Basic Types of Assessment

Educational assessments generally fall into four categories:

• Formative Assessment: Ongoing checks during instruction to monitor progress and adjust teaching (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
• Summative Assessment: End-of-unit or standardized evaluations to measure achievement against benchmarks.
• Diagnostic Assessment: Identifies strengths, weaknesses, and learning needs before instruction.
• Screening: Quick checks to flag potential issues for further evaluation.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Testing

Educational assessments generally fall into four categories:

• Qualitative Assessment yields descriptive data, such as observations, interviews, and portfolios. It provides rich insights into learning processes and contextual factors (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
• Quantitative Assessment produces numerical scores, enabling statistical comparisons and progress tracking. Standardized tests are typical examples.

Both approaches complement each other: qualitative data explains why a student performs as they do, while quantitative data shows how much progress has been made.

Normed vs. Non-Normed Assessments

• Norm-Referenced Tests compare a student’s performance to a representative sample (e.g., national norms). They answer, “How does this student compare to peers?”
• Criterion-Referenced Tests (non-normed) measure mastery of specific skills or standards, answering, “Has the student met the learning objectives?”

Determining Appropriate Age Range

Assessment manuals specify age ranges based on validation studies. Using tools outside their validated range can compromise reliability and validity (Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt, 2017). Always consult the technical manual for age applicability.

Choosing Appropriate Testing

Selection should consider:

• Purpose (diagnosis, progress monitoring, eligibility)
• Language and Communication Mode (spoken, signed, bilingual)
• Cultural and Linguistic Bias
• Accessibility Features (visual supports, interpreters)

A Few Assessments to use with Children who are DHH:

• Social-Emotional Assessment / Evaluation Measure (SEAM)– Measures social and emotional development in infants-pre-school. (quantitative)
• SPICE – Speech Perception Instructional Curriculum & Evaluation-designed to help you: evaluate a student’s speech perception abilities and plan auditory skills instruction. (qualitative)

• Social Language Development Test – Elementary: measures the language required to appropriately infer and express what another person is thinking or feeling within a social context, to make multiple interpretations, take mutual perspectives, and negotiate with and support their peers. (Normative)
• The Listening Comprehension Test 2 -assesses listening through natural classroom situations language. (Standardized)

Common Questions about Assessment: Q & A

Do All Assessments Work for DHH Children?
No. Many standardized tests assume auditory access and spoken language proficiency, which can be a disadvantage to DHH students. Tests should be adapted or replaced with tools validated for this population (Marschark & Hauser, 2012).

For students who already receive special education, does a Permission to Re-Evaluate or Permission from the parent form need to be signed?
Yes. Even if the student already has an IEP, IDEA requires written parental consent before conducting a re-evaluation that involves formal assessments.
This is because:
• Re-evaluation is considered a formal evaluation under IDEA.
• Consent ensures parents are informed about what assessments will be administered and why.

Under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) formal evaluation refers to any comprehensive, standardized, and systematic assessment process used to determine:
• Eligibility for special education services
• Continued eligibility during re-evaluation
• Educational needs and appropriate programming

This typically involves standardized tests, observations, and other data collection methods documented in an evaluation report.

Key Points:

• Re-evaluation frequency: At least every 3 years, or sooner if conditions warrant or parents/teachers request it.
• Purpose: To determine continued eligibility and update educational needs.
• Consent requirement: If new standardized assessments or formal testing will be administered, Permission to Re-Evaluate must be obtained.
• If the re-evaluation relies solely on existing data (records review, teacher observations), consent may not be required—but parents must be notified.

Postsecondary Enrollment, Persistence, and Dropout

Enrollment Characteristics & Trends

• According to NDC’s “Undergraduate Enrollment of Deaf Students” report, among currently enrolled college students, 1.3% report that they are deaf.
• In that same report, a majority (51.8%) of DHH college students are enrolled in associate’s degree programs rather than bachelor’s, and fewer enroll in bachelor’s programs compared to hearing students.
• Between 2011 and the 2019–2020 academic year, the overall number of enrolled DHH postsecondary students has remained relatively stable, though disparities in completion persist.
• Importantly, DHH students on average delay college entry: in NDC’s “Postsecondary Enrollment and Completion for Deaf Students” analysis, DHH students enroll in college 3.7 years after high school, compared to 1.5 years for hearing students.
• DHH students also are more likely to take developmental coursework (i.e. remedial courses) — 37.1% vs. 28.0% for hearing peers in 2019–2020.

These enrollment and preparation gaps set the stage for greater risk of dropout or noncompletion.

Completion and Dropout Patterns

While NDC reports don’t always label “dropout rate” directly, completion gaps are evident:

• DHH students’ expectations for attaining degrees are high — e.g. 45.2% expect to complete a bachelor’s, 10.7% expect a doctoral degree — but the share who actually complete is lower.
• In the NDC Postsecondary Data Dashboard, among U.S. adults aged 25–64, 22.7% of deaf people have completed a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 38.4% of hearing people — a sizable completion gap.
• Over time, the share of DHH individuals with a bachelor’s degree has indeed increased (from ~15.5% in 2009 to 22% in 2022) — yet that mirrors gains in hearing populations. The attainment gap has not meaningfully narrowed.
• In NDC’s state-level reports, the gap in bachelor’s degree completion is also evident: for example, in California over 2018–2022, fewer DHH individuals obtained a bachelor’s degree than hearing peers (a difference of 14.7 percentage points). In other published research beyond NDC:
• A study on “Employment, Social, and Community Outcomes for Young Deaf Adults” (using NLTS2 data) compared postsecondary completers vs. noncompleters vs. nonattendees. It found that young deaf adults with more postsecondary education showed higher employment rates, higher wages, and greater civic/social participation than noncompleters and nonattendees.
• This suggests that the “dropout penalty” is not just in losing a credential — it is associated with less favorable long-term outcomes.

Taken together, these data indicate that DHH students face elevated risks of noncompletion, delayed entry, and underpreparation, all of which hamper their ability to fully reap benefits of postsecondary education.

Employment, Career, and Economic Participation

Higher education often opens doors to better employment, yet for DHH individuals, those doors are narrower and more obstructed.
Employment Rates & Labor Force Participation

• The NDC report “Deaf People and Employment in the United States: 2019” reports that in 2017, 53% of deaf people were employed.
• In contrast, hearing people in that same timeframe had an employment rate of 75.8% — reflecting a gap of ~22.5 percentage points.
• That same report notes that 42.9% of deaf people are not in the labor force (i.e. neither employed nor seeking employment), compared to 20.8% of hearing people.
• On NDC’s data dashboard (for ages 16–64), 57.1% of deaf people are employed, compared to 73.3% of hearing people.
• More recent NDC commentary notes that “just 54% of deaf people are employed, compared to 70% of hearing people.”

Thus, across sources and years, the employment rate for DHH individuals trails that of hearing peers by roughly 15–25 percentage points.

Within subgroups, disparities deepen:

• Deaf individuals with additional disabilities fare worse: only 32% of deafdisabled people and 35% of deafblind people are employed, compared to rates near 70% for deaf people without additional disabilities.
• In state-level data: in California (2018–2022), ~50.7% of deaf people were employed; for those with additional disabilities, the rate was 28.5%.
• In Ohio (2019–2023), ~53.7% of deaf individuals were employed, but only 32.9% of deaf people with additional disabilities.

These statistics highlight that DHH individuals, especially those with comorbid disabilities, are significantly less integrated into the labor force.

Earnings, Job Types, and Career Advancement

• The NDC report notes that DHH people employed full time report median earnings comparable to hearing peers (i.e. when controlling for full-time status).
• However, the gap arises from employment rates and job stability: because fewer DHH individuals hold full-time, long-term positions, their median annual incomes as a population are lower.
• DHH individuals are more likely to be self-employed or small business owners, often as a strategy to circumvent accessibility barriers or employer bias. For example, in the 2017 data, 11.6% of deaf individuals were self-employed (versus 9.8% of hearing people).
• In NDC’s analysis, employment and wage gaps are compounded for deaf people of color, and those with additional disabilities.

These patterns suggest that even when DHH individuals gain employment, the pathways into stable, higher-paid, upwardly mobile roles are more limited.

Career Outcomes & Transition Success

• The NLTS2-based study mentioned above (~“Employment, Social, and Community Outcomes for Young Deaf Adults”) shows that DHH individuals who complete postsecondary credentials have higher rates of civic engagement, community participation, and employment,relative to noncompleters.
• State-driven studies (e.g. Minnesota’s “Pathways to College and Career for Students Identifying as Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deaf/Blind”) report that 59% of DHH students were employed after high school exit (in Minnesota), which is higher than some national baselines, but still indicative of underemployment compared to hearing peers.

Thus, the data support that higher educational attainment is a strong leverage point toward better employment and social outcomes — but DHH students face structural barriers in not just finishing credentials, but converting them into equitable careers.

Independent Living, Social Participation, and Quality of Life

Employment and income are major contributors to independent living, but DHH individuals also contend with disparities in social supports, accessibility, and inclusion that affect their capacity to live autonomously

• The NDC notes that employment is used as a measure for independent living, financial stability, and quality of life.
• Because a large share of DHH individuals are outside the labor force, they are more likely to rely on public benefits or family support, limiting full independence.
• The NLTS2 follow-up study found that noncompleters and nonattendees (i.e., those with lower postsecondary engagement) had lower income, more reliance on income assistance, and lower civic participation compared to completers.
• Rural DHH individuals encounter additional constraints: in NDC’s “Employment and Education in the Rural Deaf Landscape,” only 49.4% of rural DHH people have jobs, compared to 54.3% of urban DHH people; rural DHH individuals also have lower educational attainment (only ~13% have a bachelor’s degree or higher, vs. 22.5% in cities).
• The lack of reliable internet and interpreter resources in rural areas further isolates DHH individuals and hinders access to education and employment.

These dynamics imply that even beyond employment, many DHH individuals have fewer supports for achieving full autonomy in housing, health care, community participation, and economic security.

Comparative Summary: DHH vs. Hearing — Key Gaps

Interpretation & Implications

The data from NDC and allied studies paint a stark picture: DHH individuals enroll in postsecondary education later, drop out or fail to complete at higher rates, and are less likely to transfer educational achievements into stable, well-paying employment. These disparities are worsened for those with additional disabilities, for DHH individuals in rural areas, and among historically marginalized racial/ethnic groups.

But beyond the numbers, these gaps reflect structural barriers:

• Insufficient accessible infrastructure (interpreters, captioning, assistive technology) in higher education and workplaces.
• Information and procedural barriers around financial aid, accommodations, and transition planning.
• Bias, low expectations, and lack of capacity among institutions (K–12, colleges, employers) to support DHH learners.
• Geographic inequities, particularly in rural settings.
• The compounding burden of additional disabilities, intersectional identities, and socioeconomic disadvantage.

From the available evidence, a few clear ways to improve outcomes:

1. Strengthened transition supports (pre-college planning, bridge programs, vocational training) can help reduce dropout risk.
2. Early and sustained accommodation access (e.g. interpreters, captioning, assistive technologies) is essential across K–12, postsecondary, and workplaces.
3. Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and career services need more outreach, capacity, and culturally competent DHH staff. NDC has pointed out gaps in VR service delivery.
4. Employer education and engagement are critical to reduce bias, improve retention, and expand pathways for upward mobility.
5. Targeted supports for rural and DHH with comorbid disabilities are necessary to close the steepest divides.
6. Longitudinal tracking and rigorous evaluation to hold institutions accountable for retention, graduation, job placement, and long-term independence outcomes.

From Students: Commonly Reported Reasons for Dropout / Non-persistence Among DHH Students

Access & Accommodation Barriers / Communication Gaps

• Many DHH students report that their accommodations (interpreters, captioning, real-time transcription, notetakers) are late, inconsistent, or low quality. In some cases, students begin classes without accommodations in place. (In a recent NDC “New Data about Deaf College Students” report, students were told of having no accommodations in the early weeks of a term.)

• Poor coordination between disability services, admissions, and academic offices often means that obtaining accommodations is a burdensome process, leaving students juggling logistics rather than focusing on coursework.

• Communication barriers extend into the classroom: difficulty following lectures, missing side conversations, or inability to see who is speaking all make comprehension harder. (For example, one study of real-time captioning with speaker identification notes that without such support, DHH students become frustrated and are at risk of withdrawing from courses. )

• Limited access to full, fluent language or delays in language development (especially for students whose early exposure to accessible language was weak) magnify the difficulty of academic tasks in college settings.

There are a number of evidence-based practices, strategies, and mindset shifts that teachers (in K-12, secondary, or postsecondary settings) can adopt to better support Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) students, reduce dropout risk, and help close the gaps. Many of these come from guides and resources of the National Deaf Center (NDC) and related literature.

Here are evidence-informed strategies and practices that teachers (and related educational professionals) can adopt to better prepare Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) students, reduce dropout risk, and help close outcome gaps. These draw on research, expert guides, and best practices in Deaf education and inclusive pedagogy

Guiding Principles Before Practices

Before diving into specific strategies, these overarching principles should guide your work:

• Assume competence & high expectations — DHH students should be held to rigorous academic expectations, with supports, not lowered standards.
• Individualize & differentiate — Every DHH student has a unique profile (degree of hearing loss, use of sign language, listening skills, literacy, technology use, additional disabilities). What works for one student may not for another.
• Collaborate & communicate proactively — Teachers of the Deaf (ToDs), general education teachers, interpreters, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and the student must coordinate.
• Teach self-advocacy & metacognitive strategies — Over time, students need to learn to negotiate accommodations, monitor their access, and ask for clarification or adjustments.
• Provide scaffolded supports — Rather than expecting students to “catch up” purely on their own, embed supports, scaffolds, and redundancy in instruction.

With those in mind, here are concrete things teachers can do:

Instructional & Classroom Practices

1. Optimize classroom layout / visual access
• Arrange seating so that DHH students (and interpreters, when relevant) have unobstructed sightlines to the teacher, peers, and visual displays.
• Use semicircles or U-shaped seating to facilitate face-to-face interaction.
• Reduce visual clutter and “noise” (busy walls, flashing graphics, excessive movement) so that the student’s eyes can focus on the relevant visual channel (speech-reading, sign, interpreter) without distraction.
• Ensure lighting is appropriate: avoid backlighting the teacher or having glare over the speaker’s face; keep faces well illuminated.

2. Gain and maintain student attention
• Before speaking, make sure the student is looking at you or has indicated awareness (e.g. raise hand, visual signal).
• Use a visual cue (flag, light, hand motion, or gesture) to show you are about to speak, especially in group settings.
• Pause frequently and check for understanding; invite the student to indicate if something was missed.

3. Support language, vocabulary, and concept scaffolding
• Preteach key vocabulary and concepts before class (or provide a preview) so the student isn’t encountering many unknown words during lecture.
• Use visual supports: graphic organizers, charts, diagrams, mind maps, visual summaries.
• Repeat and paraphrase: when rephrasing, use different wording (not just repeating the same phrasing) to increase chances of comprehension.
• Use multimodal input: combine verbal lecture with captions, written notes, slides, and visual displays.

4. Pace instruction toward accessibility
• Avoid overly rapid discourse, especially in class discussions. Rapid turn-taking and overlapping speech create barriers.
• Provide “wait time” after asking questions, so the student has time to process and respond.
• Plan for frequent recaps, checks for comprehension, and opportunities for the student to ask clarifying questions.

5. Enable peer interaction & inclusive group work
• Structure small-group or partner tasks where all participants can see each other (a circle or U-shape).
• Assign peer note-taking or “buddy” systems (ensuring the notes are accessible).
• Train and orient hearing peers on how to include their DHH classmates (e.g. facing them when speaking, not talking over each other, using visual cues).

6. Embed redundancy & accessible materials
• Always provide captions or transcripts for videos, media, and pre-recorded content.
• Use real-time captioning (CART) or speech-to-text during lectures when possible.
• As much as possible, distribute lecture slides, outlines, or reading materials prior to class, so students can preview.
• If an interpreter is used, provide them with class materials ahead of time so they can prepare. Accommodations, Assistive Technology & Coordination

7. Ensure timely, appropriate, and consistent accommodations
• Work with the disability services office (or equivalent) to secure accommodations (interpreters, CART, FM systems, captioned video) before the start of the term. Allow time for troubleshooting.
• Periodically review whether accommodations are working, and solicit student feedback.
• Be prepared with backup plans (e.g. alternate communication modes) if technology fails.

8. Use assistive listening and amplification devices / technology
• For students who use hearing aids or cochlear implants, ensure proper acoustics (reduce reverberation, minimize background noise).
• If possible, use soundfield systems or FM systems to enhance speech audibility for all.
• In integrated or mixed-modality settings (e.g. labs, group discussion), consider advanced tech like Real-Time Text Display with Speaker-Identification (RTTD-ID), which links captions to speaker location and can improve comprehension in multi-speaker settings.

9. Design for inclusive online / hybrid instruction
• Ensure media, videos, and recorded lectures have reliable, high-accuracy captions. Auto-generated captions are not a substitute.
• Use asynchronous check-ins and alternate modalities (chat, email, video conferencing) so students can clarify or revisit content.
• During synchronous sessions, ensure that all visual elements are designed accessibly (avoid visual overload, ensure text is legible, align visual and text content).
• Establish regular check-ins with DHH students to monitor access and comprehension and to adjust if needed.

Professional Development, Collaboration & Systemic Supports

10. Continue training & capacity building
• Teachers (both general education and DHH-specialist) should engage in professional development around Deaf education, accessibility, and inclusive practices (for example, modules from the National Deaf Center).
• Learn how to work effectively with sign language interpreters, captioners, and speech-to-text providers.
• Stay current on assistive technologies, captioning tools, and inclusive instructional design.

11. Co-teach and co-plan with specialists
• General education teachers and ToDs should meet regularly to plan lessons, align supports, and troubleshoot access challenges.
• Involve interpreters or captioners early in lesson planning (so they can preview content).
• Use peer review: allow colleagues to observe classes and provide feedback about communication access.

12. Promote self-advocacy and metacognitive skills in students
• Explicitly teach students how to ask for accommodations, negotiate access, monitor their comprehension, and request clarification.
• Build “access literacy” — help DHH students understand how their accommodations work, what to ask for, and when something isn’t working.
• Encourage reflection: at regular intervals, prompt students to assess what access methods are helping them and what isn’t, then adapt.

13. Foster belonging, social inclusion, and mentorship
• Create opportunities for DHH students to connect (peer groups, mentorship, clubs, affinity groups).
• Invite Deaf professionals or role models to speak or mentor — this offers representation and encourages persistence.
• Incorporate classroom practices that value and normalize differences: allowing students to explain how they communicate, promoting disability awareness, and cultivating inclusive norms.

14. Bridge transitions & prepare for postsecondary settings
• Begin early transition planning (in high school or late secondary) around what accommodations, communication modalities, and self-advocacy skills students will need in college or career settings.
• Simulate or model postsecondary scenarios (syllabus negotiation, contacting disability services, requesting accommodations).
• Help students build portfolios documenting their access needs, accommodation history, and successful strategies so they can more easily advocate later.

Why These Efforts Matter — Evidence & Impact

• Research in “Supporting Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in General Education Classrooms” highlights that barriers stem from teachers’ limited training/skills, classroom discourse environment, and students’ communication/language delays.
• The Oxford Research Encyclopedia chapter on evidence-based practices emphasizes the need for visual access, scaffolded instruction, and coordination of support services.
• In lab and research settings, DHH undergraduates report that communication/environmental barriers persist; inclusive practices such as clearly visual communication, inclusive norms, and mentor competence make a difference.
• The case-study literature on online and hybrid DHH instruction underscores that poor captioning, lack of accommodations, and design missteps contribute to dropout risk.
• In the “Remember Accessibility in the Rush to Online Instruction: 10 Tips for Educators” NDC article, regular check-ins, verifying access, making media accessible, and adjusting accommodations dynamically are all recommended to prevent loss of access over time.

When teachers proactively embed access, scaffolding, collaboration, and inclusion into their practice, they reduce the “extra friction” DHH students face. These steps can make the difference between a student feeling perpetually behind (or invisible) and one who stays engaged, confident, and capable of completing higher education.

Children with hearing differences face multiple challenges in acquiring language and achieving social well‑being. Research consistently shows that early intervention, robust language support, and attention to social factors are critical for improving developmental outcomes.

● Early amplification (e.g. hearing aids) also contributes to superior outcomes in speech and language, especially in children with less severe hearing loss. PMC+1
● Family involvement and mode of communication are significant moderators: children whose caregivers are heavily involved show greater gains, especially when interventions start early. PubMed+1

Language Development: What Early Intervention Enables

With early detection and appropriate interventions, children with HI often reach
near‑age‑norm levels in many areas of language such as
○ vocabulary,
○ grammatical comprehension,
○ sentence formation, and
○ expressive language.

However, full parity in all language domains is less certain, particularly for children who begin intervention later. PubMed+2Wiley Online Library+2
● The sensitive period for auditory input is crucial: exposure to sound and language during this window supports the neural wiring necessary for language acquisition. Delays in input (e.g. delayed amplification or implantation) tend to lead to vocabulary deficits, simpler sentence structure, and slower grammatical development. Wiley Online Library+2PubMed+2
● The variability in outcomes remains high. Some children reach or approach typical hearing peers’ levels, while others lag behind, with factors such as severity of hearing loss, presence of additional disabilities, quality and consistency of therapy, and family or environmental support explaining much of that variation. PubMed+1

Social well‑being encompasses self‑esteem, peer relationships, experiences of inclusion,
psychological well‑being, and participation in activities. Multiple studies show that children
with HI can achieve social outcomes close to those of their hearing peers, especially when early
intervention is in place. BioMed Central+1
● For example, children identified early via newborn hearing screening, with early auditory access (via technology and therapy), report rates of bullying, victimization, social difficulties, and self‑reported distress that are similar to hearing peers. PubMed

November Article 2025

● Mental health risks (anxiety, depression, emotional or behavioral difficulties) are elevated in Deaf or Hard‑of‑Hearing (DHH) youth compared to hearing peers; language ability and social inclusion are among the protective factors. PubMed+1
● Peer participation, friendships, a sense of self (identity), and the ability to communicate in social settings all depend heavily on competent language development and consistent access to hearing and communication supports. Social well‑being is not just a byproduct of language competence—but a central outcome that influences overall quality of life.

Implications & Recommendations

● Screening & identification must occur as early as possible (ideally at birth, with confirmation and start of intervention by 3‑6 months). Delays in this chain shrink the window for optimal developmental gains. PubMed+2CDC+2
● Intervention plans should be intensive and frequent, with high‑quality hearing devices (hearing aids or cochlear implants), consistent auditory‑verbal or listening and spoken language therapy, and rich language exposure both in and outside therapy.
● Family engagement is vital: caregivers must be involved in therapy, communication models, and in creating language‑rich environments at home. Parent education, support, and communication mode choice are important.
● For children with additional disabilities, intervention must be adapted: progress tends to be slower or more variable, and outcomes depend substantially on the nature and severity of additional needs. Frequent monitoring and flexible, individualized plans are needed.
● Supporting social inclusion is critical: interventions should not only target language outcomes but also peer interaction, self‑esteem, psychological health, and participation. Schools, therapy providers, and community programs need to coordinate to build inclusive environments.

Selected References

● Effect of Early Intervention on Language Development in Hearing‑Impaired Children. PubMed
● Early intervention and assessment of speech and language development in young children with cochlear implants. PubMed
● Impact of early intervention on expressive and receptive language development among young children with permanent hearing loss. PubMed
● Social inclusion for children with hearing loss in listening and spoken language early intervention: an exploratory study. BioMed Central
● Psychological well‑being and mental health risks in deaf and hard of hearing youth: a systematic review. PubMed

The majority of students with hearing loss in mainstream educational settings are expected to learn primarily through auditory modalities. The role of itinerant teachers of the deaf is critical in supporting both school personnel and students by providing guidance on best practices and necessary accommodations. Their expertise helps to ensure that students with hearing loss have equitable access to the curriculum.

Itinerant teachers serve a vital role in educating and training general education teachers, most of whom may lack a comprehensive understanding of the educational implications of hearing loss across various classroom environments. Although the responsibility for instruction has shifted to general education teachers, many are not adequately prepared to meet the learning needs of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students. This lack of understanding can intensify the existing gap in academic and functional delays in a population already at increased risk of falling behind.

Research indicates that DHH students often perform better academically in mainstream settings compared to special education placements (Antia, Jones, Reed, & Kreimeyer, 2009; Stinson & Kluwin, 2003). However, general education teachers typically lack the specialized training required to fully support DHH learners. These students often struggle with listening, language development, and literacy, and are particularly vulnerable to auditory fatigue. This form of fatigue can have physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional consequences, further hindering learning and classroom participation.

To address these challenges, it is essential that strategies to enhance access—such as classroom modifications, amplification technology, and communication supports—are implemented proactively. Itinerant teachers must provide this training at the start of the academic year and any time students transition to new classes or teachers to ensure continuity of support and access to learning.

The Listen to Learn for Life (L3) Assessment Framework

Outlines three main classroom activities that were recommended for teachers to use in explicit instructional delivery:

• Explicit lecture style instruction
• Guided group learning
• Independent practice

The mixture of didactic instruction, independent inquiry and group work provides students with a variety of learning opportunities. However, each of these scenarios also creates a variety of listening challenges for students with hearing loss.

Teaching Styles

LECTURE Style

Positives:

• Students are within 3-6 feet of the teacher.
• Background noise is typically around 61.2dB.
• Typically there is use of HAT system.
• Access to the teacher’s voice and visuals on SMART board.

Negatives:

• Teachers tend to speak with their backs toward students.
• High levels of auditory fatigue.
• Information spoken by other students may be missed.
• Listening gaps due to simultaneous note-taking.
• Participation apprehension and possible isolation.

Interventions:

• Teachers should face students when speaking.
• Seat DHH students opposite the teacher’s dominant hand.
• Repeat student responses into the HAT system, using names when possible.
• Schedule listening breaks and offer printed or peer-provided notes.
• Minimize background noise and ensure HAT system functionality.
• Write assignments on the board and gain attention before topic changes.

GUIDED Learning

Positives:

• Promotes problem-solving and higher-order thinking.
• Encourages teamwork, leadership, and accountability.
• Provides language modeling and social interaction opportunities.

Negatives:

• Background noise averages 76.8dB, limiting access to speech.
• Misunderstandings can lead to communication breakdowns and social anxiety.
• Interruptions and overlapping conversations are common.
• Use of HAT system is often inconsistent.

Interventions:

• Use group mode HAT system at the table.
• Establish group rules and roles like a talking stick or note taker.
• Monitor noise levels with a decibel reader.
• Pair DHH students with strong communicators and provide visual supports.

SELF-DIRECTED Independent Work

Positives:

• Lower levels of auditory fatigue (avg. noise level 64.7dB).

Negatives:

• Less language modeling and HAT usage.
• Increased need for clarification and higher risk of isolation.

Interventions:

• Limit duration of independent work, especially during fatigue.
• Make teacher available for questions.
• Assign a peer buddy to support the DHH student.

Additional Areas of Consideration

Teachers must be aware of times when students with hearing loss need access to sound and language outside of the classroom instruction:

• Playground
• Auditorium
• Music class
• Art class
• Library
• Student presentations
• Announcements
• Computer time

Use classroom sound systems or individual HAT systems consistently. In auditoriums, have the speaker use the HAT and utilize captions if screens are present. For announcements, quiet the classroom and provide printed or emailed copies to the student.

Itinerant teachers play a crucial role and school systems must utilize their expertise to educate staff about the implications of hearing loss across all educational environments.

References

• Mealings, K., Miles, K., Tran, Y., Smith, T., & Buchholz, J. M. (2025). Listening and learning challenges for deaf or hard of hearing students during different classroom scenarios: An itinerant teachers of the deaf perspective. Speech, Language and Hearing, 28(1), Article 2372181. https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2024.2372181
• Antia, S. D., Jones, P. B., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2009). Academic status and progress of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education classrooms. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp009

The integration of word recognition and language comprehension helps to facilitate the skills necessary for reading skill development. Access to language and sound plays an integral part to traditional learning in this model. How then, do teachers address phonological awareness and sound based components of the reading rope, when there is little to no sound access? The Deaf Reading Rope, introduced by Nathan E. Harrison in 2023, intertwines strands of Scarborough’s reading rope with a new representation of the integration of sub-skills necessary for proficient reading, that caters to different linguistic and sensory experiences.

Scarborough’s Reading Rope: A Foundation for Understanding Reading Development

Developed by Dr. Hollis Scarborough in 2001, Scarborough’s Reading Rope illustrates how skilled reading is the result of intertwined language comprehension and word recognition skills. The model comprises two main strands:

Language Comprehension: This upper strand includes background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge.

Word Recognition: The lower strand encompasses phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition of familiar words.

As these strands become increasingly automatic and strategic through instruction and practice, they weave together to produce fluent and skilled reading .

The Deaf Reading Rope: Tailoring Literacy Models for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Learners

Developed by Dr. Hollis Scarborough in 2001, Scarborough’s Reading Rope illustrates how skilled reading is the result of intertwined language comprehension and word recognition skills. The model comprises two main strands:

Recognizing that traditional reading models may not fully address the variety of experiences for deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) learners, Nathan E. Harrison introduced the Deaf Reading Rope in 2023. This model adapts the original framework to better represent the bilingual and bimodal nature of DHH students’ language acquisition, particularly those who use American Sign Language (ASL) and English.

The Deaf Reading Rope consists of three primary strands:

ASL Language Comprehension: Acknowledging ASL as a complete and natural language, this strand emphasizes the importance of ASL proficiency in developing reading skills.

1. English Language Comprehension: This strand focuses on the understanding of English, which may be acquired through reading and writing, especially for students who primarily use ASL.

2. Word Recognition: Similar to Scarborough’s model, this strand includes decoding and sight recognition but is adapted to consider the visual nature of ASL and the different pathways DHH students may use to recognize written words

By integrating these strands, the Deaf Reading Rope provides a more inclusive framework that reflects the linguistic realities of DHH learners.

Comparative Analysis: Aligning and Differentiating the Models

While both models aim to dissect the components of skilled reading, their applications differ based on the target populations:

Language Modalities: Scarborough’s model is primarily designed for learners acquiring reading skills through spoken language, whereas the Deaf Reading Rope incorporates both signed and written languages, acknowledging the bilingual nature of DHH learners.

● Instructional Implications: Educators using Scarborough’s model may focus on phonological awareness and decoding strategies suited for hearing students. In contrast, the Deaf Reading Rope suggests instructional strategies that leverage ASL proficiency to support English literacy, such as using ASL storytelling to build background knowledge and vocabulary.

● Cultural and Linguistic Recognition: The Deaf Reading Rope explicitly recognizes ASL as a foundational language, promoting a culturally responsive approach to literacy that validates the linguistic identity of DHH students.

Visual Representations

Visual aids are integral to both models, providing educators with clear frameworks for instruction.

● Deaf Reading Rope: Often illustrated with distinct strands for ASL and English language comprehension, along with word recognition, emphasizing the bilingual and bimodal aspects of DHH literacy development.

● Scarborough’s Reading Rope: Typically depicted as a rope with intertwining strands representing the various components of language comprehension and word recognition.

Reference:

● Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press. Landmark Outreach

● Harrison, N. E. (2023). Deaf Reading Rope: Visualizing the Science of Reading for ASL/English. Retrieved from https://osf.io/d96jx

In their 2023 article, “Online Learning Challenges and Strategies: Visual Fatigue and Split Visual Attention”, published in the American Annals of the Deaf (Vol. 168, Issue 3, pp. 71–92), Pamela Luft and Charlotte Brochu present compelling evidence that online learning environments, as currently structured, often overload the visual channel for DHH students. Their research highlights the impact of visual fatigue and split visual attention—challenges that are rarely addressed when designing virtual instruction

Understanding Visual Fatigue and Split Visual Attention

In tandem, split visual attention refers to the cognitive load that occurs when students must visually divide attention between multiple simultaneous stimuli. For example, a student might need to watch an interpreter in one part of the screen, read captions in another, and observe the teacher demonstrating content or sharing slides—all while trying to take notes or complete tasks. This constant switching can be exhausting and decreases comprehension.

Administrative Considerations During Staffing Shortages

Given the national shortage of TODs and other support staff, many districts are turning to virtual services. While this may be a necessary temporary measure, administrators should not assume that virtual learning is equivalent to in-person instruction for DHH students. Luft and Brochu urge school leaders to acknowledge the specific cognitive and sensory demands placed on these learners and to resist the temptation to “make do” without appropriate supports.

Key takeaways for administrators:
● Avoid overreliance on teletherapy as a substitute for direct services when visual input is required for both communication and instruction.
● Prioritize hiring qualified TODs and seek regional or cooperative service-sharing arrangements when full-time staff cannot be secured.
● Include DHH specialists in planning online learning platforms and curricula to ensure accessibility from the start.

Accommodations and Modifications for Virtual Learning

To reduce the burden of visual fatigue and split attention, educators should implement the following accommodations and modifications:

1. Optimize Visual Layouts
● Use screen sharing thoughtfully: minimize clutter and provide clear focal points.
● Position interpreters and content within close proximity (e.g., picture-in-picture view).
● Allow students to customize layout views (e.g., enlarging the interpreter).

2. Captioning and Transcripts
● Provide real-time captioning for live sessions through trained captioners rather than relying solely on automated captions.
● Make full transcripts of lessons available for review so students can re-process content at their own pace.

3. Scheduled Visual Breaks
● Intentionally build in “visual rest” breaks throughout sessions (e.g., 5-minute breaks every 20-30 minutes).
● Use auditory cues or onscreen timers to indicate transitions, reducing the need for constant visual vigilance.

4. Asynchronous Content with Flexible Access
● Supplement synchronous lessons with pre-recorded videos that students can pause and replay as needed.
● Offer materials in both visual and text-based formats to allow alternate modes of access.

5. Interactive Note-Taking Support
● Provide guided notes or fill-in-the-blank outlines to minimize the need for students to split attention between watching and writing.
● Consider using visual organizers to reduce cognitive overload and help students track information.

Best Practices for Virtual Teachers of DHH Students

● Plan visual flow carefully: Don’t narrate information simultaneously with captioned or signed content—stagger the delivery when possible.

● Check for understanding frequently: Use visual check-ins (e.g., thumbs up/down, reaction buttons, chat box responses).

● Encourage questions: Provide a safe space for DHH students to request clarification without fear of stigma or delay.

● Use consistent sign vocabulary and visual symbols: Consistency reduces cognitive effort.

● Collaborate with TODs and interpreters: Co-plan lessons to anticipate communication barriers and instructional gaps.

Note-Taking Assistive Tech for Virtual Learners

● Otter.ai – Records and transcribes lectures/meetings in real time. Offers speaker identification and keyword summary.

● Microsoft OneNote Dictate – Converts speech into text directly in OneNote.

● Google Docs Voice Typing – Free and easy way to take notes by speaking.

2. Audio Recorders + Smartpens

● Livescribe Smartpen – Records audio while writing and links audio to notes for later review.

● Sonocent Audio Notetaker – Breaks recordings into chunks and lets users highlight, add text, and images alongside.

3. Text Summarization Tools

● TLDR This or SMMRY – Useful for summarizing long articles or readings into digestible notes.

● Scrintal – A visual note-taking tool that helps students connect ideas and summarize readings.

4.Note Organization & Visual Learning Tools
● Notion – Highly customizable note-taking workspace with templates for lecture notes, task tracking, etc.

● MindMeister or Miro – For visual learners who prefer mind maps or flowcharts to organize ideas.

● Obsidian – Uses markdown and backlinks, great for connecting concepts over time (good for building deep understanding).

5. Screen Readers + Highlight-to-Note Tools

● Kurzweil 3000 – Comprehensive reading/writing support for students with learning differences (dyslexia, ADHD).
● Read&Write by Texthelp – Has text-to-speech, highlighting, vocabulary support, and more – perfect for diverse learners.

6. AI Assistants / Auto Notetakers

● Fireflies.ai or Fathom – Automatically records and summarizes Zoom/Meet calls. Helpful for revisiting class discussions or tutoring sessions.

● Tactiq – Captures subtitles from Google Meet/Zoom and turns them into sharable notes with highlights.

Addressing the Growing Shortage of Teachers of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing: A Call for Innovative Credentialing and Service Delivery Models

To address this issue, it is imperative that states, credentialing bodies, and educational institutions collaborate to develop alternative pathways for teacher preparation and certification. These pathways might include grow-your-own models, online credentialing programs, partnerships with school districts, and alternative licensure routes that maintain high standards while removing unnecessary barriers to entry. Without such action, the current trajectory will lead to even greater inequities for students who depend on these specialized services.

In the meantime, school districts must take immediate steps to optimize the effectiveness of their existing TODHHs. One practical and necessary strategy is to minimize the time these teachers spend traveling between sites by temporarily implementing virtual instruction where appropriate. Virtual services, when used strategically, can extend the reach of TODHHs while preserving the integrity of instruction and maintaining meaningful student engagement. This shift should not replace in-person services long-term but can serve as a stopgap measure to ensure continued support during the teacher shortage.

Ultimately, protecting access to high-quality education for deaf and hard of hearing students requires a twofold approach: investing in sustainable solutions to grow the workforce, and adapting current service models to meet immediate needs. By embracing innovation in both credentialing and delivery, we can help ensure that no student is left without the support they need to thrive.

Tips for Progress Monitoring

• Track Regular Assessments: Use both formal and informal assessments (e.g., classroom observations, checklists, work samples) to track progress toward IEP goals.

• Use Visual Tools: Implement progress charts or graphs to make monitoring clearer and more visual, helping both students and parents see growth over time.

• Maintain Detailed Notes: Keep detailed notes on daily progress, successes, and any changes in student performance or behavior.

• Incorporate Technology: Use educational software or apps to help track student progress, document learning, and provide consistent feedback.

• Use Peer Comparison: Track progress by comparing the student’s performance with peers (when applicable) to determine if the student is progressing at an expected rate.

• Adjust Strategies as Needed: Continuously adjust teaching methods and interventions based on progress data to ensure the student’s needs are met.

To track student progress, consider using free platforms like

Secondary Transition Planning

Deaf Youth Encounter different types of barriers in educational systems, Leading to variation in educational completion rates.

Whether a student is planning to go off to college, a trade school, or right into a competitive employment opportunity, it’s important to be sure that they understand the transition from a system of entitlement, (IDEA) to a system of eligibility (ADA/Section 504). This means that they no longer are entitled to services through an entity such as a public school, but they will need to advocate for their rights under the American with Disabilities Act, ADA. Knowing their rights and knowing who to contact if they feel they aren’t being given the accommodations necessary to perform their duties, is an important part of transition. Calling the Office of Disability Services at the college or university that the student chooses, to ask what accommodations can be requested, and what documentation will be needed, can help the student get ahead of the game when it comes to accessibility.

For more information visit:
https://nationaldeafcenter.org/resources/research-data/deaf-youth-report/
https://dhh-resources.umn.edu/transition-guide/independent-living/
https://transitionta.org/

MapIt! – https://dcmp.org/learn/465-map-it-what-comesnext-module

Deaf Self-Advocacy Training http:// www.interpretereducation.org/deaf-self-advocacy/

Parent Hub – http://www.parentcenterhub.org/resources/

Executive function (EF) encompasses cognitive processes such as working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility, which are essential for goal-directed behavior and academic success. For deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students, the development of these skills can be influenced by auditory access, language acquisition, and educational experiences. Recent research provides valuable insights into how educators can support EF development in DHH children.

The Impact of Auditory and Language Access on Executive Function

Relationship Between Executive Functions and School Readiness

Aydoner Bektas and Bumin (2025) investigated the link between EF and school readiness in kindergarten children with cochlear implants. Their findings indicate a significant relationship between working memory, inhibitory control, and overall school readiness. This underscores the importance of interventions targeting EF to enhance academic preparedness in DHH students.

Assessment Tools for Executive Function

Accurate assessment of EF is vital for developing effective educational strategies. The Learning, Executive, and Attention Functioning (LEAF) scale , as discussed by Castellanos, Kronenberger, and Pisoni (2016), offers a reliable and valid questionnaire-based assessment of executive functioning and learning in children. Utilizing such tools can help educators identify specific areas of need and tailor interventions accordingly. There is also the Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI) for Parents and Teachers. (Click for form).

Strategies for Enhancing Executive Function in DHH Students

1. Early and Consistent Language Exposure
– Provide access to a fully accessible language from an early age, whether through sign language, spoken language with assistive technologies, or a multilingual approach.

2. Visual Instructional Methods
– Incorporate visual aids such as graphic organizers, visual schedules, and hands-on learning activities to support working memory and planning skills.

3. Clear and Consistent Communication
– Utilize clear communication methods, including sign language, captioned media, and visual cues, to ensure instructions are accessible and reduce cognitive load.

5. Leveraging Visual-Spatial Strengths
– Design activities that capitalize on visual-spatial skills, such as puzzles and spatial reasoning tasks, to promote cognitive flexibility.

6. Structured Social Interaction Opportunities
– Facilitate structured peer interactions through group projects and peer mentoring to develop social skills and collaborative problem-solving abilities.

7. Regular Monitoring and Assessment
– Employ tools like the LEAF scale to regularly assess EF and adjust educational strategies to meet the evolving needs of each student.

Educators play a pivotal role in fostering the development of executive function in DHH students. By implementing strategies informed by current research—such as ensuring early language access, utilizing visual instructional methods, and providing clear communication—teachers can create an environment conducive to the growth of essential cognitive skills. Regular assessment and tailored interventions further support the academic and social success of DHH children.

References:

– Aydoner Bektas, S., & Bumin, G. (2025). Relationship between executive functions and school readiness in kindergarten children with cochlear implant. *Applied Neuropsychology: Child*, 1– 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2025.2464210

– Castellanos, I., Kronenberger, W. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2016). Questionnaire-Based Assessment of Executive Functioning: Psychometrics. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 7, 1882. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01882

– Hall, M. L., Eigsti, I.-M., Bortfeld, H., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2018). Executive Function in Deaf Children: Auditory Access and Language Access. *Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research*, 61(8), 1970–1988. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0200

By integrating these evidence-based strategies, educators can effectively support the development of executive functions in deaf and hard of hearing students, thereby enhancing their academic readiness and overall learning outcomes.

AI and the Future of IEPs

AI Can Assist Teachers of the Deaf, SLPs and Related Service Providers

For teachers of the deaf and other professionals working with DHH students, AI offers a variety of benefits that can simplify and enhance the process of writing IEPs.

2. Personalized, Data-Driven Goals
Writing measurable goals that are tailored to a student’s specific needs is crucial for the success of an IEP. AI tools can assist in this process by analyzing data from multiple sources, including test scores, observation notes, and student progress reports. For example, an AI system could identify patterns in a student’s assessment results, language development scores, communication skills, and academic performance, helping to craft goals that are both ambitious and achievable.

5. Efficient Use of Resources
Many students with hearing loss require a variety of services, including speech therapy, language support, assistive technology, and more. AI tools can help educators determine which services are most beneficial and how they can be coordinated to maximize the student’s learning experience. By analyzing outcomes and service utilization, AI can also suggest optimal interventions for a particular student, ensuring that resources are used most effectively

Examples of AI Tools in Education:

Some AI-powered tools are already in use within education systems to support IEP creation and management. For instance, Caresyntax, an AI company, is using predictive analytics to improve decision-making in education. Similarly, Clarity, an AI tool developed for IEP writing, allows service providers to automate the drafting of plans by filling in relevant data based on student information and specific goals. While these technologies are still evolving, they demonstrate the promise of AI to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of IEP creation.

Challenges and Considerations
While AI offers many advantages, there are also challenges to consider. For instance, teachers of the deaf and related service providers will need to ensure that AI-generated recommendations are in line with best practices for DHH students. AI can be a powerful tool, but it should complement, not replace, professional judgment. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that AI systems are accessible, secure, and protect the privacy of students’ data.

AI holds immense potential to transform the process of creating and managing IEPs for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. By automating administrative tasks, personalizing goal-setting, and enhancing collaboration among professionals, AI can help ensure that students receive the individualized, high-quality education they deserve. As AI technology continues to evolve, its role in educational planning will likely expand, offering even greater support to teachers, therapists, and other service providers working with DHH students. The future of IEPs may very well be shaped by the power of AI to create more effective, streamlined, and personalized educational experiences.

For further insights into the potential of AI for IEPs, check out the Council for Exceptional Children’s article, “AI for IEPs: New Tools Could Mean Less Paperwork, Better Plans.”