HOW DO DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING FRESHMEN STUDENTS PERSIST
UNTIL THEY GRADUATE
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Higher Education Leadership)
by
Muslimah Nathifa Harris
SUMMER
2012
HOW DO DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING FRESHMEN STUDENTS PERSIST
UNTIL THEY GRADUATE
A Thesis
by
Muslimah Nathifa Harris
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Francisco Reveles, Ed. D
__________________________________, Second Reader
Virginia Dixon, Ed. D
_____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Muslimah Nathifa Harris
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
___________________________
Geni Cowan, Ph. D
Graduate Coordinator __________________
Date
Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies
iii
Abstract
of
HOW DO DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING FRESHMEN STUDENTS PERSIST
UNTIL THEY GRADUATE
by
Muslimah Nathifa Harris
Brief Literature Review
There has been limited research conducted at the higher education level about
DHH students’ who attend mainstream postsecondary institutions where a small number
of Deaf people are enrolled (Smith, 2004). Moreover, reported research indicated there is
limited effectiveness of student support services at the mainstreamed postsecondary level
for the DHH individual (Noble, 2010).
Vincent Tinto’s (1987) Longitudinal Model developed for DHH students
describes pre-entry attributes to enable their persistence at the higher education level.
Tinto’s (1993) social model on effective principles of retention practices at universities
help identified retention efforts and strategies to integrate DHH students into the social
and academic climate of the campus environment.
Statement of the Problem
This study identifies on- and- off campus local resources for DHH students’
needs. Specific factors and characteristics are underscored that DHH students may
iv
encounter through their experiences at the college level in attaining a degree, and what
support components are needed for them to persist until they graduate.
Methodology
The practical impact of this study is to integrate the voice and fair perspectives of
the DHH students’, staff service liaison professionals’ and an ASL faculty first hand
triangulated data to give greater insight through a comparing and contrasting of
responses, and draw conclusions that could apply to the research questions of this study.
1. What services and support networks do DHH students rely on inside and
outside of the institution to help them persist in school?
2. Are the institutional support services available on campus and community
resources adequate enough for this population?
Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusion highlights the concerns by all participants for greater resource
connections and heightened awareness of their needs. Some areas addressed by the
participants are not about resources but concerns centralized institutional funding and
prior cut backs that create limitations in the areas of faculty hiring, the need for more
interpreters, mentorship options for DHH students, specialized classes, reduced tuition
cost, and meeting specific requested accommodations by the DHH student.
v
The researcher recommendations for further actions are based if centralized funding is
overcome, it will create more resources for accommodations at the two and four year
mainstream institutional level of education.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Francisco Reveles
_______________________
Date
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….......1
Background……………………………………………………………………….1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………….......................5
Definition of Terms...............................................................................................7
Limitations……………………………………………………………….............9
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………......10
Organization of the Remainder of the Study……………………………............11
2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE……………………….......................13
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..13
A Theoretical Framework for Effective Higher Education of
DHH Students …………………………………………………………………..14
Higher Education in DHH Specialized Universities………………………........24
Best Practices for Accommodation of DHH Students in
University Settings………………………………………………………….......29
The Changing Face of DHH Higher Education in Non-Specialized
University Settings………………………………………………………….......37
Rationale for Thesis…………………………………………………………….45
Summary………………………………………………………………..............46
3 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………...............50
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..50
Setting of the Study……………………………………………………………. 51
Population and Sample…………………………………………………………53
Design of the Study……………………………………………………………..55
Data Collection……………………………………………………………........56
Instrumentation……………………………………………………………........58
vii
Limitations……………………………………………………………………...59
Data Analysis Procedures………………………………………………….........61
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS……………………………………………….64
Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………..64
Findings………………………………………………………………………...65
Research Question 1………………………………………………………........66
Research Question 2………………………………………………………........73
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………...92
Summary………………………………………………………………………..92
Conclusions………………………………………………………………..........95
Recommendations………………………………………………………………99
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………….101
Appendix B…………………………………………………………………….108
Appendix C…………………………………………………………………….113
Appendix D…………………………………………………………………….116
References...…………………………………………………………….........................119
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Researchers (Schroedel, Watson, & Ashmore, 2003) estimated that during the
year 2000, there were approximately 468,000 Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students
attending the nation’s postsecondary institutions seeking their advanced degree. This
figure can be further broken down to 345,000 who were hard of hearing, 115,000 who
were deafened after the age of 18, and 8,000 who were deafened before the age of 18.
Currently in higher education the community colleges serve a higher percentage of
students with disabilities (Cloud, 2004). It is important that educational leaders at the
postsecondary level of education understand the demographic characteristics of the
students they serve and plan for, particularly when the DHH population in postsecondary
education has been in such a state of change within the past decade which has increased
in diversity. A look at the DHH student’s role in the mainstream higher education as a
population must be examined closer to support their up and coming leadership as a
specialized professional in society with a specific focus on Deaf leadership.
Deaf students come from diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
In addition, their experiences as DHH persons contribute to a number of differences in
their lifestyles, history, values, folklore, norms, career aspirations, and education
practices compared to hearing students who share similar racial/ethnic and
2
socioeconomic characteristics. The bulk of their educational experiences occur in
programs that serve hearing, as well as deaf, students. Based on prior research conducted
at the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 1999), there were over 20,000
DHH students enrolled at postsecondary educational institutions in the United States, and
approximately 93% of these DHH students were enrolled at the undergraduate level
which (did not include Gallaudet, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and
California State University Northridge). Moreover, Gallaudet’s research identified that
there were over 175 colleges/universities that have specific DHH programs, and indeed,
over the past 12 years, the DHH student enrollment has been down by 15% overall in the
United States since 1999 (GU Annual Survey, 2007).
Deaf students struggle to graduate and the attrition aspect is a strong area of
consideration for DHH students as well as all students with disabilities in higher
education. Specifically, the DHH population has a high attrition rate at postsecondary
educational institutions, and to achieve their educational goals, they must avoid
withdrawing from college in order to achieve their intended outcomes (Boutin, 2008).
The basic problem for many DHH students is difficulty receiving information. Students
with hearing impairments have unique needs that have not been traditionally
accommodated for in mainstream academia (Boutin, 2008). The first 10 weeks is an
especially important time as students have yet to complete the transition to college
(Boutin, 2008). Students with a sensory perception loss differ from their hearing and
non-disabled peers on the types of technology they need for academic success, the nature
3
and style of their social interactions, their methods of communication, language
development, and their dynamics within their families particularly as it relates to the
family patterns developed in response to the DHH child. It is important to understand
what language is as opposed to communication or speech, because language is symbolic
and social and modified by experience. This is as true of American Sign Language
(ASL) as of any verbal language. In addition, the needs of DHH students do not always
involve the same kinds of supports, since their relationship to speech-based
communication may differ from each other. For example, some hard of hearing
individuals prefer an oral method of communication and may use their residual hearing
often supplemented by cochlear implants, hearing aids, and speech-reading supports and
thus may not require sign language interpreting. Communication skills are very
important and assistive listening devices allows DHH people to interact with relative ease
in many favorable listening situations but they can still miss pertinent content when
communication is fluid in the classroom and during lecture settings. Direct
communication creates better access to instructional content. In addition, in the case of
many DHH people, their sense of identity is strongly correlated with their deafness and
with their membership within the DHH community as a whole. Deaf students must
determine for themselves the extent to which they will identify with their hearing and
deaf peers (Boutin, 2008). Therefore, an understanding of the issues surrounding student
persistence must specifically address the DHH student population. Tinto (1998)
suggested that persistence is particularly important during the first year of college since
4
most attrition occurs at this time. However, Stinson and Walter (1997) concluded that
persistence may require that deaf and hard of hearing students must interact with other
deaf people in order to persist.
The impact of language and culture has its relevance and plays a significant role
in the attrition, persistence, and the retention process of DHH students as they
development their roles and situated statuses in the higher education experience. Having
prior established language patterns throughout their family dynamics and social
development helps make a delicate transition into their self-identity and paves the way
for benchmarks of continuous growth patterns throughout their development within the
education community, their development of leadership strategies and statuses. For
instance, an important social trend demographic includes that ninety percent of deaf
individuals are born to hearing parents (Smith, 2004). Notwithstanding this family
language dynamic, American Sign Language (ASL) is considered a natural
visual/gestural language of the Deaf Community and has its own grammar that does not
reflect the grammar of English. The additional asset behind this social and phenomenal
is the political trend of creating leaders in a visually oriented Deaf community.
Furthermore, Crowe (2003) indicated in his self-esteem research survey conducted
among deaf college students scores revealed that deaf students scored significantly higher
on the survey among other deaf students who had at least one deaf parent that signed in
their family, opposed to deaf students who had hearing parents who could not sign or did
not sign to all which is a significant component to the social trend demographic.
5
Due to the passing of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 which
prohibits discrimination based on a disability (Wrightslaw, 1998-2010), the political and
economic landscape has changed and has impacted deaf rights by creating a new
framework to promote full inclusion and make education more accessible through
technology. This important act of legislation encouraged the vast majority of deaf
students to start attending mainstream colleges and universities. The purpose of the ADA
legislation changed the former pedagogy of governance in mainstream higher educational
institutions, in order to better assist and accommodate disabled and deaf student’s needs
wholeheartedly, by addressing institutional barriers and finding better solutions to their
persistence.
A research study conducted by Burgstahler, Duclos, & Turcotte (2000) found that
faculty members at 12 different higher education institutions were unclear with regard to
the provisions of reasonable accommodations. Additionally, researcher Vasek (2005)
conducted a survey of more than 200 university faculty members which revealed that
almost 50% of them had little to no knowledge of legislation pertaining to students with
disabilities.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to better understand, serve, and effectively accommodate the
needs of the comparatively small enrollment of DHH student’s needs at North Central
State University. This study looks at the resources and experiences of DHH students,
6
including the influence of such factors as family and community supports, leadership and
self-efficacy, role of faculty and staff with experience within the DHH community, etc.
In particular, the study explores those factors and characteristics which DHH individuals
encounter in their pursuit to attain a degree and readily identify what additional resource
may be needed to help them persist until they graduate. There has been limited research
conducted at the higher education level about DHH students who
attend mainstream postsecondary institutions where a small number of Deaf people are
enrolled (Smith, 2004). Additionally, there has been limited research on the effectiveness
of student support services at the postsecondary mainstreamed level for the DHH
individual. Clearly, there is a need to improve research based understanding in this area
if the attrition rate for DHH students in higher education is to be reduced (Noble, 2010).
A review of the related literature will include: a theoretical framework for
effective higher education of DHH students with Vincent Tinto’s Longitudinal Model
developed for DHH student’s persistence and his social model on effective principles on
retention practices at universities. Additionally, other researchers and theorist
perspectives are applied to DHH student’s issues in higher education. The researcher
also discussed the reported research DHH student’s attending DHH specialized
universities within at the “Big Three:” Gallaudet University (GU), National Technical
Institute for the Deaf/Rochester Institute of Technology (NTID/RIT) one of the 8 colleges
of Rochester Institute of Technology, and California State University Northridge (CSUN)
a campus within the CSU system with a dedicated program for DHH students. In a
7
league of their own, these 3 nationally- recognized institutions are unlike any other
traditional mainstream schools because there is a strong focus and emphasis on the
culture, political activism, and language of the DHH people with a methodological
approach to their student enrollment that is designed to accommodate a larger population
of DHH student’s academic and social needs. A final review of related literature will
include the changing face of DHH higher education in non-specialized university
settings, with a relevant overview of the passing of the American with Disabilities Act of
1990. The two questions this study seeks to answer are:
1. What services and support networks do DHH students rely on inside and
outside of the institution to help them persist in school?
2. Are the institutional support services available on campus and community
resources adequate enough for this population?
To address these questions, the researcher has gathered and analyzed data from
the subject university, North Central State University regarding one staff service
professional liaison member and a ASL faculty member with a special expertise in DHH
studies and two DHH students at River Junction Community College and one staff
service professional liaison member, and compared this data with the reported outcomes
for student enrollment, persistence and graduation at the “Big Three” DHH-serving
universities that provide the baseline for analysis.
Definition of Terms
8
American Sign Language (ASL)- is a unique universal language that is described as a
group of persons whose primary means of relating to the world is through a visual and
gestural communication method and who share the language through their culture,
identity and pride which provides the basis for group cohesion.
Attrition- is defined to measure the number of students lost from enrollment between
two points and periods in time. In a cohort it measures what happens to students over a
period of time and the data provides repeated measures of the students starting at a
specific point and provides longitudinal data on the students, including background and
contextual info e.g. - (the averaged freshman graduation rate, the dropout rate, and the
completion rate) along with other traditional measures that provide unique information
about the school dropout data.
Cochlear Implants- a communication device that is surgically implanted and used by a
deaf person to help amplify the sense of sound.
Deaf/deaf- the capitalized D for Deaf will typically refer to individuals who belong to
the Deaf community- culture by right through their fluent language acquisition but the
lower case d clinically symbolizes for deaf the audiological condition of a hearing loss.
Hard of Hearing/hard of hearing- the capital H in Hard of Hearing typically refers to a
culturally connected individual that prefer an oral-aural method of communication and
use their residual hearing, often supplemented by hearing aids, Cochlear Implants, and
speech-reading who do not require sign language interpreting and the lower case h
clinically refers to the audiological condition of hearing a loss.
9
Persistence- is defined as a student’s postsecondary education of continued behavior and
circumstances that leads to graduation.
Retention- defined as students who remained at the same institution where they started
until they completed a program and those who transfer to other institutions before
completing a degree usually are typically considered to not have been retained.
Limitations
This research study is designed centered around an intensive study of a particular
size and therefore may not be fully generalizable to all university settings. This study
offers the opportunity to study the DHH population within North Central State University
from a qualitative perspective which involves gathering and analyzing interview
information. The information used from this study has been analyzed both qualitatively
and quantitatively by the researcher and compared with the reported information on
climate and resources from universities with dedicated DHH programs. There is a need
for this study because there has been limited research conducted at the higher education
level about DHH students who attend mainstream postsecondary institutions where a
small number of deaf people are enrolled (Smith, 2004). Therefore, even though the
study is limited to a single site, it may raise issues and provide insights which other
mainstream colleges and universities can incorporate into their planning for services to
DHH students.
10
Significance of the Study
The significance of this thesis centers on the impact of DHH students’
experiences in attending a mainstream university on their attrition, retention and
graduation rate within a 4 to 6 year period from enrollment. The study addresses these
questions from the perspectives of DHH students themselves, staff providing student
services to DHH students and faculty in the institution’s Deaf Studies program. There is
a need for this study because there has been limited research conducted at the higher
education level about DHH students who attend mainstream postsecondary institutions
where a small number of deaf people are enrolled (Smith, 2004). This research will
contribute to the field of higher education research the institution studied and, by
analogy, at comparable public universities and colleges to expand the knowledge,
understanding, and to better meet the accommodation the service and support needs of
the DHH population and will contribute to the wider community of research on the needs
and experiences of DHH students in higher education. The practical impact this study
proposes is to integrate the voice of the DHH student, faculty and staff liaison members
through their suggestions, input, and recommended approaches to better serve their
community. Furthermore, it will allow educational leaders at the subject institution and
other publicly funded universities and colleges to better identify and develop more
effective approaches for dialogue with leaders and representatives of the DHH student
community to improve professional educational practices.
11
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter 1 gives a brief and general background introduction on the importance of
the DHH student's role in higher education. It briefly touches on some of the common
areas of challenges for the DHH population and what factors influence their persistence
and the attrition aspect of enrollment. The statement of the problem section touches on
the importance of this case study as an attempt to look at persistence the factors,
resources, experiences, and leadership of DHH individuals that help them to persist until
they graduate. The two questions this study explores are:
1. What services and support networks do DHH students rely on inside and
outside of the institution to help them persist in school?
2. Are the institutional support services available on campus and community
resources adequate enough for this population?
Chapter 2’s review of the related literature introduces a theoretical framework for
effective higher education of DHH students with Vincent Tinto’s theory (1987) on DHH
student’s persistence, the Longitudinal Model he developed, and his social model on
effective principles on retention practices at universities. Additionally, other research
theorist and perspectives are applied to higher education. The review next presents
research on factors affecting the enrollment and graduation rates of DHH students in the
“Big Three” specialized programs with focused programs to serve DHH students.
Finally, the chapter takes a further look into the changing face of DHH higher education
in non-specialized university settings and gives a relevant overview of the American with
12
Disabilities Act of 1990, and concludes with a brief summary of specific components of
the literature review.
Chapter 3 introduces the qualitative methodology approach to conduct this
research design. This study offers the opportunity to study the DHH student population
and staff liaison member fair perspectives from River Junction Community College, and
the faculty and staff liaison member fair perspectives within North Central State
University from a qualitative perspective. The information used from this study includes
both qualitatively and quantitative analyses by the researcher. Chapter 4 provides the
data and analysis of findings from the study with students, faculty, and staff responses.
Chapter 5 identifies key issues from the summary and findings, conclusions drawn from
the findings, and recommendations for further study.
13
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine how Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH)
freshmen students persist until graduation. This study is an attempt to look at the
resources and experiences of the DHH students, including such factors as family and
community support, leadership and self-efficacy, role of faculty and staff with
experiences within the DHH community, etc. In particular, the study explores those
factors and characteristics which DHH individuals encounter in their pursuit to attain a
degree, and readily identify what factors are needed to help them persist until they
graduate. There has been limited research conducted at the higher education level about
DHH students who attend mainstream postsecondary institutions where a small number
of deaf people are enrolled (Smith, 2004). Additionally, there has been limited research
on the effectiveness of student support services at the postsecondary mainstreamed level
for the DHH individual, and there is a need to improve this area if the attrition rate for the
DHH student population in higher education is to reduce (Noble, 2010).
A review of the related literature will include: a theoretical framework for
effective higher education of DHH students with Vincent Tinto’s theory on DHH
students persistence, the Longitudinal Model he developed, and his social model on
effective principles on retention practices at universities. Additionally, other research
14
theorist and perspectives are applied to higher education. The researcher will break down
the enrollment and graduation rates of DHH students in specialized universities attending
the “Big Three:” Gallaudet University (GU), National Technical Institute for the Deaf/
Rochester Institute of Technology (NTID/RIT) is one of the 8 colleges of Rochester
Institute of Technology, and California State University Northridge (CSUN). A final
review of related literature will include the changing face of DHH higher education in
non-specialized university settings, with a relevant overview of the passing of the
American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and a brief summary that will conclude from
specific components of the literature.
A Theoretical Framework for Effective Higher Education
of DHH Students
The retention and academic success of DHH students in university settings has
been studied extensively by Vincent Tinto since 1975. Tinto’s work has provided an
important starting point for future consideration of how colleges and universities can help
DHH students to succeed in regular educational settings and achieve advanced degree
and professional preparation.
Vincent Tinto’s Theoretical Framework
According to Tinto’s (1987) theory on persistence, the Longitudinal Model is
used for DHH student’s measure of their pre-entry attributes, goals and commitments,
institutional experiences, integration, and outcome. Tinto is clear that this model has
15
been tested in various environments and considers persistence to be primarily a function
of the quality of a student’s interactions with the academic and social systems of an
institution (Tinto, 1987). Persistence means to remain in college until graduation whether
or not multiple institutions of higher education are utilized (Tinto, 1987). This model,
briefly summarized, states that the core of the pre-entry attributes of the DHH student
must be able to separate from past associations (e.g., high school, peer groups), with their
family background, skills and abilities, and prior schooling and be able to adjust to new
challenging academic and social demands that the university will bring (Tinto, 1987).
The core of the goals and commitments aspect refers approximately to the student’s
intentions, motivations and commitment to the institution (Tinto, 1987). It recognizes
that individual intentions are the reasons students decide to participate in college to
achieve an educational or occupational goal (Tinto, 1987). DHH students’ intentions can
be expressed through their motivation to commit time and energy to the academic and
social systems of college but their goals and commitments are separate issues (Tinto,
1987). The goal reflects their level of commitment to their intentions; and the
commitment is to the institution that may arise from family traditions, college
reputations, or perspectives that the college is unique to their occupational goals (Tinto,
1987). It must be denoted that, based on Tinto’s research, there was relatively minor
evidence on the goals and commitments for DHH students; however, he stated that it
would be helpful if they know their career paths before the completion of their first year
of college (Tinto, 1987).
16
The core aspect of institutional experiences is broken down into academic and
social systems (Tinto, 1987). Tinto described a formal and informal sub-component
where the formal academic system involves the intellectual demands of the university
(e.g., coursework, classroom lectures, and evaluations); and the informal aspect which
involves the intellectual values of both the student and members of the institution (when
students meet with faculty members outside of the classroom to discuss academics)
(Tinto, 1987). The formal social system involves structured activities that enable the
DHH students to socialize with their peers (e.g., sports, student governance and various
college sponsored events); in order to persist and become integrated into the academic
and social systems of the university. The integration component of the model stated that
academic and social integration within the context of DHH students must be identifiable
as members of the college community through shared values with the institution (Tinto,
1987). Tinto stated that persistence is likely and greatest to occur when students are
integrated into both systems. However, students with high incongruence with academic
institutional experiences will have poor academic integration (1987).
The final core aspect of the model included the outcome, when students make the
decision to either persist or withdraw from college based on all the previous components
of the Longitudinal Model. Tinto differentiated between the voluntary decisions to leave
versus the forced departure that may occur because of poor academic work (Tinto, 1987).
His research stated that this model is flexible and students with poor social integration
may choose to persist as a result of a strong academic integration but students with
17
negative pre-entry attributes may choose to persist as their institutional experiences were
very positive (Tinto, 1987).
Vincent Tinto’s Social Model of Retention
Retention continues to be important to higher education institutions because it
contributes to the institutions’ financial viability. A greater emphasis is being placed on
retention and attrition in higher education. Based on Tinto’s research (1993), academic
reasons represent only 20-30% of all college leavers nationally {in the US}. The
remaining 70-80% of students who are not retained leave for the following reasons:
adjustment, goals, commitment, finances, integration and community membership,
incongruence and isolation. Tinto (1993) addressed an institution’s capabilities to direct
change within the campus environment. Retention practices are one of the leading causes
of student departure and of poor integration into the academic and/or social environments
of the institution in the first semester of college. The retention of first-time, first-year
students’ to their sophomore year is important to institutions of higher education because
this retention predicts the student’s persistence through graduation at their institutions
(Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) suggested that academic integration and social integration
lead students to persist. Within the social milieu of an institution are practices that foster
a sense of community in the institution, a sense of belonging to the institution, a social
support system within the institution, student interaction with faculty, student interactions
with staff, and student interactions with their peers (Tinto, 1993). Tinto’s (1987, 1993)
model on retention is a sociological based model that does not attempt to explain
18
individual departure. However, the research model is focused on the formal and informal
institutional environment and the student, faculty, and staff interactions within the
environment. “The model seeks to explain how interaction among different individuals
within the academic and social systems of the institution leads individuals of different
characteristics to withdraw from that institution prior to degree completion” (Tinto, 1987,
p.113). Tinto’s (1987, 1993) model serves the practice of institutional retention efforts
by identifying areas within the institutional environment.
Tinto’s (1993) principles of effective retention practices are used as a guide to
effective retention strategies at universities. The first principle stated that the institution
must be committed to the service of its students’ welfare (p.146). This principle applies
to all members of the university and the way in which they interact with students. The
principle implied that the university is a community that must be conscious of it
interactions with its members and treatment of individuals. Tinto (1993) asserted that
adherence to this principle leads to student institutional commitment which is the basis
for the student’s persistence at the university.
The second principle stated that institutions must be committed to the education
of all their students (Tinto, 1993, p.146). The retention program is first and foremost
committed to the educational mission of the university. This principle required faculty
commitment to student learning by altering their delivery methods of knowledge and
their methods of providing feedback to students who have different learning styles to
enhance learning opportunities for all of their students.
19
The third principle stated that the retention program must have a commitment “to
the development of supportive social and educational communities in which all students
are integrated as competent members” (Tinto, 1993, p.147). This principle is founded on
Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) assertion that students who persisted with the university are
academically and socially integrated within the institution. Therefore, the retention
programs and practices of the institution should enhance these opportunities for all
students. “They consciously reach out and make contact with students in a variety of
settings in order to establish personal bonds among students and between students,
faculty, and staff members of the institution” (Tinto, 1993, p.147). These personal bonds
through social integration foster institutional commitment in the students which leads to
their persistence with the university.
Tinto’s (1993) guideline for effective retention practices stated that universities
should foster the completed integration of the student rather than one aspect. Effective
retention practices require institutions to develop strategies and programs that foster
academic integration and social integration. For this reason, the following review of
retention practices for first-time, first-year students will consider student integration
rather than separate integration in the academic and social domains of the institution.
Interactions between faculty and students in and out of the classroom are important to the
academic integration of the students, particularly early in the first semester of college
(Tinto, 2004). Classroom discussions and performance feedback assist in the academic
development of the student and students in need of tutoring or alternative learning
20
strategies enhance their abilities to succeed at the institution by taking advantages of
these services (Tinto, 1993).
A practice being utilized at many institutions is the offering of first-year seminars
and orientations. The first-year seminar is an example of practice that fosters the
completed integration of the student into the institution. The seminars are developed
around the development of students’ academic skills curricula, social interactions, and
often academic advising. The practice of these seminars assists students with their
transition from high school to college (Tinto, 1993). Additionally, the student orientation
program should, and often does, continue beyond the first days of enrollment. By
continuing the orientation program through the first semester or first year, the institutions
assist students with issues that may arise during the students’ transition to college (Tinto,
1993).
Additional Researchers and Theoretical Perspectives
Further research indicated valuable components there were not considered as part
of Tinto’s pre-entry attributes for DHH students. Researchers Stinson, Scherer, and
Walter (1987) stated that DHH students’ distance to their residence and their age were
important contributing factors to their overall development. DHH students whose
primary residences were further from college than other DHH students who were closer
were more likely to withdraw before the first academic school year ended (Stinson,
Scherer, & Walter, 1987). Researchers Napoli and Wortman (1998) stated that older
DHH students who may experience less social support but are more academically
21
integrated were more influential at the pre-entry point rather than the younger students’
who have not been exposed to an institution of higher education (Napoli & Wortman,
1998). Researchers Myers and Taylor (2000) advised human service professionals that
the only rule to remember was that there is no single application that works for deaf and
hard of hearing students, and each student has individual pre-entry attributes, goals, and
commitments. Additionally, Myers and Taylor suggested that further approaches to
working with students with hearing impairments may differ according to the diversity of
culture and experience related to the degree of hearing loss (2000). Researchers Smith
and Rush (2000) stated that the one key to the success of Deaf college students at both
deaf and hearing institutions is to provide student support services that are geared to the
developmental needs of the DHH student. Researcher Danermark (1996) concluded that
assisting students to become integrated into educational settings should be the goal rather
than the outcome of persistence. However, Researchers Bibby, Beattie, and Bruce (1996)
discussed in their research survey the link between language competence and coping
strategies used as an affective tactic of persistence which required a DHH individual to
take risk and demonstrate resilience over time. This included refusing to withdraw from
school, being willing to rebuild their lives, and asserting their conversational needs
despite difficulties.
At postsecondary institutions there must be a clear distinction among students
who meet their educational goals before graduation but may not receive their degrees as
opposed to students who enroll with the intent to graduate but may not succeed. John
22
Bean’s (1990) psychological model of students’ retention emphasized the psychological
processes of student outcomes. Bean linked any given behavior such as retention with
similar past behavior, normative values, attitudes, and intentions, that differed from
Tinto’s original sociological model in two very important ways. Bean’s model included
environmental variables and factors outside of the college that might affect retention and
the student’s intentions, a factor found to be the best predictor of students retention
(Bean, 1990). These were important factors that were later incorporated into Tinto’s
(1993) model. The research conducted by Bean and Metzner (1985) developed and
emphasized a conceptual model on student retention and attrition for non-traditional
students which reduced the emphasis on social integration factors since non-traditional
(e.g., older, working, commuting) students that have less interaction with their peers on
campus than do traditional, residential students (Bean & Metzer, 1985). However,
Bean’s (1990) model described how traditional-age students, posits that background
variables, particularly a student's high school educational experiences, educational goals,
and family support, influence the way a student interacts with the college or university
that the student chose to attend (Bean, 1990). Bean’s research further indicated that after
matriculation (as in Tinto's model) the student interacts more with institutional members
in the academic and social arena. Bean additionally suggested that the student also
interacts in the organizational bureaucratic area, and is simultaneously influenced by
various environmental factors, such as wanting to be with a significant other at another
school and/or running out of money (Bean, 1990). Bean’s research further looked into a
23
student's interaction with the institution, which leads the student to develop a set of
attitudes toward him or herself as a student and toward the school that becomes
influential. Bean and Eaton’s (2000, 2001-2002) psychological model for student
retention emphasized a desire to explain the motivation of first-time, first-year students.
“Past behavior, beliefs, and normative beliefs affect the way a student interacts with the
institutional environment beliefs arise from initial preparations and assessments of
personal characteristics, that is from the entry characteristics of a student” (Bean &
Eaton, 2000, p. 56). “While interacting with the college environment and its many
different features, the student engages in a series of self-assessments that can be
described by several psychological processes” (Bean & Eaton, 2001-2002, p. 75). The
model combined the self-efficacy theory, coping behavior theory, attitude-behavior
theory, and attribution theory to explain how students interact within the institutional
environment, both academically and socially. The student uses these self-assessments to
inform feeling of integration in the institution with the experiences at the institution
(Bean & Eaton, 2001-2002). Positive psychological outcomes in self-efficacy, stress
reduction, academic and social efficacy “lead to academic and social integration,
institutional fit and loyalty, intent to persist, and to persistence” (Bean & Eaton, 2000, p.
56). However, Braxton (2000) suggested that there were five perspectives that accounted
for constructs about college student persistence which were economic, societal,
psychological, organizational, and interactionalist. He further explained that student’s
retention behavior is influential and based around various economic factors,
24
psychological processes, campus climate, student learning, campus cultures, ethnic
differences, college choice, social reproduction, and (critical theory) power (Braxton,
2000).
Higher Education in DHH Specialized Universities
A starting point for exploring the ways in which general purpose colleges and
universities can better meet the needs of DHH students is to look at the programs and
outcomes achieved by those universities that particularly or exclusively serve DHH
students. This section considers the “Big Three” universities with nationally recognized
programs for DHH students: Gallaudet University (GU), National Technical Institute for
the Deaf (NTID), and California State University Northridge (CSUN). In a league of
their own, these 3 nationally recognized institutions are unlike any other traditional
mainstream schools. There is a strong focus and emphasis on the culture, political
activism, and language with a methodological approach to their student enrollment which
are better suited to accommodate a larger population of DHH student’s academic and
social needs.
Gallaudet University
Gallaudet University has a specific leverage of unique strengths as a research
institution with exceptional core leadership and service for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
student. Based on recent research findings, 35 of 37 undergraduate majors that GU offers
are also offered by both NTID and CSUN. Since 1991 through 2008, GU total
25
enrollment has declined by 32% with a 42% drop in undergraduate enrollment. Only 5%
of the DHH students have graduated within 4 years, with a 28% graduation rate average
within 6 years of matriculation, and the graduate enrollment increased only 1% over the
last 10 years (GU Research Institute Annual Survey, 2007) prior to Gallaudet study.
Gallaudet research indicated that retention and admission to majors were the two key
barriers to graduation but the institution was continuing to meet the DHH student’s
changing needs in a barrier free environment. During 2008, Gallaudet had one of their
best return and retention rates at 86% for first time freshmen from the fall. However, the
past downward trend indicated that 35% of the students were leaving before the start of
their second year and the institution were struggling to retain first time freshmen into
their second year. In 2008, approximately 3% of Gallaudet undergraduates were hearing
persons. One hundred and fifty seven DHH sophomores and juniors were in good
standing but were undeclared for majors (GU Enrollment Report, 2002, 2005-2008).
Gallaudet research further indicated that retention was lower for minority students. Since
1999, the ethnical/racial makeup of the population reflects that Whites enrollment
decreased by 7%, Hispanics enrollment increased by almost 8%, and African Americans
enrollment decreased by just over 1%. In the years between 2000 and 2002, graduation
statistical data showed for Gallaudet minority students that completion statistics for
Gallaudet minority students varied widely, for the 6 year graduation rate of freshmen
Asian, African American and Hispanic freshmen, with the 6-year rate for those enrolling
26
in 2000 at 35%, for 2001 enrollees at 24% and for 2002 enrollees at 28%. In 2007, only
35% of African American freshmen were retained into their second year compared to
60% of all student freshmen. On average, one year retention for White students to
sophomore level was 64% and the corresponding retention rate for African Americans
was 46%. On average, three year retention for Whites to their senior year was 44%,
compared to 22% for African American students and 29% for Hispanic students (GU
Enrollment Report, 2002, 2005-2008). Overall, Gallaudet University graduate rate was
consistently slightly over 40% for their undergraduates during the 10 year period prior to
the study.
National Technical Institute for the Deaf/ Rochester Institute of Technology
NTID is uniquely focused on providing their DHH students with a technical
education for career centered services in their chosen profession to better prepare Deaf
leaders to work in fields with special emphasis on learning through hands-on experience.
In 2009, there were a reported total of 1,474 students enrolled for the fall semester (NTID
Annual Report, 2009). Of the 1,474 enrolled, 28.1% were minority students and 2.8%
were international students. NTID research indicated that the DHH student enrollment
population alone was calculated at 1,237 for undergraduates accompanying 138 hearing
students. There were 99 graduate students enrolled with 61 hearing and DHH students
combined in a Master’s of Science Program; however the remaining 38 DHH students
were enrolled in other colleges of RIT (NTID Annual Report, 2009).
27
NTID statistical data over the past four decades reflected the graduated rate for all
13,200 DHH students who attended NTID/RIT from 1968-2007 to indicate: 14.2%
(1,871) earned a baccalaureate degree, 23.8% (3,141) earned an associate degree, and
2.1% earned a master’s degree (NTID Annual Report, 2002-2008). This statistical data
coincided with a consistent 40.1% graduation rate which reflects Gallaudet University’s
2008 graduated rate of their DHH student population. In addition, the retention to
graduation rate for the DHH students is 70% and the research indicated that it takes at
least five to six years on average for DHH students to complete a baccalaureate degree;
with the retention to graduation rate in their two-year program at 49%. In 2004, it was
reported that the DHH student baccalaureate retention rate at NTID increased 87%
overall. NTID DHH student population enrollment has steadily increased and surpassed
Gallaudet’s DHH student’s enrollment population rates based on reported research.
California State University Northridge
CSUN unique top-notch National Center on Deafness (NCOD) library provides
strong leadership support in areas that includes resources, academic development, career
advising, and tutorial services for their DHH students’ success. Northridge research
indicated that prior to 1994 there was no student statistical data available for the
enrollment to graduation rates collected on the DHH student population (Boudreault,
Eickman, Fleischer, Gertz, 2008). However, requested data by the researcher as of July
2011 indicated for the years 2004-2010 the graduation and retention rates specifically for
DHH students reflected a downward changing shift from prior strong program enrollment
28
standings. Emphasis was placed on the first-time freshmen (FTF) student population and
first-time transfer (FTT) students for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Unfortunately, there
was no statistical data breakdown on the minority, graduate and international student
populations within this enrollment context.
CSUN’s 2004 Deaf Studies program enrolled a total of 19 FTF DHH students
with a total of 10 FTF DHH students. The enrollment and graduation data reflected a
total of 29 combined FTF and FTT DHH student’s with the overall retention rate at 62%,
and a total graduated number of 17 DHH students for that year. In 2005, CSUN data
indicated there were 23 FTF DHH students enrolled and 17 FTT DHH students enrolled
with a combined total of 40 DHH students in their Deaf Studies program. The overall
retention rate for 2005 indicated 70% for their combined DHH population and the
program graduated 20 DHH students that year. The 2006 the data indicated there were
21 FTF DHH students enrolled and17 FTT DHH students enrolled with a combined total
of 38 DHH students in the Deaf Studies program. The overall retention rate for 2006
indicated 71% for the year and a graduated total number of 20 DHH students. In 2007
there was a significant increase in the enrollment data of 53 DHH students at for both
FTF and FTT student populations. The FTF DHH enrolled 31total and the FTT enrolled
22 with the overall retention percentage at 59%. There were a graduated total of 17 DHH
students reported for that year (R. Sidansky, personal communication, July 14, 2011).
In 2008, the FTF enrolled DHH students totaled 23 with a FTT enrolled DHH
population of 11 students with a combined total of 34 DHH students. The retained total
29
of DHH students for 2008 reflected 22 total students with a 65% retention rate.
Additionally, there were a total of 4 graduated students reported only within the FTT
DHH student population for the year of 2008. In 2009, the FTF enrolled DHH student
population indicated 25 DHH students with 13 FTT DHH student enrolled with the
overall retention rate at 84% for the year. In 2009, there was 1 reported graduated DHH
student in the FTT student population for that year. For the year of 2010 the FTF
enrolled DHH student population indicated a total standing of 19 students with a total of
10 FTT DHH students for a combined total of 29 students enrolled with an overall
retention rate of 100%. The data indicated that there were no reported graduated DHH
students in either the FTF or FTT populations for that year (R. Sidansky, personal
communication, July 14, 2011). Overall, CSUN have maintained a retention, enrollment,
and graduation rate that is respectable and suitable to their DHH student population for
their Deaf Studies program. The researcher requested the above information from CSUN
on past- to- present reported DHH student enrollment and graduation data from their staff
service representative. This document can be viewed in Appendix C attached at the end
of this study.
Best Practices for Accommodation of DHH Students
in University Settings
Authors King et al. (2010) discussed best practices and strategies in education that
can be modeled by faculty and staff members at the university level to better
30
accommodate, advocate, and educate others about disability awareness and promote an
inclusive philosophy for all. Their research reflected a deeper understanding of the day
to day impact individuals with disabilities experience and how educational professionals
can address various issues in their teaching practicum through discussion that will affect
their teaching effectiveness and contribute to the field of education. The authors first
addressed the importance of engaging in open dialogue through shared reflections of
perceptions about persons with a sensory impairment loss or disability which gives power
to influence change and ultimately actions towards persons with a disability. Secondly,
the authors identified work related challenges that should be advocated for individuals
through appropriate accommodations in all settings regardless of perceived barriers such
as funding. Thirdly, through active attendance and participation in courses will provide
awareness to students that may have challenges. For example, students can pay attention
to positioning during social and academic conversations on an ongoing basis to help
promote social inclusiveness. Additionally, by understanding the role that empathy plays
in being able to identify how personal habits and actions affect a situation, opposed to
having the expectation that individuals with a disability will always ask for what they
need. The authors further emphasized professional responsibility through reflective
strategies that will a) engage students into deeper thinking about inclusive philosophies
and barriers b) demonstrate competent decisions making or accommodations at all levels
through keeping goals and meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities throughout
the life span, and c) modeling an inclusive spirit by assisting in the breaking down of all
31
barriers, functional and social as a way to bridge the gap between legal rhetoric and
actions.
Furthermore, Porter et al (1999) suggested and recommended practices through
their research for eight areas within student affairs, and within the College Union
Facilities, Residential Life, Health services, and Judicial and Campus Safety. For
example, their suggestions included to install visual electronic boards for facility paging
systems, posting well-designed and easy-to-read signage, offer a special interest floor for
DHH students, provide clearly written materials regarding receiving accommodations,
and for making health appointment, and provide a written version of students rights and
responsibilities (pp. 12-14).
Another way to enhance best support practices at the university level includes
providing mentorship to the DHH population at the postsecondary level. DHH individual
self-advocacy and self-esteem development is one of the most valuable and critical assets
to their benchmark in development. Mentors offer the opportunity for DHH students to
communicate their needs and truly have someone to listen to them who is critical to their
expressive development of care. Additionally, faculty and staff members at institutions
of higher education can build upon their current resources, knowledge base, and
commitment to d/Deaf HH student population through the utilization of Postsecondary
Education Programs Network (PEPNet) website, which continually updates current
information regarding the needs of d/Deaf/HH students.
32
In the directory of resources for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services (p. 82)
prepared by the California Department of Social Services office of Deaf Access website
(www.cdss.ca.gov) provided some general tips and guidelines when communicating with
a person who is Deaf or Hard of Hearing which states:
• It is appropriate to use the terms deaf or hard of hearing person when
referring to a person with a hearing loss.
• Hard of hearing, and Deaf individuals do not communicate in the same
ways. Deaf people tend to utilize their visual skills, hard of hearing people tend to
utilize their listening and speaking skills.
• To get the attention of a person with a hearing loss, call his/her name. If
there is no response, you can lightly touch him/her on the arm or shoulder, or
wave your hand in his/her field of vision an appropriate distance from his/her
face.
• Always look directly at a person who has a hearing loss. Use eye to eye
contact.
• Watch the individual’s eyes to ensure understanding - do not depend on
affirmative head nodding only.
• Make sure that your mouth can be seen.
• Use facial expressions and body language to communicate the emotion
of a message, such as displeasure or approval.
• If you are asked to repeat yourself several times, try rephrasing your
33
sentence.
• Speak directly to the deaf or hard of hearing person at a moderate pace
while using sign language.
• Be aware of the environment. Large, crowded rooms and hallways can
be very difficult for persons with hearing loss. Bright sunlight and shadows also
present barriers.
 When using an interpreter:
• Always address your comments directly to the deaf person, never
to the interpreter.
• Always face the individual, and not the interpreter.
Researchers Lang et al. (1998) discussed some salient characteristics of learning
by deaf students in mainstream classrooms where little direct communication between
teachers and students occurs, and a student’s dependence on a third party to provide
access to information in areas such as tutoring and/or notes, interpreting, real-time
captioning, and academic advising that have been looked at from an adjunct “support
service” perspective which provides DHH students with content learning and skills
development in addition to their classroom experiences. Lang et al. (2002) studied DHH
students, faculty members, and teacher’s perceptions at the university level within
different tutor dimensions. Their research indicated that all groups involved have
different perceptions, expectations and styles of tutor development for DHH learners.
For example, some emphasis was placed in course content, independent learning
34
strategies, confidence building, organization for class, and general learning skills. In the
area of interpreting Lang et al. (1998) addressed the importance of the familiarity an
interpreter must have in order to match the content material conveyed by the instructor in
the classroom setting. The interpreter’s accuracy and effectiveness of their skill set is
dependent on their content knowledge. Being familiar with the content will lead to a
more appropriate sign selection and fewer misinterpretations of the professor’s lecture
emphases. Additionally, interpreters provide a support basis in the area of known
barriers within the classroom context that can help facilitate effective communication.
Interpreters can make a difference in the academic integration in the classroom setting of
DHH students by being able to adapt interpreting and advise teachers and students
accordingly (Lang et al., 1998). The research further suggested the examination in
content knowledge of captionists within the classroom setting, and the information being
conveyed through real-time text caption on the printed word and how the relayed
message can influence DHH student’s perceptions and learning ability outcome (Lang et
al., 2002).
Furthermore, Lang’s research showed how the impact in the classroom setting of
DHH student “support services” enhances or negatively impacts their overall social
dimensions in the higher education setting with regard to their learning styles (Lang et al.,
1998). He indicated that the more DHH students participated in classroom discussion by
means of (e.g., active learning, interactive learning, classroom discussion, etc.) the more
successful they will become academically. His research found a moderate but significant
35
correlation between “participative learning” styles of DHH students with regards to their
learning style and academic achievement measured through course grades (Lang et al.,
1998). Additionally, his research suggested the more involved DHH students were in
class the better the DHH student’s chances of learning the course material will be of
success (Lang et al., 1998). Lang suggested that DHH students also respond effectively
to a relevant “active processing” style of information. However, his research also
indicated that DHH students that learn through an “active processing” style in
mainstream classrooms through their “support services” find it most difficult to meet
their goals in the classroom environment. This affected DHH student’s participation in
class, study habits, social integration, and general communication with peers and
instructors. He concluded that when DHH student’s learn through third party “support
services”, this process creates barriers for DHH student’s in the areas of a) rate of pace in
the classroom b) number of speaker’s involved c) language and culture differences d)
space in the classroom settings because large class sizes make it more difficult for them
to participate. Moreover, Lang’s research indicated that DHH students valued professors
who are knowledgeable, use visual materials in their course content, and emphasized
important information throughout their lecture. Some unique characteristics noted in his
research that DHH students prefer of their teachers in the classroom setting included the
ability to understand deaf people and deafness as an educational condition, and for DHH
students that use sign language in the classroom they valued teachers who were able to
communicate clearly in signs (Lang et at., 1993). This also supports Lang’s self-efficacy
36
view about how d/DHH learners in the classroom should control and redirect their voices
in dialogue about barriers within the classroom settings through their own empowerment
(Lang et al., 1992).
The American with Disabilities Act of 1990
According to the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) of
Washington (2008) stipulated that the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) were passed
in 1990 as public law that became effective in 1992. The ADA is a landmark federal
legislation that opens up services and employment opportunities to the 43 million
Americans with Disabilities. This law was written to strike a balance between the
reasonable accommodation of citizens’ needs and the capacity of private and public
entities. It is not an affirmative action law but is intended to eliminate illegal
discrimination and level the playing field for disabled individuals, so students can be
successful in an academic or non-academic program with a reasonable level of
accommodation (MRSC, 2008). The law is comprised of five titles that prohibit
discrimination in the areas of employment, government, public accommodations and
telecommunications. Based on the Wrightslaw (1998-2010) ADA, it stated that Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 became law which prohibits discrimination on the
basis of a disability towards otherwise qualified people with disabilities by recipients of
federal financial assistance. Additionally, it prohibited educational institutions from
discriminating against disabled student’s equal access to admissions, financial aid,
employee assistance, and non-academic services such as athletics and transportation that
37
must be institutional compliant (Wrightslaw, 1998-2010). This mandates that disabled
students be permitted to participate in reasonable accommodations under the law. Prior
to this law classrooms were inaccessible and students were unable to participate in
traditional classroom instruction. Additionally, section 508 expands requirements for
access to apply at postsecondary institutions that receive federal funds for the Assistive
Technology Act. Section 504 did not protect people with disabilities from discrimination
by employers and it took the ADA to address areas not covered by Section 504.
The Changing Face of DHH Higher Education in Non-Specialized
University Settings
Another area for examining general mainstreamed university settings without
specialized programs for DHH students is to look at other influential components to help
understand and accommodate the diversity change of DHH student’s needs from a
cultural and ethical standpoint.
Researcher Komesaroff (2005) conducted a study at Deakin University in
Australia that addressed category politics in relation to practices of inclusion of DHH
individuals at universities. Komesaroff research drew attention to the construction of
difference and the positioning of deaf students undertaking in higher education. With the
limited number of deaf people in higher education and at the university in Australia, his
research was restricted by the missed opportunity of a deaf person not being represented
to discuss their issues from their perspective. However, Komesaroff’s interest in deaf
38
students’ inclusion in universities is situated within a broader concern over the extent to
which deaf people and their language are represented in the classroom, which resulted in
Deakin University inability to provide an adequate level of access and service to their
students (Komesaroff, 2005). The goal of Komesaroff’s research study was to bring
about change in the way, in which deaf students are positioned, and the consequences of
categorizing them as disabled must be recognized and only then a change can occur to
include deaf people’s voices at universities. In order for this to occur, Komesaroff
required an understanding or openness to the views of deafness as a social construction
within Deakin University (Komesaroff, 2005). Komesaroff’s research study looked
beyond the fundamental issues of access to higher education as an analysis of the studied
group but included power relations that exist between deaf and hearing people in
university settings. His research did not seek to describe or compare university
structures, but rather seek to describe from a descriptive perspective the analytical
account of the experiences of two deaf teacher education students as they reflect on their
progress and experiences in higher education (Komesaroff, 2005). Komesaroff study
found that the provision of simple equality- the same access to the same information in
the same form failed to address the discursive marginality of deaf tertiary students.
Additionally, curricula justice- restructuring teaching and learning to transform rather
than maintain hegemonic view- addresses the centrality of justice to education generally.
Hence, rather than allowing a continued process of disconnection by deaf students within
the “hearing university” (Deakin), curricula justice can enable engaged participation and
39
provide opportunities for the study of education. Komesaroff further suggested that
unless direct action is taken, universities like Deakin and other powerful institutions will
resist change or simply maintain hegemonic understandings of difference (Komesaroff,
2005). Komesaroff results of the study supported the need for a review of established
institutional practices with deaf students, and a re-evaluation of the relationships
embedded in (Deakin) the “hearing university”. Additionally, one of the
recommendations from this research study he conducted was to establish an affirmative
action program to recruit deaf people into teacher education practices because deaf and
hearing-impaired teachers were significantly under-represented in Australia in the
teaching profession. Komesaroff asserted that deaf people are not generally confronted
with situations in which ‘hearing” interest are represented against “deaf” interest, but
rather, powerful institutions such as schools and universities conduct themselves as if
“hearing” interests are the only interest that exist (Komesaroff, 2005).
Researcher Richardson (2001) conducted a research study at Open University in
the United Kingdom that concluded an analysis on the representation and attainment of
students with a hearing loss who were registered in individual undergraduate courses
during 1996 instead of an informal program of study at Open University. Richardson
research findings were considered from a descriptive and theoretical point of view with
regard to the impact of their students hearing loss at the university (Richardson, 2001).
The research design compared groups of students that ranged from those who had
reported a hearing loss only, to students with no reported disability or hearing loss, and
40
students with a hearing loss and reported disability, and all other general Open University
students. Part of the outcome variable required students to confirm their registration a
few months into their courses to provide a preliminary indication of retention or
withdrawal of any students that were a part of the research population (Richardson,
2001). A key and practical component of the research study identified to the university
an understanding of the demand for more courses on the part of students with a hearing
loss, and how to provide appropriate guidance and better facilities for their students with
other forms of disabilities (Richardson, 2001). Komesaroff research findings explained
from a theoretical point of view, that the impact of hearing loss on the educational
progress and the attainment of students at the university within the demographic profile
which constituted a methodological problem. Any effects of a hearing loss upon the
student’s choice of courses and subsequent academic performance are confounded with
those of age, gender and prior education. Additionally, the most important finding from
the research investigation reflected any confounded differences in age, gender, prior
education, and academic level that had been taken into account remained to show no
significant differences between students with a hearing loss opposed to the students with
no reported disability on any of the measures of academic outcome (Richardson, 2001).
In terms of persistence and performance the students with a hearing loss were similar to
students with no reported disability once the effects of relevant background variables had
been excluded. Additionally, further significant findings emerged from Richardson’s
study which reflected that the academic performance was poorer in students with a
41
hearing loss who had reported some other disability. However, from a theoretical point
of view, this simply meant that the presence or absence of another form of a disability is
yet another confounded variable that has to be taken into consideration when evaluating
the impact of a hearing loss on academic performance, together with age, gender, prior
education, and academic level (Richardson, 2001). In fact, the research findings in the
study reinforced the conclusion of a previous analysis of national statistics conducted for
the United Kingdom that a hearing loss per se appeared to have essentially no deleterious
consequences for student’s academic attainment at Open University (Richardson, 2001).
Researchers Schlosser and Foley (2008) addressed some cultural differences with
regard to ethical issues that arise and contribute to the myths and misunderstandings of
student and faculty relationships in higher education. Their research suggested how
mentors typically function in several capacities with regard to their student-menteefaculty relationship (e.g., advisor, supervisor, instructor, evaluator, and advocate) across a
variety of social settings (Schlosser & Foley, 2008). Schlosser and Foley emphasized the
explicit importance to understand how cultural issues intersect with ethical issues in
student-faculty mentoring relationships, and how they vary based on aspects of cultural
identity. Additionally, some ethical concerns that could manifest in student-faculty
mentorships included issues of power, multiple and/or inappropriate relationships,
boundary problems, and competence to mentor (Schlosser & Foley, 2008). Schlosser and
Foley research noted how a power differential clearly exists within a faculty-student
42
-dyad and the mentoring between older and younger persons present a situation where
the mentor’s power is increased several times. This dyad can present a problem because
in any power relationship it is important to be conscious of the potential clashes between
individualistic and collective value systems (Schlosser & Foley, 2008). Their research
further addressed the potential ethical tensions and concerns in student-faculty
mentorships that are linked to the cultural identities of both mentors and mentees
respectively. Schlosser and Foley (2008) further suggested that ethical mentors must
ensure that their own attitudes and personal feelings do not interfere with their work with
mentees, and to focus on the student’s disability to the exclusion of other issues can also
lead a mentor-faculty member to overlook developmental concerns that may need to be
addressed right away with students. This further assumes that the individual’s disability
is the source of the problem which may lead a mentor-faculty to inappropriately excuse
problematic behavior that should be addressed. An additional ethical issue suggested by
Schlosser and Foley within this context identified faculty mentoring a student with a
disability a concern on the ethical principle of autonomy to the student. This ethical issue
can impede their ability to hold the obligation as a faculty or mentor member to assist all
students to their full potential, and encourage development of their mentees to be
independent researchers and professional practitioners at the higher education level.
Nevertheless, the Ethics Code (APA, 2002a) requires that conflicts between ethics
and organizational demands can arise when the needs of specific group of students might
be ignored or devalued by the institution. Therefore, by making the mentor accountable
43
for their actions to the student through the university policy, and faculty being ethically
obligated to clarify the conflict this will affirm their adherence to their professional ethics
and also seek to resolve the conflict amicably. Ethics Code (APA, 2002b) requires that
mentors obtain education and training, seek consultation, and receive supervision when
needed to ensure competent work with students. This can better foster the development
and a positive attitude of mentoring competence that should occur across a range of
students, including those from dominates and socially oppressed groups within the
university setting. Mentors and faculty members should encourage their students, and be
encouraged by the university to find additional mentors with similar cultural identities,
and not be offended but empowered if those role models share part of the mentoring role
dyad. Often times, with extra mentors they can provide that unique support and
encouragement beyond the student’s abilities and the needs of the student become the top
priority (APA, 2002b). With the presence of additional mentors, this does not relieve the
faculty mentor of the ethical obligation to develop mentoring competence by any means,
a student’s involvement with any extramural mentoring should supplement, not replace, a
relationship with a faculty mentor. Additionally, it gives the student and faculty an
opportunity to negotiate from a position of belonging across multiple minority groups
within the university setting. Ultimately, this can critically demonstrate a genuine
interest from faculty members and the university, exercise empowerment through
motivation by example, and show concern for all students through their appreciation for
one’s own cultural identities (Johnson, 2002). This can reemphasize a lifelong
44
commitment to multicultural competence practices, and the growing need to service the
growing diversity pool in higher education.
Daughtry, Gibson, and Abels (2009) studied factors and common themes related
to mentoring students and professionals with disabilities at the higher education level.
The authors wrote about significant difficulties in locating a mentor who is
knowledgeable enough regarding disability issues at the higher education level, and the
absence of professional individuals with disabilities to serve as role models within
various capacities. The authors asserted that their primary motivation for addressing this
area of concern was because mentoring relationships are so seldom available to students
and professionals with disabilities. Common shared factors about their ideas regarding
their model of mentoring concluded that mentoring is a complex and multidimensional
process. This process requires mentors to function in a variety of capacities ranging from
listener, guide, supporter, encourager, role model, advocate, ally, and helper.
Additionally, the mentor must play diverse roles depending on the needs and
developmental level of their mentees. A key element noted in the research identified to
mentoring success is the formation of a collaborative and nurturing relationship between
mentor and mentee that is characterized by trust, respect, and care. Furthermore, the
researchers emphasized the need for courage and persistence in addressing disabilityrelated issues for inclusion. The need for professionals to recognize and confront
disability bias is the key to establishing effective mentoring for individuals with
disabilities. Daughtry, Gibson, and Abels (2009) suggested that a significant gap showed
45
between the demonstrated benefits of mentoring opposed to the extent to which
mentoring programs act to include individuals with disabilities. Also, another research
component identified showed under difficulties locating a mentor included a lack of
application of mentoring programs to youth with disabilities. Under educational and
vocational challenges the authors wrote about various challenging factors individuals
with disabilities may face that are influential to their self-advocacy which enables them to
cope with employment or educational barriers. Daughtry, Gibson, and Abels (2009)
suggested that the benefits of mentoring relationships will provide an opportunity for
individuals with disabilities to be appreciated for their capabilities, by promoting identity
integration, contributes to a more positive self- image, and a healthier sense of identity of
having a disability which can lead to making more informed choices. The authors further
suggest that this influence will enable disabled persons to be easily advisable into
entering into any career field, and securing an internship or job when needed. The results
can serve as a better catalyst for healthier coping techniques with involved parties, a
valuable exchange of dialogue, information, and resources that will enhance their career
success. Lastly, Daughtry, Gibson, and Abels (2009) addressed their macrostrategies for
an effective mentoring program design, and microstrategies for developing effective
mentoring relationships that included factors related to a more positive healthier
mentoring cycle at the postsecondary level.
Rationale for Thesis
46
Based on the review of relevant literature in this area of study being researched,
there has been limited research about DHH students who attend mainstream
postsecondary institutions where a small number of Deaf people are enrolled (Smith,
2004). Additional study is needed in this field to extend the existing literature base and
identify a more effective approach for dialogue with Deaf leaders and to improve
professional educational practices in general and at North Central State University.
Furthermore, by determining what services and support networks DHH students rely on
outside of the institution locally to help them persist in school, and identifying if
institutional support services are adequate enough for this population is the basis for the
rationale of this research study.
Summary
In closing, the research identified common recurring themes that continue to
emerge with DHH student’s experiences that bring unique personal characteristics into
the mainstream environment that affects their persistence and attrition challenges in
higher education. Their experiences before entering college and academic abilities are
significantly important according to research. How they interact in social and academic
environments once at the university level are valuable and influential factors from outside
of the institution which determines their significant standing overall as well. The cost of
attending any institution is a relevant component. The attitude DHH student’s formulates
about the institution and about their role of being a student at a particular university are
47
key valuable indicators of the student's decision to remain enrolled and persist. In Tinto’s
research he implied suggestions for Rehabilitation Counselors that may provide and
position professionals to assist DHH students with aspects of his Longitudinal Model that
will enable their persistence at the higher education level. Additionally, to enhance better
support practices at the university level through mentorship to the DHH population can
help develop one of the most valuable and critical assets to their benchmark of progress
according to research. Mentors can offer the opportunity for DHH students to
communicate their needs and truly have someone to listen to them who is critical to their
expressive development of care at the postsecondary level. Furthermore, educational
leaders can build upon their current resources, knowledge base, and commitment to the
d/Deaf HH community through general awareness and specific trends through the
(PEPNet) website, which continually updates current information regarding the needs of
DHH students and disability awareness at the postsecondary level of education.
Additionally, through consistent evaluation of effective quality level support services
provided in the classroom setting, continuous training of faculty and staff members about
general disability awareness and cultural diversity, and with changed perceptions
educational leaders can influence students overall and create a better inclusive practical
starting point for emphasis.
Hence, relationships and communication with classmates, faculty and staff can
prove to be invaluable benchmarks and show significant impact on the DHH student’s
retention in their mainstream college education experience. Knowing and understanding
48
DHH student’s experiences can provide invaluable insight and information on a variety
of ways traditional and non-traditional educational leaders can help support, service,
accommodate and possibly reduce the attrition rate during their first 10 weeks.
Additional factors that compound the dearth of scope at the mainstream post-institutional
level included being too far from home, having financial problems, limited interaction
with their peers, and unsure of their major once they enter into the university setting was
identified. These factors were some of the contributing reasons to Tinto departure theory
he described in his research that influenced DHH student’s limited involvement in their
college experience, and their ultimate withdrawal from any university. Tinto research
provided a conclusive overview from a sociological perspective about factors influential
to student’s retention, persistence and attrition variables at the 10 week mark of
enrollment. However, Bean (1990) concluded a from a psychological stand point the
processes students go through to attain their outcomes that included influential
environmental variables and factors outside of the college that might affect student
retention and their intentions, factors found to be the best predictor of student retention.
Bean and Eaton (2001-2002) combined the self-efficacy theory, coping behavior theory,
attitude-behavior theory, and attribution theory to explain how students interact within
their institutional environment, both academically and socially. Bean and Metzner
(1985) emphasized a conceptual model about student retention and attrition for nontraditional students which reduced the emphasis on social integration factors since nontraditional type students that have less interaction with their peers on campus than
49
traditional and residential students. However, John Braxton (2000) explained in his
research and concluded that student’s retention behavior is influential and based around
various economic factors, psychological processes, campus climate, student learning,
campus cultures, ethnic differences, college choice, social reproduction, based in (critical
theory) power. All theories indicated a pervasive and common thread of themes with
significant factors that are collectively valid to the processes and perspectives on student
retention, persistence, and the attrition views held in any social, psychological and
conceptual model derived from Tinto’s earlier work conducted over 40 years ago.
However, the bottom line remains from the university perspective that which influences
the ultimate barrier of limitation within all colleges and university settings the
distribution of funding which creates flexibility, better timing, and the quality level of
support service to better develop, accommodate and service DHH student’s and the
disabled community population needs ”wholeheartedly” on campus.
50
Chapter 3
METHOLODGY
Introduction
The methodology approach to this study design involves an in-depth qualitative
interview process that will seek to identify, understand, analyze, and explain the
interview data through the voices of the DHH student, faculty and staff members’ liaisons
fair perspective taken from their written responses. The survey questionnaire interview
process is used as a guideline for retrieving information covering areas pertaining to
culture and family, language, persistence, on-campus resources, off-campus associations,
community involvement, campus accessibility, helpful strategies, inclusiveness, rating
campus service, institution barriers, and recommendations. From the responses of the
participants, to the researcher identifies common themes, patterns, overlaps in data,
correlations, and trends noted during this research process. As the interviewer, the goal
and role of the researcher will be to receive responses to the survey questions, when
appropriate to ask clarifying questions within the context of the interview, moreover,
leaving the meaning and interpretation open to subsequent comparative analysis with the
other data sources. Once the research questions are identified and evaluated in light of
the survey data obtained, then the researcher can make the most logical conclusion. The
two research questions to be answered by this research design are:
51
1. What services and support networks do DHH students rely on inside and
outside of the institution to help them persist in school?
2. Are the institutional support services available on campus and community
resources adequate enough for this population?
Setting of the Study
North Central State University has one of the six largest campuses of the 23 state
universities in California. Established in 1947, North Central State offers 60
undergraduate degrees and 40 graduates degrees with a close approximate enrollment of
29,000 students yearly. As of 2009, there are over 1,500 academic and administration
staff employed currently at the university with the student-to-faculty ratio in the
classroom setting at about 21 to 1. There are more than 70 percent of classes with fewer
than 30 students enrolled per class session and approximately 80 percent of the full-time
faculty that hold a doctorate degree. Most students transfer in from within the junior
college system to Northern Central State with an identified 36 percent of the students
working as volunteers in various student positions throughout the university campus.
Additionally, there are at least 750 international students enrolled at the university
from 80 different nations.
North Central State University Office of Service to Students with Disabilities
(SSWD) has been thriving since the mid 1970’s, and the focus of their office is to service
and accommodate their students who have been identified to their office with a disability
52
upon admission into the university. The Service to Students with Disability office offers
the leadership guidance and commitment to their students to attain fair and equal access,
and foster independent development with respects to achieving their attainable vocational
and academic goals at the university through the help of their 22 total combined
employee faculty and staff members that service and work with the DHH students at
NCSU. The Service to Students with Disability retention goals seek to improve their
retention practices by providing the needed training to their students for adaptive
technology through accommodations, advocacy, and for academic support services
development with the intent to maintain a strong retention base for their student-client’s
population in preparation to their road to graduation success.
Specifically, DHH students who have a sensory perception loss differ from their
hearing and disabled peers on the types of technology used for academic success, social
interactions, communication methods, language development, and family background
dynamics. Some of the general services DHH students might request at the SSWD office
will include; Assistive Listening Devices (ALD’s), Notetaker services, Open or closedcaptioned films, Real-time Captioning, Sign language/Oral interpreting, TDD and Relay
telephone service and Web Accessibility to initiate access into the Northern Central State
University system. At first the researcher was not able to secure data from DHH students
to include in the study, since there were a smaller number of DHH students enrolled at
North Central State University and the researcher was limited in her access to these
students. However, the researcher noted that the local community college district had a
53
larger number of DHH students and included a number of community colleges which
were “feeder schools” to the University in many respects, since students who completed
their lower division programs at these colleges could and often did transfer to NCSU.
The researcher was able to work with representatives of the Deaf services program for
students with disabilities at one of these community colleges, with a DHH student
population of 75 students, using the same protocols as those used with the staff services
representatives at NCSU. Through these professional contacts, the researcher was able to
contact two DHH students at the community college under the guidance of the staff
services professionals, provide them with sufficient information to make an informed
choice to consent to participate and to secure their participation in the research. This is
why the researcher chose to gain an insight into the experiences and needs of lower
division college students who were comparable to lower division students at NCSU and
who were representative of the students who make up the upper division student
population after transfer. As will be discussed in the sections on data collection and
instrumentation, the researcher modified the original 25 question questionnaire for the
students to better reflect their status as community college students with the potential to
transfer to NCSU. The questionnaire actually provided to the students is attached to this
study as Appendix A.
Population and Sample
54
Specifically for this study, NCSU, its DHH students, the faculty who work with
the DHH students and the staff service professionals at NCSU and River Junction
Community College are the population to which the study applies. For purposes of data
gathering, the population from which subjects were recruited includes one staff service
liaison member and one faculty in the Deaf Studies department at NCSU and one staff
service liaison member at River Junction Community College and two DHH students
who have pursued or are pursuing transferable academic degree programs with the
intention of transferring to a public four year university. The researcher drew study
participants from the DHH student population at River Junction Community College
because this population shared characteristics with lower division DHH students at
NCSU and the researcher was able to secure access to these students and obtain informed
consent for their population. The researcher considers these students as equivalent in
characteristics essential to the study to DHH lower division students at NCSU. The
Researcher did obtain some information from staff services professionals at River
Junction Community College in support of making contact with DHH students from that
college. There are a total combined 22 employees of faculty and staff members that
service the DHH students within the SSWD office at NCSU. The population of faculty
with special expertise in DHH language studies and education of DHH students at NCSU
makes up a total of 5 professionals, and in this case the faculty of the ASL/Deaf Studies,
met the requirements to conduct the survey questionnaire via e-mail at NCSU. There is a
population total of 75 DHH students at River Junction Community College who are
55
comparable to lower division DHH students and are within NCSU’s transfer service
region.
One staff service liaison professional were specifically chosen from the Services
to Students with Disabilities office at NCSU to participate in the survey questionnaire
interview based on their qualified status. One faculty member was chosen from the ASL
program at NCSU to complete the on-line survey questionnaire. Additionally, two DHH
student recommended by the staff services professionals at RJCC who work closely with
their DHH student population was invited to complete the student survey questionnaire
via e-mail and one of the staff service professionals from RJCC was invited to complete
the staff survey questionnaire via e-mail also. All of the potential subjects whose
participation in the study was requested did agree to participate in the study and either
was interviewed by the researcher (one staff service professional) or completed the
electronic survey (the ASL faculty member at NCSU, staff service liaison member and
the two DHH students at RJCC). In addition, the researcher did make a subsequent email contact follow-up with one of the student participants to clarify the meaning of one
response to the survey. Student A respondent is a 29 year old Caucasian female enrolled
in an academic program at River Junction Community College. Student B respondent is
a 34 year old Caucasian female, former community college graduate who have one A.A
and one A.S degree.
Design of the Study
56
Data Collection
The survey questionnaire method was used for collecting the data responses. The
data procedure used to collect responses from the interview process with the NCSU staff
service professional involved the researcher providing the questions in advance to the
subject. In the interview session, the staff service professional read the survey questions
and responded to it. The researcher asked any clarifying questions to which the subject
responded. The questions and responses were recorded and were later transcribed by the
researcher. In the initial effort to secure student respondents from NCSU, an introduction
to the research, consent form and survey questionnaire were given to the office of SSWD
by the researcher and distributed via e-mailed through the co-director on February 7th
2012 to all enrolled Deaf and Hard of Hearing student population at North Central State
University and one former graduate from last year. Currently there are a total of 19 DHH
students at the institution for the spring semester, with 16 undergraduates and 3 graduate
level students. There were two DHH students initially indicated willingness to
participate in the research, but in the end neither student followed through. Therefore,
the researcher, on the advice of the staff service professional at NCSU contacted two
members of the staff services professionals at RJCC and obtained the names of two DHH
students who fit the profile of a lower division student in a four year academic program.
These students, when contacted by the researcher, gave informed consent and
participated in the research by completing via e-mail the survey questionnaire.
The staff service professional at NCSU were specifically requested to participate
57
in a twelve question face-to-face interview based on their qualified liaison status. A
consent form and survey questionnaire were sent out via e-mail by the researcher before
the interview was scheduled to the staff liaison as a request for their volunteer
participation in the research study. A face-to- face interview were scheduled on site
in the staff liaison’s office at the North Central State University SSWD office. The
face-to-face interview offered an effective interactive communication process that
provided the opportunity for clarity on concepts, words and phrases that needed a deeper
explanation and understanding by the researcher. The goal and scope of the face-to-face
interview and survey questionnaire process was to seek cogent and intelligent responses
to all questions by both parties involved in the research design.
The ASL faculty member chosen for this study was sent via e-mail an
introduction correspondence letter, consent form, and survey questionnaire asking for
their volunteer participation in the research survey. The ASL faculty member consented
to participate in the survey via e-mail. Through via e-mail the faculty member submitted
the survey back to the researcher. The e-mail survey process method yielded a more
efficient and comfortable procedure for the faculty member and it gave an appropriate
time cushion to submit detailed and relevant responses back to the researcher within a
timely fashion.
Two staff services professionals at RJCC were contacted via e-mail who worked
directly with the DHH student population at River Junction Community College. A
consent form and survey example was e-mailed that described the researcher’s study and
58
requested that 2 DHH students from the population pool of 75 DHH students be invited
through these professionals to participate in the study through e-mail. Student B
respondent replied first to the researcher’s e-mail, and Student A respondent replied
second. Both responded within a week of each other and, coincidentally both returned
their completed survey questionnaires on the same day, approximately one week after the
second respondent agreed to participate. Additionally, the student respondents received a
gift card to thank them for their timely response to the survey questionnaire. Eventually,
the staff service professional at RJCC was re-contacted by phone and via e-mail and
asked by the researcher to volunteer and complete the staff survey questionnaire from the
community college level for additional perspective to the study. The staff service liaison
from RJCC submitted the responses back to the researcher within four days of the request
via e-mail.
Instrumentation
This research study involved three sets of questions. The questions for the staff
service professional were in the form of an open-ended survey questionnaire and were
answered through an interview process involving the researcher and one staff service
professional. The questionnaire for the NCSU staff service professional involved twelve
questions. The questions are attached to this study as Appendix A. The researcher tape
recorded the interview and later transcribed the oral responses into a written record.
However, the twelve questions for the RJCC staff service professional survey were
59
modified from the original set of questions for staff in order to incorporate the
community college level perspective and sent via e-mail. The staff member at RJCC
responded to the twelve questions in written form in a return e-mail to the researcher.
The modified questions are attached to this study in Appendix A. The questionnaire for
the faculty member from the ASL program was incorporated into an e-mail and sent to
the faculty member after obtaining informed consent. The faculty member responded to
the twelve questions in writing in a return e-mail to the researcher. The questionnaire for
the faculty member is attached to this study as Appendix A. The questionnaire for the
RJCC students was developed from the original twenty five question NCSU student
survey questionnaire in which the researcher had proposed for this study. Since the
students were associated with a feeder community college campus, some of the original
questions were not relevant to their circumstances and some questions were modified in
language to better reflect their community college campus environment. The
questionnaire for the RJCC students is attached to this study as Appendix A. Faculty and
staff consent forms for the NCSU and RJCC staff are attached at the end of this study as
Appendix B. The student consent form used for the RJCC students are attached at the
end of this study in Appendix B. The ASL faculty member e-mail is attached at the end
of this study in Appendix C. The ASL faculty member correspondence letter is attached
at the end of this study in Appendix D.
Limitations
60
Some limitations arose from the data gathering process and have implications for
the study. As noted in Chapter 1, the study involves a particular campus within the
California University System and is therefore not fully generalizable to other campuses
within California or in other states. In addition, the researcher had to modify the research
design in order to obtain participation from DHH students and one staff member in the
research. The modification involved surveying students and one staff member from a
community college feeder campus rather than students at NCSU itself since the total
number of DHH students at RJCC was greater (75compared to 19 at NCSU) and it was
therefore more possible to find students willing to participate in the survey. In addition,
the researcher was not able to survey a random sample of DHH students at RJCC.
Rather, the staff services professionals at RJCC with whom the researcher worked on this
aspect of the study selected students whom they felt would better meet the profile of a
four-year college bound RJCC student and whom they felt were more likely to be willing
to participate in the research. Thus the researcher cannot draw conclusions based on a
claim of representativeness of the sample of students. In addition, since the students were
not yet attending NCSU or another four-year institution, certain original questions for
students had to be removed from the survey questionnaire as not relevant to the RJCC
campus. However, the research believes that the open ended quality of the survey
questionnaire and the depth of responses of the student respondents compensated for the
lack of randomness.
61
Data Analysis Procedures
This research study utilized first hand data responses chosen from the allvolunteer participants to obtain the research objective. The faculty survey questionnaire
was reviewed and tested by one faculty member respondent at NCSU to ensure and gauge
effectiveness. The NCSU and RJCC staff service professional’s survey questionnaire
was reviewed and tested by two graduate level student respondents and one faculty
member respondent. The survey questionnaire used for the DHH students at NCSU and
RJCC were tested and reviewed by three graduate level student respondents and four
faculty and staff member respondents to ensure and gauge effectiveness to the goals of
the study. These participants in the survey piloting process were not part of the sample
within the study design and their responses do not form a part of the data used in this
study. However, the feedback was used to assess the reliability and validity of the survey
instruments in regard to the objectives of the study. All original interview survey
questions for faculty, staff members and students that the pilot reviewers challenged for
vagueness, irrelevance or difficulty with specific terminologies were simplified to make
the format easily comprehensive for the identified volunteer participants based on the
suggestions and feedback taken from pilot reviewers.
All precautions and consideration were taken into account when using human
subjects in a research study. There were no risks involved in participation or identifying
personal data on the intended subjects involved for consent. Their confidentiality and
data responses will be kept confidential by the researcher to ensure the full security of
62
privacy for participants in this study.
The researcher analyzed the data by transcribing the interview responses and
comparing them with the written responses to survey questionnaires received on-line
from the faculty, staff members and the students. The researcher then searched the
responses of each category of participants for themes and coded the responses in each
question with a code number representing the theme. This coding allowed the research to
compare responses across categories of respondents and to identify those themes which
were consistent. The survey questionnaire used for the DHH students at NCSU and
RJCC were tested and reviewed by three graduate level student respondents and four
faculty and staff member respondents to ensure and gauge effectiveness to the goals of
the study. These participants in the survey piloting process were not part of the sample
within the study design and their responses do not form a part of the data used in this
study. However, the feedback was used to assess the reliability and validity of the survey
instruments in regard to the objectives of the study. All original interview survey
questions for faculty, staff members and students that the pilot reviewers challenged for
vagueness, irrelevance or difficulty with specific terminologies were simplified to make
the format easily comprehensive for the identified volunteer participants based on the
suggestions and feedback taken from pilot reviewers.
All precautions and consideration were taken into account when using human
subjects in a research study. There were no risks involved in participation or identifying
personal data on the intended subjects involved for consent. Their confidentiality and
63
data responses will be kept confidential by the researcher to ensure the full security of
privacy for participants in this study.
The researcher analyzed the data by transcribing the interview responses and
comparing them with the written responses to survey questionnaires received on-line
from the faculty, staff members and the students. The researcher then searched the
responses of each category of participants for themes and coded the responses in each
question with a code number representing the theme. This coding allowed the research to
compare responses across categories of respondents and to identify those themes which
were consistent across response groups and those for which different categories of
respondents made different kinds of responses. This allowed the researcher to address
the research questions of this study through analyzing the opinions, reported experiences
and statements of each of the respondents and each category of respondents. The
analysis in the next chapter will identify those themes which were most dominant in the
responses of all the participants and among the various categories of respondents and also
indicate those areas in which the different categories of respondents reported different
experiences or perspectives in regard to the particular research question.
64
Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine how Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH)
freshmen students persist until graduation. This study is an attempt to look at the
resources and experiences of the DHH students, including such factors as family and
community support, leadership and self-efficacy, role of faculty and staff with
experiences within the DHH community, etc. In particular, the study explores those
factors and characteristics which DHH individuals encounter in their pursuit to attain a
degree, and readily identify what factors are needed to help them persist until they
graduate. There has been limited research conducted at the higher education level about
DHH students who attend mainstream postsecondary institutions where a small number
of deaf people are enrolled (Smith, 2004). Additionally, there has been limited research
on the effectiveness of student support services at the postsecondary mainstreamed level
for the DHH individual, and there is a need to improve this area if the attrition rate for the
DHH student population in higher education is to reduce (Noble, 2010).
This chapter will explain the analysis of the data collected for this research study.
The utilized data responses will be taken from first hand responses by all participants to
obtain the objective of the study. Based on responses from all interview participants’
data responses, a reasonable analysis of the research questions can be studied and
65
conclusions drawn. Findings from both students’ survey responses will be organized
around research question #1 proposed in the study. Findings from both staff service
professional’s responses will be organized around research question #2. Lastly, findings
from the ASL faculty member’s survey responses will be presented and organized around
research question#2 of the study. The researcher conducted an analysis based upon the
codification processes of identifying the common themes, patterns, what was unique in
the data, correlations, connections, comparative analysis, gaps, and overlaps in the data
from the small sample of 5 volunteer participants to the case study.
Findings
The findings of the study based on the research questions indicated that there
were areas identifiable within the data which were relevant and significant within the
DHH students’, staff service professional’s, and the ASL faculty member responses.
There were 6 identified themes that emerged for the students that will be addressed more
in detail in this chapter in the discussion of research question #1. The staff service
professional’s had 5 identified themes specific to their responses that will be covered
further in detail in this chapter in the discussion of research question #2. Additionally,
responses to question 2 on the staff survey questionnaire proved applicable to the analysis
of research question #1. The ASL faculty member’s responses addressed more specific
areas and themes with regard to research question #2. Also, the response to question 8 on
the faculty survey questionnaire proved applicable to research question#1. All coded
66
categories of responses and themes from the various participants to the research study,
when compared with one another, provided triangulated data which the researcher could
apply to the research questions of this case study.
Research Question #1
What services and support networks do DHH students rely on inside and outside of the
institution to help them persist in school?
The Students
The interview data from students A and B responses to questions number 1, 5, 9,
10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 23 on the survey questionnaire will address research question
#1 for the study.
Student A survey responses.
#1. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest) how much does your family support your
education?
5 is how much my family supports my education. I have two kids and no vehicle
for temporary, but my sister/brother in law help me by watching my kids and give
me a ride to school sometimes. My parents live in Washington and they would
help me any way they can either, if they lived closer.
#5. What clubs and organizations are you currently active in the Deaf community (off
campus)?
67
I am currently not involved with any Deaf clubs or organizations because I focus
on school and my kids.
#9. Are there any other person, places or things that help keep you motivated to persist?
My children are my main motivation for persisting school. I can see my future
with my degree and it motivates me, also.
#10. Do you have any hearing friends for support outside the campus? What is their role
to you?
I have a good relationship with my neighbor since my family moved to this home
a year and half ago. He will tell me everything what is happening outside our
home. We help each other out a lot by giving rides, loan money, share foods, etc.
#11. Do you have any hearing friends for support on campus? What is their role to you?
I don’t exactly have hearing friends on campus, but each semester I get friendly
with my classmates and become comfortable to ask for help or feedbacks or
opinion.
#16. Do you feel included in groups, activities, labs, lectures, or in class feedback?
I would say it depends on the professor and the students in the group. Based on
my experiences, I’ve had some professor called out my name to ask me questions.
For the group discussions, students usually involve me with their discussions and
sometimes I lead the discussion.
#18. Is the accessibility at the college level to your teachers, counselors, and mentors for
guidance helpful (people not services)?
68
Yes, people at school are very helpful. They will guide you to right person, or
help with your decisions.
#19. What changes or improvements would you like to see for the DHH student
population at the college level to help you persist until graduation?
It would be nice if DHH at my school to get together maybe twice a month at
school to help each other with home works, meet new friends, or anything that
helps each other to persist until graduation.
#20. What strategy do you think would be more effective working with the DHH
population at the college level?
Tutors that can sign or deaf tutor will be very helpful to DHH people at college,
especially for math (for me.) I had a deaf tutor once for math and it helped me a
lot. However, he got another job offer and now I am struggling with math. I’ve
tried tutor with an interpreter but it’s still not the same.
#23 What do you think will help you stay in school until you graduate with your degree?
Having a sign language tutor will definitely help me big time.
Student B survey responses.
#1. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest) how much does your family support your
education? 5
#5. What clubs and organizations are you currently active in the Deaf community (off
campus)?
I am not in any of the Deaf commuinty{sic} clubs or organizations.
69
#9. Are there any other person, places or things that help keep you motivated to persist?
My families, My other half, Friends and myself because I do not give up easily
and I will give it all to accomplish what I need to accomplish at that time.
#10. Do you have any hearing friends for support outside the campus? What is their role
to you?
I have hearing and Deaf friends off the campus and they are awesome people
because they believe in me and in themselves that together we can do anything!! I
can do anything expect hear!! Their role are friendship, among many things.
#11. Do you have any hearing friends for support on campus? What is their role to you?
I do have them on campus and they are truly amazing because without them, I
will be "alone" in term of working enivornment {sic} and class enivornment
{sic}.
#16. Do you feel included in groups, activities, labs, lectures, or in class feedback?
I always feel that I am included in the lab and lectures and most of time in group,
it depends on what classes and what type of the activies {sic} it is at that time. I
was fournte {sic} to have good classes and professors too. They make sure that I
am included in and some of them went out of their way to change the format of
assignment especially if it is realted {sic} to sound, they would change it to make
it fair for me since I do not have any hearing at all.
#18. Is the accessibility at the college level to your teachers, counselors, and mentors for
guidance helpful (people not services)?
70
Yes there is accessibility at the college and I have wonderful teacher who happens
to be amazing person as well. among other services there are good accessibility.
#19. What changes or improvements would you like to see for the DHH student
population at the college level to help you persist until graduation?
I would like to see more DHH students stay in college and not give up.
#20. What strategy do you think would be more effective working with the DHH
population at the college level?
I beleive {sic} that if we keep Deaf freindly {sic} enivornment {sic} and keep
the cultures at the college it will help with the Deaf and HOH population. We
need more people to understand the Deaf Culture and be more open to meet half
way, instead of all the Deaf and HOH to do all the work to meet up with them if
we meet halfway things will be good for both sides.
#23. What do you think will help you stay in school until you graduate with your degree?
I graduated, and for the future students I think if they have better understanding of
cost and requirements of college and what they need to get their degree then they
will be better off.
Analysis
A comparative and contrasting codification analysis yielded the most effective
approach for exploring research question #1 with students A and B survey questionnaire
responses. The 6 identified themes that emerged in the student coding process included:
71
(1) off campus support, (2) motivation to persist, (3) on campus support, (4) adequacy of
services, (5) changes or improvements (6) effective strategies.
Common shared perspectives for student A and B in their responses to the survey
questionnaire were found in responses to questions numbers 1, 5 and 10. In both
students’ responses to Theme 1 (off campus support) they identified with strong support
from their family component rated at 5 by each. In both students’ responses to question 5
of the survey they also indicated the same answers to Theme 1, they both did not have
any outside affiliations with clubs or organizations. Also, with question number 10 both
students shared similar responses on the survey questionnaire. Student A indicated an
important reliance on the support of a neighbor which provides that additional needed
help to her family for food, money and rides. Student B indicated that having close
hearing friends was just as relevant as having deaf friends off campus and they are very
awesome people that are equally viewed as her support component.
For Theme 2 (motivation to persist) both students shared similar responses to the
survey questionnaire for question 9. Student A stated that her children were her main
motivation and the ability to see her future also inspires her to persist. Student B stated
that her family, better half, friends and her own motivation plays an important a role that
keeps her determined to not give up.
Student responses to question 23 are identified under Theme 2 (motivation to
persist). Both students shared different response perspectives to question number 23.
Student A indicated that having a sign language tutor will help her persist in school and
72
graduate. However, student B indicated in her perspective that if students had an
awareness of the college cost and requirements to obtain their degree then that will help
them to stay in school and persist until graduation.
Theme 3 (on campus support) was associated with student responses to question
11 on the survey questionnaire. Both students shared different views in their responses to
question 11. Student A stated that she does not have any hearing friends on campus for
support but will make the effort when needed to seek their assistance for needed
feedback. Student B indicated that she does have hearing friends on campus and their
role of support is very strong with her otherwise she would feel alone.
Questions numbers 16 and 18 of the student responses were associated with
Theme 4 (adequacy of services) on the survey questionnaire. Both students identified
common shared perspectives in their responses to question 16 on the survey
questionnaire. Based on student A response she indicated that her experience in the
classroom varied according to the professor and the student group dynamics however, she
was called on by the professor in class and also included to participate or lead group
discussions at times. Student B shared that she always felt included in the lab and lecture
portion of the class sessions. However, student B indicated that she felt included in some
groups based on the activities they were conducting. Also, she was able to take good
classes that had accommodating professors they would adjust the format for her when it
was a hearing related assignment specifically for her needs accommodation. For question
18 of Theme 4 (adequacy of services) both students’ shared common perspectives to their
73
responses on the survey questionnaire. Both students’ indicated that there is good
accessibility at their college campus and the teachers will guide you when needed to help
you with make the right decisions.
Theme 5 (changes or improvements) is addressed by question 19 on the survey
questionnaire. Both students’ responses to question 19 indicated two different
perspectives associated with Theme 5. Student A talked about the social component for
students and wanting more peer support on campus. Student A went on to describe what
such support might entail maybe getting together twice a month though a group social
network to help each other with homework and sharing anything to help them persist.
Student B simply stated that she would like to see more students stay in college and not
give up.
Theme 6 (effective strategies) was addressed in student responses to question 20
on the survey questionnaire. Student A stated that for an effective strategy solution she
recommends for DHH students to seek a signing tutor or a deaf tutor to help them in
college because personally she has tried a tutor with an interpreter but it was not the
same. Student B effective strategy solution involved educating others about attaining a
better Deaf friendlier environment on campus to help improve culture awareness.
Research Question #2
Are the institutional support services available on campus and community resources
adequate enough for this population?
74
The Staff
The interview data from staff service professional respondents A and B responses
to questions number 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 on the survey questionnaire will address
research question #2 for the study.
Staff services professional A survey responses.
#2. What important support components do you feel the DHH students need at the
college level to help them persist until they graduate?
Strong interpreters/captioners, notetakers and tutoring services
#3. Do you feel there is an additional need for DHH student support at the college level?
Deaf friendly environment…other Deaf people and hearing people who sign. It is
still frustrating that videos still appear without captioning…….people still forget!
#4. Do you feel there are enough d/Deaf supported services or resources on campus for
this population (at RJCC) or at the college level?
There used to be…...many budget cuts later sadly there is little specialized
support now. We used to have an English and a Math IA just for Deaf, peer
counselors, specialized notetakers, tutors who signed….they have all be cut.
#5. What other d/Deaf supported services or resources outside of the institution are
available locally for this population to help them persist?
Dept of Rehab, Norcal Center on Deafness
#7. What changes or improvements would you like to see for this population at the
college level?
75
I would love to see what we had…..IA’s in English, math, tutors who sign, Would
love to see a college success class for Deaf students.
#8. What do you think will help them persist at the institution until they graduate?
Maturity. Many students drop out due to immature choices.
#10. Can you think of any helpful strategies that will be more effective when working
with this population?
Tell their parents at birth to learn sign language…this seems to make the biggest
difference in college success. Most of our students’ families do not sign.
#12. What can RJCC and NCSU do in conjunction to help foster student’s persistence,
awareness and development?
It would be nice for CSUS Deaf students to interact more with ARC
students…..maybe this could be done through the ASL Club somehow?
Staff service professional B survey responses.
#2. What important support components do you feel the DHH students need at NCSU to
help them persist until they graduate?
...any kind of accommodations they need for their classes interpreting wise and/or
for their captions they need… that support to get them through.
#3. Do you feel there is an additional need for DHH student support on NCSU?
We can make it a little more accessible for them through captioning, and not
having to run to the Deaf Studies department if the funding was a little more
76
centralized. It’s not like it hasn’t been talked about before but the way the
budgeting works it such a challenge.
#4. Do you feel there are enough d/Deaf supported services or resources on campus for
this population?
Yeah, I do think they get the support they need. I think sometimes they might
experience like ....: I want to join this club? what do I have to do? who do I go to
request those services? And then I have to make the calls to figure out where is
the funding coming from and then the student has to go to that particular
individual or club to request the services....but sometimes you do need that lead
time which is just another hiccup for the student to go oh, I can’t just like any
hearing student go see a flyer and say, oh I want to go to that tonight, they have to
think about, can I get services? will there be an interpreter? So, a lot of it is
planning, it puts a lot of requirements on the student to pre plan a lot more than
any other student.
#5. What other d/Deaf supported services or resources outside of the institution are
available locally for this population to help them persist?
There are sister agencies throughout California the one in Northern California is
called NorCal center for Deafness, within NorCal they often advertise Starbucks
& ice cream socials.
#7. What changes or improvements would you like to see for this population at the
institution?
77
along the lines of the social component… allowing more of that interaction with
the students to get together would be important….. with the ASL club if the deaf
students meeting together all the time only would be good or important… it
would be nice if the deaf had more social… so they can debrief about their work
or their experiences on campus.
#8. What do think will help them persist at the institution until they graduate?
DHH students’ feeling like they belong because as a deaf student they may feel
like where do I fit in at this institution? because the number is so small.. so that
unity would be good …which ties into number seven.
#10 Can you think of any helpful strategies that will be more effective when working
with this population?
ideally if the funding can be put in one spot and the SSWD office can allocate the
funding it would be more effective ..than the student wouldn’t have the challenge
of talking to me and then I have to go find out… and there is that delay, I think it
would be smoother for them… if all of the videos can lean toward that universal
design… even in the Union if things were shown…captioning is turned on right
away and it is not that the student has to request it… just that mindset that we
need to make this accessible…so that way if the student walks in the Union and
the game is on then the captioning gets turned on….I think that would be a big
plus.
78
#12 What can the SSWD office and the Deaf Studies Department do in conjunction to
help foster student’s persistence, awareness and development?
it would be nice if we worked together with them….we try to let students’ know
that anything they need in order to succeed in their classes that we are here for
them….they get priority registration which is helpful… it allows us to staff or
prepare to work with an agency…we will do whatever it takes to make sure they
are prepared.
Analysis
A compare and contrast codification analysis yielded the most effective approach
for evaluating staff service professionals’ survey questionnaire responses in regard to
research question #2. The coding was organized into further detail which yielded a more
detailed analysis. The 5 identified themes that emerged with the staff service
professionals’ responses were: (1) on campus adequacy of services (2) off campus
community resources (3) changes or improvements (4) motivation to persist (5) helpful
strategies.
For Theme 1 (on campus adequacy of services) questions 3 and 4 addressed
relevant issues. Both staff service professionals’ shared similar perspectives to question
number 3. Staff A response to question 3 indicated a need for a Deaf friendlier campus
environment with the inclusiveness of Deaf and hearing people who can sign and
captioned videos that would help the adequacy of services. Staff B response also
addressed the DHH students’ need for “universal” captioned videos to meet their
79
accommodation needs caused by funding issues. Question 4 responses addressed Theme
1 (on campus adequacy of services). Staff A stated at RJCC there used to be more
specialized support for the DHH population in the areas of English and Math IA
specifically for the Deaf, peer counselors, specialized notetakers and tutors who sign but
due to budget cuts there is no support in these areas. Staff B shared that there is an
adequacy of service and support at NCSU for the DHH population however, challenges
may occur when students’ are trying to join a club or participate in outside co-ed
activities that may require some more lead time, which affects funding, and pre-planning
on the students’ part for their participation in the activity.
Both staff responses to question 5 were applicable to Theme 2 (off campus
community resources). Staff A and B shared one of the same off campus resources
locally that DHH students can explore for assistance. The resources were the Department
of Rehabilitation and NorCal center for deafness that advertise within it Starbucks and ice
cream socials.
Theme 3 (changes or improvements) was addressed in responses to question 7 on
the survey questionnaire. Both staff service professionals’ shared different perspectives
in their responses. Staff A replied that a change or improvement at RJCC would be to see
IA level English and Math related classes, tutors who sign, and a college success class for
Deaf students. However, staff B identified wanting the DHH student’s social interactions
needs on campus to occur more often to allow them to engage with each other about their
common shared experiences and goals for improvement.
80
On the survey questionnaire responses to questions 2, 8, and 12 addressed Theme
4 (motivation to persist). Both staff responses to question 2 were identical in their
perspectives in regard to Theme 4 issues. Staff A addressed the need for strong
interpreters/captioners, notetakers and tutoring services which are all academic need
related components. Staff B response addressed any academic support accommodations
in the classroom with interpreting and meeting DHH students captioning needs are
important to help them persist. Theme 4 (motivation to persist) was addressed by both
staff members’ responses to question number 8, but they provided significantly different
perspectives with their responses. Staff A clearly stated that DHH student’s maturity is
important because many students drop out due to immature choices. Staff B response
addressed the issue of “campus unity” given the small number of DHH students enrolled
at the university level and insisted that the idea is for them to feel the “connectedness” to
the institution in order to help them persist. Responses to question 12 addressed Theme 4
(motivation to persist); both staff responses were similar in their shared perspectives.
Staff A indicated that it would be nice for the NCSU Deaf students to interact more with
the RJCC students maybe through the ASL Club that would help them persist. Staff B
stated that it would be nice if the SSWD office worked together with the Deaf Studies
department on campus at NCSU. However, the SSWD try to let the students’ know that
anything they may need in order to succeed in their classes they will assist. Priority
registration is helpful for them because it allows the staff to prepare to work with an
agency and do whatever it takes to make sure the students are prepared on campus.
81
Additionally, the SSWD do whatever is needed to provide the preparation time that it
takes to service the DHH students but contact is very limited with the Deaf Studies
department. This gap identified significance to the analysis between the two
departments. Both departments are two separate but equally strong inclusive on campus
service components that provide or organize services to the DHH population but have
limited contact with one another. Both staff services professionals’ responses concluded
that more contact was needed to foster the awareness for the DHH student population,
SSWD office and the Deaf Studies department at both campuses.
The staff responses on the survey questionnaire to question number 10 addressed
Theme 5 (helpful strategies) and were significant to the study. Both staff liaison member
responses addressed different but helpful perspectives in their answers. Staff A stated
that when parents learn sign language at birth it seems to make the biggest influential
difference in the college success of Deaf students because it was noted that most of their
students’ families do not sign. However, staff B stated from an “accessibility”
perspective if all videos were captioned “universally” for the DHH student population
and if live caption were on all the time at the University Student Union, this would be a
helpful and a beneficial strategy. Additionally, better timing and scheduling restraints
would be minimized if funding were centralized to help make DHH students’ transition
smoother at the university. Both staff service professionals’ responses indicated a lack of
funding and the need for centralized funding which are important considerations of
perspectives for this research case study.
82
ASL Faculty
#4. Do you feel there are enough d/Deaf appropriate services or resources on campus for
this population to help them persist to completion of their degrees?
No, there are not enough… if a certain percentage of DHH complete their degree
will we have achieved enough? Okay, then I'd say that when the same percentage
of DHH graduate as the general student population, then we will have provided
enough services and resources. So it varies from person to person…the least
prepared students with the fewest resources are going to be the ones who don't
have enough.
#5. Do you feel there is a need for additional DHH student support at NCSU?
I feel we need more support for our DHH students. Until we reach a 100%
graduation rate then … all students need all the additional support they can
get…until they have enough support to graduate and find or develop employment.
#6. What additional support components do you feel should be available at NCSU to
assist DHH students to persist in their studies until they graduate?
The Sports Programs…they already have strategies in place for retaining students
and shepherding students along to graduation. At the college level, adding a few
more terps {sic} helps in theory but it doesn't help at all when you can't get into
the classes you want because they are full or offered only at conflicting times. I'd
recommend more articulation agreements with the community colleges so that
students can take classes from "wherever" and apply them here (up to a certain
83
number of units) to graduate…reduce tuition costs by expediting Voc Rehab
acceptance and support.
#7. What strategy do you think would be the most effective when working with this
population of students at NCSU?
I'd use a system like that used by the campus sports teams…they use mentors,
they check with the instructors directly to see how their students are doing.
#8. Do you know of other d/Deaf supported services or resources outside of the
institution that are available locally to help DHH students persist?
The California Department of Rehabilitation. They work in partnership with
consumers and other stakeholders to provide services and advocacy resulting in
employment, independent living and equality for individuals with disabilities, also
the Client Assistance Program.
#9. Are there any ways in which you believe that the ASL/Deaf Studies Program and the
SSWD office could act in conjunction to help foster student’s persistence, awareness and
development?
Yes, release time could be allocated to the Deaf Studies Program Instructors to
serve as mentors. Also, the SSWD office could encourage DHH students to
double major or minor in Deaf Studies… thus such students could learn a career
from their first major and they could learn about the Deaf World from their Deaf
Studies major.
84
#11. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest) how would you rate the overall accessibility
at this institution for persons with disabilities in general?
I'd rate it a 4.5 The Deaf Studies Department uses a totally different "interpreter
provision" process than that used by the SSWD…Our Deaf Studies Department
does a wonderful job of getting us terps {sic} when and where we need
them…the Department office staff bend over backwards to take care of us…the
secretaries are going out of their way to learn sign language…I think our staff
members do an outstanding job in a very difficult and challenging position.
#12. What recommended changes for improvements would you like to see implemented
for the DHH population of students, faculty and staff at this institution?
I'd like to see more money given to the SSWD to use as they see fit… from what I
have seen they are experts and professionals at what they do...if they are not
achieving certain results then it is lack of funding because it certainly isn't lack of
caring... I'd interview the students to ask them what they need and want more of
then I'd give the SSWD more funding to do those types of things…As far as the
Deaf Studies Department I'd like to see us hire two new full-time faculty.
Analysis. The ASL faculty member responses to the survey questionnaire were
straightforward and will be presented according to research question #2 of the study.
There were 5 themes identified: (1) adequacy of services (2) effective strategies (3) off
campus resources (4) motivation to persist (5) changes or improvements.
85
The faculty responses to questions numbers 4, 5, and 6 address Theme 1 issues
(adequacy of services). The response to number 4 and 5 strongly implied the need for
improvement in adequacy of on campus services for DHH students and other students
with special needs. The ASL faculty member stated that there were not enough DHH
support service and resources on campus for this population and there is a need for more
support on campus in response to question number 5.
What was unique about the response provided to questions 6, and 7 and applicable
to Theme 2 (effective strategies) was the recommendation given by the ASL faculty
member that the same model the sports programs on campus provide to their studentathletes should be applied to the DHH population to ensure their persistence to
graduation. The ASL faculty member also provided some recommendations related to
Theme 3 (off campus resources) that can be useful for the DHH student population to
explore. The Department of Rehabilitation (which was also noted above by the RJCC
staff liaison) and the Client Assistance Program (CAP) which provide state-wide referrals
at 1-800-952-5544 (Voice) and 1-866-712-1085 (TTY).
Theme 4 (motivation to persist) is addressed strongly in the response provided by
the ASL faculty member to question 9 on the survey questionnaire. The suggestions
included in this response provide a solid recommended overall strategy to help DHH
students persist to graduation if certain support components are in place. These would
include release time for instructors for mentorship, encouragement for DHH students to
double major and minor in Deaf Studies, and of career guidance, for DHH students to
86
develop a dual emphasis on their career and learning about their Deaf culture. This
configuration of mentoring and services, according to this faculty member, would help
foster their persistence and awareness to graduation and increase the educated
professionals in the Deaf Studies field.
Theme 5 (changes or improvements) is addressed by the ASL faculty member
responses to question 6, 11, and 12 on the survey questionnaire. Responses to all 3
questions placed emphasis on a need for more interpreters, community college
articulation agreements, and reduced tuition/cost to help accommodate DHH students’.
Additionally, the ASL faculty stressed the need for greater articulation between
community colleges and the university so students may take more classes offered by both
in the less costly community college setting and apply them to their university degrees.
Furthermore, the ASL faculty member and the SSWD staff agreed that services to DHH
students could be improved if the funding and resources for deaf services, such as
“provision of interpreters” were more centralized and more adequate. If more funding
was given to the SSWD office for distribution and centralization, this might help to create
better flexibility for students and faculty needs and to provide the Deaf Studies
department with the incentive to hire needed faculty, which would also be beneficial.
Specifically, the funding component was the most pervasive, and identified overlap
between responses by both staff liaisons and faculty professionals at both campuses.
They concluded with insight on how timing is dictated, including the need for advance
notice to service providers of accommodation needs, the need for flexibility in access to
87
supportive resources, the need to provide accommodations in support of extracurricular
participation, and how the core budget dynamics of the university create intuitional
barriers at the university for the DHH population.
Comparing and Contrasting the Perspectives of Staff, Faculty and Students
An analysis is now presented through the triangulation of data findings to give a
comparative and contrasting perspective of importance and identify what common
themes emerged from all participants. Based on the triangulated findings, there were 4
common Themes among all participants that identified significance to the study. The 4
Themes were as follow: (1) relationship connectedness (2) interpreters (3) accessibility
(4) funding. The 4 Themes allowed for better interpretation from the triangulated data
analysis to give greater insight on identified commonalities, and differences from all
participants’ fair perspectives.
Theme 1 (relationship connectedness) can be interpreted from the researchers’
perspective to help understand and maximize significance to the study. This Theme
introduced from both students’ perspective an emphasized how DHH students’ primary
established patterns emerged from a strong family support base, good hearing
connections, and healthy relationship dynamic with teachers. They addressed having a
greater need to see a change at the community college level for on-campus networking
with more deaf peers associations that can better establish their social relationship
connections. Staff service professionals’ response relative to Theme 1 (relationship
connectedness) can be drawn from several factors. This Theme can be viewed from the
88
institutional dyad perspective with the DHH student. The views addressed the need for
helping DHH student’s to identify and feel more “inclusive” at the institution through
such amenities as “universal” captioning in the student union, and having a more “Deaf
friendlier” environment where hearing and deaf persons sign. This idea expands on
student B response to the need to help educate others and keep a more “Deaf friendly”
campus environment instead of the DHH population doing the initiating to meet halfway
so things could be better for both sides to bring the cultures together. The ASL faculty
responses addressed Theme 1 (relationship connectedness) from the cultural perspective.
These responses addressed two specific components to the culture. Mentoring was
identified as a dual service model component and connected the need of the DHH
students to be encouraged to double major or minor in Deaf Studies to learn about the
Deaf World. Moreover, the mentorship dyad component was seen as something to help
align the DHH student to a specific type of fostering and encouragement, through
continued benchmarks tied to personal, educational and professional growth patterns.
The importance of Theme 2 (interpreters) can be derived from the researchers’
perspective through the triangulation of data. Both students provided limited insight on
interpreters at the two year college level; however, it was specifically identified by
student A that having a tutor with an interpreter is not the same as having a deaf tutor or a
tutor that can sign. Staff A addressed that having strong interpreters at the community
college level will help DHH students persist until they graduate. Staff B responses
addressing Theme 2 (interpreters) identified that the SSWD office provides intricate
89
services to the DHH population at NCSU for their academic related needs from their own
specific budget source. The interpreting services do not overlap or coordinate with the
Deaf Studies department or with other on campus organizations and external agencies.
One area noted that affects DHH students need for interpreting services is their
participation in non-academic related clubs or events on campus. The implications from
this process is that it requires that students must plan ahead, think about timing, and also
requires flexibility from the coordinators perspective to better accommodate for delays in
turn-around time on seeking interpreter accommodations for their event. The ASL
faculty discussion of Theme 2 (interpreters) identified a specific “interpreter provision”
for their department protocol that is not adequate enough and also identified a need to
provide more interpreters at the college level. The SSWD and the Deaf Studies
department provide strongly related services to the DHH population but work from
mutually exclusive positions. This position affects other related issues of timing and
flexibility but the perspective is to better position students from a place of strength within
the institution dyad.
Theme 4 (accessibility) is viewed from the researchers as encompassing the
overall ability of DHH students to participate in the college environment. Both students’
perspective found their community college experience to be good with help available
when needed to be pointed in the right direction for any assistance or guidance from
teachers or other liaisons. However, institution accessibility considerations must be taken
into account when assessing college environments compared between two and four year
90
institutions. Staff services professionals’ discussion of Theme 4 (accessibility)
components can be better explained from a straight forward rating number. This specific
data was not presented as part of the reported research study findings in both staff service
professionals’ responses. However, it has been identified through further analysis of the
extended written recorded and transcribed interview data in the researchers’ records.
Staff A reported the accessibility rating for the RJCC level to be a 4 out of 5; Staff B
reported the accessibility rating at 3 out of 5 at NCSU, and the ASL faculty identified the
accessibility rating for NCSU at 4.5 out of 5.
Responses relevant to Theme 5 (funding) drawn from the triangulated data helped
the researcher to identify some of the key influences on DHH student access in the
research study. Based on student B response it can be concluded within the context of
tuition cost that limitations in financial assistance can be viewed as the hindrance
preventing her from pursuing her bachelor’s studies. Student B has one A.A. and one
A.S. degree and struggles to pay tuition fees on her own. Additionally, student B implied
that DHH student awareness is important when understanding cost and requirements for
them to further their education. The staff service professional discussion of Theme 5
(funding) addressed centralized budging issues at NCSU that affects various other areas
for DHH students on campus. The staff service professional discussion of RJCC funding
addressed prior cut backs in DHH student’s academic accommodations effecting needed
English and Math courses and other service components for their Deaf student
population. Specifically for NCSU the way in which the institution distributes its funding
91
creates limitations and restraints to the overall flexibility and timing which affects
students’ pre-planning process and actually positions students, staff and faculty members
as polarized competitors within as strong service network. The ASL faculty member
addressed Theme 5 (funding) as a separate “interpreter provision” process that is not
adequate within their department, the need to reduce tuition cost for students, lack of new
faculty hires, centralizing the SSWD office as the main funding source, which are
solutions but viewed from a restricted position of need and in opposition to the core
budgeting dynamic. However, with greater inclusiveness, connectedness, unity, among
other affected areas on campus along with greater involvement of the DHH population, it
is possible to better assist from a “position of solution” to build a barrier free funding
environment at the two and four year level of mainstream education.
92
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This research study is designed to better understand, serve, and effectively
accommodate the needs of the comparatively small enrollment population of DHH
student’s at the mainstream postsecondary level of education. It has examined factors
and characteristics DHH students encounter through their experiences at the college level.
Additionally, the study identified what additional resources may be needed on campus
and off campus locally to help them persist until they graduate because there has been
limited research on the effectiveness of student support services at the postsecondary
mainstream level (Smith, 2004).
The practical impact this study is to integrate the voice and perspectives of the
DHH students’, ASL faculty and staff service liaison professionals taken from first hand
written interview responses provided through a survey questionnaire on their needs,
suggestions, input, and recommendations in order to identify approaches to better serve
the DHH community. The provided responses allowed the researcher to address the two
research questions of this study:
1. What services and support networks do DHH students rely on inside and
outside of the institution to help them persist in school?
93
2. Are the institutional support services available on campus and community
resources adequate enough for this population?
Through the analyzed opinions, reported experiences and statements of each
respondent the research questions were able to be fruitfully explored and a picture begins
to emerge of the experiences of DHH students in a major public university and of the
supports and resources which are available and should be available to guide their success.
An understanding of the issues surrounding DHH student’s persistence factors must
specifically address their needs for accommodations and acceptance as they develop their
roles in the higher education experience.
Vincent Tinto (1987) provided a theoretical framework for higher education
institutions that addressed his persistence theory specifically for the DHH population.
The Longitudinal Model he developed identified and addressed specific measureable preentry attributes components for DHH student’s that can help them academically succeed
in regular educational settings, achieve advanced degrees, and professional preparation.
Tinto’s (1993) social model theory on effective principles for retention practices at the
university level identified retention efforts and strategies to help integrate DHH students
into the social and academic climate of the campus environment. Tinto pointed out that
attention to those factors contributed to the overall institutional viability, financially,
educationally and societally.
Through further research, the findings of additional researchers and related
theoretical perspectives helped to expanded on Tinto’s original works and identified
94
various components that were influential to the overall success of student’s persistence at
the postsecondary level.
Universities can enhance better support practices through certain
accommodations, such as providing mentorship opportunities to the DHH population.
Research identified how mentors typically function in several capacities with regard to
their student-mentee-faculty relationship (e.g., advisor, supervisor, instructor, evaluator,
and advocate) across a variety of social settings (Schlosser & Foley, 2008). According to
the American Psychological Association (APA, 2002b) guidelines this relationship gives
the student and faculty an opportunity to negotiate from a position of belonging across
multiple minority groups within the university setting. A key element noted in the
research examining mentoring success is the formation of a collaborative and nurturing
relationship between mentor and mentee that is characterized by trust, respect, and care.
This is consistent with the identified need for the students to identify with the institutions
climate, persistence to motivate, and is significant in addressing disability- related issues
for inclusion.
Therefore, relationship dyads and effective communication with faculty, staff and
DHH students can prove to be an invaluable benchmark and show significant impact on
the DHH student’s retention in their mainstream college education experience.
Additionally, knowing and understanding DHH student’s experiences can provide
invaluable insight and information on a variety of ways traditional and non-traditional
educational leaders can help support, serve and accommodate DHH students and possibly
95
reduce the attrition rate during their first 10 weeks of their enrollment. Indeed, as the
ASL faculty member noted in his comments, the kind of nurturing environment which
would benefit DHH students the most is the kind of environment which universities
should strive for in any case, since all students benefit from a climate of informed
mentorship and caring in their university.
Conclusions
There has been limited research on the effectiveness of student support services at
the postsecondary mainstream level for the DHH population (Smith, 2004). Based on the
researcher findings from all interview participants’ responses a reasonable and conclusive
analysis can be made to answer both of the research questions proposed in this study. A
comparative and contrasting perspective of importance can identify what common
Themes emerged from all participants’ responses. Based on the triangulated findings
there were four common Themes among all participants that were important to this study.
The four Themes were as follow: (1) relationship connectedness (2) interpreters (3)
accessibility (4) funding. The four Themes allowed for better interpretation of the
triangulated data analysis to give greater insight on identified commonalities, and
differences from all participants’ responses and to draw conclusions from both their
shared perspectives and their differences.
Theme 1 (relationship connectedness) introduced from both students’ perspective
indicated a strong family support base, good hearing connections, and healthy
96
relationship dynamic with teachers, but noted a greater need to see a change at the
community college level for on-campus networking with more deaf peers associations
that can better establish a network of social relationship connectedness. Staff service
professionals’ Theme 1 (relationship connectedness) views encompassed the need to help
DHH students to identify and feel more inclusive at the institution through “universal”
captioning in the student union and having a more “Deaf friendlier” environment where
hearing and deaf persons sign. This idea also expands on student B response to the
importance of helping to educate others to keep a more “Deaf friendly” campus
environment. The ASL faculty discussion of Theme 1 (relationship connectedness)
addressed two specific components to their culture. Mentoring was identified as
involving a dual needed service model component and also led to the recommendation
that DHH students be encouraged to double major or minor in Deaf Studies to learn about
the Deaf World.
Both students’ responses were relevant to Theme 2 (interpreters) and provided
limited insight on interpreters at the community college level from the students’
perspective. However, it was specifically identified by student A that having a tutor with
an interpreter is not the same as having a deaf tutor or a tutor that can sign. Theme 2
(interpreters) as addressed by the staff service professional at RJCC simply stated that
there is a strong need for interpreters at the community college level. Theme 2
(interpreters) as addressed by the SSWD staff member included insight on how the
SSWD office provides intricate services to the DHH population on campus for their
97
academic related needs from the SSWD’s own budget source. The interpreting services
do not overlap or coordinate with the Deaf Studies department or with other on campus
organizations and external agencies. One area noted that affects DHH students access to
interpreting services is their participation in non-academic related clubs or events on
campus. The services are not comparably available for these non-academic engagements,
a possible hindrance to becoming “inclusive” on campus. The result of this limitation in
resources results in a process requiring that students must plan ahead, think about timing,
and requires flexibility from the SSWD perspective to better accommodate for delays in
turn-around time on seeking interpreter accommodations for the events. The ASL faculty
responses related to Theme 2 (interpreters) identified a specific “interpreter provision”
for their department protocol and also identified a need to add more interpreters at the
college level. The SSWD and the Deaf Studies department provide strongly related
services to the DHH population but work from mutually exclusive positions. This
position affects other related factors of timing and flexibility with regards to students,
staff and the ASL faculty department needs.
Theme 4 (accessibility) was addressed from both students’ perspectives as
finding their overall college experience to be good and helpful when needed to be pointed
in the right direction for any assistance or guidance by their teachers or staff. The staff
service professionals’ and ASL faculty responses related to Theme 4 (accessibility)
involved a likert scale rating of adequacy. Accessibility was rated at 4 out of 5 by staff A
98
at RJCC; 3 out of 5 by staff B from NCSU; and 4.5 out of 5 from the ASL faculty at
NCSU.
Theme 5 (funding) was addressed with student B needs analysis of the problems
involving meeting tuition and other college costs because financial assistance was
identified as the hindrance preventing her from pursuing her bachelor’s studies. Student
B had one A.A. and one A.S. degree and struggles to pay tuition fees on her own, but also
gives advice for DHH students to be aware of the cost and requirements to further their
education pursuits because that is important. The staff service professional conclusion of
RJCC funding addressed prior cut backs in the DHH student population needed academic
accommodations that affected English and Math courses and other service components
for their Deaf population. The ASL faculty member and staff B liaison both addressed
similar limitations in regard to funding issues and discuss the ways in which funding
limits place restraints on their overall flexibility, and increase the lead-time needed to
provide accommodations, which affects the students’ pre-planning process. The Deaf
Studies department has a separate “interpreter provision” process than the SSWD office
but the ASL faculty member and staff B liaison both concluded that centralizing the
SSWD office as the main funding source would help things run smoother on campus.
Additionally, other noted areas that created limitations by funding were to reduce tuition
cost for students, hire new faculty, provide mentoring options for DHH students, and seek
the input of the DHH students to meet their requested accommodations.
99
In conclusion, the ASL faculty member stated that anything that would help
special needs students would also help DHH students. The bottom line remains that all
participants are sharing about greater connections and letting their needs be known.
Some areas addressed by both staff service professionals’ and the ASL faculty member
are a funding issue problem at both campuses. How can the use of existing resources be
maximized? Do the SSWD office and the Deaf Studies department have to receive more
money to create new relationships to help the DHH population of students? How can
they creatively use their allotted existing money to solve or strategize effectively for their
department?
Recommendations
The researcher recommendations for further actions are based on the findings and
conclusions from the research case study. Clearly there is a lack of funding which, if
overcome, will create more resources for accommodation on campus at NCSU and at the
community college level. In turn this will maximize the sense of connectedness from
students, staff, ASL Deaf Studies department members, and other assisted support
components at the university and RJCC. Furthermore, the ASL faculty member
recommended seeking Vocational Rehabilitation assistance for the disabled and DHH
students to seek additional supplemental tuition assistance and support to help minimize
the financial pressure of college expenses. Additionally, a practical point of emphasis of
start can be to recruit and connect with the River Junction Community College Deaf
100
Studies services department that serves a larger pool of DHH students to better prepare,
guide, and foster students awareness to attend North Central State University.
The researcher recommends further research in the education field to expand the
existing knowledge base in this study to understand the overall issues, challenges, and
needs analysis at the college level about the DHH and disabled students population.
Additionally, the researcher further recommends that the effectiveness of services be
explored and measured against other CSU universities’ SSWD offices to determine if
they have different requirements and parameters or standards to meet other areas of
disabled and DHH students’ needs for service.
101
Appendix A
Interview Questions
102
Interview Questions
Faculty
* The term “d/Deaf” as used in this survey means both the physical consequences of
hearing loss (“d”) and a cultural identity association with the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
(DHH) community (“D”).
1.
How long have you been a faculty member in the College of Education at CSUS?
2.
As a faculty member in the ASL/Deaf Studies program, have you mentored any
DHH students at Sac State?
3.
In your experience, what are some of the factors that contribute to or create
challenges for the persistence of DHH students until graduation at Sac State?
4.
Do you feel there are enough d/Deaf appropriate services or resources on campus
for this population to help them persist to completion of their degrees?
5.
Do you feel there is a need for additional DHH student support at Sac State?
6.
What additional support components do you feel should be available at Sac State
to assist DHH students to persist in their studies until they graduate?
7.
What strategy do you think would be the most effective when working with this
population of students at Sac State?
8.
Do you know of other d/Deaf supported services or resources outside of the
institution that are available locally to help DHH students persist?
103
9.
Are there any ways in which you believe that the ASL/Deaf Studies Program and
the SSWD office could act in conjunction to help foster student’s persistence,
awareness and development?
10.
Are there any other barriers or challenges that currently confront DHH faculty,
staff and students at this institution beyond those you have discussed already?
11.
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest) how would you rate the overall
accessibility at this institution for persons with disabilities in general?
12.
What recommended changes for improvements would you like to see
implemented for the DHH population of students, faculty and staff at this
institution?
104
Interview Questions
Staff
*This set of questions is intended for the liaison that works closely with, and is most
knowledgeable of the DHH student population at the SSWD office at NCSU and
at RJCC.
1.
What service capacity role do you play in assisting the DHH student population at
the SSWD office?
1a.
What service capacity role do you play in assisting the DHH student
population?
2.
What important support components do you feel the DHH students need at Sac
State to help them persist until they graduate?
2a.
What important support components do you feel the DHH students need at
the college level to help them persist until they graduate?
3.
Do you feel there is an additional need for DHH student support at Sac State?
3a.
Do you feel there is an additional need for DHH student support at the
college level?
4.
Do you feel there are enough d/Deaf supported services or resources on campus
for this population?
4a.
Do you feel there are enough d/Deaf supported services or resources on
campus for this population (at ARC) or at the college level?
105
5.
What other d/Deaf supported services or resources outside of the institution are
available locally for this population to help them persist?
6.
What are some of the common complaints addressed by this population of
students?
7.
What changes or improvements would you like to see for this population at the
Sac State?
7a.
What changes or improvements would you like to see for this population at
the college level?
8.
What do think will help them persist at the institution until they graduate?
9.
What barriers and challenges do you find this population to encounter at the
institution?
9a.
What barriers and challenges do you find this population to encounter at the
college level?
10.
Can you think of any helpful strategies that will be more effective when working
with this population?
11.
On a scale of 1 to5 (1 being the lowest) how do you rate the accessibility at the
institution for them?
12.
What can the SSWD office and the Deaf Studies Department do in conjunction to
help foster student’s persistence, awareness and development?
12a.
What can ARC and Sac State do in conjunction to help foster student’s
persistence, awareness and development?
106
Interview Questions
Student
(Demographic) - Please identify your age, gender and ethnicity before starting below.
1.
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest) how much does your family support your
education?
2.
Are you the first person in your family to seek a college degree?
3.
As an up and coming leader in your community, what are your personal
leadership views (of self)?
4.
Deaf leadership means what to you?
5.
What clubs and organizations are you currently active in the Deaf community (off
campus)?
6.
What clubs or organizations (on campus) are you a part of?
7.
Do you use Sign Language (ASL) as your mode of communication on campus?
8.
What other forms of language communication do you use besides ASL?
9.
Are there any other person, places or things that help keep you motivated to
persist?
10.
Do you have any hearing friends for support outside the campus? What is their
role to you?
11.
Do you have any hearing friends for support on campus? What is their role to
you?
107
12.
What are your views on mainstream education (like Sacramento State) where
there are a small number of DHH students enrolled?
13.
Do you feel there are enough d/Deaf supported services or resources on campus?
14.
How do you feel about the Deaf culture atmosphere here on campus?
15.
What do you find to be your challenge or (barrier/s) at the college level?
16.
Do you feel included in groups, activities, labs, lectures, or in class feedback?
17.
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest) How do rate the accessibility at the
institution?
18.
Is the accessibility at the college level to your teachers, counselors, and mentors
for guidance helpful? (people not services)
19.
What changes or improvements would you like to see for the DHH student
population at the college level to help you persist until graduation?
20.
What strategy do you think would be more effective working with the DHH
population at the college level?
21.
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest) How would you rate the overall service at
the institution in the office to Service to Students with Disabilities?
22.
Persistence means what to you?
23.
What do you think will help you stay in school until you graduate with your
degree?
24.
How long do you think it will take you to obtain your undergraduate or graduate
degree?
108
Appendix B
Consent Form
109
Faculty & Staff
Hello,
I am inviting you to volunteer your time to participate in a Case Study interview
conducted by (Mae) Muslimah Harris, senior graduate student of California State
University of Sacramento. This interview will be conducted on campus with the goal of
completing 12 interviewing questions. The 12 questions will be pertaining to Deaf
leadership, persistence, campus accessibility, helpful strategies, rating service, institution
barriers, and recommendations. Before, during and after the interview, your responses
will be kept confidential and anonymous and used strictly for the interviewer access.
Title: How do Deaf and Hard of Hearing Freshmen students persist until they graduate?
Place of Interview: On campus in in the Service to Student with Disabilities office
(SSWD) or On-line
Time: TBD
Date: (Spring 2012) TBD
Risk: None
Benefits: To help improve services and accommodations to Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Students at Sacramento State; your Input, Recommendations & Feedback is needed.
Voluntary Participation:
Participation in this interview is completely voluntary. I give freely of my time and
consent. At any time I can decline to answer any questions with no repercussions to
participate in this case study interview. Thank You for your consideration, Mae.
110
__________ Agree
___________Disagree
*If you have any questions about this process, feel free to contact me
111
Student
Hello,
My name is Mae Harris and I am a senior graduate student here at Sacramento State. I am
conducting research factors related to persistence in college and obtaining a degree. I
would like to invite you to volunteer a little bit of your time and help me with my study.
The 25 question survey can be conducted online by email, and all your responses will be
kept confidential. SSWD office has no connection with this project and at no time will
your services and accommodations be affected.
Title: How do Deaf and Hard of Hearing Freshmen students persist until they graduate?
Type: 25 question (online survey)
Deadline Date: Spring 2012 (March 31)
Risk: None
Benefits: To help improve services and accommodations to Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Students at Sacramento State; your input, recommendations & feedback is greatly
needed.
Voluntary Participation:
Participation in this interview is completely voluntary and I give freely of my time with
consent. Your decision to participate or not participate in this study will not affect your
eligibility for accommodations or services with the SSWD office now or ever in the
future. Thank You for your consideration, Mae.
__________ Agree
___________Disagree
112
*If you have any questions about this process, feel free to contact me
113
Appendix C
E-mail correspondence
114
E-Mail to __________ (with cc to Dr. Blanchard):
Good Afternoon:
Dear _________,
I am a graduate student in Higher Education Administration in the Department of
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. I am currently completing research for my
Master of Arts in Education with a concentration in Higher Education Leadership. My
thesis advisor is Dr. Rosemary Blanchard. Dr. Blanchard can be reached through her
email: rblnchrd@csus.edu, if you have any questions for her regarding my research.
As part of my research, I would appreciate obtaining your insights and information about
the services, resources and cultural climate of the Sacramento State University campus
for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students who enroll at this campus to seek their academic
degrees.
My request is more particularly described in the attached letter.
Thank you very much for your consideration of my request.
Mae Harris, Graduate Student
115
116
Appendix D
Introductory Correspondence Letter
117
March 7, 2012
________________________________
College of Education Eureka Hall Room XXX
California State University Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95826
SUBJECT: Request for Your Assistance in Masters Research on Retention to
Graduation of Deaf/Hard of Hearing University Students
Dear ____________________,
I am a graduate student in Higher Education Administration in the Department of
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. I am currently completing research for my
Master of Arts in Education with a concentration in Higher Education Leadership. My
thesis advisor is Dr. Rosemary Blanchard. Dr. Blanchard can be reached through her
email: rblnchrd@csus.edu, if you have any questions for her regarding my research.
As part of my research, I would appreciate obtaining your insights and information about
the services, resources and cultural climate of the Sacramento State University campus
for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students who enroll at this campus to seek their academic
degrees. The questions will help me contextualize and/or attempt to answer 2 of the
questions proposed in my thesis case study:
1. What services and support networks do DHH students rely on inside and outside of
the institution to help them persist in school?
118
2. Are the institutional support services available on campus and community resources
adequate enough for this population?
I would appreciate the opportunity to interview you based on a series of questions that
I have developed with my advisor and with the advice of the staff at the Services to
Students with Disabilities office. At your discretion, I can either send you the questions
for your written response, with my having an opportunity to meet with you to discuss
your responses, or meet with you to ask you the questions in an interview setting.
In either case, I will provide you with the written questions ahead of time.
In conducting this research, I will not personally identify any respondent. In addition, the
university described in my study will be given a non-identifying regional name.
Please let me know if you are willing to assist me in my thesis research by responding to
this request. Feel free to contact me or Dr. Blanchard if you have any questions
whatsoever about this research. Thank you for your consideration.
Mae Harris, Graduate Student
cc. Dr. Rosemary Blanchard
119
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2002a). Ethical principles of psychologists and
code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
American Psychological Association. (2002b). Guidelines on multicultural education,
training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologist.
Retrieved February 2, 2012 from http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/
multicultural-guidelines.pdf.
Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler, J.P. Bean,
& Associates (Eds.), The Strategic management of college enrollments, (pp. 147169). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). “A psychological model of college student retention.”
In J.M. Braxton (Eds.), In Rethinking the departure puzzle: New theory and
research on college student retention. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2001-2002). The psychology underlying successful retention
practices. Journal of College Student Retention, 3, 73-89.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). “A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition.” Review of Educational Research, 55, 485-540.
Bibby, M. A., Beattie, R., & Bruce, L. (1996). Coping with acquired hearing loss: The
perspectives of adults with acquired hearing loss from a survey on pragmatic
language competencies. Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 2(1), 10-23.
120
Boudreault, P., Eickman, J., Fleischer, L., & Gertz, G. (2008). CSUN Deaf studies
program from 1983 to present: Struggles & challenges, (pp. 1-21).
Boutin, D. L. (2008, January-March). “Persistence in postsecondary environments of
students with hearing impairments”. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74, 1, 25-31.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Rethinking the departure puzzle: New theory and research on
college student retention. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Burgstahler, S., Duclos, R., & Turcotte, M. (2000). Preliminary findings: Faculty,
teaching assistant, and student perceptions regarding accommodating student
with disabilities in postsecondary environments. University of Washington,
Seattle.
California State University Sacramento history. Retrieved December 9, 2011, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_University,_Sacramento
Cloud, R. C. (2004). Accommodating students with disabilities: Legal issues in the
community college. No.125
Crowe, T.V. (2003). Self-esteem scores among deaf college students: An examination of
gender and parent’ hearing status and signing ability. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 8(2), 199-206.
Danermark, B. (1996). Research on deafness and higher education: Discussion based on
an overview of research. JADARA, 29(3 & 4), 1-7.
121
Daughtry, D., Gibson, J., & Abels, A. (2009). Mentoring students and professionals with
disabilities. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 2, 201-205.
Directory of Resources for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services. Prepared by California
Department of Social Services Office of Deaf Access. Retrieved March 13, 2012,
from http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entres/pdf/ODA/GuidelinesDHOH.pdf
Gallaudet University Enrollment Report, (2002, 2005-2008). Retrieved July 15, 2011,
from www.gallaudet.edu/documents/provost/gallaudet_University_annual_report
_fy2009--main.pdf.
Gallaudet University Research Institute, Annual Survey (2007). Retrieved July 15, 2011,
from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2007report/g5edagallaudet.doc
Johnson, W.B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice
of mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 88-96.
King, H. L., Aguinaga, N., O’Brien, C., Young, W., & Zgonc, K. (2010). Disability in
higher education: A position paper. American Annuals of the Deaf. 155(3).
Komesaroff, L. (2005, October-December). Category politics: Deaf students’ inclusion in
the “hearing university”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 9(4), 389403.
Lang, H. G., Biser, E., Mousley, K., Orlando, R., & Porter, J. (2002). Tutoring in higher
education: Perceptions of deaf students, tutors, and teachers.
122
Lang, H. G., McKee, B. G., & Conner, K. N. (1993). Characteristics of effective teachers:
A descriptive study of perceptions of faculty and deaf college students. American
Annals of the Deaf, 138, 252-259.
Lang, H. G., Stinson, M. S., Kavanagh, F., Liu, Y., & Basile, M. (1998). Learning styles
of deaf college students and teaching behaviors of their instructors. Journal of the
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 16-27.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. (2008, March). Working
together for excellence in local government. Americans with Disabilities Act.
Publication. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/
legal/adainfo.aspx#introduction
Myers, M. J., & Taylor, E. M. (2000). Best practices for deaf and hard-of-hearing student
success in postsecondary education. JADARA, 34(1)13-28.
Napoli, A. R., & Wortman, P. M. (1998). Psychosocial factors related to retention and
early departure of two-year community college students. Research in Higher
Education, 39, 419-455.
National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from
http://www.ntid.rit.edu/about
National Technical Institute for the Deaf; Rochester Institute of Technology-annual
report: Archival Information. (2002-2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from
http://www.nitd.rit.edu/media/annual-report
123
National Technical Institute for the Deaf; Rochester Institute of Technology-annual
report: Archival Information. (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from
http://www.rit.edu/sites/default/files/annual_report2009.pdf
Noble, H. (2010). Improve the experiences of deaf students in higher education. British
Journal of Nursing, 19(13).
PEPNet Mission. Postsecondary Education Programs Network. Retrieved February 27,
2012, from http://www.pepnet.org/
Porter, J., Camerlengo, R., DePuye, M., & Sommer, M. (1999). Campus life and the
development of postsecondary deaf and hard of hearing students: Principles and
practices. A report of the National Task Force on Quality of Services in the
Postsecondary Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Northeast
Technical Assistance Center, Rochester Institution of Technology. (pp.12-14).
Rochester, New York.
Richardson, J.T.E. (2001). The representation and Attainment of Students with a Hearing
Loss at Open University. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3).
Schlosser, L. Z., & Foley, P. F. (2008, February). Ethical issues in multicultural studentfaculty mentoring relationships in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 16 (1) 63-75.
Schroedel, J., Watson, D., & Ashmore, D. H. (2003). A national research agenda for
postsecondary education of Deaf and hard of hearing students: A road map for
the future American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 67-73.
124
Services to Students with Disabilities office. Retrieved December 9, 2011, from
http://www.csus.edu/sswd.
Smith, J. A. (2004). Deaf students in college mainstream programs: Deaf Studies Today.
Vol.1.
Smith, K. L., & Rush, L. L. (2007). Counseling students who are deaf. In J. A. Lippincott
& R.B. Lippincott (Eds.), Special populations in college counseling: A handbook
for mental health professionals (pp. 231-245). Alexandria, VA: American
Counseling Association.
Stinson, M., Scherer, M., & Walter, G. (1987). Factors affecting persistence of deaf
college students. Research in Higher Education, 27, 244-258.
Stinson, M., & Walter, G. (1997). Improving retention for deaf and hard of hearing
students: What the research tells us. JADARA, 30(4), 14-23.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of the recent
literature. A Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
(2nd Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 167-177.
125
Tinto, V. (2004). Taking student retention seriously. In M. Rogers & H. Zimar (Eds.),
SEM anthology (pp.119-123). American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers.
TRIO Student Support Service Program (SSSP). Retrieved December 9, 2011, from
http://www.csus.edu/sswd/services/trio.html
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Students
with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation,
participation, and outcomes (NCES Publication No. 1999-187). Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office.
Vasek, D. (2005). Assessing the knowledge base of faculty at a private, four-year
institution. College Student Journal, 39(2), 307-15.
Wright, P., & Wright, D. P. (1998-2010). Section 504, The Americans with
Disabilities Act, and Education Reform: Prepared by PEER Project. Wrights Law
Publication. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/
section504.ada.peer.htm.