avteducationtalk.files.wordpress.com · web viewstudents with a disability in grades seven...

Running Head: PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT MODEL

1

Personnel Development Model

Alison King

Virginia Commonwealth University

SEDP 706: Personnel Development in Special Education

Spring 2014

PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT MODEL 2

Personnel Development in Oral Deaf Education

Pre-service and in-service teacher training has evolved in recent years as a result of the

demand for learners to demonstrate progress on measureable outcomes dictated by changes in

public policy. Educational researchers have been charged to document teaching methodologies

that meet the needs of diverse learners present in every classroom. Additionally, due to medical

advancements combined with the educational benefits of inclusion practices, there is an increase

in the number of students identified as having a hearing loss being educated in general education

classrooms who are required to meet grade level expectations. Concepts emerged to help leaders

meet the new expectations set forth by policy changes; the concepts included the development of

21st century skills in children using the How People Learn Framework (HPL), Adaptive

Expertise (AE), and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). This paper examines outcome

measures of students with disabilities, the educational trends emerging from changes in public

policy, the crucial need for these trends to be part of the education of the professionals who

provide services to these children, and how strategic Personnel Development can meet this

critical area of need.

Public Policy and Measureable Outcomes

For students with or without disabilities, educational outcomes have traditionally been

measured in quantifiable terms as reported by state and national databases (Individuals with

Disabilities Improvement Act [IDEIA] P.L. 108-446, 2004; No Child Left Behind [NCLB] P.L.

107-110, 2001; Virginia Department of Education, 2012). For example, in 2011, only 48.41% of

students with a disability, as defined by the IDEIA (P.L. 108-446), were awarded a regular

diploma upon graduation in Virginia according to the Virginia Department of Education

Performance Report (Virginia Department of Education, 2012). During that same year, 1,096


students with a disability in grades seven through twelve dropped out of school. The dropout rate

nationally for students with a hearing impairment is 44.4% (Blanchfield, Dunbar, Feldman, &

Gardner, 2001).

For students identified as having a hearing-impairment in Virginia, the data collected by

the Virginia Department of Education is similar to students with disabilities overall as well as

national trends (Virginia Department of Education, 2012). For the year 2012-2013, only 41.54%

of students identified as having a hearing-impairment passed the Virginia Standards of Learning

(SOL) Assessment in Reading. It should be noted that when alternative assessments such as the

Virginia Alternative Assessment Program, Virginia Grade Level Assessment, or Virginia

Modified Achievement Tests were given to assess reading proficiency, pass rates varied from

26% to 90% respectively. Additionally, only 52.31% of students identified educationally as

hearing-impaired passed the Virginia SOL for Math. The same variability was seen when the

Virginia Alternative Assessment Program and Virginia Modified Achievement Tests were given

in Math with pass rates fluctuating between 47% to 95% respectively (Virginia Department of

Education, 2013).

In 2011, the employment rate for individuals with disabilities in the United States was

32.6% (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics,

2011) while the employment rate for individuals with a hearing-impairment ages 18-44 was 58%

and ages 45-64 was only 46% (Blanchfield, Dunbar, Feldman, & Gardner, 2001). The poverty

rate for individuals with disabilities was 28.6% nationally (Rehabilitation Research and Training

Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics, 2011). Datson, Riehle, and Rutkowski (2012)

discussed the circumstances in the economic climate have continued to change since the

implementation of laws (IDEIA, NCLB, & the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,P.L. 93-112) while the


national employment rate for individuals with disabilities has consistently been 30%. How can

the public education system potentially improve these outcomes and the outcomes for all

learners?

Emerging Educational Trends

In order to improve post-school outcomes, researchers have begun to document the skills

necessary for employment and continuing education. The National Research Council (2012)

compiled and documented the skills needed to obtain and retain employment. Additionally, the

How People Learn framework (HPL), Adaptive Expertise (AE), & Universal Design for

Learning (UDL) provide guidance for not only the education of children, but the education of

teachers.

21st Century Skills

According to The National Research Council (2012), students require a variety of

academic skills in order to have successful post-school outcomes. Influences from employers and

politicians expanded the role of the education system to include life skills. These 21st century

skills from the NRC (2012) included: (a) the ability to problem solve, (b) think critically,

communicate effectively in oral and written forms, (c) collaborate on teams, and (d) have self-

management skills. Historically, oral and written forms of communication have been at the

center of controversy in deaf education. For over 40 years, research studies have documented the

difficulty of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in obtaining reading skills comparable to

their hearing peers (Conrad, 1979; Traxler, 2000; Sheetz, 2012). Conrad (1979) documented

delays in the area of phonemic awareness in children with a hearing loss and found that these

skills were strongly correlated to reading comprehension. Traxler (2000) found that the majority

of children with a hearing loss graduate high school with a fourth grade reading level.


Considering the NRC (2012) findings, these basic skills are directly linked to post-school

outcomes.

21st century skills fall within three domains of competence: (a) cognitive, (b)

intrapersonal, and (c) interpersonal. The cognitive domain referred to the memory and reasoning

skills while interpersonal domain referred to the ability to express oneself and communicate with

others. The intrapersonal skills involved an individual’s ability to manage behavior, set goals,

and perseverance to achieve goals. Surprisingly, cognitive skills were not predictive of

educational outcomes. The NRC showed that interpersonal and intrapersonal skills played an

important role in employment in various occupations (NRC, 2012). Individualized Education

Plans (IEPs) historically have addressed goals for: reading, writing, math, study skills, language,

while providing opportunities for students with disabilities access to the curriculum. Wehmeyer

(2006) documented that IEP goals were not directly linked to the general education curriculum

and that IEP teams should consider what Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strategies will be

necessary for a student to make progress in the general curriculum. Likewise, educators should

also consider the potential impact of addressing interpersonal and intrapersonal skills. The

feasibility of charging special education teachers with addressing these services in IEP

development, just as they are required to address transition services, needs to be addressed

through research, teacher education programs as well as policy requirements.

How People Learn Framework

The How People Learn (HPL) framework provides guidance on instituting 21st century

skills in the classroom for the education of all students (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

The HPL Framework is comprised of four areas: knowledge-centered, student-centered,

assessment-centered, and the larger community centeredness. HPL addresses “deeper learning”


as well as “transfer” in several ways. First, the level of background knowledge for each learner is

assessed. There is a paradigm shift away from merely rote memorization of facts to having a real

world connection with the material being taught. Comprehension and deeper learning are

experience dependent. Children must have some connection in order to truly understand and be

able to transfer their knowledge to novel situations. For example, a preschooler who is learning

about animals may call every large animal with four legs a cow until they are exposed to new

language and their concept changes by introducing horse, zebra, or moose. These new basic

vocabulary words cannot be introduced one time or with one person. They must have multiple

exposures with various mediums and contexts until they are able to meaningfully apply their new

knowledge independently. Knowing how to access the facts and then being to apply them to a

real world situation is the key conceptually within the HPL framework (Darling-Hammond &

Bransford, 2005).

Second, formative assessment is based on developmental theories such as Vgotsky’s

theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and his idea of scaffolding to maximize learning

(NRC, 2012; IRIS, nd). Using these theories as a basis for learning, teachers are able to develop

not merely recitation of facts for summative assessments, but rather critical thinking and problem

solving skills that are part of the NRC report on 21st Century skills (2012). That same

preschooler mentioned earlier may be ready for learning horse, zebra, or moose, but they are not

ready for the third grade Virginia Standards of Learning Assessment (SOL) on ecosystems

(Virginia Department of Education, 2010). For children with a hearing loss, the language level of

that child must be taken into consideration. Late identification of hearing loss, late amplification,

and absence of early intervention services are directly correlated with latent language

development (Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003). This latent development requires teachers to have a deep


understanding of development as to meet the educational requirements of children with a hearing

loss.

In order to prepare each student to be adequately prepared for the SOL assessment,

educators must consider a developmental progression of skills with regards to language,

auditory, social, and emotional contexts. Developmental considerations have to be made in order

to maximize learning and not lead to frustration on the part of the learner or the teacher. This can

also be the case for a third grader who may know the names of these four animals, but believes

that they only live on a farm. It is important to assess their background knowledge in order to

shape their learning and provide scaffolding in order to acquire new knowledge. This requires a

clear understanding of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in which the student has

appropriate background knowledge for what is being taught as well as being challenged without

reaching a level of frustration. This can be accomplished by using scaffolds, or supports, to reach

the upper limits of an individual ZPD (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

Additionally, a child’s learning is mediated by the communities in which they live and

learn. Teachers must connect students to the classroom community, school community, and the

community in which they live in order to optimize their learning. Thus, teachers can connect

classroom learning to the child’s experiences outside of the classroom leading to deeper and

more meaningful understanding (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

Deeper learning and understanding is mitigated by increasing the overall goals of

students as a subgroup to increase their performance. Typically, children who have a hearing loss

have been held to lesser standards than their hearing peers and as a result these students have

graduated high school with 4th grade reading levels as indicated by 40 years of research (Conrad,

1979; Sheetz, 2012). As educators, we must hold these children to a higher standard of learning


as expected within their own communities in order to institute global change and improved

outcomes for this low-incidence disability population.

Adaptive Expertise and Universal Design for Learning

Adaptive Expertise (AE) is a promising new consideration for teacher education

(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; DeArment, Reed, & Wetzel, 2012). AE is described as

instruction using efficiency and innovation and is the “gold standard” for teacher preparation

(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The concept of AE coincides with the education of

students with disabilities by using innovation as a means of teaching to the unique characteristics

of these learners. DeArment et al. (2013) stated,

A conceptual framework of adaptive expertise should be the backbone that undergirds

and unifies all aspects of the design, delivery, and study of teacher preparation in special

education (p.228).

Furthermore, using AE as the framework, educators would apply many of the principles of

Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2013) within the context of

innovation. UDL involves providing multiple means of engagement, representation, action and

expression and educating others to become expert learners. UDL does not simply involve the use

of technology, but rather innovation in teaching to maximize learning for all our students. UDL

is based on information contained within the field of neuroscience where the networks

responsible for affect, recognition, and strategy are targeted through strategic instruction. The

nine guidelines for UDL target the multiple means of engagement, representation, action and

expression in order to provide foundational opportunities for learning, learning with supports,

and finally the learner developing expertise (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2013). The concept of

UDL is particularly important to students with hearing loss because their outcome measures on


standardized assessments, research studies with regards to literacy, and their historically

significant suppression necessitates the need to avail them to increased opportunities for learning

and carryover (Conrad, 1979; Sheetz, 2012; Traxler, 2010; Houston, 2010). By eliminating

barriers, we not only give our students with disabilities access to the curriculum, but we are

meeting the four areas of the HPL framework (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

Educators are supporting learners in the development of 21st century skills by changing the locus

of control from the environment or the educator to the learners themselves (Meyer et al., 2013;

Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

Figure 1. Maximizing student learning through AE, UDL, and the HPL framework.

Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review across the medical and education fields of inquiry was

conducted using Google Scholar. Google Scholar searches broadly across many search engines

such as ERIC and PUBMED yielding a list of documents prioritized by citation frequency and


previous searches. Keyword searches were conducted using the multiple combinations including

the words: hearing loss, deafness, children, early intervention, cochlear implants, early hearing

detection and intervention, professional training, oral deaf education, communication

methodologies, auditory-verbal therapy, tele-intervention, tele-health, tele-practice, AG Bell

Academy, LSLS, Carolina Summer Institute, First Years, Universal Design for Learning, and

Adaptive Expertise. Additional studies were located using author searches and the reference lists

from the initial studies located through Google Scholar.

Critical Needs in Personnel Training

Hearing loss is considered a low-incidence disability (White, 2006) and the number of

professionals specifically trained to address spoken language outcomes in children does not meet

the demand for these services (Dornan, Hickson, Murdoch, Houston, & Constantinescu, 2010).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013), the prevalence rate for

hearing loss is 5 per 1,000 births in 2005 and approximately 14.9% of children have a unilateral

or bilateral hearing loss. In 2011, 86.2% of the infants diagnosed with a hearing loss were

referred to Part C early intervention for services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

2013).

New graduates of Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) programs and graduates from

educational training programs for Teachers of the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (TDHH) lack the basic

content knowledge to serve the growing population of students with a hearing loss using spoken

language options (Houston & Perigoe, 2010; Anita, Benedict, & Johnson, 2011; Dolman, 2008).

Currently, 85% of all school-age children with a hearing loss now receive their services in the

regular public school setting rather than the previously popular residential schools for the Deaf

(Scheetz, 2012) and as such require teachers who are trained in various communication


methodologies. Improvements in early childhood education programs, training programs for

Speech-Language Pathologists (SLP), Audiologists, and Teachers for the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing

(TDHH) regarding developing spoken language in children with hearing loss is essential to

improving the educational outcomes of this population (Houston, 2010; Conrad, 1979; White,

2006).

Potential Improvements in Early Childhood Education

The HPL framework supports a paradigm shift from simply providing services in the

home or childcare settings to working closely with primary caregivers to facilitate development

in absence of the teacher (IDEIA, 2004; Duby, 2007). The responsibility of the educator is not to

merely teach the child, but to coach the caregiver so that intervention is embedded throughout

the day within the natural environment context thereby increasing the opportunities for

expansion and mastery of skills. This service model takes into consideration all four areas of the

HPL framework by addressing areas of knowledge which are meaningful to the child and the

caregiver within the greater context of home and culture. The concept of transferable knowledge

and skills addressed by the HPL (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005) and the 21st century

skills from the NRC report (2012) are also known as “generalization” of skills within habilitation

specialties such as Speech-Language Pathology, Occupational Therapy, and Physical Therapy.

The medical community has informed educational practices with research regarding

neuroplasticity of the brain. However, the practical implication of how neuroplasticity translates

into therapeutic and educational services has yet to be realized. This cross-disciplinary training is

essential to providing appropriate services and expectations for children to learn optimally. Also,

research regarding language development in typically developing children, English Language

Learners, as well as children with language disorders has given credence to the foundational


language for the basis of learning academics. However, having a solid foundation for language,

being student-centered, is not currently taken into consideration as part of state and federal

reporting measures or the required summative assessments. Students are required to meet grade

level expectations rather than individualized developmentally appropriate standards.

Potential Improvements in Oral Deaf Education

For students who are educationally identified as Deaf or as having a Hearing-Impairment,

the concept of UDL translates beyond physical accommodations such as having the teacher

positioned on the ear with the greatest amount of residual hearing or using personal FM systems

to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio. The first seven years of life are critical for learning verbal

language. Past those 7 years, it becomes much more difficult to acquire verbal language and the

window of opportunity slowly closes neurologically (Lillard & Erisir, 2011). Environmental

modifications are not enough to give a child access to the curriculum. Demographic data

suggests that 40% of all students with a hearing loss have a secondary disability (Wiley &

Moeller, 2007). Therefore, educators who work with these students must be adept at pulling from

a multitude of resources to serve these children and their families. Hence, they should be skilled

at Adaptive Expertise, UDL and using the HPL framework in order to maximize the education of

diverse learners. Teachers are now diagnostic practitioners –able to continually assess and

change as necessary based on student performance with regards to their comprehension of the

child’s individual goals. The practice of being a diagnostic practitioner aligns with the concept of

Adaptive Expertise. A strong diagnostic practitioner will be efficient and make changes quickly

to ensure that they are providing instruction within the Zone of Proximal Development.


Funding Priorities

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) identified funding priorities from

2000-2007 to include integrating course work with field work (practical experience), student

progress and achievement with the general curriculum, and research-based instruction and

services. OSEP funded 24 programs for training professionals working with children who are

Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing and 19 were specifically for sign-language interpreter training. Five

programs were dedicated to TDHH training and 2 of these comprised some level of oral/spoken

language. The 2 programs for professional preparation utilizing strategies for listening and

spoken language development were associated with traditionally oral programs rather than the

development of new programs. These programs were a teacher education program at John Tracy

Clinic in Los Angeles and a graduate specialization for graduate students in Speech-Language

Pathology and Audiology at Utah State University (Office of Special Education Programs,

2014).

University Training Programs for TDHH

There are currently 64 collegiate D/deaf education programs in the United States and

there is one program in Virginia located at Radford University (DeafEd.net and Hands & Voices,

n.d.). Of these 64 programs, only four offer undergraduate degrees and 13 offer graduate degrees

which have a concentration in oral teaching methodologies. None of these oral programs are

located in Virginia (oral deaf Education, n.d.). Dolman (2008) documented changes in

coursework over a 20 year period in undergraduate teacher training programs for TDHH. Each

year the American Annals of the Deaf publishes a list of TDHH training programs and Sign

Language Interpreting programs available across the United States.


Dolman’s 2008 study included information from the researchers’ information collected in

1986 regarding 47 university training programs to the currently available 33 university training

programs (Dolman, 1998). The study revealed surprising results. First, the number of training

programs for TDHH decreased by almost 30% over the 20 year period studied. Additionally, the

changes in course requirements were alarming. There have been tremendous advancements in

hearing technology over the past 20 years such as the use of cochlear implant technology by

children as young as 12 months of age. However, 63% fewer universities required their

undergraduate students to have a course in speech and hearing anatomy, 37% fewer required a

course in teaching speech to children who are deaf, and 15% fewer required a course in aural

habilitation. Basic knowledge in speech and hearing, oral communication, and aural habilitation

are essential to teaching children who are DHH using oral methodological approaches (Houston

& Perigoe, 2010). Given that 52% of children with a hearing loss are using speech as their only

mode of communication (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2010) our training programs are not

adequately preparing teachers to provide services to these children.

The Council for Exceptional Children published revised standards for the preparation of

Special Education Teachers of Individuals with Exceptional Learning Needs Who are Deaf or

Hard-of- Hearing in an effort to ensure that teachers have appropriate entry-level skills with

effective mentoring (CEC, 2013). The revised standards address cultural diversity, language

development and how to prepare students to work with interpreters. The standards do not address

auditory skill development which is necessary in developing spoken language. However, there is

one standard which states that teachers will, “Implement strategies for developing spoken

language in orally communicating individuals and sign language proficiency in signing

individuals” (CEC, 2013, p.6). In order for strategies to be used in developing spoken language


in students who are Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing a thorough knowledge of auditory skill development

is required (Estabrooks, 2012). The variability of spoken language outcomes in children who are

Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing continues to concern researchers (Scheetz, 2012).

Furthermore, Anita et al. (2011) explored the competencies of faculty in graduate TDHH

training programs and identified a gap between desired characteristics of future faculty and the

needs of students who would be served by graduates of TDHH programs. There were few

training program directors surveyed that identified the need for faculty with expertise in oral

methodologies, cochlear implants, early intervention, or in serving children with multiple

disabilities. However, the demographics of the children provided services has changed as a result

of technological advancements and changes in legislation thereby increasing the practical need

for professors with these specializations. Anita’s research (2011) documented the focus of

faculty in DHH training programs to be specifically the transmission of knowledge to students

rather than research. Less than half of the program directors surveyed in this study mentioned

research, publications, or grant writing as a desired characteristic of faculty. As a result, the field

of oral deaf education has advancements in technology without adequate research to fully

document their impact on educational outcomes.

University Training Programs for SLPs

Due to the unique overlap of medical advancements and deaf education, Speech-

Language Pathology programs may also offer training in oral methodologies, but it is not

required for national certification by the American Speech-Language Hearing Association

(American Speech-Language Hearing Association, n.d.). There are nationally only five

Audiology programs and six Speech-Language Pathology programs that incorporate oral

methodologies into their rigorous training programs and none are located in Virginia. Carney &


Moeller (1998) identified the critical role that the SLP contributes to the development spoken

language in children with hearing loss. Overall, there continues to be a shortage of SLPs

nationally as well as a shortage of SLPs qualified to provide services to this population (Cosby,

2009; ASHA, n.d.).

In-Service Teacher Continuing Education Programs

Professional development is crucial to meeting the needs of children with hearing loss.

Large scale professional development opportunities were developed to meet this demand and

focused on training in-service practitioners by addressing content knowledge (Houston, Nevins,

& Wilson, 2010). The Carolina Summer Institute in Auditory-Verbal Practice and First Years

are examples of two such programs (Houston et al., 2010) and are the most widely known and

credible in the field of oral deaf education. Additionally, a conceptual framework has emerged

using technology to mentor professionals working towards LSLS certifications (Clem, DeMoss,

& Wilson, 2012).

Carolina Summer Institute in Auditory-Verbal Practice. The Carolina Summer

Institute in Auditory-Verbal Practice is a 2-week intensive training program encompassing

lecture, therapy observation, lesson planning, and practical hands-on experience in providing

auditory-based interventions (Houston et al., 2010). This program began in 1998 and part of its

reported success is rooted in the participant’s sense of agency consistent with the HPL

framework (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Participants in the program complete self-

assessments to choose what teaching behaviors they feel need to be strengthened through the

workshops and hands-on experiences. Each year, feedback is obtained from participants and

modifications are made to the curricula for the following year.


The Carolina Summer Institute in Auditory-Verbal Practice is comprised of various

elements of a logic model. The first step of a logic model is to define the problem or need. The

need for professionals to increase their content knowledge is well-documented in research

(White, 2006; Houston, 2010). The strategies used to increase content knowledge included

lecture, hands-on experiences, coaching and mentoring, self-assessment, and self-reflection.

Short-term outcomes incorporated participants increasing the participants knowledge of

technology, oral methodologies, therapeutic strategies and supports, as well as experience in

parent coaching as evidenced by observations completed by the trainers the last day of the two

week training. Additionally, outcome measures were comprised of pre and post intervention

assessments with the intervention being composed of the 2-week training. Long-term outcomes

aspired to increase in the number of LSLS certified professionals worldwide. From 2002-2010,

there were 25 professionals that attended the Carolina Summer Institute each summer to obtain

training hours towards the LSLS certification (Houston, 2010). However, the external forces on

the intended outcomes of such a program are difficult to define given the varied educational

backgrounds of the professionals within this program, the variation of specific student needs of

those they serve, and the difference between the settings in which these services are provided.

First Years Online Learning Community. The First Years program was an online

learning community developed collaboratively between AG Bell Association of the Deaf and

Hard-of-Hearing and the UNC Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences with the intent of

providing a comprehensive continuing education program addressing the critical shortage of

professionals trained in oral methodologies. The First Years program was operational from 2000-

2012 when the program no longer lost state funding. The program was considered highly


successful in the professional community by providing mentorship opportunities paired with

extensive coursework (Houston, 2012).

When considering learning communities, the 6 Guiding Principles for Online Course

Design and Teaching Practice (Center for Teaching Excellence - VCU, n.d.) can be used as a

measure of UDL and if 21st century competencies are addressed. The First Years program

utilized required readings, partner exercises, quizzes, application activities, and discussion

forums for students to interact and learn from each other (Houston, 2010). The principles for

online course development (Center for Teaching Excellence - VCU, n.d.) addressed how to

foster an intellectual community that is collaborative, engaging, and knowledge-centered with

active learning. The knowledge-centered aspect of this principle is one component of the How

People Learn Framework (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The First Years program was

an excellent example of a collaborative online community with multiple means of expression,

engagement as well as representation and this concept aligns with Universal Design for Learning

(Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2013).

Mentorship Through Technology. Establishing and maintaining a meaningful

mentoring relationship is the backbone of a first year professional’s development when working

with children who are DHH (ASHA, 2014; CEC, 2013). This can also be true of seasoned

professionals gaining experience in working with children using oral methodologies (Clem,

DeMoss, & Wilson, 2012). The expanded use of technology to connect individuals in

professional mentoring relationships is a promising new endeavor. Clem et al. (2012) defined

mentoring models using the one-to-one, peer-to-peer, group, or reverse mentoring processes.

Traditional mentorships within deaf education include having a supervising teacher, clinical

supervisor, or a clinical fellowship year supervisor (Clem et al., 2012). In order to meet the


increased demand for qualified professionals, Clem et al. presented a conceptual framework for

using distance technologies to provide mentees with more qualified mentors based on their

supervisory needs and expectations. This framework uses technology such as Skype to develop a

relationship, complete real-time or recorded observations, and collaborate despite physical

distances. Given that hearing loss is a low-incidence disability, the professional community must

have practical strategies for mentoring professionals. The use of tele-mentorship allows

professionals to develop inter and intrapersonal relationships and increase their own content

knowledge in order to implement Evidence Based Practices to a growing population of children

with hearing loss being provided services in home and inclusion environments.

National Agenda

The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Equality for Deaf and Hard of

Hearing Students (2005) published by the National Deaf Education Project (NDEP) outlined the

shared vision for deaf education in America. The NDEP is a coalition of key stakeholders

including parent groups, professional organizations, and advocates involved in the education of

children who are DHH. The National Agenda outlined 8 Goals toward the development of a

more comprehensive educational system for kids who are DHH including (a) early identification

and intervention (b) communication, language and literacy (c) collaborative partnerships (d)

accountability and high stakes testing ( e) placement and programs (f) technology (g) personnel

preparation and (h) research.

Within the area of professional preparation, goals identified were based on crucial teacher

shortages with decreasing numbers of training programs. These goals included aligning state

standards with the Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED) national standards, an increase in

required coursework in general education curricular areas, development of high-quality


alternative pathways to credentials, retention and recruitment of qualified teachers, and

increasing the level of proficiency of interpreters. While an increase in the content level

knowledge of professionals regarding auditory skills, speech acoustics, and technology is not

indicated in the professional preparation goal, there are numerous references to family-centered

programming and use of auditory skills. Goal 1.3 stated, “deaf and hard of hearing children, like

all children, require and should have a number of options for the selection and development of

communication and language and educational programs”. Additionally, goal 2.6 stated that the

family is essential in fostering language competency and families should be provided support in

developing their child’s language skills. The following was given as the rationale for this goal:

Ninety percent of deaf and hard of hearing students are born to hearing

parents. Most of these students are language-delayed because they miss

the early development of language that is typically acquired through

hearing and speaking English or whatever the family’s spoken language is.

Families have historically not been provided with the support and services

and programs necessary to help them develop communication and

language competency and therefore help their children acquire such skills.

Such services and programs must be available to all families of deaf and

hard of hearing children so they can assist their children in understanding,

interpreting, and communicating about the world around them. (p. 20-21).

AG Bell Academy for Listening and Spoken Language

The AG Bell Academy is the worldwide provider of certification of listening and spoken

language professionals setting universal standards for developing oral communication in children

with hearing loss. In order to obtain the Listening and Spoken Language Specialist certification,


professionals must be supervised for a period of 3 years with documented progress and

evaluations, 900 direct contact therapy/education hours, complete continuing education

competencies within 9 domains, obtain endorsements from parents of children they have served,

and meet the academic requirements of a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree in the field of deaf

education or related area. Once these standards have been met, a professional can apply to take

the 4-hour long credentialing examination.

The requirements for LSLS certification are intended to meet stringent academic,

professional, and post-graduate education and mentorship standards. The LSLS Core

Competencies meet align with the goals of the National Agenda by providing professionals with

training to address early spoken language development (AG Bell, 2012). These competencies

include 9 domains comprised of: 1) Hearing and Hearing Technology, 2) Auditory Functioning,

3) Spoken Language Communication, 4) Child Development, 5) Parent Guidance, Education,

and Support, 6) Strategies for Listening and Spoken Language Development, 7) History,

Philosophy and Professional Issues, 8) Education, and 9) Emergent Literacy. Worldwide there

are over 600 LSLS certified individuals. There are two designations based upon primary work

environments: Listening and Spoken Language Specialist Certified Auditory-Verbal Therapist,

LSLS Cert. AVT, (clinical) and Listening and Spoken Language Specialist Certified Auditory-

Verbal Educator, LSLS Cert. AVEd, (educational).


The Pathway Project for LSLS Certification: Developing Adaptive Expertise

Through Online Learning Communities and Tele-Mentorship

Purpose

In order to meet the increased demand for qualified professionals, the following

professional development model, the Pathway Project, aims to increase in-service professionals

content knowledge, hands-on experience, and mentorship leading to qualification to take the

LSLS certification examination. This personnel training model is a pilot program addressing the

teacher shortages and student outcomes in Virginia based on the outcome data from the Virginia

Department of Education (2013). Additionally, this personnel development model aims to

incorporate the HPL framework, AE, and 21st Century skills as previously discussed. The

Pathway Project is a three-year pilot program that provides online coursework, yearly face-to-

face training, and on-going mentorship using technology that will allow 15 in-service

professionals in Early Intervention, Speech-Language Pathology, Audiology, and Teachers for

the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing to meet the minimum criteria to obtain LSLS AVT or LSLS AV Ed

certification from the AG Bell Academy for Listening and Spoken Language (AG Bell, 2012).

Participants

Participants will be current in-service professionals recruited using the AG Bell

professional membership lists as these professionals have a strong interest in oral methodologies.

Additionally, the membership list for Virginia will be cross-checked with TDHH with

endorsements in Virginia as well as SLPs licensed in Virginia. Participants will agree to a three-

year commitment of required on-line coursework to meet their individual needs, three summers

of a week-long on-site training, and continued mentorship throughout the year.


Activities

Participants will participate in three required programs. These include on-site summer

trainings to review current skill levels and set goals for the upcoming year, active participation in

on-line coursework to meet the requirements for LSLS certification, and on-going virtual

mentorship throughout the year to develop the essential skills as indicated by the AG Bell

Academy.

Goals, Objectives and Anticipated Outcomes

Goal: To Increase content knowledge and hands-on experience for in-service

professionals

Objective: Professionals will increase their overall content knowledge and parent

coaching skills beyond the current graduate program requirements as determined

by pre and post self-evaluations and course evaluations.

Objective: Professionals will make clinical and teaching decisions based on

speech acoustics, auditory skill development, feedback from parents, and

collaboration with audiologists as determined by document review including

lesson plans, IEP or IFSP development, and observations using the Mentor’s

Guide to Auditory-Verbal Competencies.

Anticipated Outcome: Overall, we hope to increase the number of professions trained in

oral methodologies thereby giving parents greater access to professionals who support the

communication choices for their children as evidenced by yearly research conducted by


the Partnership for People with Disabilities and a newly developed research initiative for

school-age children with hearing loss in Virginia.

Running Head: PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT MODEL 25

Figure 2: Logic Model: Auditory-Based Intervention Professional Development

Running Head: PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT MODEL

26Quality of Project Services

The Pathway Project combines features of previously successful models and expands the

mentorship opportunities for in-service professionals. This project will provide scaffolded in-

person supervision for hands-on intervention experiences, online content knowledge

development, and ongoing virtual mentorship for Teachers for the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing

(TDHH), Early Intervention providers, Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists in

Virginia that desire to become LSLS certified. There will be 15 in-service professionals admitted

each year to the three-year cycle program. Applications for admittance will be taken during the

spring of 2015.

First, in-service professionals will engage in a one-week on-site program for three

consecutive summers beginning in the summer of 2015 for hands-on intervention supervised

practice to assess current skill level and to set individual goals for the upcoming year with their

individual mentors. Observations of therapy and teaching sessions will be evaluated and tracked

yearly using the Mentor’s Guide to Auditory-Verbal Competencies (Cochlear, 2013). Pre and

post self-evaluations will also be completed at the beginning and end of the summer intensive

program.

During the 2014-2015 academic year, online courses will be designed with

implementation beginning in the fall of 2015. Online content courses will address the 9 LSLS

Core Competencies required to obtain either the LSLS AVT or the LSLS AVEd certifications

(AG Bell, 2012). The online courses meet the minimum requirements to obtain certification and

include 1) Hearing and Hearing Technology, 2) Auditory Functioning, 3) Spoken Language

Communication, 4) Child Development, 5) Parent Guidance, Education, and Support, 6)

Strategies for Listening and Spoken Language Development, 7) History, Philosophy and


Professional Issues, 8) Education, and 9) Emergent Literacy. Courses will be taken based on

deficiencies in an individual’s graduate training. For example, an audiologist would have taken

several courses on hearing and hearing technology in their graduate career for the current

required Doctorate of Audiology that is a minimum standard for ASHA certification (ASHA,

2014) and would not be in need of that particular module. However, professionals may not have

had coursework in Emergent Literacy as it is not required for ASHA certification (ASHA, 2014).

The concepts of UDL and HPL will be incorporated into the learning modules.

Virtual mentorship using gotomeeting.com or another Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules compliant

online platform will be utilized. Frequency of direct supervision will meet AG Bell Academy

standards (AG Bell, 2012) as well as the identified needs of the mentees as determined by self-

evaluations and evaluations from mentors during the on-site summer programs.

Evaluation of overall program performance will be completed not only using pre and post

self-evaluations from participants, but also from yearly evaluations using the Mentor’s Guide to

Auditory-Verbal Competencies (Cochlear, 2013). This evaluation will be completed either during

the summer on-site visits or by review of unedited submissions of therapy/education sessions by

mentees. No less than 3 current LSLS certified mentors will review each session in order to

document inter-rater reliability. Additionally, observations and evaluations of sessions

completed through the year will be analyzed for a correlational study of observed competencies.

A study will be completed at the beginning of the program and after the first 3-year cycle in

conjunction with the Virginia Partnership with People with Disabilities and their Guide By Your

Side Program to determine any potential impact on parent perceptions of services available.

Finally, a new research measure will be developed in conjunction with the Virginia Department


of Education at the beginning of the program and at the end of the first three year cycle to study

the placement of children with hearing loss in inclusion classrooms, parent perceptions of

programs, and professional competencies.

Table 1: Program Timeline

Academic Year 2014-2015 Secure Funding for Mentors and MenteesDesign Online ModulesDevelop Summer TrainingRecruitment and Selection of In-Service ProfessionalsRecruitment of LSLS Mentors, Adjunct faculty to teach courseworkDevelopment and Implementation of VDOE Collab. ResearchParticipate in Partnership for People with Disabilities Guide By Your Side Research

Summer 2015 Pre-assessment of skillsOn-site one week hands-on trainingPost-assessment of skillsMentee yearly goals and selection of desired coursework

Fall 2015 Begin online coursework and tele-mentorship based upon needs assessment from the summer

Spring 2016 Online courseworkTele-mentorshipRecruitment of 2nd group of In-Service Professionals1st year data: Participate in Partnership for People with Disabilities Guide By Your Side Research

Summer 2016 1st Year Professionals: Pre-assessment of skills On-site one week hands-on training Post-assessment of skills Mentee yearly goals and selection of desired coursework2nd Year Professionals: Yearly review of skills (video or on-site) Yearly goals and selection of desired coursework Pre-assessment of skills On-site one week hands-on training Post-assessment of skills

Fall 2016 Online coursework and Tele-mentorship

Spring 2017 Online coursework and Tele-mentorshipRecruitment of 3rd group of In-Service Professionals2nd year data: Participate in Partnership for People with Disabilities Guide By Your Side Research

Summer 2017 1st Year Professionals: Pre-assessment of skills On-site one week hands-on training Post-assessment of skills Mentee yearly goals and selection of desired coursework2nd and 3rd Year Professionals: Yearly review of skills (video or on-site) Yearly goals and selection of desired coursework Pre-assessment of skills On-site one week hands-on training Post-assessment of skills

Fall 2017 Online coursework and Tele-mentorship


Spring 2018 Online courseworkTele-mentorshipRecruitment of 3rd group of In-Service Professionals3rd year data: Participation in Partnership for People with Disabilities Guide By Your Side ResearchImplementation of VDOE Collab. Research – 3rd year data and comparisons

Summer- Fall 2018 Participants obtain parental recommendationsParticipants gather documentation such as transcripts, observations, clinical and teaching hours to submit to the AG Bell AcademyApplications submitted to take the LSLS examination

Quality of Key Project Personnel

Alison King, MSP, CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT. (Project Director) Mrs. King doctoral

student in Special Education and Disability Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University. She is

also the Auditory Therapist with the Cochlear Implant Team at VCU Health Systems. She holds

a Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology, is licensed to practice

Speech-Language Pathology by the state of Virginia, and holds educational endorsements from

the Virginia Department of Education in Speech Pathology as well as Hearing-Impairment. Mrs.

King is also a Listening and Spoken Language Specialist/Certified Auditory-Verbal Therapist.

She has been providing services to children in the Richmond area since 1999 in local school

divisions and in not-for-profit centers. Her primary area of interest is in partnering with parents

and school divisions to help children with hearing loss acquire spoken language.

Dr. Christine Eubanks, PhD. (Principal Investigator) Dr. Eubanks came to Virginia in

2008 from John Tracy Clinic in Los Angeles, where she was Director of Audiology and

developer of the Baby Sound Check model hearing screening program. She has clinical

certification from the American Speech and Hearing Association, and is licensed to practice

Audiology and dispense hearing aids in Virginia. Dr. Eubanks is co-chair of the Hearing

Workgroup of the Virginia Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EDHI) program’s

Advisory Committee. She has authored over 15 publications, and was Editor of the Journal of


Educational Audiology from 1999-2001. She is the co-creator of the Profiles of Hearing Aid

Performance and Benefit, and the Connected Speech Test. The articles on the development of

the CST won the Editor's award from the American Auditory Society in 1989. She has taught at

the graduate level, and tested the hearing of newborns through elderly listeners.

Ann Hughes, MA. (Project Coordinator – Online training). Ms. Hughes is currently a

Training and Technical Assistance Specialist - Deaf/Hard of Hearing at the VCU Partnership for

People with Disabilities. She has extensive experience in training professionals throughout

Virginia in working with children who have hearing loss. She has been responsible for the design

and implementation of various state-wide training programs, has worked closely with the Guide

By Your Side Program, and works in conjunction with VA DOE on various research projects

related to teacher training.

Dr. Todd Houston, PhD. (Project Coordinator – Mentorship). Dr. Houston is currently

an Associate Professor at the University of Akron in Ohio and a LSLS Certified Auditory-Verbal

Therapist. Dr. Houston has also authored several articles related to listening and spoken language

development. Most recently, he authored a book about tele-practice in Speech-Language

Pathology addressing the critical need for mentorship through technology (Houston, 2013).

Project Collaborators. Mrs. King, Dr. Eubanks Mrs. Hughes, and Dr. Houston will

work closely with the Virginia Department of Education and the VCU Partnership for People

with Disabilities to assist with research efforts, program design changes, and implementation of

mentorship experiences.

The Director of Technology and Information Services from the VCU School of

Education in partnership with staff from VCU Health Systems will be working closely with Mrs.


King, Mrs. Hughes, and adjunct faculty members in the development of online courses through

VCU Blackboard and VCU Word Press.

Quality of the Program Evaluation

The main goal of the program is to increase content knowledge and hands-on experience

for in-service professionals thereby giving parents greater access to professionals who support

the communication choices for their children as evidenced by yearly research conducted by the

Partnership for People with Disabilities and a newly developed research initiative for school-age

children with hearing loss in Virginia. To determine the impact of the program, on-going

summative and formative assessments will be employed as well as mixed-method evaluations in

conjunction with the Virginia Department of Education and the VCU Partnership for the People

with Disabilities. Data will include: participant demographics, coursework completed, pre and

post self-evaluations, course evaluations, Mentor’s Guide to Auditory-Verbal Competencies

(Cochlear, 2013), VA DOE research proposal, and the Guide By Your Side data collection. Data

will be examined after each semester so that adjustments can be made to insure that all goals are

being met. All of the data collected, analyzed, and yearly reports will be generated as well as

having a final report after three years. A final summary report of the project will be submitted in

the spring of 2019 including the number of professionals who obtained LSLS certification as a

direct result of this program.


References

AG Bell. (2012). 2012 LSLS certification handbook. [data file]. Retrieved from:

http://www.listeningandspokenlanguage.org/uploadedFiles/Get_Certified/

Getting_Certified/Final%202012%20Handbook.pdf.

American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (2014). 2014 standards and implementation

procedures for the certificate of clinical competence in speech-language pathology.

[Professional Issues Statement].Retrieved from www.asha.org/Certification/2014-

Speech-Language-Pathology-Certification-Standards.

American Speech-Language Hearing Association (n.d.). Shortage? Vacancy? Perceived Need?

[Professional Issues Statement]. Retrieved from

http://www.asha.org/careers/recruitment/schools/shortages.

Anita, S., Bendict, K., & Johnson, H. (2011). Faculty needs, doctoral preparation, and the future

of teacher preparation programs in the education of deaf and hard of hearing students.

American Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 35-46.

Blanchfield B., Feldman J., Dunbar J., & Gardner E. (2001). The severely to profoundly hearing

impaired population in the United States: Prevalence estimates and demographics.

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 183-189.

Carney, A. & Moeller, M. (1998). Treatment efficacy: hearing loss in children. Journal of

Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 41 (1), 61-85.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Hearing loss in children: data and statistics.

[Data file]. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hearingloss/data.html.


Center for Teaching Excellence - Virginia Commonwealth University (n.d.). 6 Guiding

Principles for Online Course Design and Teaching Practice (n.d.). Retrieved from:

http://wp.vcu.edu/6principles/.

Clem, B., DeMoss, W., & Wilson, K. (2012). Using technology to mentor aspiring LSLS

professionals. Volta Review, 112(3), 329-343.

Cochlear (2013). The mentor’s guide to auditory-verbal competencies. [data file]. Retrieved

from: http://auditory-verbal-mentoring.com/

Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child: language and cognitive function. London: Harper &

Row.

Council for Exceptional Children (2013). CEC initial and advanced specialty sets: special

education deaf and hard-of-hearing. Retrieved from:

http://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Special-Educator-Professional-Preparation/CEC-

Initial-and-Advanced-Specialty-Sets.

Cosby, J. (2009). Pediatric cochlear implants: knowledge and skills of speech-language

pathologists, The ASHA Leader, 14(2), 6-7, 18.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: what

teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Daston, M., Riehle, J., & Rutkowski, S. (2012). High school transition that works. Baltimore:

Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

DeafEd.net and Hands & Voices. (n.d.). Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs.

Retrieved from http://deafed.net/PageText.asp?hdnPageId=120.

http://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Special-Educator-Professional-Preparation/CEC-Initial-and-Advanced-Specialty-Sets

http://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Special-Educator-Professional-Preparation/CEC-Initial-and-Advanced-Specialty-Sets

http://wp.vcu.edu/6principles/


DeArment, S., Reed, E., & Wetzel, A. (2013). Promoting adaptive expertise: a conceptual

framework for special educator preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education,

36(3), 217-230.

Dolman, D. (1988). College and university requirements for teachers of the deaf at the

undergraduate level. American Annals of the Deaf, 133 (1), 11-13.

Dolman, D. (2008). College and university requirements for teachers of the deaf at the

undergraduate level: a 20 year comparison. American Annals of the Deaf, 153 (3), 322-

327.

Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., Houston, K., & Constantinescu, G. (2010). Is auditory-

verbal therapy effective for children with hearing loss. The Volta Review. 110 (3), 361-

387.

Duby, J. (2007). Role of medical home in family-centered early intervention services. Pediatrics,

120(5), 1153-1158.

Estabrooks, W. (2012). 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Auditory-Verbal Practice.

Washington, D.C.: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of

Hearing.

Gallaudet Research Institute (2010). Regional and national summary report of data from the

2009-2010 annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Washington,

DC: Gallaudet University.

Gerber, P., Batalo, C., & DeArment, S. (2013). An analysis of state data collection protocols for

measuring post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development and

Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36 (1).


Houston, K. (2013). Telepractice in speech-language pathology. Plural Publishing. San Diego:

CA.

Houston, K., Nevins, M., & Wilson, K. (2010). Professional development for in-service

practitioners serving children who are deaf and hard of hearing. The Volta Review, 110

(2), 231-247.

Houston, K. & Perigoe, C. (2010). Speech-Language Pathologists: Vital Listening and Spoken

Language Professionals. The Volta Review, 110(2), 219-230.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 104, Stat. 1142

(2004).

Lillard, A. & Erisir, A. (2011). Old dogs learning new tricks: Neuroplasticity beyond the juvenile

period. Developmental Review, 31 (4), 207-239.

Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2013). Universal design for learning: Theory and

practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.

National Deaf Education Project. (2005). National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving

Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Retrieved from:

http://www.ndepnow.org/pdfs/national_agenda.pdf.

National Research Council. (2012). Education for work and life: Developing transferable

knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Office of Special Education Programs. (2014). Personnel development to improve services and

results for children with disabilities. Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepprep/awards.html.

http://www.ndepnow.org/pdfs/national_agenda.pdf


oral deaf Education. (n.d.). Training progreams for students and potential students. Retrieved

from http://www.oraldeafed.org/careers/index.html.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, § 701, Stat. 355 (1973).

Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. (2011).

Annual compendium of disability statistics: 2011. [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.disabilitycompendium.org.

Rice, G. & Lenihan, S. (2005). Early intervention in auditory/oral deaf education: parent and

professional perspectives. The Volta Review, 105 (1), 73-96.

Scheetz, N. (2012). Deaf education in the 21st century topics and trends. New Jersey: Pearson.

Traxler, C. (2000). The Stanford achievement test, 9th edition: national norming and performance

standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education, (5)4, 337-348.

Virginia Department of Education (2013). Virginia SOL assessment build-a-table. [Data file].

Retrieved from:

Virginia Department of Education. (2012). Part B Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2011-

2012 [Data file]. Retrieved from:

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/annual_performance_reports/

2011-12.pdf.

Virginia Department of Education. (2010). Standards of learning documents for science [Data

file]. Retrieved from: http://bi.virginia.gov/BuildATab/rdPage.aspx.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/science/2010/k-6/

stds_science3.pdf.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/annual_performance_reports/2011-12.pdf

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/annual_performance_reports/2011-12.pdf

http://www.disabilitycompendium.org/


Wehmeyer, M. (2006). Universal design for learning, access to the general education curriculum

and students with mild mental retardation. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal,

14(4), 225-235.

White, K. R. (2006). Early intervention for children with permanent hearing loss: finishing the

EDHI revolution. The Volta Review, 106, 237-258.

Wiley, S. & Moeller, M. (2007). Red flags for disabilities in children who are deaf/hard of

hearing. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from

http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2007/070123/f070123b.htm.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). From screening to early identification and intervention: discovering

predictors to successful outcomes for children with significant hearing loss.

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(1), 11-30.

http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2007/070123/f070123b.htm

avteducationtalk.files.wordpress.com · web viewstudents with a disability in grades seven...

Documents