PEPNET 2.0 and AHEAD ASSOCIATION
NEW ORLEANS CONFERENCE 2012
POSTER SESSION
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN STRATEGIES USED TO PROVIDE EQUAL LEARNING
OPPORTUNITY FOR DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING LEARNERS
by
© Daniel Mercado Cruz 2012
1
Problem
A goal of American community colleges is to provide access and learning opportunity to
all students including deaf and hard of hearing learners (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). The National
Center for Education Statistics reported that there were 19.1 million students enrolled in the
nation’s colleges and universities in 2010, a net increase of 6.8 million students from 20 years
ago (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). An estimated 66,000 of new students will be hearing impaired,
with an annual inflow of about 13,200 students through the years of 2006 until the year of 2010
(Watson, Schroedel, Kolvitz, Decaro, Kavin, 2007). The estimated number of college students
with hearing loss was expected to be approximately 470,000 by 2010 (Watson, Schroedel,
Kolvitz, Dearo, & Kavin, 2007). The (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
(2006) and the U. S. Bureau of the Census (2011) supported the enrollment projections.
Walter (2010) reported that only 5% of deaf and hard of hearing learners earn a college
degree compared to 28% of the general population. According to Walter (2010) 55% of deaf or
hard of hearing students are enrolled in two year institutions and 43% are enrolled in four year
institutions. The disparity in degree completion rates between hearing impaired and hearing
students may result from postsecondary institutions’ inability to provide the necessary resources
required to offer full access to curricula for deaf and hard of hearing learners (Marschark et al.,
2005). Lang (2002) suggested factors that affect deaf and hard of hearing students’ success in
higher education. Lang (2002) stated numerous reasons why deaf and hard of hearing students
do not complete baccalaureate degree programs, including inadequate academic preparation, the
challenges of learning through support services, difficulty in carrying full load of courses,
2
dissatisfaction of social life, and changes in career interests were identified as additional barriers
to degree completion.
Deaf and hard of hearing learners need ways to interact directly with their hearing peers
(Long, Vignare, Rappold, & Mallory, 2007). Currently deaf and hard of hearing learners in
mainstream classrooms depend on the assistance of a sign language interpreter or closed
captioning to facilitate communication among instructors and peers (Long et al., 2007). Even
though these systems help to provide access to information they are seen as lacking the clarity
and immediacy of direct one to one communication (Long & Beil, 2005; Foster, Long, & Snell,
1999). With distance learning technology today (i.e. the use of email, instant messaging and
discussion boards), the deaf and hard of hearing learners have the opportunity to interact directly
with instructors and hearing peers without the use of a third party to transmit messages (Long et
al., 2007).
Mainstream classrooms historically have not been designed for deaf and hard of hearing
learners especially if the class was interactive or discussion oriented (Cavender, 2010).
Understanding the diverse backgrounds and educational experiences of deaf and hard of hearing
learners would be imperative for a successful instructional design to make available appropriate
learning experiences for the group (Cavender, 2010). The purpose of Cavender’s study was to
find solutions for deaf and hard of hearing learner to have an equal access to education and the
resources needed to learn effectively with the use of technologies. The first technology used was
the ClassInFocus that enabled deaf students to find the best sign language interpreters and bring
them into the classroom remotely. The second technology used was the American Sign
Language-Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (ASL-STEM). The ASL-STEM
3
Forum enabled deaf learners to come together online and upload video signs in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math fields to discuss and come to an agreement about their use.
The end product of Cavender’s study was that the technologies used empowered the deaf
and hard of hearing learners to solve their own accessibility problems and take control of their
own access needs (Cavender, 2010). Similar to Cavender’s study is this research whereas
technologies will be used to facilitate the access to online courses and to provide equal learning
opportunity. Cavender’s study stimulates the intent of this research, which is to explore deaf and
hard of hearing learners’ perceptions and recommendations to instructional designers on how to
effectively design hybrid courses to accommodate their needs. This study may provide
information about how to determine and design better effective hybrid courses from the deaf and
hard of hearing learners.
Students who are deaf or hard of hearing face many obstacles in a mainstream classroom
compared to the general population (University of California Berkeley, 2011). Not every deaf or
hard of hearing learner has the same level of disability some may need interpreters, while other
hard of hearing learners might use assistive listening device (University of California Berkeley,
2011). In contrast, the general hearing population does not need any supportive assistance or
reasonable accommodations to receive an equal learning experience opportunity. Additional
resources such as interpreters, note takers, and real-time captioning translations have been
common third-party supports provided to deaf and hard of hearing students in mainstream
classrooms (Cavender, 2010; Marschark et al., 2005).
This study will explore the deaf and hard of hearing learners’ perceptions and
recommendations of a hybrid course. The deaf and hard of hearing learners’ perceptions and
4
recommendations will provide information to instructional designers on how to effectively
design hybrid courses to provide an equal learning opportunity and to accommodate their needs
through Web accessibility. Several studies (e.g., Lang et al. 2004; Long et al., 2007; Napier &
Barker, 2004; Irlbeck et al., 2006; Sims, 2006) have suggested that learners’ input is important to
the design process.
Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the 1990 Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit institutions from discriminating against students with disabilities
with regard to access to educational programs and facilities (Richardson, Long, & Woodley,
2004b). Since 1990, federal legislation has required that educational entities that receive federal
funding provide accommodations and access to technology that are necessary to provide equal
access to educational programs for all students. Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities
Act provided guidance as to what kind of adjustments or accommodations should be introduced
to enable students with disabilities to achieve the same access to learning as students without
disabilities (Richardson et al., 2004b). Educational institutions may need to change their
teaching approaches to provide access and equal opportunities of learning to the deaf and hard of
hearing learners. Online learning and hybrid courses are options to be considered. Hybrid and
blended courses are similar in meaning however; the term hybrid course will be used throughout
this study.
Background of the Study
At the postsecondary level, deaf and hard of hearing learners in traditional classrooms
have difficulty in interacting with hearing peers, the instructors, and in participating on an
equitable basis in the classroom (Lang, 2002). According to Bryan and Myers (2006), providing
5
equal access for students with disabilities will allow them to be self-advocates in educational
settings. Providing appropriate instructional opportunities to deaf and hard of hearing students
requires that instructors understand what accommodations and strategies should be included in
the curriculum.
Bissonnette (2006) surveyed instructors at one four-year college about whether or not the
instructors considered the accessibility needs of students with disabilities when developing
course content. The survey responses indicated that 80% of instructor respondents did not take
into consideration special needs of students with disabilities when integrating technology in
online courses. The study revealed that many teachers resisted having disabled students in their
courses, fearing they would have to lower teaching standards. However, other teachers have
found that by having disabled students in their courses they would have to adapt other teaching
strategies and by doing so all students would benefit (Bissonnette, 2006). Buggey (2000) points
out that when professors are planning online courses factors need to be considered that will allow
learners with disabilities to participate equally in the course.
A study conducted at Rochester Institute of Technology explored the online educational
experiences of deaf and hard of hearing learners (Mallory, Long, & Davis, 2003). A sample of
more than 1000 deaf and hard of hearing learners completed a survey concerning the importance
of various components of their online learning experiences. The Mallory et al. (2003) study
addressed two research questions whether or not online learning (a) provided educational
opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing students and (b) provided equal access to instructional
materials for deaf and hard of hearing students. The students indicated that online learning
provided an easier method for them to share information with peers and faculty than in
6
traditional classroom environment (Mallory et al., 2003). In an online course, the materials were
printed, the videos were captioned, and written responses were substituted for oral responses.
The deaf and hard of hearing learners reported that they believed they achieved the same level of
learning as their hearing peers as the online course material was text based or captioned (Mallory
et al., 2003).
Although fully online courses have been found to be appropriate for deaf and hard of
hearing learners, hybrid courses has become an online learning tool to institutions entering the
online arena (Martyn, 2003). The hybrid online model supports the blending of face-to-face and
online instruction of a hybrid course (Martyn, 2003). In a study conducted at the National
Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology by Lang et al. (2004) the deaf
learners’ perceptions were used to examine the similarities and differences about tutoring held by
deaf college students in baccalaureate and sub- baccalaureate majors. Therefore, gathering
student perceptions experience from a hybrid course in this study can have a great impact on how
to design and create better hybrid courses. Deaf learners’ perceptions can help understand
factors that may influence motivation and learning, which in turn may lead to improve the
strategies and productive outcomes for teaching postsecondary level (Lang, Biser, Mouseley,
Orlando, & Porter, 2004).
Involving deaf and hard of hearing learners in the instructional design process is
necessary to develop hybrid courses that meet the specialized needs of the population. There is a
lack of research about the components of online learning that are important to deaf and hard of
hearing learners (Richardson & Woodley, 2001; Mallory & Long, 2003). Research that gathers
information from the deaf and hard of hearing learners about the preferred instructional
7
strategies, technology, and delivery methods included in hybrid course is needed to assure that
instructional designers develop courses that meet their needs (Long, Vignare, Rappold, &
Mallory, 2007). According to Long et al. (2003) there is an existing need of technologies to help
deaf and hard of hearing learners to interact with their peers. To understand better among deaf
and hard of hearing learners about communication in a hybrid course (online and traditional)
learning courses, a student perceptions 22 item questionnaire was used to examine learners’
perceptions and hybrid learning experience (Long et al., 2007). Based on the learners’
perception the results of the study indicated that the hybrid learning format offers some
advantages for students with hearing loss. Seventy-five percent of the students with hearing loss
recommended other students should have the opportunity to take a similar class in the future
(Long et al., 2007).
Federal Mandates for Equal Access to Educational Opportunities
Two federal laws assure that persons with disabilities have equal access to postsecondary
educational opportunities (a) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and (b) the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq. determined that
it was unlawful for federal programs or agencies or any programs that received federal funds to
discriminate against persons with disabilities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended provide specific guidance for postsecondary institutions regarding deaf and
hard of hearing students.
Section 504 requires entities such as postsecondary institutions that receive federal funds
to develop a set of regulations to apply to the entities’ own programs (U.S. Department of
8
Justice, 2005). The regulations specify reasonable accommodations for students with
disabilities, program accessibility, effective communication with people who are vision or
hearing impaired, and accessible new construction and alterations. Section 504 further stipulates
that postsecondary schools provide auxiliary aids for students who have impaired sensory or
speaking skills such as deaf and hard of hearing students.
As with Section 504, Section 508 applies to entities that receive Federal financial
assistance. Section 508 stipulates that employees and members of the public including
postsecondary students with disabilities have access to electronic and information technology
provided by the Federal government (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). The purpose of Section
508 was to eliminate barriers in information technology, open new opportunities for people with
disabilities, and encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals (Laws,
n.d., para. 1). Section 508 addresses the means used to disseminate information, including
computers, software, and electronic office equipment.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. “provides broad
nondiscrimination protection in employment, public services, public accommodations and
services operated by public entities, transportation, and telecommunication for individuals with
disabilities” (Jones, 2001, p. 1). ADA is broader than the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in that
ADA does not have the requirement that covered entities receive Federal financial aid (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2005, p. 2). Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 42
U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. assures that persons with disabilities are provided an equal opportunity
to benefit from state and local government programs as persons without disabilities (Department
9
of Justice, 2005) including public education. ADA language and protections are consistent with
Section 504 and with Section 508 in that telecommunications is included in ADA.
Section 12189 of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12189)
stipulates that
Courses and examinations related to professional, educational, or trade-related
applications, licensing, certifications, or credentialing must be provided in a place and
manner accessible to people with disabilities, or alternative accessible arrangements must
be offered. (U.S. Department of Justice, p. 5)
Title II and Title III of ADA provide guidance to postsecondary institutions regarding the
accommodations that may be necessary for deaf and hard of hearing students to access an equal
education.
While mandates for equal access to educational opportunities for students with
disabilities exist, a policy report from the National Council on Disability (2009) reported that
data are needed to determine the success of the programs that have been implemented to provide
persons with disabilities equal access to education (para. 3, Education). The policy report further
indicated that individuals with disabilities have experienced difficulty in accessing technology
such as the internet, assistive technology, and digital technology that is necessary for an equal
opportunity education. Instructional designers use the guidelines provided by Section 504 and
Section 508 to develop appropriate instructional designs that provide equal access to educational
opportunities including technology for students with disabilities. The instructional designers can
include an evaluation component that would contribute data to evaluating the success of equal
access curriculum.
Instructional Design for Equal Access to Educational Opportunities
10
Equal access to educational opportunities and technology in education has increased as a
result of the federal mandates discussed in the previous section for all individuals despite
disabilities a person may have (Lee & Templeton, 2008). As a result of the increase in deaf and
hard of hearing learners, postsecondary institutions will be required to provide educational
technologies to accommodate individual needs of the learners (Lang & Steely, 2003).
Instructional designers will be instrumental in providing access to technology that will improve
access to an equal education for students with disabilities (Joiner, 2010). Instructional design is
a systematic and reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans
for instructional materials, activities, information resources, and evaluation (Smith & Ragan,
1999).
Instructional designers can incorporate adaptive technology, assistive technology,
universal design, and resources to make the Web accessible to people with disabilities when
designing curriculum, courses, and other instructional materials to assure equal access to
educational opportunities for students with disabilities. Students who are deaf or hard of hearing
require access to the Web, the spoken content of a video through closed captioning, real-time
voice to print, C-print capability, and interpreters for online content to have an education equal to
hearing peers (Cavender, 2010). Instructional designers can follow the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (2006) that emphasizes the importance of providing barrier free
access to persons with disabilities (Lilli, 2001). Instructional designers can also use web
accessibility guidelines when designing online courses for deaf and hard of hearing learners
(Wisdom et al., 2006).
11
In addition to following federal mandates and Web accessibility guidelines, instructional
designers should have knowledge about the distinctive needs of the deaf community to develop
effective instructional materials. Researchers (Cavender, 2010; Friedman & Bryen, 2007;
Irlbeck et al, 2006; Martin, 2009; Wang, 2006; Zabala, Bowser, & Korsten, 2004) supported
including students when developing accessible instructional designs. Wang (2006) found that
learning outcomes were better than previous courses when students with disabilities were
included in the design process. Martin (2009) found that information about deaf students’
learning styles was necessary because learning styles would influence the communication
services to be included in instructional designs. While research has shown the importance of
including information from deaf and hard of hearing learners when designing instruction,
Richardson, Long, and Foster, (2004a) indicated that additional research is needed to assess the
effectiveness of instructional design that includes technology for deaf and hard of hearing
students.
Consistent with the Irlbeck et al.’s (2006) Three Phase Design (3PD) model that
emphasized the necessity of including the learner in the instructional design process, Luetke
(2009) suggested that since web based courses has increased it appears logical to use consumer
feedback to improve deaf education courses offered over the internet. With the invasion of
online courses and the possibility of the courses increasing it is imperative that researchers
continue to explore this area of study and, in doing so, use sound scientific methods and continue
to build knowledge about how to provide more effective learning online (Tallent-Runnels,
Thomas, Lan, & Cooper, 2006). A hybrid course will be developed for this study that will
12
include features of traditional class activities and online activities to meet the equal access to
education mandates of Section 504 and Section 508 for deaf and hard of hearing students.
Statement of the Problem
There are multiple laws that protect and identify deafness and hearing loss as disabilities.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, ensures a person with disability has equal access to
education. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates that all electronic and
information technology used by the federal government is accessible to people with disabilities.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is consistent with the Section 504 mandates. There
are also guidelines instructional designers use to make content accessible to the learners. The
outcome of this research will contribute to the online accessibility to people that are deaf or hard
of hearing following the existing guidelines and the mandates of the law. The guidelines are
relevant to this study because they emphasize the equality of online accessibility to people with
disabilities (Shawn, 2010b). While there are regulations that specify how instruction must be
fully accessible with the use of technology for deaf and hard of hearing learners, the concern is
that regulations do not stipulate the instructional strategies that should be used with the
technology or specify the combination of technology that works best for deaf and hard of hearing
learners.
Researchers (Lang et al. 2004; Long et al., 2007; Napier & Barker, 2004; Irlbeck et al.,
2006; Sims, 2006) suggested that learner input is important to the design process. Not getting
the deaf and hard of hearing learners’ input is a problem because it gives no idea of whether or
not their needs are been met. When developing accessible instructional designs researchers
support including students (Cavender, 2010; Friedman & Bryen, 2007; Irlbeck et al, 2006;
13
Martin, 2009; Wang, 2006; Zabala, Bowser, & Korsten, 2004). Therefore, the issues of
developing instructional strategies rely on the academic institutions to comply with the laws and
to provide such online educational components.
Classroom technology research attempts to enhance educational learning experiences for
all students and this provides opportunities to include deaf and hard of hearing students
(Cavender, 2010). Instructional design can be a tool to help deaf and hard of hearing students to
achieve equal learning opportunity and to strengthen their academic performance in mainstream
classrooms, in online distance learning courses, and in hybrid courses. Distance learning and
hybrid courses have been found to be as effective as mainstream classrooms for deaf and hard of
hearing learners (Collins &Pascarella, 2003; Mallory, Long, & Davis, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to gather information about deaf and hard of hearing
learners’ perceptions, from a hybrid learning experience, and recommendations of how to design
better hybrid courses to accommodate their needs. The learners’ perceptions may serve and help
instructional designers to determine how hybrid courses can be designed to better accommodate
their needs (Long, Vignare, Rappold, & Mallory, 2007). In addition, researchers (Lang et al.
2004; Long et al., 2007; Napier & Barker, 2004; Irlbeck et al., 2006; Sims, 2006) suggested that
learner input is important to the design process to meet their needs. The hybrid learning has the
probability of enhancing the students’ deaf and hard of hearing learners’ perceptions, learning
experience, and provide a richer learning environment than either just online or just face-to-face
(Lang et al. 2004; Long et al., 2007; Napier & Barker, 2004).
14
The deaf learners’ perceptions can help understand factors that may influence motivation
and learning, which in turn may lead to improve the strategies and productive outcomes for
teaching postsecondary level (Lang, Biser, Mouseley, Orlando, & Porter, 2004). Gathering
information from deaf and hard of hearing learners about their perceptions and learning
experiences in a hybrid course could provide institutions with greater specificity about how to
develop hybrid courses with blended delivery modalities to accommodate their learning needs
and improve their equal learning opportunity. According to Cameron (2005) the characteristics
of hybrid learning have the probability of enhancing the students’ learning experience and
provide a richer learning environment than either just online or just face-to-face. Cameron
(2005) points out those institutions that use the modality of blended learning (hybrid learning) as
a delivery option suggests further research on students’ satisfaction with the various delivery
modalities. Additional studies can provide institutions with greater specificity in the results due
to more campuses operating with blended delivery modalities (Cameron, 2005).
Richardson and Woodley (2001) stated that there has been little research on the
experiences of students with hearing loss in mainstream higher education and nevertheless, little
is known of how these students experience their programs of study. Learners’ input is important
in the design process (Lang et al. 2004; Long et al., 2007; Napier & Barker, 2004; Irlbeck et al.,
2006; Sims, 2006). To help deaf and hard of hearing learners understand their needs, learning
styles, and develop academic proficiency can augment the learners’ overall educational
experience.
Research Questions
The following questions will guide this study:
15
1. What are the deaf and hard of hearing learners’ perceptions of a hybrid learning experience?
2. What recommendations do the deaf and hard of hearing learners suggest to make how hybrid
courses can be designed effectively to accommodate their needs?
Significance of the Study
The results of this study will benefit the deaf and hard of hearing learners and
instructional designers by acknowledging the learners’ perceptions of a hybrid learning
experience, web content accessibility, and recommendations of how to effectively design hybrid
courses to accommodate deaf and hard of hearing students’ needs. Researchers (Lang et al.
2004; Long et al., 2007; Napier & Barker, 2004; Irlbeck et al., 2006; Sims, 2006) suggested that
learner input is important to the design process. Deaf and hard of hearing learners will be
included in the evaluation phase of the instructional design process. The researcher as an
instructional designer will create and design Web pages in concordance with Sections 504, 508
standards and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999) to ensure web content accessibility.
To establish the best possible hybrid course, instructional designers should consider deaf
and hard of hearing learners’ perception to provide for an equal learning and online instruction
accessibility. It is not known if deaf and hard of hearing perceptions contribute towards the
designing practices and creativity for an effective instruction of hybrid courses. Information
obtained from the learners’ perception will provide instructional designers with a sample of the
most appropriate technology available to deliver instruction, provide accessibility, and assure an
equal learning opportunity through the use of a combination of instructional strategies in a hybrid
course. The exploration of the perceptions of deaf and hard of hearing learners in this study is
16
significant as it investigates effective ways for enhancing the deaf and hard of hearing hybrid
learning experience.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework that supports this research is based on the universal design
theory. The theory of universal design was implemented as a form of instruction that consists of
practical design and use of inclusive instructional strategies that benefit a wide range of learners
including learners with disabilities (Scott, McGuire, & Embry, 2002). Universal design for
learning is an educational framework that optimizes learning opportunities for all individuals to
gain knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm for learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002; Rose & Meyer, 2006;
Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005).
Universal design has expanded into higher education (Zeff, 2007). One of the advantages
of universal design is that it not only benefits students with disabilities but those without any
disability. Universal design is being applied in higher education in different fields (Lightfoot &
Gibson, 2005; McAlexander, 2004). The conceptual framework and research questions
presented in this study may help to close the gap on how to effectively design hybrid courses for
deaf and hard of hearing learners.
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodology to be used in this study. The research questions
will be restated followed by a detailed description of the research methodology, sampling design,
setting of the study, instrumentation, validity, reliability, data collection procedures, ethical
consideration, data analysis procedures, and limitations. The primary objective of this study is to
17
discover deaf and hard of hearing learners’ perceptions from a hybrid learning experience, and
recommendations can help to design better effective hybrid courses to accommodate their needs.
The process of triangulation will be used as a procedure of “corroborating evidence from
different individuals (e.g., a principal and a student), types of data (e.g, observational fieldnotes
and interviews), or methods of data collection (e.g., documents and interviews) in descriptions
and themes in qualitative research” (Creswell, 2008, p. 266). This qualitative case study will
employ a triangulation process and an exploratory mixed method design to learn more about the
perspective of hybrid learning experience of deaf and hard of hearing learners. To explore a
descriptive case study from different perspectives, a triangulation process and an exploratory
mixed method design will be employed using different data sources such as interview and guided
survey questions, personal reflective journals, and focus group questions to explore a
phenomenon from different perspectives. The use of multiple data sources improves the quality
of a study (Flick, 2007).
According to Baxter and Jack (2008) qualitative case studies offer opportunities to
explore or describe a phenomenon in context using multiple data sources. This case study can be
an approach to research that may facilitate the exploration of deaf and hard of hearing learners’
perception of a hybrid learning experience using multiple data sources. Baxter and Jack (2008)
wrote that a qualitative case study makes sure that the issue of the research is not viewed in one
form, but rather multiple forms that provide different facets of the phenomenon to be known and
understood. The targeted sample for the study is a group of deaf and hard of hearing learners.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study:
18
1. What are the deaf and hard of hearing learners’ perceptions of a hybrid learning experience?
2. What recommendations do the deaf and hard of hearing learners suggest to make how hybrid
courses can be effectively designed to accommodate their needs?
Research Methodology
Qualitative research is a continuous process of forming concepts (Gall, Gall, & Borg
2003). According to DJS Research (2010) qualitative research help researchers understand how
people feel and why they feel as they do. Creswell (2008) stated that qualitative research
addresses research problems that require “an exploration in which little is known about the
phenomenon and a detailed understanding of a central phenomenon” (p.51). Additional
research is needed to understand how deaf and hard of hearing learners experience equal access
to postsecondary education (Lang, 2002; Mallory & Long, 2003; Martin, 2009; Richardson et al.,
2004a). According to Lang (2002) little is known of how deaf learners experience higher
education. Educational technology has the capability of improving deaf and hard of hearing
students in the academic mainstream however, mainstream classrooms are not adequately
equipped for deaf learners (Luft, Bonello, & Zirzow, 2009). Distance education is developing
rapidly and this process of development should seek to safeguard the flexibility that is valued by
students but also ensures the deaf learners’ intellectual challenges to have an equal access to the
information and enhanced communication that it can provide (Richardson et al. 2004a).
The qualitative research method allows to use different types of sources of information
such as interviews, journals, and focus group questions to gather data therefore, permitting the
study to become accurate and credible (Creswell, 2008). This research is a qualitative case study
where data triangulation and an exploratory mixed method will be used to enhance the accuracy
19
of the study. The triangulation process allows to improve the validity of the research from a
variety of sources to be combined to identify unique perspectives to answer the research
questions. The exploratory mixed method first gathers qualitative data to explore a phenomenon
and then collects quantitative data to explain and refine the relationship found in the qualitative
data (Creswell, 2008). Flick (2007) noted that analyzing data with the triangulation approach
would improve the quality of the study. Data for this study to be analyzed by triangulation will
be gathered from (a) one to one semi-structured interviews (see Appendix C), (b) using guided
survey questions (see Appendix D), (c) the use of personal reflective journals (see Appendix E),
and, (d) focus group questions (see Appendix F). The four instruments for this qualitative case
study will be used to compare the four types of data to provide a triangulation of data sources
(Creswell, 2008). The collected data will be coded to be compared and contrasted for data
analysis and analyzed to identify themes in participant responses to answer the research
questions (Creswell, 2008). Multiple data sources will allow for the development of an accurate
and credible report through the use of the triangulation process (Creswell, 2008). The
triangulation process will help to identify and summarize the most frequently discussed coded
themes.
Sampling Design
A purposeful sampling approach will be used in this study. Within the purposeful
sampling approach there are sampling strategies that a researcher needs to identify when
conducting a study (Creswell, 2008). For this study a homogeneous sampling strategy was
selected. Homogeneous sampling is a strategy used when individuals have specific
characteristics. Identification as being deaf or hard of hearing is the criteria for the learners to
20
participate in this qualitative case study that will explore the central phenomenon of educating
deaf and hard of hearing learners.
The population for this study will be deaf and hard of hearing learners enrolled in a
private eastern region higher education institution in a self-governing commonwealth in
association with the United States. The institutional office of the Counselor of Students with
Disability, Quality of Life and Well-being (Consejera de Estudiantes con Impedimentos, Calidad
de Vida y Bienestar) at the identified university will be the reference source for identifying the
learners to participate for this study. The office has reported that 18 students comprise the total
population of deaf and hard of hearing students in the university system. Volunteer participants
will be required to take a hybrid course English 115, which is part of the university’s curriculum
program. The institutional office of the Counselor of Students with Disability, Quality of Life
and Well-being has identified 18 deaf and hard of hearing learners, these learners will be invited
to participate by mail to receive a briefing of the study to participate in the research. This
qualitative case study will have 10 learners participating in the study from which 5 learners will
be part of a focus group used to collect data through interview. A qualitative study typically
includes a small sample due to the type and amount of data collected. In-depth interviews with a
large sample would provide and unmanageable amount of data that might produce superficial
results (Creswell, 2008). Creswell (2008) wrote that the sample size may be several ranging
from 1 or 2 to 30 or 40; therefore, this study will use 10 participants.
The institutional office of the Counselor of Students with Disability will coordinate a date
to invite the deaf and hard of hearing learners from the three private higher education institutions
to a briefing of the study. In the briefing, all deaf and hard of hearing learners who attend will
21
receive an introduction to the study. The learners will be invited to participate in the research. A
signed consent form will be obtained from the learners who agree to participate in the study.
The learners who consent to participate in the study will be informed that each learner that
completes the course and the study requirements will have the opportunity of winning a $100.00
gift card for participating in the research. As each learner has an identification number, the
learners’ identification numbers will be used to select the winner in a drawing at the end of the
course.
Setting of the Study
The setting of this study is a private university system located in the eastern region of a
self-governing commonwealth associated with the United States. The university system consists
of four universities. The university system offers associates, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees in
a variety of programs including nursing, business administration, science and technology and
education. Approximately 42,200 students are enrolled in the university system (About the
university, n.d.). The university system serves students with disabilities including deaf and hard
of hearing students. The classroom portion of the hybrid course will be at the main campus of
university system.
The Hybrid Course
The research will be conducted in English 115 hybrid course offered by the university’s
School of Social Sciences and Humanities. English 115, Academic College Reading and Writing
I, is required to English as second language students as part of the curriculum. The deaf and hard
of hearing learners participation in the course will consist of (a) 50% face to face in class with a
note taker and sign language interpreter who will interpret the course instructions and (b) 50%
22
asynchronously online. Asynchronous means the learners can access the online course at
anytime any place. The contact hours of the course will be divided such that 24 contact hours of
face-to-face in class will be required and a minimum of 21 contact hours for the online
requirement of the hybrid course. The institution requires 45 contact hours to be in compliance
with the accreditation agencies. Contact hours, interviews, and study related activities will occur
in four rooms on the campus.
The semi-structured interviews and focus group will be conducted in a conference room
with an American Sign Language interpreter who will interpret for the student and the
interviewer. The interviews will be recorded with a manual tape recorder and a digital recorder.
The 50% face to face instruction will take place in a classroom with the presence of an
interpreter, note taker(s), and the instructor. A laboratory will serve for a variety of purposes.
First, the laboratory will be used during the first week of the study to instruct the participants
about how to access, navigate, familiarize with the hybrid course, and demonstrate all the
pertinent components of the course. Second, the deaf and hard of hearing learners can use the
laboratory as needed. The laboratory will be available during the 8-week course for participants
to use to complete the online portion of the hybrid course. An interpreter, note taker, and course
instructor will be available in the laboratory to assist participants as needed.
The participants will be accompanied by each of their institutional note takers and
institutional interpreter. Computer assistance will be available in the laboratory to assist any
learner that might need technical support. The instructor will keep notes, equipment, and
materials safeguarded in the laboratory throughout the research. The private institution,
following established legislation for disabled students, provides note takers and interpreters to
23
each deaf or hard of hearing student. However, it will not be necessary for the learners to have
their institutional assigned interpreter as there will be an assigned interpreter in the classroom
interpreting in American Sign Language during the instructor’s lectures. The participants,
however, can choose to keep their assigned interpreter if so desired.
This qualitative case study primarily purpose is focused on the deaf and hard of hearing
learners’ perceptions of a hybrid learning experience, and the recommendations deaf and hard of
hearing learners suggest to make how hybrid courses can be designed effectively to
accommodate their needs. Chou and Sun (1996) conducted a similar case study; however, its
purpose was to examine the (performance of product and tool research) usability of the interface
and the effectiveness of the course. A further study may be combined of these two case studies.
An 8 week hybrid course will be designed with eight modules and offered to deaf and hard of
hearing learners by an instructor. The design of the course will include hybrid learning
intervention that will be created using adaptive and assistive technology, universal design, and
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. The hybrid learning intervention will allow the
use of different delivery approaches and a combination of pedagogical approaches. Adaptive
technology allows for different combination of technologies with processes that form an adaptive
system that let disable students to perform online tasks (Shute & Zapata, 2008).
Assistive technology supplements adaptive technology, which is a system that supports
people with a disability to accommodate the area of special needs (Hopkins, 2004). Adaptive
and assistive technology offers a passageway to curriculum for learners with and without special
needs (Kingsley, 2007). Universal design for learners with severe and sensory disabilities will
24
be integrated into the hybrid course. The online instructional component of hybrid course will be
designed in Blackboard with the integration of Tegrity that will supplement the content delivery.
Tegrity provides for a recording of an interpreter for American Sign Language to be
incorporated in one of the Tegrity windows. Closed captioning can be integrated in a separate
Tegrity window with a Java program that will synchronize the time and speed and transcribe the
words of the instructor into a closed captioned. Tegrity is the adaptive technology chosen for
this study to provide a program for lecture capture. Each lecture will be supplemented with
closed caption. In addition an interpreter for sign language will be included for the benefit of
those learners that prefer sign language rather than closed captioned. The technologies to form
an adaptive system for this hybrid course will be (a) Blackboard learning management system,
(b) Tegrity, lecture capture (c) closed caption, and (d) American Sign Language interpreter to
form an adaptive system. The instructor’s materials can also be shown in an open window of
Tegrity as is demonstrated in Figure 1.
Interpreter
Lesson
Closed Captioned
Chat window
25
Figure 1. Tegrity lecture capture with interpreter, closed aptioned, and lesson.
Note: From [Campus Technology] Eliminating Barriers in Lecture Capture by R. Wyatt, and J. Ward, 2010.
Providing Equal Education for Disabled Students, webcast lecture. Copyright 2010 by El Centro College, Dallas
County Community College District. Reprinted with permission of the author (see Appendix G). The gentleman in
the slide is the Sign Language Interpreter for the lecture given by Janet Ward.
As shown in Figure 2, the instructional designer will include the following navigational
buttons in Blackboard to facilitate accessibility of the course (a) welcome area, (b)
announcement area, (c) instructor’s information area as a means of communication with
instructor, (d) course syllabus area, (e) modules area, (f) assignment area, (g) discussion forum
area, and (e) external links area. The navigational buttons will allow learners to navigate and
easily access all areas following the WCAG 2.0 guidelines for Web accessibility. Blackboard
allows the instructor to monitor the amount of time a learner spends on the course to verify that
the learners comply with the institutions’ minimum number of contact hours.
26
Figure 2. Researcher’s blackboard learning management system
Note: The researcher for this study will use the Blackboard platform as the main delivery form of instruction
combined with Tegrity (Figure 2) supplemented with closed caption and sign language interpretation.
The learners will receive an introduction of how to navigate, and how to use the
components of Blackboard in week 1 of the course. Blackboard is the learning management
system that the study will utilize for the delivery of instruction. Blackboard with the aid of
adaptive technology combined with other technologies including an interpreter, closed
captioning, lessons, and a chat window will form an adaptive system as described by Shute and
Zapata (2008). The identified provide real-time instruction and assessment that adapt to the
learner’s special needs (Shute & Zapata, 2008).
The 8-week hybrid course will consist of four modules, one for every 2 weeks. Each
week the learners will have practical exercises to perform in the face to face classroom, one
online quiz per week, a test at the end of every module, and personal reflective journal entries.
Learners’ personal reflective journal entries will focus on explaining their perceptions of (a)
online learning experiences of the hybrid course, (b) hybrid learning intervention, (c)
accessibility of the course, and (d) recommendations of how hybrid courses can be effectively
designed to accommodate learners’ needs. The personal reflective journal entries will be
completed during the second through the fifth weeks of the course. Partial exams will be offered
in Blackboard during week 3 and week 5. The remaining partial exam will be conducted in the
classroom during week 7 as well as the final exam during week 8.
Instrumentation
Four instruments were designed for this study (a) a semi-structured interview , (b) guided
survey questions, (c) personal reflective journal questions, and (d) focus group questions. The
27
instruments will obtain data from the learners to determine how they perceive that hybrid courses
can be designed effectively and the recommendations deaf and hard of hearing learners suggest
how hybrid courses can be designed effectively to accommodate the learners’ needs based on the
interview, journal, and focus group responses. The semi-structured interview and the personal
reflective journal questions developed for this study were derived and modified from four
resources found in the literature. The guided survey questions and focus group questions were
derived from a combination of the interview and journal questions. These resources are Hybrid
Online Model by (Martyn, 2003), Blended Electronic and Classroom Teaching by (Wang, 2006),
Web Based Science Instructions for Deaf Students by (Lang, & Steely, 2003), Web Content
Conformance Guidelines, and the basic design principles from The Non-Designer’s Web Book
(Williams & Tollett, 2006).
The resources found in the literature had related context that facilitated the development
of the three instruments for this study. For an example, the resource of (a) Web Content
Conformance Guidelines explains how to make web content accessible to people with
disabilities, (b) The basic design principles from The Non-Designer’s Web Book (Williams &
Tollett, 2006) provide an overview of web design concepts, (c) The Hybrid Online Model by
(Martyn, 2003) offered students’ perceptions from a hybrid online course for an example; student
satisfaction, perception of learning outcomes, technical difficulties, and lesson learned, and (d)
The Blended Electronic and Classroom Teaching by (Wang, 2006) and the Web Based Science
Instructions for Deaf Students by (Lang, & Steely, 2003) gave insight on how deaf and hard of
hearing students depend primarily on visual sensory input to process information. Hence, the
students’ perceptions, how to make web content accessible to people with disabilities, insight of
28
how deaf and hard of hearing students depend on visual sensory helped in the development of the
instruments for this qualitative case study. The guided survey questions and focus group
questions were developed from a combination of the semi-structured interview and personal
reflective journal questions as a method to cross reference items to assist with triangulating the
data during data analysis.
The instruments will be field tested by four members of the identified institution. One
member will be the vice-president of the assessment office, another will be the director of
distance learning, and two will be faculty member who are experts of course content. The data
from the feedback of the four members will provide an opportunity to modify or make changes
to the instruments based on their recommendations. This formative assessment should result in
more reliable and valid instruments for this qualitative case study (Creswell, 2008).
Date Collection Procedures
The data for this study will be collected from semi-structured interviews (see Appendix
C), guided survey questions (see Appendix D), personal reflective journal questions (see
Appendix E), and focus group questions (see Appendix F). Data will be collected from deaf and
hard of hearing learners who volunteer to participate in the study (Creswell, 2008). Prior to the
beginning of the study, deaf and hard of hearing learners enrolled in the identified university will
be invited to a meeting where the details and the purpose of the study will be explained. Consent
forms will be obtained from the deaf and hard of hearing learners who volunteer to participate in
the study. Participants will enroll in the hybrid English course designed for the study. During
the 8-week course, participants will answer the personal reflective journal questions, participate
29
in an individual semi-structured interview, and a small group of participants will participate in a
focus group.
Data Analysis Procedures
Multiple data sources will be used to increase the credibility of the study. The use of the
triangulation process will confirm the findings of the study (Jean-Baptiste, 2009). The collected
data will be analyzed to identify themes in participant responses to answer the research questions
(Creswell, 2008). Obtaining data from multiples sources will allow for the development of an
accurate and credible report (Creswell, 2008).
After the data are collected from the semi-structured interview questions (see Appendix
C) and focus group questions (see Appendix E) the data will be transcribed to be analyzed and
coded (Creswell, 2008). The process of transcription is to convert the audiotape recording into
text data. Once transcriptions of the data are complete a computer analysis NVIVO 9 program of
qualitative data will be used to facilitate the process of storing, analyzing, and sorting the data.
Codes will be assigned to categories of responses identified by the computer analyses to facilitate
identification of recurring themes within the data. The purpose to code the data is to find
evidence to support the themes by having a better understanding of the text, this process helps to
select specific data to be used and ignore the other data that do not specifically provide evidence
or support the themes (Creswell, 2008). For this qualitative case study a preliminary list of units
of data are coded (see Appendix G) and annotated and these are perception of online learning
experience (POLE), blended instructional strategies (BIS), recommendations of how blended
courses can be best designed to accommodate learners’ needs (ROBC), look and feel of design
(LF), navigation (N), accessibility (A), basic design principle alignment (BDPA), basic design
30
principle proximity (BDPP), basic design principle paragraph (BDPP), basic design principle
repetition (BDPR), and basic design principle contrast (BDPC), closed caption (CC), interpreter
(I), content (C). To maintain participant confidentiality, identification numbers will be used to
code and analyze the data.
The coded text will be compared and contrasted for data analysis. According to
Huberman and Miles (1998) data analysis consist of three things; data reduction, data display,
and drawing conclusion and verification of the data. The focus group questions (see Appendix E)
will be used to compile, and triangulate the data (Table 1) from the personal reflective journal
questions (see Appendix E), and interview guide questions, (see Appendix C) to relate the
variables. Creswell indicated that the triangulation process “helps to discern general patterns of
responses and variation in results” (Creswell, 2008, p.410).
The four instruments for this qualitative case study will be used to compare the different
types of data to provide a triangulation of data sources (Creswell, 2008). The triangulation
process will help to identify and summarize the most frequently discussed coded themes. Based
on Flick’s (2007) definition of triangulation, Creswell’s (2008) interpretation of triangulation,
and the literature review a triangulation 4 x 4 matrix has been designed for this study. The 4 x 4
triangulation matrix in Table 1 demonstrates how the types of data are combined and
interconnect with each other. The combinations of data provide a triangulation on the
background of the learners’ perceptions. The weekly personal reflective journal will be the first
data collected (Trian-1) to corroborate evidence with the semi-structured interview (Trian-2),
guided survey questions (Trian-7), and focus group interview (Trian-5) from the learners to
support the themes. The learners will begin to answer the personal reflective journal questions
31
during the second week of the course and continue through the fifth week that will result in four
journal entrees per learner. The semi-structured interview will be the second data collected that
will be corroborated with the weekly journals data (Trian-2), with the focus group interview
(Trian-3), and with the guided survey questions (Trian-6) to identify the support for the
identified themes. The focus group interview will be the third data source collected to be
corroborated with the semi-structured interview (Trian-4), personal reflective journal (Trian-5),
and the guided survey questions (Trian-8). The triangulation process allows corroborating with
different types of data to enhance the accuracy of the study (Creswell, 2008).
Table 1. Triangulation 4 x 4 Matrix Design
Combinations of Data Types
Semi-structured
Interview
Guided Survey
Questions
Personal Refl.
Journal
Focus Group
NA
NA
NA
Trian-1
Guided Survey
Questions
Trian-6
NA
Trian-7
Trian-8
Semi-structured
Interview
NA
NA
Trian-2
Trian-3
Trian-4
NA
Trian-5
NA
Data Types
Personal Refl. Journal
Focus Group
Note. Table 1 was designed by the researcher of this study based on the triangulation interpretations of (Creswell,
(2008); and Flick (2007) and the literature review.
The next step in analyzing the data is to code the data. The text will be segmented and
labeled to form descriptions and identify themes in the data (Creswell, 2008). The purpose of
coding the data is to understand the data, “divide it into segments and label it with codes,
examine the codes for overlap, determine unnecessary information, and to collapse the codes into
32
themes” (p.251). Creswell (2008) recommended (a) getting a feeling of the entire process, (b)
reading all the transcripts to get ideas of what is being said by the participants, and (c)
considering the meaning.
Next, coding the document begins. Creswell (2008) suggested that the codes resulting
from the coding process should be assigned to categories. The categories are then combined to
identify a small number of themes to facilitate data management. According to Creswell (2008)
a small number of themes allows for detailed information to be provided in the qualitative report
of the data.
The coded themes that will be used for this research study include the perception of
online learning experience (POLE), blended instructional strategies (BIS), recommendations of
how blended courses can be effectively designed to accommodate learners’ needs (ROBC), look
and feel of design (LF), navigation (N), accessibility (A), basic design principle alignment
(BDPA), basic design principle proximity (BDPP), basic design principle paragraph (BDPP),
basic design principle repetition (BDPR), and basic design principle contrast (BDPC), closed
caption (CC), interpreter (I), content (C). The most frequently identified themes will be
discussed.
Table 2 demonstrates the relationship between the research questions, data collection
instruments, and the data analysis methods. The interview, guided survey questions, focus group
and personal reflective journal questions are numbered accordingly in Appendices C, D, E, and
F. An inductive data analysis method will be used for the interview and the focus group
questions. The inductive method identifies codes and themes from the particular to the general
33
(Creswell, 2008). The key steps to analyze interviews are coding the data for themes and then
study the codes for meaning (Lingard, 2002).
The personal reflective journal responses will be analyzed by the content analysis
method. According to (Langan-Fox & Tan, 1997) content analysis is used to analyze written
statements. Content analysis looks at documents or texts to see what themes come into view and
see how themes relate to each other (Weber, 1990). The focus group interview questions (see
Appendix F) will be used to evidence the data from the learner’s one to one interview and
personal reflective journals responses therefore, permitting triangulation of the data to take place.
Table 2 shows the relationships between the research questions and the interview questions,
guided survey questions, journal questions, and the focus group questions.
Table 2. Relationship among Research Questions, Interview, Focus Group, and Personal
Reflective Journal Questions, and Data Analysis Methods
Research Question
Data Collection Instrument
Data Analysis Method
1. What are the deaf and hard of
hearing learners’ perception
of a hybrid learning
experience?
Interview Questions
1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 26
Inductive Analysis
Personal Reflective Journal
Questions
1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11
Content Analysis
Focus Group Questions
1, 3, 4, 7, 8,
Inductive Analysis
Interview Questions
2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35
Inductive Analysis
Guided Survey Questions
1 through 24
Content Analysis
Personal Reflective Journal
Questions
Content Analysis
2. What recommendations do
hard of hearing learners share
about how hybrid courses can
best be designed to
accommodate their needs?
34
Research Question
Data Collection Instrument
Data Analysis Method
2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16
Focus Group Questions
2, 5, 6, 9
Inductive Analysis
Results of the data analysis will be reported in a narrative discussion and supported by tables and
figures as appropriate.
35