Jeanine Roybal
EDI-212 Tutoring Techniques SF – Maureen Moose Assignment 2 – Posting of Web Materials September 30, 2007 http://www.rit.edu/~seawww/index2.html This material is a resource site to assist educators of deaf students in their efforts to promote English language acquisition and literacy development.
This web page supplies a “bridge” between theory and practice (to demonstrate the implications and applications of research) for professionals working with deaf or hard of hearing students. Simultaneously, offering professionals suggestions for illustrating structures, promoting readability, and applying research results. It also helps explain the linguistic challenges confronting English language learners and clarify the language acquisition process. It allows professionals to translate grammatical explanations and theoretical research findings into “everyday” language while giving guided practice (with feedback) in identifying and modifying specific structures for instructional purposes.
It is intended for:
· Instructors/Tutors of English grammar, reading, and writing at all educational levels—primary, secondary, post-secondary, and adult education.
· Professionals of content courses who need to make their reading materials and lectures more accessible to deaf, ESL, and other LEP students.
· Classroom teachers who provide English language instruction to deaf students, as well as teachers of hard-of-hearing students, of students of English as a second language (ESL), and of other students with limited English proficiency (LEP), including language-delayed students and students with learning disabilities.
Application of this material is in modules (Word Order, Articles and Nouns, Passive Voice, -ED/-ING Participles of Emotional Response Verbs, Wh.q, Reading Comprehension: Process and Strategies, Reading and Writing in Content Areas, Paragraph Structure, Basic Essay Structure: Introductory and Concluding Paragraphs, Reference Words, Expressing Logical Relationships, Logical Subjects of Infinitives, Word Knowledge, Phrasal Verbs, Relative Clauses).
Each module contains the following information:
• Introduction - with a list of major considerations concerning an English structure or process.
• Grammatical Summary - covering the characteristics and important facts about the structure or process.
• Research Findings and Implications - summarizing any research relevant to deaf students' difficulties with the structure or process.
• Guided Practice - consisting of interactive exercises designed to enhance site visitors' familiarity with the phenomena covered in the module.
• Action Steps - listing suggestions, guidelines, or activities to incorporate into English and content courses to support students' improvement in targeted aspects of English.
Examples of use:
1. Students can improve English language knowledge by focusing, from time to time, on a more difficult structure that is encountered frequently in course readings. Students can learn to interpret the meanings of sentences containing such structures by paraphrasing the sentences using alternative, simpler structures. For example, if your materials have sentences like the following,
While browsing the web, you might not notice secondary windows that pop up.
You can paraphrase such sentences to help students understand who is the logical subject of the VERB-ing form browsing:
While you are browsing the web, you might not notice secondary windows that pop up.
2. Many deaf and hard-of-hearing students, experience some difficulty learning the system of articles. Nevertheless, there are rules that can be taught and learned, and the student who likes to learn language using a consciously analytical approach can benefit from study of those rules. The article system in English is used to specify the meaning, in one way or another, of nouns. The most basic elements of this system include a (or an, when the following word begins with a vowel sound), the, and Ø (null or no article). In addition to these three articles, other words called “determiners” are also used to specify the meaning of nouns. Examples of determiners are: “quantifiers” (like some, any, three), “possessives” (like my, his, their) and “demonstratives” (like this, that, these).
Most students of language learn quickly what a “noun” is. One common definition is that a noun is “a word used to denote a thing, a person, a place or an abstract idea.” book (thing), accountant (person), classroom(place), knowledge(abstraction)
Similarly, most students of language also learn that, when one wants to add information about a noun, one can use an “adjective” (interesting) or a noun functioning as an adjective (company). Interesting book, Company accountant, English classroom, Perfect knowledge
Adjectives (or modifying nouns) are, however, not the only kind of words used to add information about a noun. English, like many other languages, also makes use of a system of “articles.” This system has four components. These are: a, an, the, and something called “null article,” which in grammar books is usually written as Ø. a book, an accountant, the classroom, Ø knowledge
The article an has the same meaning and use pattern as a; it is used in place of a when the following word begins with a vowel sound: an accountant, an everyday task, an NTID student (the N of NTID begins with the sound “eh”)
Articles allow a writer to communicate more clearly basic information about each noun. For example, each of the following pairs of examples below has a slightly different meaning. a book, the book Ø books, the books
In order to understand the article system in English, one has to first know something about English nouns. Nouns can be divided into different categories. The two most important categories for the purposes of this module are:
1. Count versus Non-Count (or Mass) Nouns 2. Singular versus Plural Nouns
Two additional factors crucially affecting article use will also be explained:
1. Specific versus General Nouns 2. Known versus Unknown Nouns
One simple exercise for instructors to adapt is to take a paragraph from a textbook that students are assigned to read anyway, delete the articles, and ask students to reinsert the correct ones. A caution here is that there are often exceptions, or instances which appear not to follow the rule. Therefore, it is recommended that only those articles that clearly follow the general rules be deleted.
Some disadvantages of this material are:
· All materials need to be modified for grade level and student’s ability.
· It does not discuss or refer to state curriculum as it is only a supplement.
· It is time consuming to apply.
A teacher or other professional must adapt the materials. An in-depth assessment must be compiled and applied in order to achieve maximum success. The resources required to administer this material may not be available or may prove to be too costly for a district.
Some advantages are:
· It clarifies and simplifies complex thought for acquisition.
· It allows for a basic foundation to be presented upon which one can develop a more complex comprehension.
· It is adaptable for all levels.
If studied, this material does supply realistic applications. It provides an alternate thought process which allows for the Multiple Intelligences, Blooms Taxonomy and the Conditions of Learning to be applied consecutively. It provides for the individualization of the materials through its generalization and the all encompassing range of implementations.
I was intrigued by the extensive resources used for this compilation of materials (four pages) and the research geared toward deaf individuals that has been compiled to create an inclusive way to teach deaf citizens how to develop better English skills.
This is an area of extreme interest to me and a focus of most professionals who encounter deaf students. It is a skill that is essential for success that allows one to be an intricate, independent, and productive part of society.
Complete SEA References
Arnold, K. M. (1990). Teaching idioms to children who are deaf. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4), 14-17.
Berent, G. P. (1983). Control judgments by deaf adults and by second language learners. Language Learning, 33, 37-53.
Berent, G. P. (1988). An assessment of syntactic capabilities. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language Learning and Deafness (pp. 133-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berent, G. P. (1990, March). Relative clause learnability: Second language and deaf learner data. Paper presented at the 24th annual convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Francisco, CA.
Berent, G. P. (1993). Improvements in the English syntax of deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 55-61.
Berent, G. P. (1996a). The acquisition of English syntax by deaf learners. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 469-506). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Berent, G. P. (1996b). Learnability constraints on deaf learners' acquisition of English wh-questions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 625-642.
Berent, G. P. (2000). Deaf College Students' Production of English Relative Clauses: Linguistic Explanations, Educational Implications. Unpublished manuscript.
Bordman, M. B., Byrd, P. L., & Schlein, B. (1977). Practical English structure (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Brannon, J. B., Jr. (1968). Linguistic word classes in the spoken language of normal, hard-of hearing, and deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 279-287.
Britten, D., & Dellar, G. (1989). Using phrasal verbs: A complete course in the English phrasal verb system for self study or class use (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Cornell, A. (1985). Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 269-280.
Davey, B., & King, S. (1990). Acquisition of word meanings from context by deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 135, 227-234.
de Villiers, P. A. (1988). Assessing English syntax in hearing-impaired children: Eliciting production in pragmatically-motivated situations. In R. R. Kretschmer & L. W. Kretschmer (Eds.), Communication assessment of hearing-impaired children: From conversation to the classroom (Monograph supplement of The Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 21, 41-71).
Ehri, L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. Gough, l. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fischer, S. (1972). The acquisition of verb-particle and dative constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. Patterson, J. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neurological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Francis, W. N. (1958). The structure of American English. New York: Ronald Press.
Frazer, B. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.
Furth, H. (1966). A comparison of reading test norms of deaf and hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 11, 461-462.
Gaustad, M. G., & Paul, P. V. (1998). Instruction and first-language literacy. In P. V. Paul (Ed.), Literacy and deafness (pp. 181-235). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gaustad, M. G. (2000). Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for Deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 60-80.
Gaustad, M. G., Kelly, R. R., Payne, J.-A., & Lylak, E. (in press). Deaf and hearing students' morphological knowledge applied to printed English. American Annals of the Deaf.
Glazier, T. F. (1993). The least you should know about vocabulary building-word roots. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Griffin, R. W., & Ebert, R. J. (1999). Business (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hanson, V. L. (1982). Short-term recall by deaf signers of American Sign Language: Implications for order recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 89, 572-583.
Hart, C. W. (1999). The ultimate phrasal verb book. New York: Barrons.
Hillard, R. (1971). A reexamination of the separable verb in selected Anglo-Saxon prose works. Canadian Archives.
Holdstock, R., (1985). John Boorman's The Emerald Forest. New York: Zoetrope.
Hook, J. N. (1981). Two-word verbs in English. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Kelly, L. P. (1993). Recall of English function words and inflections by skilled and average deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 288-296.
Kelly, L. P. (1996). The interaction of syntactic competence and vocabulary during reading by deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 75-90.
Kennedy, A. G. (1920). The Modern English verb-adverb combination. Language and Literature, 1(1), 1-51.
King, C. M., & Quigley, S. P. (1985). Reading and deafness. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Kluwin, T. N. (1979). The development of prepositional usage in the written English of deaf adolescents. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College.
Konishi, T. (1958). The growth of the verb-adverb combination in English-A brief sketch. In K. Araki et al. (Eds.), Studies in English grammar and linguistics: A miscellany in honor of Takanobu Otsuka. Tokyo, Japan: Kenyusha.
LaSasso, C. J. (1990). Developing the ability of hearing-impaired students to comprehend and generate question forms. American Annals of the Deaf, 135, 409-412.
Lewis, M., & Hill, J. (1992). Practical techniques for language teachers. Hove, UK: Language Trading Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach. Hove, UK: Language Trading Publications.
Lillo-Martin, D. C., Hanson, V. L., & Smith, S. T. (1992). Deaf readers' comprehension of relative clause structures. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 13-30.
Makkai, A. (1972). Idiom structure in English. Janua Linguarum. The Hague: Mouton.
Marschark, M., & Harris, M. (1996). Success and failure in learning to read: The special case of deaf children. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 279-300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McGill-Franzen, A., & Gormley, K. A. (1980). The influence of context on deaf readers' understanding of passive sentences. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 937-942.
Meyer, G. A. (1976). The two-word verb: A dictionary of the verb-preposition phrase in American English. The Hague: Mouton.
Moores, D. (1987). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Nist, J. (1966). A structural history of English. New York: St. Martins Press.
NTC's dictionary of phrasal verbs and other idiomatic verbal phrases. (1993). Chicago: NTC Publishing Group.
Odom, P. B., & Blanton, R. L. (1967). Phrase-learning in deaf and hearing subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10, 600-605.
Oxford English Dictionary: The compact edition. (1979). Oxford: University Press.
Paul, P. V. (1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 3-15.
Paul, P. V. (1998). Literacy and deafness: the development of reading, writing, and literate thought. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Payne, J.-A. (1982). A study of the comprehension of verb-particle combinations among deaf and hearing subjects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Payne, J.-A., & Quigley, S. P. (1987). Hearing-impaired children's comprehension of verb-particle combinations. The Volta Review, 89(3), 133-143.
Pennington, M. C. (Ed.). (1995). New ways in teaching grammar. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Power, D. J., & Quigley, S. P. (1973). Deaf children's acquisition of the passive voice. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 16, 5-11.
Power, D., & Leigh, G. R. (2000). Principles and practices of literacy development for deaf learners: A historical perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 3-7.
Quigley, S. P., & King, C. M. (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 329-356.
Quigley, S. P., Smith, N. L., & Wilbur, R. B. (1974). Comprehension of relativized sentences by deaf students. Jounral of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 325-341.
Quigley, S. P., Wilbur, R. B., & Montanelli, D. S. (1974). Question formation in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 699-713.
Quigley, S. & Paul, P. (1984). Language and deafness. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, W. S. (2000). Sentence focus, cohesion, and the active and passive voices. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 27(4), 440-445.
Schmitt, P. J. (1969). Deaf children's comprehension and production of sentence transformations and verb tenses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.
Shintani, M. (1979). The frequency and usage of the English passive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44(2), 144-152.
Smith, B. D. (1995). Breaking through college reading (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Spasov, D. (1966). English phrasal verbs. Sofia, Bulgaria: Naouka i Izkoustvo.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1996). Content area reading (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Walter, G. G. (1978). Lexical abilities of hearing and hearing-impaired children. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 976-982.
Walter, G. G. (1982). English skill assessment with the severely hearing-impaired. In D. G. Sims, G. G. Walter, & R. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Deafness and communication: Assessment and training (pp. 177-185). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
White, R. V. (1978). Teaching the passive. English Language Teaching Journal, 32(3), 188-194
Wilbur, R., Goodhart, W., & Montandon, E. (1983). Comprehension of nine syntactic structures by hearing-impaired students. The Volta Review, 85, 328-345.
Yim, B. (1998). A contextual analysis of the "get"-passive in spoken American English. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Yurkowski, P., & Ewoldt, C. (1986). A case for the semantic processing of the deaf reader. American Annals of the Deaf, 131, 243-247.
EDI-212 Tutoring Techniques SF – Maureen Moose Assignment 2 – Posting of Web Materials September 30, 2007 http://www.rit.edu/~seawww/index2.html This material is a resource site to assist educators of deaf students in their efforts to promote English language acquisition and literacy development.
This web page supplies a “bridge” between theory and practice (to demonstrate the implications and applications of research) for professionals working with deaf or hard of hearing students. Simultaneously, offering professionals suggestions for illustrating structures, promoting readability, and applying research results. It also helps explain the linguistic challenges confronting English language learners and clarify the language acquisition process. It allows professionals to translate grammatical explanations and theoretical research findings into “everyday” language while giving guided practice (with feedback) in identifying and modifying specific structures for instructional purposes.
It is intended for:
· Instructors/Tutors of English grammar, reading, and writing at all educational levels—primary, secondary, post-secondary, and adult education.
· Professionals of content courses who need to make their reading materials and lectures more accessible to deaf, ESL, and other LEP students.
· Classroom teachers who provide English language instruction to deaf students, as well as teachers of hard-of-hearing students, of students of English as a second language (ESL), and of other students with limited English proficiency (LEP), including language-delayed students and students with learning disabilities.
Application of this material is in modules (Word Order, Articles and Nouns, Passive Voice, -ED/-ING Participles of Emotional Response Verbs, Wh.q, Reading Comprehension: Process and Strategies, Reading and Writing in Content Areas, Paragraph Structure, Basic Essay Structure: Introductory and Concluding Paragraphs, Reference Words, Expressing Logical Relationships, Logical Subjects of Infinitives, Word Knowledge, Phrasal Verbs, Relative Clauses).
Each module contains the following information:
• Introduction - with a list of major considerations concerning an English structure or process.
• Grammatical Summary - covering the characteristics and important facts about the structure or process.
• Research Findings and Implications - summarizing any research relevant to deaf students' difficulties with the structure or process.
• Guided Practice - consisting of interactive exercises designed to enhance site visitors' familiarity with the phenomena covered in the module.
• Action Steps - listing suggestions, guidelines, or activities to incorporate into English and content courses to support students' improvement in targeted aspects of English.
Examples of use:
1. Students can improve English language knowledge by focusing, from time to time, on a more difficult structure that is encountered frequently in course readings. Students can learn to interpret the meanings of sentences containing such structures by paraphrasing the sentences using alternative, simpler structures. For example, if your materials have sentences like the following,
While browsing the web, you might not notice secondary windows that pop up.
You can paraphrase such sentences to help students understand who is the logical subject of the VERB-ing form browsing:
While you are browsing the web, you might not notice secondary windows that pop up.
2. Many deaf and hard-of-hearing students, experience some difficulty learning the system of articles. Nevertheless, there are rules that can be taught and learned, and the student who likes to learn language using a consciously analytical approach can benefit from study of those rules. The article system in English is used to specify the meaning, in one way or another, of nouns. The most basic elements of this system include a (or an, when the following word begins with a vowel sound), the, and Ø (null or no article). In addition to these three articles, other words called “determiners” are also used to specify the meaning of nouns. Examples of determiners are: “quantifiers” (like some, any, three), “possessives” (like my, his, their) and “demonstratives” (like this, that, these).
Most students of language learn quickly what a “noun” is. One common definition is that a noun is “a word used to denote a thing, a person, a place or an abstract idea.” book (thing), accountant (person), classroom(place), knowledge(abstraction)
Similarly, most students of language also learn that, when one wants to add information about a noun, one can use an “adjective” (interesting) or a noun functioning as an adjective (company). Interesting book, Company accountant, English classroom, Perfect knowledge
Adjectives (or modifying nouns) are, however, not the only kind of words used to add information about a noun. English, like many other languages, also makes use of a system of “articles.” This system has four components. These are: a, an, the, and something called “null article,” which in grammar books is usually written as Ø. a book, an accountant, the classroom, Ø knowledge
The article an has the same meaning and use pattern as a; it is used in place of a when the following word begins with a vowel sound: an accountant, an everyday task, an NTID student (the N of NTID begins with the sound “eh”)
Articles allow a writer to communicate more clearly basic information about each noun. For example, each of the following pairs of examples below has a slightly different meaning. a book, the book Ø books, the books
In order to understand the article system in English, one has to first know something about English nouns. Nouns can be divided into different categories. The two most important categories for the purposes of this module are:
1. Count versus Non-Count (or Mass) Nouns 2. Singular versus Plural Nouns
Two additional factors crucially affecting article use will also be explained:
1. Specific versus General Nouns 2. Known versus Unknown Nouns
One simple exercise for instructors to adapt is to take a paragraph from a textbook that students are assigned to read anyway, delete the articles, and ask students to reinsert the correct ones. A caution here is that there are often exceptions, or instances which appear not to follow the rule. Therefore, it is recommended that only those articles that clearly follow the general rules be deleted.
Some disadvantages of this material are:
· All materials need to be modified for grade level and student’s ability.
· It does not discuss or refer to state curriculum as it is only a supplement.
· It is time consuming to apply.
A teacher or other professional must adapt the materials. An in-depth assessment must be compiled and applied in order to achieve maximum success. The resources required to administer this material may not be available or may prove to be too costly for a district.
Some advantages are:
· It clarifies and simplifies complex thought for acquisition.
· It allows for a basic foundation to be presented upon which one can develop a more complex comprehension.
· It is adaptable for all levels.
If studied, this material does supply realistic applications. It provides an alternate thought process which allows for the Multiple Intelligences, Blooms Taxonomy and the Conditions of Learning to be applied consecutively. It provides for the individualization of the materials through its generalization and the all encompassing range of implementations.
I was intrigued by the extensive resources used for this compilation of materials (four pages) and the research geared toward deaf individuals that has been compiled to create an inclusive way to teach deaf citizens how to develop better English skills.
This is an area of extreme interest to me and a focus of most professionals who encounter deaf students. It is a skill that is essential for success that allows one to be an intricate, independent, and productive part of society.
Complete SEA References
Arnold, K. M. (1990). Teaching idioms to children who are deaf. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4), 14-17.
Berent, G. P. (1983). Control judgments by deaf adults and by second language learners. Language Learning, 33, 37-53.
Berent, G. P. (1988). An assessment of syntactic capabilities. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language Learning and Deafness (pp. 133-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berent, G. P. (1990, March). Relative clause learnability: Second language and deaf learner data. Paper presented at the 24th annual convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Francisco, CA.
Berent, G. P. (1993). Improvements in the English syntax of deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 55-61.
Berent, G. P. (1996a). The acquisition of English syntax by deaf learners. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 469-506). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Berent, G. P. (1996b). Learnability constraints on deaf learners' acquisition of English wh-questions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 625-642.
Berent, G. P. (2000). Deaf College Students' Production of English Relative Clauses: Linguistic Explanations, Educational Implications. Unpublished manuscript.
Bordman, M. B., Byrd, P. L., & Schlein, B. (1977). Practical English structure (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Brannon, J. B., Jr. (1968). Linguistic word classes in the spoken language of normal, hard-of hearing, and deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 279-287.
Britten, D., & Dellar, G. (1989). Using phrasal verbs: A complete course in the English phrasal verb system for self study or class use (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Cornell, A. (1985). Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 269-280.
Davey, B., & King, S. (1990). Acquisition of word meanings from context by deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 135, 227-234.
de Villiers, P. A. (1988). Assessing English syntax in hearing-impaired children: Eliciting production in pragmatically-motivated situations. In R. R. Kretschmer & L. W. Kretschmer (Eds.), Communication assessment of hearing-impaired children: From conversation to the classroom (Monograph supplement of The Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 21, 41-71).
Ehri, L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. Gough, l. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fischer, S. (1972). The acquisition of verb-particle and dative constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. Patterson, J. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neurological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Francis, W. N. (1958). The structure of American English. New York: Ronald Press.
Frazer, B. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.
Furth, H. (1966). A comparison of reading test norms of deaf and hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 11, 461-462.
Gaustad, M. G., & Paul, P. V. (1998). Instruction and first-language literacy. In P. V. Paul (Ed.), Literacy and deafness (pp. 181-235). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gaustad, M. G. (2000). Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for Deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 60-80.
Gaustad, M. G., Kelly, R. R., Payne, J.-A., & Lylak, E. (in press). Deaf and hearing students' morphological knowledge applied to printed English. American Annals of the Deaf.
Glazier, T. F. (1993). The least you should know about vocabulary building-word roots. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Griffin, R. W., & Ebert, R. J. (1999). Business (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hanson, V. L. (1982). Short-term recall by deaf signers of American Sign Language: Implications for order recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 89, 572-583.
Hart, C. W. (1999). The ultimate phrasal verb book. New York: Barrons.
Hillard, R. (1971). A reexamination of the separable verb in selected Anglo-Saxon prose works. Canadian Archives.
Holdstock, R., (1985). John Boorman's The Emerald Forest. New York: Zoetrope.
Hook, J. N. (1981). Two-word verbs in English. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Kelly, L. P. (1993). Recall of English function words and inflections by skilled and average deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 288-296.
Kelly, L. P. (1996). The interaction of syntactic competence and vocabulary during reading by deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 75-90.
Kennedy, A. G. (1920). The Modern English verb-adverb combination. Language and Literature, 1(1), 1-51.
King, C. M., & Quigley, S. P. (1985). Reading and deafness. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Kluwin, T. N. (1979). The development of prepositional usage in the written English of deaf adolescents. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College.
Konishi, T. (1958). The growth of the verb-adverb combination in English-A brief sketch. In K. Araki et al. (Eds.), Studies in English grammar and linguistics: A miscellany in honor of Takanobu Otsuka. Tokyo, Japan: Kenyusha.
LaSasso, C. J. (1990). Developing the ability of hearing-impaired students to comprehend and generate question forms. American Annals of the Deaf, 135, 409-412.
Lewis, M., & Hill, J. (1992). Practical techniques for language teachers. Hove, UK: Language Trading Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach. Hove, UK: Language Trading Publications.
Lillo-Martin, D. C., Hanson, V. L., & Smith, S. T. (1992). Deaf readers' comprehension of relative clause structures. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 13-30.
Makkai, A. (1972). Idiom structure in English. Janua Linguarum. The Hague: Mouton.
Marschark, M., & Harris, M. (1996). Success and failure in learning to read: The special case of deaf children. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 279-300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McGill-Franzen, A., & Gormley, K. A. (1980). The influence of context on deaf readers' understanding of passive sentences. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 937-942.
Meyer, G. A. (1976). The two-word verb: A dictionary of the verb-preposition phrase in American English. The Hague: Mouton.
Moores, D. (1987). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Nist, J. (1966). A structural history of English. New York: St. Martins Press.
NTC's dictionary of phrasal verbs and other idiomatic verbal phrases. (1993). Chicago: NTC Publishing Group.
Odom, P. B., & Blanton, R. L. (1967). Phrase-learning in deaf and hearing subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10, 600-605.
Oxford English Dictionary: The compact edition. (1979). Oxford: University Press.
Paul, P. V. (1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 3-15.
Paul, P. V. (1998). Literacy and deafness: the development of reading, writing, and literate thought. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Payne, J.-A. (1982). A study of the comprehension of verb-particle combinations among deaf and hearing subjects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Payne, J.-A., & Quigley, S. P. (1987). Hearing-impaired children's comprehension of verb-particle combinations. The Volta Review, 89(3), 133-143.
Pennington, M. C. (Ed.). (1995). New ways in teaching grammar. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Power, D. J., & Quigley, S. P. (1973). Deaf children's acquisition of the passive voice. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 16, 5-11.
Power, D., & Leigh, G. R. (2000). Principles and practices of literacy development for deaf learners: A historical perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 3-7.
Quigley, S. P., & King, C. M. (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 329-356.
Quigley, S. P., Smith, N. L., & Wilbur, R. B. (1974). Comprehension of relativized sentences by deaf students. Jounral of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 325-341.
Quigley, S. P., Wilbur, R. B., & Montanelli, D. S. (1974). Question formation in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 699-713.
Quigley, S. & Paul, P. (1984). Language and deafness. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, W. S. (2000). Sentence focus, cohesion, and the active and passive voices. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 27(4), 440-445.
Schmitt, P. J. (1969). Deaf children's comprehension and production of sentence transformations and verb tenses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.
Shintani, M. (1979). The frequency and usage of the English passive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44(2), 144-152.
Smith, B. D. (1995). Breaking through college reading (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Spasov, D. (1966). English phrasal verbs. Sofia, Bulgaria: Naouka i Izkoustvo.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1996). Content area reading (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Walter, G. G. (1978). Lexical abilities of hearing and hearing-impaired children. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 976-982.
Walter, G. G. (1982). English skill assessment with the severely hearing-impaired. In D. G. Sims, G. G. Walter, & R. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Deafness and communication: Assessment and training (pp. 177-185). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
White, R. V. (1978). Teaching the passive. English Language Teaching Journal, 32(3), 188-194
Wilbur, R., Goodhart, W., & Montandon, E. (1983). Comprehension of nine syntactic structures by hearing-impaired students. The Volta Review, 85, 328-345.
Yim, B. (1998). A contextual analysis of the "get"-passive in spoken American English. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Yurkowski, P., & Ewoldt, C. (1986). A case for the semantic processing of the deaf reader. American Annals of the Deaf, 131, 243-247.
This Service Project Establishes A Specialized and Qualified Tutoring Process: Focusing on the K-12 Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Individual Needs
A Capstone Project Presented by
Jeanine E. Roybal
to
Steve Reiquam
Faculty Advisor
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Applied Science in Interpreting
Regis University
Denver, Colorado
February 29, 2012
This is an unpublished Capstone Project
In which copyright subsists
© Copyright by Jeanine E. Roybal
February, 2012
All rights reserved.
This Service Project Establishes
A Specialized and Qualified Tutoring Process: Focusing on the K-12 Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Individual Needs
Abstract Rigorous analysis emphasizes the critical need (while providing the credentials required) for creating a best practice tutoring curriculum process for deaf and hard of hearing( d/hoh) K-12 special education students. Identifying the unique and individual learning needs and styles of these students is the crux of curriculum development. The creating of a theoretical process for a consistently varying and situational dependent need has not been developed or implemented in this current educational field. This project successfully presents a twenty-first century best practice tutoring curriculum process that converges limited research from the past with the practices in the present; while moralistically holding space for future academic needs to be addressed. This work addresses the current special education crisis by synthesizing and expanding existing mental models in order to develop a successful best practice tutoring curriculum development process that will be repetitively and accurately implemented with appropriate training.
Acknowledgement
The final composition of this work came from the convergence of many diverse and highly professional works in and out of the special education field that I have incessantly explored. As a professional and a mother of a deaf child, this researcher feels a sense of duty to acknowledge and credit those who enabled me to create this unearthing. Credit is to include those who have dedicated blood, sweat, and tears alongside of the many hours of their lives to the betterment of this world through everyday practices for our deaf and hard of hearing children, not only those noted in the works cited. thank you
Introduction
Statement of Problem The typical high school graduating deaf and hard of hearing learner has a reading level equivalent to the fourth grade (U.S. Department of Education, OSEP, 2011). Therefore allowing, approximately 19 percent of the population, a postponed and limited access to college upon successful completion of their recommended academic remediation (Advisory Group of the National Agenda, 2005). The United States educational trends that lead to the ‘No Child Left Behind’ act (NCLB) only identified our exterior current educational crisis. With the new emphasis on international academic comparisons, educational accountability, and providing diversified learning experiences to the k -12 gifted and general populations, American academic administrators have overlooked the k-12 deaf and hard of hearing citizens (U.S. Department of Education, OSEP, 2011). The deaf and hard of hearing K -12 student’s need for both supplemental education (tutoring) and immediate access to qualified tutoring has not been officially presented or addressed. Forcing this researcher to address the elephant in the room; Immediate and available qualified access is essential since students with hearing loss have an extremely limited and non-refundable time frame for education; as recognized by the Commission of the United States of America (2005) and the working paper “Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education” (Johnson, R. E., Liddell, S. K., & Erting, C. J., 1989). This academic ability to educate our deaf and hard of hearing students to a fourth grade reading level has been and still is an acceptable academic accomplishment (status-quo) for more than 40 years. Johnson (1989) proposed academic changes that offset costs and their plausible implementations have been overlooked.
Academic practices and standards for creating qualified teachers and educational interpreters for the deaf are strictly enforced and censored by local, state and federal governments. However, d/hoh k-12 tutoring needs are as unique as the individual who requires this service. Tutoring is part of the Golden Triangle (Interpreter, Tutor, and Note Taker) of d/hoh services that have been identified throughout special education as essential and yet, there are no standards or best practices for k-12 students established that this researcher could find.
This service project will allow for this new concept of a best practice process tutoring curriculum to successfully develop and produce a highly qualified educational signing and oral tutoring process for this student population. This will be accomplished through a compilation and modification of currently successful and new 21st Century special education research and its best practices. Tutors will also be able to identify their own communication and learning styles and the affects they may have on the tutoring process of individual students (CNCS, 2003). This applied learning will be the essence of the newly specialized tutor training project that will be implemented after this course is completed.
The utilizing and synthesizing of the background knowledge and experiences of deaf professionals and researchers, teachers of the deaf, and qualified educational interpreters for the deaf has been a grave oversight by curriculum developers. The cumulative application of these forgotten’s acquired knowledge has the utmost potential. It will be applied conditionally to d/hoh learning styles as this process is critical in the development of a successfully implemented curriculum for tutoring lessons and sessions.
This project will discuss the current status quo for tutoring deaf/hard of hearing (d/hoh) k-12 students and why it requires change. Information introduced will include the need for successful tutoring standards and special education accountability for producing qualified tutors. Accountability to include collection of the data that creates a tutoring baseline and fundamental approach to include the best practices process (Dean, 2001) for: D/HOH Professionals, Educational Interpreters, and Teachers of the Deaf (TOD).
Methodology and Analysis Project Research Methods I will be combining the Action and Praxis research methods for this project.
Action Research
This research utilizes a systematic cyclical method of planning, taking action, observing, evaluating (including self-evaluation) and critical reflection prior to planning the next cycle” (O'Brien, 2001; McNiff, 2002). The actions have a set goal of addressing an identified problem in the community, for example, improving the educational tutoring services of deaf and hard of hearing K-12th grade students through use of new strategies (Quigley, 2000) and improving the current tutor curriculum in special education. It will be a collaborative method (action and Praxis) to analyze new ideas alongside of old ideas that were overlooked, and implement theory into an action plan for change. This change process involves direct participation in the research’s evolution, to be implemented after this course is completed. The monitoring and evaluating of the effects of the researcher's analysis and actions with the objective of creating a best practice process (Dick, 2002; Checkland & Holwell, 1998; Hult & Lennung, 1980) will allow for a continual internal quality control and external measurement prominence.
Praxis Research
This method of research development is a bottom up process. It democratizes the making of critical conscience that will be required to create a “best practices process”. This Praxis intervention method aims at including the less scholarly and more experienced of the deaf, hard of hearing, and educational community members to create new mental models and have a fresh look at the international educational expectations and intervene on their own behalf.
This researcher will analyze and synthesis data from various documented outcomes, accumulated research and proposals in deaf education, and continue this process leading up to the existing philosophies and mental models serving in the systems. Then tutoring concepts will be applied to these evaluates.
This service project will produce a successful tutoring curriculum process for this student population. This analysis of current practice processes will demonstrate how change in these practices can mutually benefit a community of practitioners (McNiff, 2002; Reason & Bradburym, 2001; Carr & Kemmis 1986; Masters, 1995). This will be accomplished through a compilation and modification of currently successful and new 21st Century special education research and its best practices. Importantly, tutors will also be able to identify their own communication and learning styles and the affects they may have on the tutoring process of individual students (AmeriCorps, 2003). This applied learning will be the essence of the newly specialized tutor training curriculum project.
Methods Analysis
This work will answer the driving questions by expounding on how we can blend the beneficial and productive old practices and successful techniques with newly acquired research along with some of the older ignored yet, applicable to the targeted k-12th grades, research to turn it into the development of a “best practices process”.
The utilizing and synthesizing of the analyzed data with the diverse background knowledge and experiences of hard of hearing and deaf community members, hard of hearing and deaf professionals, teachers of the deaf, and qualified educational interpreters for the deaf will become part of the best practice process for maintaining an updated curriculum. A synthesis of the current and the newly acquired knowledge regarding the individually specific learning styles of both the tutor and tutee will also be critical in the creating of a successful tutoring curriculum.
* I will answer the following queries in order to complete this project.*
1. Can we produce a successful best practices process tutoring curriculum that will simultaneously empower the deaf and hard of hearing students?
a. How does Theory of Mind (ToM) affect this living-breathing process?
b. How do tutor and tutee learning styles affect the curriculum and its practice process?
2. What can be defined as a “best practices process” for a tutoring curriculum for this target group?
a. What new research and studies are available?
b. What sustainable characteristic are successful in current curriculum's for this target group?
c. What is currently hindering the process?
FTS,INC has produced a successful best practices process tutoring curriculum that simultaneously empowers deaf and hard of hearing students. We have created a best practice tutoring process curriculum that dovetails student experiences seamlessly with their learning style their The individual learning styles and current theory of mind drive the curriculum and develop its process. FTS,INC defines its “best practices process”as a successful theoretical process for a consistently varying, situational dependent type of learner. It includes Expeditionary Analysis and Theory of Mind (ToM) bridging that fulfills each student's diversified needs. This living-breathing process allows each student to bring their unique and individual experiences to the forefront as a benchmark for their own success. We are still working toward the answers of the remaining questions.
2.a. What new research and studies are available?
2.b. What sustainable characteristic are successful in current curriculum's for this target group?
2.c. What is currently hindering the process?
Project Relevance and Rational
Quality and successful curriculum development is a foundational step in the bridging of current educational gaps of deaf and hard of hearing k-12 grade students (Johnson, Liddell, & Erting, 1989). As both, a parent and professional educational interpreter, trying to educate my deaf son, I contacted the various nationally advertised tutoring programs only to find that none of these programs accommodated deaf students, at any cost. They did not have access to research and development that presented methods to fit my deaf son’s learning needs. After much trial and error, I found a program that worked for my son. Knowing and experiencing these academic frustrations from a larger perspective has fueled this researcher’s passion on this topic.
In the general population of our society, basic educational supports for deaf and hard of hearing children are not a priority as they can get vocational rehabilitation (VR) after they graduate. After graduating! Aren’t we supposed to educate our children so they can graduate? I was confused. Education communities should be repairing these failing systems, not supplementing and enabling them. As a professional in the field, I, too, am responsible for action resolving this identified need. Hopefully, this research will spur others into implementation.
Qualified and skilled tutors are a quintessential and critical means in achieving the greater goal of this service project. In order to achieve qualification, a “best practice process” tutoring curriculum needs to be developed and then the application of that curriculum for tutor training purposes will be the next step. The time constraint of this course will not all for this to be achieved in this class.
In the service portion of this project, I will research reports, literature, data, organizational practices, and individual needs to mold the current and new methods and theories into a best practices process, completing this projects goals and objectives. The unique needs of this target market and the actual tutoring activities need to be quantifiable and accurately applicable. With the development of a “best practice process” tutoring curriculum will become adaptable to all d/hoh k-12th grade students.
Measurements
1. Scrutinized learning styles will be fit to the individual educational process of the student.
2. A tutoring needs log sheet will be developed to include this information and other pertinent information to the session.
3. A process will be studied to allow the logging of immediate comprehension scores after each session.
4. As sustainability only occurs over time, these are the issues that are identified now.
4.1. What 1 year outcomes will lay the foundation for this overall project?
4.1.1. (LLAP) Student strength and weakness assessments for students will be used.
4.1.2. A standard performance measurement process for tutors needs to be developed.
4.2.1. It is possible to work with the same students over time however, Regular team coordinated sessions
and feedback will allow for quality control of the process.
4.3. Scientifically based strategies and outcomes documented throughout will allow for delivery diversity.
5. Do we want to measure and assess resources by learning styles? Can this cataloging be done?
6. How can we create continuity for a multi-year project?
7. How will transitioning between tutors, students, and staff affect the outcomes?
8. What minimal benchmarks for tutors will be required?
8.1. How will these benchmarks be measured?
These measurements will continue to be assessed, answered, and revised as data is received and this work continued.
Literature Review
Through the process of examining twenty-first century collected works on developed and the development of tutoring curriculum for deaf and hard of hearing (d/hoh) K-12 graders, I uncovered that current published tutor curriculum research information is insufficient and its inadvertent omission is indefensible.
The majority of key word research confirmed two major suspicions; that a specific curriculum for deaf and hard of hearing k-12th grade students has not been developed even though tutoring has been identified as an essential service for d/hoh students. Post-secondary remediation and tutoring is addressed but that too is still without successful curriculum development. The academic absorption rate was higher with d/hoh students who received tutoring services than those who did not. Laws were passed upon these truths and action taken.
National Committees have been assembled, Commissioned reports presented, and studies formulated to ensure the finest in the field contributed to the ever changing needs of the d/hoh K-12 learners. The more specific d/hoh tutoring research that was analyzed strictly involves peer tutoring programs with general guidelines and any ability to sign for the delivery method of all involved. My professional perspective towards providing academic services through volunteer peer tutors of this caliber is that it is demeaning to the professionals in the field and inhibiting to the students they are trying to assist. Through the continued practice of denying k-12 d/hoh learners qualified service providers (trained signing tutors) the educational system inadvertently promotes antiquated perspectives; regressing current professional practices back fifty years into the shamefully overbearing and oppressing “helper model” (McIntire & Sanderson, 1995). Without the creation of a best practices process for d/hoh tutoring curriculum's, this type of research will continue to promote inadvertent adversarial mental models and practices between departmental educational systems and their front-line professionals.
Upon interviewing teachers (Sailor, Personal Communications, 2010, Sowell, Personal Communication; 2012) regarding types of improvements they would like to see implemented into their current academic curriculum's, I found their responses not as informative as I had expected. These educators indicated that they would like to have more applicable curriculum, rubric, and mentor models that would help achieve educational goals. None were able to consider tutoring goals when dealing with current academic deficiencies. All modifications are developed, directed, and performed by the individual teachers. These interview responses indicated that to continue the process would not produce sufficient data.
The AmeriCorps Tutoring Toolkit (2003) developed qualification standards for the recruitment of tutors under the premise that tutoring programs cannot be superior to the people who run them. Curriculum development is deeply influenced by the quality of its contributors. Currently, contributors believe that deaf peers who are not academically qualified at the k-12 grade level are the best practice. After studying various reports and various state deaf child bill of rights(Colorado State Board of Education, 2005) our cumulative education of this target group indicates academic failure; therefore, peer tutoring cannot be the prominent delivery method of (IEP, IDEA) authorized tutoring services. An academically qualified peer tutor who cannot communicate in depth with the student is another tried and failed delivery system. The curriculum needs to reflect the standards to be upheld throughout the various levels of the work (Douglas, Haynes & Henry, 2000).
That standard should include in its continuum the recruitment of tutors for the d/hoh to the feedback used to create the continuum of the best practices process (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2003). D/hoh tutor recruitment is narrowed by its unique communication requirements. Fortuitously, the tutor recruiting pool requires broad d/hoh child development background knowledge and implies personal and professional literacy competencies with a minimal two year college degree from all who enter the pool. However, the competencies achieved in interpreter training programs allow students to enter into this practice profession at a minimal achievement level (Boys Town, 2011). Students are only introduced to a semester of educational interpreting and one non-curriculum course on tutoring (FRCC, Personal experience, 1998, UNC, Personal experience, 2008, SWCID, Personal experience, 2010). Recently, a four year degree has been developed to meet the minimal requirements of this evolving profession (UNC-DOIT Center). The evolution of tutoring requirements is proof that the implementation of a best practice would only limit the curriculum's potential. A best practices tutoring curriculum process will allow personalized and specialized lessons that will build upon the students biological academic preferences (Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 2009).
The IDEA Partnership Collaborative Work on Instruction COI Evidence-based Project is “connected to state agencies and work across agencies to create a systemic approach that supports use of evidence-based instructional strategies to include state and local level stakeholders interested in curriculum and instruction. (2009)” This is one of the most dynamic and recent collaborations regarding K-12 deaf education. They play a vital part in promoting shared learning at all levels and strive to extend and sustain circulation of the Center on Instruction’s evidence-based collection to all, especially those in the field. Unfortunately, they do not address the issue of tutoring for the d/hoh student populations. Again, the omission of tutoring curriculum data by these high functioning entities is a gross oversight.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA ’04) ensures that all children with disabilities have a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to them “that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living” [34 CFR 300.1(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A)]. Again, education designed to meet individual and unique needs (tutoring) is acknowledged as a related service but not expanded or enacted upon at the same level that these universal finding have been established upon.
The U.S. Department of Education’s release of its final regulations under the No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) stated that “ongoing effort to ensure that all students, including those with disabilities, fully participate in a state’s accountability system and are assessed in an appropriate and accurate manner.” A federal directive without suggested analysis or definitions of an appropriate and accurate manner for accountability insurances is supposed to allow individual states flexibility to meet their citizen’s needs. Also, stated that “$21.1 million was available to help states develop assessments based on modified academic achievement standards.” Again, there are no definitive curriculum's or modifications to the unstated curriculum's regarding these achievement standards for the d/hoh K-12 learners and the immediate needs and academic potential of students with disabilities have been made a national priority. Though sincere, these words have not been acted upon to create the original desired effect of improving the system. Most educational systems require curriculum as a foundational tool for required state standards achievement except for the hearing impaired (Sowell, PC, 2012). There are no new assessments, practices, or standards for the k-12 hearing impaired students that this researcher could find. Priceless time and money are spent again on building a house on sand. Nationally, we should be deeply concerned because "Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future" (Mankiller & Wallis, 2000).
Conferring with Hands and Voices, “Because deafness is a low incidence disability, there is not a widespread understanding of its educational implications, even among special educators. This lack of knowledge and skills in our education system contributes to the already substantial barriers to deaf students in receiving appropriate educational services. Meeting the unique communication and related needs of a student who is deaf is a fundamental part of providing a free appropriate public education to the child.” It seems that we have put on the saddle without the blanket, adversely affecting both, the rider and the work horse.
The Office for Civil Rights; Deaf Students Education Services; Department of Education’s Notice of Policy Guidance stated that it is deemed important that state and local education agencies take into consideration such factors, for a child who is deaf, as: Communication needs and the child's and family's preferred mode of communication; Linguistic needs; Severity of hearing loss and potential for using residual hearing; Academic level; and Social, emotional, and cultural needs including opportunities for peer interactions and communication. The needs have re-identified again. Throughout this research fingers are pointed at a need with very few suggestions on resolution given. Johnson (1989) produced many programs that if implemented could help resolve these issues. Conversely, no information on the implementation of any of these recommendations by any agency or personal entity was found.
In addition, the unique need of each individual child requires the consideration of supplementary factors. As the nature and severity of these children's needs will require the consideration of modification to the curriculum content and how the method of curriculum delivery meets those needs or how the needs can be met through other pathways.
In a recent interview between Hands and Voices and the renowned researcher, Marschark: “The evidence has convinced me, more than ever, that there is never going to be a one size fits all (Seaver, 2005) solution for deaf children either educationally or in language… it emphasizes to parents that deaf children have to be seen as individuals, and we have to do what works.” The same underlying conclusion has been made from Diverse Civil Agencies, Private Practices, Non-Profits, Professors, Governments, Educational Advisory Committees, Teachers and Interpreters as indicated by my own personal learning. The overall question now is what works?
In this examination of research, Bahr (2007) suggests that although post-secondary remediation presumably is intended to reduce gaps between disadvantaged and advantaged groups, instead it demonstrates the “Matthew Effect” those who have the greatest need for remediation are the least likely to successfully remediation, while those who require the least remediation are the most likely to remediate successfully (Bahr, 2007). The delayed developments of Theory of Mind (ToM) are a prominent and underlying hindrance for d/hoh student’s academic achievement and remediate success (Schick, 2004). These works generated my query of how does the d/hoh child’s theory of mind affect their educational achievements?
Growing children develop an understanding of themselves and other people as emotional, thinking, and spiritual creatures, who think, know, want, feel, and believe (Schick, 2009). From these new ideas, they derive that what another person thinks and believes may be different from theirs. Children also begin to learn that most behavior is encouraged or produced by our thoughts and beliefs. These understandings and development of these understandings are what is known as “Theory of Mind” (Schick, 2003).
Studies have shown that professionals working with these students can assist in a d/hoh student’s theory of mind acquisition through appropriate questioning and role play (Brenner, 2009). Roll play allows children to experience different perspectives that create representations of what is real and what is make-believe. These activities place children in a safe environment enabling them to construct thoughts while simultaneously allowing time for de-contextualized events to become inverted and synthesized within their own unique processing style. Discussion of past events engaging in age appropriate critical thinking allows opportunities to explore how their minds work. “Discussing events( like teasing each other, playing ‘I spy’, movies and books, along with ‘what if’ games) with children will help them acquire both the language of the mind as well as concepts that underlie a developed Theory of Mind” (Schick, 2009). These discussions of opinions and perspectives also build a foundation upon which the students can further the process of expanding from concrete to abstract thought. Furthermore, it is important to note that these communications need to be at the child’s level and modality.
The limit of successful tutoring abilities for d/hoh students is due to our false belief in an absolute for an ever varying unconditional academic dynamic. The creating of a theoretical process for a consistently varying and situational dependent need has not been developed or implemented in the current educational field, until now. Upon reviewing my studies of the work of Dean and Pollard (2007) from UNC, their best practice process transitions from rule based to goal based approaches seemed to be the logical answer to resolve the tutoring curriculum oversight. Trying to limit a tutoring curriculum to a best practice only creates what we already possess in the field: taboo failure. By not bearing in mind the process of development for a curriculum and acknowledging that as a part of the (w)hole, we limit the tutoring delivery possibilities. A tutoring curriculum that is a living breathing entity will only do. Also, best practices do not allow for new research to be applied neither does it allow for the implementation of the praxis process to provide current feedback from d/hoh students that are essential for its success. Can we expect to develop a tutoring curriculum that fits the needs of d/hoh k-12 grade student’s if the curriculum itself forces the student’s unique needs to fit our predetermined practice and delivery of services? Not with our current mental models. The demands of tutoring lessons and sessions will continually change with each student. The “constellation of demands” (Dean & Pollard, Jr., 2007) cannot continued to be ignored in the work. This is a main part of the deficiency in tutoring. It has been a slow and painful paradigm shift in identifying the real problem underneath the convoluted special education deaf instructional issues. This researcher has combined multiple works from vast sources past and present that have not been connect in the past. The research, data, and evidence seemed to have a life of its own. As I verified credibility of sources, one resource cited another and so on; they exposed critical truths that intriguingly lead to further research. Dr. Brenda Schick’s and Robyn Dean’s work repeatedly presented and data on deaf child development and its effect on interpreters responsibilities; leading to the evidence that became the best practice process student assessment - praxis method (Appendix 2). When creating a best practices tutoring curriculum process, identifying the interpreters’ mental and academic demands and controls in order to create the understanding of the student’s current theory of mind is an essential application for developing a cognitive and linguistic comprehension baseline. This information dictates how the delivery of the content is to be learned.
Research on the development of Theory of Mind (ToM) with children who have limited access to language shows the critical role that language has in developing essential social and cognitive skills (Schick, 2006). Researchers have also demonstrated that language provides the support to understand how the mind works. Professionals also acknowledge the importance of language for learning and communicating world knowledge. These students are limited in acquired incidental knowledge; impacting their own ignorance of social and ritual constraints. Researchers suggest that Theory of Mind affects the development of scientific thinking and critical thinking (Marschark & S, 2004). Scientific and critical thinking require intangible and abstract thought processes that many d/hoh are unable to obtain at the same age as their hearing peers. The relationship between ToM development and the d/hoh student’s ability to learn and retain by instruction and collaboration has been established (Peterson, 1999) yet, it is still being researched instead of implemented.
Overall, education requires directed discussions of mutual identifications and misconstructions (Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 2009). Learning entails a thorough reflection of one’s own beliefs and thoughts as well as others, and to alter viewpoints when evidence suggests that another point of view has truth. All of these mental activities require Theory of Mind skills (Schick, 2003, Marschark & S, 2004).
Tutors can apply this ToM knowledge when creating lesson plans. Presentation of different perspectives that are formulated upon the students learning and retention styles. Tutors can interject ToM when applying cultural mediation through contrast and comparisons of the cultures involved or being exposed (Schick, 2004, Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 2009, Peterson, 1999).
The National Agenda for Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for D/hoh Students “brings forward a set of priorities stated as goals that are designed to bring about significant improvement in quality and nature of educational services and programs for d/hoh students.” This is brought forward as an “agenda” or as action list in order to close the achievement gap that has continually existed for students. This unique and viable document represents a collaboration of parents, professionals, and consumers working as equal partners to achieve a common vision of the fundamental human rights that every d/hoh child is entitled to in our system: full access to all educational services. However, it does not address the development of assessments to dictate what full access to all educational services entails. Is not mental access as well as physical access essential? Communication allows the expression of thought and the expression of thought allows the continued development of communication (Schick, 2006). Where does this circle begin? End?
In this nation, 1,053,000 (Walls, 2001) children under the age of 18 have a reported hearing loss; only 60,000 to 80,000 of these children were served in special education programs; That shows that <7.6% of this identified population has received some type of services. These supplied services have been noted as being sub-standard by multiple committees throughout the last fifty years; have we only failed the other 92.4% or all of them? This researcher finds that by adding theory of mind to the tutoring variables in deaf education, we can make changes that are overdue. We have not researched the other reported one million students as a target market. A best practice process tutoring curriculum may offer life shifting academics to them, also. In hindsight, it lays heavily on me that we will never know what the multiple d/hoh un-serviced students could have accomplished if tutoring services would have been made available. Foresight dictates that these consistently identified yet, misdirected critical d/hoh needs cannot continue to be ignored by those of us with the ability to repair the oversight.
As an initial repair, The U.S. Congress finds that the approved suggestion for a new model federal law should include the following: that IDEA (2004) should and can be made compatible with the unique needs of d/hoh children and by this Act; it assures that all d/hoh children are provided a quality education. There is provision of programs and program components, which are communication accessible with professional staff, appropriately trained to be fully proficient in the child's individual communication mode and language, and also required to understand the unique needs of d/hoh students. There is to be a development of appropriate curricula, materials, and assessment instruments and the implementation of (unidentified) best practices. It is also required that the development of standards for teachers, sign language and oral interpreters, and other aides and professionals who work with d/hoh students be established.
The Office for Civil Rights’ also recommended focus factors are some of the building blocks for this ‘Best Practices Process- Tutoring Curriculum’. These focus factors have been worked into a flow chart for initial assessment in establishing tutoring curriculum and services (Appendix 1).
This seems to be a huge task to undertake for such a low-incident population. The archaic thoughts from Aristotle (The deaf, 1884) have prevailed for many years; creating the predominately subliminal controlling questions that rein uncontested only because they are the awkward unmentionables in our society. These awkward unmentionables need to be addressed at this moment in special education history. How can educating this low-incident population serve the American People? Why allocate funds away from the overtly intellectual student who possess great potential to these special education students who will eventually live off the social services of our nation? This researcher reflects on various intellectual truths that have been modified; the earth is not flat; individually, we cannot create anything that is greater than our own thought ability, and the lives of this unique population possess the perspectives to be of great benefit if not become our next world leaders (Kuntze, 2008). So, why allocate monies, time, and talent to educate this population; for all the possibilities of what humanity can become when we even the bar by unbinding their minds and hands so they can realize their own potential and grasp that extended hand-up, not just a hand-out.
These Federal Laws have not created new programs, services, or requirements for school districts that do not currently exist within Colorado’s Exceptional Children’s Education Act ("Exceptional children's educational," 2011) or The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Rather, this law serves to emphasize the critical nature of these issues in the education of children who are deaf and hard of hearing. The requirements of the Colorado ECEA Rules and Regulations, Section 4.02 (4)(k) shall not “require a school district to expend additional resources or hire additional personnel to implement its provisions”. So far, without the development of new curriculum, updated training, and new research for current available resources, these requirements cannot be met. The insanity behind maintaining status-quo allocations and demanding different results is retarding the intellectual creativity of the current minds seeking the solutions to this paramount crisis. It seems not to matter how much additional funds the school districts receive for special needs students or where the extra funding for special education comes from; the system is not required to allocate direct tutoring communication to the students who generate the funds and therefore, do not.
Time has come to insist on academic progress; the special educational community with its vast resources can no longer accept the status quo or the twentieth century mental models that no longer serve our academic purposes (Kuntze, 2008) if the academic development of these children is truly the focus.
Conclusion
Identification of the root cause, exposing the real issue is never easy and the formulation of a solution can be worse. This information was researched and analyzed from the historical and psychological lenses of educators, researchers, legal entities, professional service providers, and students. It was subjective in nature to support the development of a best practice process for tutoring curriculum. However, the prevailing practices and mental models found throughout this research and analysis of this particular field is disheartening: That those of us who professionally work with the d/hoh distinguish best how to educate them. We conclude this without having to formulate a personal learning style into the equation or any development of a curriculum let alone a best practice. This false belief has created the festering fact that the normal d/hoh graduating student is fortunate to have an average fourth grade reading level; a level that requires remediation before any higher learning can be sought.
To defend the status quo because of inertia or because the complicated interactions of those that possess limited perspectives will prevail, or maybe the problem is currently being worked on; all of these excuses are inadvertently oppressing, a passive academic genocide, and highly hypocritical.
A best practices tutoring curriculum process driven team will help to ensure that the deaf student's strengths and needs are correctly identified. It will assure that research and data is the foundation for correlating resources that identify the individual students’ strengths and natural abilities and that this information will be used to determine the delivery of the tutoring session and the lesson’s curriculum. These identified needs are to include appropriate research, curricula, programs, qualified staff, and d/hoh accessible outreach services to be satisfied. A Best Practice Process - Tutoring Curriculum combining implementable and pertinent research, knowledge application facts, participant feedback, and qualifying tutors is the foundation that shall anchor achievement and resolve the identified issues. With this living process; educational professionals will no longer be trapped on the sidelines, helplessly watching. Now, d/hoh education can successfully develop minds and untie hands; letting these students show their talents while ascending their mountains.
Works Cited
Advisory Group of the National Agenda, U. S. A. (2005, April). The national agenda:. Retrieved from http://www.ndepnow.org/pdfs/national_agenda.pdf
Brenner, S. (2009). Promising practices for elementary teachers: Make no excuses!
Colorado Department of Education (CDE), Exceptional Student Leadership Unit. (2011). Exceptional children's educational act (1 CCR 301‐8). Retrieved from website: http://www.cde.state.co.us/spedlaw/download/ECEARulesOctober2011.pdf
Colorado State Board of Education, U. S. A. (2005, January 13). 2220-r-4.00 child identification and planning process. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeboard/download/bdregs_301-8.pdf
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). (2003). Tutoring toolkit for AmeriCorps program applicants. Retrieved from http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/service-activities/tutoring
Dean, R. K., & Pollard, Jr., R. Q. (2007, August). Applications of demand control schema in interpreter education.. Paper presented at Pre-conference meeting at the national convention of the registry of interpreters for the deaf.
Douglas, R., Haynes, L., & Henery, N. (2000). Growing a volunteer tutor program: Engaging communities to support schools. Portland, OR: National Regional Educational Laboratories. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED444245&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED444245
Johnson, R. E., Liddell, S. K., & Erting, C. J. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education. Wasginton, D.C.: Gallaudet Research Institute
Jones, B. E. (1999). "Providing Access: 'New Roles' for Educational Interpreters." VIEWS (16, 15).
Kuntze, M. (2008, July). "Learning to read: The story behind the stories". Retrieved from http://www.dbcusa.org/index.php/2008-Keynote-Preentations/Dr.-Marlon-Kuntze-s-Address.html
LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2002). When teams work best, 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mankiller, W. P., & Wallis, M. (2000). Mankiller, a chief and her people. Griffin.
Mankiller, W. P., & Wallis, M. (2000). Mankiller, a chief and her people. Griffin.
Marschark, M., Schick, B., & Spencer, B. (2004). Understanding Sign Language Development by Deaf Children. In Schick, B., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. (eds.). Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. New York: Oxford University Press.
McIntire, M. L., & Sanderson, G. R. (1995). RID Journal of Interpretation - rid.org, Retrieved from http://www.rid.org/UserFiles/File/pdfs/whos_in_charge_here.pdf
Orlando, R., Gramly, M. E., & Hoke, J. (2009). Tutoring deaf and hard of hearing students. Retrieved from http://resources.pepnet.org/files/170_2009_8_14_16_10_PM.pdf
Sailor, Jelawitz, Barry: Personal Communications, 2010
Schick, B. (2004). Educational Interpreting and Cognitive Development in Children: Potential Relationships. In E.A.. Winston (ed.), Educational Interpreting: How it can succeed. Gallaudet Press, Washington, DC.
Schick, B. (2009, January 15). http://classroominterpreting.org/interpreters/children/cognitive/earlyelem.asp. Retrieved from http://www.classroominterpreting.org
Schick, B., de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J. & Hoffmeister, R. (2003). Theory of Mind: Language and Cognition in Deaf Children. The ASHA Leader, 7, 6-14.
Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2006). Look who’s being left behind: Educational Interpreters and access to education for d/hoh students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 3-20.
Seaver, L. (2005). Marschark Citings:marschark attack. Retrieved from http://www.handsandvoices.org
Seaver, L. (2009, Spring). National organization informs, supports families with children who are deaf or hard of hearing.. Retrieved from http://www.pepnet.org/newsletter/2009_spring/page4.asp
Sowell, Landess & Gonzales, Personal Communication, February 11, 2012
The deaf and dumb in antiquity. (1884, November 02). New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0B15FA3F5B10738DDDAB0894D9415B8484F0D3
The IDEA Partnership Collaborative Work on Instruction COI Evidence-based Project
The U.S. Department of Education’s release of its final regulations under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s), U. S. A. (2011, September). U.S. department of education, office of special education programs’ (osep’s) idea website.. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home
Walls, R. (2001). International center for disability information. Retrieved from http://www.icdi.wvu.edu/disability/tables.html
Weiner, F. (2009). Fiscal year 2010 budget request. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/justifications/m-gallaudet.pdf
Winston, E. (2004). “Interpretability and Accessibility of Mainstream Classrooms." In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational Interpreting: How It Can Succeed (pp. 132-140). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
www.federalregister.gov. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.027, Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities)
Zapien C. 1998, (July 15). Options in Deaf Education—History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System Excerpted by Exceptional Parent Magazine
http://www.berghuis.co.nz/abiator/lsi/lsitest1.html
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/Deaf.asp
http://www.handsandvoices.org/
http://www.ndepnow.org/ (National Deaf Education Project NOW)
http://www.psychologicalscience.org
Research facts:
I have researched professional papers from ERIC; National Educational Resources Center by using key words (deaf, tutoring, teaching methods). I had a total of 9 hits but only 3 are even close to relevant.
Only one paper is available for my target from 02/2008 and it is about auditory/English not signing/ASL; Usable for hard of hearing curriculum. The next relevant papers were written in 1988 and 1964. Arrghhh! Of the three, one (1968) is about families learning to sign...not tutoring, another (1988) is about language structures via telecommunications and teenagers, and the last one is current but not applicable for signing. I had 12 hits with adding the key words" secondary education"( 1-2008 same as above, 1-1990, 1-1988, 1-1979, 8-1978) I had 3 hits with" elementary education" which are in the above hits of 1979 and 1978. I am researching deaf child development and current statistics and not finding applicable tutoring methods, curriculum, practices and suggestions for the k-12 grade levels.
Appendix 1 Table 1 Best Practice Process Student Assessment 1 Language Acquisition (BICS/CALP/CUP)
2 Receptive Information Processing
3 Theory of Mind (ToM)
4 Logical vs. Creative
5 Best Retention Style Methods
6 Natural Skills and Tendencies- Top Three
Appendix 2 Tutoring Request Log Including Learning Styles
Jeanine E. Owen-Roybal Accomplishments
EIPA-A:EI, Colorado and RID Candidate.
Lobbyist for the “Deaf Child’s Bill of Rights” 1996.
Colorado State Disaster Team: First Responder- Interpreter since 1998.
VIP Award from the Rocky Mountain Deaf School, Colorado. I was part of the team who initiated the school, started the fundraising, and wrote the Credo and Mission Statement for MSD with Jerry Moers.
Graduated Honors from Front Range Community College, 1998.
Graduated Honors from (DOIT Center) University of Northern Colorado, 2008.
(In process )Published Author.
Professional Experience
Educational Interpreter – State of Colorado: Department of Education, 2004 – Present
Aurora Public School District – Middle and High School Educational Interpreter – Oral and Sign.
Denver Public School District – High School Educational Interpreter – Sign for both deaf teacher and students.
Executive Administrative Assistant – Community Reach Center, Thornton, CO ▪ January, 1999 – August, 2004
Edited CRS and Policies for all Administration, Supervised Outreach Program and Trained Volunteers, Interpreted for all of Adams County - Intake, Crisis, and Appointments. On-call for Jefferson County Mental Health as needed - Interpreter, Board of Directors Paperwork, Legislative Brunch Coordinator, Golf Tournament Planner, Oversaw 6 outlying offices, and provided usability feedback for hard copy of development projects.
Programming and Software Skills
End User VP Hookup, TTY, VRS, QuickBooks Pro and Payroll, Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Windows® 2000 - 2010,7, Adobe Photo Shop and PDF, and PageMaker, Excel.
Education
Bachelor’s Degree in Community Interpreting – Regis University, Denver, CO ▪ 2012
Specialization: Educational Interpreting – University Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO ▪ 2008
Associates of General Studies– Front Range Community College, Westminster, CO ▪ 1998
Jeanine Owen-Roybal
Personal Bio
I'm the mother of four, one adopted deaf, young men. I never knew a deaf or hard of hearing person before him. Henceforth, I never experienced such a deeply profound calling until after I met his obstacles. I have succeeded in becoming an active parent with the learning of my many capacities that I never even knew existed. I still have not arrived at the final destination of my journey nor do I see the flash of lanterns for a runaway train, therefore, by the grace of god I go!
I like to say that I am not the job I do, I am not the home I have, nor am I the car I drive. I am still not confident about all the choices I made for my (deaf) son; I was not always comfortable with deafness, or my attempts at sign communication. I am not a self-proclaimed expert on anything, I am not sad or ashamed from questioning choices and ideas, nor am I who outsiders say I am. I am not unscathed for upholding my family’s rights to equal access nor am I one to back down or give in when a child's academic, social, and emotional future is at stake. I have been and still am a part of many projects (political and educational) that promote my son’s equality.
However, I am much stronger for having survived and choosing to continue than I am weaker from being forced to survive from the outside in; not unlike many parents!
A Capstone Project Presented by
Jeanine E. Roybal
to
Steve Reiquam
Faculty Advisor
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Applied Science in Interpreting
Regis University
Denver, Colorado
February 29, 2012
This is an unpublished Capstone Project
In which copyright subsists
© Copyright by Jeanine E. Roybal
February, 2012
All rights reserved.
This Service Project Establishes
A Specialized and Qualified Tutoring Process: Focusing on the K-12 Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Individual Needs
Abstract Rigorous analysis emphasizes the critical need (while providing the credentials required) for creating a best practice tutoring curriculum process for deaf and hard of hearing( d/hoh) K-12 special education students. Identifying the unique and individual learning needs and styles of these students is the crux of curriculum development. The creating of a theoretical process for a consistently varying and situational dependent need has not been developed or implemented in this current educational field. This project successfully presents a twenty-first century best practice tutoring curriculum process that converges limited research from the past with the practices in the present; while moralistically holding space for future academic needs to be addressed. This work addresses the current special education crisis by synthesizing and expanding existing mental models in order to develop a successful best practice tutoring curriculum development process that will be repetitively and accurately implemented with appropriate training.
Acknowledgement
The final composition of this work came from the convergence of many diverse and highly professional works in and out of the special education field that I have incessantly explored. As a professional and a mother of a deaf child, this researcher feels a sense of duty to acknowledge and credit those who enabled me to create this unearthing. Credit is to include those who have dedicated blood, sweat, and tears alongside of the many hours of their lives to the betterment of this world through everyday practices for our deaf and hard of hearing children, not only those noted in the works cited. thank you
Introduction
Statement of Problem The typical high school graduating deaf and hard of hearing learner has a reading level equivalent to the fourth grade (U.S. Department of Education, OSEP, 2011). Therefore allowing, approximately 19 percent of the population, a postponed and limited access to college upon successful completion of their recommended academic remediation (Advisory Group of the National Agenda, 2005). The United States educational trends that lead to the ‘No Child Left Behind’ act (NCLB) only identified our exterior current educational crisis. With the new emphasis on international academic comparisons, educational accountability, and providing diversified learning experiences to the k -12 gifted and general populations, American academic administrators have overlooked the k-12 deaf and hard of hearing citizens (U.S. Department of Education, OSEP, 2011). The deaf and hard of hearing K -12 student’s need for both supplemental education (tutoring) and immediate access to qualified tutoring has not been officially presented or addressed. Forcing this researcher to address the elephant in the room; Immediate and available qualified access is essential since students with hearing loss have an extremely limited and non-refundable time frame for education; as recognized by the Commission of the United States of America (2005) and the working paper “Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education” (Johnson, R. E., Liddell, S. K., & Erting, C. J., 1989). This academic ability to educate our deaf and hard of hearing students to a fourth grade reading level has been and still is an acceptable academic accomplishment (status-quo) for more than 40 years. Johnson (1989) proposed academic changes that offset costs and their plausible implementations have been overlooked.
Academic practices and standards for creating qualified teachers and educational interpreters for the deaf are strictly enforced and censored by local, state and federal governments. However, d/hoh k-12 tutoring needs are as unique as the individual who requires this service. Tutoring is part of the Golden Triangle (Interpreter, Tutor, and Note Taker) of d/hoh services that have been identified throughout special education as essential and yet, there are no standards or best practices for k-12 students established that this researcher could find.
This service project will allow for this new concept of a best practice process tutoring curriculum to successfully develop and produce a highly qualified educational signing and oral tutoring process for this student population. This will be accomplished through a compilation and modification of currently successful and new 21st Century special education research and its best practices. Tutors will also be able to identify their own communication and learning styles and the affects they may have on the tutoring process of individual students (CNCS, 2003). This applied learning will be the essence of the newly specialized tutor training project that will be implemented after this course is completed.
The utilizing and synthesizing of the background knowledge and experiences of deaf professionals and researchers, teachers of the deaf, and qualified educational interpreters for the deaf has been a grave oversight by curriculum developers. The cumulative application of these forgotten’s acquired knowledge has the utmost potential. It will be applied conditionally to d/hoh learning styles as this process is critical in the development of a successfully implemented curriculum for tutoring lessons and sessions.
This project will discuss the current status quo for tutoring deaf/hard of hearing (d/hoh) k-12 students and why it requires change. Information introduced will include the need for successful tutoring standards and special education accountability for producing qualified tutors. Accountability to include collection of the data that creates a tutoring baseline and fundamental approach to include the best practices process (Dean, 2001) for: D/HOH Professionals, Educational Interpreters, and Teachers of the Deaf (TOD).
Methodology and Analysis Project Research Methods I will be combining the Action and Praxis research methods for this project.
Action Research
This research utilizes a systematic cyclical method of planning, taking action, observing, evaluating (including self-evaluation) and critical reflection prior to planning the next cycle” (O'Brien, 2001; McNiff, 2002). The actions have a set goal of addressing an identified problem in the community, for example, improving the educational tutoring services of deaf and hard of hearing K-12th grade students through use of new strategies (Quigley, 2000) and improving the current tutor curriculum in special education. It will be a collaborative method (action and Praxis) to analyze new ideas alongside of old ideas that were overlooked, and implement theory into an action plan for change. This change process involves direct participation in the research’s evolution, to be implemented after this course is completed. The monitoring and evaluating of the effects of the researcher's analysis and actions with the objective of creating a best practice process (Dick, 2002; Checkland & Holwell, 1998; Hult & Lennung, 1980) will allow for a continual internal quality control and external measurement prominence.
Praxis Research
This method of research development is a bottom up process. It democratizes the making of critical conscience that will be required to create a “best practices process”. This Praxis intervention method aims at including the less scholarly and more experienced of the deaf, hard of hearing, and educational community members to create new mental models and have a fresh look at the international educational expectations and intervene on their own behalf.
This researcher will analyze and synthesis data from various documented outcomes, accumulated research and proposals in deaf education, and continue this process leading up to the existing philosophies and mental models serving in the systems. Then tutoring concepts will be applied to these evaluates.
This service project will produce a successful tutoring curriculum process for this student population. This analysis of current practice processes will demonstrate how change in these practices can mutually benefit a community of practitioners (McNiff, 2002; Reason & Bradburym, 2001; Carr & Kemmis 1986; Masters, 1995). This will be accomplished through a compilation and modification of currently successful and new 21st Century special education research and its best practices. Importantly, tutors will also be able to identify their own communication and learning styles and the affects they may have on the tutoring process of individual students (AmeriCorps, 2003). This applied learning will be the essence of the newly specialized tutor training curriculum project.
Methods Analysis
This work will answer the driving questions by expounding on how we can blend the beneficial and productive old practices and successful techniques with newly acquired research along with some of the older ignored yet, applicable to the targeted k-12th grades, research to turn it into the development of a “best practices process”.
The utilizing and synthesizing of the analyzed data with the diverse background knowledge and experiences of hard of hearing and deaf community members, hard of hearing and deaf professionals, teachers of the deaf, and qualified educational interpreters for the deaf will become part of the best practice process for maintaining an updated curriculum. A synthesis of the current and the newly acquired knowledge regarding the individually specific learning styles of both the tutor and tutee will also be critical in the creating of a successful tutoring curriculum.
* I will answer the following queries in order to complete this project.*
1. Can we produce a successful best practices process tutoring curriculum that will simultaneously empower the deaf and hard of hearing students?
a. How does Theory of Mind (ToM) affect this living-breathing process?
b. How do tutor and tutee learning styles affect the curriculum and its practice process?
2. What can be defined as a “best practices process” for a tutoring curriculum for this target group?
a. What new research and studies are available?
b. What sustainable characteristic are successful in current curriculum's for this target group?
c. What is currently hindering the process?
FTS,INC has produced a successful best practices process tutoring curriculum that simultaneously empowers deaf and hard of hearing students. We have created a best practice tutoring process curriculum that dovetails student experiences seamlessly with their learning style their The individual learning styles and current theory of mind drive the curriculum and develop its process. FTS,INC defines its “best practices process”as a successful theoretical process for a consistently varying, situational dependent type of learner. It includes Expeditionary Analysis and Theory of Mind (ToM) bridging that fulfills each student's diversified needs. This living-breathing process allows each student to bring their unique and individual experiences to the forefront as a benchmark for their own success. We are still working toward the answers of the remaining questions.
2.a. What new research and studies are available?
2.b. What sustainable characteristic are successful in current curriculum's for this target group?
2.c. What is currently hindering the process?
Project Relevance and Rational
Quality and successful curriculum development is a foundational step in the bridging of current educational gaps of deaf and hard of hearing k-12 grade students (Johnson, Liddell, & Erting, 1989). As both, a parent and professional educational interpreter, trying to educate my deaf son, I contacted the various nationally advertised tutoring programs only to find that none of these programs accommodated deaf students, at any cost. They did not have access to research and development that presented methods to fit my deaf son’s learning needs. After much trial and error, I found a program that worked for my son. Knowing and experiencing these academic frustrations from a larger perspective has fueled this researcher’s passion on this topic.
In the general population of our society, basic educational supports for deaf and hard of hearing children are not a priority as they can get vocational rehabilitation (VR) after they graduate. After graduating! Aren’t we supposed to educate our children so they can graduate? I was confused. Education communities should be repairing these failing systems, not supplementing and enabling them. As a professional in the field, I, too, am responsible for action resolving this identified need. Hopefully, this research will spur others into implementation.
Qualified and skilled tutors are a quintessential and critical means in achieving the greater goal of this service project. In order to achieve qualification, a “best practice process” tutoring curriculum needs to be developed and then the application of that curriculum for tutor training purposes will be the next step. The time constraint of this course will not all for this to be achieved in this class.
In the service portion of this project, I will research reports, literature, data, organizational practices, and individual needs to mold the current and new methods and theories into a best practices process, completing this projects goals and objectives. The unique needs of this target market and the actual tutoring activities need to be quantifiable and accurately applicable. With the development of a “best practice process” tutoring curriculum will become adaptable to all d/hoh k-12th grade students.
Measurements
1. Scrutinized learning styles will be fit to the individual educational process of the student.
2. A tutoring needs log sheet will be developed to include this information and other pertinent information to the session.
3. A process will be studied to allow the logging of immediate comprehension scores after each session.
4. As sustainability only occurs over time, these are the issues that are identified now.
4.1. What 1 year outcomes will lay the foundation for this overall project?
4.1.1. (LLAP) Student strength and weakness assessments for students will be used.
4.1.2. A standard performance measurement process for tutors needs to be developed.
4.2.1. It is possible to work with the same students over time however, Regular team coordinated sessions
and feedback will allow for quality control of the process.
4.3. Scientifically based strategies and outcomes documented throughout will allow for delivery diversity.
5. Do we want to measure and assess resources by learning styles? Can this cataloging be done?
6. How can we create continuity for a multi-year project?
7. How will transitioning between tutors, students, and staff affect the outcomes?
8. What minimal benchmarks for tutors will be required?
8.1. How will these benchmarks be measured?
These measurements will continue to be assessed, answered, and revised as data is received and this work continued.
Literature Review
Through the process of examining twenty-first century collected works on developed and the development of tutoring curriculum for deaf and hard of hearing (d/hoh) K-12 graders, I uncovered that current published tutor curriculum research information is insufficient and its inadvertent omission is indefensible.
The majority of key word research confirmed two major suspicions; that a specific curriculum for deaf and hard of hearing k-12th grade students has not been developed even though tutoring has been identified as an essential service for d/hoh students. Post-secondary remediation and tutoring is addressed but that too is still without successful curriculum development. The academic absorption rate was higher with d/hoh students who received tutoring services than those who did not. Laws were passed upon these truths and action taken.
National Committees have been assembled, Commissioned reports presented, and studies formulated to ensure the finest in the field contributed to the ever changing needs of the d/hoh K-12 learners. The more specific d/hoh tutoring research that was analyzed strictly involves peer tutoring programs with general guidelines and any ability to sign for the delivery method of all involved. My professional perspective towards providing academic services through volunteer peer tutors of this caliber is that it is demeaning to the professionals in the field and inhibiting to the students they are trying to assist. Through the continued practice of denying k-12 d/hoh learners qualified service providers (trained signing tutors) the educational system inadvertently promotes antiquated perspectives; regressing current professional practices back fifty years into the shamefully overbearing and oppressing “helper model” (McIntire & Sanderson, 1995). Without the creation of a best practices process for d/hoh tutoring curriculum's, this type of research will continue to promote inadvertent adversarial mental models and practices between departmental educational systems and their front-line professionals.
Upon interviewing teachers (Sailor, Personal Communications, 2010, Sowell, Personal Communication; 2012) regarding types of improvements they would like to see implemented into their current academic curriculum's, I found their responses not as informative as I had expected. These educators indicated that they would like to have more applicable curriculum, rubric, and mentor models that would help achieve educational goals. None were able to consider tutoring goals when dealing with current academic deficiencies. All modifications are developed, directed, and performed by the individual teachers. These interview responses indicated that to continue the process would not produce sufficient data.
The AmeriCorps Tutoring Toolkit (2003) developed qualification standards for the recruitment of tutors under the premise that tutoring programs cannot be superior to the people who run them. Curriculum development is deeply influenced by the quality of its contributors. Currently, contributors believe that deaf peers who are not academically qualified at the k-12 grade level are the best practice. After studying various reports and various state deaf child bill of rights(Colorado State Board of Education, 2005) our cumulative education of this target group indicates academic failure; therefore, peer tutoring cannot be the prominent delivery method of (IEP, IDEA) authorized tutoring services. An academically qualified peer tutor who cannot communicate in depth with the student is another tried and failed delivery system. The curriculum needs to reflect the standards to be upheld throughout the various levels of the work (Douglas, Haynes & Henry, 2000).
That standard should include in its continuum the recruitment of tutors for the d/hoh to the feedback used to create the continuum of the best practices process (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2003). D/hoh tutor recruitment is narrowed by its unique communication requirements. Fortuitously, the tutor recruiting pool requires broad d/hoh child development background knowledge and implies personal and professional literacy competencies with a minimal two year college degree from all who enter the pool. However, the competencies achieved in interpreter training programs allow students to enter into this practice profession at a minimal achievement level (Boys Town, 2011). Students are only introduced to a semester of educational interpreting and one non-curriculum course on tutoring (FRCC, Personal experience, 1998, UNC, Personal experience, 2008, SWCID, Personal experience, 2010). Recently, a four year degree has been developed to meet the minimal requirements of this evolving profession (UNC-DOIT Center). The evolution of tutoring requirements is proof that the implementation of a best practice would only limit the curriculum's potential. A best practices tutoring curriculum process will allow personalized and specialized lessons that will build upon the students biological academic preferences (Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 2009).
The IDEA Partnership Collaborative Work on Instruction COI Evidence-based Project is “connected to state agencies and work across agencies to create a systemic approach that supports use of evidence-based instructional strategies to include state and local level stakeholders interested in curriculum and instruction. (2009)” This is one of the most dynamic and recent collaborations regarding K-12 deaf education. They play a vital part in promoting shared learning at all levels and strive to extend and sustain circulation of the Center on Instruction’s evidence-based collection to all, especially those in the field. Unfortunately, they do not address the issue of tutoring for the d/hoh student populations. Again, the omission of tutoring curriculum data by these high functioning entities is a gross oversight.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA ’04) ensures that all children with disabilities have a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to them “that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living” [34 CFR 300.1(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A)]. Again, education designed to meet individual and unique needs (tutoring) is acknowledged as a related service but not expanded or enacted upon at the same level that these universal finding have been established upon.
The U.S. Department of Education’s release of its final regulations under the No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) stated that “ongoing effort to ensure that all students, including those with disabilities, fully participate in a state’s accountability system and are assessed in an appropriate and accurate manner.” A federal directive without suggested analysis or definitions of an appropriate and accurate manner for accountability insurances is supposed to allow individual states flexibility to meet their citizen’s needs. Also, stated that “$21.1 million was available to help states develop assessments based on modified academic achievement standards.” Again, there are no definitive curriculum's or modifications to the unstated curriculum's regarding these achievement standards for the d/hoh K-12 learners and the immediate needs and academic potential of students with disabilities have been made a national priority. Though sincere, these words have not been acted upon to create the original desired effect of improving the system. Most educational systems require curriculum as a foundational tool for required state standards achievement except for the hearing impaired (Sowell, PC, 2012). There are no new assessments, practices, or standards for the k-12 hearing impaired students that this researcher could find. Priceless time and money are spent again on building a house on sand. Nationally, we should be deeply concerned because "Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future" (Mankiller & Wallis, 2000).
Conferring with Hands and Voices, “Because deafness is a low incidence disability, there is not a widespread understanding of its educational implications, even among special educators. This lack of knowledge and skills in our education system contributes to the already substantial barriers to deaf students in receiving appropriate educational services. Meeting the unique communication and related needs of a student who is deaf is a fundamental part of providing a free appropriate public education to the child.” It seems that we have put on the saddle without the blanket, adversely affecting both, the rider and the work horse.
The Office for Civil Rights; Deaf Students Education Services; Department of Education’s Notice of Policy Guidance stated that it is deemed important that state and local education agencies take into consideration such factors, for a child who is deaf, as: Communication needs and the child's and family's preferred mode of communication; Linguistic needs; Severity of hearing loss and potential for using residual hearing; Academic level; and Social, emotional, and cultural needs including opportunities for peer interactions and communication. The needs have re-identified again. Throughout this research fingers are pointed at a need with very few suggestions on resolution given. Johnson (1989) produced many programs that if implemented could help resolve these issues. Conversely, no information on the implementation of any of these recommendations by any agency or personal entity was found.
In addition, the unique need of each individual child requires the consideration of supplementary factors. As the nature and severity of these children's needs will require the consideration of modification to the curriculum content and how the method of curriculum delivery meets those needs or how the needs can be met through other pathways.
In a recent interview between Hands and Voices and the renowned researcher, Marschark: “The evidence has convinced me, more than ever, that there is never going to be a one size fits all (Seaver, 2005) solution for deaf children either educationally or in language… it emphasizes to parents that deaf children have to be seen as individuals, and we have to do what works.” The same underlying conclusion has been made from Diverse Civil Agencies, Private Practices, Non-Profits, Professors, Governments, Educational Advisory Committees, Teachers and Interpreters as indicated by my own personal learning. The overall question now is what works?
In this examination of research, Bahr (2007) suggests that although post-secondary remediation presumably is intended to reduce gaps between disadvantaged and advantaged groups, instead it demonstrates the “Matthew Effect” those who have the greatest need for remediation are the least likely to successfully remediation, while those who require the least remediation are the most likely to remediate successfully (Bahr, 2007). The delayed developments of Theory of Mind (ToM) are a prominent and underlying hindrance for d/hoh student’s academic achievement and remediate success (Schick, 2004). These works generated my query of how does the d/hoh child’s theory of mind affect their educational achievements?
Growing children develop an understanding of themselves and other people as emotional, thinking, and spiritual creatures, who think, know, want, feel, and believe (Schick, 2009). From these new ideas, they derive that what another person thinks and believes may be different from theirs. Children also begin to learn that most behavior is encouraged or produced by our thoughts and beliefs. These understandings and development of these understandings are what is known as “Theory of Mind” (Schick, 2003).
Studies have shown that professionals working with these students can assist in a d/hoh student’s theory of mind acquisition through appropriate questioning and role play (Brenner, 2009). Roll play allows children to experience different perspectives that create representations of what is real and what is make-believe. These activities place children in a safe environment enabling them to construct thoughts while simultaneously allowing time for de-contextualized events to become inverted and synthesized within their own unique processing style. Discussion of past events engaging in age appropriate critical thinking allows opportunities to explore how their minds work. “Discussing events( like teasing each other, playing ‘I spy’, movies and books, along with ‘what if’ games) with children will help them acquire both the language of the mind as well as concepts that underlie a developed Theory of Mind” (Schick, 2009). These discussions of opinions and perspectives also build a foundation upon which the students can further the process of expanding from concrete to abstract thought. Furthermore, it is important to note that these communications need to be at the child’s level and modality.
The limit of successful tutoring abilities for d/hoh students is due to our false belief in an absolute for an ever varying unconditional academic dynamic. The creating of a theoretical process for a consistently varying and situational dependent need has not been developed or implemented in the current educational field, until now. Upon reviewing my studies of the work of Dean and Pollard (2007) from UNC, their best practice process transitions from rule based to goal based approaches seemed to be the logical answer to resolve the tutoring curriculum oversight. Trying to limit a tutoring curriculum to a best practice only creates what we already possess in the field: taboo failure. By not bearing in mind the process of development for a curriculum and acknowledging that as a part of the (w)hole, we limit the tutoring delivery possibilities. A tutoring curriculum that is a living breathing entity will only do. Also, best practices do not allow for new research to be applied neither does it allow for the implementation of the praxis process to provide current feedback from d/hoh students that are essential for its success. Can we expect to develop a tutoring curriculum that fits the needs of d/hoh k-12 grade student’s if the curriculum itself forces the student’s unique needs to fit our predetermined practice and delivery of services? Not with our current mental models. The demands of tutoring lessons and sessions will continually change with each student. The “constellation of demands” (Dean & Pollard, Jr., 2007) cannot continued to be ignored in the work. This is a main part of the deficiency in tutoring. It has been a slow and painful paradigm shift in identifying the real problem underneath the convoluted special education deaf instructional issues. This researcher has combined multiple works from vast sources past and present that have not been connect in the past. The research, data, and evidence seemed to have a life of its own. As I verified credibility of sources, one resource cited another and so on; they exposed critical truths that intriguingly lead to further research. Dr. Brenda Schick’s and Robyn Dean’s work repeatedly presented and data on deaf child development and its effect on interpreters responsibilities; leading to the evidence that became the best practice process student assessment - praxis method (Appendix 2). When creating a best practices tutoring curriculum process, identifying the interpreters’ mental and academic demands and controls in order to create the understanding of the student’s current theory of mind is an essential application for developing a cognitive and linguistic comprehension baseline. This information dictates how the delivery of the content is to be learned.
Research on the development of Theory of Mind (ToM) with children who have limited access to language shows the critical role that language has in developing essential social and cognitive skills (Schick, 2006). Researchers have also demonstrated that language provides the support to understand how the mind works. Professionals also acknowledge the importance of language for learning and communicating world knowledge. These students are limited in acquired incidental knowledge; impacting their own ignorance of social and ritual constraints. Researchers suggest that Theory of Mind affects the development of scientific thinking and critical thinking (Marschark & S, 2004). Scientific and critical thinking require intangible and abstract thought processes that many d/hoh are unable to obtain at the same age as their hearing peers. The relationship between ToM development and the d/hoh student’s ability to learn and retain by instruction and collaboration has been established (Peterson, 1999) yet, it is still being researched instead of implemented.
Overall, education requires directed discussions of mutual identifications and misconstructions (Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 2009). Learning entails a thorough reflection of one’s own beliefs and thoughts as well as others, and to alter viewpoints when evidence suggests that another point of view has truth. All of these mental activities require Theory of Mind skills (Schick, 2003, Marschark & S, 2004).
Tutors can apply this ToM knowledge when creating lesson plans. Presentation of different perspectives that are formulated upon the students learning and retention styles. Tutors can interject ToM when applying cultural mediation through contrast and comparisons of the cultures involved or being exposed (Schick, 2004, Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 2009, Peterson, 1999).
The National Agenda for Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for D/hoh Students “brings forward a set of priorities stated as goals that are designed to bring about significant improvement in quality and nature of educational services and programs for d/hoh students.” This is brought forward as an “agenda” or as action list in order to close the achievement gap that has continually existed for students. This unique and viable document represents a collaboration of parents, professionals, and consumers working as equal partners to achieve a common vision of the fundamental human rights that every d/hoh child is entitled to in our system: full access to all educational services. However, it does not address the development of assessments to dictate what full access to all educational services entails. Is not mental access as well as physical access essential? Communication allows the expression of thought and the expression of thought allows the continued development of communication (Schick, 2006). Where does this circle begin? End?
In this nation, 1,053,000 (Walls, 2001) children under the age of 18 have a reported hearing loss; only 60,000 to 80,000 of these children were served in special education programs; That shows that <7.6% of this identified population has received some type of services. These supplied services have been noted as being sub-standard by multiple committees throughout the last fifty years; have we only failed the other 92.4% or all of them? This researcher finds that by adding theory of mind to the tutoring variables in deaf education, we can make changes that are overdue. We have not researched the other reported one million students as a target market. A best practice process tutoring curriculum may offer life shifting academics to them, also. In hindsight, it lays heavily on me that we will never know what the multiple d/hoh un-serviced students could have accomplished if tutoring services would have been made available. Foresight dictates that these consistently identified yet, misdirected critical d/hoh needs cannot continue to be ignored by those of us with the ability to repair the oversight.
As an initial repair, The U.S. Congress finds that the approved suggestion for a new model federal law should include the following: that IDEA (2004) should and can be made compatible with the unique needs of d/hoh children and by this Act; it assures that all d/hoh children are provided a quality education. There is provision of programs and program components, which are communication accessible with professional staff, appropriately trained to be fully proficient in the child's individual communication mode and language, and also required to understand the unique needs of d/hoh students. There is to be a development of appropriate curricula, materials, and assessment instruments and the implementation of (unidentified) best practices. It is also required that the development of standards for teachers, sign language and oral interpreters, and other aides and professionals who work with d/hoh students be established.
The Office for Civil Rights’ also recommended focus factors are some of the building blocks for this ‘Best Practices Process- Tutoring Curriculum’. These focus factors have been worked into a flow chart for initial assessment in establishing tutoring curriculum and services (Appendix 1).
This seems to be a huge task to undertake for such a low-incident population. The archaic thoughts from Aristotle (The deaf, 1884) have prevailed for many years; creating the predominately subliminal controlling questions that rein uncontested only because they are the awkward unmentionables in our society. These awkward unmentionables need to be addressed at this moment in special education history. How can educating this low-incident population serve the American People? Why allocate funds away from the overtly intellectual student who possess great potential to these special education students who will eventually live off the social services of our nation? This researcher reflects on various intellectual truths that have been modified; the earth is not flat; individually, we cannot create anything that is greater than our own thought ability, and the lives of this unique population possess the perspectives to be of great benefit if not become our next world leaders (Kuntze, 2008). So, why allocate monies, time, and talent to educate this population; for all the possibilities of what humanity can become when we even the bar by unbinding their minds and hands so they can realize their own potential and grasp that extended hand-up, not just a hand-out.
These Federal Laws have not created new programs, services, or requirements for school districts that do not currently exist within Colorado’s Exceptional Children’s Education Act ("Exceptional children's educational," 2011) or The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Rather, this law serves to emphasize the critical nature of these issues in the education of children who are deaf and hard of hearing. The requirements of the Colorado ECEA Rules and Regulations, Section 4.02 (4)(k) shall not “require a school district to expend additional resources or hire additional personnel to implement its provisions”. So far, without the development of new curriculum, updated training, and new research for current available resources, these requirements cannot be met. The insanity behind maintaining status-quo allocations and demanding different results is retarding the intellectual creativity of the current minds seeking the solutions to this paramount crisis. It seems not to matter how much additional funds the school districts receive for special needs students or where the extra funding for special education comes from; the system is not required to allocate direct tutoring communication to the students who generate the funds and therefore, do not.
Time has come to insist on academic progress; the special educational community with its vast resources can no longer accept the status quo or the twentieth century mental models that no longer serve our academic purposes (Kuntze, 2008) if the academic development of these children is truly the focus.
Conclusion
Identification of the root cause, exposing the real issue is never easy and the formulation of a solution can be worse. This information was researched and analyzed from the historical and psychological lenses of educators, researchers, legal entities, professional service providers, and students. It was subjective in nature to support the development of a best practice process for tutoring curriculum. However, the prevailing practices and mental models found throughout this research and analysis of this particular field is disheartening: That those of us who professionally work with the d/hoh distinguish best how to educate them. We conclude this without having to formulate a personal learning style into the equation or any development of a curriculum let alone a best practice. This false belief has created the festering fact that the normal d/hoh graduating student is fortunate to have an average fourth grade reading level; a level that requires remediation before any higher learning can be sought.
To defend the status quo because of inertia or because the complicated interactions of those that possess limited perspectives will prevail, or maybe the problem is currently being worked on; all of these excuses are inadvertently oppressing, a passive academic genocide, and highly hypocritical.
A best practices tutoring curriculum process driven team will help to ensure that the deaf student's strengths and needs are correctly identified. It will assure that research and data is the foundation for correlating resources that identify the individual students’ strengths and natural abilities and that this information will be used to determine the delivery of the tutoring session and the lesson’s curriculum. These identified needs are to include appropriate research, curricula, programs, qualified staff, and d/hoh accessible outreach services to be satisfied. A Best Practice Process - Tutoring Curriculum combining implementable and pertinent research, knowledge application facts, participant feedback, and qualifying tutors is the foundation that shall anchor achievement and resolve the identified issues. With this living process; educational professionals will no longer be trapped on the sidelines, helplessly watching. Now, d/hoh education can successfully develop minds and untie hands; letting these students show their talents while ascending their mountains.
Works Cited
Advisory Group of the National Agenda, U. S. A. (2005, April). The national agenda:. Retrieved from http://www.ndepnow.org/pdfs/national_agenda.pdf
Brenner, S. (2009). Promising practices for elementary teachers: Make no excuses!
Colorado Department of Education (CDE), Exceptional Student Leadership Unit. (2011). Exceptional children's educational act (1 CCR 301‐8). Retrieved from website: http://www.cde.state.co.us/spedlaw/download/ECEARulesOctober2011.pdf
Colorado State Board of Education, U. S. A. (2005, January 13). 2220-r-4.00 child identification and planning process. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeboard/download/bdregs_301-8.pdf
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). (2003). Tutoring toolkit for AmeriCorps program applicants. Retrieved from http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/service-activities/tutoring
Dean, R. K., & Pollard, Jr., R. Q. (2007, August). Applications of demand control schema in interpreter education.. Paper presented at Pre-conference meeting at the national convention of the registry of interpreters for the deaf.
Douglas, R., Haynes, L., & Henery, N. (2000). Growing a volunteer tutor program: Engaging communities to support schools. Portland, OR: National Regional Educational Laboratories. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED444245&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED444245
Johnson, R. E., Liddell, S. K., & Erting, C. J. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education. Wasginton, D.C.: Gallaudet Research Institute
Jones, B. E. (1999). "Providing Access: 'New Roles' for Educational Interpreters." VIEWS (16, 15).
Kuntze, M. (2008, July). "Learning to read: The story behind the stories". Retrieved from http://www.dbcusa.org/index.php/2008-Keynote-Preentations/Dr.-Marlon-Kuntze-s-Address.html
LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2002). When teams work best, 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mankiller, W. P., & Wallis, M. (2000). Mankiller, a chief and her people. Griffin.
Mankiller, W. P., & Wallis, M. (2000). Mankiller, a chief and her people. Griffin.
Marschark, M., Schick, B., & Spencer, B. (2004). Understanding Sign Language Development by Deaf Children. In Schick, B., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. (eds.). Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. New York: Oxford University Press.
McIntire, M. L., & Sanderson, G. R. (1995). RID Journal of Interpretation - rid.org, Retrieved from http://www.rid.org/UserFiles/File/pdfs/whos_in_charge_here.pdf
Orlando, R., Gramly, M. E., & Hoke, J. (2009). Tutoring deaf and hard of hearing students. Retrieved from http://resources.pepnet.org/files/170_2009_8_14_16_10_PM.pdf
Sailor, Jelawitz, Barry: Personal Communications, 2010
Schick, B. (2004). Educational Interpreting and Cognitive Development in Children: Potential Relationships. In E.A.. Winston (ed.), Educational Interpreting: How it can succeed. Gallaudet Press, Washington, DC.
Schick, B. (2009, January 15). http://classroominterpreting.org/interpreters/children/cognitive/earlyelem.asp. Retrieved from http://www.classroominterpreting.org
Schick, B., de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J. & Hoffmeister, R. (2003). Theory of Mind: Language and Cognition in Deaf Children. The ASHA Leader, 7, 6-14.
Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2006). Look who’s being left behind: Educational Interpreters and access to education for d/hoh students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 3-20.
Seaver, L. (2005). Marschark Citings:marschark attack. Retrieved from http://www.handsandvoices.org
Seaver, L. (2009, Spring). National organization informs, supports families with children who are deaf or hard of hearing.. Retrieved from http://www.pepnet.org/newsletter/2009_spring/page4.asp
Sowell, Landess & Gonzales, Personal Communication, February 11, 2012
The deaf and dumb in antiquity. (1884, November 02). New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0B15FA3F5B10738DDDAB0894D9415B8484F0D3
The IDEA Partnership Collaborative Work on Instruction COI Evidence-based Project
The U.S. Department of Education’s release of its final regulations under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s), U. S. A. (2011, September). U.S. department of education, office of special education programs’ (osep’s) idea website.. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home
Walls, R. (2001). International center for disability information. Retrieved from http://www.icdi.wvu.edu/disability/tables.html
Weiner, F. (2009). Fiscal year 2010 budget request. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/justifications/m-gallaudet.pdf
Winston, E. (2004). “Interpretability and Accessibility of Mainstream Classrooms." In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational Interpreting: How It Can Succeed (pp. 132-140). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
www.federalregister.gov. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.027, Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities)
Zapien C. 1998, (July 15). Options in Deaf Education—History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System Excerpted by Exceptional Parent Magazine
http://www.berghuis.co.nz/abiator/lsi/lsitest1.html
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/Deaf.asp
http://www.handsandvoices.org/
http://www.ndepnow.org/ (National Deaf Education Project NOW)
http://www.psychologicalscience.org
Research facts:
I have researched professional papers from ERIC; National Educational Resources Center by using key words (deaf, tutoring, teaching methods). I had a total of 9 hits but only 3 are even close to relevant.
Only one paper is available for my target from 02/2008 and it is about auditory/English not signing/ASL; Usable for hard of hearing curriculum. The next relevant papers were written in 1988 and 1964. Arrghhh! Of the three, one (1968) is about families learning to sign...not tutoring, another (1988) is about language structures via telecommunications and teenagers, and the last one is current but not applicable for signing. I had 12 hits with adding the key words" secondary education"( 1-2008 same as above, 1-1990, 1-1988, 1-1979, 8-1978) I had 3 hits with" elementary education" which are in the above hits of 1979 and 1978. I am researching deaf child development and current statistics and not finding applicable tutoring methods, curriculum, practices and suggestions for the k-12 grade levels.
Appendix 1 Table 1 Best Practice Process Student Assessment 1 Language Acquisition (BICS/CALP/CUP)
2 Receptive Information Processing
3 Theory of Mind (ToM)
4 Logical vs. Creative
5 Best Retention Style Methods
6 Natural Skills and Tendencies- Top Three
Appendix 2 Tutoring Request Log Including Learning Styles
Jeanine E. Owen-Roybal Accomplishments
EIPA-A:EI, Colorado and RID Candidate.
Lobbyist for the “Deaf Child’s Bill of Rights” 1996.
Colorado State Disaster Team: First Responder- Interpreter since 1998.
VIP Award from the Rocky Mountain Deaf School, Colorado. I was part of the team who initiated the school, started the fundraising, and wrote the Credo and Mission Statement for MSD with Jerry Moers.
Graduated Honors from Front Range Community College, 1998.
Graduated Honors from (DOIT Center) University of Northern Colorado, 2008.
(In process )Published Author.
Professional Experience
Educational Interpreter – State of Colorado: Department of Education, 2004 – Present
Aurora Public School District – Middle and High School Educational Interpreter – Oral and Sign.
Denver Public School District – High School Educational Interpreter – Sign for both deaf teacher and students.
Executive Administrative Assistant – Community Reach Center, Thornton, CO ▪ January, 1999 – August, 2004
Edited CRS and Policies for all Administration, Supervised Outreach Program and Trained Volunteers, Interpreted for all of Adams County - Intake, Crisis, and Appointments. On-call for Jefferson County Mental Health as needed - Interpreter, Board of Directors Paperwork, Legislative Brunch Coordinator, Golf Tournament Planner, Oversaw 6 outlying offices, and provided usability feedback for hard copy of development projects.
Programming and Software Skills
End User VP Hookup, TTY, VRS, QuickBooks Pro and Payroll, Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Windows® 2000 - 2010,7, Adobe Photo Shop and PDF, and PageMaker, Excel.
Education
Bachelor’s Degree in Community Interpreting – Regis University, Denver, CO ▪ 2012
Specialization: Educational Interpreting – University Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO ▪ 2008
Associates of General Studies– Front Range Community College, Westminster, CO ▪ 1998
Jeanine Owen-Roybal
Personal Bio
I'm the mother of four, one adopted deaf, young men. I never knew a deaf or hard of hearing person before him. Henceforth, I never experienced such a deeply profound calling until after I met his obstacles. I have succeeded in becoming an active parent with the learning of my many capacities that I never even knew existed. I still have not arrived at the final destination of my journey nor do I see the flash of lanterns for a runaway train, therefore, by the grace of god I go!
I like to say that I am not the job I do, I am not the home I have, nor am I the car I drive. I am still not confident about all the choices I made for my (deaf) son; I was not always comfortable with deafness, or my attempts at sign communication. I am not a self-proclaimed expert on anything, I am not sad or ashamed from questioning choices and ideas, nor am I who outsiders say I am. I am not unscathed for upholding my family’s rights to equal access nor am I one to back down or give in when a child's academic, social, and emotional future is at stake. I have been and still am a part of many projects (political and educational) that promote my son’s equality.
However, I am much stronger for having survived and choosing to continue than I am weaker from being forced to survive from the outside in; not unlike many parents!