INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explenation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the mining page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of die page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR 790Q7«5 3ELLICK, HEATHER LYNNE A s u r v e y of c o m m u n i c a t i o n me th od s and t r e n d s IN PROGRAMS FOR HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS IN MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, P H , D , , University Microfilms International 300 n . z e e b r o a d , a n m a r b o r , mi 4 8 io e 1978 A SURVEY OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TRENDS IN PROGRAMS FOR HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS IN MICHIGAN By Heather Lynne S e llic k A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f the requirements fo r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1978 ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TRENDS IN PROGRAMS FOR HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS IN MICHIGAN By Heather Lynne S e llic k This study focused on the use o f oral and to ta l communica­ tion approaches in public school special education classrooms fo r hearing impaired students in Michigan. of the study were to: The s ix major objectives (1) survey the public school programs serving hearing impaired learners in order to determine which communication approaches are cu rren tly used; (2) determine the relatio n sh ip between approaches used, education le v e l, degree o f hearing loss, and func­ tio n al deafness; (3) determine changes in the communication approaches used in educational programs since 1971; (4) determine the degree of teacher and teacher-perceived parent s a tis fa c tio n with the communica­ tio n approaches used; (5) determine the nature o f methods o f to ta l communication used, including the sign systems used, whether attempts at standardization o f signs w ith in school d is tr ic ts have been made, and whether formal classes in sign language are offered to hearing impaired students and other groups w ith in a d is t r ic t ; and (6) determine i f systematic measures o f pupil academic progress are u tiliz e d . Heather Lynne S e llic k The data were gathered by means o f a mailed questionnaire developed in cooperation with the Special Education Service Area o f the Michigan Department o f Education. of two p arts . This questionnaire consisted The second part o f the questionnaire, Part B, com­ pleted by the classroom teachers o f programs fo r the hearing im paired, provided the data fo r th is study. The inform ation obtained was tabulated and resulted in the follow ing conclusions. 1. There is a large and continuing trend in Michigan toward use o f the to ta l communication approach in public school special education classrooms at a ll educational levels fo r hearing impaired students. C u rre n tly , there 1s approximately equal u t iliz a t io n o f oral and to ta l communication in classes fo r hearing im paired. Since 1971 the number o f oral classes has s lig h tly decreased, w hile the number o f to ta l communication classes has increased d ra m a tic a lly . 2. The oral approach is used more frequ en tly a t the e a r lie r educational lev els (preschool through middle school) and to ta l com­ munication is used more frequ en tly a t the high school educational le v e l. 3. Total communication is used more frequ en tly w ith students who have severe/profound hearing losses and w ith students who are fu n c tio n a lly deaf. 4. The degree o f teacher s a tis fa c tio n and teacher- perceived parent s a tis fa c tio n w ith the conmunication approach used did not d i f f e r appreciably between the o ral and to ta l communication approach. Some o f the oral teachers expressed a desire to change to Heather Lynne S e llic k to tal communication. None o f the to ta l communication teachers indicated a desire to change communication approaches. 5. The newer sign systems—Signing Exact English and Signed English—are most frequently used at the preschool through middle school levels. A combination of American Sign Language and Signing Exact English is most frequently used at the high school le v e l. 6. Fewer than h a lf of the teachers using to ta l communica­ tion o ffe r formal classes in fingerspelling and sign to hearing impaired students. There is a need to o ffe r instruction in sign and fingerspelling to hearing impaired and hearing students, teach­ ers, support personnel, and parents to provide necessary communica­ tion support to the hearing impaired students in to ta l communication classrooms. 7. There has been minimal standardization of signs or mini­ mal plans to standardize sign systems used 1n classrooms and programs fo r the hearing impaired within intermediate school d is tric ts . This situation reflects a lack of continuity and coordination of programs between educational levels and classrooms. 8. In a m ajority of the classrooms, teachers use a formal system fo r measuring pupil academic progress. A need, however, fo r Increased systematic evaluation of hearing impaired students' academic achievement is evident. The most frequently used systems o f measure­ ment were individual achievement tests and performance objectives. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A study of th is nature requires the assistance and coopera­ tion o f many in d ivid u als . This opportunity is taken to express sincere appreciation to the follow ing persons fo r th e ir encourage­ ment and meaningful contributions which helped make th is study possible. To Dr. Charles E. Henley, chairperson o f the guidance com­ m ittee and major advisor, fo r his thoughtful assistance, caring, counsel, humor, and encouragement throughout th is study and the e n tire doctoral program. To Dr. Edwin J. K e lle r, committee member, fo r his invalu ­ able knowledge, s e n s itiv ity , and many hours spent in guidance during th is study. To Mrs. Vivian Stevenson, committee member, whose dedica­ tio n to the f ie ld o f hearing impaired and knowledge make her an outstanding contributor to deaf education and th is study. To Dr. Stanley E. Bryan, Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, and Dr. Howard W. Hickey, committee members, fo r th e ir helpful sugges­ tions and general in te re s t with th is study. To the Special Education Service Area o f the Michigan Depart­ ment o f Education and Dr. Richard Baldwin, State Consultant fo r Speech and Hearing Impaired, whose support o f th is study is g ra te fu lly acknowledged. To those special friends and fa m ily , p a r tic u la r ly , T .D .S ., who have been an endless source o f f a i t h , support, and encouragement e s p ec ia lly to my parents, Florence Smith S e llic k and Jack S e llic k , fo r t h e ir love, f a i t h , support, guidance, and encouragement through­ out my l i f e and educational career. F in a lly , Duodecim pedidus . . . paulo d iu tiu s ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TA B LES................................................................................. . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................v i i i Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................. Need fo r the S t u d y ................................................................. Purpose of the S t u d y ............................................................. Lim itations of the Study ..................................................... D efin itio n o f Terms ................................................................. Overview of the S tu d y .................................................... 1 4 4 5 5 9 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................ 10 Communication Trends ............................................................. Oral and Total Communication Research ............................. Research Supporting Oral Communication ..................... Research Supporting Total Communication ..................... National Survey ......................................................................... Michigan Studies ..................................................................... Summary......................................................................................... 10 11 12 13 17 17 20 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES ..................................................... 22 Introduction ............................................................................. P o p u la tio n ................................................................................. Development o f the Questionnaire .................................... Procedures for D istrib u tio n and C ollection of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . ................................. Research Questions ................................................................. 22 22 23 25 27 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THEDATA.............................. 35 Introduction ............................................................................. R e s u lts ......................................................................................... Major F in d in g s ......................................................................... 35 35 68 iv Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 72 Summary...................................................................................... C onclusions.............................................................................. D is c u s s io n .............................................................................. Recommendations ...................................................................... 72 73 75 78 APPENDICES A. PART B OF QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED BY CLASSROOM TEACHERS OF PROGRAMS FOR HEARING IM P A IR E D .................................................................................. 81 B. COVER LETTER TO TEACHERS...................................................... 85 C. LIST OF 58 MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLDISTRICTS . . 86 REFERENCES................................................................................................... v 87 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Page The Number and Percentage of Classrooms Currently Using Oral and Total Communication Approaches According to Educational Level ........................................ 37 The Number and Percentage of Classrooms Serving Three Levels of Hearing Loss According to Educational Level and Communication Method Used 38 . . Distribution of Functionally Deaf Students at Each Hearing Loss L e v e l............................................................... 40 The Number and Percentage of Classrooms in 1971-72 Using Oral and Total Communication Approaches According to Educational Level ........................................ 43 Summary o f the Percentages of Classrooms Using Oral and Total Communication Approaches at Each Educational Level in 1971 and 1978 ................................ 44 The Number and Percentage of Programs fo r Each Year From 1971 to 1978 Using the Oral Communication and Total Communication Approaches ........................................ 45 Previous and Present Uses of Communication Approaches at Various EducationalLevels ....................... 47 The Number and Percentage of Oral Classes Since 1971 Which Have Changed to Total Communication at Each Educational L e v e l ................................................ 48 The Percentage o f the Total Number of Classrooms That Changed From Oral to Total Communication Approach a t Each Educational Level From 1971 to 1978 ........................................................................................... 49 The Number and Percentage o f Oral and Total Communication Classrooms Added Since 1971 50 D istribution of Teachers According to Degree of Satisfaction by Educational Level and Communication Approach ........................................................ 52 vi Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Page The D is trib u tio n o f Teachers According to Desire to Change, by Educational Level and Conmunication Approach.......................................................................................... 54 The D istrib u tio n o f Teachers According to Change in Communication Approach Desired, by Educational Level and CommunicationApproach ........................................... 55 The Number and Percentage o f Teachers Reporting Levels o f Parent S atisfactio n With the Communication Method Used at EachEducational L e v e l ............................... 58 The Number and Percentage o f Teachers Reporting Levels o f Parent S atisfactio n With the Program fo r the Hearing Impaired .......................................................................... 59 Percentage o f Sign Systems Used a t Each Educational L e v e l ...................................................................................... 61 The Frequency o f the Following Reference Books at Each Educational Level Cited as E ith e r a Primary (P) or Supplementary (S)ReferenceSource fo r Sign . . 62 The Number and Percentages o f Classrooms Using Total Communication Providing or P a rtic ip a tin g in Formal Classes fo r Sign and Fingerspelling fo r the Indicated Groups ............................................................. 65 Number and Percentage o f Teachers Employing a Formal Systematic Measure o f Academic Pupil Progress . . . . 67 Number and Percentage o f Measures o f Pupil Academic A c h ie v e m e n t......................................................................... v ii 67 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. CEASD Hearing Threshold Chart ............................................. 29 2. Graph o f Classrooms Using Oral Communication and Total Communication Approaches Yearly Since 1971 to 1978 ............................................................................... 46 v iii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the most controversial and emotional issues in the area of special education is th at o f determining the proper commu­ nication method to use with hearing impaired in d ividu als. The con­ troversy exists between two sp ecific philosophies of communication: oral/au ral and to ta l communication. This issue has been debated fo r over a hundred years with the involvement o f hearing impaired in d i­ viduals, th e ir parents, and education professionals. I t has been an exceptionally emotional issue based prim arily on rh eto ric rather than empirical evidence. During the past decade, however, propon­ ents of to ta l communication have conducted research which supports the thesis that the educational achievement of the deaf learner is increased with the early use o f to ta l communication. Because o f th is research there has been a reported increase in the number of to ta l communication programs, with some dedicated o ra lis ts changing to support the to ta l communication approach. There i s , however, minimal data regarding the present extent o f the use o f the two methods in public school programs in Michigan. Background Proponents or the oral and to ta l communication philosophies perceive the primary needs o f persons (especially children) with 2 hearing impairments very d if f e r e n t ly . The o ra lis ts strongly believe th a t a hearing impaired c h ild must learn to liv e in the world o f the hearing and th a t the a b i l i t y to communicate o r a lly is essen tial fo r e ffe c tiv e p a rtic ip a tio n 1n th a t world. The fundamental p o sitio n o f the o r a lis t is th a t tra in in g in speech and speechreading provides an ea sie r adjustment to the world in which speech is the c h ie f medium o f communica­ tio n (Davis & Silverman, 1960, p. 240). The strong o r a lis t believes th a t: (1 ) deaf child ren should be taught lip re ad in g from the beginning, (2 ) deaf children must be in an ex clu sive ly oral environment, and (3 ) syste­ matic signing must be elim inated during the c r i t i c a l period o f speech and language development (D iC arlo , 1974, p. 115). Hearing parents o f hearing impaired children are gen erally supporters o f oral communication because o f the desire to have t h e ir children use speech. Speech is the only means o f communication these parents have known, and i t is the method most accepted in th e ir world. Total communication is a philosophy which stresses the use o f a l l forms o f communication in order to help the hearing impaired c h ild develop a usable language system. Proponents o f to ta l commu­ nication believe th a t the most e ffe c tiv e way fo r a c h ild to gain receptive and expressive language is through the combined u t iliz a t io n o f: child-devised gestures, a m p lific a tio n , speech, lip re a d in g , fin g e rs p e llin g , formal signs, reading, and w ritin g . The highly in d i­ vidual needs o f the c h ild are stressed in to ta l communication. Total communication proponents r e fe r to " f i t t i n g the method to the ch ild " ra th e r than " f i t t i n g the c h ild to the method." Of primary importance is the e a rly development o f communication and language. Deaf parents o f deaf children have been firm supporters o f to ta l communication 3 because they understand the essential need fo r the development of communication and language in infancy and early childhood. The use of oral and total communication methods 1n educa­ tional programs has been further complicated by a lack of established c r ite r ia fo r determining the effectiveness o f each system with in d i­ vidual hearing impaired persons. The lack of a legal d e fin itio n of deafness or hearing impairment fu rther complicates educational pro­ gramming. One dimension of a hearing impairment may be determined through an audiometric evaluation which indicates the physiological quality of the hearing loss. onset. Another important factor is the age of For example, a prelingually deaf child (the loss occurring before language has been acquired) has a much more d if f ic u lt time acquiring language than a postlingually deaf child (one who has lost hearing a fte r the development of speech). Jack Birch (1975) speaks to this issue in Hearing Impaired Children in the Mainstream: ". . . I t is not feasible to use only the audiometric c la s s ific a ­ tion to predict how an individual hearing impaired child might achieve in school." Determination o f the appropriate type of com­ munication to help the individual child develop language and achieve academically as well as socially should be based on a combination of c r ite r ia . These should include: audiometric threshold, usable residual hearing, speech discrim ination, environmental e ffe c ts , the individual ch ild 's behavior, age o f onset, etio lo g y, psycho­ social development, and perhaps additional impairing conditions. 4 Need fo r the Study In Michigan there has been much discussion during the past few years regarding these two communication philosophies in the s ta te 's public school programs fo r the hearing impaired. i f any, factual data has been available concerning: L ittle , (1) the spe­ c if ic communication methods being used, (2) the populations (educa­ tional le v e l, degree of hearing loss) with whom each method is used, (3) specific sign systems used when the communication method is to ta l communication, and (4) the factors influencing choice and the use o f a sp ecific educational approach. This information is needed by educators, parents, and others who are concerned with the hearing impaired and with the provision o f the best possible pro­ gramming fo r th is population. Such information would be relevant to college and university teacher tra in in g programs, as well as to the Michigan Department of Education Special Education Service Area consultants in carrying out th e ir role o f educational leadership and information dissemination. This basic data is needed to provide a foundation fo r additional research and to make in te llig e n t pro­ gramming decisions fo r developing an evaluation of method effectiveness. Purpose o f the Study The purposes o f th is study are to: (1) survey the public school programs serving hearing impaired learners in order to deter­ mine which communication approaches are currently used; (2) determine the relationship between approaches used, education le v e l, and the degree of loss o f the students served; (3) determine changes in the 5 communication approaches in educational programs since 1971; (4) determine the degree of teacher and parent s a tis fa c tio n with the communication approach employed; (5) determine the nature o f methods o f to ta l communication used, including the sign systems cur­ re n tly used, whether attempts at standardization w ithin d is tr ic ts havebeen made, whether formal classes in sign language to hearing students and other groups w ith in a d is t r ic t ; are offered and (6) deter­ mine i f systematic measures o f pupil academic progress are u tiliz e d . Lim itations o f the Study 1. The study was lim ite d to the state o f Michigan. 2. The study was lim ite d to classroom programs and did not sample other in s tru ctio n al approaches fo r serving hearing impaired students. 3. The r e l i a b i l i t y o f the data collected depended upon teacher accuracy in responding to a mailed questionnaire. 4. The study was lim ite d to the perceptions and judgments o f the teachers who responded. D e fin itio n o f Terms D e fin itio n s are v ita l to a common understanding o f the mean­ ing o f terms used in th is study. The follow ing d e fin itio n s w ill be used: Hearing Impairment— "A generic term in d icatin g a hearing d is ­ a b ilit y which may range from mild to profound: sets o f deaf and hard o f hearing. i t includes the sub­ A deaf person is one whose hearing d is a b ility precludes successful processing o f lin g u is tic information 6 through audition, with or without a hearing aid . A hard of hearing person is one who, with the use of a hearing a id , has residual hearing s u ffic ie n t to enable successful processing of lin g u is tic information through audition" {Report of the Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf [CEASD] Ad Hoc Committee to Define Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 1975, p. 509). Hearing Impaired— "Means a person id e n tifie d by an educa­ tional planning and placement committee, based upon evaluation by an audiologist and otolaryngologist, and other pertinent information as having a hearing impairment which interferes with learning" (Rule 340.1707 of the Michigan Special Education Code, p. 3 ). Hearing Threshold Levels--"The decibel scores obtained by a q ualified audiologist using an average of scores within the fre ­ quency range commonly considered necessary to process lin g u is tic information" (Report of the CEASD Ad Hoc Committee, 1975, p. 510). Hearing Loss--A reduced level of auditory acuity, determined by audiometric assessment. Educational Planning and Placement Committee— "Educational Planning and Placement Committee (E .P.P .C .) means a committee of an operating d is tr ic t or agency whose members shall include, as a mini­ mum, a representative o f the adm inistrative personnel, instructional personnel, diagnostic personnel and parents invited to particip ate when th e ir children are involved" (Michigan Special Education Code as Amended January 14, 1977, p. 1 ). The Oral Approach--(The o ral/au ral method) "In this method, as practiced in its pure form, the deaf child is instructed through 7 speech and w ritin g . . . . He, in tu rn , communicates through speech, speechreading, w ritin g and reading" (Q uigley, 1967, p. 3 ). Oral ism— "Oral ism is a point o f view which requires th a t a ll communications . . . be done ex clu sive ly by means o f speech and speechreading" (K atz, M athis, & M e r r i l l, 1974, p. 16). Oral Classroom— This re fe rs to an educational s e ttin g in which a ll communication is exclu sively the o ra l/a u ra l method. Total Communication— Refers to . . the rig h t o f every deaf c h ild to learn to use a ll forms of communication in order th a t he may have the f u ll opportunity to develop language competence at the e a r lie s t possible age. This implies the introduction o f a r e lia b le receptive-expressive symbol system in the preschool years between the ages o f one and f iv e . spectrum o f language modes: Total Communication includes the f u ll formal sign language; speech; speech- reading; fin g e rs p e llin g ; reading; w ritin g ; and, child-devised signs" (Maryland School fo r Deaf, Dr. David Denton, 1970). Total Communication Approach—This is the use o f a ll forms o f communication including formal sign language, speech, speechreading, fin g e rs p e llin g , reading, w r itin g , and child-devised signs. Total Communication Classroom—This re fe rs to an educational s e ttin g in which the Total Communication approach is used. Residual Hearing— 11. . . refers to any amount o f hearing th a t remains functional a f t e r hearing loss has been sustained" (K atz, M athis, & M e r r i l l , 1974, p. 6 ). 8 Prelingual Deafness--"Deafness present at b irth or occurring early in l i f e at an age p rio r to the development of speech or lan­ guage" (Report of the CEASD Ad Hoc Committee, 1975, p. 510), Postlingual Deafness— "Deafness occurring at an age following the development o f speech and language" (Report of the CEASD Ad Hoc Committee, 1975, p. 510). Rochester Method—This method also uses speech, speechread­ ing, w ritin g , and reading as a means o f communication between students and instructors but adds fing ersp ellin g as an additional communication avenue (Quigley, 1967, p. 3 ). Simultaneous Method— "In the Simultaneous Method, communica­ tion and instruction are conducted in the same manner as in the Rochester Method with the addition of manual signs. This method also is known as the French Method due to its o rig in a l use in France through the work o f the Abbe Charles Michel de l'Epee in the eighteenth century" (Q u ig le y ,1967, p. 3 ). American Sign Language— "Sign Language is a language in which what are commonly called gestures do the usual work o f words, or more p recisely, in which cheremes are found instead o f phonemes. But, most important, i t is also a language th at has its own morphology, syntax, and semantics" (Stokoe, 1970, p. 5 ). Signed Eng1ish--"This--Signed English— is a rapid succession of glossing the content words o f an English utterance more or less approximately and glossing some function-words, but not a l l . usually includes fingerspelled words as well as signs. It Both the signer and the addressee in th is mode must know English well because 9 the signs are put together as i f they were English words and not by the rules o f Sign Language syntax" (Stokoe, 1970, p. 5 ). Seeing Essential English—A system o f manually representing English spearheaded by David Anthony (SEE I ) . Signing Exact English— A system o f manually representing English developed by G erilee Gustason (SEE I I ) . Functional Deafness--For the purpose o f th is study, a hearing impairment in which there is no usable hearing fo r educational pur­ poses. This is based on the CEASD d e fin itio n o f "those in whom the sense o f hearing is nonfunctional fo r the ordinary purposes o f l i f e " ( B r i l l , 1971, p. 2 ). Overview o f the Study The remainder o f th is study is organized in the follow ing manner: In Chapter I I the p e rtin e n t lite r a tu r e is reviewed. review has three parts: The (1) a review o f research supporting oral and to ta l communication, (2 ) a review o f a National Survey, and (3) a review o f the Michigan Studies regarding the ro le o f the Michigan School fo r the Deaf. In Chapter I I I the population is defined, the instrum entation used and the procedures fo r c o lle c tio n o f the data are discussed, and the research questions are presented. Chapter IV presents the resu lts and major findings o f the study in the form o f tables and discussion. Chapter V contains a summary, discussion, and recommendations fo r fu rth e r study. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In order to gain h is to ric a l perspective regarding the con­ troversy between proponents o f the oral and proponents o f the to ta l communication philosophy with hearing impaired learners, research supporting both of these approaches w ill be reviewed. Communication Trends Jordan, Gustason, and Rosen {1975) conducted a sample survey of communication methods used in schools and classes fo r hearing impaired learners to determine the frequency of use o f the various methods. Programs lis te d with the Gallaudet O ffice o f Demographic Studies were surveyed. The results of th is study indicated an increase in and continuing trend toward to ta l comnunication with more than 64 percent o f the reporting classes using th at method. A sig ­ n ific a n t number o f programs were o fferin g formal sign classes to parents as well as to hearing impaired students. In order to deter­ mine the sp ecific systems o f manual communication employed, the sign books used were surveyed. Newer systems of manual communication were found to be used a t the preschool and elementary le v e l. Of the 565 programs which were using to ta l communication, over h a lf were found to have made an attempt to standardize the signs used. 10 11 Oral and Total Communication Research The development o f language and speech are generally the major objectives o f educational programs fo r hearing impaired stu­ dents, and a re , th e re fo re , the issues addressed in research support­ ing both oral and to ta l communication. Since academic achievement is dependent on the acquisition o f language, the research usually examines the academic achievement and speech proficiency of the hear­ ing impaired as indicators o f language and speech development. Because proponents o f the oral method are p rim a rily concerned with speech development and a r tic u la tio n , th is tends to be the major emphasis of th e ir studies and lit e r a t u r e . Total communication pro­ ponents emphasize language development and academic achievement. The studies cited are ex post facto studies, except fo r White and Stevenson's (1975) experimental study, and are c r itic iz e d by the opponents o f each method fo r several reasons: (1) ex post facto designs inherently disallow fo r the control o f independent variables and thus extraneous dependent or independent variables may account fo r the results obtained; (2) the studies seldom employ matching techniques or the drawing o f random samples from reference popula­ tio n s , and as a re s u lt the com parability o f groups is open to ques­ tio n ; and (3) the studies have generally been conducted a t schools in which a tr u ly oral population may not e x is t, thus v it ia tin g con­ clusions comparing th is population with a to ta l communication popu­ la tio n . The studies to be cited equate deaf children o f hearing parents and day students as oral groups and deaf children o f deaf 12 parents and residential students as to ta l communication groups. Generally, students of hearing parents only have exposure to oral communication and attend school on a day basis, while deaf children of deaf parents and residential students have early exposure to to ta l communication. Research Supporting Oral Communication Proponents o f the oral method stress the importance o f speech development and a rtic u la tio n , and claim that by reducing the oralness of a program the achievement of in t e llig ib le speech is also reduced. Quigley and Frisina (1961) compared the speech of day students (the oral group) and residential students (the to ta l communication group). They also compared day students of hearing parents (oral group) and day students o f deaf parents (to ta l communication group). The results of this study indicated that day students had sig n ific a n tly b etter speech than residential students and that day students of hearing parents had s ig n ific a n tly b etter speech than day students o f deaf parents. The conclusion was made that "oralness of the environment" s ig n ific a n tly affects speech development. Additional research conducted by Quigley (1967) and Stuckless and Birch (1966) supports the hypothesis that students from a more oral environment have s lig h tly superior speech. White (1969) expanded on Quigley and F risina's study by com­ paring the speech o f students in a day program with a matched group from a residential school. Students were matched on age, sex, in te llig e n c e , hearing loss, and age of onset. I t was found that deaf 13 students in the day program made s ig n ific a n tly fewer errors in a rtic u la tio n than the resid en tial school students, with the conclu­ sion th a t the oral ness o f the environment increases speech i n t e l l i ­ g ib ilit y . The same argument which the o ra lis ts use against the research which supports the use o f to ta l communication can be applied to a review o f the research which supports the thesis that an oral environ­ ment fo r hearing impaired students enhances speech a r tic u la tio n . That is , these ex post facto studies do not control fo r the indepen­ dent variables and, therefore, do not establish a causal re latio n sh ip . These studies provide support th at increased speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y can occur in a more oral environment. Research Supporting Total Communication The research in support o f to ta l communication is also o f an ex post facto nature, except fo r White and Stevenson's study. That study w ill be reviewed in depth la te r because o f its significance as an experimental design. Quigley and Frisina (1961), in the study cited e a r lie r , stressed the correlation between language development and academic achievement. I t was found that students of deaf parents had sig ­ n ific a n tly larger vocabularies than students of hearing parents. It was fu rther found that a high co rrelatio n existed between vocabulary and academic achievement. Stuckless and Birch (1966) looked a t the effe c ts o f e a rly exposure to manual communication by matching deaf children o f deaf 14 parents who used combined communication methods and deaf children o f hearing parents who used only the oral method. These groups were matched according to sex, schools, hearing lo s s , and age o f onset o f deafness. I t was found th a t e a rly exposure to manual communication had no major e ffe c t on the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f speech; had a s i g n i f i ­ can tly b e tte r e ffe c t on reading, speechreading, and w ritin g achieve­ ment; and did not negatively influence psychological development. Meadows (1968) conducted a study which matched deaf children o f deaf parents and deaf children o f hearing parents according to age, sex, and in te llig e n c e . Results indicated a s u p e rio rity o f deaf children o f deaf parents in a rith m e tic , reading, and o v e ra ll academic achievement. This study noted no d ifferences in speech and l i p - reading s k i ll s . Meadows, however, did not account fo r factors other than e a rly exposure to manual communication which might have i n f lu ­ enced academic achievement. Vernon and Koh (19 70 ), in an attempt to control fo r the inde­ pendent variab le o f the e tio lo g y o f deafness (nongenetic versus g e n e tic ), matched 32 deaf children o f deaf parents w ith 32 recessively deaf children o f hearing parents. The groups were compared on aca­ demic achievement, communication s k i l l s , and psychological ad ju st­ ment. I t was found th a t deaf children o f deaf parents exposed to fin g e rs p e llin g and signs were s ig n ific a n tly superior in academic achievement. No d iffe re n c e s , however, were found between the groups in the areas o f speech, speechreading, or psychological adjustment. Vernon and Koh (1971) matched deaf child ren o f deaf parents with deaf children o f hearing parents who had graduated from the John 15 Tracy C lin ic , according to age, sex, and in te llig e n c e . S ign ifican t superiority of deaf children o f deaf parents existed in academic achievement, speech, speechreading, and reading. A unique finding in th is study was the b e tte r speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of the deaf c h il­ dren o f deaf parents, which d ire c tly co n flicts with results of studies previously cite d . Important variables fo r which these ex post facto studies do not control are: degree o f parent acceptance, deaf parents' usual choice of resid en tial schools, and hearing parents' usual choice of day schools. I t is believed th at deaf children o f hearing parents in a resid en tial school are more lik e ly to be less capable aca­ demically than deaf children o f hearing parents in day schools. Such a difference would influence research re s u lts , p a rtic u la rly i f the in te llig e n c e o f the children has not been controlled by matching. Since a greater number of deaf children of deaf parents are genetically deaf, there is less chance in th is group o f additional handicaps because of neurological complications. A greater number of deaf children o f hearing parents are of a nongenetic etiology and, th erefo re, the chance o f neurological dysfunction and the possi­ b i l i t y of other factors influencing c a p a b ilitie s to learn are increased. Some attempts at experimental studies have been made. Johnson (1948) studied the a b ilit y of deaf children at a residen­ t i a l school to assim ilate sentences presented by d iffe re n t modes of communication (manual, o ra l, accoustic, speech, and fin g e rs p e llin g ). Fingerspelling and signs with fin g ersp ellin g were found to be more 16 e ffe c tiv e than oral communication, and fin g e rs p e llin g was the most e ffe c tiv e means o f comnunication fo r a ll students tested . White and Stevenson (1975) conducted an experimental study o f hearing impaired children a t re s id e n tia l schools in two states in order to determine the method o f communication under which students assim ilated the most factual inform ation. A s t r a t if ie d random sample o f 45 students was drawn from the Maryland School fo r the Deaf. They were presented factu al inform ation through four modes o f communica­ tio n : o r a l, t o t a l , manual communication, and reading. dent variables were: The indepen­ method o f communication, age, and in te llig e n c e . The dependent va ria b le was the amount o f inform ation assim ilated. An experimental design was used to elim in ate the problem inherent in ex post fac to studies. The subjects were presented four passages o f factual inform ation through each o f the four modes o f communica­ tio n and each subject was compared to him self across the four modes o f communication. conclusions: The resu lts o f the study suggested the follow ing (1) hearing impaired children assim ilate more informa­ tio n through reading than they do through oral or to ta l communication, (2 ) a ll categorical sub-groups o f hearing impaired children assim i­ la te more inform ation through to ta l communication and manual commu­ n icatio n than they do through oral communication, (3) the speech component in to ta l communication does not increase the amount o f inform ation assim ilated over th a t which is assim ilated through pure manual communication, and (4) b rig h t, average, and low functioning hearing impaired children do not d if f e r in t h e ir a b i li t y to assim ilate inform ation through oral communication; however, average and b rig h t 17 children do s ig n ific a n tly b etter than low functioning children through to tal communication, manual communication, and reading. The la s t 1s perhaps the most sig n ifican t finding and presents important edu­ cational implications. Sim ilar findings were reported in a re p lica­ tion o f this study done at the Michigan School fo r the Deaf. National Survey "The Annual Survey of Hearing Impaired Children and Youth," begun in 1968, was established at Gallaudet College as a permanent research e ffo rt to "c o lle c t, process, and disseminate data on hear­ ing impaired individuals through college age in the United States." The major purpose of th is program is to improve and expand on the educational opportunities available to hearing impaired children. The Annual Survey is in itia te d by the Division of Research, Bureau of Education fo r the Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education, and since its beginning has concentrated its effo rts on data collection on hearing impaired individuals who are receiving special education services related to th e ir hearing loss. The Annual Survey, although directed toward the description of services available to hearing impaired children and youth, has not included the extent of usage of oral and to ta l communication procedures in classrooms fo r hearing impaired students. Michigan Studies In the state o f Michigan three major studies have been con­ ducted regarding the role o f the Michigan School fo r the Deaf and its relationship to local and intermediate school d is tr ic t programs 18 fo r hearing impaired and deaf and blind students. Although none o f these studies addressed the s p e c ific issue o f communication method, the findings constitute important information regarding programming fo r the hearing impaired in Michigan. The f i r s t study, in itia te d by the Michigan State Legislature in 1973, was conducted by the Special Education Research Development Corporation (S .E .R .D .) based in Washington, D.C. The recommendations of th is study were fo r the development o f regional networks through­ out the sta te which would have the re s p o n s ib ility fo r providing pro­ grams fo r m u ltip ly and severely impaired students. This report also recommended th a t the Michigan School fo r the Deaf continue as a coordinating and monitoring agent, and as a diagnostic, p re s c rip tiv e , and experimental resource and tra in in g center. The recommendations were submitted by the State Board o f Education to the le g is la tu re without recommendations fo r approval or disapproval. The second study was conducted by a Governor's E fficien cy Task Force in 1976. This Task Force examined the Michigan School fo r the Deaf and the Michigan School fo r the Blind from a coste ffe c tiv e perspective. The major recommendation was fo r a merger o f the two schools on the F lin t campus, with separate educational programs but shared noninstructional programs and f a c i l i t i e s . The State Board o f Education recommended disapproval o f th is proposal to the le g is la tu re . A th ird study was conducted in 1976-1977 by Educational Management Services (E .M .S .), a firm based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. One recommendation o f th is study was to have the Michigan School fo r 19 the Deaf phase out a ll academic programs for the "normal" deaf popu­ lation and serve only the m ultiply handicapped. Other recommenda­ tions were for the Michigan School for the Deaf to: (1) conduct short-term summer programs for "normal" deaf; (2) develop vocational assessment services; (3) conduct extensive outreach, train in g , and consultative services; and (4) develop vocational training tech­ niques. The recommendations of this study were also submitted to the legislature by the State Board of Education without recommendation for approval. The controversy regarding the role of the Michigan School for the Deaf has continued without resolution. A ll of the studies have been conducted by out-of-state agencies with the exception of the Governor's Task Force, which was comprised of business managers, not educators. In August of 1977, the State Board of Education charged the Superintendent of the Michigan School for the Deaf to conduct an administrative review to aid in the establishment of policies regarding future programs and services of the school. The Superintendent recommended that the Michigan School for the Deaf should be: (1) a comprehensive educational and vocational training center to meet the needs of students defined as needing a center program by an Educational Planning and Placement Committee; and (2) a diagnostic assessment, resource, o rien tation -train ing , commu­ n ity , and continuing education center. The administrative review stressed that the program of the Michigan School for the Deaf should be directed toward those severely/profoundly impaired students who need a total communication approach to develop language and 20 communication. These recommendations were not accepted by the State Board o f Education. The State Board of Education appointed an Ad Hoc Committee in January of 1978 to study further the proposal submitted by the Superintendent o f the Michigan School fo r the Deaf. The Ad Hoc Committee is u tiliz in g descriptive data from this study in th e ir review o f the status of programs fo r hearing impaired students in Michigan in order to help determine what the future role of the School fo r the Deaf should be. The fin a l recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee should be submitted to the State Board o f Education by June, 1978. Summary The studies of speech and artic u la tio n s k ills of hearing impaired children are inconclusive in relation to the oral and to tal communication controversy. Quigley and Frisina (1961), Stuckless and Birch (1966), Quigley (1967), and White (1969) have conducted research which concludes that students from a more oral environment have s lig h tly b etter to superior speech. Meadows (1968), Quigley (1969), and Vernon and Koh (1970, 1971) conclude from studies that there is no difference in speech and a rtic u la tio n between learners exposed to an oral-only environment and those having early exposure to to ta l communication. A ll the to ta l communication learners had superior academic achievement. Philips (1963), Craig (1974), McCroskey (1968), and others have studied the effectiveness o f o ralonly preschool programs, and conclude that there is no sig n ifica n t 21 difference in speech and a rtic u la tio n s k ills in hearing impaired learners who have had an oral preschool experience and those learn ­ ers with no preschool experience and/or deaf parents in d icatin g early exposure to to ta l communication. The research regarding educational achievement and language development is conclusively in favor o f the to ta l communication approach. CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Introduction In this chapter the population fo r the study is defined, the instrumentation and the procedures fo r collection of the data are discussed, and the research questions are presented. The treatment of the data w ill be reported by describing the crosstabulations and frequency distributions included with the discussion of each research question. Population In order to obtain the desired information regarding the public school classroom programs for hearing impaired students, a ll Michigan public school special education classrooms for hearing impaired students were surveyed, including home training programs fo r infant and preschool children. Since only the special education teachers and teacher consultants serving hearing impaired students were surveyed, information was collected on only those hearing impaired students id e n tified as such by an Educational Planning and Placement Committee and receiving the services of those professional educators. The to ta l number of classrooms fo r hearing impaired students reported by the intermediate school d is tric t special education 22 23 directors in th is survey was 344. The to ta l number o f teachers was 344 and the number o f teacher consultants was 73. Of the 344 teach­ ers, 338 (98.2 percent) returned the questionnaire by the requested tim e, and were included in the tabulation of the resu lts. The remaining six teachers returned the questionnaire a fte r the return date and were not included in the tabulation of responses. The number o f children served in classrooms fo r hearing impaired was 2,159. However, two o f the teachers did not indicate the number o f students which they serve. Duplication o f the number of students in classrooms fo r hearing impaired was possible, although teachers were instructed to count students only once. Development o f the Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with the Special Education Service Area of the Michigan Department o f Educa­ tio n . The survey information was of p a rtic u la r in te re s t to the State Department in lig h t of the need to determine the future role of the Michigan School fo r the Deaf and the lack of descriptive information regarding Michigan's school-age hearing impaired population to aid in th at decision. The State Consultant fo r Speech and Hearing Impaired requested assistance in the collection o f demographic data. The State Department o f Education needed th is type of information in order to: (1) id e n tify the availab le programs fo r Michigan's hearing impaired children, (2) compile the numbers o f children served and unserved, (3) predict future service needs, (4) assist in 24 re g io n a liza tio n planning, and (5) id e n tify gaps in the d e liv e ry system fo r the s ta te plan. A number o f meetings were held with the State Consultant to determine the s p e c ific inform ation needed regarding the education services fo r school-age hearing impaired students (0 to 25 years o f age). The decision was made to request the fo llow ing : (1 ) demo­ graphic inform ation, including the to ta l number o f hearing impaired students id e n tifie d and receiving special education classroom program or teacher consultant services, and t h e ir audiometric losses and functional le v e l; (2) s p e c ific program inform ation including the type o f service o ffe re d , c u rric u la used, communication approaches used, and resources a v a ila b le w ith in d is tr ic ts fo r diagnostic and supportive services; (3) s ta ffin g inform ation, the to ta l number o f classroom teachers and teacher consultants fo r hearing impaired; (4) formal classes in sign and/or fin g e rs p e llin g o ffered w ith in d is t r ic t s ; (5) inform ation about the s p e c ific problems and needs o f the interm ediate school d is tr ic t s in programming fo r hearing impaired students; and (6) the current and fu tu re ro le o f the Michigan School fo r the Deaf as perceived by interm ediate school d is t r ic t s . The amount o f data to be co llected raised several major issues. Is i t b e tte r to c o lle c t comprehensive inform ation and ris k inaccurate responses o r a minimal return from persons who lack ade­ quate time to answer thoroughly, or to c o lle c t e a s ie r-to -g a th e r minimal inform ation which may not provide a to ta l p ic tu re o f the educational services? The decision was made to c o lle c t comprehensive inform ation regarding programs and to c o lle c t the inform ation on a 25 classroom basis rather than fo r each individual c h ild . The decision was a compromise to obtain s u ffic ie n t data to answer the pertinent questions, and to lim it the questions so that they could be read ily answered by the teachers, teacher consultants, and intermediate d irecto rs. The support o f the Special Education Service Area in urging the cooperation o f teachers, teacher consultants, and direc­ tors is g ra te fu lly acknowledged. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. Part A was com­ pleted fo r each o f the 58 intermediate school d is tric ts by the 57 intermediate directors o f special education serving those d is tric ts (Appendix C). Part B (Appendix B) was completed by each teacher and teacher consultant o f programs fo r hearing impaired in Michigan. The responses of the classroom teachers to Part B of the question­ naire provided the data fo r the current study. Part A, not reported in th is study, was o f in te re s t to the State Department o f Education. Procedures fo r D istrib u tio n and Collection of the Questionnaire The D irector o f Special Education and the Consultant fo r Hearing Impaired of the Special Education Service Area of the Michigan Department o f Education were supportive in the preparation, d is trib u ­ tio n , and collection of the survey instrument. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a cover le t t e r from the State D irector o f Special Education Services requesting the cooperation o f the person who would be completing the questionnaire. The cover le t t e r (Appendix A) also provided instructions fo r the completion and return of the question­ naire to the Special Education Service Area o ffic e by a specified date. 26 Since both intermediate and local school d is tric ts provide service to hearing impaired students, there was a need to avoid duplication of counts. The information which applied to an e n tire intermediate d is t r ic t was completed by the intermediate special education d ire c to r, who is fa m ilia r with a ll the programs and special needs o f th a t d is ­ tr ic t. The intermediate d ire c to r was requested to complete the part of the questionnaire containing general questions regarding the e n tire intermediate d is t r ic t and to d is trib u te the questionnaires to teachers and teacher consultants in the local d is tr ic ts . The d ire c ­ tors were also requested to be responsible fo r the c o lle c tio n and return o f the questionnaires to the Michigan Department o f Education. Meetings with the Michigan Association of Intermediate Special Education Directors and the Supervisors o f the Hearing Impaired were scheduled p rio r to the d is trib u tio n o f the questionnaire fo r the purpose of explaining the format o f the questionnaire and c la rify in g questions and concerns regarding the study. The questionnaires were d is trib u ted to the 57 interm ediate special education d irectors at th e ir monthly meeting and were mailed to those d irectors not present at the meeting. Follow-up telephone c a lls were made from the Michigan Special Education Service Area Department to the intermediate school d is t r ic t d irectors who had not returned the questionnaire by the specified date. The purpose of the telephone c a lls was to inquire as to whether the questionnaires had been received and i f there were any questions regarding the d is trib u tio n and return o f the question­ naires. 27 Research Questions Research Question 1: To what extent does the use o f oral and to ta l communication vary with (a) educational le v e l, (b) level of hearing loss, and (c) the presence of functional deafness? Three subquestions were asked in relatio n to functional deafness: 1. How many students at each level o f hearing loss are functionally deaf? 2. How many functionally deaf students are in oral commu­ nication and to ta l communication classes? 3. Do d is tric ts have a d e fin itio n o f "functional deafness"? The degree o f hearing loss, functional deafness, and the edu­ cational level have a ll been cited as variables in determining the method o f communication which should be used {Furth, 1973; B r i l l , 1971). Recent lite ra tu re has indicated that the more severe the hearing loss and the e a rlie r the age of onset, the greater the need fo r to ta l communication and the development of a communication and language system. frequent. In practice, however, the opposite approach is more I n i t i a l l y , oral communication is used. to ta l communication is trie d . I f that f a i l s , One would, therefore, expect to find a larger number of middle school and high school classrooms using the to ta l communication approach, while preschool and elementary class­ rooms would be prim arily employing the oral communication approach. Much discussion has also occurred regarding the importance of looking at functional deafness in relatio n to the hearing loss le v e l. I t has been suggested th at students should receive educa­ tional programming according to the level of hearing loss indicated 28 by an audiometric assessment, since c r ite r ia have not been estab­ lished fo r determining functional deafness. Therefore, th is study looked at the hearing (audiometric) loss in re la tio n to the type o f communication approach used. The Ad Hoc Committee to Define Deaf and Hard of Hearing of the Conference of Executives o f American Schools fo r the Deaf (CEASD) in 1975 noted th at the severity o f the hearing d is a b ility and the age at which i t occurs contribute to the degree of comprehensiveness o f the services th at the ch ild and family need. The CEASD Committee also noted that the functioning level can change as well as the educational needs of the ch ild with physical, s o c ia l, personal, or psychological problems and/or development. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the levels given in Figure 1 on the following page be adopted fo r use in studying educational programs and methodologies and fo r research purposes. The hearing threshold levels cited by the CEASD Ad Hoc Com­ mittee and th e ir probable impact on communication and language were used fo r determination of the hearing loss fo r th is study. To determine functional deafness, the d e fin itio n o f "no usable hearing fo r educational purposes" was used. Considering level of hearing loss in re la tio n to functional deafness and the type of coiminication method used, i t was expected th a t subjects at a more severe level o f hearing loss would have a greater incidence of functional deafness and would be served by to ta l communication programs. Therefore, th is study looked at the use o f the oral and to ta l communication approaches in re la tio n to the educational le v e ls , 29 Hearing Threshold Level (ISO) Level I a 26-54 dB Level I I 55-69 dB Level I I I 70-89 dB Level IV Probable Impact on Communication and Language Mild Moderate Severe Profound Im plications fo r Educational Settings Full Integration Most Frequent P a rtia l Integration Frequent S e lfContained Infrequent Full Integration Frequent P a rtia l Integration Most Frequent S e lfContained Infrequent Full Integration Infrequent P a rtia l Integration Most Frequent S e lfContained Frequent Full Integration Infrequent P a rtia l Integration Frequent S e lfContained Most Frequent I t Is assumed th a t these decibel scores are obtained by a q u a lifie d audiologist using an average o f scores w ithin the frequency range commonly considered necessary to process lin g u is tic inform ation. Figure 1 .— CEASD hearing threshold ch art. 30 the levels of hearing loss, and the frequency of reported functional deafness. Data to answer these questions are provided by: 1. A frequency count o f functionally deaf students at each level of hearing loss. 2. A frequency count of d is tric ts that have developed a d e fin itio n of functional deafness and the frequency of the specific d efin itio n s. 3. A crosstabulation of the number o f classes at each edu­ cational level by communication approach. 4. A crosstabulation o f the number and percentage of oral and to ta l communication classrooms by educational level and range of hearing loss. Research Question 2: What changes have occurred between 1971 and 1978 in the number of classrooms using the oral and the to ta l com­ munication approaches? The following subquestions were asked: 1. To what extent is each approach currently used? 2. How has the proportion o f to ta l communication and oral communication classrooms changed? 3. How many oral and to ta l communication classrooms have been added since 1971? This second question concerning communication approaches attempts level to measure changes in educational methodology byeducational of classes since 1971. The year 1971 was chosen fo r several reasons: (1) i t was the year that Public Act 198 (Mandatory Special Education) was passed in Michigan, (2) the accuracy o f information 31 p rio r to th is year would have been questionable, and (3) research findings regarding the effectiveness of the d iffe re n t communication approaches became available in the early 1970's and may have in flu ­ enced the extent to which the d iffe re n t methods have been used. Data to answer these questions are provided by: 1. A crosstabulation o f change in the communication approach by educational le v e l. 2. A frequency count o f classroom change in conmunication approach fo r each year since 1971 by educational le v e l. Research Question 3: How many intermediate school d is tric ts pro­ vide oral and to ta l communication options at each educational level fo r hearing impaired students? This question explores the extent to which d is tric ts are pro­ viding a f u ll continuum o f options fo r hearing impaired students. Data to answer the question are provided by: 1. A crosstabulation o f the number o f intermediate school d is tric ts which provide both oral and to ta l communica­ tion classroom programs fo r each educational le v e l. Research Question 4 : To what extent does teacher satisfactio n vary with (a) educational level and (b) communication approach used? Research Question 5: Are there differences in the desire to change communication approaches between teachers in oral and teachers in to ta l communication classrooms? Two subquestions to Question 5 were asked: 1. To which approach would teachers lik e to change? 2. What are the obstacles to making the desired change? 32 Research Question 6 : What is the degree o f parent s a tis fa c tio n as perceived by the teachers a t each educational level as a function o f (a) communication approach and (b) the hearing impaired program in general? Research Questions 4 , 5, and 6 address the degree o f s a tis fa c ­ tio n o f the teacher and parents with the communication approach used and the program in general fo r hearing impaired in a d is t r i c t . In addition to a d ire c t question e l i c it in g perceived level o f s a tis ­ fa c tio n , th is fa c to r was approached in d ir e c tly by determining the respondent's desire to change communication approaches. Further perspective on the issue o f change was obtained by securing opinions as to the obstacles to changing the method o f communication. F in a lly , i f a teacher does wish to change the method o f communication used, which method o f communication would the teacher lik e to put into effe ct? Data to answer these questions are provided by: 1. A crosstabulation o f the number o f teachers a t various lev els o f s a tis fa c tio n w ith the communication approach used in t h e ir classroom by educational level and type o f communication approach used. 2. A crosstabulation o f the teach er's desire to change communication approach by educational level and the com­ munication approach c u rre n tly used. 3. A crosstabulation o f the number o f teachers who would lik e to change approaches by the desired approach and educational le v e l. 33 4. A frequency count of the major obstacles to change in the communication approach used. 5. A crosstabulation o f the percentage of parents viewed by the teachers who are s a tis fie d /d is s a tis fie d with the communication approach used by educational level and communication approach. 6. A crosstabulation of the percentage of parents who are s a tis fie d /d is s a tis fie d with the program fo r the hearing impaired by educational level and communication approach used. Research Question 7: In to ta l communication programs, what methods are being used? Four subquestions are: 1. What sp ecific sign systems are used as a function of education level? 2. What reference books are used as primary and supple­ mentary resources as a function o f educational level? 3. What formal classes in fingerspelling and sign are offered to hearing impaired learners, school personnel, and parents? 4. Has standardization of signs occurred in intermediate school d is tric ts or do d is tric ts have plans to stan­ dardize signs? Each o f these questions addresses an important factor in the e ffe c ­ tiv e implementation o f a to ta l communication program. Data to answer these questions are provided by: 1. A crosstabulation o f the sp ecific sign systems used by educational le v e l. 34 2. A crosstabulation o f primary and supplementary reference books used by educational le v e l. 3. A frequency count o f the formal classes offered fo r hearing impaired students, hearing students, teachers, support personnel, parents, and other groups in fin g e r­ s p e llin g and sign. 4. A frequency count o f the number o f d is tr ic ts which have plans to standardize or have standardized signs w ith in t h e ir program (s). Research Question 8 : To what extent are formal systems used to measure pupil academic progress? The fourth area o f concern is whether or not d is tr ic t s are using formal systems to measure pupil academic progress. This has great im plications fo r e ffe c tiv e program planning fo r hearing impaired learn ers. 1. Data to answer these questions are provided by: A frequency count o f the teachers who employ a syste­ matic method o f academic assessment. 2. A determ ination as to s p e c ific instruments employed in these measures. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA Introduction The results o f this study are presented in a format which answers the eight major research questions and th e ir related sub­ questions as lis te d in Chapter I I I . The questions are discussed sequentially, and the data pertaining to the research questions are presented in the form of tables and discussion. Results Research Question 1: To what extent does the use of oral and to ta l communication vary with (a) educational le v e l, (b) level o f hearing loss, and (c) the presence o f functional deafness? The classrooms which report use o f a combination o f oral and to ta l communication are designated as to ta l communication classrooms in th is study. The use o f both approaches in the same classroom was reported by 59 o f the teachers. Some teachers state th at they use prim arily to ta l communication, stressing the sign component with some children and the o ral-aural component with other children in the same classroom. These teachers are reporting use of to ta l communication and are therefore tabulated in the study as to ta l communication classrooms. The f i r s t area investigated was th at o f the prevalence o f the use o f the oral and to ta l communication approaches as a function 35 36 o f educational le v e l. As indicated in Table 1, 53 percent o f the classrooms use oral communication and 47 percent use the to ta l commu­ nication approach. The change from 61.8 percent oral a t the preschool lev el to 36.5 percent a t the high school level provides support fo r the expec­ ta tio n th at the oral approach is used more frequently a t the e a r lie r educational levels and th at the to ta l communication approach is used more frequently at the higher education le v e ls . The second area investigated was to determine the extent to which the use o f the oral and the to ta l communication approach varies with the level o f hearing loss. The classrooms were divided in to three major groups according to level o f hearing loss: (1) those classrooms which serve children with losses ranging from 26-90+ dB (mild to profound lo s s ), (2) classrooms which serve children with losses of 26-69 dB (mild/moderate lo s s ), and (3) classrooms which serve children with losses in the 70-90+ dB range (severe/profound lo s s ). The d is trib u tio n o f classrooms by communication method, educational le v e l, and level o f hearing loss is represented in Table 2. As illu s tr a te d in Table 2 , o f the classrooms serving students having 26-90 dB hearing losses (62 percent o f a ll programs), 62.2 percent use oral communication and 37.8 percent use to ta l communication. Of the classrooms at the 26-69 dB level (3 percent o f a ll programs), 60 percent used to ta l communication and 40 percent used oral communi­ cation. Classrooms serving students with 70-90+ dB hearing losses (35 percent o f a ll programs) tend to use the to ta l communication Table 1 .—The number and percentage of classrooms currently using oral and to tal communication approaches according to educational level. Communication Approach Educational Level Preschool Elementary Middle High School AH Levels Totals Oral Number 34 83 30 23 9 179 Percent 61.8 57.2 61.2 36.5 34.6 53.0 Number 21 62 19 40 17 159 Percent 38.2 42.8 38.8 63.5 63.4 47.0 49 63 26 338 Total Total classrooms aAll levels: 55 145 classrooms serving students from three or more educational levels. 38 Table 2 .--The number and percentage of classrooms serving three levels of hearing loss according to educational lev el and communi­ cation method used. Level o f Hearing Loss Educational Level 26- 90 dB Oral Total 26- 69 dB Oral Total 70- 90+ dB Oral Total Preschool and Infant Number 26 13 0 0 Percent 66.6 33.3 0.0 Number 46 22 Percent 67.6 5 7 0.0 41.7 58.3 4 2 33 33 32.4 66.6 33.3 50.0 50.0 7 0 0 5 7 41.7 58.3 Elementary Middle School Number 20 Percent 74.1 25.9 0.0 0.0 Number 20 22 0 4 2 4 Percent 47.6 52.4 0.0 100.0 33.3 66.6 Number 7 6 0 0 1 9 Percent 53.8 46.2 0.0 0 .0 10.0 90.0 Number 1 3 0 0 1 1 Percent 25.0 75.0 0.0 0 .0 50.0 50.0 73 4 6 47 61 40.0 60.0 43.5 56.5 High School Across A ll Levels Unknown Total Number Percent 120 62.2 37.8 39 approach with 56.5 percent using to ta l communication and 43.5 percent using oral communication. As indicated in the 26-90 dB column, the breakdown o f the percentage o f classrooms using oral communication and to ta l communi­ cation serving mild to severe losses is s im ila r to th a t o f a ll classrooms fo r hearing impaired (Table 1 ). The oral communication approach is used more freq u en tly with the preschool to middle school and classrooms serving three or more educational le v e ls , w hile the to ta l communication approach is more freq u en tly used a t the high school le v e l. The same re la tio n s h ip holds fo r the 26-69 dB column in Table 2: Twice as many elementary classrooms use the oral approach as use the to ta l communication approach, while a ll o f the secondary classrooms use the to ta l communication approach. Classrooms which serve students w ith only severe to profound hearing losses (70-90+ dB) favor use o f the to ta l communication approach a t a l l educational le v e ls , except the elementary lev el which has 50 percent oral and 50 percent to ta l classrooms as in d i­ cated in the 70-90+ dB column. The th ir d area investig ated was the exten t to which the use o f oral communication and to ta l communication varies w ith functional deafness, defined by th is study as "no usable hearing fo r educational purposes." The number and percentage o f students c la s s ifie d as func­ tio n a lly deaf in each o f the hearing loss lev els was tab u la ted . As indicated 1n Table 3, 2 .6 percent o f the students in the 26-69 dB lev el were c la s s ifie d as fu n c tio n a lly deaf; 14.1 percent in the 40 70-90 dB level were cla ss ified as functionally deaf; and of the students with unknown hearing losses, 26.9 percent were reported as functionally deaf. Of the 1,623 students fo r whom this information was reported, 188 or 11.6 percent were classified by th e ir teachers as functionally deaf. Some teachers were hesitant to classify a child as functionally deaf. reporting from oral programs. This was p a rtic u la rly true of teachers A frequent response of these teachers was that “every child has some hearing which can be used fo r educa­ tional purposes." Table 3 .—D istribution of functionally deaf students at each hearing loss lev el. Threshold Level (ISO Measurement) 26-69 dB 70-90+ dB Unknown audiometric level Totals Total Functional ly Deaf N N %a 427 11 2.6 1,129 159 14.1 67 18 26.9 1,623 188 11.6 Percentage of a ll those at a hearing loss level who are functionally deaf. Of the 188 functionally deaf students, 5.8 percent had m ild/ moderate hearing losses, 84.6 percent had severe/profound hearing losses, and 9.6 percent had unknown hearing losses. The second question re latin g to functional deafness asked: “How many functionally deaf students are programmed fo r in oral 41 communication and in to ta l communication classrooms? I t was found th at of the 81 classrooms which reported a t le a s t one fu n c tio n a lly deaf c h ild , 71.6 percent o f the classrooms used to ta l communication, while 28.4 percent used oral communication. As indicated previously, some teachers using the oral communication approach fa ile d to c la s s ify any children as fu n c tio n a lly deaf. responses is questionable. Therefore, the accuracy o f the However, the m ajority of students reported as having a severe hearing loss and/or functional deafness were found to be served in to ta l communication classes. The th ird question raised in re la tio n to functional deafness was: Have d is tr ic ts developed a d e fin itio n o f functional deafness? The terminology o f functional deafness and teachers' unwillingness to id e n tify students as having no usable hearing was addressed through th is question. Of the 338 teachers surveyed, 35 indicated th at th e ir program has a d e fin itio n fo r functional deafness. T h irty - two of those teachers stated th a t the d e fin itio n was the same as the state and federal d e fin itio n in Public Law 94-142 and Public Act 198. I t is in te re stin g to note th at n e ith e r o f these laws defines functional deafness. The 32 teachers did not agree with other teachers in th e ir d is t r ic t who indicated th at th e ir d is t r ic t did not have a d e fin itio n fo r functional deafness. In only one intermediate school d is t r ic t did a ll the teachers agree th a t th e ir d is t r ic t had a d e fin itio n fo r functional deafness. These three teachers id e n tifie d a d e fin itio n which stressed the "consistent lack o f response to speech, and loud environmental or audiometric tones in a given q uiet environment." The major point illu s tr a te d is th a t 42 there is confusion among teachers as to the meaning of functional deafness, and th at some teachers supporting the oral approach do not recognize the concept th a t some hearing impaired children have no hearing fo r educational purposes. I t may be concluded th a t there is a probable lack o f c r ite r ia used in these d is tric ts fo r determina­ tio n o f special education classroom placement and the communication approach which would be most e ffe c tiv e with the individual c h ild . Research Question 2 : What changes have occurred between 1971 and 1978 in the number of classrooms using the to ta l communi­ cation and oral communication approaches? The percentages of classrooms using the oral communication and to ta l communication approaches a t each educational level in 1971-72 are presented in Table 4. The extent o f use o f the oral communication and to ta l communication approaches w ithin classrooms in 1971-72 (Table 4) and the extent o f use in 1977-78 (Table 1) were compared in Table 5. As illu s tra te d in these ta b le s , the extent o f use of the oral and to ta l communication approaches has changed s ig n ific a n tly since 1971-72. Oral communication in 1971-72 was used more frequently than to ta l communication at each educa­ tio n al le v e l. The use o f to ta l communication, however, increased as the educational level increased. A change in the use o f oral and to ta l communication is illu s tra te d at the d iffe re n t education le v e ls , with a s ig n ific a n t increase in the use o f to ta l communica­ tion at a ll le v e ls , p a rtic u la rly at the preschool and elementary lev els. Table 4 .—The number and percentage of classrooms in 1971-72 using oral and total communication approaches according to educational level. Educational Level Communication Approach Preschool Elementary Middle High School Levels Totals Oral Number 38 89 26 31 18 202 Percent 90.5 82.4 68.4 56.4 85.0 76.5 Total Number 4 19 12 24 Percent 9.5 17.6 31.6 43.6 14.3 23.5 38 55 21 264 Total Classrooms 42 108 3 62 44 Table 5 .— Summary of the percentages of classrooms using oral and to ta l communication approaches at each educational level in 1971 and 1978. Communication Approach Educational Level Oral Total 71-72 77-78 71-72 77-78 Preschool 90.5 61.8 9.5 38.2 Elementary 82.4 57.2 17.6 42.8 Middle School 68.4 61.2 31.6 38.8 High School 56.4 36.5 43.6 63.5 A ll Levels 85.7 34.6 14.3 63.4 Total 76.5 53.0 23.5 47.0 Year-to-year changes in the to ta l number o f classrooms using each approach are presented in Table 6. Since 1971 there has been an increase in the number o f classrooms fo r hearing impaired from 259 to 344. A steady decline in the number o f classrooms using the oral communication approach has occurred. In 1971-72, 76.8 percent (199) o f those 259 classrooms used the oral approach, as indicated in Table 6. Currently, 53.0 percent (179) o f the 338 classrooms reported use the oral approach, as illu s tra te d in Table 6. The num­ ber of classroom programs using the to ta l communication approach has increased from 23.2 percent (60) o f a ll programs in 1971 to 47.0 percent (159) of a ll reported classroom programs in 1977-78. This is a decline o f 10.1 percent in the number of oral classrooms and an increase of 265 percent in the number of to ta l communication 45 classrooms. These figures are presented in Figure 2 to fu rth e r i l l u s ­ tra te the change which has occurred in the frequency o f oral and to ta l communication classrooms from 1971 to 1978. Table 6 .—The number and percentage o f programs fo r each year from 1971 to 1978 using the oral communication and to ta l com­ munication approaches. Communication Approach Year 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 199 195 193 184 185 171 179 Oral Number Percent 76.8 74.4 70.4 Number 60 67 81 Percent 23.2 25.6 29.6 64.1 61.7 54.5 53.0 Total Totals 259 262 103 274 35.9 287 115 38.3 300 143 159 45.6 314 47.0 338a aData missing fo r six classrooms. The next area examined in re la tio n to communication approaches used in classrooms fo r hearing impaired was the changes th at have occurred since 1971; th a t i s , the number o f classes using the oral communication and to ta l communication approach th a t have changed from one method to the other. This was tabulated by counting the number o f classrooms using each method previously and the present number fo r each educational le v e l. Table 7 presents th is inform ation. Since 1971, 179 o f the oral programs made no change in the communication 46 205 200 499 195 ................. -------------------- 0ral ............................. Total 190 ^ j 8 4 _ ............ .;85 185 180 179 175 \ 171,'' v-' 170 165 160 159. 155 150 145 143 140 135 130 125 120 11S, 115 no 103 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60; 71-72 Fig 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 2 .— Graph of classrooms using oral communication and to tal communication approaches yearly since 1971 to 1978. Table 7 .—Previous and present uses of communication approaches at various educational levels. Communication Approach Educational Level Preschool Elementary Middle High School All Levels Totals Oral Previous 46 108 33 31 17 235 Present 34 83 30 23 9 179 9 37 16 32 9 103 21 62 19 40 17 159 Previous 56 145 49 63 26 338 Present 56 145 49 63 26 338 Total Previous Present Totals 48 approach used. Of the 235 oral classrooms, 56 or 23.8 percent changed to the to ta l communication approach. Of the 159 to ta l communication classrooms, none changed the communication approach used. Of the to ta l number o f classrooms reported (338), 16.6 percent changed com­ munication approach. n ication . Table 8. A ll of these changed from oral to to ta l commu­ The changes at each educational level are presented in The greatest changes were at the preschool, elementary, and classrooms serving a ll educational le v els. Table 8 .—The number and percentage o f oral classes since 1971 which have changed to to ta l communication at each educational le v e l. Educational Level Number Percent Preschool 12 21.4 Elementary 25 17.2 Middle School 3 6.1 High School 8 12.7 A ll Levels and Unknown 8 30.8 The changes as they occurred each year since 1971 did not present a consistent pattern. The percentage o f change from the oral to the to ta l communication approach as i t occurred each year fo r each educational level is presented in Table 9. 49 Table 9 .—The percentage of the to ta l number of classrooms that changed from oral to to ta l communication approach at each educational level from 1971 to 1978. Educational Level Year 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 Preschool 0 16.7 16.7 8.3 16.7 41.6 0.0 Elementary 0 0.0 20.0 32.0 8.0 24.0 16.0 Middle School 0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 High School 0 12.5 0.0 12.5 25.0 37.0 12.5 A ll Levels (and Unknown) 0 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 37.5 25.0 Totals 0 5.3 12.5 26.8 10.7 30.4 14.3 In Table 10 the classrooms added since 1971 are tabulated as to whether the oral or to ta l communication approach was used. Of the 15 classes added at the preschool level and the 34 classrooms added at the elementary le v e l, approximately h a lf used oral and h a lf used to ta l communication. Of the 12 classes added at the middle school le v e l, 75 percent used oral comnunication and 25 percent used to ta l communication. Of the 12 classes added at the high school le v e l, 33.3 percent used oral communication and 66.7 percent used to tal communication. Classrooms serving a ll educational levels and unknown service levels totaled 11, of which 36.4 percent used oral communication and 63.6 percent used to ta l communication. 50 Table 10 .--The number and percentage o f oral and to ta l communication classrooms added since 1971. Educational Level Classrooms Added Oral Total Communication Totals Preschool Number 8 7 15 Percent 53.3 46.7 Number 16 18 34 Percent 47.1 52.9 34 Number 9 3 12 Percent 75.0 25.0 Number 4 8 Percent 33.3 66.7 Number 4 7 Percent 36.4 63.6 Number 41 43 Percent 48.8 51.2 Elementary Middle School High School 12 A ll Levels and Unknown 11 Totals 84 100 Research Question 3: How many interm ediate school d is tric ts provide oral and to ta l communication classroom options at each educational level? The number o f d is tr ic ts which o ffe r both oral and to ta l com­ munication classrooms a t each educational level was tabulated. It 51 was found that six intermediate d is tric ts have both oral and to ta l communication classrooms available at the preschool le v e l, eight d is tric ts have oral and to ta l communication classes available at the elementary le v e l, three have oral and to ta l communication available at the middle school le v e l, and five have high school classes fo r both oral and to ta l communication. Only three intermediate school d is tric ts have both oral and to tal communication classroom programs available at a ll educational levels. Research Question 4: To what extent does teacher satisfaction vary with (a) educational level and (b) communication approach? The degree of teacher satisfaction with the communication approach used by educational level was surveyed. The number of teachers expressing various degrees of satisfaction is shown in Table 11. As indicated in the Totals column, 74.0 percent of the 144 teachers using oral communication who responded to the question were "very s a tis fie d ," while 51.4 percent of the 140 teachers using to tal communication who responded to this question were "very s a tis ­ fie d ." Of the teachers using o ra l, 20.0 percent were "s a tis fie d ," while 42.1 percent o f the teachers using to ta l communication were " s a tis fie d ." Of the teachers using o ra l, 6.0 percent were "dis­ s a tis fie d ," while 5.7 percent of the teachers using to ta l communica­ tion were "d is sa tis fie d ." None of the teachers using oral communication were "very d is s a tis fie d ," while .7 percent of the teachers using to ta l communication were "very d is s a tis fie d ." Table 11 . —Distribution of teachers according to degree of satisfaction by educational level and comnunication approach. Degree of Teacher Satisfaction With Communication Approach ______________________________ Educational Level______________________________ Preschool Elementary Middle High School All Levels Totals ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ----------------------------------Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Very Satisfied 55 39 18 73.3 59.1 78.3 13 23 36.4 17.3 34.8 21.7 75.0 11.1 0 0 7 4 0 1 0.0 0.0 9.3 6.1 0.0 Number 0 1 0 0 Percent 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 Number 16 6 Percent 72.7 54.5 Number 6 4 Percent 27.3 Number Percent 3 3 2 50.0 22.2 3 5 39.5 50.0 1 1 0 6.2 5.5 2.6 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 15 22 83.4 57.9 107 72 74.0 51.4 29 59 55.6 20.0 42.1 2 8 8 6.0 5.7 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.7 Satisfied 5 12 2 15 Dissatisfied 22.2 Very Dissatisfied 53 The teachers o f the oral approach tended to express g reater s a tis fa c tio n by selectin g more "very s a tis fie d " responses. There appears, however, to be no appreciable d iffe re n c e in the degree o f teacher s a tis fa c tio n a t the various educational le v e ls . I t is im perative to note th a t the nine teachers using to ta l communication who were "d is s a tis fie d " and "very d is s a tis fie d " with the method they were using were not d is s a tis fie d with the to ta l communication approach. These nine teachers were try in g to use oral communication with some students w ithout exposing those children to the to ta l communication used with other children in the same class­ room. These teachers stated th a t they were d is s a tis fie d with try in g to separate the use o f both communication approaches in the same classroom. As indicated in Table 13, a ll o f these teachers wanted to change approaches. Seven o f the teachers wanted to change to to ta l communication, w hile the remaining two did not express a p re f­ erence. Research Question 5 : Are there d ifferences in the desire to change communication approaches between teachers in oral and teachers in to ta l communication classrooms? The resu lts fo r th is question are presented in Tables 12 and 13. None o f the 129 teachers using to ta l communication who responded to th is question wanted to change communication approaches except fo r the nine teachers using both oral and to ta l communication separately in the same classroom, seven o f whom wanted to change to to ta l com­ munication, as indicated in the Totals comumn o f Table 13. Of the 130 teachers using oral comnunication who responded to the question, Table 12.—The distribution of teachers according to desire to change, by educational level and communication approach. Educational Level ^Change* Preschool Oral Total Number 1 0 Percent 4.5 Elementary Oral Total 9 0 Middle Oral Total High School All Levels Oral Oral Total Total Totals Oral Total Yes 0.0 12.0 1 0.0 0 4.4 3 0.0 0 16.7 0 0.0 0 14 0.0 0.0 36 6 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.7 0 0.0 No Number 21 Percent 95.5 10 100.0 66 88.0 62 100.0 22 95.6 15 100.0 15 83.3 130 90.3 129 100.0 Table 13.--The distribution of teachers according to change in comnunication approach desired, by educational level and communication approach. Change in Methods Desired Educational Level Preschool Elementary Middle Oral to Total Comnunication 1 9 1 3 0 14 Total to Oral Communication 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oral and Total Separately to Totc.l 1 2 1 1 2 7 Oral and Total Separately to Either Oral or Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 High School All Levels Totals 56 9.7 percent wanted to change the communication approach used, as indicated in the Totals column of Table 12. The communication approach to which the teachers wanted to change is shown in Table 13. A ll of the 14 teachers who wanted to change communication approaches wanted to change to to tal communi­ cation. Of the teachers who wanted to change to total communica­ tio n , there were 4.5 percent at the preschool le v e l, 12 percent at the elementary le v e l, 4.4 percent at the middle school le v e l, and 16.7 percent at the high school le v e l. Seven of the teachers using oral and total communication separately wanted to change to to tal communication, while the other two teachers did not express a pref­ erence. A second subquestion examined the major obstacles to making a change in the communication method currently used i f a change is desired. The obstacles lis ted were: 1. teacher not acequately trained in to tal communication (24 percent) 2. administrative pressure (12 percent) 3. parent pressure (8 percent) 4. professional pressure (8 percent) 5. no response (40 percent) The major obstacle to change is lack of teacher training in to tal communication. I t is interesting to note that only one in s titu tio n of higher learning in Michigan has a teacher training program in hearing impaired which emphasizes the to ta l communication approach. 57 Research Question 6 : What is the degree of parent satisfaction as perceived by the teacher with (a) the communication approach used and (b) the hearing impaired program in general? The degree o f parent satisfaction with the communication approach used at each education le v e l, as perceived by the teachers, is indicated in Table 14. I t should be noted that the degree of parent satisfaction did not vary greatly between oral and to ta l com­ munication programs. The parents of students in oral communication programs tended to be rated s lig h tly more sa tisfied by the 137 teach­ ers who responded to this question than those parents rated by the 124 to ta l communication teachers who responded. This s im ila rity in satisfaction may be explained in several ways. Parents who desire a specific communication approach may have influenced the use o f that approach within a system. Another p o s sib ility is th at parents who desire a specific communication approach may move to a d is tr ic t which offers that approach. Further, i t is probable that a certain number of parents in both groups are ambivalent regarding the approach used. Parent satisfaction with the program in general, as perceived by the teacher, is presented in Table 15. The proportion o f parents s a tis fie d with the program fo r the hearing impaired at each educa­ tio n al level was very sim ilar to the proportion of parents s a tis fie d with the communication approach, as indicated in Table 15. The parents o f students in oral programs tended to be rated s lig h tly more sa tis fie d by the 134 oral teachers who responded than those parents with children in to ta l communication programs by the 113 to ta l communication teachers who responded to the question. Table 14.—The number and percentage of teachers reporting levels of parent satisfaction with the comnunication method used at each educational level. Percentage of Parents Reported as Satisfied Educational Level Preschool Elementary Middle High School All Levels Totals Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total 19 90.5 8 80.0 56 78.9 38 63.3 22 95.6 12 80.0 14 82.4 24 75.0 4 80.0 1 14.3 115 83.9 83 66.9 2 9.5 2 20.0 11 15.5 9 15.0 0 0.0 2 13.3 1 5.9 5 15.6 1 20.0 6 85.7 15 11.0 24 19.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 4.2 12 20.0 1 4.4 0 0.0 1 5.9 1 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.6 13 10.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.7 0 0.0 1 6.7 1 5.9 1 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 3 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 5 7 100 percent Number Percent 90-99 percent Number Percent 80-89 percent Number Percent 70-79 percent Number Percent 60-69 percent Number Percent 50-59 percent Number Percent Totals 21 10 71 60 23 15 17 32 137 124 Table 15.—The number and percentage of teachers reporting levels of parent satisfaction with the program for the hearing impaired. Percentage of Parents Reported Satisfied Educational Level Preschool Elementary Middle High School All Levels Totals Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total Oral Total 18 90.0 8 80.0 44 62.0 31 52.5 18 81.8 5 31.2 14 87.5 14 60.9 3 60.0 2 40.0 97 72.4 60 53.1 1 5.0 1 10.0 15 21.1 11 18.6 1 4.5 9 52.6 2 12.5 5 21.7 1 20.0 2 40.0 20 14.9 28 24.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 8.4 9 15.2 2 9.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.3 1 20.0 0 0.0 9 6.7 10 8.8 1 5.0 0 0.0 4 5.6 3 5.1 0 0.0 1 6.2 0 0.0 2 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.7 6 5.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.4 0 0.0 1 6.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.6 0 0.0 1 10.0 2 2.8 3 3.4 1 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.3 0 0.0 1 20.0 3 2.2 6 5.3 100 percent Number Percent 90-99 percent Number Percent 80-89 percent Number Percent 70-79 percent Number Percent 60-69 percent Number Percent 50-59 percent Number Percent Totals 20 10 71 59 22 16 16 23 5 5 134 113 60 Research Question 7: What methods are being used in to ta l communication programs? The four sp e cific questions in re la tio n to the above question are: 1. What sp e cific sign systems are used as a function o f educational level? The sign systems used in to ta l communication classrooms were surveyed and the results are presented in Table 16. At the primary and elementary le v e ls , Signing Exact English (45.4 and 49.2 percent) and Signed English (27.3 and 41.0 percent) were most frequently used. At the middle school le v e l, Signing Exact English (55.0 per­ cent) and other combinations o f methods (45.0 percent) were used most frequently. At the high school le v e l, a combination o f methods was most frequently used (42.1 percent), with Signing Exact English (18.4 percent) and a combination o f American Sign Language and Sign­ ing Exact English (18.4 percent) used with the second highest f r e ­ quency. In programs serving three or more educational le v e ls , Signing Exact English was used twice as frequently as Signed English. 2. What reference books are used as primary and supple­ mentary resources a t each educational level? The sp e cific resource books used as primary and secondary references were surveyed, with the results lis te d in Table 17. It was found th a t a wide v a rie ty o f books is used a t a ll educational le v e ls . The most frequently lis te d primary reference books were: Gustason, Signing Exact English; Borstein, Signed English S eries; and O'Rourke, A Basic Course in Manual Communication. The most frequently Table 16.—Percentage of sign systems used at each educational level. Sign System Educational Level --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Primary Elementary Middle High School All Levels Totals Signing Exact English 45.4 49.2 55.0 18.4 61.5 42.9 American Sign Language 0.0 1.6 0.0 10.5 0.0 3.2 27.3 41.0 0.0 10.5 23.1 24.7 4.5 3.3 0.0 18.4 0.0 6.5 22.7 4.9 45.0 42.1 15.4 22.7 Signed English American Sign Language and Signed English or Signing Exact English Combinations Table 17.— The frequency o f the follow ing reference books at each educational le ve l c ite d as e ith e r a primary (P) or supplementary (S) reference source fo r sign. Educational Level Reference Books Preschool Elementary P S P S Anthony: Seeing Essential English 0 1 6 8om stein: Signed English Series 2 0 fa n t: Ameslan 1 Fant: Say I t With Hands P S P S P S P 3 1 0 0 3 0 1 7 ( 4 .7 ) 8 2 .6 ) 15 3.2 21 11 0 1 4 10 1 2 28 (1 8 .8 ) 24 7 .7 ) 52 11.2 0 3 4 1 4 0 19 0 1 5 ( 3 .4 ) 28 8 .9 ) 33 7.1 0 4 0 6 0 10 1 8 0 2 1 ( 0 .7 ) 30 9 .6 ) 31 6.7 Gustason e t a l . : Signing Exact English 7 2 33 20 5 3 7 17 5 1 57 (3 8 .2 ) 48 13.7) 100 21.6 Madsen: Conversational Sign Language I I 0 2 2 5 2 1 0 15 0 0 4 ( 2 .7 ) 23 7 .3) 27 5.8 O'Rourke: A Basic Course in Manual Communication 1 3 5 19 5 1 6 15 3 2 20 (1 3 .4 ) 40 12.8) 60 13.0 Rlekehof: Talk to the Deaf 0 3 2 14 0 7 6 6 0 4 8 ( 5 .4 ) 34 10.9) 42 9.1 Stokoe, C a s te rlin e , A Croneberg: A D ictionary o f American Sign Language 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 10 0 0 2 ( 1 .3 ) 14 4 .5 ) 16 3.5 Matson: Talk Mith Your Hands 0 0 1 9 1 5 0 6 1 4 3 ( 2 .0 ) 24 7 .7 ) 27 5 .8 Gallaudet College: Signs fo r In s tru c tio n a l Purposes 0 1 3 5 1 3 0 15 0 0 4 ( 2 .7 ) 24 7 .7 ) 28 6.1 Bom stein, Hamilton, S a u ln le r, A Ray: Signed English D ictionary 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 ( 2 .0 ) 1 0 .3 ) 4 0 .9 Babblnl: Basic Course in Manual Comnunication 1 2 2 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 4 ( 2 .7 ) 9 2 .9 ) 13 2 .8 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 ( 2 .0 ) 11 3 .5 ) 14 3.0 12 21 83 104 7 38 25 131 12 19 Others: Totals 149 % S 313 I PAS 462 % 63 used supplementary reference books were: Gustason, Signing Exact English; O'Rourke, A Basic Course in Manual Communication; Riekehof, Talk to the Deaf; Fant, Say I t With Hands; and Fant, Ameslan. When the numbers o f primary and supplementary reference books were combined, the reference books used most fre q u en tly, as indicated in the Totals column in Table 17, were: Gustason, Signing Exact English; O'Rourke, A Basic Course in Manual Communication; Bornstein, Signed English S eries; Riekehof, Talk to the Deaf; and Fant, Ameslan. At the preschool and elementary le v e l, Gustason's Signing Exact English and Bornstein's Signed English Series are the most frequently used primary reference books. At the middle school level the most frequently used primary reference books were Gustason's Signing Exact English and O'Rourke's A Basic Course in Manual Commu­ n ic a tio n . books were: At the high school level the most frequently used primary Gustason's Signing Exact English, O'Rourke's A Basic Course in Manual Communication, Riekehof's Talk to the Deaf, and Bornstein's Signed English Series. Classrooms serving students at three or more educational levels most frequently used Gustason's Signing Exact English and 0 ' Rourke' s A Basic Course in Manual Commu­ n ic a tio n . 3. What formal classes in fin g e rs p e llin g and sign are offered to hearing impaired learn ers, school personnel, and parents? A widely held b e lie f has been th a t classes may use sign but not form ally teach i t (Jordan, Gustason, & Rosen, 1975). Teachers o f to ta l communication were asked i f formal classes 1n sign are 64 offered to hearing impaired students, hearing students, teachers, support personnel, and parents. Knowledge o f signs and fingerspelling by these groups is an important aspect of a to tal communication pro­ gram. As indicated in Table 18, of the 159 classrooms using the total communication method, 102 {64.2 percent) o ffe r classes in fingerspelling and 111 (69.8 percent) o ffe r classes in sign to hearing impaired students. Of the programs reported, 19.5 percent had formal classes available in fingerspelling for hearing students. Thirty and eight-tenths percent had classes available for teachers, 27.7 percent fo r support personnel, and 32.7 percent fo r parents. Formal classes in sign were offered in 28.9 percent of the programs to hear­ ing students, in 56.6 percent of the programs for teachers, in 58.5 percent of the programs for support personnel, and in 40.2 percent of the programs for parents. This situation is a potential problem area fo r hearing impaired students who use to tal communication and th e ir a b ility to communicate with hearing students, teachers, support personnel, and parents. 4. Has standardization of signs occurred in intermediate school d is tric ts or do d is tric ts have plans to stan­ dardize signs? Of the 209 teachers (not a ll of whom use to tal communication) who answered this question, 49 responded that signs had been stan­ dardized within th e ir d is tric ts and the other 160 indicated that signs had not been standardized. Of the 49 who indicated that signs had been standardized, 15 were from the same intermediate d is tric t representing seven d is tric ts . The others were from d is tric ts in 65 which teachers indicated both yes and no to the question of signs having been standardized. tion of signs. Seven d is tric ts have p a rtia l standardiza­ Teachers from four of the d is tric ts indicating that signs had been standardized have only one classroom fo r hearing impaired in the d is t r ic t , but also have teacher consultant services. Table 18.—The number and percentages o f classrooms using to ta l communication providing or particip atin g in formal classes fo r sign and fingerspelling fo r the indicated groups. Groups Receiving Sign and Fingerspelling Training Fingerspelling Sign Hearing Impaired Students Number Percent 102 111 64.2 69.8 Number 31 46 Percent 19.5 28.9 Number 49 90 Percent 30.8 56.6 Number 44 93 Percent 27.7 58.5 Number 52 64 Percent 32.7 40.2 13 21 Hearing Students Teachers Support Personnel Parents Others Number Percent 8.2 13.2 66 Three o f the interm ediate d is tr ic ts have plans to standardize signs in the future and seven o f the d is tr ic ts had teachers who plan to standardize to some extent w ithin programs. Six o f the d is tric ts have no in tention o f standardizing in the fu tu re , according to the teachers. Eight o f the d is tr ic ts which have p a rtia l plans to stan­ dardize, or are p a r tia lly standardized, have portions o f the program fo r which there is no intention o f standardizing. In t o t a l, 55 teachers stated th a t th e ir d is t r ic t had plans to standardize and 85 stated that th e ir d is t r ic t had no plans to standardize. The lack of standardization o f signs and plans to standardize signs indicates a d if f ic u lt y w ithin d is tr ic ts in providing a co n tin uity o f programming between educational levels and classrooms. This lack o f standardi­ zation probably causes d if f ic u lt ie s in communication w ithin schools, and across educational le v e ls , as indicated by teachers who answered th is question. Research Question 8 : To what extent were formal systems used to measure pupil academic progress? Teachers were asked i f they employ a formal systematic measure o f pupil academic progress. As indicated in Table 19, 61.5 percent o f the teachers indicated "yes," 21.3 percent indicated "no," and 17.2 percent o f the responding teachers did not answer the question. There is an obvious problem related to the number o f programs which have no formal measurement o f academic progress. As indicated in Table 20, 13.9 percent of the teachers were using group achievement tests to measure pupil progress. These tests were ty p ic a lly lis te d as the same ones offered to hearing students. The measures most 67 frequently used (Table 20) were: (1) individual achievement (28.8 percent), (2) performance objectives (26.0 percent), (3) a combina­ tion of methods (15.4 percent), and (4) group achievement tests (13.9 percent). Table 19.—Number and percentage of teachers employing a formal systematic measure o f academic pupil progress. Frequency Percentage Yes 208 61.5 No 72 21.3 No Response 58 17.2 Table 20.—Number and percentage of measures of pupil academic progress. Systematic Measure Frequency Percentage Group Achievement Measures 29 13.9 Individual Achievement 60 28.8 5 2.4 14 6.7 Developmental Profiles 8 3.8 Performance Objectives 54 26.0 6 2.9 32 15.4 Language Achievement Diagnostic Tests Not specified Combination of above (Michigan Assessment Test) 68 Major Findings 1. The oral communication approach was used by 53 percent of classrooms fo r the hearing impaired, with 47 percent using the to ta l communication approach. 2. The change from 61.8 percent oral at the preschool level to 36.5 percent oral at the secondary level provides support fo r the assumption th at the oral approach diminishes at higher educational levels. 3. Classrooms which serve students with mild and moderate hearing losses and classrooms which serve students with mild to profound hearing losses use oral communication more at the elementary levels and to ta l communication more at the secondary lev els. 4. Classrooms which serve students with severe and profound hearing losses favor the use o f to ta l communication at a ll educa­ tional levels except the elementary le v e l, which has 50 percent oral and 50 percent to ta l classrooms. 5. Classrooms th a t serve students with mild to profound hearing losses and only moderate losses use oral communication a t the elementary level and to ta l communication at the secondary le v e l. 6. Of the hearing impaired students in the survey, 11.6 per­ cent were reported as fu nctio nally deaf or "having no usable hearing fo r educational purposes." Of those students, 84.6 percent had severe/profound hearing losses. Of the 81 classrooms which had at least one fu n ctio nally deaf c h ild , 71.6 percent used to ta l communi­ cation. Therefore, the m ajority o f students who are fu nctio nally deaf are in to ta l communication classrooms. 69 7. Only one intermediate school d is tr ic t has defined func­ tional deafness. 8. Since 1971, the number of classrooms using total commu­ nication has increased by 265 percent. Since 1971, the percentage of classrooms using oral communication has decreased by 10.1 percent. In 1971-72 oral communication was used more frequently than to ta l communication at each educational le v e l, with the use of to tal com­ munication increasing as the educational level increased. 9. Since 1971, 23.8 percent of the oral communication class­ rooms changed to to tal communication, while none of the to ta l commu­ nication classrooms changed communication approach. The greatest number of classrooms changing to the to tal communication approach was at the preschool and elementary levels. 10. Only three of the intermediate school d is tric ts provide both oral and to tal communication options at a ll educational levels. Seven Intermediate school d is tric ts provide communication options at at least one educational lev el. 11. There are no appreciable differences in the degree of teacher satisfaction with the communication approach used at the various educational levels. 12. Of the teachers using oral communication, 9.7 percent expressed a desire to change to to tal communication. None of the teachers using only total communication wanted to change methods. 13. Obstacles to changing the communication approach were: teacher not adequately trained in to tal communication (24 percent), 70 adm inistrative pressure (12 percent), parent pressure (8 percent), and professional pressure (8 percent). 14. The degree o f parent satisfac tio n (as reported by the teacher) with (a) the communication approach used and (b) the in d i­ vidual d is t r ic t's program fo r the hearing impaired was s im ila r fo r oral and to ta l communication classrooms. 15. At the primary, elementary, and middle school le v e ls , the newer sign systems are most frequently used (Signing Exact English and Signed English). At the high school le v e l, a combination of American Sign Language and Signing Exact English is most frequently used. 16. A wide va rie ty o f reference books are used as primary and supplementary references at a ll educational le v e ls . these books corresponds closely to the sign systems used. frequently used books were: The use of The most Gustason, Signing Exact English; O'Rourke, A Basic Course in Manual Communication; Riekehof, Talk to the Deaf; Fant, Ameslan; and Bronstein, Signed English S eries. 17. Of the classrooms using to ta l communication, 64.2 per­ cent o ffe r formal classes in fin g ersp ellin g and 69.8 percent in sign to hearing impaired students. Formal classes in fin g ersp ellin g were available in 19.5 percent o f the programs fo r hearing students, 30.8 percent fo r teachers, 27.7 percent fo r support personnel, and 32.7 percent fo r parents. Formal classes in sign were offered in 28.9 percent o f the programs fo r hearing students, 56.6 percent fo r teachers, 58.5 percent fo r support personnel, and 40.2 percent fo r parents. 71 18. Seven o f the 31 intermediate school d is tr ic ts which use to ta l communication have standardized signs w ithin the d is t r ic t . Three o f the d is tr ic ts plan to standardize signs in the fu tu re . 19. A formal system o f measuring pupil academic progress was used by 61.5 percent o f the reporting teachers, while 21.3 per­ cent do not use any formal system of measurement o f pupil academic progress. The most frequently lis te d measures were: individual achievement tests (28.8 p ercen t), performance objectives (26.0 per­ c e n t), a combination o f measurements (15.4 p ercen t), and group achievement tests (13.9 percent). CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study focused on the use of oral and to tal communication approaches in public school special education classrooms for hearing impaired students in Michigan. were to: The six major objectives of the study (1) survey the public school programs serving hearing impaired learners in order to determine which communication approaches are currently used; (2) determine the relationship between approaches used, education le v e l, degree o f hearing loss, and functional deaf­ ness; (3) determine changes in the communication approaches used in educational programs since 1971; (4) determine the degree of teacher and teacher-perceived parent satisfaction with the communication approaches used; (5) determine the nature o f methods of to ta l com­ munication used, including the sign systems used, whether attempts at standardization of signs within school d is tric ts have been made, and whether formal classes in sign language are offered to hearing impaired students and other groups within a d is tr ic t; and (6) deter­ mine i f systematic measures of pupil academic progress are u tiliz e d . The data were gathered by means of a mailed questionnaire developed in cooperation with the Special Education Service Area of the Michigan Department of Education. of two parts. This questionnaire consisted The second part of the questionnaire, Part B, 72 73 completed by the classroom teachers of programs fo r the hearing impaired, provided the data fo r this study. The information obtained was tabulated and resulted in the following conclusions. Conclusions 1. There is a large and continuing trend in Michigan toward use o f the to ta l communication approach in public school special education classrooms at a ll educational levels fo r hearing impaired students. Currently, there is approximately equal u tiliz a tio n of oral and to ta l communication in classes fo r hearing impaired. Since 1971 the number o f oral classes has s lig h tly decreased, while the number o f to ta l communication classes has increased dram atically. 2. The oral approach is used more frequently at the e a r lie r educational levels (preschool through middle school) and to ta l com­ munication is used more frequently at the high school level and in classes serving students from three or more educational lev els. 3. Total communication is used more frequently with students who have severe/profound hearing losses and with students who are fu nctio nally deaf or have "no usable hearing fo r educational pur­ poses." 4. The degree o f teacher satisfaction with the communication approach used did not d if f e r appreciably. Some of the oral teachers expressed a desire to change to to ta l communication. None o f the to ta l communication teachers indicated a desire to change communi­ cation approaches. Teachers o f oral and to ta l communication 74 classrooms did not d if f e r appreciably in th e ir ratings o f the degree o f parent sa tis fa c tio n with the communication method used or with the to ta l educational program fo r the hearing impaired. 5. The newer sign systems— Signing Exact English and Signed English— are most frequently used at the preschool through middle school le v e ls . A combination o f American Sign Language and Signing Exact English are most frequently used a t the high school le v e l. most frequently used sign reference books are: The Gustason's Signing Exact English; O'Rourke's A Basic Course in Manual Communication; Riekehof's Talk to the Deaf; Fant's Ameslan; and Bornstein's Signed English S eries. 6. Fewer than h a lf of the teachers using to ta l communica­ tio n o ffe r formal classes in fin g ersp ellin g and sign to hearing impaired students. Because o f the fa c t th at many programs do not o ffe r th is in s tru c tio n , there is a potential problem 1n providing necessary communication support to the students by those who in t e r ­ act with them. In ad d itio n , there is a need to o ffe r in s tru ctio n in sign and fin g ersp ellin g to hearing students, teachers, support per­ sonnel, and parents. 7. There has been minimal standardization o f signs or m ini­ mal plans to standardize sign systems used in classrooms and programs fo r the hearing impaired w ithin interm ediate school d is ­ tr ic ts . This s itu a tio n re fle c ts a lack of co n tin uity and coordination o f programs between educational levels and classrooms. 8. Only 61.5 percent o f teachers report using a formal system fo r measuring pupil academic progress. A need fo r increased 75 systematic evaluation of hearing impaired students' academic achieve­ ment is evident. The most frequently used systems o f measurement were individual achievement tests and performance objectives. Discussion This study illu s tra te s the dynamic nature of special educa­ tion programs for hearing impaired students in Michigan. Since 1971 the number of classrooms fo r hearing impaired has increased from 259 to 344. The number of classes using the oral approach has decreased from 199 to 179, a decline of 10.1 percent. Since 1971, 23.8 per­ cent of the 235 oral classrooms have changed to to ta l communication. In the same period the number of classes using to ta l communication has increased from 60 to 159, or 265 percent. None of the classrooms using to ta l communication have changed communication approach. There is clearly a sig nificant change taking place in the direction of total communication in Michigan, with 53 percent of the classes using oral and 47 percent of the classes using to ta l communication. The ra tio o f oral to to tal communication classes has changed s ig n ific a n tly at each education le v e l. Although oral communication is used more than to ta l communication at the preschool, elementary, and middle school levels, to ta l communication made its greatest increases at the preschool, elementary, and in classes serving three or more educational levels. This would appear to indicate a growing recognition o f the need fo r the early development of language and communication. 76 A look at the use o f oral and to ta l communication in re latio n to the degree of hearing loss and functional deafness indicates that oral communication is used with preschool through middle school level classes which serve m ildly impaired students and classes with mild to profound losses. The greater the hearing loss, the greater the use of to ta l communication. The classes serving students recog­ nized as fu n ctio n ally deaf usually used to ta l communication. Only 3 of the 58 intermediate school d is tric ts provide both oral and to ta l communication options at a ll educational lev els. Because o f the emotionalism o f the issue among both professionals and parents, and the varying needs of hearing impaired students, one might expect th at more d is tric ts would o ffe r both oral and to ta l com­ munication options. Provision of both oral and to ta l communication options w ithin and among intermediate school d is tric ts may represent a means to provide more appropriate programming fo r the individual needs of hearing impaired students. I t may also be the way to deal adm in istratively with the strong opinions and preferences of both professionals and parents. In re la tio n to teacher satisfactio n with the communication approach used, the oral teachers tended to rate themselves as s lig h tly more s a tis fie d . As mentioned e a r lie r , 9.7 percent of the teachers using the oral approach wanted to change to to ta l communication, the major obstacle to making the change being a lack o f teacher s k ills in to ta l communication. With the increase in the number o f to ta l communication classes, i t appears necessary to develop to ta l commu­ nication components in teacher train in g programs. 77 There is a trend toward-the use of the newer sign systems (Signing Exact English and Signed English) at the preschool, elemen­ tary, and middle school levels. These systems are based on American Sign Language (ASL), the system used most frequently by deaf adults. Many of the signs, however, have been modified beyond recognition. Signing Exact English and Signed English stress the teaching of English through sign and, therefore, modify the ASL syntax (which is not related to English) so that the grammatical structure of English can be taught. Signing Exact English and Signed English stress consistent use of "meaning through context and consistent use of normal spoken English structure" (Cokely & Gawlik, 1973, p. 8 ). Because English and its characteristics dominate, the ASL vocabulary is borrowed and changed. According to Cokely and Gawlik (1973), deaf children who use Signing Exact English and Signed English have d iffic u lty communicating with deaf adults who use Ameslan. Because manuals are available to teach Signing Exact English and Signed English and benefits are expected in dealing with the English language problems of deaf children, i t is understandable that these systems are used at the preschool to middle school le v e l. Since ASL is a sign system which is faster to sign and based on meaning, i t is also understandable that its frequency is greater at the high school le v e l. Because of the great variation in sign systems, and the d iffic u lty in understanding d iffe re n t sign systems, the need fo r standardiza­ tion is essential fo r effective communication. Only 7 of the 31 intermediate school d is tric ts using to tal communication have stan­ dardized signs. 78 Recommendations The following are areas o f concern arising from the in fo r­ mation obtained in the study which the authors feels must be addressed by the local and intermediate school d is tric ts and the Michigan State Department o f Education. 1. C rite ria fo r determining the appropriate educational placement fo r hearing impaired students need to be developed, includ­ ing the development o f guidelines fo r the selection of the oral or to ta l communication placement. 2. Also needed are c r ite r ia fo r the d e fin itio n o f functional deafness and the determination o f the communication approach which is most e ffe c tiv e fo r students found to be fu n ctio nally deaf. 3. Provision o f both oral and to ta l communication options at each educational level among and w ithin intermediate school d is­ tr ic ts may represent a means to provide more appropriate programming fo r the individual needs o f hearing impaired students. 4. I t is recommended th at in-service and pre-service tra in in g in to ta l communication be developed by university teacher tra in in g programs (only one o f which currently emphasizes to ta l communication). 5. The use o f the newer sign systems (Signing Exact English and Signed English) and American Sign Language in educational programs and in the deaf community needs to be evaluated and a determination made as to the appropriate system(s) to use. 6. Local and intermediate school d is tric ts should standardize the sign systems used in to ta l communication programs fo r hearing impaired. 79 7. I t is recommended that a ll d is tric ts using to tal commu­ nication o ffer formal classes in sign and fingerspelling to hearing impaired students, hearing students, teachers, support personnel, and parents in order to provide them with the communication s k ills they need for interaction with students in a to tal communication program. 8. The range of hearing impairment for which adequate edu­ cational programming can be offered in one classroom needs to be explored. Of a ll the teachers reporting, 193 (57.1 percent) appear to be serving students with losses ranging from 26 dB to 90 dB in the same classroom. Rationale for this needs to be investigated and supported or refuted. 9. Increasing attention should be paid to the specific pro­ cedures used to measure academic progress for hearing impaired students. 10. Guidelines need to be developed and established for the integration of students in general education (mainstreaming). Measures of program effectiveness could then be based on measurement of individual student achievement. 11. Administrators at sta te , intermediate, and local levels are encouraged to examine the results of this survey, concurrent with the data compiled by the State Department of Education from the unreported Part A of the questionnaire. Such a procedure would id en tify areas of expressed need and concern in the delivery of effective educational services to hearing impaired students. A 80 careful analysis o f responses from both questionnaires should help indicate appropriate directions fo r on-going e ffo rts to develop and improve the continuum of services to th is special population. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PART B OF QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED BY CLASSROOM TEACHERS OF PROGRAMS FOR HEARING IMPAIRED APPENDIX A PART Bi TO BE COMPLETED BY TEACHERS AND TEACHER CONSULTANTS OF HEARING IMPAIRED PROGRAMS of District: _ Hum Addrsas: List ths specific school districts which you aorvs (I.S.D. and local(s) ): 1. 2. Typs of Program (chsck)i _______ Special Education Classroom a. Total masher of students in your class b. Number of students who spend a portion of school day in general education _______ Teacher Consultant Service _______ Other, specify: __________________________ Level Program Serves (check): _ _ 3. Infant (0-3 years of age) Preschool (3-5 years of age) Elementary (specify grades: Middle School (specify grades: Secondary (specify grades: ) ) ) Indicate the nimaber of hearing impaired students you serve, whose ptiretone average in the speech frequency for the better ear (unaided) is in each of the listed ranges. Also indicate which of those students seem to have no usable hearing with or without amplification. Number of students (unaided score) 26-54 dB 55-69 dB 70-89 dB 90 dB and above Unknown in each range Number of students with no usable hearing for educational purposes _________ ________ ______ _________ _______ _________ ______ ^ _ _ _ _ _________ 4. Has your program developed a definition or specific criteria for functional deafness? Yes _ _ _ _ _ Ho ____ 5. if yes, would you please enclose a copy of that definition. 6. Indicate the number of hearing impaired students you serve who are diagnosed as having additional handicaps as follows: Visually Impaired Learning Disabled ______ _______ PCHI _______ Mentally Impaired Baotionally Impaired Combinations, specify: 81 _______ List the type(a) of amplification ayatana uaad in your classroom or program (0 .9 . burin? aid. loop, wireless, etc.): List eho apacific language cuxriculum(a) which you use: List tha apacific apaach curriculum) which you uaa: List tha apacific auditory curriculw(s) which you uaa: Who provides apuch and language training for your atudanta? (chack) _______ , _ _ Spaach and Language iharapiat Claaaroon Taachar Tuchar Conaultant Othar, apacify; H a t tha apacific aign ayatam(a) which you uaa: If you uaa aigna in thia program, chack tha apacific book(a) uaad and whathar thay ara a primary or supplementary raaourca: BOOKS R8S0PPCE Primary Supplementary Anthony: Suing Esaantial English sornatein: signed English Sariaa rant: Aawslan Fant: Say it with Kanda Gustason at al: Signing axact English Hadaan: Convaraational Sign Language II O ’Rourkai A Baaic Couraa in Manual Communication 1 Riekehof: Talk to tha Daaf Stokoa, Caatarlina, Cronafaarg: A Dictionary of Anariean Sign Language Watson: Talk with your Hands Gaiiaudet Collaga: signs for Instructional Purposes ! Other(a), specify: 1 1 83 14. Cheek the formal classes which ere aveilable in your progras for the groups designated in the left-hand column: CROUP CLASSES Sign Finger­ spelling Speech Development Audition Other, specify Hearing impaired students Hearing students Teachers Suonort Personnel Parents Others, specify: 15. aave signs bean standardised within your district? Yes _ _ _ _ _ No 16. if no, are there any plans to do so? Yes , ^ _ _ _ No CoMenta: 17. Indicate tha priaury c o m uni cation method you use in your program: _______ Oral/Aural Total Communication Manual Other, specify: If more than one method is used, please explain: IB. Indicate for each year since 1971 or since your program started, which method of communication was used in your classroom or program. If you do not have knowledge of this information, consult with your supervisor. INDICATE METHOD USED EACH YEAR: ("0” for oral: *T“ for total) specify others) 1971-1972 _ _ _ _ _ _ 1972-1973 1973-1974 _ _ _ _ _ 1974-1975 _________ 19. 1975-1976__________ 1976-1977 1977-1978 _ _ _ _ _ circle the degree of satisfaction you have with tha method of communication you use: Very Satisfied 1 2 CoMsnts: satisfied Dissatisfied 3 Very Dissatisfied 4 84 20 . 21 . If yas, to what apacific mathodi 22 . If yas, indicata tha major obatada(a) to auJclng such a ehanga: 23. Would you llko to ehanga tha communication aathod you uaa? Yaa No ________ Approxittataly what pareantaga of paranta of ch11 dran in your program do you faal ara aatlafiad/dlaaatiafiad with tha coum unication mathod you uaa? Satiafiadi * Diaiatlafiad: * Commantai 24. Approximataly what pareantaga of paranta of ehildran in your program do you faal ara aatiafiad/diaaatiafiad with tha haaring impairad program in ganaral? Satiafiads % Diaaatlafiad: % Commanta: 25. Do you amploy a formal ayatamatlc aaaaura of pupil aeadamic prograaa? Yaa _ _ _ _ _ _ 26. if yaa, apacifyt No ________ APPENDIX B COVER LETTER TO TEACHERS APPENDIX B fTATt or MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION la m in g , M ichigan 4190? JOHN W. December 12, 1977 > u n m w a* naccnoM m l io w w o r V A N oem annctta m tlu u V !m f > I I AAC 1A 1A C O M A T * MACON M L O W O C 1 H P O JALA1 JOHN W ATANMN. JR. H A IM S O lt t t t t S A M A R A DUMOUCHELLS o il Ra u l a . h i n i y NORMAN OTTO m C K M B Y X K . SC. W ILL IA M O. M 1LLIC JN M E M O R A N D U M TO: Classroom Teachers and Teacher Consultants of Hearing Impaired Programs FROM: Murray 0. Batten,director, Special Education Services SUBJECT: Questionnaire Regarding Hearing Impaired Programs I am asking your help in collecting information regarding programs and services available to hearing impaired students within the State of Michigan. As you are aware, the State Board of Education and the Legislature have been reviewing the role and function of the Michigan School for the Deaf. The State Board of Education has already asked a number of questions about the types of programs and services available in the public schools which I am unable to answer because I do not have a sufficient data base. 1 am asking for your help in having the attached questionnaire completed. I will share this information with you as soon as I have it summarized and will plan to use the information in the State Plan to pinpoint any problems I might have in regard to the delivery system for the hearing impaired. Would you please complete Part B of the questionnaire. Teacher consultants, please do not report students who are being served in special education classrooms for the hearing impaired. They will be reported by the teacher of the hearing impaired on his/her form. Please return this information to your intermediate district as soon as possible as they are responsible for sending the questionnaires back to the State Department by January 9, 1978. Thank you for your time and cooperation in the collection of this information. ■QUA! OPPORTUNITY tM PLO YH APPENDIX C LIST OF 58 MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS APPENDIX C LIST OF 58 MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS A1legan Alpena, Montmorency, Alcona Barry Bay, Arenac Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix, Emmet Cheboygan, Otsego, Presque Is le Eastern Upper Peninsula Chippewa, Luce, Mackinaw Clare, Gladwin Cl inton D elta, Schoolcraft Dickinson, Iron Eaton Genesee Gogebic, Ontonagon Traverse Bay Area: Grand Traverse, Benzie, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Antri m G ra tio t, Isabella H illsdale Cooper Country: Houghton, Baraga, Keweenaw Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Jackson Kalamazoo Valley Kent 86 Lake Lapeer Lenawee Livingston Macomb Manistee Marquette-Alger Mason Mecosta-Osceola Menominee Midland Monroe Montcalm Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Schools Oceana (also Newaygo) Ottawa COOR: Crawford, Oscoda, Ogemaw, Roscommon Saginaw St. C la ir St. Joseph Sanilac Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Wexford-Mi ssaukee REFERENCES REFERENCES Babbie, E. R. Survey Research Methods. Publishing Co., 1973. Belmont, Ca.: Bates, A. "Controversy in the Education of the Deaf." of the Deaf 73 (September 1975): 272-81. Wadsworth The Teacher Bennett, C. "Speech Pathology and the Hearing Impaired Child." Volta Review 76 (1974): 550-57. Birch, Jack. Hearing Impaired Children in the Mainstream. Reston, V a.: University of Pittsburg, Council fo r Exceptional Children, 1975. Borg, W. R ., and G all, M. D. Educational Research. McKay Company, In c ., 1976. New York: David B r i l l , Richard. Administrative and Professional Developments in the Education of the Deaf. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College Press, 1971. ________. "The Superior I.Q .'s of Deaf Children of Deaf Parents." The C alifornia Palms 15 (December 1969) C alifornia School for the Deaf, Riverside, C alifo rn ia. Cokely, D. R ., and Gawlik, R. A Position Paper on the Relationship Between Manual English and Sign. Washington, D .C .: Kendall demonstration Elementary School fo r the Deaf, April 18, 1973. Craig, W. N. "Effects of Preschool Training on the Development of Reading and Lipreading S k ills o f Deaf Children." American Annals of the Deaf 199 (1964): 280-96. Davis, H ., and Silverman, S. R ., eds. Hearing and Deafness. York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, In c ., 1960. Denton, David M. Total Communication. October 16, 1970. DiCarlo, Lois. The Deaf. In c ., 1964. Maryland School fo r the Deaf, Englewood C lif f s , N. J .: 87 New Prentice-Hal1, 88 Furth, Hans G. Deafness and Learning: A Psychosocial Approach. Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, In c ., 1973. Gates, Robert R. "Report o f an Adm inistrative Review o f the Michigan School fo r the Deaf." A report presented to the Michigan State Board o f Education by the Michigan School fo r the Deaf, F lin t , Michigan, September 1977. Goldberg, J. P ., and Bordman, M. B. "The ESL (English as a Second Language) Approach to Teaching Hearing Impaired Stydents." American Annals o f the Deaf (February 1975): 22-27. Gustason, G. "Manual English--What We Know and What We'd Like to Know." Washington, D .C .: Kendall Demonstration Elementary School fo r the Deaf, April 18, 1973. Johnson, E. H. "The A b ility of Pupils in a School fo r the Deaf to Understand Various Methods o f Communication, I I . " American Annals o f the Deaf 93 (1948): 258-314. Jordan, I . K ., Gustason, G ., and Rosen, R. "Communication Trends at Programs fo r the Deaf." American Annals o f the Deaf (December 1976): 527. Katz, L .; Mathis, S. L . ; and M e r r i l l . E. C. The Deaf Child in the Public Schools. D a n v ille , 111.: The In te rs ta te Printers and Publishers, In c ., 1974. Kent, Margaret S. "Language Growth and Development of the Deaf C h ild ." In-Service Workship, Carver School fo r the Deaf, Annapolis, Maryland, March 19, 1972. Letourneau, N ., and Young, V. "Total Communication Shuffles O ff to B u ffalo ." American Annals o f the Deaf 120 (1975): 493-98. Ling, Daniel. Speech and the Hearing-Impaired Child: Theory and Practiced Washington, D.C.': Alexander Graham Bell Associa tio n fo r the Deaf, In c ., 1976. McClure, W illiam J. "The Rochester Method and the Florida School." American Annals o f the Deaf (June 1975): 331-40. McCroskey, R. L. "Early Education o f Infants with Severe Auditory Impairments." Proceedings o f In te rn atio n al Conference on Oral Education o f the Deaf, The Volta Bureau, Washington, D .C ., 1967, pp. 1891-1904. 89 Meadows, K. P. "Early Manual Communication in Relation to the Deaf Child's In te lle c tu a l, Social, and Communication Functioning." American Annals of the Deaf 113 (1968): 29-41. Michigan, Special Education Code as Amended January 14, 1977. the provision's of Public Act 198 of 1971, p. 1. M ille r , June. "Oralism." Volta Review 72 (1970): Under 211-217. Mindel, E. D ., and Vernon, M. They Grow in Silence. S ilv er Spring, Maryland: National Association of the Deaf, 1971. Moores, D. F. "Neo-oralism and the Education of the Deaf in the Soviet Union." Exceptional Children 38 (1972): 377-84. Nie, N. H .; H u ll, C. H.; Jenkins, J. G .; Steinbrenner, K .; and Bent, D. H. S ta tis tic a l Package fo r the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975. O ffice of Demographic Studies. Characteristics of Hearing Impaired Students by Hearing Status, Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College, 1971. ________ . Characteristics o f Hearing Impaired Students Under Six Years o f Age. Washington, d7c .: Gallaudet College, 1970. P h illip s , W. D. "Influence of Preschool Training on Achievement in Language Arts, Arithmetic Concepts, and Socialization of Young Deaf Children." Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia, S.C., 1963. P ric k e tt, H. T . , and Hunt, J. T. "Education of the Deaf—The Next Ten Years." American Annals of the Deaf (August 1977): 36581. Quigley, S. P. The Influence of Fingerspelling on the Development of Language Communication, and Educational Achievement in Deaf Children. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967. ________, and Frisina, R. D. "In s titu tio n a liz a tio n and PsychoEducational Development of Deaf Children." Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Research Monograph, Series A -------------------------------3 (1961).------------ '-------------Report o f the Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf Ad Hoc Committee to Define Deaf and Hard of Hearing. American Annals of the Deaf (October 1975): 509-12. 90 Schein, Jerome D. The Deaf Community, Studies in the Social Psycholoqy o f Deafness. Washinqton, D.C.: Gallaudet Colleqe P re irrri^ — ________ . The National Census o f the Deaf Population (Erwin Kugel Lecture S e ries ). New York: New York Society o f the Deaf, 1973. ________ , and Delk, M. T. The Deaf Population o f the United S tates. S ilv e r Spring, Md.: National Association o f the Deaf, 1974. Stevenson, E. "A Study o f the Educational Achievement o f Deaf Children of Deaf Parents." C a lifo rn ia News (1964): 143. Stokoe, W. C ., J r. "CAL Conference on Sign Language." t i c Reporter 12 (1970): 6-7. The Linguis­ ________ . "The Use o f Sign Language in Teaching English." Annals o f the Deaf (August 1975): 417-42. American Stuckless, E. R ., and Birch, J . W. "The Influence o f Early Manual Communication on the L in g u istic Development o f Deaf C hildren." American Annals o f the Deaf 111 (1966): 452-62. "A Study o f the Michigan School fo r the Deaf and the Michigan School fo r the B lind." Educational Management Services, In c ., Minneapolis, Minn., March 1977. "A Study to Determine the F e a s ib ility o f Implementing M u ltip ly Handicapped Programs at the Michigan School fo r the Blind and the Michigan School fo r the Deaf." Educational Research and Development, In c ., Washington, D .C ., October 1974. Vernon, M., and Kohn, S. D. "Early Manual Communication and Deaf Children's Achievement." American Annals o f the Deaf 115 (1970): 527-36. ________ . "Effects o f Oral Preschool Compared to Early Manual Communication on Education and Communication in Deaf C hildren." American Annals o f the Deaf 116 (1971): 569-74. White, A. H. "A Comparative Study o f the A rtic u la tio n o f Consonant Phonemes Between Day School and Residential School Deaf Students." M.A. th e s is , U niversity o f Utah, 1969. ________ . "The Effects o f Total Communication, Manual Communication, Oral Communication and Reading on the Learning o f Factual Information in Residential School Deaf C hildren." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n ive rsity , 1972. 91 ________ , and Stevenson, Vivian M. "The Effects o f Total Communica­ tio n , Manual Communication, Oral Communication and Reading on the Learning of Factual Information in Residential School Deaf Children." American Annals o f the Deaf (February 1975): 48-57. Williams, Clarence M., ed. "Language and Communication Research Problems." Proceedings of the Second Gallaudet Symposium on Research in Deafness, Office fo r Research, Gallaudet College. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet Press, 1976.