A National Research Agenda for the Postsecondary ...

A National Research Agenda for the Postsecondary Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: A Road Map for the Future Schroedel, John G. Watson, Douglas, 1943Ashmore, Donnell H. American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 148, Number 2, Reference Issue 2003, pp. 67-73 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: 10.1353/aad.2003.0014

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/aad/summary/v148/148.2schroedel.html

Access Provided by Peking University at 01/06/12 10:06PM GMT

SELECTED TOPICS OF INTEREST, 2003

A National Research Agenda for the Postsecondary Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: A Road Map for the Future John G. Schroedel, Douglas Watson, and Donnell H. Ashmore John G. Schroedel is research professor at the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, University of Arkansas. Douglas Watson is professor and director of the center, located in Little Rock. Donnell H. Ashmore is associate professor and director of the Center on Deafness at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

This article describes converging nationwide changes in the postsecondary education of students with hearing loss during the past 30 years. Simultaneous trends in the economy, labor force, and business practices have magnified the need for literacy, postsecondary training, and career skills. These conditions stimulated institutional and professional activities that led to drafting a National Research Agenda report to guide development of federally funded research projects in postsecondary education. These studies will enhance better understanding of the complex interactions of diverse support services, learning-living environments, and student populations in a broad continuum of post-high school vocational and academic training programs. The conceptual framework of the Agenda is explained, as are its expected goals, criteria for research projects, benefits, and outcomes. This article interweaves the perspectives and roles of postsecondary and vocational rehabilitation professionals, federal officials, and researchers contributing to the preparation of the Agenda report. Relevant national research studies are cited and consumer involvement in research is emphasized.

Postsecondary education and vocational rehabilitation (VR) professionals recognize the value of research studies on college students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The results of assessing on-campus programs assist administrators, faculty, and support staff in improving academic instruction, career training, and student services. Surveys of alumni are beneficial to appraise the outcomes of college placements. Information on graduates’ socio-economic attainments also boost fund raising from various donor groups. In recent years periodicals reaching deaf consumers and professionals have frequently reported about 25,000 deaf and hard of hearing students enrolled in college. This is a very significant underestimate. During 2000 15.1 million students were attending the nation’s 5,000 colleges and universities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). By using the most reliable demographic research available (Ries, 1994) we conservatively estimated that 3.1% of the college-age group (18–35) had a hearing loss, thus 468,000 of these students were deaf or hard of hearing (also see Watson & Schroedel, 2000). More specifically, 345,000 were hard of hearing, 115,000 deafened after age 19, and 8,000 deafened before age 19. A national survey of college students in 1989-90 estimated that 258,000 had a hearing loss (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). By contrast, surveys of campus officials, including those knowledgeable of students with disabilities, reported between 20,000 and 24,000 deaf and hard of hear-

ing college students during the 1990s (Hopkins & Walter, 1999; Lewis & Farris, 1994, 1999). A major cause of these underestimates by college administrators was that few hard of hearing students were requesting campus support services due to factors such as denial of their hearing loss (Schroedel, Kelley, & Conway, 2002). These authors discussed many general auditory and psychological characteristics of hard of hearing persons. They pointed out, for example, that it could be erroneous to exclude an unassisted mild hearing loss as a disability because most persons with this condition do not use hearing aids and many may experience chronic depression and social isolation. The disabling social psychological consequences of a so-called “mild” hearing loss may be more severe than profound deafness. At least Deaf persons have a clear identity, meaningful peers, and a viable social community. Accurately defining target populations is equally important to service providers and researchers. Note that those who are deaf are unable to hear and understand speech; whereas those who are hard of hearing have difficulties hearing and understanding speech (Ries, 1994). These demographic definitions are not directly comparable to terms used by federal agencies such as the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to describe these populations. This article will discuss more about defining target populations.

67

VOLUME 148, NO. 2, 2003

AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

A ROAD MAP

FOR THE

F UTURE

Research on the postsecondary training of students with hearing loss during the past 30 years has a mixed legacy. On the downside, is the severe shortage of studies evaluating the outcomes of posthigh school training and factors contributing to these outcomes. Fisher, Harlow, and Moores (1974) analyzed three regional training programs, which resulted in the relocation of one of these centers. Schroedel and Watson (1991a, 1991b) examined the management, staffing, student characteristics, availability, use of support services, and alumni outcomes from a national sample of 46 colleges with specialized programmatic services. They noted major problems at these programs including: (a) high student attrition, (b) under-participation of students from ethnic minority backgrounds, (c) relative inattention to students who are hard of hearing, and (d) no national standards for support services. Another problem is the lack of research on major sub-groups within the population of students with hearing loss. This is particularly true for hard of hearing college students. Exceptions are the study by Quigley, Jenne, and Phillips (1968) and the practitioner’s handbook by Flexer, Wray, and Leavitt (1990). In addition, almost no research has been done on students with hearing loss in non-collegiate vocational training programs (e.g., forprofit trade schools). Among 7,300 deaf consumers in 1996 who received VR-sponsored training, 26% attended college and 74% experienced either formal or informal vocational-occupational training (Moore & Schroedel, 2001). It is essential to note that postsecondary education includes all types of collegiate and vocational training. Balancing these deficiencies have been on-going studies at specific campuses, particularly Gallaudet University and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at the Rochester Institute of Technology (NTID at RIT), assessing various support services, methods of classroom learning, and alumni outcomes. Presently, Gallaudet, NTID, and the University of Arkansas are the nation’s leading centers on research of

students with hearing loss in a variety of post-high school vocational and academic career preparation settings. Each center has a sustained track record of such research. However, the scope and content of studies at each center are shaped by factors such as changes in federal legislation, institutional missions, available professional expertise, and funding. Changes Prompt Research Needs

Research is needed in the postsecondary education of students with hearing loss because of many major changes occurring in this field since the 1970s. There has been a decrease in the number of programs exclusively serving students who are deaf and a corresponding increase in programs serving students with hearing loss through generic oncampus offices serving students with various disabilities (Hopkins & Walter, 1999; Lewis & Farris, 1994; Schroedel & Watson, 1991a). More specifically, between 1987 and 1998 the number of specially designated colleges serving students who are deaf (N=150) remained stable while the number of students served decreased from 7,000 to 5,200 (Rawlings, Karchmer, & DeCaro, 1988; Rawlings, Karchmer, DeCaro, & Allen, 1999). Furthermore, in 1996 the focus of the four federally funded regional education programs shifted from directly serving students who are deaf to providing technical assistance and outreach services to area colleges and universities to enhance accommodating deaf and hard of hearing students. This is achieved through four regional Technical Assistance Centers (TACs) united into the Postsecondary Education Programs Network (PEPNet). Watson and Schroedel (2000) noted that these trends reflected several underlying patterns: (a) the post-rubella bubble decrease since the late 1980s in the number of students who are deaf eligible for college training increased attention by college professionals to students who are hard of hearing or late-deafened and (b) the decline in specialized college pro-

grams for students who are deaf partially reflects the consequences of increased K12 mainstreaming since the early 1970s. One significant result of these and other trends has been the emergence of a continuum of academic and non-academic postsecondary settings for students with hearing loss: (a) Gallaudet and NTID, (b) two-year and four-year colleges and universities, (c) community-based employment training centers, (d) for-profit business colleges and trade schools, and (e) other postsecondary vocational training programs in the 50 states. The effects of these patterns in postsecondary education and vocational rehabilitation have been accentuated by mega trends in the nation’s economy, work force, and business practices (Johnston & Packer, 1987; Wegman, Chapman, & Johnson, 1989). Factors such as expanding advances in technology, foreign trade, and labor force participation have made the United States a vital part of a very competitive global economy. Occupations have changed with some high in employer demand and low risks to unemployment whereas other jobs are characterized by low employer demand and high risks to unemployment. Major sectors of the economy have been transformed drastically with some industries declining and others booming. In their ruthless pursuit of profits corporations have changed their workforces by downsizing, outsourcing, and restructuring. For the individual worker the bottom line is that literacy and postsecondary education are more important than ever. It is vital that career preparation be a viable component of post-high school education and that postsecondary and vocational rehabilitation professionals collaborate to optimize this priority. Specialists in these fields over the past 30 years have noted particular areas where cross-disciplinary action is needed. The Advisory Committee on the Education of the Deaf (1965) urged expansion of postsecondary training, particularly vocational training, and greater federal support for better integrated research at all levels in educating deaf students. Bowe

68

VOLUME 148, NO. 2, 2003


(1991) identified an unfulfilled need for regional comprehensive rehabilitation centers for what VR personnel term “low functioning” deaf persons and educators may call “academically challenged” deaf pupils. In Ragosta’s (1990) comprehensive evaluation of the education and vocational rehabilitation of deaf persons, increased multi-professional collaboration and research were emphasized. Lang’s (2002) extensive review of the research in higher education of deaf students focused on areas such as: (1) academic and social factors in attrition, (2) support services, (3) classroom learning, (4) effective teaching, and (5) preparing for college training. Major gaps in all four cited documents include inattention to the needs of hard of hearing and late-deafened students and the adaptability of accommodations in local mainstreamed postsecondary training settings lacking the resources of federally funded programs. Why Is the National Research Agenda Needed?

In addition to the values of research to postsecondary education in general and to specific programs in particular, the government has a keen need for these studies. Federal agencies are the primary funding sources for research on the postsecondary training of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Passage of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act mandated that federal agencies determine programmatic outcomes and develop information systems to adjust spending priorities to comply with agency goals. Since the founding of Gallaudet College in 1864, NTID in 1966, and four regional training programs in 1968, the federal government has had a leading role in financing postsecondary education for students who are deaf. Thus, the nation looks to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education (USDED) to develop cohesive policies for supporting postsecondary education for these students. The lack of a well-organized research

program and other conditions has hampered developing national goals for the postsecondary education of students with hearing loss. These conditions have created problems for OSERS in planning research, determining programmatic outcomes, and setting agency goals for federal initiatives. Although Congressional reauthorization of the Education of the Deaf Act in 1998 mandated national studies on these students, no funding was allocated. Furthermore, federal agencies must form cooperative agreements to enhance national workforce development and reduce dependency on welfare. Because federal agencies must set programmatic outcomes and spending priorities that match agency objectives, OSERS can benefit from better information to develop cohesive policies in postsecondary training. Subsequently, OSERS needs an integrated research program to assess payoffs and benefits to society and the individual resulting from federal funding of postsecondary education of students with hearing loss. This is equally important for the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) which comprise OSERS. At the same time, these agencies can look at specific states and programs to identify replicable models and best practices to enhance the postsecondary training, vocational rehabilitation, and employment of deaf and hard of hearing Americans. How Was the National Research Agenda Developed?

The above-mentioned trends and needs converged into a climate that gave birth to focused actions that produced the National Research Agenda. In short, widespread recognition of the value of research studies by postsecondary and vocational rehabilitation professionals was strengthened by numerous concurrent and rapid changes occurring in and around these fields. The sporadic efforts of prior research projects also increased awareness within federal agencies that a “road map” was needed to better organize

investments in future research. These projects had to yield a higher pay-off in results useful to not only sponsoring agencies but also to professionals active in the post-high school training of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Agenda originated in 1999 as a joint endeavor sponsored by the directors of the four regional PEPNet technical assistance centers (TACs). The TAC at the University of Tennessee Postsecondary Education Consortium coordinated developing the Agenda with administrators at Gallaudet, NTID, and the University of Arkansas. A network of 30 federal officials, researchers, and program coordinators from a large variety of postsecondary education and vocational rehabilitation settings created the Agenda report. During 2000 most of these experts participated in meetings in Los Angeles (January) and Denver (April). Many also reviewed successive drafts of the document by e-mail and utilized the findings from significant national studies. A Conceptual Framework

The centerpiece of the Agenda is a model hypothetical framework, or “blue print,” to more effectively link future research studies. Key unifying principles underlying this conceptual framework include: (a) a focus on outcomes, (b) common definitions of the target student populations, (c) linkages to established national goals for educating these students, (d) consistencies in data collection across different studies, and (e) integrating and coordinating these studies to ensure that their research objectives mutually reinforce each other. The primary overall desired outcome of this “blue print” is the widespread dissemination of a consumer-friendly body of cost-effective research-based knowledge. As specified in Figure 1, this conceptual framework comprises three primary inter-related research areas: (a) student populations, (b) on-campus support services and accommodations, and (c) postsecondary living and learning environments. Effects of each of these research areas are related to programmatic

69

VOLUME 148, NO. 2, 2003


A ROAD MAP

FOR THE

F UTURE

National Goals for Serving Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Postsecondary Training Programs Access Service Studies Characteristics of service needs related to: quality, reliability, availability and trends

OUTCOMES Employment, Independence, Enrollment, Retention, Graduation, Transition, and Job Preparedness

Learning and Living Environment Factors related to: resources, funding, attitudes, social support, and learning style

Population Studies

Figure 1 Conceptual framework

Population Characteristics: Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Underserved, Transition-aged, Secondary Disabilities

outcomes that mirror national objectives in the postsecondary training of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Such objectives may include: (a) improving graduation rates, (b) diversifying enrollments, (c) enriching student language skills, and (d) strengthening graduates’ job readiness. This basic schemata reflects the complex interactions between diversities in student characteristics, provision of services, and student living and learning environments found in the nationwide continuum of postsecondary programs for these students. On the left side of Figure 1 are studies of access services which support students’ academic and career preparation needs. There is a special urgency to enhance better understanding of the needs of underserved learners. Factors germane to on-campus learning and living environments are displayed on the right side of the figure. If students’ academic and social needs are not addressed, they will drop out: three of every four students who are deaf quit college before completing a degree (Stinson & Walter, 1997). Professionals must better comprehend and integrate the total on-campus environment-academic learning, psycho-social development, and career preparationso that programs can optimize

persistence of their students. A possible example of one research approach to enhance career readiness is illustrated in Figure 2. It is expected that a student who is deaf with a clear vocational goal will stay in college (Schroedel, 1991). Moreover, additional preparation is needed to improve attitudes and behaviors of faculty and staff. Perturbed professors faced by a student with a hearing loss may deny him or her necessary accommo-

National Goal for improving job preparedness

dations. More fundamentally, understanding key factors in student learning of marketable career skills, for example, is crucial. Effective professional responsiveness to the unique learning styles of students who are deaf in contrast to those who are hard of hearing is crucial. There is also a need to meet differences in individual student learning styles. Other Key Ideas for the Agenda's Conceptual Framework

The Agenda report identified three key precepts interwoven into it’s conceptual framework. First, future research studies must follow national goals for postsecondary training of students with hearing loss set by programs such as USDED, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Social Security Administration. Federal legislation, such as the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Ticket to Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, requires inter-agency cooperation in every state to enhance workforce development and reduce dependency on public assistance. Second, researchers must draw upon completed studies in planning new projects. These include the PEPNet national needs assessment (Hopkins & Walter, 1999), the Gallaudet/

Learning and Living Environment Learning Environment:

Outcome Job-preparedness of deaf students at two-year and fouryear colleges Population Studies Methods for characterizing deaf students

• Teacher preparation • Teacher attitudes • Learning style Living Environment: • Acces to extracurricular activities • Housing • Availability of social activities

Figure 2 Example of research on learning and living environments

70

VOLUME 148, NO. 2, 2003


NTID surveys for the College and Career Programs for Deaf Students guidebooks (e.g., Rawlings, et al., 1999), and the national forum on the education of youth with hearing loss (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1999). Third, researchers must utilize existing national databases such as the OSEP Longitudinal Study on Transition and the RSA-911 national data system on annual case closures from the 50 state VR agencies. Seven Goals for the National Research Agenda

• Unify federal officials, researchers, and program administrators on an Agenda with a conceptual framework to integrate future research projects.

• Encourage organizations of consumers and professionals to coalesce and support the Agenda. • Present the Agenda to OSERS to develop guidelines for coordinating and funding research initiatives. • Seek funding from Congress for research projects. • Promote collaboration among researchers on applied research proposals to be reviewed by OSERS under the auspices of the Agenda. • Involve postsecondary, vocational rehabilitation, and allied professionals as well as representatives from organizations of consumers who are deaf, latedeaf, and hard of hearing in the development, operation, and evaluation of research projects.

Panel 1: The SERP Research Translation Model Policymaker/ Practitioner Collaboration Education Research

Classroom Practice

Student Learning

Professional Development

Classroom Practice

Student Learning

Professional Development Source: John Willinsky, Educational Researcher, (Jan-Feb 2001)

Figure 3 The SERP reserach translation model

• Focus on student outcomes from postsecondary programs. • Use common definitions of targeted student populations in different research projects. • Include students and research consumers with all types of hearing loss. • Link projects to established national goals for postsecondary education of these students.

• Form project objectives that mutually reinforce objectives from other projects.

Emphasizing Consumer Involvement

Policymaking

Education Research

It is anticipated that both requests for proposals and peer review of submitted research applications will follow such criteria as:

• Use existing databases in planning projects.

Panel 2: Proposed Deliberative Research Translation Model for SERP

Public and Professional Deliberative Space With portals to research, synthesis, policies, practices, discussions, and collaborations

Criteria for Agenda-Sponsored Research Projects

• Be consistent with common data collection methods across studies.

Policymaking Research Synthesis

• Expedite use of research findings to improve policies and practices in the postsecondary training of deaf and hard of hearing adults.

Research translation is the total process of designing and conducting a research project and disseminating its results. Shown in the top frame of Figure 3 is the Strategic Education Research Plan (SERP) currently used by the USDED (Willinsky, 2001). Unfortunately, this model excludes significant consumers such as parents, teachers, and teacher trainers from the process of converting research results into educational practices and policies. The model in the lower frame of Figure 3, proposed by Willinsky,

71

VOLUME 148, NO. 2, 2003


A ROAD MAP

FOR THE

F UTURE

is preferred because consumers are encouraged to fully participate in the research translation process. The University of Arkansas, like other research programs, uses a participatory research action approach (Whyte, 1991) to develop research projects. Before designing projects Center faculty bring together service professionals and leaders of consumer organizations into focus groups to obtain synergetic expert input and later feedback on the project's progress. It is known that a consumer involved in the development of a research project is more likely to use its results than an uninvolved prospective consumer. The field obtains better applied research and more useful and practical research results for consumers. Information about the National Research Agenda has been presented at various professional conferences to gather both consumer comments and organizational endorsements. These presentations included meetings sponsored by the Southeast Regional Institute on Deafness (2001), PEPNet (2002), and the American Educational Research Association (Schroedel, Ashmore, & Watson, 2001). Other presentations are planned for 2003 to increase knowledge of the Agenda among consumers with hearing loss and additional professionals serving them. Conclusions

Professionals are aware that during the past 30 years research on the postsecondary training of students with hearing loss has been sporadic and fragmented. Studies have evaluated classroom instruction methods and support service programs at selected colleges and universities. Although these activities have been beneficial in disseminating knowledge of professional services and policies in postsecondary training, there has been little nationwide integration of this knowledge across research and demonstration projects. The National Research Agenda is designed as a policy document to enhance planning, coordination, and funding of future research projects on postsecondary

participants with hearing loss. These projects are anticipated to examine a wide range of significant issues on the interactions of variations in student characteristics, support services, and campus living and learning environments. It is also anticipated that federal research funds will be better invested and yield a higher impact on postsecondary training. The ultimate objective of the Agenda is to use research-generated knowledge to improve practices and policies that will augment and expand opportunities and outcomes for postsecondary students who are deaf and hard of hearing. It is envisioned that this Agenda will lead to the creation of well-defined student populations, variables impacting the availability and use of support services or accommodations (including communicative technologies), as well as factors affecting classroom learning and on-campus social life. In addition, another desired product is the development of national standards on the quality of support services. The main beneficiaries of these activities will be future deaf and hard of hearing participants in postsecondary training.

Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

References

Rawlings, B. W., Karchmer, M. A., & DeCaro, J. J. (1988). College and career programs for deaf students. Washington, DC and Rochester, NY: Gallaudet University and Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf.

Advisory Committee on the Education of the Deaf. (1965). Education of the deaf. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Bowe, F. (1991). Approaching equality: Education of the deaf. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers. Fisher, S.D., Harlow, M. J. P., & Moores, D.F. (1974). Postsecondary programs for the deaf: External view (Report No.61, Vol. II of 6 volumes; Final Report of U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Education of the Handicapped grant No. OE09-332189-4533-032). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Research, Development, and Demonstration Center in Education of Handicapped Children. Flexer, C., Wray, D., & Leavitt, R. (1990). How the student with hearing loss can succeed in college: A handbook for students, families, and professionals. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. Hopkins, K., & Walter, G. (1999). Postsecondary Education Programs (PEPNet) needs assessment (Report of USDED/OSERS grant No. HO78A60004). Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Northeast Technical Assistance Center.

Lang, H.G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students: Research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7 (4), 267-280. Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1994). Deaf and hard of hearing students in postsecondary education (National Center for Education Statistics Report NCES 94-394). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education (National Center for Education Statistics Report NCES 1999-046). Jessup, MD: USDED, 1-877-4 ED-Pubs. Moore, C. L., & Schroedel, J.G. (2001). A national profile of the vocational rehabilitation of Americans with hearing loss (Tech. Rep.). Little Rock: University of Arkansas, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1999). Education of children and youth who are deaf and hard of hearing: Past, present, and future of federal support (Final Report of USDED/ OSEP grant No. H159K70002). Alexandria, VA: Author, Project Forum. Quigley, S. P., Jenne, W.C., & Phillips, S.B. (1968). Deaf students in colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. Ragosta, M. (1990). Progress in education and rehabilitation of deaf and hard of hearing individuals (Final Report of USDED, OSERS contract No. 300-870056). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Educational Testing Service.

Rawlings, B. W., Karchmer, M. A., DeCaro, J. J, & Allen, T. E. (1999). College and career programs for deaf students. Washington, DC and Rochester, NY: Gallaudet University and Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Ries, P.W. (1994). Prevalence and characteristics of persons with hearing trouble: United States, 1990-91. Vital and Health Statistics, 10 (188). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Schroedel, J.G. (1991). Career indecision among deaf seniors in residential and day high schools. American Annals of the Deaf, 136 (4), 330-338. Schroedel, J.G., Ashmore, D., & Watson, D. (2001, April). A National Research Agenda for the postsecondary education of deaf and hard of hearing students. Poster session presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. HE0340009).

72

VOLUME 148, NO. 2, 2003


Schroedel, J., Kelley, C., & Conway, P. (2002). Where are all the hard of hearing students? Some tips for enhancing services by postsecondary and rehabilitation professionals. In K. B. Jursik (Ed.), PEPNet 2002: Diverse voices, one goal - Conference proceedings (pp. 105-111). Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Postsecondary Education Consortium. Schroedel, J. G., & Watson, D. (1991a). Enhancing opportunities in postsecondary education for deaf students (Final Report of USDED, OSERS, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research grants G008300153 and G0086C3501). Little Rock: University of Arkansas, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Deafness and Hearing Impairment. Schroedel, J.G., & Watson, D. (1991b). Postsecondary education for students who are deaf: A summary of a national study. OSERS News in Print, 4 (1), 8-14. Stinson, M., & Walter, G. (1997). Improving retention for deaf and hard of hearing students: What the research tells us. JADARA, 30 (4), 14-23. U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2001 (121st ed). Austin, TX: Hoover’s Business Press. U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). 1989-90 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study [Electronic data tape]. Cited by Lewis & Farris (1994). Watson, D., & Schroedel, J. G. (2000, February). Analyses of national databases on deaf and hard of hearing students in 5,000 colleges in the United States. Paper presented at the Postsecondary Education Programs Network (PEPNet) research focus group forum, Los Angeles, CA. Wegman, R., Chapman, R., & Johnson, M. (1989). Work in the new economy: Careers and job seeking into the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Jist Works. Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Willinsky, J. (2001). The Strategic Education Research Program and the public value of research. Educational Researcher, 30 (1), 5-14.

A version of this article was published in K. B. Jursik (Ed.), PEPNet 2002: Diverse voices, one goal - Conference proceedings. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Postsecondary Education Consortium.

73

VOLUME 148, NO. 2, 2003
