accommodations quality for students who a /d eaf or … · it possible to reliably use video remote...

VOLUME 158, NO. 4, 2013 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

438

Cawthon, S. W., Leppo, R., & pepnet 2 Research and Evidence Synthesis Team. (2013). Accommodations Quality forStudents Who Are d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(4), xxx–xxx.

ACCOMMODATIONS QUALITY FOR STUDENTS

WHO ARE D/DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING

Keywords: accommodations,transition, secondary, postsecondary

The purpose of instructional and as -sessment accommodations is to pro-vide students with disabilities access toclassroom instruction and testing con-tent (Christensen, Braam, Scullin, &Thurlow, 2011). A variety of factorsinfluence students’ use of particularaccommodations, including state pol-icy, educational setting, teacher per-spectives, and student characteristics(Cawthon, Ho, Patel, Potvin, & Trundt,2009). Students who are d/Deaf or hardof hearing often receive accommoda-tions that are unique to their commu-nication characteristics, such as theavailability of a sign language inter-

preter or captioning in the classroom.However, these students also receiveaccommodations used by other stu-dent groups, such as extended timefor assignments or test administrationin a separate setting (Cawthon &Online Research Lab, 2006). In resi-dential settings, accommodations mayalso include such features as a visualsignaling device in a dorm room orinterpreters for extracurricular activi-ties (Cawthon, Nichols, & Collier, 2009).Accommodations are often sepa-

rated into two categories: those used inclassroom instruction and those imple-mented during testing and assessment(American Educational Research As -sociation, American PsychologicalAssociation, & National Council on

TUDENTS WHO are d/Deaf or hard of hearing often receive accommo-dations that are intended to increase access to the educational environ-ment. The authors provide the results of a large national study ofaccommodations use in secondary and postsecondary settings. The arti-cle focuses on three aspects of accommodations use: access, quality, andconsistency. The participants were 1,350 professionals working with adiverse group of students who were d/Deaf or hard of hearing in a vari-ety of roles, including educators, administrators, interpreters, voca-tional rehabilitation agency staff, and allied service providers. Data werecollected from both a national survey and a series of focus groups con-ducted over a 1-year period. The authors discuss the results in light ofthe crucial nature of accommodations during the transition into a vari-ety of educational, training, and employment options.

STEPHANIE W. CAWTHON,RACHEL LEPPO, AND THE

PEPNET 2 RESEARCH AND

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS TEAM

CAWTHON AND LEPPO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY,UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN. CAWTHON IS

AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND LEPPO IS A

GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANT. CAWTHON IS

ALSO AN ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF PEPNET 2(WWW.PEPNET.ORG). THE PEPNET 2 RESEARCH

AND EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS TEAM IS A

COLLABORATIVE GROUP OF GRADUATE

STUDENTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION WHO SERVE THE

PEPNET 2 PROJECT.

S

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 438

Measurement in Education, 1999).Instructional accommodations aremeant to increase access to classroomactivities, and for students who ared/Deaf or hard of hearing who use signlanguage, may include the use of a signlanguage interpreter (e.g., in class-rooms where instruction is given inspoken English) or a note taker so thata student can watch the interpreterrather than look down to write notes(Cawthon & Online Research Lab,2009). Other instructional accommo-dations might include captioning ofvideos used in class or additional tutor-ing services (Marschark et al., 2006).Students in postsecondary settingswho have stronger literacy skills mayalso use accommodations that requirea significant level of English printcomprehension, such as computer-assisted real-time translation (CART)or captioning (Stinson, Elliot, Kelly, &Liu, 2009).The accommodations students

receive in the classroom become thefoundation for the accommodationsthey receive during assessments (Indi-viduals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act Amendments of2004, hereinafter referred to as IDEA).Assessment accommodations mayinclude an interpreter or scribe duringthe test, a shortened assignment, orextra time for a standardized assess-ment such as the MCAT or other high-stakes exam (Cawthon & OnlineResearch Lab, 2006, 2007). In some sit-uations, accommodations may includethe translation of test items into a signsystem—for example, American SignLanguage (Maihoff et al., 2000) orSigned Exact English (Johnson, Kim-ball, & Brown, 2001)—or presentationof directions in the sign system(Cawthon & Online Research Lab,2006). Coherence in accommodationsuse is a particularly important consid-eration for students who are d/Deaf orhard of hearing with respect to their

language of instruction. If a studentreceives instructional content in ASL,this may place that student at a dis -advantage if the tests of academicachievement are then conducted inwritten English. Conversely, if the stu-dent receives instruction in spokenEnglish, it makes little sense to thentranslate test items into ASL during anassessment. However, translation oftest items is also fraught with its ownchallenges and questions related toaccuracy and validity (Brauer, 1993);although some literature on theimpact of ASL-translated items sug-gests that validity issues can be miti-gated, most state- and national-levelassessment policies allow for trans-lated items only under tightly moni-tored conditions (Cawthon, 2007).Effective accommodations use relies

on a variety of factors, both within theindividual and in the larger system.Factors at the individual level includestudents’ knowledge of how to requestaccommodations when they needthem (e.g., when entering a postsec-ondary training program) and how toadvocate for oneself if those accom-modations are not of sufficient qualityto facilitate learning. Factors at an insti-tutional level can include whether ornot the school has enough qualifiedinterpreters available (Cawthon, Ni -chols, & Collier, 2009; Luft & Huff,2011). Access to accommodations canalso vary greatly depending on theproximity of needed resources. Forexample, if a student lives in a ruralarea, there are likely to be far fewertrained sign language interpretersavailable than if the student lives in anurban area with a higher populationdensity of individuals who use sign lan-guage (Belcastro, 2004; Parton, 2005).Advances in technology are one waythat accommodations can be mademore accessible to individuals acrossall settings (Buisson, 2007; Luetke,2009; Luetke-Stahlman, 1995; Slike &

Berman, 2008). For example, large-scale use of broadband Internet makesit possible to reliably use video remoteinterpreting in ways that would nothave been possible even 10 years ago.Advances in real-time captioning havealso increased the quality of a student’sexperiences in the classroom, provid-ing verbatim, real-time transcriptionsof classroom dialogue, such as isrequired, for example, by studentswho prefer CART for the highly techni-cal discussions that often occur inhigher-education settings (Stinson etal., 2009).As students transition from second-

ary to postsecondary settings, such ascommunity college, work trainingprograms, universities, or employ-ment, the level of infrastructure andresources available to provide consis-tent and reliable accommodations canbe a critical issue in maintaining ac -cess to education and occupationalopportunities (Convertino, Marschark,Sapere, Sarchet, & Zupan, 2009). Tran-sition planning begins as early as age14 years and often requires the partic-ipation of a team of professionals, par-ents, and the students themselves.Best practices in transition planningidentify not only what accommoda-tions students are currently usingwithin their secondary learning en -vironment, but also the student’spostsecondary goals and what accom-modations would best fit in those newsettings. Whereas accommodationseligibility and services in secondarysettings are guided by IDEA, once anindividual enters a postsecondary set-ting, accommodations provisions aregoverned by the Americans With Dis-abilities Act of 1990, a change thatshifts much of the responsibility awayfrom the institution and onto the indi-vidual (Cawthon et al., 2009). Thischange in policy guidance is just one ofmany differences in the level of struc-ture in place to help students who are


439

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 439

d/Deaf or hard of hearing navigate andget access to accommodations duringtransition.Our purpose in the present article is

to present findings from a nationalstudy of accommodations use for students who are d/Deaf or hard ofhearing in both secondary and post-secondary settings. We discuss accom-modations effectiveness in terms ofthree main characteristics: availability,quality, and consistency. Availabilityrefers to whether the accommodationwas available for use in a setting; qual-ity refers to how often the accommo-dation was seen to be of high quality;consistency refers to the degree of reli-ability or predictability in the provisionof a particular accommodation.From these findings, we seek to

better understand how the accom-modations landscape might affect astudent’s transition experience intocollege, job training, and the world ofwork. We discuss accommodationsthat are rooted in technology (e.g., FMsystems and online text communi -cation), those that require a trainedprofessional (e.g., a sign languageinterpreter, CART reporter, or notetaker), or those that have both charac-teristics (e.g., video remote in ter -preting). Additionally, we seek tounderstand any nuances in accommo-dations use or preparation regardingaccommodations that may reflect dif-ferences in student setting (e.g., agencysetting vs. higher education). Finally,we provide demographic informationregarding professionals who currentlywork with students who are d/Deaf orhard of hearing and some informationabout the characteristics of the clientsthese professionals serve.

MethodologyMeasuresThe present article is based on resultsfrom a national online survey con-ducted as part of a larger needs assess-

ment for a large, federally fundedproject, pepnet 2 (www.pepnet.org;Cawthon & Research and EvidenceSynthesis Team, 2012). This organiza-tion encompasses professionals from avariety of settings linked by the com-mon thread of their work with stu-dents who are d/Deaf or hard ofhearing and their parents. Constituentscome from a wide variety of settings allover the United States, including main-streamed settings, schools for the deaf,vocational rehabilitation settings, stateagencies, job training programs, andinstitutions of higher education. Theonline survey was launched throughSurvey Gizmo, and participants wererecruited from the organization data-base and professional listservs andwebsites. The survey was open fromApril to June 2012, and was analyzedduring the summer and fall of thatyear.In addition to the online survey,

interviews and focus groups were con-ducted with selected individuals at pro-fessional conferences. The majority ofthese individuals were professionalswho worked with students who weredeaf or hard of hearing in either a director indirect capacity. These 14 interviewsand eight focus groups (with a total ofabout 40 individuals) were then codedby means of a reiterative process sothat we could un derstand mainthemes and findings within this data.The interviews were coded for themesdeveloped from thematic analytic andgrounded theory approaches (Corbin& Strauss, 2008). Four team memberswere responsible for coding these tran-scripts, with one person acting as the“primary” coder and another as the“secondary” coder on each transcript.The list of codes was expanded andrefined twice, once after an early reviewof the transcripts and again after the pri-mary and secondary coding processes.Additionally, where possible, at leastone of the coders either had conducted

or had been present at the originalinterview or focus group. Each pair ofcoders met after coding the transcriptsto clarify issues and determine areasthat needed further study. The teamconducted a reliability coding processto show the extent to which its mem-bers were able to agree on the codesused. For this reliability analysis, we ran-domly selected excerpts from across allof the interview and focus group tran-scripts. The rate of reliability was 87%across all codes.After this coding process, analysis

focused on counting code occurrences(i.e., how often a code was mentionedin a transcript) and tracking whichcodes often co-occurred. Co-occur-rence measures are similar to correla-tion statistics. The value varies from 0 to1 and can be positive or negative. If twocodes were often discussed together,then you would find a statistically signif-icant positive correlation, meaning ifyou saw one code, you would be verylikely to see the other reflected in thecoded segment. Conversely, if twocodes were rarely mentioned together,than the coefficient would be a smallvalue. We present co-occurrence ofcodes to facilitate understanding ofwhich contextual factors are importantwhen thinking about the role of accom-modations for students who are d/Deafor hard of hearing in secondary andpostsecondary settings.

DemographicsIn the present section, we provide asummary of the demographic charac-teristics of both the professionals whoparticipated in the survey and theclients they served. A total of 1,350professionals participated in the sur-vey (not all participants answered allquestions; sample sizes for each itemresponse are provided in the findings).Most of the respondents were female(n= 857); also, the majority of respon-dents identified as Caucasian (n =


440

ACCOMMODATIONS QUALITY

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 440

862). The distribution of participantsby reported race or ethnicity is pro-vided in Figure 1.A summary of the age distribution

of the sample is provided in Figure 2.The distribution was skewed towardthose ages 42–61 years. There was asharp drop-off after age 61, likely dueto retirements from the field.We also collected information on

whether participants identified as deafor hard of hearing (Figure 3). The vastmajority of the professionals identifiedas hearing (n= 635). Of the toal num-ber of professionals in the sample, 21said they used cochlear implants.Participant communication styles

and proficiency were varied across sev-eral communication modalities. A largepercentage of the professionals had atleast some experience with ASL, withonly 126 reporting no experience at all(Figure 4). The majority (n= 672) werenative oral English users. The respon-dents’ levels of fluency in expressingthemselves in English through writingwere similar. A small group of profes-sionals were high-level users of Spanish,both orally and in written expression; asmaller number were high-level usersof Signed Exact English, and an evensmaller number was highly proficientwith Cued Speech.Participants described which pro-

fessional role(s) they had and in whichsettings (Figures 5 and 6). These cate-gories were aligned with categories inthe project database to allow for easierinterpretation of study findings.Respondents were allowed to selectmore than one role, if applicable.These two figures are for descriptivepurposes; we have aggregated theseroles and settings into larger categoriesfor later analyses.

The Individuals theProfessionals ServedIn addition to collecting demographicinformation about the professionals

themselves, we asked them to describethe individuals they served. Thesequestions focused on each profes-sional’s overall experience, not indi -vidual clients. For example, if aprofessional indicated that he or she

served students who identified as cul-turally Deaf, that was counted as “one”response. In keeping with the focus onthe professional as the unit of analysis,all of these questions allowed profes-sionals to select “all that apply.” The


441

Figure 1

Participants’ Self-Reported Race/Ethnicity

Note. N = 993; not all survey participants responded to this item.

Figure 2

Participant Distribution, by Age (Years)


Figure 3

Distribution of Participants, by Self-Identified Hearing Status


18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM 41

majority of professionals in our surveyserved individuals who identified asDeaf or hard of hearing, as well asthose who had cochlear implants(Figure 7). Fewer had experience withpeople who were Deaf-Blind or latedeafened, or with individuals across allavailable categories.Finally, professionals reported the

incidence of disabilities among theindividuals they served (Figure 8). Themost common was learning disabili-ties, followed by attention deficithyperactivity disorder, various mentalhealth disorders, visual impairments,mobility disorders, developmental dis-orders, and medical conditions. Veryfew of the respondents indicated thatthey served clients who did not haveadditional disabilities (n = 92).

Qualitative Interview andFocus Group CharacteristicsAs part of the consent form processfor the project, we promised to keepall data confidential, including theidentities of those who participated inthe focus groups. Therefore, we willnot describe the individual characteris-tics of the participants in this part ofthe project. The interviews and focusgroups were few enough in numberthat providing information such asspecific professional roles and respon-sibilities could result in participantidentification. Instead, we will providean overall description of each partici-pant group.

InterviewsTeam members conducted a total of12 interviews at the Association forHigher Education and Disability(AHEAD) conference and the South-east Regional Institute on Deafness(SERID) conference, and on a univer-sity campus. These interviews focusedprimarily on individuals with experi-ence in postsecondary settings work-ing directly with individuals who were


442


Figure 4

Distribution of Participants by Proficiency in American Sign Language

Figure 5

Distribution of Participants by Professional Role

Notes. N = 1,840; respondents were allowed to select more than one role. IT = information technology.

Figure 6

Distribution of Participants by Professional Setting

Note. N = 2,609; respondents were allowed to select more than one setting.


18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 442

deaf or hard of hearing. Participantswere split between men and womenand mostly represented individualswith at least a decade of experience inthe field. They had a range of expertisewithin that context, from individualswho focused on assessment to thosewho provided accommodations orcoordinated programs for incomingstudents. On the whole, these individ-uals were familiar with our organiza-tion and the goals of the project.

Focus GroupsTeam members conducted eight focusgroups across several regional andnational conferences, including the

American Educational Research Associ-ation, California Educators of the Deafand Hard of Hearing, AHEAD, theannual U.S. Office of Special EducationPrograms Project Directors’ Confer-ence, and SERID. The focus groupsranged in size from 3 to 15 individuals,depending on the place and setting.The focus groups were split betweengroups of professionals serving indi-viduals who were deaf and hard ofhearing, professionals in related fieldswho did not have expertise with deafand hard of hearing individuals, andstudents from a wide variety of back-grounds who were deaf or hard ofhearing. The participants across the

focus groups were evenly splitbetween men and women and repre-sented a broad age range, from lateadolescence through late adulthood.Not all individuals were familiar withour organization, but all were eitherparticipating in transition (as students)or were focused on issues related totransition and postsecondary out-comes.

ResultsAccommodations UseParticipants reported the use of a largerange of accommodations across allsettings. As Figure 9 illustrates, inter-preters were the most commonlyreported accommodation, closely fol-lowed by note takers, sound amplifi-cation, captions, and modified tasks(most commonly extended time).Telecommunication and signaling de -vices were also commonly mentioned,as well as student tutoring services.Less frequently used accommodationsincluded those involving a registrar oradministrative office, such as preferredregistration or waivers of exam re -quirements. Other less frequently usedaccommodations were remote ser-vices such as interpreters or speechto text.Table 1 shows the distribution of

the professionals by setting and thefive key accommodations use by theirclients or students.The accommodations in Table 1

represent the five most frequentlyused across the data set for the presentstudy. We organize these five by thetwo that rely most on visual language(interpreters and remote interpreters)and those that are English text–basedaccommodations (captioning, notetaker, and speech to text). Not surpris-ingly, interpreters were frequentlyused across all settings, with the levelof use apparently remaining consistentin the shift from secondary educationto postsecondary settings. Remote


443

Figure 8

Disabilities and Other Conditions of Individuals Served by Participants

Notes. N = 5,779; in some instances, more than one category applied to a served individual. ADD/ADHD= attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.

Figure 7

Hearing Status of Served Individuals

Note. N = 4,189; in some instances, more than one category applied to a served individual.

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 443

interpreters, those provided via videoor the Web, had a stronger presence inagencies and postsecondary settings(37% and 20%, respectively), but not insecondary settings (6%). Technologymay be more available in postsec-ondary settings, or, perhaps institu-tions and workplaces rely more onremote, contracted interpreters thanon ones hired locally. These findingsmay suggest that, as part of their tran-sition experience, individuals will needto gain further information and prac-tice both in accessing remote servicesand in using the system itself.

The text-based accommodationsvaried in their use. Captioning was fre-quently used (over 60%), though lessoften in agencies that provided sup-port services than in educational ortraining settings. Note takers were avery strong presence in postsecondarysettings (93%), but had much lower fre-quency of use across the other settings.This shift may reflect changes both inthe resources of post secondary institu-tions and in the demands of a collegeenvironment. Finally, speech to text(e.g., CART) was most often used byprofessionals who reported serving

students across multiple settings. Nev-ertheless, it was still one of the leastused accommodations overall, particu-larly in secondary settings.

Accommodations QualityThe survey respondents were asked toreport on the quality and consistencyof accommodations used in their set-ting by students who were deaf or hardof hearing. Respondents ranked eachof these aspects on a 1-to-5 scale, with1 representing “never” and 5 repre-senting “always.”For consistency, we asked partici-

pants to think about how often arequested accommodation was avail-able at the time it was needed, readyand as seamless as possible, and ableto facilitate communication in theneeded setting. For example, if some-one requested a note taker, were thenotes complete and provided in atimely fashion? For quality, we askedparticipants to think about the qualityof the accommodation in terms ofeffectiveness, particularly in the realmof communication. In the case ofinterpreting, live or remote, was theinterpreter a good match for the con-tent or the environment? Did he orshe follow professional best practices?The data indicated that the scores forthese two questions were highly cor-related; i.e., when a participant ratedan accommodation as highly consis-tent, that individual also rated it ashigh quality. While this finding is notsurprising, it is good to understandthat both of these factors are a part ofa person’s perceptions about whatconstitutes a good accommodation. Inthe analyses below, we average thetwo ratings (consistency and quality)as an overall “quality” score. Thisapproach provides a more robustmeasure of quality than the singlequality rating alone. Average qualityratings for five key accommodationsare provided in Figure 10.


444


Figure 9

Professionals’ Report of Accommodations Use

Note. N = 9,144; in some instances, professionals reported using more than one category of accom-modations.

Accommodation

Video remote Note Speech

Professional setting Interpreter interpreting Captioning taking to text

Secondary school 207 15 207 146 37

(81%) (6%) (82%) (58%) (15%)

Agency 116 47 81 70 137

(91%) (37%) (64%) (55%) (39%)

Postsecondary 355 77 292 361 42

(92%) (20%) (76%) (93%) (33%)

Multiple settings 325 114 272 241 223

(93%) (33%) (78%) (69%) (58%)

Table 1

Accommodations Use, by Professional Setting

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 444

All five of these accommodationshad average quality ratings between3.5 and 4.5. We did not compare qual-ity ratings between accommodationsbecause the number of participantswho responded to each accommoda-tion varied depending on the extentto which it was used in each person’ssetting. Thus, it is difficult to say whichaccommodation appears to be ofhigher or lower quality in relation tothe others. We emphasize, instead, theprofessionals’ overall ratings of theaccommodations as “sometimes” ofhigh quality.In addition to collecting ratings

from the survey participants, we con-ducted interviews and focus groupswith deaf and hard of hearing indi -viduals and with professionals whoworked with students who were deafor hard of hearing. These interviewsand focus groups highlighted severalthemes and processes that may influ-ence a student’s experience of accom-modations. The codes used in theoverall analysis and examples of textthat align with these codes are pro-vided in the Appendix. Of greatest rel-evance to the present article is the

occurrence of the ACC (accommoda-tions and services) code in the inter-view transcripts. Accommodationswere discussed in 30% of the codedsegments of the interviews and focusgroups. The ACC code co-occurredwith a wide variety of different codesacross the list in Table 2. However, theonly code that showed a statisticallysignificant level of co-occurrence wasTECH (technology), r= .32, p< .0001.This overlap can be explained partiallyby the nature of the technology thatthe participants referred to when dis-cussing educational settings, and bythe fact that many of the technologieswere also used as accommodations(e.g., CART). This is illustrated in thisquote from one of the professionals:

We just changed agencies and theagency that went under had neverheard of CART. They didn’t knowwhat it was, so it was a struggle whenwe suddenly had to have mandatorywebinar training for our deaf staff.The new agency didn’t know what todo. Even with CART being providedfor the kind of webinars they weredoing, it didn’t help much for the

deaf person to participate, becausewatching the CART on one part of thescreen and the action on another partof the screen . . . well, it didn’t reallywork.

In this quote, TECH was coded bothfor the reference to webinars and forthe reference to CART. The quote iscoded ACC for the reference to CARTbecause CART is also an accommoda-tion used by individuals who are deafor hard of hearing.Although TECH was the only co-

occurring code to reach the level ofsignificance, there were categories thatalmost reached significance. Thesewere ASSESS (assessment; r = .10, p=.03) and DIV (diversity; r = .10, p =.04). Overall, ACC issues stood aloneand were not discussed in the contextof the range of other factors that werediscussed that were related to the tran-sition from secondary to postsec-ondary settings.Beyond the coding of segments,

research staff noted a number ofimportant processes and themes intheir analysis of the transcripts. Oneparticular theme was the possibleunderutilization of accommodationsservices by students in a postsec-ondary setting. Professionals describedindividuals who often attempted to“get by” without accommodationsuntil they were unable to succeed aca-demically. As the two following quotesillustrate, these professionals said thisbehavior was possibly attributable toguilt over “inconveniencing the sys-tem” or a desire to “pass” as a hearingstudent:

• I see a lot of students get into asituation and feel somehowguilty for expecting full access.And so they settle for somethingless.

• My experience is that often thosestudents have kind of internal-


445

Figure 10

Average Quality Rating Scores for Five Key Accommodations

Note. A 1–5 scale (“never” to “always”) was used.

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 445


446


ized this idea that speech is bet-ter; you know, the more they canappear like hearing students thebetter.

The implications for deaf and hard ofhearing identity are complicated bythe fact that students in a post -secondary setting are responsible forcommunicating that they have a dis-ability to the appropriate office, aresponsibility that effectively adds apotential barrier to access to ac -commodations. As one professionalobserved, “Still there are these situa-tions where the student doesn’tapproach the [Office of Disabilities],waits until an event that’s cataclysmic,and then there is this process theyhave to go through that delays gettingservices in place.”Professionals described an added

layer of complication in this process:the variability in student knowledge ofaccommodations. Sometimes the stu-dents had experiences with a range ofoptions, and sometimes the studentsonly used accommodations that hadbeen available in their particular set-ting and were unaware of differentchoices. As one professional said,“They had the legal meetings or what-ever and they just weren’t told. Orthey decided they didn’t need this[accommodation or service] in the IEPmeeting.”A lack of awareness, coupled with

potentially varying sources of informa-tion (e.g., family vs. school staff), raisesquestions as to how prepared studentsare to use the accommodations thatmight be available to them across edu-cational settings.

Preparing for the FutureAs individuals who are deaf or hard ofhearing prepare to enter the work-force, it is important for professionalsto prepare them for accommodationsdiscussions with their future employ-

ers. Professionals described the extentto which they had these discussionswith individuals who were deaf or hardof hearing as part of their own practice.They responded to an item related tothis issue on a Likert scale that rangedfrom 1 to 5 (never to always). Resultsare shown in Table 2.There were significant differences

in their reported levels of discussion,depending on professional setting (F= 37.59, df = 3, N = 940, p < .0001).We then conducted paired compar-isons using Tukey’s method to controlfor family alpha level. Professionalsfrom postsecondary settings were lesslikely to discuss accommodations inlater employment than those in othersettings (p < .05). It may be that pro-fessionals in education or training settings do not have a structuredopportunity to have these kinds ofconversations, or that they are notfamiliar with what kinds of accommo-dations may be needed in a student’sfuture workplace. In either case, this isan opportunity to help build the capac-ity of institutions that give studentscontent knowledge and skills trainingso that they will also have strategiesthey may need to obtain accommoda-tions on the job. For example, howdoes a student raise this issue duringan interview? What research does a stu-dent need to do about available tech-nologies at a potential workplace?Exploring these questions with stu-dents is a potential area of growth for

institutions that serve students whoare deaf or hard of hearing.In qualitative interviews with profes-

sionals working in agency settings, par-ticularly vocational rehabilitation, weincorporated this conversation strandand attempted to determine how pro-fessionals were preparing the individu-als they worked with to have theseconversations with their future employ-ers. Some representative quotes fromthese discussions follow:

• Well, that would vary by individ-ual. Some are assertive and cando that; otherwise we providetraining to teach them to do that.

• As part of this training with thiscollege prep program, we arealso teaching them not only tobe a college student as far as aca-demics and figuring out how toadvocate for the accommoda-tions they need, but also figuringout what accommodations theydo need. . . . So when they endup going to college, if they don’tend up going to one of theseschools, they can at least go intoa disabilities support center andtalk about these things and bereally informed.

• Well, part of that, it’s not totally aresponsibility that falls on thestudent or the consumer. Someindividuals are better able toexpress to the employer whattheir needs are. Some are not,

Professional setting Average rating

Secondary school 3.38

Agency 3.53

Postsecondary 2.56a

Multiple settings 3.54

Note. A 1–5 scale (“never” to “always”) was used.a Less likely to discuss accommodations in later employment (significant at p < .05).

Table 2

Professionals’ Ratings of Extent to Which They Discussed WorkplaceAccommodations With Their Students or Clients

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 446

and some individuals are lessknowledgeable about what isavailable, what accommodationsthey have access to. . . . So it’skind of a team effort that every-one works together to make surethat things are in place.

Regarding how to have these types ofconversations with individuals who maynot be as assertive or knowledgeableabout the diverse accommodations,several agency personnel referred toself-advocacy training programs:

• We try to teach them. Of course,we encourage our consumers toadvocate for themselves becauseour services are time limited andthis is a skill that they will need alltheir life. So part of that is advo-cacy training, working with themto make them aware, maybegoing with them at one time toshow them how you wouldapproach these things [with theemployer].

• Our goal, of course, is to alwaysprovide the best accommoda-tions that we can. We know wecan’t always be perfect. In a per-fect world, every deaf workerwould have . . . total accessibility;we approximate that as closely aspossible. For example . . . tech-nology has helped to fill a lot ofthe gap.

The data from these interviewsreflect several themes: individual dif-ferences, knowledge of accommoda-tions, and self-advocacy skills. Thesethemes are tightly connected, and sev-eral interviewees mentioned that theirstate programs incorporated theseelements into accommodations train-ing for students. These professionalsspoke about two types of individuals,those who were able to be assertiveand effectively advocate for their

accommodation needs, and those whocould benefit from training in self-advocacy skills. Two key element ofself-advocacy skills were knowing whataccommodations were available andhaving the self-knowledge to realizewhich accommodations worked bestfor oneself as a potential member ofthe workforce.

DiscussionLimitationsThere are several limitations to thedata that should be borne in mindwhen drawing conclusions from theresults of the present study. As is thecase with many surveys, those whoresponded to our survey were likelythose who were most familiar withpepnet 2 or who are more likely toshare their experiences with ourorganization. Therefore, these findingsshould not be seen as representative ofthe field as a whole. As much as pos-sible, we contextualized the charac-teristics of the participants so thatappropriate generalizations and con-clusions about these findings might bemade. Readers of the present articleshould keep in mind that our partici-pants responded on the basis of theirindividual understanding of the ques-tions asked of them. In all cases, weuse the wording “participants reportedthat. . . .” This notation is importantbecause we do not want to claim thatwe observed or had a way of checkingon their responses to verify accuracy.This is particularly true in an anony-mous survey, which, despite our effortsto make it accessible to a broad rangeof readers, was still very much a text-based experience. While the directionswere presented in ASL in a video for-mat, the modularity and length of thesurvey precluded a full ASL version ofthe survey itself. We do not know howmany individuals may have left the sur-vey due to difficulties with the readinglevel required to finish it.

Technology played a significant rolein the implementation of our study. Werelied on the strength of Web-basedtechnologies to reach our nationalaudience. There were times whentechnical challenges arose and wewere not able to capture all of theinformation as intended. For example,the survey platform was not alwayscompatible with the platforms used byour participants. Although rare, therewere times when the survey could notbe fully completed due to technicalchallenges.The qualitative research was limited

by the set of professionals the researchteam had access to, through many ofthe same avenues as were availablefor the survey. Additionally, as with allresearch that depends upon interviewdata, only those who consented wereinterviewed, and these individuals mayhave had their own diverse reasons forwishing to contribute their perspec-tive. Thus, the generalizability of theconclusions drawn from the qualitativedata may be limited (Lincoln & Guba,1985). Finally, although at least twoteam members coded each transcriptand the team met as a group to dis-cuss coding issues, the codes and theimplications drawn from these datawere influenced by the perspectivesof the team members and, as such,should be considered carefully.

Impact of DemographicsIt is worth considering how the demo-graphics of our survey population mayhave shaped the context of the find-ings of the present study. The majorityof survey participants were Caucasianfemales between the ages of 42 and 61years, and, as a group, they had a rela-tively high level of ASL proficiency. Theparticipants served deaf and hard ofhearing students with a wide range ofcharacteristics and backgrounds, withvery few professionals serving individ-uals with only deafness or hearing loss


447

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 447

as a factor in how they might receiveaccommodations or special services.Individuals served by professionals inthis study also had a wide range of cul-tural identifications and potentially dif-ferent communication modalities. Thiswas, therefore, an experienced groupof individuals with experiences acrossthe spectrum, who were likely to befamiliar with the different accommo-dations options and resources used intheir respective settings. Their per-spectives on the use and quality ofaccommodations are valuable becausethey draw on the diverse experiencesacross many different contexts andaccess requirements. However (andthis is true in many service profes-sions), professionals in the field areless diverse than the individuals theyserve. Further direct investigation intostudents’ experiences would comple-ment the findings presented here.

Range of AccommodationsThe results of the present study indi-cate that individuals served by the pro-fessionals we surveyed used a widevariety of accommodations, with somebeing utilized more than others. Ofnote is the finding that accommoda-tions with remote features, such asremote video interpreting and remotespeech-to-text services, were less pre -valent than immediate accommoda-tions such as an interpreter or notetaker. This is particularly significantgiven the importance of these accom-modations to deaf and hard of hearingindividuals who reside in rural areaswhere some accommodations, such ashigh-quality interpreters, are oftenunavailable. Additionally, professionalsindicated that accommodations suchas waivers for exams or preferentialregistration were not typically used.This finding may reflect the relativelyinfrequent need for these accommo-dations (i.e., exams and class registra-

tion occur less often than classroominstruction), or the impression amongstudents or staff that they are unneces-sary. Professionals also reported thatthe students they worked with tookadvantage of several accommodationsthat are used by students with disabil-ities more generally, such as modifiedtasks (e.g., extended time for home-work) and tutoring services. This find-ing may overlap with the respondents’report of the large number of studentswho were deaf or hard of hearing whohad co-occurring disabilities. It is pos-sible that these students with co-occurring disabilities use a differentcombination of accommodations thanstudents who are deaf or hard of hear-ing who do not have co-occurring dis-abilities. Further investigation intoindividual student characteristics andthe match with accommodations indifferent settings is an important nextstep in this research program.

Quality RatingsThe quality ratings are promising, butalso a cause for concern. When profes-sionals’ ratings of the quality of partic-ular accommodations were averaged,the result ranged between “sometimesof high quality” and “often of highquality.” Large differences in samplesizes for each accommodation makedirect comparisons of the quality ratings unadvisable; thus, it is onlypossible to state that the five accom-modations we examined were re -ported as being of middle to highquality. This finding is promising giventhe priority placed on ensuring thatquality accommodations are extendedto individuals who are deaf or hard ofhearing. However, this finding alsoindicates that there is potential forthe quality of accommodations toimprove. Additionally, there is a limita-tion to asking professionals to men-tally “average” the experience of their

varied students and clients. For exam-ple, if one student had a very difficultaccommodations experience and an -other had a very positive experience,the average of the two would be amoderate level of accommodationsquality, masking potentially importantdimensions of those two divergentexperiences.

Context of AccommodationsExperiencesAnalysis of the qualitative data revealedthat accommodations is a theme that isrelevant to professionals working withstudents who are deaf or hard of hear-ing, as evidenced by the fact that thecode for accommodations accountedfor 30% of coded segments across alltranscripts. Additionally, it appears thatissues related to accommodations areclosely linked with technology due tothe high co-occurrence between thesetwo codes. Furthermore, there arepotential identity and relational issuesthat may arise for individuals as theynegotiate the system and accessaccommodations. The informationgleaned from the qualitative analysisindicated that for many students of theprofessionals in the present study, thestructure or process of requestingaccommodations can become a barrierto access. Throughout the interviews,professionals spoke about studentswho felt “guilty” about “inconvenienc-ing the system” or who did not want toidentify as a student with a disabilityuntil their academic progress wasthreatened. Additionally, professionalsdescribed students who were unfamil-iar with the wide range of accommoda-tions available in a postsecondarysetting. This theme was echoed inseveral of the interviews with voca-tional rehabilitation professionals, whoemphasized that students should haveexposure to a variety of accommoda-tions and be encouraged to determine


448


18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 448


449

for themselves which accommodationsare most helpful to them, and underwhich circumstances. For instance, onevocational rehabilitation professionalsaid,

They [students] never used CARTbefore like they had this morning.That hasn’t been a choice for them.The school [K–12] made the choicesfor them previously. I mean, they onlyhad one option maybe. . . . MaybeCART is a better answer to what thestudent needs. . . . The problem withCART now is not only are they strug-gling with my teaching and [my] ter-minology and theory . . . but, nowwe’re giving them two struggles: (1)to learn how to learn, (2) learn theterminology, and then . . . how dothey even begin to process my con-cepts and the theories?!

This statement reminds all researchersthat beyond their accommodationsuse and unique communication needs,students who are deaf or hard of hear-ing are also students who may strugglewith learning in a postsecondary envi-ronment. This process can be maderocky or smooth by the accommoda-tions experiences a student has hadand will have in the new setting.

Tie to TransitionWhile the present study did not explic-itly look at the shift in accommoda-tions use within the transition process,professionals from both secondary andpostsecondary settings responded tothe survey, providing some usefulinformation about differences betweenthe two. Individuals who served stu-dents in secondary settings largely butnot overwhelmingly reported being inmainstreamed settings. The data fromthese settings offer a useful contrastand a sense of what students’ back-grounds are as far as use of accom -

modations prior to entry into post-secondary training or workplace expe-riences. The most notable findings inthis study were (a) the consistency ofinterpreter use across all settings and(b) the contrast in remote interpreter,speech-to-text, and note-taking ser-vices between secondary settings (lessuse) and postsecondary settings (moreprevalent). When considered in thecontext of transition planning, stu-dents may benefit from practicingstrategies for self-advocacy when start-ing with a new interpreter in a differenttype of environment than high school,building upon the previous experiencebase of having an interpreter in a famil-iar environment. For speech to text,note taking, and remote interpreters, amore scaffolded approach may be nec-essary to introduce the accommoda-tion option as a possibility in thefuture, even if it is not being used inthe current educational context.The goal of many postsecondary

training and vocational programs is fortheir students and clients to success-fully transition into the workforce. Theprofessional respondents in an agencysetting, such as vocational rehabilita-tion, reported that they felt confidentpreparing their clients to have discus-sions with their future employersregarding their accommodations. Incontrast, professionals in higher-edu-cation settings did not rate their confi-dence in preparing their students tohave these discussions with theirfuture employers as highly. This find-ing reflects a strength of agencies andan opportunity to build capacity forother types of institutions. The voca-tional rehabilitation professionals weinterviewed pointed to several key ele-ments of the preparation of studentsto advocate for these accommodationsin their future settings. First, the pro-fessionals recognized that students dif-fered in their level of comfort with

assertively informing their employersof their accommodations needs. Thislevel of comfort influenced whetherthese students might require furtherconversations or specific instructionregarding self-advocacy. In order forstudents to truly advocate for whatthey needed, they needed to knowtheir range of options and be awareof which accommodations workedbest for them personally. Thus, effec-tive advocacy for accommodationsinvolves accurate self-knowledge. Theneed for accurate self-knowledge as arequirement for effective self-advocacyis well documented in the self- advocacy research literature (Test,Fowler, Wood, Brewer, & Eddy, 2005).

ConclusionEffective accommodations use hingeson so many factors, including availabil-ity, quality, and the appropriate fit withthe accessibility of the context. Muchof the research on accommodationsfor students who are deaf or hard ofhearing emphasizes the effects ofchanges to a test or instructional activ-ity on students’ learning and educa-tional outcomes. The purpose of thepresent article was to report data onprofessionals’ perspectives on a broadset of accommodations from acrosssecondary and postsecondary settings.Participants in this survey worked in awide range of contexts, with a diverseset of individuals, and in a variety ofroles. Attempting to tease apart spe-cific professional and educational con-texts can, at times, put one at risk ofgetting lost in the proverbial trees. Thequalitative aspect of this analysis chal-lenges researchers and practitioners toconsider student perspectives andattributes (e.g., the complexity sur-rounding requests for accommoda-tions, self-advocacy skills) in a widerview of accessibility. It is our hope thatthis article will offer readers an oppor-

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 449

tunity to step back and look at somelarger trends that will shape the futureof research and practice in the field.

NoteThe contents of this article were de -veloped under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, No.H326D110003. However, these con-tents do not necessarily represent thepolicy of the U.S. Department of Edu-cation, and readers should not assumeendorsement by the federal govern-ment.—The Authors.

ReferencesAmerican Educational Research Association,

American Psychological Association, & Na -tional Council on Measurement in Education.(1999). Standards for educational and psy-chological testing (3rd ed.).Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L.No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991).

Belcastro, F. (2004). Rural gifted students whoare deaf or hard of hearing: How electronictechnology can help. American Annals ofthe Deaf, 149(4), 309–313.

Brauer, B. A. (1993). Adequacy of a translation ofthe MMPI into American Sign Language foruse with deaf individuals: Linguistic equiva-lency issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 3,247–260.

Buisson, G. (2007). Using online glossing les-sons for accelerated instruction in ASL forpreservice deaf education majors. AmericanAnnals of the Deaf, 152(3), 331–343.

Cawthon, S. (2007). Hidden benefits and unin-tended consequences of No Child LeftBehind polices for students who are Deaf orhard of hearing. American EducationalResearch Journal, 44(3), 460–492.

Cawthon, S., Ho, E., Patel, P., Potvin, D., &Trundt, K. (2009). Multiple constructs andeffects of accommodations on accommo-dated test scores for students with disabili-ties. Practical Assessment, Evaluation, and

Research 14(21). Retrieved from http://pare-online.net/genpare.asp?wh=0&abt=14

Cawthon, S., Nichols, S., & Collier, M. (2009).Facilitating access: What information doTexas postsecondary institutions provide onaccommodations and services for studentswho are deaf or hard of hearing? AmericanAnnals of the Deaf, 153(5), 450–460.

Cawthon, S., & Online Research Lab. (2006).Findings from the National Survey onAccommodations and Alternate Assessmentsfor Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hear-ing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Edu-cation, 11, 337–359.

Cawthon, S., & Online Research Lab. (2007).Accommodations use for statewide standard-ized assessments: Prevalence and recom-mendations for students who are deaf orhard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies andDeaf Education, 13, 55–96.

Cawthon, S., & Online Research Lab. (2009).Accommodations for students who are deafor hard of hearing in large-scale, standardizedassessments: Surveying the landscape andcharting a new direction. Educational Meas-urement: Issues and Practice, 28(2), 41–49.

Cawthon, S., & Research and Evidence Synthe-sis Team. (2012). Pepnet 2 needs assessmentfinal report. Retrieved from pepnet 2 web-site: www.pepnet.org

Christensen, L. L., Braam, M., Scullin, S., & Thur-low, M. L. (2011). 2009 state policies onassessment participation and accommoda-tions for students with disabilities (SynthesisReport No. 83). Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota, National Center on EducationalOutcomes.

Convertino, C. M., Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Sar-chet, T., & Zupan, M. (2009). Predicting aca-demic success among deaf college students.Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa-tion, 14, 324–343.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of quali-tative research: Techniques and proceduresfor developing grounded theory. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act Amendments of 2004, Pub. L. No.108-446, 118 Stat. 2647.

Johnson, E., Kimball, K., & Brown, S. O. (2001).American Sign Language as an accommoda-tion during standards-based assessments.

Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(2),39–47. doi:10.1177/07372477010260020

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Luekte, B. (2009). Evaluating deaf educationWeb-based course work. American Annalsof the Deaf, 154(1), 62–70.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1995). Deaf education inrural/remote areas: Using compressed inter-active television. Rural Special EducationQuarterly, 14(4), 37–42.

Luft, P., & Huff, K. (2011). How prepared aretransition-age deaf and hard of hearing stu-dents for adult living? Results of the Transi-tion Competence Battery. American Annalsof the Deaf, 155(5), 569–579.

Maihoff, N. A., Bosso, E., Zhang, L., Fischgrund,J., Schulz, J., Carlson, J., & Carlson, J. E.(2000). The effects of administering an ASLsigned standardized test via DVD player/television and by paper-and-pencil: A pilotstudy. Dover: Delaware Department of Edu-cation.

Marschark, M., Leigh, G., Sapere, P., Burnham,D., Convertino, C., Stinson, M., et al. (2006).Benefits of sign language interpreting andtext alternatives to classroom learning bydeaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies andDeaf Education, 11, 421–437. doi:10.1093/deafed/enl013

Parton, B. S. (2005). Distance education bringsdeaf students, instructors, and interpreterscloser together: A review of prevailing prac-tices, projects, and perceptions. Interna-tional Journal of Instructional Technologyand Distance Learning, 2(1), 65–75.

Slike, S. B., & Berman, P. D. (2008). Integratingmultiple media sources to teach synchro-nous online courses to learners who are deafor hard of hearing. Journal of InstructionDelivery Systems, 22(3), 10–13.

Stinson, M., Elliot, L., Kelly, R., & Liu, Y. (2009).Deaf and hard-of-hearing students’ memoryof lectures with speech-to-text and interpret-ing/note taking service. Journal of SpecialEducation, 43(1), 52–64.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Wood, W. M., Brewer,D. M., & Eddy, S. (2005). A conceptual frame-work of self-advocacy for students with dis-abilities. Remedial and Special Education,26(1), 43–54. doi:10.1177/07419325050260010601.


450


18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 450

Appendix

Theme Codes and Example Quotes

Example quote

“Right, it goes back to the philosophy of the bi-bi method. I tell them to take a chance. Hopefully parents

want them to have 10 fingers, 10 toes, but that’s not it. You know, take a chance. So I would rather have

the dual path, you know, signing, a good language foundation. You’ve got the speech skills? Great! Take

advantage of it. If not, then you’ve got your ASL skills.” (Deaf, professional)

“I was mainstreamed in the ‘80s and ‘90s. I didn’t really learn ASL until I got to college. So my heart

is with that class that has gone through the similar experience that I have. For those that have one

through schools for the deaf, it was hard for me to identify with that particular group because that wasn’t

my experience, although we had similarities.” (Deaf, professional)

“A lot of students come to college and they don’t have any idea where they’re going, and they’re having

someone push them around. So the number one advocacy skill that I want all students to have, especially

students who have been hovered over a lot, many of these students that come to the disability office have

been hovered over an awful lot. They need to discover for themselves what they want to do with their life.

The number one thing they have to do is learn how to advocate for their aspirations.” (Hearing, professional)

“I hated school. All I wanted to do half the time was play football because it was the only thing that made

me feel halfway close to people. I hated people that I sat around with because they would all have things

handed to them in their life—money, cars, vacations. They had perfect eyesight, perfect hearing, and I

just, I never really felt like it was the place for me.” (Hard of hearing, postsecondary student)

“I’m just excited for a new beginning and I’m excited to do what I want finally. I’m excited to play football;

I’m excited to go to college. I want to be the first person in my family to graduate with a bachelor’s

degree.” (Hard of hearing, postsecondary student)

“So now I’m realizing, maybe they think this truly is an ‘A’ quality paper; an ‘A’ product. So now, do I tell

them? Do I fail the child? Or do I have to change and kind of adjust to what their needs are? Because

it’s not their fault, but it kind of puts me in a bind because I want to maintain the academic rigor and

integrity.” (Deaf, professional)

“My father refused to let me work there [at the oil rig]. I kept asking him why. He said, ‘You need to go to

college first. Get your education. Because as you get older, you’re not going to have much of a future if

you don’t have a college degree.’ I felt stuck. I was trying my best already. But he said, “You need to go to

college to get the best education you can.” My parents didn’t want me to be stuck because they thought

they were. I never really understood what they meant until now.” (Hard of hearing, postsecondary student)

“Yeah, it’s good to do more of an informal question/answer kind of thing because I think that the high

school students might have questions that they would like to ask as opposed to having somebody just

present something. But also for the students that are in college, they know what really shocks them, or

what really helped them. And so letting them have a chance to say their piece of what they feel is the

most important thing that they learned.” (Hearing, professional)

“Well, maybe it’s possible that the program itself is what failed the child. One example would be like an

IEP is designed to make sure that the child reaches these goals. Unfortunately, what happens is that the

goals were based on very low standards to the point where they’ll be achievable; that way, the school

looks good. So instead of setting up these really high standards and forcing the child to really work to get

them, or getting close—and even if he’s getting close, they say, ‘Well, he failed.’” (Deaf, professional)

“Well, what I would like to see is for us to be able to set up a program—a separate program from the

school . . . where [people who are deaf or hard of hearing] could be living there and so they’re learning

all of the independent living skills, and learning how to live with other people. And then being able to go

out to a work site with support.” (Hearing, professional)


451

Code

Language and

Communication (LC)

Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Identity (DHH IDENT)

Advocacy (ADV)

Socioemotional (SOCIOEMO)

Goals (GOAL)

Outcomes: academic (OUT)

Family (FAM)

Peers (PEERS)

Transition Factors:

individualized education

program (IEP) and 9th–12th

grades (TRANS)

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR)

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 451


452


Code

Institutional Factors (INST)

Accommodations and

Services (ACC)

Personnel and Service

Quality/Training (PROQUAL)

Assessment (ASSESS)

Money ($)

Time /Timing (TIME)

Diversity (DIV)

Technology (TECH)

Societal Factors: institutional

or perspective (SYSTEIC)

Example quote

“Yeah, well, I think all things related to accessibility are going to vary quite a bit by the size of the school

and the resources they have available. As a major research institution, we sort of feel, for some reason,

like we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel for money, but it’s just because no one wants to let loose of

their own. But there’s got to be a lot of money out there; it’s just a matter of figuring out where it comes

from.” (Hearing, professional)

“The more information we have, particularly from a hard of hearing individual who is asking for

accommodations specifically related to how they hear, because they have to listen to some part of the

test, that’s where you may be useful. And it’s often tricky getting the information that we need.” (Hearing,

professional)

“Clearly experience [and training] impact evaluator competency [for deaf and hard of hearing students].

And certainly if nobody mentions anything about the possible consequences of hearing loss.” (Hearing,

professional)

“There may be some [students] who have co-occurring disabilities that aren’t diagnosed. So sometimes

they see reading or writing deficits, and yeah, that’s not surprising for someone who has a hearing loss.

But the evaluator wouldn’t have a clue. So we do get someone who has been evaluated by somebody

who is trained and experienced in working with students who are deaf and hard of hearing. And so we

do get somewhere. . . . I actually have some faith in the evaluation indicating that there is a co-occurring

disability. But there are a lot more [for individuals] where the evaluation is worthless.” (Hearing,

professional)

“They can’t afford it. They can’t even afford enough coordinators for services… but it’s all about funding,

and underfunding in this case. “ (Hearing, professional)

“If we have a collaborative agreement with that school system or that county or however it’s set up, then

those students are connected at least by the fall of their junior year or earlier, based on need. If there is

not a collaborative agreement and the caseload size of the counselor that would be covering that

territory prohibits earlier contact, then they try to connect by their senior year. “ (Hearing, professional)

We have an increasing number of accommodations requests from deaf or hard of hearing TOEFL

candidates. I am not sure what that request is other than perhaps the fact that there are more deaf and

hard of hearing students who are getting higher education. . . . There may be countries where for some

time higher education wasn’t open to deaf students. And there are greater educational opportunities

now. So we are seeing the opportunity to study at an English institution.” (Hearing, professional)

“We just changed agencies, and the agency that went under had never heard of [computer-assisted

real-time captioning]. They didn’t know what it was, so it was a struggle when we suddenly had to have

mandatory webinar training for our deaf staff. The new agency didn’t know what to do. Even with CART

being provided for the kind of webinars they were doing, it didn’t help much for the deaf person to

participate because watching the CART on one part of the screen and the action on another part of the

screen . . . well it didn’t really work.” (Hearing, professional)

“The cultural, societal, sub-barriers [and] . . . attitudinal barriers build up expectations, not only of the

students themselves so they cannot be limited, but also of the environment, [the] postsecondary

environment in particular. Employers [as well] maybe. Erase some of the artificial constructs that stand

in [the] way [of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing] because of people’s attitudes about deaf

and hard of hearing.” (Hearing, professional)

18504-AAD158.4_Fall2013 11/6/13 12:44 PM Page 452

accommodations quality for students who a /d eaf or … · it possible to reliably use video remote...

Documents