A Blended Classroom Program
Age Range of Intended Audience: 18+
Product Goals/Objectives: To gather information about reverse mainstream classrooms at oral
schools for the deaf and develop a model program for the preschool level.
Abstract
This paper discusses the results of a survey sent to OPTION schools with blended
classrooms after a literature review that examines the integration of children without disabilities
into classrooms with children with disabilities. The responses of these surveys were used to
develop a model program that could be used at the preschool level at a school for the deaf. First,
the results of each question on the survey are displayed and the discussion of those results
follows. The discussion includes characteristics of a model program. A schedule for a full-day
preschool reverse mainstreaming program is included after the discussion.
Introduction
There is a new trend arising in education - integrating children without disabilities into
special education classrooms and schools. Whereas mainstreaming involves incorporating
children with special needs into regular school classes, reverse mainstreaming or blended
classrooms integrates children without special needs into special education classes. In these
classrooms, learning usually occurs with individualized education and smaller class sizes.
Overall, reverse mainstreaming has many valuable benefits for all those involved. Some of these
include children gaining a greater sense of self and understanding diversity.
Although reverse mainstreaming can involve children with any disability, this project will
focus on ways develop a model program that will incorporate children with typical hearing into a
classroom with hearing-impaired children at the preschool level. The make up of the classroom,
benefits and challenges of including hearing children with hearing-impaired children, and ways
to begin the program will be examined in this paper. First, however, a literature review will help
Johnson
create an understanding of the best practices in integrating children in a reverse mainstream
classroom.
Literature Review
Because there are few resources on the inclusion of hearing students in a hearingimpaired classroom, this review will examine the integration of children without disabilities into
any special education classroom. In this review, classroom characteristics, social issues, and a
center-based approach to blended classrooms will be discussed.
2
Johnson
Classroom Characteristics
The number of students in the classroom and the ratio of students to teachers are
important characteristics to consider when developing a reverse mainstream program. According
to many researchers, a smaller class size with a better student to teacher ratio is essential for
creating a positive learning environment. Wasley (2002) believes that teachers should be
responsible for a smaller number of students so that they can get to know each student’s learning
preferences and style. It takes time and concentration to individualize each child’s learning
experience. In a classroom with a large number of students, such time and attention isn’t an
option. With a smaller number of students in each class, teachers are able to get to know every
student. Greenspan (1998) furthers this view by saying that teachers can get to know every
student by “interactively working with the children at all times” in small group settings so that
“all children receive individual or small group attention” (p. 415). Specifically, Greenspan’s
ideal classroom should contain two to three special needs children and seven to eight children
without special needs. An aide should be available for every one to two children with special
needs to facilitate interactions and learning.
Social Issues
Although teachers provide great social models for children, children are more likely to
learn from peer models that are similar to themselves. Therefore other children are often
potential teachers of social behaviors (Schum and Gfeller as cited in Bandura, 1986). Children
learn all types of behaviors from other children, both positive and negative. The teacher has an
important role to stop improper social behaviors between children. However, there are positive
behaviors that only can be learned from other children. In a school for the deaf, children may
have limited opportunities for social interaction with peers who are positive role models. This
3
Johnson
may be due to hearing impaired children not always having the appropriate pragmatic skills (i.e.
conversation initiation, eye contact, turn taking, acknowledgement of speaker, and seeking
clarification) of language for successful social interaction. Having different models (teachers
and peers) in the classroom can help facilitate social interaction, allow for more effective
communication, and allow for varied situations in which to communicate (Schum & Gfeller as
cited in Bandura, 1986).
There are many positive social benefits for children with disabilities who are educated
among typical developing peers. These include increased social initiations, an increase in the
development and generalization of communication skills, play skills, and social skills, and higher
parental expectations for their child’s future when their child has the opportunity to interact with
typically developing peers (Staub 1998). In a study conducted to assess the conversational skills
of children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing in an integrated setting, Duncan
found that there were no significant differences in the conversational skills used by the children
with hearing loss and the children with normal hearing (1999). Being involved in the integrated
setting helps keep the conversational skills up to par with their hearing peers.
There are also other social benefits for children with and without disabilities. GrenotScheyer, Fisher, and Staub (2000) found that when children with and without disabilities have
repeated opportunities to interact with and are in close physical proximity to each other for the
majority of the school day, the likelihood of their developing sustainable relationships over time
is increased greatly. These relationships may begin at school and continue outside of school, and
can last many years. Positive outcomes that can be seen after opportunities for interaction are
increased self-esteem, increased tolerance for individual differences, and growth in social
cognition (2000).
4
Johnson
Center-Based Approach to Learning
Most preschool and kindergarten level classrooms have centers for learning. Centers in
the classroom create a less structured environment where children can learn through exploration
and from peers. However, the number and type of centers vary. Some centers are set up where
the student learns on their own in a contrived situation to enhance a particular skill. Other
centers promote creativity and require other student’s thoughts and ideas. According to
Greenspan, an ideal center-based classroom allows the teacher and a small group of children to
work together so that the teacher can promote interaction by joining in the activity and following
the children’s leads (1998). In his classroom environment, centers should contain a range of toys
and learning materials that children and teachers can explore together, at a variety of levels, to
practice developmental, cognitive, social, language, and motor skills. This type of environment
allows for an increase in the opportunities for language, provides more experiences, and invites
curiosity and exploration (1998). This environment is beneficial for all children, but especially
for hearing-impaired children who will have increased opportunities for interaction with hearing
peers and opportunities for language.
Methods
Nine OPTION schools that had reverse mainstreaming programs were sent surveys
regarding their programs. The person most knowledgeable about the programs completed the
surveys. These people included principals, directors, teachers of the deaf, and speech and
language pathologists. Out of the nine schools to which the surveys were sent, six schools
responded.
Figure 1A shows the age/grade range of children in the classroom. The majority of
schools (66%) have a preschool reverse mainstream program. Seventeen percent (one school)
5
Johnson
continued the program through first grade. Another 17% (one school) only had a reverse
mainstream program from kindergarten to sixth grade.
Age/Grade Range of the Classroom
17%
Preschool
Elementary
Preschool & Elementary
17%
66%
Figure 1A: The Age/Grade Range in the Reverse Mainstream Classroom divided into preschool (age 3-5),
elementary (K-6) and preschool and elementary (all ages).
The average class size was six to ten students. To see the class size in more detail, please see
Figure 1B. Every school but one had more hearing-impaired children than hearing children in
the class. The low number of hearing students compared to hearing-impaired students helps with
any challenges that may arise in the classroom. For specific challenges, see question 11.
Number of Students in the Classroom
17%
0%
0%
0-5 students
6-10 students
11-15 students
15+ students
83%
Figure 1B: The average class size in a reverse mainstream classroom.
6
Johnson
Results
Results are broken down by survey question. Because some surveys were not answered
clearly or fully, the results are not an accurate reflection of all surveys. In addition, some
respondents answered the questions for a number of classrooms in their program; therefore,
information from the same respondent may appear more than once to accommodate information
from all classrooms that have a blended classroom.
Question 1: How many listening devices are used in the classroom? Figure 1 shows the total
number of listening devices from all the blended classrooms. Overall, there are more hearing aid
users than cochlear implant users or children who wear bone conduction aids. The number of
hearing aid users and FM systems used is about equal.
Listening Devices in the Classroom
25%
37%
Cochlear Implant Users
Hearing Aid Users
Bone Conduction Aids
FM Systems
0%
38%
Figure 1: This graph shows the total number of listening devices from all blended classrooms.
Question 2: How many professionals are involved in the classroom? Figure 2 shows the
number of professionals involved in the classrooms. Teachers of the deaf were included in every
classroom. Speech Language Pathologists were involved in every school but two (Vancouver
Oral Centre and ECHO Center). These schools did not specify who taught specific speech and
language goals in their curriculum. Only one school specified a regular education teacher in
7
Johnson
addition to a teacher for the deaf (ECHO). Every school but one (Hearing Language Enrichment
Program) had teacher aids to help the classroom teacher with daily activities and lessons.
Professionals in the Classroom
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ns
Su
er
e
n
hi
O
AT
v
ou
P
EL
T
L&
H
H
H
C
EC
C
nc
Va
Teacher Aids
Regular Education Teachers
Teachers of the Deaf
Speech & Language Pathologists
Figure 2: The number of professionals involved in the classroom by school.
Question 3: What is the student-teacher ratio? The responses to this question vary based
on the number of children in the class. Please see Figure 3 for responses by school.
Student-Teacher Ratios
Vancouver Oral Centre
CCHAT-San Diego
ECHO
3-5 children: 1 adult
3 children: 1 adult
18-20 children: 1 adult
4 children: 1 teacher of the deaf (resource)
2 children: 1 adult
4 children: 1 adult
4 children: 1 adult
Hearing Language Enrichment Program
Listen and Talk
Sunshine Cottage
Figure 3: Student-Teacher ratios per school.
Question 4: How much team collaboration among professionals is necessary? Responses
to this question varied. Every school met weekly to plan lessons. Most schools met in an
8
Johnson
informal way daily or emailed the professional to discuss anything that arose during the school
day that needed to be addressed. Staff development days were incorporated into the schedule to
discuss theory, plan/discuss curriculum, and/or talk about reports. See Figure 4 to see how often
each school met.
Collaboration Among Professionals
Daily
Weekly
Vancouver
X
X
CCHAT
X
X
ECHO
X
X
HEL
X
Listen and
Talk
X
Sunshine
X
Monthly
Semester
Staff Dev.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Figure 4: How often team collaboration among professionals was needed in each school.
Question 5: How is the program set up? Pull-out, resource room, and centers were the
most common types of responses. Pull-out would be defined as one student leaving the
classroom environment or singled out for one-on-one instruction in the classroom. Resource
room is where a group of children leave the classroom environment for clarification or additional
instruction. Centers are where the room is divided into areas where learning can occur with the
teacher and/or other students. Most respondents answered this question through an explanation
of their daily schedule; however, a table summarizing the types of programs is provided in
Figure 5. It seemed as though most classrooms pulled the hearing impaired students out either as
a group or individually for specific speech and language instruction. It was also noted that
9
Johnson
students were not necessarily taken into another area for instruction, but lessons were carried out
within the same classroom. Some schools used a combination of programs to fit their classroom
needs. To see the schedules provided by each school, please see Appendix A.
How Blended Classrooms are Set Up
Resource
Pull-Out
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vancouver
CCHAT
ECHO
HEL
Listen and Talk
Sunshine
Centers
X
X
Figure 5: The classroom arrangement to accommodate hearing and hearing impaired students in a blended
classroom for each school.
Question 6: What is the number of hearing and hearing-impaired children in the
classroom with other disabilities? Most of the classes did not have any hearing children with
other disabilities. In fact, there was only a total of one (25%) hearing student with a disability
(SMI). There were three hearing impaired students (75%) with disabilities other than hearing
impairments in all the schools surveyed.
Children with Other Disabilities
25%
Hearing-impaired children with other
disabilities
Hearing children with other
disabilities
75%
Figure 6: Total number of hearing and hearing-impaired children with other disabilities.
10
Johnson
Question 7: How are parents involved in the reverse mainstreaming program? All
schools reported some involvement of all parents (see Figure 7). In these schools, parents
volunteered in the classroom or participated in school-wide activities such as field trips,
classroom parties, or helping with various projects. However, some schools specifically reported
how parents of hearing-impaired children were involved in the classroom. Vancouver Oral
Centre, ECHO, Listen and Talk, and Sunshine Cottage reported that parents of hearing-impaired
children meet weekly with the classroom teacher to discuss speech and language objectives.
CCHAT and Hearing Enrichment Language Program did not specifically mention how parents of
hearing-impaired children were involved.
How All Parents are Involved in the Reverse Mainstreaming Program
Volunteer/Participate
in School Activities
Vancouver
CCHAT
ECHO
HELP
Listen & Talk
Sunshine Cottage
X
X
X
X
X
Parent
Meetings/Conferences
X
X
Observe in Class
X
X
X
Figure 7: The involvement of all parents in the reverse mainstreaming program in each school.
Question 8: How did your school promote a reverse mainstreaming classroom to parents
of hearing children? Schools used a variety of ways to attract parents of hearing children. Echo
Center has a reverse mainstreaming program as part of their school mission, so this question was
not applicable to them. In response to the question, some schools explained how they get parents
to consider the reverse mainstreaming program. The total responses of these four schools
(Vancouver, CCHAT, Sunshine Cottage, Listen and Talk) are shown in Figures 8. All the
different ways of making the program known to parents of hearing children were used equally
and did not cost much to implement. Vancouver and Sunshine Cottage used advertisements in
11
Johnson
newspapers or magazines or fliers on community bulletin boards to attract parents to take a look
at their schools and program. However, Sunshine Cottage no longer uses advertisements or fliers
because word of mouth now keeps parents interested in looking at the program. Other
preschools and churches in the neighboring community also recommend the reverse mainstream
program to parents on their waiting list. Schools that have a program set up in this way include
Sunshine Cottage and Vancouver. Sunshine Cottage and CCHAT obtain students from children
of school staff, and Sunshine Cottage, Listen and Talk, and Vancouver gain students through
word of mouth from parents or school staff. To see a table of the responses by school, see
Figure 9.
Other schools described how they continue to attract parents of hearing children by
explaining the advantages for their children to be a part of their program (Hearing Enrichment
Language Program and Listen and Talk). HELP shows parents how their program can provide
an opportunity for children to become acquainted with the preschool routine through a languagerich environment and learning to listen. Listen and Talk emphasizes the low student-teacher
ratio and language-enriched activities.
Ways to Attract Parents of Hearing Children
25%
25%
Ads/Fliers
Recommendations
School Staff
Word of Mouth
25%
25%
Figure 8: The number of ways schools used to attract parents of hearing children through advertisements
and fliers, recommendations by churches and preschools, attendance of children of school staff, and
recommendations by word of mouth.
12
Johnson
How Schools Attract Parents of Hearing Children
Advertisements/Fliers
Vancouver
Recommendations
from Preschools/
Churches
X
Word of
Mouth
X
CCHAT
Sunshine
School Staff
X
X
X
X
Listen and Talk
X
X
Figure 9: Ways to attract parents of hearing children by school.
Question 9: What is the cost for normal hearing and hearing-impaired children to attend
school in the reverse mainstreaming classroom? The schools answered this question in a variety
of ways (some replied with daily costs, some with monthly costs, and some with yearly costs), so
a range of the cost will not be computed and analyzed. The aim of this question was trying to
determine if the cost is higher for a hearing or for a hearing-impaired child to attend the program.
One school charged the same amount for hearing children. Another school did not charge
anything for the hearing children to attend. But in all cases, it cost the same as or more to
educate a hearing-impaired child than a hearing child.
Question 10: What are some of the benefits of having hearing-impaired children in the
reverse mainstreaming classroom? One outstanding benefit every school mentioned is having
peer models for language and behavior. Schools reported that hearing children gave the hearingimpaired children models for every aspect of language, including pragmatics (i.e. conversation
initiation, eye contact, turn taking, acknowledgement of speaker, and seeking clarification).
They also provided a behavior model for hearing-impaired children. A few of the schools named
13
Johnson
have models for parents to know what appropriate behavior is for their hearing-impaired child.
One school cited higher teacher expectations for all children in the class as a benefit, and two
schools reported legal issues, such as having a least restrictive environment for hearing-impaired
children as an advantage. Figure 10 shows all the benefits of a reverse mainstream program.
Benefits of a Reverse Mainstream Program
Peer Models
for children
Models for
parents
Vancouver
X
X
CCHAT
X
ECHO
X
HELP
X
Listen and Talk
X
X
Sunshine
Cottage
X
X
Higher Teacher
Expectations
Legal Issues
X
X
X
Figure 10: Each schools benefits of having hearing and hearing-impaired children in the same class.
Question 11: What are some of the challenges of having a reverse mainstream
classroom? Most schools reported challenges with the hearing students’ language or social skills
or challenges among teachers’ expectations or experiences. Challenges with students included
not having English as a first language, talking above the hearing-impaired children’s language
level or controlling the lesson so much that hearing-impaired children do not have a chance to
participate. Many schools reported social concerns as children grew up and interactions were
based on verbal exchanges instead of playing. Schools that cited challenges with teachers’
expectation or experiences felt that teachers should continue to have high expectations for all
14
Johnson
students. They should also have experience with early childhood education so that the
curriculum could be developmentally appropriate. To view the types of challenges in greater
detail, see Figure 11.
Challenges of a Reverse Mainstream Classroom
37%
38%
Language
Social Skills
Teacher Expectations/Experience
25%
Figure 11: Percentages of schools with inadequate language skills of hearing children, inadequate social skills
of hearing children, and low or inadequate teacher expectations or experience that were cited as challenges in
the reverse mainstream class.
Question 12: Does your school use standardized evaluation tool/tests to measure the
children’s language, speech, and reading progress? If yes, in what areas have these results
changed due to reverse mainstreaming classrooms? For this question, some schools answered
yes, but did not answer further. The percentage of schools that reported using standardized tests
is shown in Figure 12.
Schools That Use Standardized Evaluations/Tools
0%
Yes
50%
No
No Response
50%
Figure 12: The percentage of schools that used standardized evaluations/tools to measure speech, language,
and reading abilities in the reverse mainstream classroom.
15
Johnson
Discussion
Question 1 deals with the number of listening devices in the classroom. The results
indicated more hearing aid users than any other device. Children with hearing impairments
ranging from mild to severe usually wear hearing aids while children with a profound loss
usually wear cochlear implants. In addition, children who wear cochlear implants may also wear
a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear which may account for the higher number of hearing aid
users. Another possibility is that children who wear hearing aids and have more residual hearing
adjust easily in blended classrooms. The number of hearing aid users and FM systems used is
about equal probably because most classrooms use personal FM systems in addition to sound
field systems, which are easily compatible with hearing aids.
The low number of bone conduction aids may suggest that children who need these aids
are not prevalent or are in different schools. To have a bone conduction aid, the child must have
a conductive loss that prohibits sound from entering through the outer or middle ear due to
microtia, atresia, etc. These types of conditions are rare and when they do occur, the hearing is
restored to a normal to mild loss where special schooling may not be required.
A model blended classroom should include children with various types of devices and
hearing levels as long as the child’s language would improve from interactions with hearing
peers. The children should have good auditory skills and self-advocacy skills with their devices.
Question 2 asks about the involvement of professionals in the classroom. Speech
Language Pathologists were involved in the majority of the classrooms. In some cases, the
teacher of the deaf may have been involved with teaching speech and language in some schools
with and without the involvement of Speech and Language Pathologists. All classrooms had a
16
Johnson
teacher of the deaf. This is important since these oral deaf schools and hearing-impaired children
need instruction from a teacher of the deaf. Teacher aids were often involved in helping with the
daily activities and lessons. What was most surprising from the results is the low number of
regular education teachers involved in the classroom. From the answers to other survey
questions, it became apparent that some teachers of the deaf were also qualified to teach regular
education. So although there was not a separate teacher certified to teach regular education, the
teacher of the deaf had either an undergraduate or master’s degree in regular education in
addition to their certification for teaching deaf children. This is important since a teacher should
know how to teach both hearing and hearing-impaired children in blended classrooms.
In a model blended classroom, the classroom teacher should have knowledge about
teaching hearing and hearing impaired children. A master’s degree for educating the deaf is
necessary since the teacher needs to be knowledgeable in using appropriate language techniques
and understanding other difficulties hearing impaired children have learning. Knowledge about
how hearing children learn is also important so that the hearing children get the best education in
the classroom. Therefore, certification in deaf education and regular education should be a must
in a model blended classroom.
Question 3 asks about the student-teacher ratio. This number will vary based on the type
of program the school has (resource or pull-out, center-based, team teaching). As the literature
on class size suggests, a smaller number of students for every teacher is beneficial for promoting
learning and social interactions. Most of the schools surveyed have one to four students for
every adult, which coincides with the current literature. Therefore, a model blended classroom
should have about four students for every teacher or teacher aid.
17
Johnson
Question 4 deals with team collaboration among professionals. Professionals from most
schools met formally once a week and daily as needed. It should be noted that professionals
could collaborate more often than is noted in the responses to this survey. They met to plan
lessons, discuss objectives and interventions, evaluate and review theory, and discuss and
exchange individual’s goals. This suggests that collaboration is essential to providing a valuable
education to all students in the blended classroom. However, collaboration is essential in any
school whether or not a blended classroom is present. In a model blended classroom,
professionals should have formal meetings once a week to plan lessons and discuss individual
students and informally as needed.
Question 5 asks about how the classrooms are set up to give information about how the
curriculum is carried out. Programs that are more center-based may have more social
interactions between hearing and hearing-impaired students than more structured settings with
pull out or resource, for example. Since the social interaction between hearing and hearing
impaired children in the same setting is one of the major advantages to having a blended
classroom, a program that can capitalize on those interactions is the most beneficial for every
student in the classroom. Therefore, a center-based classroom is the most beneficial for a
blended classroom. Pull out is necessary for speech and language instruction, but all students
could be pulled out for some speech and language work so that every child feels apart of the
classroom. This pull out could be done in any center time throughout the day.
For a model
program schedule with centers, please see the schedule following the conclusion of this paper.
Question 6 involves the number of hearing and hearing-impaired children with other
disabilities in the classroom. Hearing children should have age appropriate language skills so
that they can be good language models for the hearing-impaired children. As long as the hearing
18
Johnson
children’s language is appropriate, including the pragmatic aspect of language, then having
hearing children with other disabilities may not hinder the goal of a blended classroom. In fact,
these children may benefit from the specialized instruction necessary for hearing-impaired
children. Hearing impaired children should not have any other disabilities that would require
support that would keep them out of the classroom for much of the day or from interacting
appropriately with hearing children. This should be determined by a case-by-case basis. To help
determine who will succeed for the reverse mainstream classroom, please see the Educational
Placement Recommendation Guide from Sunshine Cottage School for Deaf Children in
Appendix B. To use this guide, a teacher highlights the block in each factor category in which
the student’s factors are best described. Placement can be recommended in the column which
the child has the most characteristics.
Question 7 asks about parent involvement. It is necessary for parents of hearing-impaired
children to be more involved in the program because the parents need to supplement the speech
and language goals progress at home in addition to what is done at school. It is possible that the
schools are unable to spend enough time developing the children’s speech and language enough
throughout the day, and the parents are needed to supplement at home to keep the children
progressing. However, it is also possible that these parents are involved to keep informed of
what the child is accomplishing and needs additional work on in school. It is essential that all
parents are involved in the classroom or school in some way. Parents of hearing and hearingimpaired children need to feel as an equal part of the school, and being involved is one way to
accomplish this.
Question 8 asks about ways to attract parents of hearing children to a school for the deaf.
Getting the first parents interested in a reverse mainstream program would be the most
19
Johnson
challenging task. With an appropriate program, continuing to attract parents of hearing children
will become easier. The school that will implement blended classrooms should first look at its
staff to find appropriate peers for the reverse mainstream class. If more students are needed, the
school should look at the neighborhood surrounding the school. If there is a preschool nearby
that has a waiting list, the school could offer to take those students. The school could also put up
fliers or advertise in the surrounding community if necessary. A reverse mainstream class could
attract many students with little or no cost to the school if the aforementioned points are taken
into consideration.
Once normal hearing candidates are looking at the reverse mainstream class as an option,
the school should focus on selling the idea of why this type of classroom is more beneficial to
hearing children than in a typical preschool. As this will be mentioned in greater detail with the
discussion of the following questions, the greatest benefits to hearing children is gaining an
understanding of the diversity of learning and having the opportunity to interact in a languagerich environment with a small class and individualized instruction. In addition, using teachers’
outstanding qualifications is an added bonus many other schools may not have since CID has
many teachers with a master’s degree in the education field.
Question 9 focuses on the cost to attend school in the reverse mainstream class. One way
to attract parents of hearing children is to make the cost affordable while giving a quality
education. However, a school does need to consider the expenses of educating the children and
incorporate that money into the parents’ costs. When figuring the cost for hearing and hearingimpaired children, schools should set up a separate scholarship fund that allocates money in a
variety of ways. The funds should be allocated to all children regardless of having a disability or
not, or only to children with normal hearing as they give to children with hearing impairments so
20
Johnson
that every child and family feels like an equal partner in the school. In addition, the school
should look at other preschool programs to offer competitive costs for hearing children. This is
an additional way to gain monies for the continuation of the program as well as a way to attract
parents to the program. Overall, a model program should consider the expenses of a child’s
education, be competitive with other area preschools, and be fair when offering financial
assistance when charging parents for their children’s education in the reverse mainstream
program.
Question 10 asks about the benefits of having hearing and hearing-impaired children in
the same class. All schools reported that peer language models in the classroom as being
beneficial to hearing-impaired children. Having appropriate peer language models in the
classroom can help boost the progress of language development of hearing-impaired children.
They can also give examples of appropriate pragmatic skills and typical behavior models. These
peers also let parents know what typical behavior is so that if something arises with their child,
parents know that the problem is a typical developmental behavior instead of a communication
problem. Another benefit discussed was higher teacher expectations. Having hearing children in
the classroom let teachers know what a typical child can do which may increase their expectation
for hearing-impaired children. The last benefit mentioned was legal issues. When schools have
hearing children participate in the classroom, all children benefit from seeing the hearing
children in school, thus, providing a least restrictive environment for the hearing impaired
children. When districts want to place children inappropriately because they are not in the least
restrictive environment due to lack of social peers, a reverse mainstream class helps negate that
argument.
21
Johnson
A model program will incorporate all children for some part of the day into the reverse
mainstream classroom so that the least restrictive environment can be accomplished. This can be
done during circle time, center time, outside play, snack, and lunch. Experience with hearing
peers can also provide great social, language, and behavior skills for children not in the reverse
mainstream class.
Question 11 asks about the challenges that are brought by having a reverse mainstream
classroom. None of these challenges were surprising. As long as hearing children are screened
to ensure a good fit in the classroom and teachers are trained appropriately, then these challenges
can be less of a problem.
Question 12 involves the use of standardized evaluations and tools to measure language,
speech, and reading and attributing the results to the reverse mainstreaming program. Although
standardized tests may be used, the results cannot be attributed only to the reverse mainstreaming
class. Many other factors could contribute to the increase or decrease of the results. However, in
a model blended classroom program, standardized tests normed on hearing children should be
used so that hearing–impaired children’s abilities could be compared to that of normally hearing
children.
Question 13 dealt with additional information to help gain knowledge about the
curriculum and the program. These comments were used to gain a better understanding of how
the school’s program was implemented and helped develop the model program discussed in this
paper. Therefore, the comments were not used in determining results.
Conclusion
Through the responses on the survey and the literature review, a model program for the
preschool level can be created. In this model program, hearing-impaired children should have
22
Johnson
language at a level that will allow them to communicate and interact with hearing peers. Hearing
children should be able to provide good social and language models for the hearing-impaired
children. Classes should be small to help individualize the education and encourage interaction
among all students. Small class sizes is especially important when free play or center based
instruction is occurring throughout the day when interaction and communication is the most
important social aspect.
It is important to remember that parents of hearing children and the children should feel a
part of the program and school in order for the program to be successful. All parents should be
involved in some way whether it is continuing speech and language at home or volunteering in
the classroom. It is also important to remember that a variety of model programs can be
successful. Each school has its own mission with its own standards and unique children.
Schools should tailor the program to meet the needs of all the students. If the children in the
class need structured lessons in a particular area, then schools should do what is necessary to
ensure the children continue to progress in all areas. Furthermore, the model program provided
in this paper can be used as a guide to getting a reverse mainstream program started.
Future research should concentrate on the social aspects of the interaction between
hearing and hearing-impaired children in the classroom to gain a better understanding of the
progress in all aspects of language of the hearing-impaired children. Studies should examine the
conversational skills of hearing-impaired children and how those skills are related to initiating
and maintaining social interactions. In addition, studies should address how hearing children
respond to hearing-impaired children in the blended classroom by examining how they repair
conversation when breakdowns occur.
23
Johnson
Model Blended Classroom Schedule
8:30-8:45
Device Check
8:45-9:15
Circle Time to focus on language and routines
Music and movement, calendar, weather, jobs
9:15-10:00
Centers
Activities to reinforce theme using vocabulary, language, cognition,
motor, and social objectives
10:00-10:30 Snack
Facilitate sharing, table manners, asking and answering questions, turntaking, requesting, etc.
10:30-11:00
Expressive Language
Language enrichment and expansion according to language assessment
goals
11:00-11:30
Pre-Academics
Phonics, phonemic awareness, math, etc. for beginning kindergarten skills
11:30-12:00
Lunch
12:00-1:30
Nap/Outside Play
1:30-2:00
Story
Emergent Literacy with one book for week and book-related activities
2:00-2:30
Art
Theme-related activities to facilitate language and advance gross and fine
motor skills
2:30-3:00
Circle Time/Dismissal
Finger plays, short language activity (surprise box/bag), recap of day by
reviewing key concepts and vocabulary, etc. to facilitate language and
reinforce concepts throughout the day.
24
Johnson
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Duncan, J. (1999). Conversational skills of children with hearing loss and children with normal
hearing in an integrated setting. The Volta Review, 101 (4), 193-212.
Greenspan, S. I. & Wieder, S. (1998). The Child with Special Needs: Encouraging Intellectual
and Emotional Growth. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Grenot-Scheyer, M. (2000). “A framework for understanding inclusive education.” In M.
Grenot-Scheyer, M. Fisher, & D. Staub (Eds.), At the end of the day: Lessons learned in
inclusive education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Staub, D. (1998). Delicate Threads: Friendships Between Children With and Without Special
Needs in Inclusive Settings. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.
Wasley, P.A. (2002). Small Classes, small schools: the time is now. Educational Leadership, 59
(5). 6-10.
25
Johnson
Appendices
26
Johnson
Appendix A
Hearing Enrichment Language Program Preschool Blended Classroom Schedule
I. Meet & Greet (9:30am)
This is the first part of the day where we play with selected manipulatives until all
our friends arrive, check the hearing aids or implants to see if we are all up and
running, do the Ling 6 sounds (/a/, /u/, /i/, /m/, /s/, / /) to check for hearing
sensitivity, and finally it is the perfect opportunity for some “individual time.”
II. Morning Meeting (Opening 9:45am)
These is where we all come together as a group and read our morning message,
have an activity that helps to introduce the morning’s theme, and do the calendar.
III. Language Experience
This is a structured activity in which we manipulate into a language
enrichment/expansion and a learning to listen time.
IV. Transition/Filler
This is the time where we go back to the “circle” for –songs, finger plays, selected
activities, etc… This gives us a chance for everyone to meet back together and
allow some quick clean up time.
V. Outside (10:30am)
Not only is this a time for the kids to let out their jiggles, but again it is a time we
can follow their lead and always be thinking about language
enrichment/expansion and learning to listen.
VI. Snack
This time is designed for more than fuel and a rest! Again we are always thinking
about language enrichment/expansion and learning to listen. We try to target
specific pragmatic skills such as turn taking, requesting, and responding to
requests during this time.
VII. Transition/Filler (11:00am)
See above.
VIII. Language Experience #2
See above.
IX. Transition/Filler
See above.
27
Johnson
X. Sensory Table
This is a fun and sometimes messy time that allows the children to integrate all
five of their senses for exploring and again a perfect opportunity for language
enrichment/expansion and learning to listen.
XI. Transition/Filler
See above.
XII.Closing (11:30am)
This is where we recap our day by reviewing key concepts and vocabulary,
reading a story, and singing our “Happy Day” song!
CCHAT Center-San Diego Preschool Blended Classroom Schedule
9:00-9:20
Music
9:20-9:40
Amplification Check and Fine Motor Activities
9:40-10:00
Circle (song, listening, language activity)
10:00-10:20
Gross Motor or Art
10:20-10:45
Snack
10:45-11:05
Recess
11:05-11:15
Sustained silent reading and individual speech
11:15-11:40
Pre-Academics
(share items from letter can, listening, Slingerland)
11:40-12:00
Cognition
12:00-12:20
Lunch
12:20-12:40
Sharing or structured free play
12:40-12:55
Story
12:55-1:00
Closing songs: the Alphabet and “Hope You Have a Happy Day”
28
Johnson
Vancouver Oral Centre Four-Year-Old Blended Classroom Schedule
9:00-10:30
Opening songs, calendar, weather, math/language arts (small groups) play centers
with Early Childhood Education teacher or teaching assistant and teacher of the
deaf pulls-out for tutoring.
10:30-11:00 Snack/Bathrooms/Recess
11:00-12:00 Story time, large group circle time, music and movement
12:00-1:00
Lunch/recess
1:00-1:30
Story time, rest time with quiet music
1:30-2:30
Play centers (teacher of the deaf tutors and sometimes includes a hearing child
with a hearing-impaired child to play language games)
2:30-3:00
Clean up, story time, singing, dismissal
Listen and Talk Preschool Blended Classroom Schedule
12:30
Greetings and Circle Time
Songs, sharing, weather, surprise box
12:55
Small Group
Focused listening/language/cognitive objective practice
1:30
Motor Group
Integration of gross motor skills with communication
1:45
Story Time
Opportunity to interact as a group with books. The books are chosen to
reinforce targeted vocabulary and language objectives.
1:55
Snack
Opportunity to facilitate sharing, asking questions among children,
answering questions among children
2:10
Free Choice
Children choose activities provided in open centers around the room. The
activities are carefully chosen to reinforce targeted language, cognitive,
motor, and social objectives. Adults facilitate these targets as the children
play.
2:40-2:45
Clean Up and Ending Circle
29
Johnson
Sunshine Cottage Three-Year-Old Blended Classroom Schedule
8:15-9:00
Centers/Audiology/Speech (5 min/ch)
9:00-9:30
Circle Time
9:30-9:55
Recess (M,W), Gym (T, Th), Music (F)
9:55-10:10
Snack
10:10-10:30 Emergent Literacy & Story time in Library (F)
10:30-11:15 Speech for Hearing-impaired children, Centers for Hearing children
11:15-12:00 Language/Fine Motor in small groups
12:00-12:25 Lunch and Calendar
12:30-2:00
Nap
2:00-2:15
Snack
2:15-2:30
Outdoor play
30
Johnson
31
Appendix B
Educational Placement Recommendations Guide
for___________________________________
Date___________________
Recommended Placement
FACTORS
Referral to
Other Programs
Provisional
Speech
Instruction –
Intense
Intervention
Non-Verbal
Intelligence
<70
71-84
Residual
Hearing
no pattern
perception
despite
intervention
no pattern
perception-but no
intervention
pattern
perception
some word
recognition;
stereotypic
words/phrases
Speech
Communication
Attitude/Oral
Initiative
non-verbal
despite
intervention or
limited comm.
intention
vocalizes to convey
message; emerging
communicative
intentions
Vocabulary
Acquisition
Attitude
fewer than 10
spoken words
despite
intervention
may be/is able to
acquire words with
consistent, frequent
repetition &
reinforcement
rich
communicative
intention; needs
help to
ask/answer ?s;
oral in structured
settings
acquires
vocabulary when
instruction is
carefully
structured
Language %ile
Rank
0-10 despite
intervention
10 – 20 %ile (H.I.
Norms)
21-50%ile (H.I.
Norms)
Educational
Background/
Academic
Characteristics
* sign language in
the home *not
meeting IEP
objectives; not
learning
Motivation
little/no
motivation
attentive
eager to learn;
participates
Behavior &
Work Habits
*inappropriate in
most situations
*inadequate work
habits
*little support
despite intervention *nonEnglish speaking
despite requests
*non-use of aud.
equipment
*responds to
correction
*inadequate but no
training
*no support, but
no intervention
*learning Eng.;
learning to
understand hearing
loss
*appropriate in
*appropriate in transitions and
structure *needs
unstructured settings *always completes
help to work
homework *works independently
alone
Provides oral language input:
diagnosed
impairment(s)
obstructive to oral
language
acquisition
unable to
immediately recall
list or items
(AGE-1) or
match # of
syllables in simple
imitations despite
intervention
oral-motor
impairment
affecting expressive
language
Family Support
Neurological
Soft Signs
Auditory
Memory for
Language
Speech
Emphasis:
Self-contained
Mainstream
Placement for
PE, Electives,
&/or Strong
Subject
Full Mainstream
w/ Support
Minimum Support
101-115
>115
consistent word
recognition
continues to advance
in aud. abilities
listens for new
information
independently
makes self
understood;
enjoys talking
with peers;
follows
directions
initiates; asks &
answers ?s willingly;
states when doesn’t
understand
participates in
discussions, has a
positive rapport with
teachers
initiates w/ peers
solutions to difficult
communication
situations (e.g., P.A.)
shows emerging
ability to acquire
words in
context
acquires many
words through
running speech and
play w/ peers
(incidental learning
aggressively seeks
labels for new
concepts/actions/thi
ngs; learns 20 new
words/week
uses media resources
(not adults) for vocab.
acquisition; learns new
words from reading
51-99%ile (H.I.
Norms); <6 on
hearing norms
6 – 16 (Hearing
Norms); learns new
syntax on the run
>16 (Hearing Norms)
85-100
*speech intelligibility is an issue
no previous
responding adequately to oral
schooling or
education – reaches IEP goals
limited language
annually
growth
unable to
immediately recall
list of items (AGE1) or match # of
syllables in simple
imitations, but no
training
Mainstream –
Except for English
& Reading
accepts
challenges;
assumes
responsibility
*on age/grade level
*on age/grade level
previous successful
except for language
in all subjects, or
mainstream experience
& reading *solves
within one year
word problems
*takes written tests
*writes full
sentences
seeks information, asks for help, functions independently, especially with
equipment; uses conversational repair strategies w/o reminder
*w/direction, not always
*appropriately
appropriate; *expects speech
*has appropriately high
for communication
expectations
*reads to child; * attends meetings; *reads notes & assists
w/homework; *can teach child * consistently uses aud.
equipment
diagnosed learning disabilities
no other apparent
impairments except
delayed
lang/reading
is learning to
chunk auditory
information in
order to
remember more
follows threestep directions
with context
clues
attends to series of
oral directions;
comprehends oral
instruction in a grp.
Setting
*appropriate in almost all settings *works well in
groups *organized
*actively seeks appropriate additional services as
needed;
*monitors child’s progress;
*requests conferences
no impairments
completes language tasks (analysis, questions,
fill-in-blank) auditorily; remembers details from
auditorily presented story/topic
Is hearing loss the major handicap? (This guide is based on hearing loss as the primary handicap.) 5/98
30