In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

National Priorities National Priorities on Educational Applications of Technology for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students E. Ross Stuckless and James K. Carroll, Editors Perhaps the single most hopeful prospect for achieving quantum leaps in progress for persons who are deaf lies with technology, much of it computer-based.1 Modern technology's special contributions to the well-being of deaf people in this country are generally acknowledged, particularly with respect to communication. Telecommunication devices, assistive listening devices, and captions immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, we cannot take great satisfaction in the scope or quality of technology presently being applied to the education of deaf students nationally. Presentations made at the 1992 National Symposium on Educational Applications of Technology for Deaf Students, however, attest to the presence of exemplary practices and models. Nationally recognized priorities in this area presently do not exist. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) of the Department of Education suggested that the National Symposium held May 1992 in Rochester, New York, include within its agenda provisions for the identification of nationally recognized priorities for the application of technology to the education of deaf students. The program planners and participants were glad to respond. The procedures used and the results follow. Procedures for Identifying Priorities Participants The priorities are extracted from the formal discussion and recommendations of the 232 people who participated in the symposium. The following information is presented as an indication of the representativeness of this group. • Two hundred seventeen were residents of the United States and came from 33 states. (Fifteen came from Australia , Canada, Japan, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.) • Thirty-one schools for the deaf and 26 local and intermediate school districts were represented. Participants from these programs included a mix of teachers, media specialists , and administrators. • Twenty-three colleges and universities were represented among the participants. Most of these institutions offer programs of services to deaf and hard of hearing students . The majority of participants from these colleges and universities were teaching faculty working directly with postsecondary deaf students and/or preparing elementary /secondary teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing. • Thirteen private and governmental agencies were identified by participants as their places of employment. Program Context The symposium program was organized around six general topics. The topics in turn were based on more than 400 returns from a national survey of people associated professionally with the education of deaf students. The survey essentially asked respondents what kinds of presentations would interest them as participants in a national symposium on media and technology in the education of deaf students. The following major program topics (each with numerous subtopics) were selected: • Instructional applications of computers • Instructional applications of television • Media development and utilization American Annals of the Deaf • Telecommunications •Administrative applications of technology • Special considerations for mainstreamed deaf students Sources of Data Four steps were taken to gather and refine information concerning national priorities from the participants. 1. On the closing day of the symposium, participants were asked to join one of six discussion groups, each focusing on one of the six major program topics. Moderators and recorders were assigned to each of the six groups. The groups in turn were asked to identify what they considered to be the major issues, needs, and priorities related to their topic area. They were also instructed not to concern themselves with funding questions. 2. Participants were invited to respond to a survey form in their packets. They were to indicate what they felt were the top two national needs in applying technology to the education of deaf and hard of hearing students. 3. Following the symposium, several participants sent letters to the program planners on their own initiative, suggesting particular priorities which they felt had been overlooked or understated during the program. 4. A draft of the national priorities was sent to every participant with the invitation to comment or suggest specific revisions while the priorities were still in draft form. Organization of the Priorities The coeditors of these priorities, both of whom had active roles in planning the symposium, independently and together reviewed all the material gathered through Steps 13 . As expected, many of the comments extended across...

pdf