A STUDY OF THE LEARNING STYLES OF MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL DEAF

AND NONDEAF STUDENTS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION

by

Roberta J. Agar-Jacobsen

LISA AAROE, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

ADRIENNE GIBSON, Sc.Ed.D., Committee Member

KATHLEEN MONDELL, Ph.D., Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

August 2010
 UMI Number: 3423811

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3423811
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© Roberta J. Agar-Jacobsen, 2010
 Abstract

The primary goal of this study was to examine the relationship between deaf and hard-of-

hearing students’ learning style preferences and compare them to their nondeaf peers.

Specifically, this study used 90 students throughout western Washington State, 45 per

group. Quantitative data were collected using the 104-question survey Learning Style

Inventory (LSI) created by Dunn, Dunn, and Price in 2005. Students in Grades 6–12

responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

This instrument assisted in identifying the conditions in which an individual is most

likely to learn, remember, and achieve. The LSI identifies students’ preferences for 22

elements and reports scores for 36 subscales. A discriminate analysis was used to

compare the two groups and their learning style variables (auditory, visual, tactile, and

kinesthetic). Responses were converted to standard scores using BMDP4M, a

computerized program that used varimax. Descriptive statistics were then used to

summarize the results.

 Dedication

With love, I dedicate this work to all deaf and hard-of-hearing children

with hopes that they receive the support, encouragement, and tools

to reach their dreams.

iii
 Acknowledgments

There are many teachers I would like to recognize for helping me with this

research project. The following provided encouragement, flexibility, and support! I give

them special thanks for inspiring the lives of culturally and linguistically diverse youth.

Kari Aune

Rebecca Christl

Gary Courie

James Dyer

Cassandra Knutson

Maggie Lewis

Nancy Little

Janette Majors

Cathy Miller

Mindy Noland

Jennifer Schultz

I would also like to express special appreciation to my family and friends for their

love, patience, tolerance, and encouragement to complete this research project.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank Billy Seago for his support, attention, and

skills.

iv
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 5

Rationale 6

Research Hypotheses 7

Significance of the Study 7

Definition of Terms 8

Assumptions 9

Limitations 9

Nature of the Study 9

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 10

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11

Introduction 11

Educational Programs in Washington State 11

Educational Factors 12

Educational Placements 23

v
 Deaf Culture 24

Political Influences 28

Learning Styles 32

Multiple Intelligence Theory 35

Sternberg’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences 36

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences 37

The Constructivist Theory 40

Differentiated Instruction 41

Summary 44

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 48

Introduction 48

Statement of the Problem 48

Research Hypotheses 49

Research Methodology 49

Research Design 50

Population and Sampling Procedures 51

Instrumentation 52

Validity 54

Reliability 56

Data Collection Procedures 56

Data Analysis Procedures 57

Ethical Considerations 58

vi
 Summary 59

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 60

Introduction 60

Descriptive Data 60

Data Analysis 61

Results 65

Summary 66

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67

Introduction 67

Summary of the Study 67

Summary of Findings and Conclusions 69

Recommendations 73

Implications 74

REFERENCES 77

vii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Age by Group 61

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Age by Gender 61

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Learning Style by Group 63

Table 4. Individual Tests for Learning Style Variables by Group 64

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Learning style by group 65

ix
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

According to the National Association of the Deaf (NAD, 2008), an estimated 28

million Americans (10% of all Americans) are deaf. However, sensory impairment is

only one component of this increasing population (NAD, 2008). Over the past few

decades, educators in the United States have been very aware of the major demographic

changes that have occurred in public schools (Bagga-Gupta, 2007). Many of these

students are not only deaf but also culturally deaf, and in addition, some students are

bicultural (NAD, 2008).

The growth in diversity of deaf students in public schools has forced districts to

recognize language, cultural, and other related issues over and above statutes, regulations,

and legal mandates (Bagga-Gupta, 2007). According to the Council on Education of the

Deaf (2008), districts are required to maintain specialized instructional support programs

that ensure equitable student access to comprehensible instruction. Comprehensible

instruction is required not only as a result of court cases (Lau v. Nichols, 1974), but also

by federally mandated No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

NCLB does not exempt deaf students from showing improvement in order for

schools to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). These students are one of many

subgroups measured under the terms of NCLB. According to NCLB (2001), the

1
consequences for schools that fail to meet AYP are severe; a Title I school that has not

met AYP for two consecutive years is identified as needing improvement, and parents

can opt to transfer their children from that school to one that is showing better academic

standards. Schools that do not meet AYP for 4 years must take corrective actions, which

may include replacing the staff and curriculum and offering public school choice. After 5

years of failing to make AYP, the district must initiate plans for restructuring the school

(NCLB, 2001).

Background of the Study

NCLB (2001) set standards for student performance and teacher quality. The

law’s intent was to establish accountability for student achievement and equality within

American education. These expectations cannot be carried out without individualized

accommodations to meet academic, social, and cultural needs of deaf students. These

expectations have prompted educational researchers to conduct research to inform

instructional practice and support the adoption of instructional programs (Slayton &

Llosa, 2005). While a number of studies have identified critical learning needs of

students who are deaf (Covell, 2006; Dimling, 2008; Pollack, 1997), there is also a

growing recognition that the ability of students to achieve academic success is inexorably

tied to the instructional effectiveness of their teachers (Easterbrooks, 2005). According to

Strickland (2004), most students have difficulty learning to read because they have

difficulty with their personal connection to reading. Additional research needs to address

details to meet students’ diverse academic and cultural needs.

2
 According to the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public

Instruction (OSPI, 2003), continuing professional development is not only considered

necessary but mandated for teachers’ professional certification. Initial teacher education

cannot contain all of the propositional knowledge that is needed. Washington State issues

provisional certifications upon completion of their degrees until teachers complete their

professional certification within their first 5 years of teaching. Teachers who have their

professional certification are encouraged, with financial incentives, to complete the

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification process

(OSPI, 2003). The NBPTS (2007) has identified core standards that should be addressed

to foster deep-level learning among all students.

Across the country, school districts have been hard-pressed to keep up with the

demands for special education certified or endorsed personnel (NCLB, 2001). As with all

special education teachers in Washington State, teachers of the deaf are required to be

endorsed in all areas they instruct (OSPI, 2003). Historically, for Washington State,

special education teachers have been given a general special education certification that

allows a teacher with a special education certificate or endorsement to teach in a variety

of special education classes (OSPI, 2003). Specifically, the NBPTS (2007) has outlined

five core elements: Teachers need to (a) be committed to students and their learning, (b)

know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students, (c) be

responsible for managing and monitoring student learning, (d) think systematically about

their practice and learn from experience, and (e) be members of learning communities.

3
 To satisfy NCLB requirements, Washington State now requires special education

teachers to be endorsed in a specific area, have an academic major, be National Board

certified, have a graduate degree, or 45 credits in the areas they teach (OSPI, 2003). The

Washington Assessment of Student Learning, the test to measure student improvement,

measures not only reading, writing, and math, but science skills as well. All students are

required to pass this test to receive their high school diploma (OSPI, 2003). Now, more

than ever, special education teachers need tools, resources, and a cohesive system to meet

these demands. Continual professional development is not only a necessity to keep up

with current standards, it is expected by Washington State professional standards (OSPI,

2003).

Effective teaching begins with planning and preparation. The theoretical

framework for this study is derived from the need to address individual learning needs of

deaf students. Teachers of the deaf are faced with many educational needs with diverse

academic, social, and cultural populations. Therefore, the materials used and delivery of

instruction must be appropriate for the students. In an attempt to address National Board

Teaching Standards, the multiple intelligence theory, deaf psychology, and culture are

vital in supporting academic achievement. The NBPTS (2007) stated that when planning

instruction, teachers must consider the goals for diverse students and adjust the

instruction to accommodate the differences in students. For mainstream teachers of the

deaf, instruction includes planning for the language proficiency of their students,

assessing content knowledge, and recognizing and supporting social and cultural needs.

4
 Statement of the Problem

It is not known whether there is a relationship between deaf middle and high

school students’ preferred learning style and that of their nondeaf peers. The diversity

among the students within deaf programs has forced districts to recognize the need to

address differentiated instruction to meet federally mandated standards. NCLB does not

exempt deaf students from showing improvement in order for schools to achieve AYP.

As stated by Price and Dunn (1997), learning styles include elements that are crucial to

an individual’s ability to learn. When instructors specify a particular learning style, they

also identify the type of environment, instructional activities, social groups, and

motivating factors that maximize personal achievement. Gorski (2001) emphasized the

need to address multicultural needs to establish learning environments and teaching

approaches that complement the unique learning styles of deaf students. Knowing

whether such a relationship exists between deaf high school students’ preferred learning

style and that of their nondeaf peers could possibly provide insight to better meet

individual learning needs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are differences between

learning styles of middle and high school students in mainstream deaf education

programs and those of their nondeaf peers. This study will investigate the relationship

between hearing and nonhearing students’ (middle and high) visual, auditory, tactile, and

kinesthetic learning style preferences.

5
 Rationale

A quantitative method design will be used in this study. Specifically, the design

will compare the learning styles of two groups, deaf and nondeaf students, between 6th

and 12th grade. The basic rationale for this design is that the research questions can be

answered clearly with descriptive statistics. Responses are converted to standard scores

using BMDP4M, a computerized program that uses varimax. Descriptive statistics will be

used to summarize the results.

The expectations of meeting individual student needs cannot be carried out

without individualized accommodations to meet academic, social, and cultural needs of

the students. These expectations have prompted educational researchers to conduct

research to inform instructional practice and support the adoption of instructional

programs (Slayton & Llosa, 2005). Research needs to address details of individual

learning needs to provide realistic expectations and provide sufficient support or

accommodations. Therefore, identifying preferred learning styles will contribute to

teachers’ ability to provide individualized accommodations to meet academic, social, and

cultural needs of the students.

Numerous studies have identified how deaf students historically lag academically

behind their hearing peers (Gentile & DiFrancesca, 1969; Goetzinger & Rousey, 1959;

Paul, 1998; Pintner & Paterson, 1917; Trybus & Karchmer, 1977). While the literature

contains much information to confirm the need for better teaching strategies, there is a

lack of research-based evidence to indicate what those strategies might be and, more

specifically, support approaches that foster these strategies among teachers of the deaf.

6
Thus, deaf education research efforts need to be directed toward identifying scientifically

based studies that support best practices in deaf education.

Research Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses will guide this study:

H1: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences–auditory learning style.

H2: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences–visual learning style.

H3: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences–tactile learning style.

H4: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences–kinesthetic learning style.

Significance of the Study

Students may not realize their full potential if teachers do not know how they

learn. To elevate students’ grades to their maximum potential, teachers must be able to

identify students’ learning styles (Dunn, Thies, & Honigsfeld, 2001; Hamlin, 2002;

McManus, 2002; Mitchell, 2000; Raupers, 2000). This study will investigate the learning

styles of deaf students to inform decision making concerning instruction among teachers

of the deaf. In addition to the need for teachers to address individual student needs in

Individual Education Plans (IEPs), this sample (middle and high school students) was

7
chosen to address the current change in graduation requirement within Washington State.

All graduating students need to develop a student portfolio to show their individual

student achievement and progress. As stated by the NBPTS (2007), it is not only

important for instructors to identify individual learning styles for their students, it is also

important for students to self-evaluate and be equipped to identify methods to foster their

own academic achievements. Moreover, Covell’s (2006) study recommended additional

studies to examine the specific learning styles and preferences of deaf, minority, and

minority-deaf.

Definition of Terms

American Sign Language (ASL). Has its own lexicon and rules of grammar. It is

not signs in English word order (Stokoe, 1960).

Deaf/nondeaf. For this study’s purpose, deaf refers to all hearing-impaired

students. Nondeaf refers to hearing students who are not in deaf or hard-of-hearing

programs (Covell, 2006).

Mainstream. For this study, mainstream refers to the public programs that are

found within general education programs (“Educational Programs for Deaf Students,”

2008).

Pidgin Sign English (PSE). The simplest form of manual English. It uses the signs

of ASL but in English word order (Valli & Lucas, 1995).

Sign language. Indicates that when people talk about signing, they may not

always mean they are using ASL (Humphries, 1977).

8
 Assumptions

The following assumptions were presented in this study:

1. Language and cultural needs within the hard-of-hearing and deaf students.

2. Levels and labels for hard-of-hearing students and deaf students.

3. Literacy levels of hard-of-hearing and deaf students.

Limitations

The following limitations were presented in this study:

1. The sample size of hard-of-hearing and deaf students

2. The study involves preexisting groups within educational settings.

3. The access to the background information on individual students.

Nature of the Study

This study was confined to 90 students with varying degrees of language, cultural,

and learning needs. The individuals volunteered to participate in the study. Volunteers

cannot be considered a random sample. Students may have skewed their responses in

consideration of their peers or in terms of what they thought they should answer. As this

study included quantitative research, readers will have to take into consideration the

specific setting and characteristics to determine whether the results are applicable to their

own situations.

Using a prominent deaf role model, as an interpreter, increased the validity of the

research as well as the personal investment of the student. All nine districts in the state of

9
Washington were invited to participate. Four of the eight districts chose to participate.

This population included four middle and four high schools with at total of about 90

students. According to “Educational Programs” (2008), Washington State provides a

typical sample that could be generalized to other mainstream programs throughout the

United States. Another weakness of this study is that it is a nonexperimental design that

involves preexisting groups.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The remainder of this study will be divided up as follows. Chapter 2 will present a

literature review of the history of deaf education, political implications, research related

to deaf culture, learning styles, theories and instruction. Chapter 3 will discuss the type of

research methodology, design, a why it is being used. Chapter 4 will describe the

participants in the study and description of data collected. Chapter 5 will provide a

summary of the findings, recommendations and implications of the study.

10
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Learning styles of deaf learners is an unexplored area of study (Covell, 2006).

This chapter provides a context for the study of the learning styles of deaf learners. First,

educational, cultural and political factors that influence learning are described. Secondly,

learning styles are discussed. Thirdly, the theory of multiple intelligence and

constructivist learning theory are explored. Lastly, a review of differentiated instruction

is discussed as a possible format for addressing the preferred learning styles of deaf

learners.

Educational Programs in Washington State

There are 310 students within nine deaf mainstream programs in Washington

State. As illustrated in “Educational Programs” (2008), the average number of programs

per state is 7.9, and the average number of students is currently 358.3. Washington State

falls within an average range of enrollment and services. Every school district cannot

afford or does not have the resources to establish a deaf program within its district.

Qualified teachers for the deaf and hard of hearing, interpreters, audiologists, and speech

pathologists, to name a few, are extremely difficult to find. Due to the difficulty and

expense of running these programs, programs are typically established every 50 miles,

11
and districts that have students with these needs contract with nearby programs for

educational services.

Educational Factors

Not only are deaf students subjected to standardized assessment written in

English, but they are also evaluated accordingly. English is not their native language, and

many tests assume the students’ ability to hear. To equitably compare deaf and nondeaf

peers, it is only reasonable to provide tests in their native languages and address needed

accommodations. Vernon and Andrews (1990) emphasized that although intelligence is

normally distributed in the deaf population, as in the nondeaf population, deaf students’

performance on standardized measures of academic achievement show that the 15-year-

old is six grade levels behind his or her nondeaf peer (Karchmer & Michell, 2003).

The quality of teachers is also an issue that affects deaf students’ learning.

Although state testing incorporates math and science, teachers may not be adequately

prepared in content areas such as science and math (Lane & Albertini, 2001).

Furthermore, teachers may also lack communication skills in sign language. Vernon and

Finnegan (2005) also acknowledged that deaf students are frequently behind in academic

skills due to the lack of accessible language models and quality of curriculum. Many

school environments do not include elements of deaf culture that many believe are crucial

in fostering deaf students’ emotional growth, sense of identity, and academic

achievement. Stucklas (1991) mentioned two weaknesses in deaf education: individual

12
differences in students are not acknowledged; and educational objectives, curriculum,

instruction, and learning are seldom discussed.

Another factor that affects academic achievement is the multiple layers of

multiculturalism. Deaf individuals who immigrate to the United States have often

received little to no formal language training (Goldin-Meadow, 2003). Many immigrant

students come into educational programs with additional language and cultural needs that

are often not fully understood by educators. Obtaining language proficiency involves

both linguistic and cultural dimensions (Cummins, 1984). It is important to strive to

accept the multilingual/multicultural heritage of deaf students, to be sensitive to their

cultural needs and identity, and to provide role models (Luetke-Stahlman, 1998). Much

more insight is needed to equip parents and educators with the knowledge to fully support

the individual students’ needs.

Levels of Physical Hearing and Labels

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2007) includes “hearing

impairment” and “deafness” as one of the categories under which children with

disabilities may be eligible for special education and related support services. The term

hearing impairment is used to describe a wide range of hearing losses. Hearing

impairment is defined by IDEA as “an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or

fluctuating, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance” (34 C.F.R. §

300.7[c][5]). However, deafness is defined as “a hearing impairment that is so severe that

the child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without

amplification” (34 C.F.R. § 300.7[c][3]). According to the American Speech, Language,

13
and Hearing Association a hearing loss that is 20–40 decibels (dB) is described as a mild

hearing loss, 40–60 dB is considered moderate, 60–80 dB is deemed severe, and greater

than 80 decibels would qualify as being a severe to profound loss (IDEA, 2007).

Typically, a person who has a decibel loss of 20–60 is referred to as hard of hearing and

those having a decibel loss greater than 60 are termed deaf.

Children who are referred to as prelingually deaf are those who were either born

with a hearing loss or acquired the loss prior to having fully developed language. A child

with a severe to profound hearing loss, who was prelingually deafened, is not likely to

learn language auditorially or spontaneously (Easterbrooks & Estes, 2007). These

distinctions are important when it comes to identifying student ability of acquire language

auditorially, and how these abilities influence their learning preference.

Barriers to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Learners

The development of spoken language and literacy skills is an especially

challenging task for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Hearing loss restricts the exposure

of linguistic information through the auditory channel and inhibits the development of

spoken language to the point that deaf children typically have significant deficiencies in

the target language and enter adolescence and adulthood without having acquired

proficiency in the language of the larger community (Berent, 1996, 2009; Bochner &

Albertini, 1988; Swisher, 1989). Deaf individuals proficiency in the English language of

the community is essential for educational, social, and career success. Unfortunately, the

lack of English language proficiency has become an obstacle for many deaf learners and

a barrier to their overall educational progress.

14
 The learner’s age can have a major impact on language learning (Birdsong, 2006;

Fischer, 1998; Newport, 1990, 2002). Age is important because of its influence on the

learner’s attainment in the domains of phonology (or pronunciation), morphology, and

syntax (Krashen, Scarcella, & Long, 1982). Within the population of prelingually deaf

individuals, variables such as age at onset, degree of hearing loss, and exposure to ASL

correlate with the learners’ language and literacy success. Although these variables have

been identified, the correlations in the midst of other individual factors has made it

impossible to establish a simple casual relationship between learners’ attainments and

their developmental, language, background and auditory characteristics. For example, it

has been shown repeatedly that degree of hearing loss is inversely related to measures of

spoken language and literacy skills (Allen, 1986; Quigley & Paul, 1986).

Deaf individuals’ spoken language and literacy skills span an extremely wide

range of ability, extending from undeveloped to the highly sophisticated. The extent of

this variation has been attributed to a complex interaction between factors associated with

learner age and the quality and quantity of linguistic acquisition (Bochner & Albertini,

1988).

Deaf Children of Deaf Adults

As stated by Covell (2006), psycholinguists have interpreted the acquisition of

data by deaf children of deaf parents and nondeaf children of nondeaf parents as

demonstrating that the biological structures in the brain show a general human capacity to

create a linguistic system even if the child cannot hear (Emmorey, 2002). Psycholinguist

studies show that deaf children can reach the same language learning milestones as

15
nondeaf children do, but in a different modality—the visual and gestural. However, the

visual–gestural and auditory–vocal paths are not mutually exclusive. Deaf children can

use either or both (Easterbrooks & Estes, 2007). It is therefore important to identify

individual learning styles to meet these learning needs.

Some deaf parents raise their deaf children using speech; others use ASL or even

both. Deaf children with nondeaf parents may develop competence in spoken language

and/or ASL, depending on their skills in picking up either language and upon exposure at

home and school (Andrews, Leigh, & Weiner, 2004).

From birth to 9 months, nondeaf babies babble, whereas deaf babies manually

babble or finger-babble before they produce their first signs (Petitto et al., 2000).

Nondeaf babies produce sounds in predictable patterns; deaf babies likewise produce

handshapes in predictable patterns and progress to syllable babbling following distinct

developmental handshapes. Deaf infants produce sequences of gestures that

phonologically resemble signing but that are not recognizable as signs. From 9 months to

12 months, deaf babies progress to the one-word state. Their first recognizable signs are

produced one at a time and in isolation. This production of one sign at a time continues

for several months.

Deaf babies continue their development in a regular way. From about 9 months to

12 months, they make the signs identifying pronouns (pointing). For example, they point

to themselves and to objects. The first signs are very similar to nondeaf babies’ first

words, such as milk, more, mommy, and daddy. Deaf babies then learn one sign at a time.

By the time they are 1 year old, they know about 10 signs (Andrews et al., 2004).

16
 Deaf babies then combine their signs into two-word utterances. During the second

year, the child increases his or her use of pronominal references and begins to use

pronouns correctly with the first, second and third person. From age 2–3, deaf toddlers

use classifiers and verbs of motion and location. At age 2½, the average deaf toddler

makes use of the productive use of verb agreement. Classifiers increase in number. Noun

and verb pairs are used along with facial expression, body posture, movement, and speed.

From age 3–3½, classifiers and verbs of motion increase. The children continue their

development of complex morphology. At the age of 4, they use Wh questions. At the age

of 4 and 5, they use more complex sentences and a variety of word order and classifiers

(Andrews et al., 2004).

Deaf Children of Nondeaf Parents

Approximately, 90% of deaf children have nondeaf parents (Paul, 2001). These

parents will typically expose their children to some kind of oral English or English signed

systems. Other intervention strategies include cochlear implants, hearing aids, and

auditory and speech therapy. As a result, the development of ASL grammar is thwarted,

and the deaf child often develops a mixed language that interferes with their development

of both sign language and English.

Many deaf children and youths have impoverished vocabularies because of the

devastating effects hearing loss has on oral/aural development and because of the lack of

early sign language input. Most of them will eventually receive language through a visual

or an auditory–visual environment, such as sign language or sign language combined

with speech. A visual signing language is typically provided, only later, in most deaf

17
children’s schooling. For example, about 93% of deaf children are initially enrolled in

auditory–aural programs that use the monolingual approach. One group of researchers

investigated the type of language programming a national sample of deaf children

received (Akamatsu, Mayer, & Hardy-Braz, 2008; Musselman, 2000). They discovered

that by preschool, about 67% of the children were still being educated orally. When

language acquisition does not develop rapidly through oral/aural means, then by

elementary school, the percentage is about 58% stay in oral/aural programs, and the rest

are moved into signing environments. By middle and high school, the percentage has

declined to 31% in oral/aural environments (Akamatsu et al., 2008). Visual

communication is denied most deaf children in the early stages, where it is most needed

for building a solid language base. Such educational practices are a major contributor to

the language deficiency of most deaf children and significantly impacts their learning and

academic achievement.

As reported by Covell (2006), profound deafness severely impedes language

learning. Consequently, it closes off the concerned individuals from normally nondeaf

people and from society, which is primarily auditory-based (Vernon & Andrews, 1990).

This is not the case with deaf children born into deaf families. For them, access to visual

language learning is always open.

Multiculturalism

Linguistic diversity provides even greater challenges for our educational system.

English language learners are a diverse population of students who are learning English

in school. They come from numerous cultural and economic backgrounds and live

18
throughout the country. Language-minority students and limited-English-proficient

students are one of the fastest growing groups of students in the United States. About

50% of all public school teachers will teach these students sometime in their career.

It is commonly recognized that culture plays a key role in construction of

knowledge. How a child views the world can affect their interactions with others. The

intersection of language and culture is ever-so-present in classrooms. Today’s school

populations reflect the changing demographics of our country. The students represent

different histories and generations. Deaf individuals who immigrate to the United States

may bring some developed or underdeveloped form of their country’s indigenous sign

language. Some deaf children, especially those from educationally deprived countries,

receive little or no language exposure and often have to invent their own home signs

(Goldin-Meadow, 2003). Others received delayed or inconsistent language. Deaf children

of deaf parents, who represent the group most successful in advancing up the ladder of

bilingualism, have this success because they are exposed to ASL from birth. However,

they constitute only 10% of the population. Because deaf children of deaf parents rapidly

develop ASL language foundation, they are then ready to acquire English as a second

language upon entering school.

Unfortunately, this does not happen for most deaf children whose parents are not

deaf (Paul, 2001). Although well-intentioned, medical and audiology professionals who

first see and diagnose the deaf child are doing a disservice when they advise parents to

use an only-English monolingual approach. A monolingual approach is limiting, because

it is extremely difficult for deaf children to acquire the English language through speech

19
or speech reading alone (Vernon & Andrew, 1990). Often, it is only after the deaf child

fails with these methods that he or she may finally be allowed to use a sign language.

However, it is typically a sign language that follows English word order or what is called

manually coded English. Manually coded English systems are not a natural language like

ASL. Instead, they are systems created by educators. While these systems use many of

the lexical vocabulary found in ASL, they also use English word order and invented signs

for grammatical endings, articles, and pronouns. These systems follow a one-to-one

mapping of the morphologic structure of English. Methods involving the use of signing in

English syntax benefit the parents more than their deaf child because parents already

know English and can more easily learn a signed-English system. Therefore, these signs

are not a language, but a supportive sign system for English.

These signed English systems have not provided the hope for increased

achievement in English literacy. When deaf children are exposed to these sign systems

invented by educators, the children alter the acquisition they receive by inventing more

effective forms that use facial expression, body language, and space to convey meaning.

What these deaf students are doing is changing the acquisition that is excessively difficult

in a manually expressed language to one that is more effective in a sign language

(Golden-Meadow, 2003). Ironically, this turns out to be more like ASL, which developed

naturally through many years of use by deaf people, not artificially from the work of

educators.

The creation of such mixed languages has contributed to a whole generation of

semilingual deaf children. They fill the public schools, performing below-grade-level

20
work. Semilingualism means that these students lack competence in both ASL and

English. This sign language deficit is due in part to mainstreaming policies, which first

began to flourish in the 1970s (Vernon & Finnegan, 2005). Such polices move deaf

students out of the residential schools.

From the sociolingistic perspective, most state residential schools are rich visual

language and cultural environments for students. The critical mass of deaf students and

deaf adults in such settings provides young deaf children with a supportive environment

with opportunities to learn and use the standard sign language (ASL) employed by deaf

adults and deaf peers. However, the majority of deaf children go to neighborhood public

schools, which rarely support them to the extent residential schools or large day schools

do, in terms of social growth and linguistic growth in the two languages—ASL and

English. In the public schools, deaf students are exposed to a proliferation of mixtures of

sign language by mostly nondeaf teachers and educational interpreters, many of whom

are incompetent in sign language. The results have had a negative effect on most deaf

students’ opportunities to learn concepts, master reading and writing and develop basic

social skills. Therefore, the generation of deaf students and adults who are low academic

achievers continues.

Student’s Identity

There are many factors that influence how a child identifies with a culture; degree

of hearing loss, family structure or social structure. These factors, as well as others, might

influence how a child views themselves culturally.

21
 If a child physically has a hearing loss that he or she identifies as hard of hearing,

then he or she might automatically view him- or herself within this category. However, if

a student is profoundly deaf and benefits from amplification, then he or she might assess

him- or herself also in the hard-of-hearing category. Another way an individual might

identify him- or herself within the hard-of-hearing category is if he or she only associates

among the hearing society.

A child will automatically identify within the deaf culture even if they are hearing

or if they are raised with deaf parents. Similarly, if a deaf child is actively connected with

the deaf community, then they too might associate with the deaf community. In addition,

if a deaf child does not find connection amongst hearing peers, they will eventually find

themselves associating with the deaf community.

Ironically, hard-of-hearing students who are not deaf might associate with the

deaf community even if they are not deaf because they associate with their deaf peers and

the deaf community. For example, if a student is profoundly deaf, yet has no access to the

deaf community, then they will naturally associate with to the culture that is more

identifiable.

There is also the association of a third culture; if a student first identifies as

Russian, Ukrainian, Korean, and so forth, then they might associate first by the culture

they were born into or by their hearing culture. Often this will reflect what they feel most

comfortable or accepted in.

When it comes to education, learning style preference is influenced by culture, so

it is important to assess individuals, their backgrounds, learning needs and their

22
preferences. As to whether a student identifies as being hard of hearing or deaf includes

not only hearing loss, but whether they choose to identify more with the deaf community

and culture or more with the hearing community and culture.

Etiologies

Etiologies play a critical role in the deaf students’ learning. Etiologies associated

with hearing loss are meningitis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, and maternal substance abuse.

These etiologies can result in impulse disorders, behavioral problems, memory-

processing deficits, dyslexia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, visual problems,

and especially language and learning disabilities. All of these can greatly affect academic

learning (Vernon & Andrews, 1990).

For the purpose of this research, it is important to acknowledge there is a

difference between the hard-of-hearing and deaf students physically and culturally. Due

to the complexities of identifying individual hearing loss and how they view themselves

culturally, this study does not incorporate these distinctions. However, it is important to

point out these factors.

Educational Placements

Deaf children are placed in one of two educational settings: residential (state

schools for the deaf) or in mainstream settings (“Educational Programs,” 2008). There is

typically one residential school for the deaf in every state. Only deaf and hard-of-hearing

students attend these schools. These schools prefer to maximize the use of deaf teachers

and staff. The emphasis in these schools is to teach and interact in the culture and

23
language of the deaf. Many of the students reside in dorms at the school during the week

and/or school year.

Mainstream programs are located throughout the state. These programs vary in

size and instructional staff. Parents choose the educational placement for their child for a

variety of reasons. This study does not advocate for one program versus another; its

primary emphasis is to identify the preferred learning styles of those in mainstream

middle and high school programs.

Deaf Culture

The article “Is There a Psychology of Deafness?” (n.d.) affirmed that “if the

minds and behavior of deaf people are substantially different from the minds and

behavior of hearing people then there is such a thing as ‘deaf psychology’” (¶ 4). The

author explained that if an individual is prelingually deaf and grew up using ASL as his

or her native language, then the individual thinks in signs rather than words. This process

constitutes a mental process that is radically different from hearing individuals.

Historical and Social Influences

Historically, treatment of deaf students has changed dramatically over the years.

The American perspective of the deaf can be traced by looking at the titles of the first

schools for the deaf. How the name has changed over time is an explicit example of

progress toward understanding deafness and, ultimately, equality. In 1817, the first

school for the deaf was named the Connecticut Asylum for the Education and Instruction

of Deaf and Dumb Persons. Later, the name changed to the American Asylum. Today, it

24
is called the American School for the Deaf (Alexander & Gannon, 1984). These name

changes indicate a change in perception. Labels and perceptions have changed throughout

history. For example, previously, deaf individuals were labeled as dumb. However, it

would not be applicable to label deaf individuals dumb who can talk. In the past, deaf

individuals were also placed in asylums. To be deaf does not mean having a mental

instability.

Another historically significant event happened in 1880. An international

convention in Milan banned signing for the deaf in most schools. The idea was that

speech reading (oralism) should be used without signs. ASL does not have a commonly

used written form, but it does have a longstanding unwritten literature that includes

various forms of folklore and performance art. Folklore includes a variety of traditional

language arts, such as narratives of traditional themes, jokes and puns, games, and

distinctive naming practices. Performance art includes poetry and plays composed in

ASL. After the Milan decision was implemented, deaf individuals realized that the new

oral method of communication would hinder the ability to protect and preserve their

language and culture. Oralism was not abandoned completely, however, but incorporated

with sign, leading to a new approach to teaching the deaf (total communication and

bilingual–bicultural programs; Luetke-Stahlman, 1998).

Historically, another 19th-century example involved the eugenics movement.

Moores (1996) stated that not only were deaf individuals isolated, but a large number of

individuals were sterilized to reduce or attempt to eliminate unwanted traits, such as

deafness. Many states, in addition to sterilization, also passed laws restricting marriage of

25
these individuals. Surprisingly, Alexander G. Bell strongly supported these actions

(Alexander & Gannon, 1984).

For much of history, deaf people were expected to adapt to the hearing culture

and were not recognized as having a culture of their own. When released from the

asylums into mainstream settings, they were prohibited to sign in public. In the late

1800s, oralism was strictly enforced; often, students were hit or punished for signing or

gesturing (Alexander & Gannon, 1984). Only recently has the deaf culture been

increasingly recognized. The 1988 student strike “Deaf President Now” at Gallaudet

University was a defining moment in the awareness of deaf culture by the hearing

culture. Gallaudet serves an all deaf and hearing-impaired population. For deaf people,

language is an essential basic right that had been denied to them many times throughout

history. It was extremely vital to have a leader who could fully understand and relate to

their population.

Since the 1900s, researchers have studied the learning of deaf and hard-of-hearing

individuals. Early perspectives indicated that deaf students were intellectually deficient

(Pintner & Paterson, 1917). In the 1960s, Myklebust (1964) proposed that deaf

individuals were cognitively different and inferior. In the 1960s, researchers continued to

scrutinize the intelligence of deaf individuals. Vernon (1987) found that deaf individuals

have the same range of intelligence as nondeaf people. Further researchers (Braden,

1994; Marschark, 1993) have found that deaf individuals are not cognitively inferior, but

use different cognitive strategies to learn.

26
Language

As with any culture, the deaf community has its own language: ASL. ASL is a

complete, complex language that employs signs made with the hands and other

movements, including facial expressions and body postures. It contains all the

fundamental features a language needs to function on its own. ASL has its own rules for

grammar, punctuation, and sentence order, just like a spoken language (Lane, 1984).

Deaf children may develop competence in spoken language and/or ASL,

depending on their learning environment. How language is acquired, what is acquired,

and the time frame in which it is acquired all influence language acquisition. As stated by

Vernon and Andrews (1990), profound deafness severely impedes the ability to acquire

auditory-based language. In addition, it is much more complicated to describe the

primary language development of deaf children (Paul, 2001). Quigley and Paul (1982)

affirmed that the description of the language exposure varies; a nature of the language

input (ASL or English) and the nature of the communication mode (manual or oral)

influence the ability to assess language development. However, this does not have to be

the case with deaf children born into deaf families. For them, access to visual language

learning is accessible. However, the majority of deaf and hard-of-hearing students are

born to hearing parents. It is also not presumable that all deaf or hard-of-hearing students’

first language will be ASL or that their parents will learn to sign ASL (Luetke-Stahlman,

1998). Psycholinguists have identified that the brain shows a general human capacity to

create a linguistic system even if the child cannot hear (Poinzer, Klima, & Bellugi, 1987).

As Covell (2006) pointed out, these psycholinguists studies show that deaf children reach

27
the same language-learning milestones as nondeaf children do, but in a different

modality—the visual–gestural.

As stated by Covell (2006), Dimling (2008), and Pollack (1997), the social,

cultural, and language needs of deaf children have been gravely overlooked. They need to

be provided teachers who are uniquely trained to meet their needs. With the growing

number of deaf education programs in public schools, integration of deaf students with

their hearing peers is provided as well as services from a highly qualified staff: teachers

of the deaf, interpreters, speech and language pathologists, and audiologists. Many of

these programs do a very good job of integrating the deaf community and outside service

providers. As deaf children grow to maturity, they turn to their deaf peers and adults for

meaningful communication. It is vital to develop these relationships in order to network

and access services. Most importantly, given the evidence that the brain’s ability to

acquire language is at its peak in the early years, it is important to address any language

needs when the brain is actively creating syntactic networks (Sousa, 2006). Therefore, it

is important to provide deaf students with an environment in which they can naturally

meet their cultural and communication needs.

Political Influences

Education reform had been the subject of much discussion, research, and

legislation, particularly since the release of the National Commission on Excellence in

Education’s report, A Nation at Risk, in 1983. With continuous focus on increasing

educational practices, it is clear that, after 25 years, reform continues to be a significant

28
concern. The NBPTS (2007) was created as a result of A Nation at Risk. Many studies

have shown that in order to increase student performance, there is a pressing need to

increase quality instruction by empowering teachers and meeting diverse needs (Rainer &

Guyton, 1999; Schultz, 2001; Strickland, 2004).

NCLB (2001) set standards for student performance and teacher quality. The

law’s intent was to establish accountability for student achievement and equality within

American education. These expectations cannot be carried out without individualized

accommodations to meet academic, social, and cultural needs of the students. These

expectations have prompted educational researchers to conduct studies to inform

instructional practice and support the adoption of instructional programs (Slayton &

Llosa, 2005). Research needs to address details to meet the needs of individual students,

providing realistic expectations and sufficient support or accommodations.

Policy makers are also showing a strong interest in teacher effectiveness or

teacher quality. The establishment of the NBPTS is another indicator that specific

teaching methods are not only identifiable, but expected. Time, attention, and funds have

been allocated toward establishing clear and concise national teaching standards

(NBPTS, 2007). These standards emphasize the need to evaluate individual student

needs, learning environments, and professional practices to enhance student learning.

Students may not realize their full potential if teachers do not know how they learn. To

elevate students’ grades to their maximum potential; teachers must be able to identify

students’ learning styles (Dunn et al., 2001; Hamlin, 2002; McManus, 2002; Mitchell,

2000; Raupers, 2000).

29
 Sorrells, Rieth, and Sindelar (2004) stated that although changes in legislation

have occurred to increase equity among students, educators are called to look at

individual student needs and programs in determining the least restrictive environment.

These individual needs are addressed in the student’s IEP; however, there are issues of

validity of an IEP when there is a lack of monitoring, accountability, and standards

enforcement.

According to Byrnes (2005), current practices need to provide districts with the

flexibility to create innovative educational environments. For example, if a deaf student

needing modified curriculum, is placed in an inclusive environment, then a special

education teacher and mainstream teacher must be provided with the time, tools, and/or

skills to accommodate the student. Usually, teachers are not provided enough time to

collaborate to meet these needs for individual students. Most importantly, students should

be provided an environment that supports their academic, social, and emotional needs.

There is also current pressure to increase school performance scores. With a

classroom of approximately 30 students, general education teachers have very little time

or attention to allocate toward achievement of IEP goals and objectives. Meeting these

IEP goals and objectives is required by NCLB. With the lack of time and attention in

addressing these individual goals and objectives, schools are less likely to achieve AYP.

Brown v. Board of Education, a Supreme Court decision in 1954, has led to a

plethora of actions addressing equality in education. Schultz (2001) pointed out that

many bilingual–bicultural education programs have emerged to meet the various needs of

students with disabilities. Bilingual–bicultural education is instruction using the native

30
language and culture as a basis for learning subjects until second-language skills have

been developed sufficiently. It is the most widely discussed of the approaches to

providing language-minority children with an equal educational opportunity. Likewise,

Vernon and Andrews (1990) stated that teachers need to be trained in the social, cultural,

or academic needs of deaf students and be provided the time to meet such students’

needs.

Students are put at a disadvantage when they are placed in an educational

environment with high expectations, without addressing cultural and language needs.

Schultz (2001) emphasized this fact when he stated there is discrimination when there is a

lack of proficiency in the language of instruction, clearly identifying the obstacle with

which second-language learners are faced:

In January 1974, the Supreme Court affirmed, in Lau v. Nichols, that school
districts are compelled under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide
children who speak little or no English with special language programs which will
give them an equal opportunity to an education. (p. 236)

It should not be a struggle for a student to understand the language being used

when trying to acquire new knowledge. Many states have abandoned bilingual education

programs because of the lack of positive effects on the acquisition of English literacy, as

determined by scores on statewide proficiency and other achievement tests (Paul, 2001).

However, the intrinsic worth of bilingual education programs that emphasize both

languages and cultures are well-documented (Cummins, 1984, 1989; Hakuta, 1986;

Hamers, 1998). With respect to deaf children, this issue has become even more

complicated and, of course, politicized, especially when viewed within the context of

sociopolitical movements. The call for bilingual and second-language programs for deaf

31
students is motivated by the persistent findings of low levels of achievement in literacy,

particularly on standardized achievement tests (Allen, 1986; Paul, 1998).

Learning Styles

According to Price and Dunn (1997), learning style theory is one of the fastest

growing areas that researchers are examining in order to improve and optimize classroom

instruction. In studying learning styles, educators can identify the conditions under which

individuals are most likely to learn, remember, and achieve. If teachers can identify the

students’ learning styles, then they can adapt their instruction to best support the students’

academic needs. Learning styles include preferred type of environment, instructional

activities, social groups, and motivational factors (Price & Dunn, 1997).

Researchers have found that when teachers identified their students’ learning

styles and matched instructional strategies to their’ learning styles, student performance

on assessment improved (Cholakis, 1986; DeBello, 1985; Miles, 1987; Perrin, 1984).

Within the body of learning-styles research, much is known about the learning styles of

different ethnic minorities in American society, such as Hispanic Americans, African

Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and multiethnic students (Dresser,

2005). However, as stated by Covell (2006), the learning styles of a linguistic–cultural

minority, deaf Americans, has been a largely unexplored area.

The Learning Style Inventory (LSI), used in this study, is based on the Dunn,

Dunn, and Price learning style model. Similarly illustrated in Covell’s (2006) study, this

model is referred to as the VAK approach because it focuses on visual (V), auditory (A),

32
and kinesthetic (K) learning styles. This model identifies 21 elements, which are grouped

into five main categories.

1. Environmental (sound, light, temperature, design)

2. Emotional (motivation, persistence, responsibility, structure)

3. Sociological (self, pair, peers, team, adult, varied)

4. Physical (perceptual, intake, time, mobility)

5. Psychological (analytic/global, hemispheric, impulsive/reflective)

Environmental Learning Styles

Hispanic American elementary and middle school students preferred a cool

temperature and formal design (Dunn, Griggs, & Price, 1993; Jalali, 1988; Yong &

Ewing, 1992. Likewise, Murrain (1983) found that students who preferred a specific

preference in temperature scored higher when provided their preferred environment

(Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1979). In addition, Lam-Phoon (1986) compared the learning

styles of Southeast Asian and European American students. The researcher showed that

Europeans had a higher preference for warmth, intake of food or beverage, and mobility

while learning than Southeast Asian students. The research also showed that male

Europeans had a higher preference for noise, tactile learning, and routines, than females.

Emotional Learning Styles

Jackson-Allen and Christenberry (1994) reported that high-achieving African

American males had strong preferences for motivational support and were also more

motivated by parental influences. African American males who were low-achieving

preferred learning experiences that involved opportunities for mobility. In regards to

33
emotional learning styles, which included responsibility, structure, persistence, and

motivation, Sims (1988) reported that Hispanic Americans were the least conforming of

the three ethnic groups studied.

Sociological Learning Styles

Significantly more sociological variety is required of Hispanic American than

African American or European American (Dunn et al., 1993; Jalali, 1988). Dowaliby,

Burke, and McKee (1983) found that deaf students were significantly more externally

oriented then nondeaf. Externality is defined such that an individual’s perception is likely

to attribute the consequences of his or her behavior to outside influences. Internal means

that the perception assumes responsibility for one’s own behavior (Dowaliby, McKee, &

Maher, 1983).

Physical Learning Styles

Sims (1988) found that Hispanic Americans, significantly less than European

Americans, preferred drinking or eating snacks while learning. Yong and Ewing (1992)

reported that African Americans preferred a visual modality and studying in the

afternoon, while Hispanic American preferred a kinesthetic modality. Dunn et al. (1993)

and Sims indicated that African Americans had significantly more demanding needs for

auditory and visual learning than Hispanic Americans. Sims also indicated that Hispanic

American students showed a lower need for mobility than European American did. In

addition, Hispanic Americans preferred to learn at a stationary desk where most of their

responsibilities could be completed without excessive movement. European Americans

34
students wanted frequent breaks and preferred to do assignments that required movement

to different locations, and schedules that permitted mobility in the learning environment.

Psychological Learning Styles

The majority of educators are analytic learners (left-hemisphere dominant) while

many students at any level are global learners (right-hemisphere dominant). Neither

method is inherently better than the other, but the two types of learners can learn the

same information by approaching it differently. Analytic learners respond best when

ideas are presented sequentially with new information building upon past knowledge, and

leading up to eventual understanding of the entire concept. In addition, global learners

need to see the world picture first and respond best when a teacher begins with a

narration that explains why learning the information is important (Dunn & Dunn, 1972).

Multiple Intelligence Theory

Multiple intelligence theory recognizes the variety of learning styles by

illustrating the array of different types of intelligences among learners. This theory

proposes that instructional practices based on this theory should enable students to

transfer learning effectively to situations outside of the school environment (Snowman &

Biehler, 2003). Psychologists Gardner and Sternberg proposed that there is more than one

general type of intelligence (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Although they asserted that

there are different types of intelligences, they disagreed as to how many. Gardner

proposed that there are seven forms of intelligence, and Sternberg proposed that there are

three forms of intelligence. Multiple intelligences address the numerous ways that

35
children acquire knowledge. Multiple intelligences makes a contribution to education by

suggesting that teachers expand their repertoire of teaching strategies, thereby providing

students varied opportunities to learn and show evidence of learning. Multiple

intelligence theory provides a framework for teachers to reflect on their best teaching

methods and to understand why these methods work well for some students.

Sternberg’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligences takes into account creative, analytic,

and practical intelligences. Sternberg’s basic point is that intelligence should be viewed

as a broad characteristic of people, one that is evidenced not only by how well they

answer a particular set of questions, but also by how well they function in different

settings (Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

Practical Ability

Practical intelligence involves the ability to grasp, understand, and deal with

everyday tasks. This is the contextual aspect of intelligence and reflects how the

individual relates to the external world (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Practical

intelligence can be said to be intelligence that uses real-world applications. People with

this type of intelligence can usually adapt to their environment.

Creative Ability

Creative intelligence involves insights, synthesis, and the ability to react to novel

situations and stimuli (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Sternberg considered the experiential

aspect of intelligence and reflected on how an individual connects the internal world to

36
external reality. He also hypothesized that creative ability allows people to adjust

creatively and effectively to new situations (Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

Analytical Ability

Sternberg proposed that analytical intelligence is based on the joint operations of

metacomponents (that control, monitor, and evaluate cognitive processing), performance

components, and knowledge acquisition (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Snowman and

Biehler explained that these are the executive functions used to order and organize

performance as well as to acquire knowledge, for example, to analyze problems and pick

a strategy for solving them. Performance components are the cognitive processes that

enable us to encode stimuli, hold information in short-term memory, perform mental

calculations, compare different stimuli, and retrieve information from long-term memory.

Knowledge acquisition components are the process used in gaining and storing new

knowledge. Sternberg noted that people with better reasoning ability generally spend

more time considering the problem, but reach a solution faster than those who are less

skilled at such a task (Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Gardner based his own theory of intelligence on biological facts. Gardner

identified seven different areas of the brain and therefore his theory consists of seven

different intelligences. Gardner (1999) originally identified seven intelligences: linguistic,

musical, spatial, bodily, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and logico-mathematical.

37
Bodily-Kinesthetic

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence involves the ability to use one’s body to solve

problems. It is the ability to coordinate physical movements mentally (Snowman &

Biehler, 2003). In this category, people often learn best by physically doing an activity.

Planning to maximize the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is not only healthy, but provides

students with greater concepts of self and meaningful connection to the context. For

example, in a unit on force, gravity, and mass, adding physical activity will help students

integrate their learning and have an increased opportunity for deep-level learning.

Interpersonal

Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand others—their intentions,

motivations, and desires (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). It allows people to work

effectively with each other. People in this category are usually sensitive to others’ moods,

feelings, temperaments, and motivations. Incorporating interpersonal intelligence

increases students’ ability to understand other perspectives and increase awareness. An

instructional method that supports interpersonal intelligence is collaborative activity,

whether it is in the form of small groups (with a variety of configurations as well as

online) or within a class discussion.

Verbal-Linguistic

Verbal-linguistic intelligence involves the ability to learn languages and the

capacity to use language to accomplish a task (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). In developing

this intelligence, students should be given ample opportunity to read and express

38
themselves within their preferred language. Choices in activities and final evidence of

learning should incorporate written tasks such as writing a speech, script, poem, or essay.

Logical-Mathematical

Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the ability to analyze problems

logically, perform mathematical operations, investigate problems, identify patterns, and

reason deductively and logically (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Incorporating activities

such as evaluating, using pros and cons of a topic, and discussing patterns (migration,

extinction, global warming) are teaching strategies that support analytical thinking.

Spatial

Spatial intelligence is the ability to recognize and use spatial patterns (Snowman

& Biehler, 2003). People with strong visual-spatial intelligence are good at visualizing

and mentally manipulating objects. They have a strong visual memory, are often

artistically inclined, and are good with directions (Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

Storyboards, presentations, and mind-mapping are examples of activities that would

support visual-spatial intelligence.

Intrapersonal

Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to understand oneself (Snowman &

Biehler, 2003). Individuals in this category are highly self-aware and capable of

understanding their own emotions, goals, and motivations (Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

Often, individuals who exhibit intrapersonal intelligence would find rewarding such

activities as setting personal goals, participating in community projects, and using

learning logs.

39
Musical

Musical intelligence involves skills in musical performance and composition

(Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Unit activities that support musical intelligence could

involve plays, writing music or poetry, or a multimedia creation.

Naturalistic

As stated by Snowman and Biehler (2003), the naturalistic intelligence is the

eighth and newest of the intelligences, added in 1996, and is not as widely accepted as the

original seven. Naturalistic intelligence is the capacity to relate to nature and one’s place

in it, the ability to nurture and grow things, and having greater ease in caring for, taming,

and interacting with animals (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). It also enables human beings

to recognize, categorize and identify certain features of the environment.

The deaf student may use highly spatial and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences when

utilizing ASL. However, many are placed in a school program whose communication

philosophy uses only oral/auditory methods or simultaneous communication (signs and

speech) that essentially tap into auditory or musical intelligence.

The Constructivist Theory

Constructivism asserts that reality is not objective or independent to the observer

but is constructed or developed by the observer (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). The

constructions vary across people, through social interactions, and are influenced by

culture and history. The term refers to both cognitive constructivism, influenced by

Piaget, and social constructivism, influenced by Vygotsky (Paul, 2001). Understanding

40
the numerous ways that children acquire knowledge enables teachers to use a variety of

strategies to reach children with different types of intelligences. It also shows respect for

students by acknowledging their differences and individual needs. Students grasp ideas

when they connect their own lives and experiences to their learning. Brooks and Brooks

stated that schools can be student-centered and successfully prepare students for their

adult years by understanding and honoring the dynamics of learning and by recognizing

that schooling must be a time of curiosity, exploration, and inquiry. Most importantly,

learning is not about getting through a specific text. It is about authentic use of

knowledge that is conceptual and using scaffolding in a way that uncovers the content

and makes learning meaningful and fulfilling.

There are many positive attributes of constructivist models; student engagement

and active involvement in their own learning; teachers teaching for meaning and

understanding; teachers creating classroom environments that are low in threat, yet high

in challenges; teachers immersing their students in complex learning experiences;

teachers using research to inform instructional practice; and teachers judging what and

how research should be applied to their classrooms (Winters, 2001). Incorporating

constructivism within the classroom requires instructors to know the learning styles of

their students.

Differentiated Instruction

Tomlinson (2004) acknowledged the need to respond to all learning styles by

creating differentiated classrooms. She emphasizes the need to incorporate instructional

41
strategies and create learning environments that will support the array of learning styles

to meet individual needs. The goal is to foster deep learning that is applied to new

settings. The emphasis is to present real-world issues and problems to students to help

foster connections. Again, this real-world application is a strong component of

Sternberg’s theory. To build connections within students’ learning, teachers need to

inquire about students’ understanding by promoting conversations, asking open-ended

questions, providing time to develop connections, nurturing curiosity, and asking for

elaborated responses (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006). Differentiated instruction can assist

teachers in recognizing and adapting to the various needs and differences among

students, thereby maximizing each student’s ability to grow. Tomlinson defined

differentiated instruction as follows:

Differentiated instruction is not an instructional strategy or a teaching model. It’s

a way of thinking about teaching and learning that advocates beginning where
individuals are rather than with a prescribed plan of action, which ignores student
readiness, interest, and learning profile. It is a way of thinking that challenges
how educators typically envision assessment, teaching, learning, classroom roles,
use of time, and curriculum. (p. 108)

Differentiation addresses what a student should know, understand, and be able to do. It

incorporates the means by which students will become familiar with the information.

When differentiating by content, teachers vary the materials with which students are

working. In the process, there are many factors: instructional formats, instructional

arrangements, instructional strategies, and the social and physical environment. Varying

teaching strategies makes sure that students will have an opportunity to learn in a manner

compatible with their own learning style, but also expands their ability to acquire

alternative learning strategies.

42
 Differentiation is also a large component of constructivism. As described by

Tomlinson (2004), differentiated instruction has the teacher and student plan, set goals,

monitor progress, analyze successes and failures, and seek to multiply the successes and

learn from failures. Tomlinson indicated that differentiated instruction occurs when

multiple perspectives on ideas and events are routinely sought, when many instructional

arrangements are used, when the teacher facilitates students’ skills at becoming more

self-reliant learners, and when students are assessed in multiple ways.

Learning has several dimensions; the more one analyzes learning, the more one

understands its complexities. It is important to build upon essential concepts and

principles. As Tomlinson (2004) pointed out, it is important to make certain that content,

process, and product are built around materials and experiences that lead students to

engage with and genuinely understand the subject. When this engagement occurs,

students have deeper understanding and grasp new information much more quickly. With

continual analysis of curriculum and instructional practices, teachers can meet

differentiated needs by providing an array of instructional practices, modes of

assessments, and activities. For this reason, it is important to connect learning with key

concepts that are personally relevant. In addition, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000)

stated that cognitive research has shown that educational programs should challenge

students to link, connect, and integrate ideas and to learn in authentic contexts, taking

into account their perceptions of real-world problems; because differentiated instruction

requires a considerable degree of self-direction and intrinsic motivation, it is important to

develop intrinsic motivation skills. Identifying student’s readiness, interests, and learning

43
style will help teachers address content, process, and product around differentiated needs.

Tomlinson stated that differentiation is an organized, yet flexible, way of proactively

adjusting teaching and learning to meet kids where they are and help them to achieve

maximum growth as learners.

Summary

Although historically, deaf and hard-of-hearing programs were not a focus in

public education, they are now socially, politically, and economically supported. Due to

the neglect in the past, however, there are still vital curriculum needs within these

programs. Many researchers (e.g., Bransford et al., 2000; Martin-Kniep, 2008; Marzano,

Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) have emphasized the importance of what is taught, how it is

taught and how learning it is assessed to foster transferable learning. What is taught is

significant when analyzing how students learn. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) pointed out

the importance of key concepts in the ability to foster transferable learning. To become

self sustaining, lifelong learners, students need a strong foundation to build on.

Researchers acknowledge that students’ background, perspective and prior knowledge

influence their learning. Students “come to formal education with a range in prior

knowledge, skills, beliefs, and concepts that significantly influence what they notice

about the environment and how they organize and interpret it” (Bransford et al., 2000, p.

10).

Furthermore, the dynamics of education are changing to meet the needs of diverse

groups. An emphasis is on increasing standardization with established state and national

44
standards. There are strong forces behind these changes, and they are significant in

meeting the educational needs of all students. Thus, curriculum is always changing,

whether it is the accessibility, the population, or the process by which it is used. Marshall,

Sears, Allen, Roberts, and Schubert (2007) emphasized this change by stating there is a

need to respect the past, its developments, and theories in order to be able to shape the

future and develop new theories. They suggested that there is a need to look into the past

to understand the present and the interconnections among economic, cultural, personal,

and social forces. Specifically, Marshall et al. emphasized that “the challenges are not

only the clarity of cultural studies, but articulating sociopolitical concerns and reframing

the issues for a citizenry dumbed-down by years of schooling” (p. 260).

Gay (2003) also acknowledged that the achievement gap between children of

different ethnicities is an issue that needs to be addressed. Sternberg addressed this issue

as well by stating that students who were high in creative and practical abilities were

more racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse (Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

They suggested that teachers should recognize that differences are not necessarily

deficits, learn as much about cultural subgroups and keep in mind these qualities when

teaching, and remember that each student is unique (Snowman & Biehler, 2003).

There are two distinct schools of thought on the nature of intelligence. Gardner’s

theory is based on biological reasons for intelligence, while Sternberg’s theory does not

focus on the brain and biological function, but on different social situations and

environments (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Both theories are applicable methodologies to

address the diverse needs of students. Whether it is Gardner’s linguistic, musical, spatial,

45
bodily, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and logico-mathematical or Sternberg’s creativity,

analytic, and practical intelligences approach, these theories address the preferred

learning style of students. Multiple intelligences theory states that an array of

instructional practices should increase student learning as well as the ability to transfer

learning (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). Both theories acknowledge that there are

preferable learning methods that differ among students. The need is to integrate the

multiple intelligences within content and provide students with choices for how they want

to demonstrate their understanding. There are many instructional methods that address

multiple intelligences that, when used, can increase student learning. A project-centered

approach provides variety and the educational dimensions for students to illustrate their

evidence of understanding. Understanding the numerous ways that children acquire

knowledge enables teachers to use a variety of strategies to reach children with different

types of intelligences. It also shows respect for students by acknowledging their

differences and individual needs.

Likewise, the NBPTS (2007) emphasized the need to advance student learning by

developing meaningful learning, multiple paths to knowledge, and social development. It

also supports student learning by designing meaningful assessment, establishing learning

environments, and developing instructional resources and family partnerships, as well as

professional development and outreach, by incorporating reflective practice and

contributing to the profession and to education. Through the core propositions found in

NBPTS, instructors are strongly encouraged to analyze individual learning styles.

46
 Between recent federal mandates that require accountability for providing

students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum, the NBPTS, and the

increasing expectation to raise state learning standards, there is a need to tailor

curriculum and instruction to embrace students’ diversity and push relentlessly to move

each student toward his or her academic potential. Differentiated instruction can help

school personnel tailor their teaching to meet the various individual needs. Concepts of

differentiated instruction can be found in many curriculum models and are vital in

supporting individual learning styles. In order for teachers to be effective, they have to be

aware of the different learning styles and preferences of their students.

47
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research procedures and instruments

that were used to obtain and analyze the data and, thus, answer the research questions. A

quantitative method research design was used in this study. The study analyzed

perceptual preferences of auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic learning styles. These

learning styles were measured by the LSI (Price & Dunn, 1997). The LSI is a

comprehensive approach to the identification of how a student prefers to function, learn,

concentrate, and perform educational activities (Price & Dunn, 1997).

Statement of the Problem

It is not known whether there is a relationship between deaf middle and high

school students’ preferred learning style and that of their nondeaf peers. The diversity

among the students within deaf programs has forced districts to recognize the need to

address differentiated instruction to meet federally mandated standards. NCLB does not

exempt deaf students from showing improvement in order for schools to achieve AYP.

As stated by Price and Dunn (1997), learning styles include elements that are crucial to

an individual’s ability to learn. When instructors specify a particular learning style, they

also identify the type of environment, instructional activities, social groups, and

48
motivating factors that maximize personal achievement. Gorski (2001) emphasized the

need to address multicultural needs to establish learning environments and teaching

approaches that complement the unique learning styles of deaf students. Knowing

whether such a relationship exists between deaf high school students’ preferred learning

style and that of their nondeaf peers could possibly provide insight to better meet

individual learning needs.

Research Hypotheses

The following research hypothesizes guided this study:

H1: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences of auditory delivery of instruction.

H2: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences of visual delivery of instruction.

H3: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences of tactile delivery of instruction.

H4: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences of kinesthetic delivery of instruction.

Research Methodology

As illustrated by Creswell (2005), quantitative design approach should match the

research problem as well as fit the approach to the audience. He also stated that the

purpose is to provide a description of trends or an explanation of the relationship among

49
variables. For this purpose, a quantitative design was chosen, as the purpose of this study

was to determine whether there are differences between learning styles of middle and

high school students in mainstream deaf education programs and those of their nondeaf

peers. This study investigated the relationship between hearing and nonhearing students’

(middle and high) visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic learning style preferences.

Research Design

The basic rationale for this design was that the research questions can be

answered clearly with descriptive statistics. The quantitative data were collected using a

104-question survey, the LSI. Students responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. LSI identifies students’ preferences for 22 elements

and reports scores for 36 subscales. A discriminate analysis was used to compare the two

groups and their learning style variables. Responses were converted to standard scores

using a computerized program. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results.

Background of Researcher

The researcher was an interpreter for the deaf for 10 years. For an additional 10

years, she was also a teacher of the deaf, with experience at all levels of education. She

has extensive knowledge of deaf culture and education. With her experience and

knowledge of deaf education and culture, she chose to use a prominent deaf man as her

interpreter. The interpreter is a deaf man and holds a prestigious position within the deaf

community. He validated that communication was understood by learners at all levels of

communication and ensured that there were no barriers between cultures.

50
Setting of Study

The setting of this study took place in three high schools and three middle school

settings, throughout the state of Washington. Surveys were given during the school day

and within the classroom setting. The survey was given in two visits per group and each

visit took approximately 45 minutes.

Population and Sampling Procedures

This research focused on deaf students who were mainstreamed throughout

Grades 6–12 and their nondeaf peers. The target population or sampling frame is the

mainstream programs that house deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the state of

Washington. School district audiologists identify the deaf students as those who have

hearing loss that ranges from profound to moderate. The target sample was the group of

participants in the state of Washington who volunteered to participate. Within this

sample, there are 45 deaf students and 45 nondeaf students.

The sample size was influenced by the limited number of participants who were

conveniently available. The rationale for using the sample from Washington State

mainstream programs was that they had an average number of enrolled students and

districts offering programs like those found throughout the United States. As indicated by

“Educational Programs” (2008), the average enrollment of students per state is 358.3

while Washington State has 310. The average number of districts that have programs is

7.9, and Washington has nine. Out of the nine districts, four districts chose to participate.

A random selection of the participants who chose to participate would not provide a

51
statistically significant number. Therefore, the sample size consists of all target

populations willing to participate. An equivalent number of nondeaf volunteers

participated on the basis of who turned in their consent forms first.

All middle and high school mainstream programs in the state of Washington were

invited to participate. To locate participants, all nine mainstream programs were

contacted via email or phone calls. Three out of eight districts in Washington State chose

to participate. Participants were found at Highline, North Thurston, and Puyallup school

districts. These mainstream deaf education programs were found within public education.

Within these programs, deaf students are mainstreamed with their hearing peers,

dependant on their academic ability and needs.

Sample size consists of 90 students; 45 deaf students (profoundly deaf to hard of

hearing) and 45 nondeaf students. These students were found in three middle schools and

three high school settings within the Washington State.

Instrumentation

The LSI (Dunn et al., 2006) was the first comprehensive approach to the

assessment of an individual’s learning style in Grades 6–12. This instrument is an

important and useful step in identifying the conditions in which an individual is most

likely to learn, remember, and achieve. LSI is a 104-item survey that identifies students’

preferences for 22 elements and that reports scores for 36 subscales. Each subscale has

two to eight dichotomous items based on the factor analysis. Each subscale score

52
represents the extent to which that characteristic is preferred by the student when he or

she is learning or concentrating (Price, Dunn, & Dunn, 1977).

Careful analysis of a student’s LSI data identifies those preferences that are

critical to an individual’s learning. Further, the instrument aids in identifying the type of

environment, instructional activities, social groupings, and motivating factors that

maximize personal achievement. In addition, this tool, specifically identifies the students’

preference in learning style; auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic.

LSI–R for Deaf

In following Covell’s (2006) design, the researcher contacted the authors of the

LSI and requested that she be allowed to make a few language transliterations based on

her sample of deaf middle and high school students. The authors agreed and do not view

these changes as adaptations but language and/or cultural equivalencies. Basically, the

changes were minor and involved changing some wording. These changes were used for

this population of deaf middle and high school students. An example of the change in

wording is as follows:

21. Original: “I remember things better when I read, rather than when someone

tells me them” (LSI; Dunn et al., 2006).

21. Revision: “I remember things better when I read, rather than when someone

tells/signs me them.”

In addition, the equivalent to an auditory distraction would translate to a visual

distraction.

53
 The researcher gave out copies of the LSI and the LSI–R to groups of deaf and

nondeaf middle and high school students throughout the state of Washington. They were

instructed in ASL by a deaf interpreter as well as sign and voiced English by the

researcher to ensure information was accessible regardless of communication style or

skill level.

On the LSI and LSI–R the questions were answered in writing. The questions

were answered on a Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The

participants were instructed to give their immediate or first reaction to each question as

though they were learning new or difficult material. The inventory was completed in one

or two sessions and took approximately 2 hours to complete.

Validity

Research in 1997 indicated that 95% (21 out of 22) of the reliabilities are equal to

or greater than .60 (LSI; Dunn et al., 2006). The survey is given using a Likert scale for

Grades 6–12. According to the Price system, for the LSI, the areas with the highest

reliabilities included noise level, light, temperature, design, motivation, persistence,

responsibility, structure, learning alone or peer-oriented, learning in several ways,

auditory, visual, kinesthetic, intake of food or beverage, learning or working in evening

or morning, late morning, afternoon, and mobility. The areas with the lowest reliabilities

included authority figures present and tactile preferences. The LSI was revised based on a

careful review of each item. Analysis included a reevaluation of the items that could be

interpreted in different ways and were not entirely clear in their representations of the

54
defined areas (Price & Dunn, 1997). The use of the scores from the two separate groups,

deaf and nondeaf, will address each hypothesis.

For multivariate methods of data analysis, power is influenced by the ratio of N/p,

or the sample size divided by the number of variables. An N/p ratio of 20:1 or higher is

recommended as a minimum for most multivariate designs (20 subjects for each

variable). Because there are four dependent variables, the general rule suggests a sample

of at least 80 or more (Stevens, 1997). An estimate of power using the G*Power 3

program from the rule-of-thumb regarding effect size was used because there was no

empirical effect size estimate to use. Assuming a choice of alpha of .05 and an effect size

of .14, a sample size of 92 is required to yield power of .80, which is acceptable for most

social science research. This implies that a sample size of 92 will give an 80% chance of

rejecting the null hypothesis when it should be rejected. In any event, this is consistent

with Steven’s rule of thumb, so the recommended minimum sample size for this study is

92 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).

Therefore, the researcher continued sampling until an approximately equal

number of subjects are sampled in each group (45 deaf and 45 nondeaf). One of the

assumptions of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)-type models is that the

variance of scores for each group is approximately equal. MANOVA-type research is

designed with 45 or more per group in approximately equal numbers; the assumption of

equal variances is not a concern.

Another assumption of the statistical method is that the dependent variable(s)

follow an approximately normal distribution. It is also well-known that this assumption

55
can be ignored when the sample size is large (usually defined as 30 or more) within each

group because the data tend to behave as though the distribution were normal (even if it is

not) when sample size is large. By having more than 45 in each group the statistical tests

should be robust enough to avoid violation of the assumption of normality.

Reliability

The pretesting of the LSI consisted of a quantitative synthesis of 42 experimental

research studies with a sample size of 3,434 students, based on the Dunn, Dunn, and

Price learning style model. A meta-analysis approach was utilized to determine whether

identifying learning style preferences as a basis for instruction led to academic

improvement. A quality-rating scale based on internal and external validity was used to

evaluate the studies. The results indicated a Total Set and a Quality Set of studies. The

mean standardized difference for Total Set was .72243. The mean standardized difference

for the Quality Set was .75546, indicating that when learning styles were matched with

congruous instruction, improvement could be expected to increase by 75% of a standard

deviation of the normal curve distribution (Price & Dunn, 1997).

Data Collection Procedures

Students in Grades 6–12 responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. All 22 areas may not necessarily affect each student.

Typically, most individuals have six to eight of the 22 areas that are of specific

importance to them (Dunn et al., 2005). A two-group comparison (deaf and hard of

56
hearing vs. nondeaf) was utilized. A discriminate analysis was used to compare the two

groups and their learning style variables. Responses were converted to standard scores

using a computerized program. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the results.

This research summarized the results of several analyses of the LSI to establish

the reliability of the instrument and to identify the relationship of learning style

preferences between grades and among genders within grades, as well as the relationship

of learning style to achievement and self-concept. It is an approach to the identification of

the ways students prefer to function, learn, concentrate, and perform in their occupational

or educational activities in five areas: (a) immediate environment (sound, temperature,

light, and design); (b) emotionality (motivation, responsibility, persistence, and the need

for structure and flexibility; (c) sociological needs (self-oriented, peer-oriented, authority-

oriented, or preferring to learning in a variety of ways, e.g., sometimes alone, with peers,

and/or with authority figures); and (d) physical needs (perceptual preferences, time of

day, intake of food or beverages, and mobility). Questions on the survey in each of the

areas are presented so as to reveal the way in which an individual prefers to work or

concentrate (Price et al., 1977).

Data Analysis Procedures

A two-group comparison (deaf vs. nondeaf) was utilized. A discriminate analysis

was used to compare the two groups and their learning style variables. Responses were

converted to standard scores using a computerized program. The factors within the LSI

were submitted to the BMDP4M computer program that used varimax, an orthogonal

57
rotation to maximize the variance of the squared factor loading using Kaiser’s (1958)

normalization (Rummel, 1970). The raw data were then used to analyze the hypothesis.

MANOVA was used to analyze this data because it examined the difference

between the groups of an independent variable on a number of dependent variables at the

same time. A MANOVA is an appropriate statistical method because there are several

dependent variables that are continuous (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and tactile) and a

one categorical independent variable (group). MANOVA produces an overall

significance test (usually a Wilks’s Lambda) for the difference between groups.

Ethical Considerations

In all steps of the research process, respect for audience and participants were an

utmost concern. In upholding ethical standards, Institutional Review Board process was

by the researcher. Honor and support were given to the research site; all learners, staff

and learning environment. Great attention and effort has gone into reporting research

fully and honestly.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from several individuals and groups before data

were collected. Permission was first obtained by the educational staff at the districts.

Teachers, building administration, and district administration was needed to approve the

research before data were collected. The researcher needed to obtain consent from the

students, as well as from their parents.

58
Privacy

It is important to protect the privacy of individuals who participate in the study.

Therefore, student numbers were used instead of names and no private information was

collected. The only information that was collected was in regards to the students’

preferred learning environment.

Confidentiality

In order to be sensitive to the participants, the identification of the individual

participants remained undisclosed to all third parties. In addition, data will be kept locked

and secured for at least 7 years and then shredded.

Summary

Comparing the learning styles of deaf students to their nondeaf peers could

provide insight in how to maximize learning. Not all students learn the same, and

significant differences between these two groups could provide valuable information. If

teachers can identify individual learning styles of their students, then they can adapt the

environment and instruction to maximize learning. Tools such as the LSI provide the

diagnostic data to make these adaptations. The LSI yields information concerned with the

patterns though which learning occurs by summarizing the auditory, visual, tactile and

kinesthetic preferences a student has for learning.

59
 CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This study explored the difference between deaf middle and high school students’

preferred learning style versus the preferred learning style of their nondeaf peers. The

purpose of this chapter is to describe the demographic data related to the participants,

present and analyze findings and provide a summary of the findings.

Demographic Data

Surveys were given to 90 students: 45 deaf and hard-of-hearing students and 45

nondeaf/non-hard-of-hearing students in Grades 6–12. As illustrated in Table 1, there was

an even number of individuals in the deaf/hard-of-hearing and nondeaf/non-hard-of-

hearing groups 45 per group. The mean for the deaf and hard-of-hearing group was 16.33

(SD = 1.895) and the Hearing was 16.47 (SD = 1.841). Although the surveys were given

to equal number of students in each middle school and high school, there was a slight

difference in ages among the students. To account for a higher mean for the hearing

group, older students could have volunteered at the middle school than that of the hearing

group. For example, more hearing eighth graders within a middle school setting could

have volunteered than the deaf/hard-of-hearing group.

60
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Age by Group

Group M SD N

Deaf/hard of hearing 16.33 1.895 45

Hearing 16.47 1.841 45

Total 16.40 1.859 90

In addition, Table 2 illustrates that the group means were very similar; there was

an even number of males to females in each of the groups. There were 42 males (M =

16.19, SD = 1.877) and 48 females (M = 16.58, SD = 1.843).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Age

by Gender

Gender M SD N

Male 16.19 1.877 42

Female 16.58 1.843 48

Total 16.40 1.859 90

Data Analysis

The following research hypotheses guided this study:

H1: There will be a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences of auditory delivery of instruction.

61
 H2: There will be a significant difference between deaf or and nondeaf students

on perceptual preferences of visual delivery of instruction.

H3: There will be a significant difference between deaf or and nondeaf students

on perceptual preferences of tactile delivery of instruction.

H4: There will be a significant difference between deaf or and nondeaf students

on perceptual preferences of kinesthetic delivery of instruction.

Table 3 provides descriptive statistics of the preferred learning style of both

groups (mean, standard deviations, and sample size). The table shows that there was

almost no difference between groups on the auditory and kinesthetic learning styles. With

preference to auditory delivery of instruction, deaf/hard of hearing scored 52.87 mean

(SD = 10.670) and hearing scored 52.36 mean (SD = 10.656). The deaf/hard-of-hearing

group also had a slight preference to kinesthetic delivery of instruction, scoring 51.87

mean (SD = 11.198), and hearing 51.33 mean (SD = 8.367).

However, there was a substantial difference between groups on the visual and

tactile forms of instruction. The deaf/hard-of-hearing group was scored markedly higher

than the hearing group on both visual and tactile. Significantly, the deaf/hard-of-hearing

group preferred visual delivery of instruction. They scored 51.33 (SD = 9.765) and

hearing scored 45.38 (SD = 8.950). Similarly, in the tactile category, the deaf/hard-of-

hearing group scored 54.98 (SD = 10.022) and the hearing group scored 48.33 (SD =

11.784).

62
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Learning Style by Group

Learning style Group M SD N

Auditory Deaf/hard of hearing 52.87 10.670 45

Hearing 52.36 10.656 45
Total 52.61 10.606 90

Visual Deaf/hard of hearing 51.33 9.765 45

Hearing 45.38 8.950 45
Total 48.36 9.783 90

Tactile Deaf/hard of hearing 54.98 10.022 45

Hearing 48.33 11.784 45
Total 51.66 11.378 90

Kinesthetic Deaf/hard of hearing 51.87 11.198 45

Hearing 51.33 8.367 45
Total 51.60 9.832 90

MANOVA was used to determine if there were significant differences between

group means on all of the dependent variables simultaneously. The overall multivariate

Wilks’s Lambda test (λ = .80) was statistically significant (F4,85 = 5.27, p = .001). There

was a significant difference overall between groups on auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and

tactile.

Table 4 presents univariate F tests. Each is a test of the difference between groups

on their preference of delivery of instruction in auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and tactile

separately. The univariate F test was significant for the visual and tactile variables (sig. <

.05). Visual scored .003 and tactile scored .005. This showed that there was a significant

difference in preference of visual and tactile delivery of instruction between the two

63
groups. The univariate F test was nonsignificant for the auditory and kinesthetic

variables; auditory scoring .821 and kinesthetic scoring .799. This illustrated that there

was not a significant difference between the deaf/hard-of-hearing group and the hearing

group in auditory or kinesthetic preference in delivery of instruction.

Table 4. Individual Tests for Learning Style Variables by Group

Source Dependent variable SS df MS F Sig.

Group Auditory 5.878 1 5.878 .052 .821

Visual 798.044 1 798.044 9.096 .003
Tactile 993.344 1 993.344 8.302 .005
Kinesthetic 6.400 1 6.400 .066 .799

Error Auditory 10005.511 88 113.699

Visual 7720.578 88 87.734
Tactile 10528.978 88 119.647
Kinesthetic 8597.200 88 97.695

Figure 1 is a display plot of the means of the preferred learning style of both

groups. Specifically, it illustrates that the deaf and hard-of-hearing group is only slightly

higher in the preference of auditory and kinesthetic. However, it shows that the deaf and

hard-of-hearing group has a significantly higher tactile and visual preferences than their

hearing group.

64
Figure 1. Learning style by group.

Results

The first hypothesis stated that there is a significant difference between deaf and

nondeaf students on perceptual preferences of auditory delivery of instruction. This

hypothesis was not supported by the data.

The second hypothesis stated there is a significant difference between deaf and

nondeaf students on perceptual preferences of visual delivery of instruction. This

65
hypothesis was supported by the data. Specifically, individuals in the deaf/hard-of-

hearing group were higher than the hearing group on the visual subscale.

The third hypothesis stated that there is a significant difference between deaf and

nondeaf students on perceptual preferences of tactile delivery of instruction. This

hypothesis was supported by the data. Specifically, individuals in the deaf/hard-of-

hearing group were higher than the hearing group on the tactile subscale.

Lastly, the fourth hypothesis stated that there is a significant difference between

deaf and nondeaf students on perceptual preferences of kinesthetic delivery of instruction.

This hypothesis was not supported by the data.

Summary

Deaf and hard-of-hearing students had an overall preference for the Visual and

Tactile modalities when compared to hearing students. Whether looking at the mean,

standard deviation, sample size, MANOVA or F tests, it is clear that the preferences of

learning styles for deaf and hard-of-hearing students is consistently visual and tactile.

Chapter 5 will provide a summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations for future

research and practice, as well as implications of the study.

66
 CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This study explored the difference between deaf middle and high school students’

preferred learning style versus the preferred learning style of their nondeaf peers. The

purpose of this chapter is to summarize the study, discuss the findings and provide

recommendations.

Summary of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship between

deaf middle and high school students’ preferred learning style and that of their nondeaf

peers. The study analyzed perceptual preferences of auditory, visual, tactile, and

kinesthetic learning styles. These learning styles were measured by the LSI, which

provides a comprehensive approach to the identification of how a student prefers to

function, learn, concentrate, and perform educational activities (Price & Dunn, 1997).

This study was conducted in four high schools and four middle school settings

throughout the state of Washington. Surveys were given during the school day and within

the classroom setting. The surveys took about an hour to complete. The participating

students who volunteered all attended schools that housed mainstream deaf and hard-of-

hearing programs. There were 45 deaf students and 45 nondeaf students in the sample.

67
 The LSI contains 104 questions to which students responded on a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The LSI identifies students’

preferences among 22 elements and reports scores for 36 subscales. A discriminate

analysis was used to compare the two groups and their learning style variables.

Responses were converted to standard scores using a computer program and descriptive

statistics were used to summarize the results.

The results of this study showed that there was almost no difference between the

survey groups on the auditory variable. Each group demonstrated an auditory preference,

indicating that they would benefit from the use of audio tapes, videotapes, lectures,

discussions, recordings, radio, stereo, television, and precise oral directions or

explanation when given assignments, setting tasks, reviewing progress, using resources,

or for anything requiring understanding, evaluation, and/or retention. In addition, the

study responses also indicated almost no difference between groups on the kinesthetic

variable. This suggests the need to provide opportunities for active experiences in

planning and carrying out learning objectives, including visits, projects, trips, playing a

part in a play, physically active games or tasks. Since there was very little difference in

preferences for auditory or kinesthetic styles, it is important to not dismiss either of these

learning styles due to hearing impairment. The results of the survey suggested that deaf

and hard-of-hearing students need their auditory and kinesthetic learning preferences

addressed as much as their hearing peers.

However, there was a substantial difference between groups on the Visual and

Tactile variables. The deaf/hard-of-hearing group was markedly higher than the hearing

68
group on both Visual and Tactile preferences. This suggests the need to reinforce learning

using pictures, films, graphs, diagrams, drawings, books, magazines, PowerPoint and

written assignments, and evaluations. Tactile learning includes the use of manipulative

and three-dimensional materials such that resources are touchable and movable as well as

readable. This allows individuals to plan, demonstrate, report, and evaluate with models

and other real objects, and encourages them to keep written or graphic records. Deaf and

hard-of-hearing students are dependent on using their sight and hands to communicate, so

it is reasonable that they will have a higher preferences for these modalities. In summary,

hearing students do not have a significantly higher preference for auditory or kinesthetic

learning styles than their deaf and hard-of-hearing peers, but the deaf and hard-of-hearing

group do have a significantly higher preference for visual and tactile learning styles.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions

As stated, this study furthers the existing research by demonstrating tangible ways

that teachers of deaf education can reconsider their pedagogical practices, which

inevitably encompasses questions of learning and instructional styles. This study

identified that hearing students do not have a significantly higher preference for auditory

or kinesthetic learning styles than their deaf and hard-of-hearing peers, but they do have a

significantly higher preference for visual and tactile learning styles.

Specifically, the first hypothesis stated that there is a significant difference

between deaf and nondeaf students on perceptual preferences of auditory delivery of

instruction. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. The second hypothesis stated

69
there is a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on perceptual

preferences of visual delivery of instruction. This hypothesis was supported by the data.

Individuals in the deaf/hard-of-hearing group were higher than the hearing group on the

visual subscale. The third hypothesis stated that there is a significant difference between

deaf and nondeaf students on perceptual preferences of tactile delivery of instruction.

This hypothesis was supported by the data. Individuals in the deaf/hard-of-hearing group

were higher than the hearing group on the tactile subscale. Lastly, the fourth hypothesis

stated that there is a significant difference between deaf and nondeaf students on

perceptual preferences of kinesthetic delivery of instruction. This hypothesis was not

supported by the data.

Deaf and hard-of-hearing students had an overall preference for the visual and

tactile modalities when compared to nonhearing students. Whether looking at the mean,

standard deviation, sample size, MANOVA or F tests, it is clear that the preferences of

learning styles for deaf and hard-of-hearing students is consistently visual and tactile.

These findings further support the need to address individual learning styles to maximize

students’ learning.

The findings from this study were further supported by the body of existing

literature. The existing literature and the lack of research with this particular population

provided a rationale for further investigation into the different learning styles of

deaf/hard-of-hearing and hearing students. As noted, NCLB (2001) was intended to

establish accountability for student achievement and equality within American education.

These goals cannot be carried out without individualized accommodations to meet

70
academic, social, and cultural needs of deaf students. Teachers of the deaf are faced with

many educational challenges and have unique needs. The materials used and delivery of

instruction must be appropriate for the students. Tools such as multiple intelligence

theory, deaf psychology and culture are vital in supporting academic achievement for

deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The NBPTS (2007) stated that when planning

instruction, teachers must consider the goals for diverse students and adjust the

instruction to accommodate the differences in students. For mainstream teachers of the

deaf, instruction includes planning for the language proficiency of their students,

assessing content knowledge, and recognizing and supporting social and cultural needs.

Gardner’s (1983) and Sternberg’s (1993) multiple intelligences theories are

applicable methodologies to address the diverse needs of students. These theories suggest

that using an array of instructional practices will increase student learning as well as the

student’s ability to transfer learning (Snowman & Biehler, 2003). In addition to

indicating they need to integrate multiple intelligences into instruction, studies also

indicate the need to give students multiple choices for how they want to demonstrate their

understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006). When used properly, instructional methods

that address multiple intelligences can increase student learning. Understanding the

diverse ways that children acquire knowledge enables teachers to use a variety of

strategies to reach learners. It also shows respect for students by acknowledging their

differences and individual needs. Many researchers have emphasized the importance of

how a student is taught (Bransford et al., 2000; Martin-Kniep, 2008; Marzano et al.,

2001).

71
 As Dunn et al. (2005) stated, research has consistently demonstrated the important

link between academic achievement and individual learning style. When students are

taught with approaches and resources that complement their unique learning styles, their

achievement is significantly increased. (Cafferty, 1980; Schiering & Dunn, 2002).

This study furthers the existing research by demonstrating tangible ways that

teachers of deaf education can reconsider their pedagogical practices, which inevitably

encompasses questions of learning and instructional styles. On average, 18-year-old deaf

students leaving high school have reached only a fourth- to sixth-grade reading level;

only about 3% of deaf 18-year-olds read at a level comparable to 18-year-old nondeaf

readers, and more than 30% of deaf students are functionally illiterate. Although there are

some deaf adults and children who are excellent readers and writers, it is not known how

many there are or how they achieved this level of literacy. Thus far, though, it seems

clear that educators have not been able to match teaching methods to deaf and hearing-

impaired learning styles (Covell, 2006).

As Cafferty (1980) also showed, students who do not perform well in traditional

schools tend to be tactual and/or kinesthetic learners who scored statistically better on

achievement and aptitude tests when they were taught using tactual/visual or

kinesthetic/visual materials. Further studies are needed to determine the unique needs for

deaf students mainstreamed with their hearing peers, those who are self-contained in a

mainstream setting, and those who are in schools for the deaf.

Many researchers have analyzed the learning styles of adolescents from various

nations (Honigsfeld, 2001; Jones, 2003; Leggett, 2005; McManus, 2002). Park (2001)

72
had auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and tactile learning style preferences among Armenian,

African, Hispanic, Hmong, Korean, Mexican, and Anglo students in American secondary

schools. DePaula (2002) compared the difference in learning styles between Brazilian

and other adolescents, and Hlawaty and DePaula (2002) analyzed the learning styles of

German compared to other adolescents. As Gay (2003) argued, the achievement gap

between children of different ethnicities needs to be addressed. Sternberg has shown that

students who were high in creative and practical abilities were often racially, ethnically,

and socioeconomically diverse. Snowman and Biehler (2003) suggested that teachers

should recognize that differences are not necessarily deficits. Educators should learn as

much as possible about cultural subgroups and keep these characteristics in mind these

when teaching, also remembering that each student is unique (Snowman & Biehler,

2003). Since deaf students are not monocultured, an application of these understandings

of cultural difference to deaf students is needed.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Future Research

To further overall educational awareness and understanding

1. The results of this study suggest the need for students, teachers, and

researchers to continue to explore individual learning styles to promote self

assessment and awareness among deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

2. More studies are needed to determine how teachers can better address the

National Board Standards educational guidelines.

73
 3. Additional studies should be conducted with subdivisions to illustrate cultural

differences within the two primary groups.

4. It is also recommended that additional studies be conducted to compare the

learning styles in different educational settings (schools for the deaf,

mainstream programs, etc.).

Recommendation for Practice

To foster student learning

1. It is recommended that practitioners take the time to understand the individual

learning styles.

2. It is recommended that practitioners seek to understand students’ individual

learning needs.

3. It is recommended that practitioners seek to understand students’ home

dynamics and culture.

4. It is recommended that practitioners foster students’ self reflections and

assessments.

Implications

To maximize students’ learning potential, teachers must be able to identify

students’ learning styles (Dunn et al., 2001; Hamlin, 2002; McManus, 2002; Mitchell,

2000; Raupers, 2000). This study investigated the learning styles of deaf students to

inform decision making concerning instruction among teachers of the deaf. In addition to

the need for teachers to address individual student needs in IEPs, this sample (middle and

74
high school students) was chosen to address the current change in graduation requirement

within Washington State. All graduating students need to develop a student portfolio to

show their individual student achievement and progress. As stated by the NBPTS (2007),

it is not only important for instructors to identify individual learning styles for their

students, it is also important for students to self-evaluate and be equipped to identify

methods to foster their own academic achievements. Moreover, Covell’s (2006) study

recommended additional studies to examine the specific learning styles and preferences

of deaf, minority, and minority-deaf.

This study could have been improved by including more categories of deaf

students. The deaf and hard of hearing are often divided into separate groups: the

culturally deaf and the culturally hearing (hard of hearing). This distinction becomes

apparent when students identify themselves as culturally hearing yet are physically deaf

or hard of hearing, and vice versa. For example, one student made the cultural comment,

“I am listening,” referring to listening with his eyes/paying attention (making the sign for

listening near his eye instead of his ear). This is a common cultural comment among deaf

individuals. Allowing for identification of participants as members of one of these two

groups may have nuanced this study’s findings. In addition, as already suggested, this

study did not address ethnic and national differences among deaf students.

The relatively small sample size of this study is an additional limitation. Any time

a researcher can enlarge the sample size, the results can be generalized to a larger

population. Furthermore, a larger sample size would have provided a greater opportunity

to address the limitations of cultural identification inherent in this study. However,

75
because deafness is a low-incidence disability, securing a large number of subjects can

prove challenging. Finally, the study could have been strengthened had it included

different educational environments (e.g., schools for the deaf as compared to mainstream

programs).

Another limitation of this study is the lack of comparable studies, since this is the

first such study conducted. Although Covell (2006) conducted a study comparing deaf

adults to their hearing peers, this was the first study focusing specifically on younger

learners. Many more studies are needed to establish strong conclusions.

76
 REFERENCES

Akamatsu, C. T., Mayer, C., & Hardy-Braz, S. (2008). Why considerations of verbal
aptitude are important in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In M.
Marschark & P. C. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes (pp.
131–169). New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, F., & Gannon, J. (1984). Deaf heritage. Silver Springs, MD: National
Association of the Deaf.

Allen, T. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students:

1974 and 1983. In A. Schildroth & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America
(pp. 161–206). Boston: Little, Brown.

Andrews, J., Leigh, I., & Weiner, M. (2004). Deaf people: Evolving perspectives in
psychology, education and sociology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bagga-Gupta, S. (2007). Aspects of diversity, inclusion and democracy within education

and research. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(1), 1–22.

Berent, G. P. (1996). The acquisition of syntax by deaf learners. In W. Ritchie & T.

Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 469–506). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Berent, G. P. (2009). The interlanguage development of deaf and hearing learners of L2

English: Parallelism via minimalism. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The
new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 523–543). Bingley, England:
Emerald Group.

Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective
overview. Language Learning, 56(Supplement 1), 9–49.

Bochner, J., & Albertini, J. (1988). Language varieties in the deaf population and their
acquisition by children and adults. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language learning and
deafness (pp. 3–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Braden, J. (1994). Deafness, deprivation & IQ. New York: Plenum Press.

77
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn:
Brain mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Byrnes, M. (2005). Taking sides. Clashing views on controversial issues in special

education (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

Cafferty, E. (1980). An analysis of student performance based upon the degree of match
between the educational cognitive style of the teacher and the educational
cognitive style of the students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska,
1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2908-07A.

Cholakis, M. (1986). An experimental investigation of the relationship between and

among sociological preferences, vocabulary instruction and achievement, and the
attitudes of New York urban seventh and eighth grade underachievers (Doctoral
dissertation, St. John’s University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International,
44, 1631-6A.

Council on Education of the Deaf. (2008). Educating children who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.deafed.net

Covell, J. A. (2006). The learning styles of deaf and non-deaf pre-service teachers in deaf
education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Beaumont, TX: Lamar University.
Retrieved May 15, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and

pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for bilingual special education. Exceptional

Children, 56, 111–120.

DeBello, T. (1985). A critical analysis of the achievement and attitude effects of

administrative assignments to social studies writing instruction based on
identified eighth grade students’ learning style preferences for learning alone,
with peers, or with teachers (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, 1985).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 68A.

78
DePaula, R. M. (2002). Comparative analysis of the learning styles of Brazilian versus
other adolescents from diverse nations by age, gender, and academic achievement
(Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 68A.

Dimling, L. M. (2008). Teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing children: A study of
literacy practices. Manuscript in progress, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor.

Dowaliby, F., Burke, N., & McKee, B. (1983). A comparison of hearing-impaired and
normally-hearing students on locus of control, people orientation, and study habits
and attitudes. American Annals of the Deaf, 128(1), 53–59.

Dowaliby, F., McKee, B., & Maher, H. (1983). A locus of control inventory for
postsecondary hearing-impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 128(1),
884–889.

Dresser, N. (2005). Multicultural manners; Essential rules of etiquette for the 21st
century. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1972). Teaching elementary students through their individual
learning styles: Practical approaches for Grades 7–12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1979). Learning Style Inventory manual. Lawrence, KS:
Price Systems.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (2005). Learning Style Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price
Systems.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S., & Price, G. (1993). Learning styles of Mexican-American and
Anglo American elementary-school students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 21(4), 237–247.

Dunn, R., Thies, P. A., & Honigsfeld, A. (2001). Synthesis of the Dunn & Dunn learning
style model and research: Analysis from neuropsychological perspective.
Jamaica, NY: St. John’s University, Center for the Study of Learning and
Teaching Styles.

Easterbrooks, S. R. (2005). Review of the literature in literacy development and

instruction in students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Retrieved January 4,
2005, from http://www.deafed.net.activities/JoinTogether/Obj2_2LitRevLiteracy
.doc

79
Easterbrooks, S. R., & Estes, E. L. (2007). Helping deaf and hard of hearing students to
use spoken language. A guide for educators and families. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Educational programs for deaf students. (2008). American Annals of the Deaf, 153(2),
121–201.

Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition and the brain: Insights from sign language
research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

Fischer, S. D. (1998). Critical periods for language acquisition: Consequences for deaf
education. In A. Weisel (Ed.), Issues unresolved: New perspectives on language
and deaf education (pp. 9–26). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York:
Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and standardized tests, the K–12
education that every child deserves. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gay, G. (2003). Becoming multicultural educators: Personal journey toward professional

agency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gentile, A., & DiFrancesca, S. (1969). Academic achievement test performance of

hearing impaired students-United States, Spring (Series D, No. 1). Washington,
DC: Gallaudet College, Office of Demographic Studies.

Goetzinger, C., & Rousey, C. (1959). Educational achievement of deaf children.

American Annals of the Deaf, 104, 221–231.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Gorski, P. C. (2001). Multicultural education and the Internet: Intersections and

integrations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate of bilingualism. New York: Basic
Books.

80
Hamers, J. (1998). Cognitive and language development of bilingual children. In I.
Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and deaf experience (pp. 51–75).
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hamlin, T. (2002). State standards and children with disabilities: How the bell lost its
curve. Impact on Instructional Improvement, 29(2), 5–13.

Hlawaty, H., & DePaula, R. M. (2002). A comparative analysis of the learning styles of
Brazilian and German versus adolescents from other diverse nations by age,
gender, and academic achievement level. New York: St. John’s University.

Honigsfeld, A. M. (2001). A comparative analysis of the learning styles of adolescents

from diverse nations by age, gender, academic achievement, and nationality
(Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, 2001). Dissertation Abstract
International DAI-A 62/03, 969.

Humphries, T. (1977). Communicating across cultures (deaf/hearing) and language

learning. Doctoral dissertation, Cincinnati Union Graduate School, OH.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(3), (c)(5) (2007).

Is there a psychology of deafness? (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://www
.lifeprint.com

Jackson-Allen, J., & Christenberry, N. (1994, January). Learning styles preferences of

low and high achieving young African-American males. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Mid-South Education Research Association, Nashville, TN.

Jalali, F. (1988). A cross-cultural comparative analysis of the learning styles and field
dependence/independence characteristics of selected fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
students of Afro, Chinese, Greek, and Mexican heritage (Doctoral dissertation, St.
John’s University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(62), 344A.

Jones, C. (2003). Are learning styles discipline specific? Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 27, 363–375.

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.

Karchmer, M., & Michell, R. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of

deaf students. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Deaf studies, language, and
education (pp. 21–37). New York: Oxford University Press.

81
Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, R. C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (1982). Child–adult differences in
second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Lam-Phoon, S. (1986). A comparative study of the learning styles of Southeast Asian and
American Caucasian college students of two Seventh-Day Adventist campuses
(Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1986). Dissertation Abstract
International, 48(09), 2234A.

Lane, H. (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Vintage Books.

Lane, H., & Albertini, J. (2001). The construction of meaning in the authentic science
writing of deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 258–284.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

Leggett, L. G. (2005). High school students’ comparisons of newer versus traditional

learning methods. Doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Baltimore.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1998). Language issues in deaf education. Hillsboro, OR: Butte.

Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T., Allen, L. A., Roberts, P. A., & Schubert, W. H. (2007).
Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary American memoir. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.

Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological development of deaf children. New York: Oxford

Press.

Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2008). Communities that learn, lead and last. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001) Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McManus, O. D. (2002). Students climbing the steps of reform: One standard at a time,
with style! Impact on Instructional Improvement, 29(2), 43–46.

Miles, B. (1987). An investigation of the relationship among the learning style

sociological preferences of fifth and sixth grade students, selected interactive
classroom patters, and achievement in career awareness and career decision
making concepts (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, 1987). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 48, 2427A.

82
Mitchell, D. (2000). Using learning styles to help learning-disabled students meet the
new standards: To each his own. Impact on Instructional Improvement, 29(2), 37–
42.

Moores, D. (1996). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (4th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Murrain, P. G. (1983). Administrative determinations concerning facilities utilization and

instructional grouping: An analysis of the relationship between selected thermal
environments and preferences for temperature, an element of learning style, as
they affect word recognition scores of secondary students (Doctoral dissertation,
St. John’s University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1749A.

Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who can’t hear learn to read an alphabetic
script? A review of the literature on reading and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 5, 9–31.

Myklebust, H. (1964). The psychology of deafness (2nd ed.). Retrieved August 19, 2008,
from http://www.nad.org

National Association of the Deaf. (2008). American annals of the deaf. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2007). A research guide on

National Board certification of teachers. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://
www.nbpts.org

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. New York:

Columbia University, Teachers College.

Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science,

14, 11–28.

Newport, E. L. (2002). Critical periods in language development. In L. Nadler (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 737–740). London: Macmillan.

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

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2003, November). A Washington State

proposal to ensure successful implementation of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
October 10, 2007, from www.reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us

83
Park, C. A. (2001, January). Learning style preferences of Armenian, African, Hispanic,
Hmong, Korean, Mexican, and Anglo students in American secondary schools.
Learning Environments Research, 4(2), 175–191. doi:10.1023.A:1012463316737

Paul, P. V. (1998, Fall). The effects of viewing angle a divisibility on speech reading
comprehension ability. Hearsay, 100–103.

Paul, P. V. (2001). Language and deafness (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Singular.

Paul, P. V. (1998). Literacy and deafness: The development of reading, writing, and
literate thought. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn and Bacon.

Perrin, J. (1984). An experimental investigation of the relationships among the learning

style sociological preferences of gifted and non-gifted primary children, selected
instructional strategies, attitudes, and achievement in problem solving
memorization (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, 1984). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46, 324A.

Petitto, L. A., Qatorre, R., Gauna, K., Nikelski, E. J., Dostie, D., & Evans, A. (2000).
Speech-like cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people while processing signed
languages: Implications for the natural basis of human language. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 97(25), 13961–13966.

Pintner, R., & Paterson, D. (1917). The ability of deaf and hearing children to follow
printed directions. American Annals of the Deaf, 62, 448–472.

Poinzer, H., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1987). What the hands reveal about the brain.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pollack, B. J. (1997). Educating children who are deaf or hard of hearing: Additional
learning problems. Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://ericec.org

Price, G., & Dunn, R. (1997). Learning Style Inventory (LSI): An inventory for the
identification of how individuals in Grades 3 through 12 prefer to learn.
Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.

Price, G., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1977). Learning Style Inventory research report.
Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.

Quigley, S. P., & Paul, P. V. (1982). The education of deaf children: Issues, theory, and
practice. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

84
Quigley, S. P., & Paul, P. V. (1986). A perspective on academic achievement. In D. M.
Luterman (Ed.), Deafness in perspective (pp. 55–86). San Diego, CA: College-
Hill Press.

Rainer, J., & Guyton, E. (1999, April). Coming together—respectfully: Building

community in teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Raupers, P. M. (2000). Effects of accommodating learning-styles preferences on long-

term retention of technology training content. National Forum of Applied
Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 23–26.

Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University

Press.

Schiering, M. S., & Dunn, K. J. (2002). Student empowerment: From cognition to

metacognition. In R. Dunn (Ed.), The art of significantly increasing science
achievement test scores: Research and practical applications (pp. 43–66). New
York: St. John’s University, Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching
Styles.

Schultz, F. (2001). Notable selections in education (3rd ed.). Guilford, CT: McGraw-
Hill/Dushkin.

Sims, J. (1988). Learning styles of Black-American, Mexican-American, and White

American third- and fourth-grade students in traditional public schools. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Santa Barbara, CA.

Slayton, J., & Llosa, L. (2005). The use of qualitative methods in large-scale evaluation:
Improving the quality of the evaluation and the meaningfulness of findings.
Teachers College Record, 107, 2543–2565.

Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2003). Psychology applied to teaching (10th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Sorrells, A. M., Rieth, H. J., & Sindelar, P. T. (2004). Critical issues in special
education: Access, diversity, and accountability. Boston: Pearson.

Sousa, D. (2006). How the brain learns (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1993, Winter). How much gall is too much gall? A review of Frames of
mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Contemporary Education Review, 2(3),
215–224.

85
Stevens, J. P. (1997). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication

systems of the American deaf (Occasional Papers 8). NY: University of Buffalo,
Department of Anthropology and Linguistics.

Strickland, D. (2004). Bridging the literacy achievement gap: Grades 4–12. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Stucklas, R. (1991). Reflections on bilingual, bicultural education for deaf children.

American Annals of the Deaf, 136(3), 270–272.

Swisher, M. V. (1989). The language-learning situation of deaf students. TESLO

Quarterly, 23, 239–257.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all

learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Trybus, R., & Karchmer, M. (1977). School achievement scores of hearing-impaired

children: National data on achievement status and growth patterns. American
Annals of the Deaf, 122, 62–69.

Valli, C., & Lucas, C. (1995). Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Vernon, M. (1987). Controversy within sign language. A.C.E.H.I. Journal, 12(3), 155–
164.

Vernon, M., & Andrews, J. (1990). The psychology of deafness: Understanding deaf and
hard of hearing people. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Vernon, M., & Finnegan, M. (2005, June). Deaf education and the future of the deaf
community. CSD Spectrum, 21–35.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (expanded 2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Winters, C. (2001). Brain based teaching: Fad or promising teaching method. Chicago:
ERIC Clearinghouse. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455218)

86
Yong, F., & Ewing, N. (1992). Comparative study of the learning-style preferences
among gifted African-American, Mexican-American, and American born Chinese
middle grade students. Roeper Review, 13(3), 120–123.

87