The Language Zone: Differentiating writing instruction for students who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Hannah M. Dostal ◽  
Kimberly A. Wolbers ◽  
Jennifer Renée Kilpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Writing Instruction ◽  
Hard Of Hearing

The Integration of Digital Tools during Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction

2016 ◽  
pp. 941-960
Author(s):  
Jennifer Renėe Kilpatrick ◽  
Rachel Saulsburry ◽  
Hannah M. Dostal ◽  
Kimberly A. Wolbers ◽  
Steve Graham
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Elementary Teachers ◽  
Student Learning ◽  
Writing Instruction ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Teacher Perspectives ◽  
Digital Tools ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interactive Writing ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf

The purpose of this chapter is to gain insight from the ways a group of elementary teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing chose to integrate digital tools into evidence-based writing instruction and the ways these technologies were used to support student learning. After professional development that exposed these teachers to twelve new digital tools, they were observed incorporating several new tools into their instruction; however, most of the tools were not the ones targeted during professional development. There are factors related to both teacher perspectives and professional development design that seem to play a role in what digital tools are used, how they are used, and who uses them. Based on these factors, suggestions are made for the design of future professional development that more effectively introduces technologies to teachers and supports their efforts to integrate these tools into classroom instruction.

The Integration of Digital Tools during Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction

2014 ◽  
pp. 608-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Renėe Kilpatrick ◽  
Rachel Saulsburry ◽  
Hannah M. Dostal ◽  
Kimberly A. Wolbers ◽  
Steve Graham
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Elementary Teachers ◽  
Student Learning ◽  
Writing Instruction ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Teacher Perspectives ◽  
Digital Tools ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interactive Writing ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf

The purpose of this chapter is to gain insight from the ways a group of elementary teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing chose to integrate digital tools into evidence-based writing instruction and the ways these technologies were used to support student learning. After professional development that exposed these teachers to twelve new digital tools, they were observed incorporating several new tools into their instruction; however, most of the tools were not the ones targeted during professional development. There are factors related to both teacher perspectives and professional development design that seem to play a role in what digital tools are used, how they are used, and who uses them. Based on these factors, suggestions are made for the design of future professional development that more effectively introduces technologies to teachers and supports their efforts to integrate these tools into classroom instruction.

Written Word Recognition and Production Processes

2020 ◽  
pp. 81-94
Author(s):  
Daniel Daigle ◽  
Rachel Berthiaume
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Writing Instruction ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Phonological Processing ◽  
Learning To Read ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Knowledge Processes ◽  
Production Processes ◽  
Written Word

Expert reading and writing involve, among other knowledge processes, automatized word recognition and production. These processes are not learned and used globally. In fact, decades of research have shown that word recognition and production processes can be broken down into micro-processes that need to be addressed explicitly during reading and writing instruction. They involve, in particular, phonological, morphological, and visual-orthographic processes. After reviewing what word recognition and production processes are, the main research conclusions from studies conducted among populations of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) readers and writers are presented. Although most of these findings relate to phonological processing, the chapter illustrates the potential importance that other processes can play in DHH students’ abilities to recognize and produce written words. Finally, the chapter highlights the main challenges that DHH students face when learning to read and write, and it proposes some elements considered in the context of reading and writing instruction in order for teachers to help students overcome these difficulties.

Reading and Writing Instruction for Academically At-Risk Deaf and Hard of Hearing First-Year College Students

2021 ◽  
pp. 009155212110476
Author(s):  
Jessica Williams ◽  
Thomastine Sarchet ◽  
Dawn Walton
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Writing Instruction ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Remedial Reading ◽  
First Year ◽  
Remedial Instruction ◽  
Summer Bridge ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Academically At Risk

Objective/Research Question: Students with disabilities, including deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students, are enrolling in college at rates higher than in the past with most of them pursuing an associate’s degree. For DHH students, their reading ability is a predictor of their academic achievement in college. However, more than half of DHH students enroll in remedial reading and writing college courses indicating they are not reading and writing at a college level and putting them at-risk for non-completion. In addition, remedial reading and writing courses often do not count for credit toward graduation and may hinder rather than support student progress. One way to mitigate the need for remedial coursework during college is to provide the remedial instruction in a low-stakes manner through summer bridge to college programs. The purpose of the present study was to measure the effects of remedial reading and writing instruction provided through a summer bridge program on first-year, academically at-risk DHH college students’ ( N = 20) reading and writing abilities. Methods: Using a pretest/posttest design, we implemented remedial reading and writing instruction for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week for 5 weeks. Results: Upon the completion of instruction, the student participants’ reading and writing skills improved. Conclusions/Contributions: Our findings may encourage researchers to attempt remedial instruction through summer bridge programs with other populations with disabilities or English language learners.

Measuring “Language Access Profiles” in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children With the DHH Language Exposure Assessment Tool

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Hall ◽  
Stephanie De Anda
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Exposure Assessment ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Communication Mode ◽  
Developmental Potential ◽  
Language Access ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Purpose The purposes of this study were (a) to introduce “language access profiles” as a viable alternative construct to “communication mode” for describing experience with language input during early childhood for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children; (b) to describe the development of a new tool for measuring DHH children's language access profiles during infancy and toddlerhood; and (c) to evaluate the novelty, reliability, and validity of this tool. Method We adapted an existing retrospective parent report measure of early language experience (the Language Exposure Assessment Tool) to make it suitable for use with DHH populations. We administered the adapted instrument (DHH Language Exposure Assessment Tool [D-LEAT]) to the caregivers of 105 DHH children aged 12 years and younger. To measure convergent validity, we also administered another novel instrument: the Language Access Profile Tool. To measure test–retest reliability, half of the participants were interviewed again after 1 month. We identified groups of children with similar language access profiles by using hierarchical cluster analysis. Results The D-LEAT revealed DHH children's diverse experiences with access to language during infancy and toddlerhood. Cluster analysis groupings were markedly different from those derived from more traditional grouping rules (e.g., communication modes). Test–retest reliability was good, especially for the same-interviewer condition. Content, convergent, and face validity were strong. Conclusions To optimize DHH children's developmental potential, stakeholders who work at the individual and population levels would benefit from replacing communication mode with language access profiles. The D-LEAT is the first tool that aims to measure this novel construct. Despite limitations that future work aims to address, the present results demonstrate that the D-LEAT represents progress over the status quo.

Family Support in Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-21
Author(s):  
Patti Martin ◽  
Nannette Nicholson ◽  
Charia Hall
Keyword(s):  
Family Support ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Learning Collaborative ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Program Components

Family support has evolved from a buzzword of the 1990s to a concept founded in theory, mandated by federal law, valued across disciplines, and espoused by both parents and professionals. This emphasis on family-centered practices for families of young children with disabilities, coupled with federal policy initiatives and technological advances, served as the impetus for the development of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs (Nicholson & Martin, in press). White, Forsman, Eichwald, and Muñoz (2010) provide an excellent review of the evolution of EHDI systems, which include family support as one of their 9 components. The National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM), the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, and the Center for Disease Control Centers cosponsored the first National EHDI Conference. This conference brought stakeholders including parents, practitioners, and researchers from diverse backgrounds together to form a learning collaborative (Forsman, 2002). Attendees represented a variety of state, national, and/or federal agencies and organizations. This forum focused effort on the development of EHDI programs infused with translating research into practices and policy. When NCHAM, recognizing the critical role of family support in the improvement of outcomes for both children and families, created a think tank to investigate the concept of a conference centered on support for families of children who are deaf or hard of hearing in 2005, the “Investing in Family Support” (IFSC) conference was born. This conference was specifically designed to facilitate and enhance EHDI efforts within the family support arena. From this venue, a model of family support was conceptualized and has served as the cornerstone of the IFSC annual conference since 2006. Designed to be a functional framework, the IFSC model delineates where and how families find support. In this article, we will promote and encourage continued efforts towards defining operational measures and program components to ultimately quantify success as it relates to improved outcomes for these children and their families. The authors view this opportunity to revisit the theoretical underpinnings of family support, the emerging research in this area, and the basics of the IFSC Model of Family Support as a call to action. We challenge professionals who work with children identified as deaf or hard of hearing to move family support from conceptualization to practices that are grounded in evidence and ever mindful of the unique and dynamic nature of individual families.

The Colorado Journey Towards Optimal Outcomes for Children With Hearing Loss

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Yoshinaga-Itano
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Diverse Population ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Maternal Bonding ◽  
Level Of Education ◽  
Optimal Outcomes ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Abstract It is possible for children who are deaf or hard of hearing to attain language development comparable to their hearing peers, but these outcomes are not guaranteed. The population of children with hearing loss is a diverse population and although the variable of the age of identification is less variable, there are numerous variables that could potentially and have historically impacted language outcomes of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Variables such as hearing loss, maternal level of education, and maternal bonding can overcome the benefits of earlier identification and intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document