questions for each group of interviewees and the relationship between the theoretical assumptions and the interview questions. We developed follow-up questions for each major question to elicit further information as necessary. The entire interview protocol for each group of interviewees is available from the authors.
All interviews were conducted by the researchers or graduate research assistants. Most interviews were conducted in person; the interviewer traveled to each school to meet with each interviewee. Typically, all interviews for a particular student were conducted in 1 day but occasionally extended over 2 days. Parents or guardians were interviewed at the school or at another place of their choosing. On occasion, parents were interviewed by phone if their schedules did not allow them to meet with the interviewer.
Each interview required approximately 30 min to 1 hr to complete, although some were longer. The interviewer followed the interview protocol, starting with the major questions (see Appendix) and using the follow-up questions if the interviewee had not volunteered the information. The interviewer could change the order of the questions or eliminate questions as necessary (i.e. if the information had already been volunteered). Each interviewee was free to refuse to answer questions at their discretion. Each interview was audiotaped or audio and videotaped (if signed) except for a few interviews that were not recorded at the request of the interviewee. In these cases, the interviewer made detailed notes of the content of the interview.
A total of 138 interviews were conducted (Table 2). Each student's teacher of DHH and general education teacher were interviewed. For students who had several general education teachers (such as those in middle school), we typically interviewed the social studies or language arts teacher; in some cases, we interviewed more than one general education teacher. For some students, we also interviewed additional teachers or professionals involved with the student; these included three special education teachers (not teachers of DHH), a paraprofessional, and a speech therapist. One student, one administrator, and parents of two students could not be interviewed because of scheduling problems.
|
Standardized Achievement Tests.
The Stanford Achievement Test-9th Edition (SAT-9) (Harcourt Educational Measurement, 1996
), a standardized, norm-referenced assessment including reading, math, and language, was administered to Arizona students as required for the state of Arizona accountability purposes. The Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) was given to all Colorado students at each grade level, also for state accountability purposes. The CSAP measures reading, writing, and mathematics and was developed to measure Colorado's content standards. Both the SAT-9 and the CSAP yield stanine scores that were used for purposes of classifying the students into academic achievement groups. Both tests were administered to students in the spring of the academic year. Data on these achievement tests were obtained from student files.
Academic Competence Scale of the Social Skills Rating System.
The Academic Competence Scale is one of three scales of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The other two scales yield information on student social skills and student problem behaviors. The Academic Competence Scale is a nine-item scale completed by teachers. Teachers rate students on a five-point scale, placing each student in the lowest 10%, the next lowest 20%, the middle 40%, the next highest 20%, or the highest 10% on reading and mathematics compared to classmates and grade expectations. They also rate the students on overall academic performance, motivation, intellectual functioning, classroom behavior, and parental encouragement. The Academic Competence Scale yields a standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The SSRS was normed on a national sample of 2,109 students in grades 3–12. Internal consistency reliability for the Academic Competence Scale was .95, and test–retest reliability over a 4-week period was .93 in the standardization sample. Because there were no reliability and validity data specifically on DHH students, we obtained these data on students in the larger longitudinal study. Internal consistency reliability for the DHH students in the longitudinal study was .91 (Antia & Guardino, 2005). To obtain a measure of validity, we correlated students' standardized achievement test results and teacher ratings on the Academic Competence Scale for Arizona and Colorado students separately (as they took different standardized achievement tests in the two states). The correlations between teacher ratings and standardized achievement tests were significant (p < .001) for reading (r = .59 for Arizona, r = .52 for Colorado) and for language (r = .55 for Arizona, r = .45 for Colorado). The SSRS was completed by each student's general education teacher in the spring. The data were used (together with academic achievement data) to classify students into academic groups.
Data analysis.
The data analysis involved a three-step process: (a) first, the data were coded for general themes; (b) second, facilitators and detractors of academic achievement emerged as frequently mentioned themes; and (c) third, the data were examined to compare the facilitators and detractors for students with different levels of academic achievement. Each interview tape was transcribed by a professional transcriber. Randomly selected tapes were checked for accuracy of transcription by a research assistant. Transcribed interviews were entered into a qualitative software program (QSR-N6). Two researchers (Reed and Antia) read each interview and identified the themes that emerged. They jointly coded several interviews refining these coding themes and their definitions. The final coding themes were as follows:
- Expectations regarding grades and homework for students at the school and for the case study student;
- Perceptions (positive or negative) of student's academic functioning and reasons for such functioning;
- Homework frequency and difficulty; help needed by student to complete homework;
- Services provided by the teacher of DHH;
- Communication and relationships between professionals;
- Parental (or guardian) communication with school personnel;
- Parental involvement and knowledge of school program.
After interviews were coded, facilitators and detractors of academic achievement for each student emerged from the data. We then classified each facilitator or detractor into three additional categories: child, family, and school or service variables. Child variables were those that were intrinsic to the child such as motivation, degree of hearing loss, or the presence of additional disabilities. Family variables included variables such as family communication, family expectations, or communication between families and school personnel. School/service variables included variables such as communication between professionals, kinds of services provided, or accommodations made in the classroom. Once facilitators and detractors were identified for each case, we created cross-case tables to examine facilitators and detractors that were repeated across cases. During this phase of the analysis, we retained only facilitators and detractors that were tabulated for at least two or more students. Facilitators or detractors that were specific for only a single student were excluded from further analysis.
To examine whether facilitators or detractors were different for students performing at high academic levels and those performing at low academic levels, we divided them into three groups (above average, average, and below average) based on their academic performance. These groups were created by examining the academic data from the Academic Competence Scale and the results of the academic achievement tests. Students were classified as academically above average if they achieved an above-average standard score (
115) on the SSRS Academic Competence Scale, were rated by their teachers as above average on the reading and mathematics items compared to their peers and grade level, and received stanines of 7 or higher on the standardized academic achievement tests. Students were classified as below average if they received a below-average standard score (<85) on the SSRS Academic Competence Scale, were rated by their teachers as below average on the reading and mathematics items, and received stanines of 3 or below on the academic achievement tests. All students who were not categorized as academically above or below average were classified as academically average. It should be emphasized that these groups were created after the initial data on facilitators and detractors were analyzed. Six students were classified as academically above average and seven as academically below average. We then reexamined our tabular displays to compare the facilitators and detractors for the above-average and below-average students. Characteristics of the students in each group are displayed in Table 1.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionFundingAppendixReferences |
|---|
In this section, results will be presented in two parts. In part one, we present the data on child, family, and school/service facilitators and detractors as identified across all 25 students. In part two, we present the data comparing the students identified as above average academically with those identified as below average academically. Although we did interview the students themselves, their responses were brief and yielded no significant information.
Part 1: Child, Family, and Service Facilitators and Detractors
Child facilitators.
The academic achievement of students was attributed to multiple child facilitators. Participating or being attentive during class was identified as a facilitator for 16 of the 25 students (64%). Teachers commented on students being helpful and cooperative within group situations, noting that consistent classroom participation was important. One teacher of DHH described a student by stating, "She's the kid who always participates; she's always conscientious; she participates in group things .... I've been working with her for three years and there's never a problem as far as participation in the classroom."
The second most frequently mentioned child facilitator was having the personal motivation to succeed. Motivation was identified as a facilitator for 15 of the 25 students (60%). Students who were motivated and worked hard furthered their own academic performance. For some students, the source of motivation was ascribed to the desire to perform as well as their classmates. For others, good grades were a motivating factor. Both of these motivating factors were evident in the following comment provided by a teacher of DHH:
I think she just wants to be like all the other kids; she wants to do well like everybody else .... I know the last time I saw her she was talking about a friend of hers who got pretty bad grades the first quarter, and she couldn't believe that this other girl didn't try to get better grades, and she gave her this little motherly lecture about how hard you should be trying.
To perform well in school, teachers, parents, and interpreters noted that students needed to consistently attend school and complete assigned work. These two areas were noted as facilitators for 11 students (44%). The ability to advocate for oneself, rather than waiting for others to address needs, was a facilitator for nine students (36%). Parents and teachers commented on ways in which students demonstrated self-advocacy. They indicated that students learned to request clarification when necessary. Additionally, teachers noted that students took the initiative to sit in positions that maximized access to communication. One general education teacher commented, "he usually puts himself in a position where he can do what he needs to do."
Not surprisingly, being a capable and intelligent student was perceived as facilitating academic performance for eight students (32%), and working hard and being persistent was a facilitator for seven students (28%). Consistently wearing amplification was mentioned as a facilitator for 5 (25%) of the 20 students who were fitted with amplification.
Child detractors.
The detractor mentioned most frequently was inconsistent use of amplification. For 7 of the 20 students (35%) for whom amplification was prescribed, lack of use or inconsistent use of amplification was perceived as a detractor. In some cases, teachers invested significant effort in creating plans to promote the use of personal hearing aids or classroom amplification devices but were unsuccessful. One teacher of DHH commented on her student's long-term lack of hearing aid use:
She's been this way ever since I've worked with her.... I started working with her half way through last school year. But the itinerant teacher who had her before said the same thing. We had her on a program, those are her personal hearing aids and they're in-the-ear-hearing aids. They're very small. You can hardly see them and she would just never bring them to school so then we got her set up and it was okay with her mom if she just left them at school in the nurse's office so they would be here and she wouldn't have the chance to forget them.
The second most frequent child detractor was poor or inconsistent completion of homework or class assignments, which was mentioned for 9 of the 25 students (36%). Lack of or difficulty with classroom participation was a detractor for seven students (28%). One general education teacher offered the following description of her student:
She doesn't want to be put on the spot if she doesn't know what the answer is going to be, so a lot of times if I ask her a question and she doesn't know the answer, she'll just kind of look around the room and get real quiet.There appeared to be a relationship between limited classroom participation and inconsistent completion of schoolwork. Five of the seven students who had problems with classroom participation also were described as inconsistently completing schoolwork.
Late identification or service delivery was perceived as a detractor for five students (20%). Demographic data on these students indicated that the age of identification and/or services ranged from 4 to 8 years; two were foreign born, whereas the others had mild or unilateral loss.
Poor motivation was ascribed as a detractor for four students (16%). One general education teacher described her student by stating:
She lacks motivation so she finds it easier from what I've observed, she finds it easier to sit and not say anything or work, I don't see the motivation to learn and to figure it out and to get it right, as to fill in the answer and have it done.
Family facilitators.
High parental support of the student and the school program was perceived as a facilitator for 16 (64%) of the students. One teacher talked about the manner in which a student's mother demonstrated her support of school:
Her mom is here all the time and very supportive. Her sister is also a very good reader and writer and I think it's emphasized a lot at home; reading and writing. So her parents are really involved in what happens with her.Several families mentioned that they had moved to obtain appropriate services for their children.
High parental expectations for student performance and the importance parents placed on school were cited as facilitators for 13 students (52%). One teacher noted, "They (the parents) had high expectations ... they knew that he was deaf; they didn't treat him any differently." Parents described the emphasis they placed on school with comments such as, "I want the girls to know that school is very important, and I know the only way they will know that is if I make it important." A parent who had not done well in school noted:
I let them know that I would have studied more if I had the opportunity to do it. So I let them know that the only duty they have is to go to school and to get good grades. We don't ask them for anything else.
A specific aspect of parental support was the ability to help with homework. For 13 students (52%), parental help with homework was mentioned as a facilitator. Parental help included ensuring that their child had time to complete homework, monitoring the completion of homework, and providing specific help with assignments.
For nine children (36%), parents mentioned that involving children in extracurricular activities was an academic facilitator; four of these parents mentioned that the extracurricular activity involved taking them to the library. Finally, parental communication with the school was mentioned as a facilitator for five (20%) of the students.
Family detractors.
Family detractors were mentioned less frequently, and for fewer students, than facilitators. The most frequently mentioned family detractor for six students (24%) was the inability of parents to help with homework or a lack of consequences for failing to complete homework. Some parents mentioned that they did not help with homework because they did not understand the content. Another detracting factor was the inability or failure of parents to communicate with school personnel mentioned for three (12%) of the students. In two of the three cases, this resulted from parents speaking a language that differed from that of their child's teachers.
School/service facilitators.
The two factors that were perceived most frequently as facilitating achievement were expectations that the DHH student would achieve commensurate with classmates (20 of 25 students, 80%) and high expectations for all students within a specific school (15 of 25 students, 60%). If teachers, parents, or interpreters mentioned that a school held high expectations for DHH students, they generally also noted that the school maintained high expectations for all students. The expectations for one student were described by the teacher of DHH:
Our expectations for her are very, very high. We expect her to compete competitively in the classroom, to do everything that the other students do. We make no exceptions for her as far as behavior goes or homework assignments. She is held to the exact same requirements of any other student, no slack.The principal of the school this student attended noted:
We are in a district that is very, very academic. We're one of the tops, even in our district. So we encourage our kids to excel at everything, not just academics, but they do well there too. There is a community expectation here ...
The willingness of general education teachers to make classroom accommodations that specifically addressed the needs of students with hearing loss was mentioned for 10 students (40%). The accommodations provided by these teachers included the willingness to provide preferential seating, accommodate notetakers, write on the board, use the amplification equipment, provide extra time or a separate space for testing, or adapt assignments to the student's level.
The support provided by the DHH teacher was also cited as a facilitator for seven (28%) students. One general education teacher commented on her interactions with a student's teacher of DHH:
She has been very good about meeting with me quite often on work. "Can I help (the DHH student) with anything? ...." We talk quite often about hearing aids, is she wearing them? Are they in? If I need something I let her know, if she needs something she lets me know.
Good communication between professionals providing services (typically the teacher of DHH, the general education teacher, and the interpreter) was specifically mentioned as a facilitator for six (24%) students. Not infrequently, it was the teacher of DHH who maintained communication with interpreters and general education teachers. One teacher of DHH noted expending significant effort in this area,
I would get feed-back from the interpreters ... to make sure he was keeping up .... I put him into the regular classroom and I would keep in touch with those teachers all of the time. "How are things going, what was going on?" At first, it's difficult to get the teachers to tell you, they want to say, "Everything is fine," all the time, until a behavior problem, then they want you quickly. But, if I could keep that communication up all of the time, then ... they would just say to me, "He's doing good," without me having to ask. And they always told me if something was wrong.Support through tutoring was mentioned as a facilitator for six students (24%). Such tutoring was generally provided by interpreters and the teacher of DHH.
School/service detractors.
Once again, detractors were mentioned for fewer students than facilitators. Inadequate accommodations by general education teachers were mentioned as a detractor for four students (16%). Inadequate accommodations included general education teachers unwilling to take time to make accommodations for a single student, minimal use of visual strategies, not facing students when communicating, and not monitoring student comprehension. Another detractor appeared to be low expectations of the student, reported for three students (12%).
Part 2: Differences Between Above-Average and Below-Average Students
In addition to identifying facilitators and detractors to academic performance, we investigated the differences between those students identified as above average academically and those identified as below average.
Above-average students.
All six students in this group were characterized as being motivated, hard working, conscientious, persistent, and capable. All stated that they liked school. Three of the six were described by teachers or parents as intellectually gifted. Teachers, parents, and the students themselves mentioned that they loved to read and that they read frequently. Several of these students, however, mentioned that they did not like to write, although one was characterized as an excellent and creative writer.
The families of these students were supportive of both their child and the school. These families had relatively high levels of involvement with the school, either at the time of the interview or when their child was younger. The type of school involvement differed for each family; one mother played a major role in choosing her daughter's teachers every year, and other parents attended school functions regularly. These parents were able and willing to communicate with professionals or administrators.
The parents often mentioned that they helped their children with homework and placed a high value on their schoolwork. Parents were able to communicate with their children and mentioned having dinner table conversations or conversations about interesting topics. Additionally, they were able to take their children to extracurricular activities.
Principals in four of the six schools these students attended stated that they had high academic expectations for the general student body. Both the teachers of DHH and the general education teachers had high expectations for the DHH students. Many of these students received minimal service from the teacher of DHH. In some cases, there was little communication between the teacher of DHH and the general education teacher, but teachers did not think that their lack of communication impacted the student. Rather, they mentioned that the need to communicate was minimal as there were few problems requiring attention.
Below-average students.
Of the seven students categorized as below average, several were characterized as intelligent or hard working. Teachers of four of the seven mentioned that they had a diagnosed additional learning disability, attention deficit disorder, or an undiagnosed but observed problem with attention or focus. Teachers also mentioned that several of these students lacked persistence and needed frequent redirection. On the other hand, teachers described two of these students as highly motivated.
The families of these students were dedicated to them; some had moved considerable distances or had to battle the school system to obtain services. Others overcame extraordinary transportation barriers to visit the school. The parents mentioned that they attended the mandatory teacher–parent and IEP meetings. However, many of these parents were not able to communicate with school personnel. For some parents, it was the inability to speak English; for others, it was limited time to communicate with school personnel. Only two of the seven families were not able to communicate with their children; both these children signed, whereas the families did not. Six of the seven families were not able to help their children with homework.
All these students received a significant amount of special support from the schools. They received services from a teacher of DHH and some from sign language interpreters. Some received additional special education help or services for Limited English Proficiency. Unfortunately, in several instances, the professionals did not communicate frequently with one another and were not always aware of the type or value of the other services that the student was receiving. Only one of these students attended a school where the principal stated that an academically rigorous program was in place. In several of the other schools, principals or teachers mentioned that although they expected each child to do his or her individual best, they did not always push them to achieve.
Contrast between above-average and below-average students.
A simple listing of the facilitators and detractors does not highlight sufficiently the differences between the two groups of students. Further examination showed that the overall picture for the groups was quite different. Each above-average student had a large number of facilitators and very few detractors; the detractors mentioned were relatively minor. In contrast, each below-average student had many detractors and comparatively few facilitators. In many cases, the detractors were major. The striking contrast is shown in Tables 3 and 4, which present the facilitators and detractors for an above-average and a below-average student. The above-average student has significant child, family, and service facilitators and very few detractors in each category; in the family category, no detractors were mentioned. One general education teacher neatly characterized the wealth of facilitators for one of the above-average students when she stated that the student had
... a combination of family support, school support, para-professional, professional support and on top of all that she's also in a program of high academic rigor that she is making an exceptional transition into, so she has all the pieces and she's smart enough and wise enough to use them wisely.For the below-average student, the list of facilitators is comparatively short when compared to the above-average student, and the facilitators themselves are balanced by significant detractors. Although the student is characterized as motivated, he also is described as having trouble paying attention. Although parents moved to obtain services, they are unable to communicate with their child.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 3 Facilitators and detractors for an above-average student
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 4 Facilitators and detractors for a below-average child
For each of the below-average students, detractors likely to have an impact on student success existed in all three categories (child, family, and service). There were barriers in communication between parents and school personnel, services were received late in the student's life, and there was little communication between the personnel providing services. Although there was no single factor that separated all the above-average from all the below-average students, the above-average students had facilitators in all three categories and few significant detractors in any category. The below-average students also had facilitators in all three categories but, in contrast to the above-average students, they also had detractors in all three categories. These detractors, far from being minor, were likely to have a significant negative impact.
We also searched for mention of variables that we expected to differentiate between the above-average and below-average groups, namely mode of communication, degree of hearing loss, and school attendance. Even though an examination of Table 1 shows that the below-average group had the highest percentage of students with profound hearing loss and sign as the preferred communication mode, these variables were seldom mentioned by interviewees as facilitators or detractors. Rather, the ability and desire of the student to communicate was important and commented upon frequently. Attendance was mentioned as a facilitator for students in both groups; only one student (in the below-average group) had poor attendance at school but received private therapy during these school absences.
Although no single child, family, or school facilitator or detractor distinguished between the two groups, a wider examination of variables across the three categories revealed that the communication network between parents and school personnel, and among school personnel themselves, differed between the groups. Each student in the above-average group had at least one functional communication network in place. Thus, there was either good communication between the parents and school personnel or good communication among school personnel. In contrast, for four of the seven below-average students, neither communication network functioned well; that is, there was neither communication between parents and personnel nor among school personnel themselves.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionFundingAppendixReferences |
|---|
The facilitators and detractors of success for DHH students in general education classrooms appear similar to those mentioned in the literature. Facilitators identified in this study included family support and student motivation; variables also identified by Luckner and Muir (2001)
in their study of successful DHH students in general education programs. Lack of family resources, family use of a language other than the majority language, and additional disabilities are detracting factors that were identified both in this study and by other researchers (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003; Powers, 2003). All students received services from a teacher of DHH, and some received interpreter services. Services were mentioned as a facilitating factor, as was good communication between the service providers. High academic expectations of students at the school and of the DHH students were also facilitators. An important finding is that no single variable differentiated above-average from below-average students. Thus, although all the above-average students had families who had resources, provided support, and could communicate with school personnel, at least one below-average student had family support very similar to that of the above-average students and only two below-average students had families who were not able to communicate with school personnel. Although all above-average students were characterized as bright, at least two below-average students were similarly characterized. Academically rigorous programs did not necessarily differentiate between these students either. One below-average student was in an academically rigorous program, and two of the above-average students were in programs where principals and teachers made no mention of academic rigor.
The difference between the above-average and below-average students appeared to be the intensity and sheer number of detractors and also the balance between the facilitators and detractors. The below-average students had at least one or more major detractors, although identical detractors were not consistently seen across students. Thus, for three students, late identification resulting in late provision of services seemed to be the major detractor; for two students, the inability of the parent to communicate with the student and with school personnel appeared to be detractors that overshadowed child facilitators such as intelligence or motivation. In contrast, the above-average students had several significant child, family, and school facilitators and few or no detractors. When detractors were present, they tended to be minor, such as having a parent who was characterized as being too involved or wearing hearing aids but not using the FM system. In some cases, a factor that appeared to be a major detractor for a below-average student did not appear to be one for an above-average student. Therefore, lack of communication between school personnel was not perceived as impacting above-average students but was perceived as having an impact on the below-average students.
Another important finding was that the interviewees did not mention the degree of hearing loss or mode of communication as variables that specifically impacted academic progress and achievement for these students. This does not mean that these variables do not influence achievement; perhaps, hearing loss and mode of communication interact with other variables to produce different effects on different students. Thus, although communication mode may influence a student's ability to communicate with teachers and peers, the quality of sign language interpreting, the ability of the student to appropriately use the sign language interpreter, and the willingness of the teacher and peers to work with the interpreter and make instructional accommodations may be more important and have more influence on achievement than communication mode alone. Sign communication may be perceived as a detractor for a student who has an additional disability, whose parents cannot communicate using sign, or who is not able to use an interpreter effectively but may not be perceived as a detractor for a student for whom these risk factors are not present. That being said, it should be noted that the below-average group had the highest number of profoundly deaf students (who also used sign language). However, each of these students also had significant additional detractors, namely parents who could not communicate with the school or their child, the presence of additional disabilities, or late identification.
The advantage of these qualitative case studies is that it made it possible for us to look at a comprehensive picture of each student and weigh facilitators and detractors. None of the facilitators and detractors identified was surprising. Most would be expected based on the special education literature and clinical knowledge. However, we had expected to find some specific facilitators or detractors that distinguished between students with high and low academic achievement. Instead, we found that students who were not doing well seemed to have cumulative and multiplicative detractors that overshadowed facilitators. Thus, for one student, the child detractors included late identification of hearing loss, lack of persistence on academic tasks, and frequent absences for frivolous reasons; family detractors included poor communication between parents and the school; and service detractors included poor communication among professionals. It may not be only a single, particular, factor that puts a DHH student at risk for poor achievement but the number of risk factors. Studies of hearing students show that the presence of multiple risks is significantly related to academic outcomes (Gutman, Sameroff, & Cole, 2003). Thus, it may not be sufficient to focus on alleviating single risk factors. Programs may have to tackle multiple detractors simultaneously.
Implications for Practice
Clearly, some child and family factors are outside of the control of educators. However, the presence of family and child risk factors should alert professionals that additional efforts should be expended to ensure that program facilitators are in place. Since communication among professionals is a facilitator, it might be imperative for such communication to occur when students are at risk for poor academic achievement. This may mean that itinerant teachers of DHH be provided additional time in their schedules to communicate with teachers of below-average students. For these students and their families, it might be important to provide alternative ways of offering services. For example, the two parents of the signing below-average students, who could not communicate with their children, were also parents who could not communicate with the school because they did not know much English and did not have transportation. For these parents, sign language classes at school or even at community agencies, where communication is primarily in English, may not be accessible. Instead, services offered in the home might be a viable option. Home-based family services are often offered to young children with hearing loss but cease when children enter grade school. This approach may need to be reconsidered for some families of older students.
Academic press is a term used to capture the school environmental forces that press for student achievement (Murphy et al., 1982). Teacher expectation is one component of academic press; other components include school policies, practices, norms, and rewards. Our data indicate that high expectations of DHH students by their teachers were the most frequently mentioned facilitator of success. However, high expectations are also a result of staff development, instructional practices, and homework policies. Therefore, it is important that administrators and teachers pay attention to the process by which high expectations are achieved. General education teachers and administrators involved with DHH students will need to hold them to standards similar to hearing peers, but will also need to implement instructional strategies that allow these students to achieve such standards. Thus, teachers may need to know that DHH students can complete homework in a timely manner. They may also need to know that all modifications are not equal and that all kinds of modifications should not always be routine. For example, teachers should not always modify writing assignments, but might lengthen the time and provide additional feedback on writing assignments for DHH students.
Implications for Further Research
It is important to note that the academic grouping of students was based on their achievement at a single point in time. Because we have longitudinal data on the achievement of these students, as well as interviews over a 3-year period, we will be able to examine the facilitators and detractors that influence long-term academic progress. It will be important to examine whether students with a large number of detractors continue to lose ground over time. It will also be important to include the students' voices. Although student interviews during year 1 did not yield useful information, in subsequent years, we reviewed comments made by various interviewees and tailored the student interviews to reflect areas they viewed as facilitators and detractors, that is, hearing aid use, motivation, etc. We also need to examine whether, and how, perceived facilitators and detractors change over time, especially as students move from elementary to secondary grades. It is also important to note that this paper focused only on academic achievement and the factors influencing academic achievement. However, academic issues are not the only area worthy of investigation; social adjustment and peer relationships also need to be examined. Furthermore, the relationship between academic and social facilitators and detractors should be investigated for DHH students receiving instruction in general education classrooms.
|
Funding |
|---|
|
TOPIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionFundingAppendixReferences |
|---|
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Field Initiated Research (H324C010142).
|
Appendix |
|---|
|
TOPIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionFundingAppendixReferences |
|---|
Theoretical assumptions and interview questions
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
No conflicts of interest were reported.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionFundingAppendixReferences |
|---|
-
Antia SD. School and classroom characteristics that facilitate the social integration of deaf and hard of hearing children. In: Issues unresolved: New perspectives on language and deaf education—Weisel A, ed. (1998) Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 148–160.
Antia SD. The roles of special educators and classroom teachers in an inclusive school. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (1999) 4(3):203–214.
Antia SD, Guardino C. [Longitudinal study of DHH students in general education classrooms: Internal consistency reliability of the Social Skills Rating System] (2005) Unpublished raw data.
Antia SD, Stinson MS. Some conclusions on the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (1999) 4(3):246–248.
Baker JA, Bridger R, Terry T, Winsor A. Schools as caring communities: A relational approach to school reform. School Psychology Review (1997) 26(4):586–602.[Web of Science]
Darling-Hammond L. The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work (1997) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis JM, Shepard NT, Stelmachowicz PG, Gorga MP. Characteristics of hearing-impaired children in the public schools: Psycho-educational data. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders (1981) 46:130–137.
Gallaudet Research Institute. Regional and National Summary Report of Data from the 2004–2005: Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth (2005) Washington DC: GRI, Gallaudet University.
Giangreco MFR, Dennis C, Cloninger C, Edelman S, Schattman R. "I've counted Jon": Tranformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children (1993) 59:359–372.[Web of Science][Medline]
Gresham FM, Elliott SN. Social Skills Rating System (1990) Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Gutman LM, Sameroff AJ, Cole R. Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th grade: Effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool child factors. Developmental Psychology (2003) 39:777–790.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Harcourt Educational Measurement. Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth Edition (1996) San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Educational Measurement.
Innes J. Full inclusion and the deaf student: A consumer's review of the issue. American Annals of the Deaf (1994) 139:152–156.[Web of Science][Medline]
Janney RE, Snell ME, Beers MK, Raynes M. Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities into general education classes. Exceptional Children (1995) 61:425–439.[Web of Science]
Karchmer M, Mitchell RE. Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In: Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education—Marschark M, Spencer PE, eds. (2003) New York: Oxford University Press. 21–37.
Kluwin TN, Stinson MS. Deaf students in local public high schools: Backgrounds, experiences, and outcomes (1993) Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.
Lee VE, Smith JB. Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal (1999) 36:907–945.
Luckner JL, Muir S. Successful students who are Deaf in general education settings. American Annals of the Deaf (2001) 146:435–445.[Web of Science][Medline]
Marschark M, Lang HG, Albertini JA. Educating deaf students: From research to practice (2002) New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications in education (1998) San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Mitchell RE, Karchmer MA. Demographics of deaf education: More students in more places. American Annals of the Deaf (2006) 151:95–104.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Murphy JF, Weil M, Hallinger P, Mitman A. Academic press: Translating high expectations into school policies and classroom practices. Educational Leadership (1982) 40:22–26.
O'Donnell A, Moores DF, Kluwin TN. Identifying the contributions of school factors to the success of deaf students. In: Towards effective public school programs for deaf students—Kluwin TN, Moores DF, Gonter Gaustad M, eds. (1992) New York: Teachers College Press. 194–216.
Powers S. Influences of student and family factors on academic outcomes of mainstream secondary school deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (2003) 8(1):57–78.
Schick B, Williams K, Kupermintz H. Look whose being left behind: Educational interpreters and access to education for deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (2006) 11(1):3–20.
Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA. Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: A qualitative study of three reputational cases. American Educational Research Journal (1994) 31:785–811.
Stinson MS, Antia SD. Considerations in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (1999) 4(3):163–175.
Traxler CB. The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (2000) 5(4):337–339.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. 26th Annual (2004) Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2006) (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods (1994) London: Sage Publications.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. D. Antia, P. B. Jones, S. Reed, and K. H. Kreimeyer Academic Status and Progress of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in General Education Classrooms J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., July 1, 2009; 14(3): 293 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||