jillio

UNDER A GRANT to improve outcomes for students who are deaf or hard
of hearing awarded to the Association of College Educators—Deaf/Hard
of Hearing, a team identified content that all teachers of students who
are deaf and hard of hearing must understand and be able to teach. Also
identified were 20 practices associated with content standards (10 each,
literacy and science/mathematics). Thirty-seven master teachers identified
by grant agents rated the practices on a Likert-type scale indicating
the maximum benefit of each practice and maximum likelihood that
they would use the practice, yielding a likelihood-impact analysis. The
teachers showed strong agreement on the benefits and likelihood of
use of the rateUd practices. Concerns about implementation of many of
the practices related to time constraints and mixed-ability classrooms
were themes of the reviews. Actions for teacher preparation programs
were recommended.

The preferred philosophies of communication reportedly used by the master teachers’ programs were speech (3, or 8.2%), sign (9, or 24.3%), speech and sign (15, or 40.5%), Cued Speech (1, or 2.7%) and other (8, or 21.6%). Descriptors applied to “other” included “all,” “bilingual,” and “a variety.” The master teachers ranged in experience
from 5 to 29 years.

LITERACY PRACTICES
When asked to rate the literacy practice of providing and monitoring independent reading activities, 86% of
the master teachers indicated that they felt that the practice was clearly beneficial to most beneficial, and 83%
indicated that they were very likely to highly likely to engage in the practice. Only 8.4% indicated that they were
least likely to engage or might engage in this practice.

When asked to rate the literacy practice of using technology, 76% of the master teachers indicated that they
considered the practice clearly beneficial to most beneficial; 70% indicated that they were very likely to highly
likely to engage in the practice. Only 9% indicated that they were least likely to engage or might engage in this practice.

When asked to rate the literacy practice of teaching phonemic awareness and phonics, 46% of the master
teachers indicated that they felt the practice was clearly beneficial to most beneficial; 45% indicated that they
were very likely to highly likely to engage in the practice. Thirty-six percent of the participants indicated that they
were least likely to engage or might engage in this practice. Phonemic awareness and phonics received the most mixed review of all the strategies identified.

When asked to rate the literacy practice of teaching metacognitive skills such as the use of reading strategies, 89% of the master teachers indicated that they felt that the practice was clearly beneficial to most beneficial, and 89% indicated that they were very likely to highly likely to engage in the practice.

When asked to rate the literacy practice of writing as a tool to teach reading, 89% of the master teachers indicated that they felt the practice was clearly beneficial to most beneficial, and 78% indicated that they were likely
to very likely to engage in the practice.

When asked to rate the literacy practice of using content-area reading materials to promote reading comprehension, 78% indicated that they felt the practice was clearly beneficial to most beneficial, and 83% indicated that they were very likely to highly likely to engage in the practice, indicating strong agreement among the participants. Only 8% of the master teachers indicated that they were least likely to engage in or might engagein the practice.

When asked to rate the literacy practice of having students collaborate on activities that promote literacy
development, 62% indicated that they considered the practice clearly beneficial to most beneficial, and 52% indicated that they were very likely to highly likely to engage in the practice. Twenty percent of the master teachers
indicated that they were least likely to engage in or might engage in the practice.


Easterbrooks, S., Stephenson, B., & Mertens, D. (2006). Master teacher responses to twenty literacy and science/mathematic practices in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf. 151:4. 398-409

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Interpretrator

Good to know I'm not completely useless.

jillio

We knew that all along! Given the renewed interest and all the discussions regarding literacy via CS, I thought the results were quite interesting.

Interpretrator

Actually these studies mostly depress me because my students all fall into the "why didn't someone try to TEACH this person anything??" category, so all the good theory in the world often goes out the window. We do require all students to take our reading, grammar, and writing classes together, as well as ASL (which is taught by a deaf teacher specifically for deaf ASL users).

shel90

speech and sign gets the highest percentage. I am glad to know that!

__________________
~Shel~

jillio

Unfortunately, we all see those students. And, in my experience, the majority have not had benefit of being taught by TODs, but have been mainstreamed and taught by general ed. and special ed. teachers.

jillio

Yeppers. And phonological approaches get the most mixed reviews, as well as the least likely to be employed. The problem is, the general ed and special ed teachers responsible for the mainstreamed students aren't paying attention to what the specialists in deaf ed are saying.