Educating Deaf Students: Global Perspectives

Providing Access for Deaf Students in a Technical University in the United States: Perspectives of Students and Instructors

Providing Access for Deaf Students in a Technical University in the United States Perspectives of Students and Instructors SUSAN FOSTER, GARY LONG, JUDY FERRARI, AND KAREN SNELL
As a member college of the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) is in a unique position to identify the efficacy of inclusive education. More than 400 deaf students who are enrolled in the other six colleges of RIT receive support services through NTID. Thus, RIT/NTID and its faculty have a wealth of experience and expertise in teaching and providing tutoring, note-taking, and interpreting for students who are deaf. This paper presents a subset of data from a longitudinal study of the conditions that affect access to teaching and participation in learning by deaf postsecondary students in mainstream class settings at RIT (Foster, Long, & Snell, 1999). Critical areas explored across programs include the perceptions of deaf and hearing students regarding communication and engagement within the class and the perceptions of mainstream instructors regarding their teaching experiences with deaf students. Data presented in this paper reflect the experiences of students and instructors in science and engineering programs. Method Quantitative and qualitative research methods were used to collect data from students and instructors regarding academic inclusion. Quantitative tools include the Academic Engagement Form (AEF) and the Classroom Communication Ease Scale (CCES). Interviews were conducted with instructors using qualitative methods. 185 Academic Engagement Form Engagement refers to the extent that students’ efforts, persistence, and emotional states during learning activities reflect a commitment to learning and successful academic performance (Skinner, Wellborn, & Conner, 1990). Classroom Communication Ease Scale One way of assessing how successfully an inclusive environment promotes equal access to instruction is to compare the perceptions of deaf and hearing students about their ease or difficulty in communication. For this study, a modified version of the CCES (Garrison, Long, & Stinson, 1993) was used, in which communication ease is conceptualized as having two dimensions : a cognitive dimension and an affective (interpersonal) one. Deaf and hearing science (n = 35), and engineering (n = 22) majors were paid $10 each to fill out the AEF and CCES. Hearing students were matched with deaf students by gender, course, and major. Materials were placed in student departmental mail folders, and students were informed about the study and reminded via e-mail to return the questionnaires. Fifty-seven students (37 deaf and 20 hearing) responded to the questionnaires. The average student was 22 years old; 20 were female and 37 were male. Instructor Interviews The quantitative tools described above focus on student perceptions of the teaching and learning experience; however, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Another piece involves instructors’ perceptions of what it is like to work with deaf students. How do instructors feel about teaching deaf students ? Do they do anything differently or special to accommodate the needs of deaf learners? What do they feel are the responsibilities of deaf students in accessing information in mainstream courses? These and other questions were raised through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with instructors who have had deaf students in their science and engineering classes. Such interviews are a conventional qualitative research technique used to explore in detail with research participants their experiences, beliefs, and perspectives regarding a particular idea, practice, circumstance, or event (Spradley, 1979). A list of potential instructors to be contacted for interviews was devel186 Foster, Long, Ferrari, and Snell oped by NTID faculty who provide tutoring for students enrolled in supported courses. Interviews lasted approximately one hour. Core topics covered in the interview included instructors’ perceptions of (1) deaf students enrolled in their classes, (2) barriers to access within their classes, and (3) strategies they use to facilitate access to their course materials. To date, seven interviews have been completed. Results This paper presents results from two sets of data. From the CCES, findings are presented regarding deaf and hearing students’ responses to the openended questions. From the instructor interviews, findings are presented regarding their perceptions of strategies that promote inclusion of deaf students within their classes. AEF results as well as other findings from the CCES and instructor interviews will be presented at a later date in a separate and more extensive paper. Results from Open-Ended Questions on the CCES Students were asked to fill in the blank space in two open-ended sentences about communication: “Communication in the classroom is best for me when _________” and...