ERIC EJ970019: Crossing the Communication Barrier: Facilitating Communication in Mixed Groups of Deaf and Hearing Students

2012·0.15 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(1), 51 - 63 51
Crossing the Communication Barrier: Facilitating
Communication in Mixed Groups
of Deaf and Hearing Students
Carol Marchetti
Susan Foster
Gary Long
Michael Stinson
Rochester Institute of Technology
Abstract
Teachers of introductory technical courses such as statistics face numerous challenges in the classroom, including
student motivation and mathematical background, and difficulties in interpreting numerical results in context. Co-
operative learning through small groups addresses many such challenges, but students for whom spoken English
is not their primary language – which may include international, first generation Americans, and deaf or hard of
hearing students – are less likely to benefit from group work. This paper examines two possible approaches to
improve communication in groups where there is a mix of deaf or hard of hearing students and hearing students
for whom English is their native language.
Keywords: Group work, communication, deaf, hard of hearing
Introduction lenge (Stinson, Liu, Saur, & Long, 1996). The diffi culty
Among the challenges facing teachers of introduc- with communication often leads to student passivity
tory technical courses such as statistics are the low (Saur, Layne, Hurley, & Opton, 1986), with the result
motivation and insuffi cient mathematical backgrounds that deaf and hard of hearing students learn less than
of students (Onwuegbuzie, 1997), as well as obstacles their hearing peers (Richardson, Marschark, Sarchet,
in communication related to the dependence of inter- & Sapere, 2010).
pretations on language (Rangecroft, 2002). Student Add to this the inherent challenges associated with
engagement is a factor that has been associated with group work (Roseth et. al., 2008), including having
increased learning outcomes (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, one student performing most of the work or students
2006), and one approach to increasing student engage- working completely independently. International,
ment, cooperative learning through small group work, fi rst-generation Americans, and deaf or hard of hearing
is widely used at all levels of education (de Corte, students may communicate more comfortably in a lan-
2004; Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, & Vadasy, 2003). For guage other than spoken English. When such students
example in statistics education, benefi ts of group work are integrated into work groups within a classroom,
include practice with statistical skills and communicat- the potential problems may be magnifi ed. This paper
ing in the language of statistics (Roseth, Garfi eld, & examines two possible approaches to improving com-
Ben-Zvi, 2008). Since language is a primary tool for munication and student learning in groups where there
participation in group work (Lerman, 2001), students is a mix of deaf or hard of hearing students and hearing
who struggle with verbal communication are less likely students for whom English is their native language.
to benefi t from group work (Webb, 1989, 1991; Webb The study is exploratory with the goal of identifying
& Farivar, 1994). Deaf and hard of hearing students potential interventions for more intensive research.
report classroom communication in general as a chal-
52 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(1)
Background The solution used by some instructors is to place
In the past 25 years, the number of deaf and hard all of the deaf students in their own work groups.
of hearing students enrolled in postsecondary programs But this can place these students at a disadvantage,
has increased dramatically. The most recent statistics for they may all be relying on the note-taker’s notes
available from the National Center for Health Statistics which are not available until after class, and they may
reported that there were more than 26,000 deaf and hard miss “overhearing” important information from other
of hearing students enrolled in college and university groups in the room (Powers, Gregory, & Thouten-
programs in the United States in 1999 (Marschark, hoofd, 1999). Student work groups have been shown
Lang, & Albertini, 2002). A majority of these students to benefi t from diversity within the group (Webb &
received their education in mainstream classes along- Palincsar, 1996) – men and women, a variety of skill
side hearing classmates (Lang, 2002; National Center levels, and different backgrounds. By mixing deaf/
for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000). However, hard of hearing and hearing students, we better mimic
recent statistics indicate that approximately 70-75% of the working environment of the hearing world where
deaf and hard of hearing students enrolled in postsec- spoken English is widely used and allow all students
ondary programs fail to complete them. This is more in the group to experience diversity and gain from it.
than twice the 30% attrition rate of hearing students For deaf and hard of hearing students in mainstream
(Marschark, 2007; Stinson & Walter, 1997). classrooms, participation is linked to academic success
Due to the presence of the National Technical (Antia, Sabers, & Stinson, 2007). However, numerous
Institute for the Deaf (NTID) on our campus, Roch- challenges to communication exist in mixed groups of
ester Institute of Technology (RIT) has approximately deaf/hard of hearing and hearing students (Stinson et
500 deaf and hard of hearing students registered in al., 1996). For these groups, the communication and
“mainstream” RIT classes each quarter; that is, classes group activities are often slowed and, at times, the
that are not strictly for NTID students and where the communication process becomes frustrating, lowering
instructors do not teach using American Sign Language the morale and motivation within the group.
(ASL). Deaf and hard of hearing students often have Although deaf/hard of hearing students do use in-
poorer written English skills than their native English terpreters to access the comments of hearing members,
language hearing counterparts. Students who identify issues such as the processing time between when a hearing
themselves as “deaf” may communicate through ASL student fi nishes talking and when the interpreter fi nishes
and/or read lips and voice for themselves. Those who conveying the message frequently limit the deaf/hard of
identify themselves as “hard of hearing” may use a hearing member’s participation. Furthermore, observa-
hearing aid and/or FM amplifi cation system, ASL, lip tion of mixed groups of deaf/hard of hearing and hearing
reading, or voice. Support for these students is most members indicates that in small groups, members often
often provided through professional sign language communicate directly with each other instead of through
interpreters and note takers in the classrooms. This a service provider (Stinson & Liu, 1999). Unfortunately
arrangement, designed for traditional lecture courses, direct communication between deaf/hard of hearing and
meets the minimum requirements by law in providing hearing students is often diffi cult and makes participa-
equal access to deaf and hard of hearing students. But tion by all members of the group a challenge. This direct
with the introduction of active learning and group communication is diffi cult because the deaf/hard of hear-
work in many courses, the model of communication ing member usually cannot understand all of the spoken
only through a third-party interpreter has limitations, communication of the hearing members, the hearing
particularly in classes with a large percentage of deaf members may not be able to understand the deaf/hard
and hard of hearing students. Although one or two of hearing member’s speech, and the hearing members
interpreters may be assigned to a class of 35 students, usually do not know sign language, which deaf/hard of
when there are more than two student work groups hearing students often use to communicate. Furthermore,
using mixed modes of communication, there cannot an interpreter is often not immediately available to assist
be an interpreter assigned full time to each group. In all students (Stinson & Liu, 1999). For these reasons, it
these situations, the interpreters will do their best to is important for educators to fi nd better ways to support
join groups when their support is requested but they communication and learning when students with com-
cannot remain in one group for the entire class. munication challenges and other students collaborate.
Marchetti, Foster, Long, & Stinson; Crossing the Communication Barrier 53
An RIT statistics professor and NTID researchers Students had to complete an individual copy of
collaborated to develop intervention approaches with the day’s worksheet for their own records and submit
the intention of increasing the participation and learn- a single group worksheet by the end of the class to be
ing of all students during group activities. The goal was graded. Historically, group grades were very good for
to help groups work inclusively, quickly, and correctly, the worksheets, but when individuals asked questions
and to improve the students’ learning experience. This outside of class, it was clear that not all students left
paper discusses the preliminary implementations and the group understanding the material. A typical mixed-
evaluations of two interventions – use of the existing group had two deaf or hard of hearing students and two
classroom whiteboard and use of tablet PC’s. They hearing students; the hearing students were all native
were selected because they represent two kinds of pos- English speakers and did not know ASL. The remainder
sible interventions. The whiteboard is standard in many of the groups consisted of all hearing students. Groups
classrooms today and is therefore easily available to worked together for four weeks (until the fi rst exam)
most instructors. It requires little or no training to use, without changes in group structure. Following the
no cost to the instructor, and no technical support; in fi rst exam in week 5, the instructor reassigned groups,
short, it is extremely “low tech” and accessible. How- placing students in the new groups to create a mix of
ever, it is limited in its capacity to store and transfer student abilities based on exam performance.
information, and cannot be taken from the room upon After forming the new groups, the instructor chose
completion of the group task. The tablet PC, on the two groups to use the whiteboard along with other com-
other hand, is a more “high tech” tool. While now munication methods (e.g. speech, use of interpreter,
quite common on the campus, tablets are generally etc.) to work through problems and communicate with
an individual tool and not confi gured as a visual way each other. An effort was made to select groups in
to share communication on a group task. The tablets which the preferred methods of communication were
used in this project include specialized software that varied. Students in these groups were contacted by
allows wireless communication between students as the instructor who explained the intervention to them
well as the opportunity to share and save written work. and said they could be reassigned to another group
These features enhance the usefulness of tablet PC’s if they preferred not to participate, emphasizing that
in these settings but require money and training on use there was no penalty for not participating. All but one
of the software. In short, each of the interventions has student agreed to participate and this student changed
advantages and disadvantages. places with a student in another group. The instructor
provided the two groups with dry erase markers and a
Methods section of the classroom with a whiteboard, and encour-
aged them to use the board instead of their individual
The instructor introduced the interventions in two worksheets. This allowed all members of the group to
sections of the same algebra-based introductory statistics clearly see the work-in-progress. While the instructor
course at RIT; one in the 2007-2008 academic year, the did not restrict students to only using the whiteboard
other in 2008-2009. Both sections were taught by the for communication, this was the primary mode they
same instructor and used the same material and group used. Interpreters were available to assist these groups
work format. Each section had 35 students, 10 or more of as requested. However, since these groups did have a
whom were deaf or hard of hearing. Each two-hour class communication resource available to them, they did not
session was divided into an hour for lecture to introduce seek interpreter support as often as other groups. For the
a topic, followed by an hour of group work. most part, the interpreter only worked with the white-
Group work consisted of a variety of activities, board groups when the instructor was communicating
including skill practice, problem solving and concept with students in the group. A scribe within the group
discovery. The instructor circled the room, answering recorded their work for submission to the instructor,
questions, and guiding groups of four students. The and the completed worksheet was scanned and emailed
interpreters also circled the room to provide communi- to group members after class. The whiteboard groups
cation support where needed, most often following the used this approach during weeks 5-6 of the course (four
instructor when she worked with a group that included classes). After this period, they could choose to continue
deaf, and/or hard of hearing, and hearing students. using the whiteboard, or return to working at a table.
54 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(1)
After completion of the two-week whiteboard in- whiteboard survey and Appendix B for the tablet PC
tervention, the instructor chose different mixed-groups survey). Students were also asked to identify them-
to use tablet PC’s for working on assigned problems selves as deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing.
and communication, again contacting the students
and noting that that participation was voluntary. The Results
C-Print Pro software (National Institute for the Deaf
[NTID], 2011) for tablets permitted students on mul- Figure 1 (a - d) shows the response distributions for
tiple PC’s to view the group worksheet and to make deaf/hard of hearing, and hearing participants using the
contributions to the group work. They were also able whiteboard strategy over the two-year period. Because
to send the instructor the group worksheet electroni- the number of participants is small in this study (2 hard
cally at the end of class, which permitted the instruc- of hearing, 6 deaf and 8 hearing), the responses of
tor to provide feedback more effi ciently and quickly. deaf and hard of hearing students were combined for
Students who were in these groups were required to analysis. In answering the question about communicat-
attend a half-hour orientation period in which they ing with other group members, hearing students more
received instruction and practiced using the tablet frequently gave “often” or “always” ratings, and deaf/
PC. Technicians loaded the group worksheet onto the hard of hearing students equally distributed their rat-
PC’s before class. In one class session, each of the two ings among four of the fi ve alternatives (“sometimes”
groups of four students (two hearing; two deaf or hard to “always”). For the question about participation in
of hearing) used a single tablet PC. The separate groups group work, deaf/hard of hearing and hearing students
were not networked to each other. In the other session, most frequently assigned the “often,” rating.
one group used a pair of wirelessly networked tablet All students thought the whiteboard helped them
PC’s for a two-to-one student to PC ratio. Technicians learn the material. However, the hearing students were
provided support at all class sessions. Following each more varied in terms of how much it helped (Figure
class session, the instructor reviewed and emailed the 1c). Additional examination of the data (not shown
completed electronic worksheet to all group members. in the Figure 1) revealed that students who identifi ed
The PC groups used the intervention during week 8 of themselves as hard of hearing on the survey were more
the 10 week quarter (two classes). positive about the intervention than those who identi-
Members of the project team took turns observing fi ed themselves as deaf with respect to communication
the classes when the interventions were being used. and participation. Most students (75% of both hearing
They wrote fi eld notes describing the interactions and deaf/hard of hearing) were willing to try this strat-
among students in intervention groups as well as the egy again; the remainder indicated that they might be
interactions in all hearing groups. Notes were used to willing to try again (Figure 1d).
document how students were using the whiteboard and The numerical survey data were also supported
computer tools. In particular, notes were taken describ- by students’ responses to the open-ended questions.
ing how students used these tools to communicate with Student comments on the surveys indicated that use
one another and to share their work in completion of of the whiteboard allowed more space for working
assigned tasks. through problems together, got individual members of
At the conclusion of the interventions, the research the group more involved, and enhanced communication
team sent students from both the whiteboard and PC by making it more visual. Some examples:
groups a follow up electronic survey. A week later re-
minders were sent to those who had not yet responded, “The fact that it led to open group discussion and
resulting in a 100% response for both interventions it brought the group together as a team.” (Dennis,
(N = 16 responses for the whiteboard intervention hard of hearing student)
and N = 12 responses for the tablet PC intervention).
The survey questioned students on a range of topics, “We could record what the other group members
including how consistently they used the intervention, thought of solutions to the math problems and it
how they felt the interventions improved the learning helped me because it was a visual learning experi-
experience, what they liked about the intervention, ence so it was very benefi cial on my end.” (Dennis,
and what could be improved (see Appendix A for the hard of hearing student)
Marchetti, Foster, Long, & Stinson; Crossing the Communication Barrier 55
The whiteboard helped me communicate with other group members.
FFiigguurree 1 1aa. T. h Teh weh witehbitoeabrdo ahredlp heedl pmeed c momem cuonmicmatuen wicitaht e I FFpiaiggrutuircreiep 1 a1btbe. d.I ipIna ptrhtaiecr gitpricoaiutpepad wt ieonrd kt h imneo tgrheroe bu egpcra owuusoepr k ow fm tohorerk ew bheitceabuoasred .of
owthitehr gortohuepr mgreomubpe mrsembers. kjhkjh tmheo rweh biteecbaouarsde of the whaistdeabsoard.
6 6
N = Never N = Never
5 S = Sometimes 5 S = Sometimes
H = Half the Time H = Half the Time
unt4 O = Often unt4 O = Often
Co3 A = Always Co3 A = Always
2 2
1 1
0 0
N S H O A N S H O A N S H O A N S H O A

DDeeaaf/f/HHaarrdd ooff HHeeaarriinngg ((nn == 8 8) ) HHeeaarirningg ( (nn == 88)) DDeeaaf/fH/Haardrd o off HHeeaarriningg ((nn == 88)) HHeaerainrign g( n(n = = 88))
FFiigguurree 1 1c.c T. h Teh weh witehbitoCeahbrador tah orefdl pC hoeuednl pmteed t om leea tron/understand FFiigguurree 1 1d.d I. w Io wulodu ulsde u tshCeeh atwrhth eoit fwe Cbthoiaterdb ofoarr sdi mfoilra rs igmroiluapr
tlheea mrna/teurniadle.rstand the mkjahktejhrial. wgororku apg waionr.k again. ljlkj
6 6
N = Never
5 S = Sometimes 5
H = Half the Time
nt4 O = Often nt4
u u
Co3 A = Always Co3
2 2
1 1
0 0
N S H O A N S H O A No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes

DDeeaaf/f/HHaarrdd ooff HHeeaarriinngg ((nn == 8 8) ) HHeeaarirningg ( (nn == 88)) DDeeaaf/fH/Haardrd ooff HHeeaarriinngg ((nn == 8 8) ) HHeaerainrigng ( n(n = = 88))
Figure 1. Response distributions for the whiteboard strategy (N = 16)
“One of things I like about using the whiteboard In 2007-2008, both groups who used the whiteboard
strategy was that I was able to see others work elected to return to working at their tables without the
and understand the concept better related to the whiteboard following the intervention. However, in
topic. For example, today we were working on 2008-2009, students in the intervention groups chose
hypothesis testing and I was able to see a group to continue using the whiteboard approach for the
member solving problems on the whiteboard.” remainder of the quarter. In both years, most students
(Tom, deaf student) felt that communication was quicker and easier with
the whiteboard and that they learned more using this
“Using the whiteboard made working in the group approach. Based on student suggestions from the fi rst
a much more open experience, and people were year, the option of using an overhead projector to cast
more driven to pay attention and be involved with the worksheet image onto the whiteboard, in addition
work. There were days when I didn’t feel very to writing their work there, was added in 2008-2009.
much like pulling my weight, but with the white- One whiteboard group chose to use this option, the
board, there was more pressure to contribute.” other did not. The group that projected the worksheet
(Jane, hearing student) onto the whiteboard felt that it helped to keep group
members on the task at hand. As one student wrote,
“I prefer the whiteboard method because it was “Projecting on the whiteboard helped us all view the
easier to understand our mistakes and see what the worksheet without going back and forth to our hand-
other groupmates felt about the answers or what- outs.” Although the whiteboard approach seems to hold
ever that was written.” (Stacy, deaf student) promise, it has its limitations. For example, all groups
expressed concern that their work was visible to the
56 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(1)
entire class and some complained that it took longer PC helped to varying degrees in communicating with
to complete the group assignment. group members (Figures 2a and 2b). For hearing stu-
The tablet PC survey (Appendix B) followed the dents, the responses were similar for communication
same format as the whiteboard survey, but used sepa- with deaf as well as other hearing group members. Deaf
rate questions to collect feedback regarding communi- and hard of hearing students felt that the tablet PC fa-
cation with deaf group members and communication cilitated communication with hearing group members,
with hearing group members. Figure 2 (a - e) shows but they were split about the effect on communication
the response distributions for deaf/hard of hearing, and with deaf group members. Those students who identi-
hearing participants using the tablet PC intervention fi ed themselves on the survey as hard of hearing gave
over the two-year period. Students felt that the tablet the most positive responses, possibly due to a higher
FFiigguurree 2 2a.a U. sUinsgin tgh eth taCebh talaerbtt olPefC tC PohuCenl ptheedlp meed cmoemmunicate UsingF Ftihiggeu utrarebe l2 e2btb .P .UC sUhiensligpne tgdh mteh etea c botlamebmt lPuenCti cPhaCete lhp weeidltph me hdee a mcroinemg mgruounpic maetem bers.
wciothm dmeuafn gicroautep wmietmh bdeeraslf.l kgjrlkolup members. wciothm hmeuarninicga gtero wupit hm hemeabraeisnrdsga. group members.
4 N = Never 4 N = Never
S = Sometimes S = Sometimes
3 H = Half the Time 3 H = Half the Time
Count2 AO == AOlwfteanys Count2 AO == AOlfwteanys
1 1
0 0
N S H O A N S H O A N S H O A N S H O A

DDeeaaf/f/HHaarrdd ooff HHeeaarriinngg ((nn == 66)) HeHaerainrgin g(n ( n= = 6 6)) DDeeaaf/f/HHaarrdd ooff HHeeaarriningg ((nn == 66)) HeHaerianrgin g(n ( n= = 6 6))
FFigiguurere 2 c2.c I. p Ia rptaicritpiactipedaC tihenad rtt hi onef gtChrtoeu gpr owuoprk w moorrke mbeocraeuse FUFiisggiunugrre te h2 e2d td.a .Ub lsUeitns PignC gt hh etehl pteae dbt almebet l PeleCta P rhnCe/ luhpneeddlepr mestdea n mlde eathrne /muantdeeriraslt.and
obf ethcea utasbel eotf PtChe. tablet PlCk.jlkj tlheea rmna/tuerniadle.rstand the mqwaetqewrial.
4 4
SD = Strongly Disagree N = Never
D = Disagree S = Sometimes
3 NS = Not Sure 3 H = Half the Time
Count2 SAA == SAtgrorenegly Agree Count2 AO == AOlfwteanys
1 1
0 0
SD D NS A SA SD D NS A SA N S H O A N S H O A

DDeeaaf/f/HHaarrdd ooff HHeeaarriinngg ((nn == 66)) HeHaerainrgin g(n ( n= = 6 6)) DDeeafa/fH/Haardrd o of fH Heeaarirningg ( (nn == 66)) HeHaerianrgin (gn (=n =6 )6)
FFiigguIu rwreeo 2 u2elde. .Iu ws Ieo wtuhleod ut auldbsl eeu tts hPeCe t fthoareb s lteiamt biPllaeCrt gf PororC us pfio mwrio lsraikrm agigrlaaoirun.p work
aggraoiun.p work again. sdfsd
4
3
nt
u
Co2
1
0
No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes

DDeeaaf/f/HHaarrdd ooff HHeeaarriningg ((nn == 66)) HeHaerianrgin (gn ( n= = 6 6))
Figure 2. Response distributions for the tablet PC strategy (N = 12)
Marchetti, Foster, Long, & Stinson; Crossing the Communication Barrier 57
level of comfort with written and spoken English (Stin- Discussion
son et al., 1996). The effects on student perception of
participation and learning were varied with use of the Both the “low tech” and “high tech” strategies
tablet PC (Figures 2c and 2d). However, 66% of all hold potential. The whiteboard approach was easier to
the students indicated they would be willing to try this implement, required no training, is portable to almost
strategy again (Figure 2e). any classroom, and was favored by the hearing and
In the fi rst class session with the tablet PC, there hard of hearing students. With many groups in the class,
was only one tablet PC per group, and a single mem- there may not be enough room for all groups to use the
ber of one group “took over” the activity by writing classroom whiteboard. However, small whiteboards
all the answers and not showing the others. With two for each group may be a viable alternative, and might
tablet PC’s per group, this did not occur. All students reduce or eliminate the student concern that others
felt that group work was enhanced by using the PC’s. could see their work. Students liked the novelty of
Comments included the following: the tablet PC’s and the enhanced communication they
provided. But this intervention was more diffi cult to
“[There was] more interaction among group mem- implement, requiring access to the proper equipment
bers.” (Larry, hard of hearing student) and software, out-of-class training, and technical sup-
port. A “mid-tech” intervention, such as a smart board,
“That it helped us see and understand more clearly was not available to the authors, but may prove to be
what was being written doing by the group members another avenue for further investigation.
because in my case I couldn’t understand the hear- This study did not examine specifi c learning out-
ing people half the time so it was very visual for me comes. This is a natural and necessary area for future
to learn and view the tablet PC, so therefore it was research. Predictably, the small samples in this prelimi-
benefi cial.” (Grace, hard of hearing student) nary study did not show statistical signifi cance. Use
of larger samples will increase the power of these tests
“When we used the tablet PC, I felt as though our and provide more reliable measures to answer research
group worked more as a team.” (Rita, hearing questions. Although it has been suggested that deaf and
student) hard of hearing students may not be comfortable using
written English to communicate without an interpreter,
“[The tablet PC’s] allowed the whole group to focus written communication is a realistic alternative for
together on one thing.” (Patty, hearing student) work, school, and social situations. With the emer-
gence of text messaging as a form of communication,
“I think it helped with the deaf peers because the many students are already comfortable expressing
whole group was focused on one worksheet and themselves using written messages and many deaf
working together to fi nish it. I think that not having and hard of hearing students are enrolling in online
to fi ll out your own worksheet allowed for better courses where communication with the instructor and
team work. The tablet PC was useful in creating other students is text-based.
neat, accessible copies of each worksheet for each Research suggests that instructional improve-
member.” (Patty, hearing student) ments intended for a specialized group often benefi t
all students in the classroom (Pliner & Johnson, 2004).
The learning curve for the technology – getting Hence, interventions to improve communication, par-
used to the slower writing on the tablet PC and, in ticipation, and learning for deaf and hard of hearing
2007-2008, trial and error to determine the best for- students may well serve hearing students. In particular,
mat to email the completed worksheet – caused some hearing students for whom English is a second lan-
frustration for the student participants, who wanted to guage, who come from cultures in which communica-
complete the in-class work and get feedback as quickly tion norms are different than those in the U.S. or have
as possible. However, use of the tablet PC did not leave challenges involving speech (i.e., students who stutter,
the groups feeling as though their work was exposed have Tourettes, vocal chord injuries, paralysis, etc.) or
to the rest of the class. social interaction (i.e., Aspergers) may benefi t from
alternative communication tools for group work.
58 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(1)
Continued work will examine both “best practices” as a strategy for problem solving in postsecondary
and “best practical practices” for instructors. Potential education and in the workplace. Since both settings
ideas include creating a whiteboard surface for some are crucial to long-term career success, it is suggested
tables, or a lazy-susan whiteboard to allow students to that research should be conducted in both settings to
rotate their work for sharing. Incorporating students determine if tools developed for use in higher education
into brainstorming sessions could generate additional could be applied in employment settings.
ideas for using a whiteboard in a group work situation. Some of the suggestions described above will be
Finally, assessing the technique with groups of hearing implemented in 2011-2012. The project team will study
students will help determine if the whiteboard is truly two sections of the same statistics course with the same
a universal design tool. instructor, materials, and group work format using a
modifi ed whiteboard approach. One section of the
Limitations of this Study class will continue in the traditional manner (without
This exploratory work was conducted to examine communication intervention) while the other section
the potential usefulness of two distinct tools for group will use whiteboards for all workgroups throughout
work in mixed communication teams. The number of the entire twenty-session course (including both mixed
participants was small and the duration of the interven- communication groups and groups comprised of only
tions was short. The small number of students required hearing students). In this study the whiteboards will be
combining students who self-identifi ed as deaf with on the tables, eliminating student concerns regarding
those who self-identifi ed as hard of hearing. There other students observing their work. The challenge will
were differences between these two groups – the hard be to use the boards in a way that still enables students
of hearing students tended to be more satisfi ed with to view fellow group members’ work easily. This itera-
the interventions than the deaf students – but with tion of the project will include measures of learning
only two hard of hearing students using the whiteboard outcomes as well as student surveys and class observa-
intervention and three using the tablet PC intervention, tions. The experimental design includes all students in
one could draw no conclusions from this fi nding. The two sections of the course, allowing us to examine the
PC groups had such a short time to learn and use the effect of the intervention for groups of hearing students
technology that it is diffi cult to know whether their as well as for mixed groups of deaf/hard of hearing
responses were overly infl uenced by the normal frustra- and hearing students. In addition to hearing loss, we
tions that occur when there is a learning curve involved will ask students to self-identify any other disability,
in using a new tool. In short, this project is intended to thus providing the possibility for comparisons among
illuminate possible areas for further study. multiple types of student groups.
The tablet PC software team that participated in
Recommendations for Further Research the exploratory studies will initiate a new project in
Further research is recommended to include larger 2011 to enhance the product’s ability to support deaf,
numbers of students and longer durations for interven- hard of hearing, and hearing students in workgroups.
tions. Additional measures to evaluate student progress This project will modify existing software (C-Print
with the interventions and learning outcomes should be Pro) to support collaborative communication and
incorporated into the research design. The potential for learning of students. Features that the software may
universal design applications deserve additional atten- include will enable collaborating students to create,
tion, also. That is, all students could be asked to provide view, and save shared documents in text, graphical,
anonymous information regarding their disability status or combined text-graphic formats. Collaborators will
to learn whether the interventions may be helpful to other use two or more computers that communicate with
special populations of postsecondary students. each other in a wireless network. These students may
This study focused on communication in math- be able to simultaneously view each other’s additions
ematics workgroups where symbols are often the lan- and modifi cations to documents. The tool’s software
guage of communication. It is recommended that other may also allow quick insertion of a variety of electronic
STEM disciplines be studied using these interventions, media into the shared documents, including instructor-
as well as the fi elds of social science and business. produced worksheets, and website pages. Students may
Most disciplines today employ team or group work also use, in addition to speech, sign, etc., a graphic- or
Marchetti, Foster, Long, & Stinson; Crossing the Communication Barrier 59
a text-messaging feature to communicate directly with reported in this paper to document the impact of the
each other. Thus, this approach, while having more whiteboard tool for all students, including those who
technological requirements than the whiteboard, may are deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing, and will include
give students a more powerful tool for communicat- tests to measure learning outcomes with and without
ing and working together. For example, students will whiteboard conditions for all students.
have the capability to save work in electronic fi les in
a manner that is not possible with the whiteboards. References
This project is starting with collection of extensive
data from students and instructors regarding crucial Antia, S. D., Sabers, D. L., & Stinson, M. S.
features to be included in the enhanced software and (2006). Validity and reliability of the classroom
will then develop and fi eld-test these improvements in participation questionnaire with deaf and hard
educational settings. of hearing students in public schools. Journal of
Clearly, RIT presents a rich context for studying Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 158-171.
academic interactions among deaf, hearing, and hard of doi:10.1093/deafed/enl028
hearing students. Few other postsecondary educational Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006).
institutions have so many deaf or hard of hearing stu- Student engagement and student learning: Testing
dents. However, the interventions being developed for the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1),
group work at RIT should work equally well in settings 1-32. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
where there are only a handful of deaf students. In fact, de Corte, E. (2004). Mainstreams and perspectives
they may be more crucial in these settings since the in research on learning (mathematics) from
option of placing multiple deaf students in the same instruction. Applied Psychology: An International
group to facilitate communication is rarely a possibil- Review, 53(2), 279-310. doi:10.1111/j.1464-
ity, and in rural settings it is frequently diffi cult to fi nd 0597.2004.00172.x
fully certifi ed interpreters. We hope that researchers Jenkins, R. J. Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy,
at other universities may be interested in conducting P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works
research at RIT regarding applications of the tools we for special education and remedial students.
are developing and testing, and welcome contact from Exceptional Children, 69(3). 279-292.
possible collaborators. Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students:
Research priorities in the new millennium. Journal
Conclusion of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4), 267-280.
doi:10.1093/deafed/7.4.267
This exploratory study yielded interesting fi ndings Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology:
that need further investigation. Overall, the implication A sociocultural approach to studying the teaching
for educators is that we can improve the student experi- and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies
ence (and possibly, learning outcomes) in collaborative in Mathematics, 46(1-3), 87-113. doi:10.1007/0-
work groups by providing alternative methods of com- 306-48085-9_3
munication. Portable whiteboards provide a simple, Marschark, M. (2007). Raising and educating a deaf
inexpensive method, and tablet PCs with special child, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
software may provide powerful tools, to facilitate such Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002).
communication, encourage participation, and improve Educating deaf students: Research into practice.
the learning experience for all students. New York: Oxford University Press.
As educators, it is imperative that we continu- National Center for Education Statistics. (2000).
ally explore instructional strategies that have proven Postsecondary students with disabilities: Enrollment,
benefi ts for student learning. Additionally, since most services and persistence. Washington, DC: U.S.
classrooms today are multicultural and include learn- Department of Education, Offi ce of Educational
ers with a variety of learning styles and needs, it is Research and Improvement (NCES 2000-601).
important to study the potential of interventions for National Technical Institute for the Deaf (2011).
universal design and application. As a result, our fu- C-Print products. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from
ture research will expand upon the exploratory work http://www.ntid.rit.edu/CPrint/product.php
60 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(1)
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1997). Writing a research Webb, N. M (1991). Task-related verbal interaction in
proposal: The role of library anxiety, statistics mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for
anxiety, and composition anxiety. Library and Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389.
Information Science Research, 19(1), 5-33. Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. H. (1994). Promoting
doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(97)90003-7 helping behavior in cooperative small groups
Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, in middle school mathematics. American
theoretical, and foundational principles of Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395.
universal instructional design in higher education. doi:10.3102/00028312031002369
Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 105-113. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes
doi: 10.1080/10665680490453913 in the classroom. In D.C. Bernliner and R.C. Calfee
Powers, S., Gregory, S., & Thoutenhoofd, E. (1999). (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
The educational achievements of deaf children: 841-873). New York: Macmillan.
A literature review and executive summary.
Deafness and Education International, 1(1), 1-9.
doi:10.1002/dei.38
Rangecroft, M. (2002). The language of statistics.
Teaching Statistics, An International Journal
for Teachers, 24(2), 34-37. doi:10.1111/1467-
9639.00080
Richardson, J. T. E., Marschark, M., Sarchet, T.,
& Sapere, P. (2010). Deaf and hard-of-hearing
students’ experiences in mainstream and separate
postsecondary education. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 15(4), 358-382. doi: 10.1093/
deafed/enq030
Roseth, C. J., Garfi eld, J. B., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008).
Collaboration in learning and teaching statistics.
Journal of Statistics Education, 16(1). Retrieved
July 26, 2011 from http://www.amstat.org/
publications/jse/v16n1/roseth.html
Saur, R. E., Layne, C. A., Hurley, E. A., & Opton, K.
(1986). Dimensions of mainstreaming. Annals of
the Deaf, 131, 325-330.
Stinson, M., Liu, Y., Saur, R., & Long, G. (1996). Deaf
college students’ perceptions of communication in
mainstream classes. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 1, 40–51.
Stinson, M. S., & Liu, Y. (1999). Participation of deaf
and hard of hearing students in classes with hearing
students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
4, 191-202. doi:10.1093/deafed/4.3.191
Stinson, M. & Walter, G. (1997). Improving retention
for deaf and hard of hearing students: What the
research tells us. Journal of American Deafness
and Rehabilitation Association, 30, 14-23.
Webb, N. M (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small
groups. International Journal of Educational Research,
13, 21-40. doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1