Deafness and Diversity: Reflections and Directions

'HDIQHVVDQG'LYHUVLW\5HIOHFWLRQVDQG'LUHFWLRQV &DUROLQH*XDUGLQR-RDQQD(&DQQRQ

$PHULFDQ$QQDOVRIWKH'HDI9ROXPH1XPEHU6SULQJSS $UWLFOH 3XEOLVKHGE\*DOODXGHW8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV '2,DDG

)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH

Access provided by North Florida, University of (22 Jun 2016 21:15 GMT)

18888-AAD161.1_Spring2016 4/18/16 11:36 AM Page 104

Guardino, C., & Cannon, J. E. (2016). Deafness and diversity: Reflections and directions. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(1), 104–112.

DEAFNESS AND DIVERSITY: REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

C

CAROLINE GUARDINO AND JOANNA E. CANNON

GUARDINO IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF EXCEPTIONAL, DEAF, AND INTERPRETER EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA, JACKSONVILLE. CANNON IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN SPECIAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, VANCOUVER, CANADA.

American Annals of the Deaf special issue on deafness and diversity (DAD), the editors provide reflections and guidance to the field regarding d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh) children with a disability (DWD; e.g., learning or intellectual disability, autism) and d/Dhh children from homes where parents use a language other than English or American Sign Language (d/Dhh Multilingual Learners; DMLs). Contributing authors addressed the application of theory, research, and practice to five topics: (a) early intervention, (b) communication/language, (c) assessment, (d) transition, (e) teacher preparation. An overview of the main recommendations of the contributors and editors is presented in an effort to advance research and pedagogy with these learners. In conclusion, the editors discuss the “Radical Middle” approach (Easterbrooks & Maiorana-Basas, 2015) to working with students who are DAD: providing learners with all options for academic, social, and emotional success.

O N C LU D I N G A T W O - PA RT

Keywords: bilingual, culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD), culturally responsive teaching (CRT), deaf, d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing Multilingual Learner (DML), deafness and diversity (DAD), deafplus, deaf with additional disabilities, deaf with disabilities, deaf with multiple disabilities, demographics, disability, diverse, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), English Language Learner (ELL), hard of hearing, hearing loss, multicultural, multiply disabled deaf

The field of educating students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/Dhh) is

particularly diverse, since each person represents variation in characteristics such as background, demographic attributes, and etiologies, all of which will have an impact on their social and academic development (Easterbrooks & Baker, 2002). For the purposes of the two-part special issue of the American Annals of the Deaf for which the present article is the conclusion, the concept of deafness and diversity (DAD) encompasses d/Dhh children and adolescents with a disability (DWD; e.g., a learning disability, autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder), or d/Dhh children who come from homes where

104

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016

AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF


parents or caretakers use a language other than English or American Sign Language (i.e., d/Dhh Multilingual Learners, or DMLs). Finally, diversity also includes children who are DWD and DMLs. In this conclusion to the special issue, we review how these students can best be served through a variety of avenues within the field. Rather than look at disability or cultural aspects categorically, we asked contributors to address the major issues concerning these children, families, service providers, and researchers, including (a) early intervention, (b) communication and language, (c) assessment, (d) transition, and (e) teacher preparation. The editors and contributors were presented with questions (Guardino & Cannon, 2015) to contemplate and answer to the best of their ability, in light of the paucity of research published on students who are DAD:

1. Theory: Are there current theories that address this population? If not, what theories exist that could help us better understand this population? 2. Research: What research exists on this area/topic? What recommendations are being made? What still needs to be studied? 3. Practice: What are the current practices used with this population? And if none, what are potential recommendations for practitioners? (p. 353) Overall themes and recommendations that emerged from the contributors’ findings are presented in this conclusion. A major challenge that reoccurred during the development of both special issues was choosing consistent terminology across contributors. Therefore, we find it pertinent to begin with a review of terminology to

guide professionals when discussing students who are DAD. Terminology As recognized by Paul (2015), and indicated by the long list of keywords for the present article, there are numerous labels and terms for students who are DAD. “Ours truly,” meaning Peter Paul, contributed to the list of acronyms by using d/Dhh, acknowledging students who are deaf, Deaf, and hard of hearing. We thought this was rather pragmatic as well as politically and socially correct; therefore, we used this acronym throughout both parts of the special issue. Table 1, which summarizes the acronyms used in both issues, represents a further attempt to consolidate and unify the terminology in the field. While Peter Paul encourages readers to choose their label “within reason,” we propose that the field move forward using three specific terms:

Table 1

Terminology for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Diverse Term (acronym)

Definition

Deaf and diverse (DAD)

Students who are d/Dhh (d/Deaf or hard of hearing) and/or DWD

Deaf with a disability or disabilities (DWD)

d/Dhh students who have a disability or disabilities (e.g., learning disability, autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, emotional/behavioral challenges, intellectual disability)

d/Dhh Multilingual Learners (DMLs)

d/Dhh students who come from a home where parents or caretakers speak a language other than English or American Sign Language

Culturally responsive teaching (CRT)

The use of knowledge about culture, prior experiences, cultural perspectives, background knowledge, and styles of learning to enhance and make learning more relevant and effective for DMLs (Gay, 2010)

Linguistically responsive teaching (LRT)

The use of specialized knowledge and skills (i.e., pedagogical knowledge, creating supportive learning environments for diverse learners, multiple and alternative assessments, reflective practices to improve teaching and learning) applicable to students from diverse backgrounds (Lucas et al., 2008)

Culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)

A broader educational term that is used instead of English Language Learner (ELL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) to acknowledge that a student is not just learning English but also has a diverse social, cultural, and economic background (Gonzalez et al., 2011)

105

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016



REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS d/Dhh with a disability/or disabilities (DWD), d/Dhh Multilingual Learners (DMLs), and d/Dhh and diverse (DAD). These terms were chosen carefully, with respect to the learners rather than their labels. As we iterated in an earlier Annals issue (Guardino & Cannon, 2015), the acronym DWD allows the child, the family, and the professionals working with a student who is DWD to acknowledge that deafness is not likely the disabling feature; rather, the disability or disabilities that accompany deafness are the primary motivation for assessment, placement, and educational modifications or accommodations. The acronym DML recognizes that students who are d/Dhh are not only learning English, but often learning multiple other languages. Finally, using the acronym DAD allows us to discuss the 35%–40% of d/Dhh students who are DWD, DMLs, or both (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2013). The field of deaf education is long overdue in acknowledging the need to recognize these learners in research, pedagogy, and best practices by using terminology that is asset based and makes note of the diversity these students bring to the classroom. Theory While many theories are available to guide research and practice on various aspects (e.g., academics, socioemotional development, language, communication) of students who are DAD, we examined them predominantly through a sociocultural theoretical lens to address the learner as a whole and as an individual (Vygotsky, 1978). We have described the application of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory with students who are DWD (Guardino & Cannon, 2015), which is also relevant to DMLs. Sociocultural theory addresses students’ cultural backgrounds, as embedded within the dominant culture in which the individual resides. Principles

guiding the use of sociocultural theory as a foundation for research and practice with students who are DAD consist of (a) observing students’ natural interactions as defined by their native culture; (b) recognizing the influence of adult and peer interactions on cognitive, social, and emotional development; (c) acknowledging the confluence of individual students with people, objects, and the students’ environment; (d) providing opportunities for students to develop skills by scaffolding instruction; (e) building students’ background knowledge by contextualizing experiences; and (f) understanding that academic, social, and emotional growth is dynamic as the students experiences become vaster with time and exposure (Vygotsky, 1978). We contend that researchers and practitioners should employ a sociocultural theoretical lens to explore innovative ways to increase achievement for students who are DAD. Research In the first part of this Annals special issue, we demonstrated that research with students who are DWD is increasing, especially in particular disability areas, such as emotionalbehavioral disorders and autism spectrum disorders (Guardino & Cannon, 2015). However, we note that research with DMLs is still sparse and in much need of attention (Cannon, Guardino, & Gallimore, this issue). Perhaps with the publication of this two-part special issue, a renewed interest in this population will generate new funding and investigations. We would like to suggest two research designs that are particularly relevant to students who are DAD: case studies and single-case design (SCD).

Case Studies We encourage researchers and practitioners to collaborate in order to

answer research questions such as these: • What demographic and background information is needed to gain a holistic picture of the prerequisite knowledge necessary to increase social and academic success? • What unique physical, psychological, social, and academic accommodations and/or modifications would be beneficial? • How are families with DAD children unique? • What do these families need to support their own child’s success? We provide an example of this kind of collaboration (Cannon, Guardino, & Gallimore, this issue) in relating how we worked with a teacher of the d/Deaf and hard of hearing (TODHH) to develop three DML vignettes. Although we did not use a case study methodology, we did utilize information from three actual students (as opposed to inventing characteristics for case studies) to give readers an accurate snapshot of the diversity of DMLs. These vignettes were followed by three case studies across two different contributions in this Annals special issue (Baker & Scott; Wang, Andrews, H. T. Liu, & C. J. Liu), in the hope that these articles would spark the empirical inquiry necessary to investigate DAD learners across multiple sources of evidence (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Through a careful and strategic accumulation of case studies of students who are DAD, we could gain a deeper understanding of their complex characteristics. This information could be used to develop informal and formal assessments and frameworks for program placement decisions, and to guide selection of interventions for examination. We could begin to gener-

106

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016



alize some information and recommendations to build a rich repository from which to draw concrete information. Over time, with sufficient case studies, researchers would be able to examine practices used with these learners to better understand how to serve them in multiple phases of their academic, social, and emotional development. Analyses could include the various domains highlighted by the contributors to this Annals special issue: early intervention, literacy, assessment, educational placement, psychosocial characteristics, transition, and pedagogy.

Single-Case Design Research Single-case design is another research methodology that would be beneficial for capturing the unique characteristics and needs of DAD learners. SCD is an exemplary methodology that can answer research questions about the natural complexity and varying characteristics of DAD children, yet is underused in our field (Cannon, Guardino, Antia, & Luckner, 2016; Wendel, Cawthon, Ge, & Beretvas, 2015). There are advantages to using SCD with this population, including (a) the small number of participants necessary; (b) the fact that interventions are provided across all participants, because they do not require control groups; (c) various designs that are rigorous yet not complex, allowing practitioners to initiate SCD in their classrooms to address challenging behaviors or academic needs; and (d) flexibility, permitting researchers and practitioners to account for individual student differences during the intervention. (For more detail, see Cannon et al., 2016, and Wendel et al., 2015.) The Annals Special Issue: Synopsis of Practice In an effort to present readers with a comprehensive overview of the cur-

rently available practices with the greatest impact, we have divided the following section on the basis of topics addressed in each part of the two-part Annals special issue: early intervention, communication and language, assessment, transition, and teacher preparation. Each section highlights practices and recommendations for DMLs and students who are DWD.

Early Intervention Deaf With Disabilities Jackson, Ammerman, and Trautwein, (2015) examined theory and research in order to recommend promising practices in early intervention (EI) for children who are DWD. The complex needs of many children who are DWD can be a challenge if practitioners are not effectively trained or are unable to collaborate with other professionals to meet those needs. Transdisciplinary teams should be utilized, and include d/Dhh mentors during EI services to promote the cultural competency of DWD children and their families. Opportunities for interaction with d/Dhh role and language models and intervention services for children and families, especially in rural areas, can be expanded through the use of technological advances such as videoconferencing, free online language courses, and telepractice. No matter the avenue chosen for EI, the final destination is clear: Collaboration with families and communities is vital to effective and efficient services that meet the intricate needs of children who are DWD.

d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing Multilingual Learners Families are influential in EI services for all DAD students, especially those who are DMLs. Bowen (this issue) outlines the cultural contexts for EI work with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) d/Dhh children and their fami-

lies. The main theme that emerges from Bowen’s discussion of EI is the need for practitioners to examine their own cultural biases when working with DMLs and their families. One cultural bias that TODHHs and other educators often exhibit is the view that only one language should be used in the home and at school with CLD children. Guiberson (2013) found that bilingual d/Dhh children performed better than their monolingual d/Dhh peers on language tasks. Additional studies (Crowe, Fordham, McLeod & Ching, 2014; Crowe, McLeod, McKinnon, & Ching, 2014; Guiberson, 2014; Steinberg, Bain, Li, Delgado, & Ruperto, 2003) have shown that parents overwhelmingly believe that their child could and would benefit from learning multiple languages; these studies also have found that familial and cultural attachments in the community can facilitate acquisition.

Recommendations The first recommendation is that all EI professionals engage in culturally responsive practices with DAD students. In order to put these practices into action, EI professionals must understand the influence of culture, communication styles, and collaboration practices on the decisions families make about children who are DWD and DMLs. Second, researchers and practitioners need to examine their own disability biases, as well as cultural biases, and provide high expectations with a positive, asset-based viewpoint regarding physical, psychological, and academic outcomes for all DAD individuals. Third, the lack of training programs and lack of consistent, professional standards for EI providers is an issue for all d/Dhh children, given that the period from birth to age 3 years is a crucial time for language acquisition. Finally, telepractice and teletherapy, along with other advances

107

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016



REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS in technology, provide promising intervention delivery models that could be used with EI services to provide the best possible opportunities for children who are DAD and their families.

Communication and Language Deaf With Disabilities Students who are DWD face varying communication and language acquisition challenges, depending on the type and degree of disability. For example, students with intellectual disabilities or autism range in the degree to which the disability affects communication. Bruce and Borders (2015) discuss the need for appropriate communication and language assessments to help detect disabilities in children who are d/Dhh. With assessments geared toward students who are DWD, effective services can be identified, initiated, and refined to meet the needs of individual learners. After appropriate assessments are administered, choosing practices that best meet the needs of these learners can be challenging. Bruce and Borders (2015) suggest two particular approaches to meet the challenge of educational programming: tri-focus and four aspects of communication. Tri-focus (SiegelCausey & Bashinski, 1997) entails focusing on the learner, the participant, and the environment as key factors influencing a student’s ability to communicate. With students who are DWD, understanding and acknowledging that each student is unique, with different “players” and “environments,” is critical to understanding how to work with these students. Building on the tri-focus framework are the four aspects of communication: form, function, content, and context (Bruce, 2002; Bruce & Borders, 2015; Miles & Riggio, 1999). By analyzing the four aspects of communication with learners who are DWD, researchers and practitioners can cre-

ate language interventions specific to the learner. Bruce and Border (2015) review existing evidence-based practices and suggest interventions to be used with students who are DWD. Researchers may consider using the tri-focus framework as well as the four aspects of communication to continue to build an evidence base of strategies to advance the communication and language development of students who are DWD.

d/Dhh Multilingual Learners DMLs do not typically receive EI services because of their age of immigration and, possibly, the lack of services available in their home country. Therefore, the educational focus for these learners is on expeditiously developing their language and communication skills, often while simultaneously providing them with academic content knowledge. The most advantageous approach to this challenge is the use of linguistically responsive teaching (LRT; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008; Pizzo, this issue). LRT requires that teachers understand second-language acquisition as well as students’ cultural backgrounds in order to carefully scaffold learning. LRT is especially critical with DMLs because each student brings a unique set of characteristics—for example, age at onset of hearing loss, amplification used, age of immigration, language(s) spoken or signed at home (Cannon, Guardino, & Gallimore, this issue). Further investigation of individuals acquiring a second language (bilinguals) via bimodal (visual and auditory) methods shows cognitive, social, and cultural benefits to learning multiple languages simultaneously (Espinosa, 2008a, 2008b; Kushalnagar, Hannay, & Hernandez, 2010). DMLs have the capacity to develop cultural identities with both their native hearing culture and Deaf culture. However,

at this time the benefits do not seem to outweigh the challenges DMLs face when learning to acquire proficiency in multiple languages. Many theories (e.g., interdependence, connectivity, transfer) have been developed to explain how possession of a first language affects the acquisition of other languages. Yet these theories are questioned when they are applied to the acquisition of American Sign Language versus traditional spoken languages. Empirical research is needed with DMLs to enable a better understanding of the theoretical model that guides their language acquisition.

Recommendations Recommendations for researchers and practitioners include teaching families how to engage in language-rich experiences; providing focused, explicit instruction that promotes the development of receptive and expressive skills; and focusing on students’ strengths by (a) understanding the characteristics of their disability/ies (in the case of children who are DWD) and/or, (b) in the case of DMLs, delving into their cultural background and experiences to enhance language learning (Espinosa, 2013). These strategies are indicative of the tri-focus framework, aspects of communication, and LRT, and thus underscore the importance of further investigation into these practices, as well as the need to give training in the area of language acquisition to professionals who are or will be working with students who are DAD and their families.

Assessment Deaf With Disabilities Identifying assessments for students who are d/Dhh is challenging. Identifying assessments that are valid and reliable for students who are DWD is nearly impossible. Therefore, as Cawthon (2015) suggests, implementing testing accommodations is poten-

108

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016


18888-AAD161.1_Spring2016 4/18/16 1:36 PM Page 109

tially the best solution. The caveat is that there are times when appropriate accommodations (e.g., sign language interpretation, simplified English text and/or directions) will be unavailable, or when modifying the content of the assessment will affect test validity. Cawthon and Wurtz (2008) suggest using alternative assessments as replacements for some standardized measures. Alternative assessments may include portfolios, checklists, interviews, or authentic student work samples. Another option is to allow students who are DWD to take a test that is “matched to” or “one above” their level, rather than require them to take tests that are “at grade” or at “age-specific” levels (Cawthon, 2015; Cawthon & Wurtz, 2008).

d/Dhh Multilingual Learners Before selecting and administering assessments for DMLs, professionals must evaluate the language level of the child, then analyze the assessment for cultural bias, and finally determine if the test is measuring language skills versus content-area knowledge (Pizzo & Chilvers, this issue). Alternative assessments such as observation, checklists, and portfolios are valid forms of data collection used to inform teaching practices, yet they too may contain bias. For example, if the data collector has a culture that is different from the child’s, and has limited knowledge of the child’s language and culture, the lens through which the data collector will judge the child’s actions may be culturally biased. Furthermore, simple translation of assessments into a child’s native language, in this case American Sign Language, will not account for cultural nuances such as idioms, figurative language, or pictures that portray the hearing culture but not that of people who are d/Dhh (e.g., images of people using telephones or doorbells).

To reduce the challenges of selecting, administering, and reliably scoring assessments of DMLs, a variety of tests should be administered prior to diagnostic and placement decisions. Testing the child in multiple languages, including home signs, is also recommended to determine the child’s proficiency and knowledge across the languages he or she is exposed to and uses on a regular basis. Ideally, the individual interpreting and scoring the assessment should have fluency in the language in which the student is tested.

Recommendations Assessments that are valid and reliable for use with students who are DWD and DMLs are needed. Currently, using a variety of assessments, including alternative assessments, allows professionals to have a broader picture of the individual student. Because every student who is DAD has distinct characteristics, it is imperative that assessments, alternative and standardized, drive instruction. Such assessments will allow practitioners and researchers to more appropriately determine students’ cognitive and academic functioning, which in turn should theoretically lead to more accurate assessment, placement, and educational services.

Transition Deaf With Disabilities As students who are DWD transition through their educational career and into the work force, they may experience challenges, depending on the range of functional limitations. Engaging and informative discussions of the origin of these “functional limitations” and how they are determined are presented by Luft (2015) and Paul (2015). Regardless of the underlying cause of challenges, maintaining high expectations along with positive, asset-based

transition goals is vital in person-centered planning (Mount, 2000). Personcentered planning includes family members and friends who can add essential information to strengthen the decisions made during times of transition for students who are DWD. Furthermore, interdisciplinary teams may choose to use an ecological framework, consisting of a hierarchy of systems (see Table 1 in Luft, 2015) that guides the team to acknowledge the many factors that influence human development through times of transition. The ecological systems (micro, meso, exo, and macro) address the individualized needs of DWD students through a comprehensive approach. Additionally, interagency collaboration is recommended, along with the use of evidence-based practices in all transition services for DWD students.

d/Dhh Multilingual Learners Two groups of authors (Baker & Scott and Wang, Andrews, H. T. Liu, & C. J. Liu) contributed longitudinal case studies of DMLs to this special Annals issue that examine transition issues across K–12 and postsecondary programs, as well as international settings (i.e., North America, China, and Singapore). Themes emerging from all case studies included ensuring appropriate educational placements and addressing early communication and language needs to determine which instructional techniques could strengthen DMLs’ L1 in order to support multilingual acquisition. Another theme that emerged was that DMLs should be provided with opportunities to learn and use their heritage language. At the same time, there is a caution that only partial acquisition of multiple languages may occur if a full and complete L1 is not established. We find an example of this in the case of Maria (see Baker & Scott, this issue), who exhibited second-grade literacy levels

109

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016



REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS on graduation from high school, but may not have ever fully acquired an L1 on which to scaffold multilingual acquisition. The involvement of Maria’s family and the extent to which they valued education appeared to greatly influence her outcomes as a DML, even if her parents’ education had been minimal. Closely knit family bonds were shown to increase language acquisition, and to highlight the importance of supporting multilingual development so that DMLs could continue to maintain, or increase, their heritage language(s) as well as the academic language at school. DMLs cannot continue to develop meaningful family and cultural relationships if there is a language barrier; if the heritage language is their L1, it will support the acquisition of English.

Recommendations Practitioners working with DAD students should receive sufficient training in transition procedures and rights for DWD adolescents and adults in order to assist families and students in making decisions that will best serve their particular needs. TODHHs should also recognize their own limitations when working with DAD students on transitions between placements and services by collaborating with other professionals who have expertise in areas where their own skills are lacking. When one examines the case studies in the article by Baker and Scott with a critical lens, it is interesting to note that the teachers and family members who were interviewed never mentioned their own lack of knowledge or skills in any area related to educating DMLs, even though there is a known gap in the literature and in teacher training related to students who are DAD. We recommend that school districts and TODHH training programs reflect on their transition-

related support services and examine areas to increase awareness and understanding of the needs of DAD students and their families.

Teacher Preparation Preparation programs for TODHHs are challenged by the dynamic nature of the field, including the influence of assistive hearing technologies and increased numbers of students who are DWD and DMLs. These factors greatly affect how teachers are prepared to work in classrooms across the philosophical spectrum: Total Communication (comprehensive), listening and spoken language, or bilingual/ bicultural.

Deaf With Disabilities A survey of TODHHs revealed that most teachers perceive students in their classes as having a disability or disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, behavior disorders, attention deficit), although the students lack official “diagnoses.” Considering that 74%– 85% of these teachers reported that their preparation programs prepared them “somewhat” to “not at all” to work with students who are DWD, and only 53.9% of these teachers felt prepared “most of the time” to serve these students, these findings are disconcerting (Guardino, 2015). Of equal concern is the lack of qualified EI professionals resulting from the dearth of teacher preparation programs that provide specialized training in EI and deaf education ( Jackson et al., 2015). In-service teachers and programs preparing preservice TODHHs can use strategies to remedy the lack of knowledge and experience teachers reported in the survey. In-service teachers and professionals reported obtaining information from conferences, online resources, in-service training, pamphlets from hospitals and doctor’s offices, and collaboration with

colleagues who had expertise in varying disabilities. Teacher preparation programs should infuse content, theory, and practicum experiences with and pertaining to students who are DWD into their programs.

d/Dhh Multilingual Learners Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) is most effective when observed and implemented rather than solely taught in the university classroom setting. CRT practices mandate that regardless of the lens of the teacher, strategies used to teach students who are DMLs will be positive and implemented with high expectations for all learners regardless of their diverse backgrounds. Of utmost importance should be a concerted effort to recruit teachers from diverse backgrounds who share the same cultural lens and understanding of students who are DMLs (Cannon & Luckner, this issue).

Recommendations Further exacerbating the challenges of teacher preparation is the lack of diverse, qualified faculty actively addressing theory and research related to students who are DWD and DMLs. Regardless of disability or cultural background, students need role models of individuals like themselves who are successful professionals. Recommendations include the use of interdisciplinary collaborative models to prepare teachers for the diverse settings and unique students they will teach. For example, providing preservice teachers with the opportunity to work in tandem with general and special educators, as well as other service providers who are currently working with students who are DWD and DMLs, will give preservice teachers the firsthand experience they need to better understand this population of students. We recommend targeted recruitment of CLD, d/Dhh, DML, and

110

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016



DWD adults for TODHH preparation programs across the field, particularly in EI. Partnerships with constituents outside the school system are equally important. Community-based agencies and family-centered organizations can offer insight into varying exceptionalities as well as resources and rich cultural contexts to draw upon when teachers are being prepared to work with students who are DAD. Preparing effective and qualified teachers requires a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, including researchers, professors, teachers, administrators, family members, and students. Working together will ensure that the potential for academic, social, and emotional success of these students will be greater.

Theory, Research, and Practice for DMLs With Disabilities Little is known about students who are DMLs with a disability or disabilities because of the lack of research and, frankly, publications about these learners. Throughout the Annals special issue, demographic data on students who are DWD and DMLs indicate a population whose size is consistent, if not growing. We have illustrated that approximately 11% of students who are d/Dhh are DWD and DMLs (Guardino & Cannon, 2015, Figure 1). Thus, there is the potential for about 1 out of 10 DMLs to have a disability (GRI, 2013). This is not a minute percentage of the total population of d/Dhh students. As the immigrant population grows, so will the number of students with special needs. This growth may also be evident among students who are d/Dhh. Regardless of the rate of growth, there is an existing population of students who are DMLs and DWD who are in need of specialized services and focused research (Cannon, Fredrick, & Easterbrooks, 2010).

Conclusion In conclusion to this two-part special issue of the American Annals of the Deaf on students who are DWD (Part I) or DMLs (Part II), we propose a move toward “the Radical Middle” (TRM; Easterbrooks & Maiorana-Basas, 2015). As is made clear throughout both parts of the special issue, there are no evidence-based practices for service provision to students who are DAD. Therefore, instead of approaching research and practice with a biased lens, we suggest giving all the options to families with a child who is DAD. TRM (Easterbrooks & MaioranaBasas, 2015) is an attempt to address the division in deaf education by creating a community of researchers, teachers, parents, and community members who are focused on increasing communication choices and educational options for children who are d/Dhh. TRM attempts to bring together investigators who want to collaborate from varied educational, cultural, and linguistic perspectives to learn from each other’s expertise in order to answer research questions. TRM values a holistic approach to research and welcomes partnerships among opposing philosophies in order to provide a critical lens that creates a deeper, and more meaningful discussion of educational practices that will enable success for d/Dhh learners, including those who are DAD. Professionals need to develop cognizance of the personal lens through which they view and define their own culture, as well as the cultures of others. By doing so, they may reduce the potential of biases and assumptions they have about disabilities, multilingualism, and culture. This selfreflection aligns with the radical shift needed in our field toward respecting the needs and preferences of learners when designing research and practice. We realize that change will not happen

overnight, that it is an evolutionary (sometimes revolutionary) process that requires the infusion of the themes presented across this special Annals issue into teacher preparation and research—that is, the translation of theory into practice. Simply applying current theory, research, and practices outlined in this special Annals issue is not sufficient to address learners who are d/Dhh who have other attributes, whether linguistic, cultural, or disability related. The playing field is open. The invitation has been sent, especially to master’s and doctoral candidates, junior faculty, and practitioners wishing to carve their niche in the field of deaf education. We beckon you to investigate the strategies that will propel these learners to the forefront of the playing field and provide them with an equal, if not advantageous, position in the academic, social, and emotional arenas of life. Acknowledgments Over the course of the past 2 years we have been fortunate to work closely with Dr. Peter Paul, Yvonne Lam, and 18 incredible contributing authors on the completion of this two-part Annals special issue. Collectively, we have provided researchers and practitioners a foundation of information with which to further the work with students who are deaf and diverse. For this, we are grateful and full of appreciation to all of you.—Caroline Guardino and Joanna E. Cannon References Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2 Bruce, S. (2002). Impact of a communication intervention model on teachers’ practice with children who are congenitally deafblind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96, 154–168.

111

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016



REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS Bruce, S., & Borders, C. (2015). Communication and language in learners who are deaf and hard of hearing with disabilities: Theories, research, and practice. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 368–384. doi:10.1353/ aad.2015.0035 Cannon, J. E., Fredrick, L. D., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2010). Vocabulary acquisition through books in American Sign Language. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31, 98–112. doi:10.1177/1525740109332832 Cannon, J. E., Guardino, C., Antia, S., & Luckner, J. (2016). Single-case design research: Building the evidence base in the field of education of deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(5), 440–452. Cawthon, S. (2015). From the margins to the spotlight: Diverse deaf and hard of hearing student populations and standardized assessment accessibility. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 385–394. doi:10.1353/ aad.2015.0036 Cawthon, S., & Wurtz, K. A. (2008). Alternate assessment use with students who are deaf or hard of hearing: An exploratory mixed-methods analysis of portfolio, checklists, and outof-level test formats. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2), 155–177. doi:10 .1093/deafed/enn027 Crowe, K., Fordham, L., McLeod, S., & Ching, T. Y. (2014). “Part of our world”: Influences on caregiver decisions about communication choices for children with hearing loss. Deafness and Education International, 16(2), 61–85. doi:10.1179/1557069X13Y.0000000026 Crowe, K., McLeod, S., McKinnon, D. H., & Ching, T. Y. (2014). Speech, sign, or multilingualism for children with hearing loss: Quantitative insights into caregivers’ decision making. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 45, 234–247. doi:10.1044/ 2014_LSHSS-12-0106 Easterbrooks, S. R., & Baker, S. B. (2002). Language learning in children who are deaf and hard of hearing: Multiple pathways. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Easterbrooks, S. R., & Maiorana-Basas, M. (2015). Literacy and deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In H. Knoors & M. Marschark (Eds.), Educating deaf learners: Creating a global evidence base (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Espinosa, L. M. (2008a). Challenging common myths about young English language learners (Foundation for Child Development Pol-

icy Brief Advancing PK–3 No. 8). New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. Espinosa, L. M. (2008b). Early literacy for English language learners. In A. Bruin-Parecki (Ed.), Effective early literacy practice: Here’s how, here’s why (pp. 71–86). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Espinosa, L. M. (2013). PreK–3rd: Challenging common myths about dual language learners: An update to the seminal 2008 report (Foundation for Child Development PreK– 3rd Policy to Action Brief No. 10). New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. Gallaudet Research Institute. (2013). Regional and national summary report of data from the 2011–12 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gonzalez, R. J., Pagan, M., Wendell, L., & Love, C. (2011). Supporting ELL/culturally and linguistically diverse students for academic achievement. Retrieved from International Center for Leadership in Education website: https://www.brown.edu/academics/education -alliance/teaching-diverse-learners/sites/brown .edu.academics.education-alliance.teaching -diverse-learners/files/uploads/ELL%20Strate gies%20Kit_Intl%20Ctr%20for%20Leadership %20in%20Educ%202011.pdf Guardino, C. (2015). Evaluating teachers’ preparedness to work with students who are deaf and hard of hearing with disabilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(5), 415– 426. doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0030 Guardino, C., & Cannon, J. E. (2015). Theory, research, and practice for students who are deaf and hard of hearing with disabilities: Addressing the challenges from birth to postsecondary education. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 347–355. doi:10.1353/ aad.2015.0033 Guiberson, M. (2013). Survey of Spanish parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing: Decision-making factors associated with communication modality and bilingualism. American Journal of Audiology, 22(1), 105–119. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0042) Guiberson. M. (2014). Bilingual skills of deaf/ hard of hearing children from Spain. Cochlear Implants International, 15(2), 87–92. doi:10 .1179/1754762813Y.0000000058 Jackson, R. L., Ammerman, S. B., & Trautwein, B. A. (2015). Deafness and diversity: Early

intervention. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 356–367. doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0034 Kushalnagar, P., Hannay, H. J., & Hernandez, A. E. (2010). Bilingualism and attention: A study of balanced and unbalanced bilingual deaf users of American Sign Language and English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(3), 263–272. doi:10.1093/deafed/ enq011 Lucas, T., Villegas, A., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373. doi:101177/0022487108322110 Luft, P. (2015). Transition services for DHH adolescents and young adults with disabilities: Challenges and theoretical frameworks. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 395–414. doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0028 Miles, B., & Riggio, M. (1999). Remarkable conversations: A guide to developing meaningful communication with children and young adults who are deafblind. Watertown, MA: Perkins School for the Blind. Mount, B. (2000). Person-centered planning. New York, NY: Graphic Futures. Paul, P. V. (2015). d/Deaf and hard of hearing with a disability or an additional disability: The need for theory, research, and practice. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 339–343. doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0029 Siegel-Causey, E., & Bashinski, S. M. (1997). Enhancing initial communication and responsiveness of learners with multiple disabilities: A tri-focus framework for partners. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 105–120. doi:10.1177/108835 769701200206 Steinberg, A., Bain, L., Li, Y., Delgado, G., & Ruperto, V. (2003). Decisions Hispanic families make after the identification of deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 291–314. doi:10.1093/deafed/ eng016 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wendel, E., Cawthon, S. W., Ge, J. J., & Beretvas, S. N. (2015). Alignment of single-case design (SCD) research with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing with the What Works Clearinghouse standards for SCD research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(2), 103–114. doi:10.1903/deafed/ enu049

112

VOLUME 161, NO. 1, 2016
