Greene Rory-Edte-515s-02 - sp21

1
Promoting Engagement of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Online Reading
Instruction
Rory Greene
Department of Learning and Teaching, University of San Diego
EDTE 515: Capstone Seminar
Dr. Professor Flewelling
May 9, 2021
ENGAGEMENT OF DHH STUDENTS IN ONLINE READING INSTRUCTION 2
Abstract
Conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, this action research project sought to identify
instructional modifications that could successfully promote the sustained engagement of
elementary-age deaf and hard of hearing students during online reading instruction. This study is
framed by the theory of the Social-Cultural view of Deafness and looks at individuals in the Deaf
community as members of a cultural and linguistic minority population. This paper analyzes data
collected from a small group of participating kindergarten students from an ASL-Bilingual
Elementary School. The students have participated in remote schooling since September 2020.
By utilizing a mixed-methods approach, this study tested the efficacy of various instructional
modifications by analyzing student participation rate, task compliance, and critical moments
recorded during observation. The results revealed success in the use of an instructional
modification that catered to the quintessential visual/kinesthetic/tactile learning style
characteristic of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students, which utilized a combination of
teaching alterations including an increase in rich visual material and a decrease in multi-tasking
demands. This study highlights the need for educators to identify and support the specific
engagement needs of their students from special populations: as successful learning requires
students to be presented with information in a way that invokes their genuine interest and offers
them opportunities for authentic engagement.
Keywords: deaf and hard of hearing students, reading instruction, virtual learning, student
engagement, Covid-19
Promoting Engagement of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Online Reading Instruction
Project Conceptualization and Rationale
The progression of the COVID-19 (Novel Coronavirus) pandemic in the United States
represents one of the largest disruptions of the American education system in modern history. As
a majority of school districts transitioned to online schooling, teachers, families, and students
across the nation were being forced to navigate the world of “classroom-less” education. While
the nationwide use of the video chat platform, “Zoom”, granted access to students and teachers
to see and hear each other during online instruction, it did not replace the traditional face-to-face
learning environment. As virtual learning limits the variance of differentiated learning, online
learning lends itself more favorably to visual and auditory learning preferences, or students who
learn more successfully when information is delivered by lectures, written text, or narration
(Felder & Spurlin, 2005, p. 105). This type of "flat" classroom fails to support the learning needs
of students with differing learning styles, thus preventing many students from accessing an
equitable education. This creates a further disadvantage for marginalized communities that have
historically fought for the right to quality education.
Specifically, the Deaf community was disproportionately affected by the presence of
Covid-19. While deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) individuals have been fighting for access to
education, literacy, employment, and linguistic rights for over a century, the circumstances
brought by the virus regressed many of these achievements. Elementary age DHH children were
especially affected, as they were forced to continue their education online during a critical time
in their cognitive development, without the proper support of in-person academic
accommodations. Remote learning not only impacted DHH students’ access to content and
instruction but also their ability to authentically engage in academic activity. This issue should be
addressed to prevent the onset of a generation of students who are significantly behind in their
academics; as children need to be authentically engaged in their education for lasting,
meaningful learning to occur.
Context
Historically, the fight for advocacy and equality for people with disabilities in the realm
of education has been slow and covert, as changes in our education system have only become
visible in the past fifty to sixty years. It was not until the Civil Rights Movement in the United
States in the 1960s that disability advocates seized the opportunity to join forces alongside other
minority groups to demand equal treatment. Years of activism and public protest resulted in the
passing of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which finally declared the safety and support of people
with disabilities by law. Yet the U.S. school system did not have to legally educate children with
disabilities until the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which guaranteed access
to equal and fair education for children with disabilities. As a consequence, Deaf studies did not
become a cited area of research until the 1980s. This process was slowed due to the lack of
recognition of the Deaf community as a linguistic minority population separate from those with
disabilities, as well as the considerable bias and prejudice against the use of ASL (Holcomb,
2013).
It was thought that the use of ASL would prevent a DHH child from ever learning
English and therefore would hinder them from ever assimilating into the mainstream population
(Komesaroff, 2008). As a result, Deaf education programs banned any use of ASL, as most
schools were dominated by hearing educators who prioritized the improvement of speaking and
hearing ability over the linguistic and academic needs of deaf children (Stamps, 2016). This led
to the academic failure of many generations of DHH students, as many of them had been forced
to participate in academics that denied them of linguistic access which impaired their cognitive
development (Holcomb, 2013). It was not until years later that linguistic researchers confirmed
there is no evidence to support this claim, as previous studies conducted by Komesaroff, (2008)
and Grosjean (2001) provided substantial evidence that the use of ASL does not show any
negative influence on the development of speech or English fluency.
While American Sign Language has been used by the Deaf community since the early
1800s, it was not until the 1940s that ASL was finally recognized as a crucial part of a young
deaf child’s overall cognitive development. Today, the rise of law such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), California AB 1836
(The Deaf Children’s Bill of Rights), and California SB 210 (Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Children's Language Developmental Milestones), have ensured vital protections and
expectations in pursuit of providing all deaf children with an equal and accessible education
(Humphries, et al., 2012). These laws have transformed education for DHH students and allowed
public day schools to establish local deaf and hard of hearing programs, giving these students the
option to stay with their families rather than commute to residential state schools for the Deaf. At
the same time, many school districts “were and still are unprepared to support the academic and
social success of deaf students, as there is not widespread understanding of educational
implications of deafness, even among special educators” (Office of Special Education Programs,
1992, p. 45).
Deaf Education
While Deaf education has made significant strides since the establishment of the first
school for the Deaf in 1817, the battle for deaf individuals to receive a quality education is an
ongoing fight. The education system and literacy levels, as well as the graduation rate for DHH
children, remain well below satisfactory in a majority of countries, and “the attempt to educate
Deaf children continues to prove a failure, decade after decade” (Lee, 2020, p. 129). Specifically,
the most common area of difficulty for DHH students includes reading fluency and literature
comprehension. The 2018 Stanford Achievement Test, which records national norming and
performance standards for deaf and hard of hearing students, revealed: “the median reading level
of deaf students indicates subpar achievement”, as “Only ten percent of students who are DHH
achieve age-appropriate literacy skills” (Traxler, 2000, p. 124). While over 40 years of
peer-reviewed education research noted various educators’ trial and errors in attempting to
support the literacy of their DHH students “there has been relatively little progress in improving
literacy and narrative comprehension in DHH readers despite decades of research” (Traxler,
2000, p. 134).
When examining the modern-day rights of deaf and hard of hearing students, the rise of
laws such as Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requires that all public,
private, or charter schools provide their DHH students with all services deemed necessary to
provide adequate education and access to natural language, with the intent that all “students with
disabilities will be guaranteed the opportunity to receive equal benefit from instruction- whether
that is face-to-face, online, or a combination of both” (Lee, 2020, p. 45). Some of these services
include: speech therapy, onsite audiology, ASL interpreting services, favorable seating in the
class to facilitate speech reading, assigned note-taking, live captioning, captioned films and
videos, and amplification services. Additionally, elementary-age DHH students require weekly
check-ins with an educator fluent in their language modality, in order to ensure that they are on
the right track for their language development (Traxler, 2000).
Furthermore, the educational path for deaf and hard of hearing students has been
documented to be more turbulent than a typical child's experience; especially when accompanied
with the expectation that they will be able to perform at the same rigor and progression as a
hearing student. As DHH children are most commonly identified as visual, kinesthetic, and
tactile learners, they heavily rely on a learning environment that both supports their preferred
language modality (i.e., listening/spoken language only, adapted communication, American Sign
Language/English) as well as instruction that permits direct involvement in whatever they are
learning (Felder & Henriques, 1995). In addition, due to the physical nature of American Sign
Language (ASL), a majority of D/HOH students learn best in settings where they can
communicate and interact face-to-face with both their peers and educator. As a result, educators
of the deaf must carefully consider the design and delivery of their instruction in order to address
the specific language needs and unique learning styles of their DHH students.
Focus School
This study features participants from an ASL-Bilingual Elementary School in Southern
California. Founded in 1966, the facility was uniquely designed and built to support the needs of
students participating in the District's DHH program and included an added general education
sector to support the attendance of hearing siblings and/or family members of the deaf. The
school contained a diverse student population, as all student body members had a connection to
Deaf culture, deafness, or American sign language. Attending students either identified as DHH
themselves, or had family members or siblings that were DHH. As language preference and
hearing ability varied from student to student, all classes were instructed in both spoken English
as well as American Sign Language, with the support of ASL interpreters. The school's academic
environment was grounded in its mission to promote student success by uniting the campus
through language use, as well as by providing students with a rigorous, standards-based

instructional program responsive to individual learning styles.
Focus Classroom
This study will present data collected from a kindergarten class that began participating in
online schooling via Zoom starting in September 2020. These students, ages five to seven, were
in the most vital stage of their development, making it even more important to deliver equitable
instruction during this period of remote learning (Komesaroff, 2008). As a district mandate, each
of the twenty-one students received a laptop fitted with a video camera, guaranteeing all students
had access to virtual learning. As a student teacher in this classroom, I was able to develop
relationships with these students and watch how they progressed in their digital literacy skills
compared to the start of remote learning. Moreover, by January of 2021 most students became
proficient in navigating their laptops and operating the Zoom platform, ensuring they could
comfortably participate in the digital learning environment.
Classroom Procedures and Practices
The students participated in online learning Monday through Friday, beginning on Zoom
at 8:55 am and lasting until 11:30 pm. In order to provide the students with stability and routine
in their schooling, daily instruction was explicitly organized and implemented by way of Google
Slides. The first few hours of the class included a morning meeting, the Pledge of Allegiance,
and a warm-up activity that required students to practice their writing skills or sight word
retention. This was followed by a short “movement break,” or a five to ten minute segment of
class where students engaged in a short dance or physical activity. Following this, students
participated in one to two hours of language arts and reading instruction. After a 15 minute lunch
break, students spent the last 30-40 minutes of class participating in either science or
mathematics activities. After synchronous school time was over, students were assigned one to
three different asynchronous activities per day, which had to be completed and submitted to the
schooling platform “SeeSaw” by the end of each school week. SeeSaw was utilized as an
assessment tool due to its user-friendly and simple platform.
Focus Students
This study involved data collected from a group of eight students. The group of students,
all ages five to seven, included four DHH students, two students with learning disabilities, and
two hearing students. By including instructional and learning feedback from hearing students and
students with disabilities, multiple perspectives were sought to capture a holistic whole-class
experience, to ensure the participating students would not benefit at the expense of their peers.
This group of students was selected due to their communication skills, the general level of
comfort within the meetings, familiarity with online-schooling procedures, and their ability to
provide raw phenomenological insight regarding their experience of the adjusted instruction
techniques. Additionally, these students had consistent attendance and a record of submitting
their work on time. The selected students participated in a small reading group two times per
week, with granted permission from their legal guardians.
Needs Assessment
I performed a needs assessment in the aforementioned DHH classroom in order to gain
clarity regarding what was lacking in online instruction that could potentially impact student
engagement. As the students in my classroom were young learners, I designed a short survey that
included picture icons of potential responses, which prompted each student to point to their
chosen answer. Some questions included: “Some things I don't like about school,” “It is hard to
learn in online school when,” and “It helps me learn when”. These questions provided clarity on
the students’ experiences of online school, their preference for types of instruction and activities,
and their least favorite school subjects. A summary of the students’ responses revealed several
instances in which reading practice and read-alouds were noted as their least favorite school
activity, as well as the activity that was the most challenging for them to remain focused.
The results from this assessment raised further questions regarding the students’
disinterest in reading practice and read-alouds. As a result, I met with four of the students that
ranked reading as their least favorite activity and asked them additional questions regarding
online reading instruction. Three of the students expressed that online reading was “boring” or
“too long,” with one student noting they “want to see the pictures more.” Additionally, I
observed the students’ behavior during a few days of normal reading instruction. I noted that
read-alouds were often conducted via Zoom by sharing a YouTube video with students, which
featured a voice narration alongside images of the pages of literature. An ASL interpretation was
shared simultaneously on an additional screen for language access; a process that required the
DHH students to consistently shift their attention from one screen to another. While students
would initially appear interested in the video readings, their attention would slowly fade as the
video would progress, occasionally getting out of their seats or fidgeting with nearby objects. As
a result, students would often be at a loss for words when asked to recall major events from the
story, and commonly answered questions with a guess or vague details. Following these
observations, my research focused on identifying instructional modifications for online
instruction that promoted authentic learning and engagement of DHH students.

Figure 1
Survey Response to “My Favorite Online School Activities”
Note. This bar chart displays the focus student's responses to a needs assessment survey question
regarding their favorite online schooling activities. “Reading Practice” and “Read Aloud” are
noted as the least desirable options.
Purpose of Action Research
While educators had just begun to grasp the complexities involved in properly engaging
their DHH students in an in-person classroom, the change to an online schooling environment
altered DHH students' engagement needs entirely (Lee, 2020). Due to the physical nature of ASL
and the visual, kinesthetic, spatial learning style of most DHH kids, in-person instruction often
suits the needs of students with different levels of hearing loss more effectively and allows for
better differentiation of instruction to fit students’ needs (Lee, 2020, p. 129). As the most
significant barrier to virtual learning for DHH students is a lack of access to auditory
information, educators were tasked with creating virtual reading instruction that was both
accessible and engaging for younger deaf learners. Material that would be dynamic and
attention-grabbing in the classroom had been eschewed to the confines of the computer screen.
Elementary age DHH students unable to utilize closed captioning (C.C.) services were left to
spend most of their day frequently switching their focus from one screen to another; constantly
having to shift from their teacher’s screen to that of the ASL interpreter. More importantly, the
lack of kinesthetic engagement- one of the most cited learning and engagement needs for DHH
learners- had been eliminated in the context of remote schooling.
Literacy skills have represented a predominant challenge for most DHH children; yet,
research regarding specific instructional interventions related to literacy engagement was found
to be limited. According to linguistic researcher Van Staden (2013), “The reading skills of many
deaf children lag several years behind those of hearing children, and there is a need for
identifying reading difficulties and implementing effective reading support strategies in this
population” (p. 305). Considering this notion, educators must adjust their pedagogy to provide
effective reading instruction along with accessible reading material, in order to support the
authentic engagement of their DHH students (Komesaroff, 2008). The shift to online learning left
many inexperienced hearing educators with the responsibility of providing their DHH students
with accessible reading material via virtual instruction.
Educators of the deaf were also tasked with overcoming an additional obstacle towards
supporting student literacy online; student engagement. As engaging students is critical in the
delivery of effective instruction, it is prospectively detrimental to assume that DHH students
online attendance is proof of their presence in class, as “It is not sufficient enough for these
students simply to have access; their engaged participation is necessary; it should be not merely
symbolic but real” (Komesaroff, 2008, p. 9). To ensure students could access and engage online
content, instruction during this time required extra consideration for implications imposed by
various students’ inability to receive their specialized educational services in person. The
two-dimensional (2-D) nature of online instruction left a large population of DHH students
unable to properly engage during lessons, many withdrawing from any class participation
entirely as they were left to work on their academics from home with inaccessible reading
material and compromised language support (DCD, 2020).
Theoretical Framework
As an educator of the deaf and hard of hearing and a representative member of the Deaf
community, the constructs of this paper were structured by the theory of Socio-Cultural View of
Deafness. In order to combat acts of disabling pedagogy based on the Medical perspective of
deafness, educators of the Deaf need to gain familiarity with the socio-cultural elements of
Deafness (Holcomb, 2013). This process begins with the acceptance of Deaf culture, or “a
unique linguistic minority that uses American Sign Language (ASL) as its primary mode of
communication” (Holcomb, 2013, p. 65). For members of the Deaf community, deafness
represents cultural membership, linguistic liberation, and rich cultural history; that of which has
been passed down through generations and is treasured by its members (Komesaroff, 2008;
Grosjean, 2001; Humphries, et al., 2012). While many within the deaf community may fit the
characteristics of being disabled from a medical perspective, members of the Deaf community
are more accurately described as individuals of a linguistic minority and minority culture
(Komesaroff, 2008; Grosjean, 2001; Humphries, et al., 2012). As explained by renowned Deaf
author Harlan Lane (1992), like any minority group,—whether it be Deaf-Americans,
African-Americans, or Hispanic Americans— members are disadvantaged by the beliefs and
practices of the majority in the United States.
Just as educators practice cultural sensitivity and cultural reciprocity with their students
of different cultural backgrounds, efforts should be made to do the same for members of the Deaf
community, as “the construction of Deaf people as individuals with a disability ignores their
status as a minority language bilinguals, and their positive generational biology” (Komesaroff,
2008, p. 9). Education for the Deaf can only improve once the United States schooling system
renounces the Medical model of disability. Deaf individuals are disabled and oppressed by their
environment; due to the fact that most of society is designed for hearing individuals (Holcomb,
2013, p. 57). When utilizing this Socio-cultural view of Deafness, educators can combat a deficit
view of their deaf students and provide DHH children with an education that is more accessible
and equitable in nature.
Research Questions
My central research question was: How can I promote sustained engagement of
elementary-age deaf and hard of hearing students in online reading instruction? Other questions
that arose included: How does improving the richness of audio-visual materials impact deaf and
hard of hearing students’ engagement in online reading instruction? As well as: How does
reducing the prevalence of multitasking demands impact deaf and hard of hearing students’
engagement in online reading instruction? Lastly: Is there a significant enough impact on deaf
and hard of hearing students’ engagement in online reading instruction to warrant educators to
adopt the implemented instructional modifications?
Literature Review
In regards to reading instruction during the Covid-19 pandemic, research pertaining to
strategies educators could utilize to effectively engage DHH students in literacy practice in an
online learning environment represented mostly uncharted territory. The available literature on
literacy outcomes of students who are DHH featured “few studies that investigate the
effectiveness of specific interventions targeting reading and writing instruction in person, and
even less so regarding interventions designed for supporting online reading instruction” (DCD,
2020, p. 45). While all children were heavily impacted by the switch to online learning, DHH
children were especially affected as they had to navigate a new education system without proper
language support, adequate kinesthetic-tactile engagement, low-quality audio, and
two-dimensional instruction. In attempting to inform educators seeking to better engage their
DHH students in online reading instruction, this literature review synthesized research on the
challenges faced by the DHH student in online learning, alongside various suggested strategies
aimed at reducing these threats in order to promote more effective and engaging online
instruction for DHH students.
Barriers to Online Education
While DHH students already face potential learning barriers in the classroom, these
barriers are exacerbated when looking at the context of online learning (Crossland, 2020). In
turn, a decrease in the quality of the implemented academic accommodations in online learning
threatened students’ digital accessibility, defined as the situation in which “All users can
navigate, perceive, understand, and interact with content; and content considers the needs of
individuals with physical, visual, speech, auditory, neurological and cognitive disabilities''
(Crossland, 2020). There have been several identified factors that contributed to additional
learning barriers faced by DHH students in the online schooling environment.
Deficit Beliefs.
Whether the medium of instruction is in-person or in an online format, an educator that
holds deficit beliefs towards their DHH students will predict an outcome of academic failure and
poor performance (Stamps, 2016; Humphries, et al., 2012). As a result of their lowered
expectations, educators frequently provide their DHH students with a watered-down version of a
general education curriculum (Holcomb, 2013). This conditionality is described as a form of
education “disabling,” as it severely limits DHH students’ cognitive development, and hinders
them from reaching their full academic potential (Komesaroff, 2008). Nonetheless, DHH
students who are denied access to their natural language and given inadequate academic
instruction will most likely fall behind in school, and thereby confirm educators’ deficit beliefs.
As outlined by Linda R. Komesaroff in Disabling Pedagogy: Power, Politics, and Deaf
Education, “Educators and administrators with a deficit view of deaf students expect
underachievement in education and remain unaware of deaf students’ potential to succeed
through the use of ASL” (2008, p. 33). In addition, educators who take on a deficit view towards
their DHH students can greatly influence the overall school climate. As illustrated in the 2001
study conducted at RIT’s (Rochester Institute of Technology) National Technical Institute for the
Deaf, “Sometimes regular classroom teachers exhibited an unsupportive attitude that adversely
affected the attitudes of hearing classmates toward the DHH student, as well as the overall
confidence of the DHH student” (Stinson, 2001, p. 194).
Inflexibility
While DHH students had the flexibility to access unplanned and impromptu material
previously due to the presence of an in-person ASL interpreter, “the nature of online learning
does not support the time-sensitive needs for the interpreter, ridding the DHH student of this type
of flexibility in school” (Crossland, 2020, p. 47). The lack of flexibility and more “rigid” daily
schedule in online learning potentially led students to experience higher levels of boredom and
disengagement, further discouraging DHH students from wanting to participate in their everyday
instruction (Crossland, 2020).

Re-engagement and Communication
It is important to consider the influence of the physical classroom environment, and how
this impacts the fluidity of interactions between the instructor, interpreter, and the DHH student.
When looking at how we initiate engagement with DHH students in the classroom, most
educators of the Deaf, as well as members of the DHH community utilize attention-getting
devices (i.e. Body tap, Hand-wave, Foot-stomp, and light-flashing), which are considered “an
important part of deaf culture since they differ significantly from sound-based techniques” (Lane,
1992, p. 217). Online learning made it more difficult for educators to engage their DHH students,
with the additional challenge that came with trying to re-engage a DHH student after having
already lost their attention (Virtual Education for Students Who Are Deaf/Hard of Hearing,
2020).
Further, online learning can impact DHH students' ability to build relationships with their
teachers, as well as with their peers. Even in scenarios in which DHH students can utilize hearing
technologies or lip-reading skills, these students still experience a “limited ability to
communicate with others in their environment, whether it is expressing their thoughts or
participating in social interactions” (Holcomb, 2013, p. 102). Not only that, but hearing students
who have had no prior in-person interactions with deaf or hard of hearing individuals may have
false misconceptions about DHH students, which can cause hearing students to avoid any
interactions with their deaf peers, or even act as if they are “afraid” of the DHH students
(Stinson, 2001).
Incidental Learning
Research conducted by the American Speech/Language Hearing Association revealed
that about 90% of what very young children know about the world is from incidental learning
(Stinson, 2001). This form of learning can be defined as “informal communicative interactions
with others in public and educational settings,” and describes everyday instances in which
children learn, for example, from overhearing dialogue, listening to the radio, or catching
segments of the daily news (Marschark, 2012, p. 27). However, deaf children are often unable to
access incidental learning, as they must receive instruction that is both methodical and
intentional in order to learn as much as their hearing peers. As explained by King, professor of
Deaf Education at Utah State University, “Children with hearing loss often need explicit
instruction from a specialized provider to acquire the same information another child learns
incidentally (2017). Therefore, while hearing students may have not been completely engaged in
their online instruction, incidental learning may have made up for their gaps in knowledge. This
concept does not apply to DHH students, who may have developed permanent gaps in their
learning due to the switch to online school (Freeman King, 2017).
Increased Visual Attendance and Fatigue
While a vivid and colorfully decorated classroom may have encouraged student
participation and engagement in an in-person learning environment, this could have the opposite
effect in an online classroom. Too many visual demands could deter the DHH student from
participating as a result of eye strain due to an effect known as “visual noise” (DCD, 2020). For
instance, online instruction conducted with the instructor in a dimly lit room or standing in front
of a“busy” background could make it increasingly difficult for a DHH student to lipread or keep
up with designated instructions (Virtual Education for Students Who Are Deaf/Hard of Hearing,
2020). Furthermore, studies have shown that DHH students are more likely to withdraw due to
heavy eye strain and general fatigue, as “multitasking demands much higher than that of a
hearing student, as deaf students must attend to a video representation of audio content in
addition to the same visual information hearing students are presented with” (National Deaf
Center on Postsecondary Outcomes, 2021, p. 25). Especially as DHH students require a higher
visual attendance than hearing students, younger DHH students may have experienced higher
amounts of eye strain and fatigue in online schooling, making it challenging to engage these
types of learners for longer periods (Crossland, 2020). Considering this notion, educators during
this time should have taken into account the effort required for the DHH student to access an
online learning environment, as well as students’ distinctive auditory and visual needs.
Increase in Multitasking Demands
DHH students require high visual attendance compared to that of their hearing peers who
can utilize their hearing abilities to look away from their instructor (or computer screen), without
missing instruction. This is due to the fact that DHH students cannot attend to several sources of
auditory and visual stimuli at the same time (Marschark, 2012). As a result, DHH students must
switch between sources consecutively, often leading to missed information when content is
presented concurrently (DCD, 2020). As described by Lane in his novel, “The Mask of
Benevolence”:
The Deaf child must keep his eyes glued on the interpreter for long stretches while
classroom events suit his hearing classmates; maps are unfurled, slides are projected,
tables of numbers are displayed, and all the while the teacher talks, the interpreter
interprets, and the deaf child must never look away from the interpreter.
(Lane, 1992, p. 136)

In turn, as virtual learning naturally increased the demand for processing print material to make
up for instructional deficiencies, students with print-related and language-related impairments
may have found the increase in reading a daunting task, causing fatigue to occur much earlier in
the day than usual (Virtual Education for Students Who Are Deaf/Hard of Hearing, 2020).
Modifications for Online Instruction
Rich Visual Material
As suggested by the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, while educators of the
Deaf should still provide their DHH students with Rich Visual Material (RVM), teachers should
strive for quality over quantity by minimizing the number of visual demands when creating
instructional material to ensure that the DHH student is engaged without being overwhelmed
(DCD, 2020). Online instruction should be designed with anticipation for the potential
challenges their DHH may encounter when faced with auditory-based material. As DHH
students and ASL users often have a superior perception, educators should provide instruction
and material that maximizes visual input whenever possible. The use of RVM can be extremely
beneficial in this scenario, as it includes the use of visual supports in the form of graphic
organizers, charts, manipulatives, realia, illustrations, photographs, visual maps, screen captures,
animated gifs, infographics, pictographs, comics, and visual notes. At the same time, this
increase in rich visual material will provide DHH students with a road map to navigate
instruction, which may even relieve these students from the anxiety that often comes from gaps
in communication. Nonetheless, the decision to incorporate RVM into instruction can promote
all students’ “visual literacy” skills, while ensuring that DHH students have access to academic
content in a way that supports their needs for comprehension (Holcomb, 2013).
Pace of Instruction
Educators must consider the heightened visual demands of their DHH students and how
this may conflict with the pace of their online instruction. As noted by the National Deaf Center
on Postsecondary Outcomes, DHH students need additional time in daily instruction in order to
give them the opportunity to read captions, receive a translation from their interpreter, as well as
work through any potential internet lags that interfere with their language support (2021).
Especially in the context of online instruction, educators should consider incorporating brief
pauses into their instruction when using visual aids, in order to “allow time for students to view
the board, projected image, or objects, then watch the explanation/instruction given by the
teacher or through the educational interpreter, and only then, allow students to offer responses”
(Virginia Department of Education, 2019, p. 25).
Decrease in Multitasking Demands
One instructional altercation that was found as a narrative in research literature involves
reducing instances in instruction that require students to multi-task (Stinson, 2001). For instance,
in the context of online schooling, educators can provide videos that include ASL interpretation
on-screen, or avoid any activity in instruction that requires students to do hands-on work while
listening to a lecture or any form of verbal instruction (Holcomb, 2013; Komesaroff, 2008). One
study revealed an increase in student engagement when the instructor let the child see a book,
their face, and the interpreter simultaneously during reading instruction (DCD, 2020). In
reducing the frequency of multi-tasking demands, this will not only increase the quality of DHH
students' education, but it will also provide students more opportunities to authentically engage
in reading instruction.
Explicit Interactions
As described by the National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes, in order to
promote successful communication between the DHH student and their hearing instructor and
peers, instructors should develop a “turn-taking protocol” for online discussions. This includes
establishing visual attention-getting strategies for all students to use in order to initiate
conversations with their peers and establishing incentives to encourage every student to
participate in class discussions (National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes, 2021).
Additionally, giving students time to work with one another collaboratively will provide
opportunities for the instructor to become an “observer” rather than a participant (Marschark,
2012). In addition, instructors can allocate daily segments of time for discussions on informal
topics, such as “where students like to socialize and why, favorite books, or what happened at the
dinner table last night” (National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes, 2021). This could
help the DHH student feel more comfortable participating in their online learning community.
Conclusion
With the knowledge gained from reviewing the literature, it is clear that while DHH
students had just begun to tackle the challenges they were facing during in-person learning,
Covid-19 forced them to conquer an entirely new set of challenges that went along with online
learning. The challenges explored in this literature review include the instructors’ deficit beliefs,
the lack of flexibility in instruction, added barriers towards re-engagement and communication,
an increase in visual attendance and fatigue, as well as an increase in multitasking demands.
Instructional modifications that were mentioned to improve the DHH students’ experience of
online learning include the use of rich visual material, a change in the pace of instruction, a
reduction in the frequency of multitasking demands, as well as an increase in explicit
Interactions.
Phase 1
Methodology and Rationale
The passing of March 13th, 2021 marked one year since California initiated school
closures across the state in an effort to stop the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. From this
point forward, it became imperative for educators to prepare instruction with the assumption that
remote learning would persist through the immediate future. Thus, it would have served
educators to have already had access to various techniques and strategies that supported all of
their students' comprehension levels and needs for authentic engagement in an online
environment. This need was even greater in the context of online instruction involving younger
deaf and hard of hearing students, as these students cannot yet access content relating to
literature or reading material through closed-captioning. Taking this into account, this study was
created to provide teachers of the Deaf within the United States with relevant information that
could be utilized to increase the quality and comprehensibility of their online reading instruction
for elementary-age DHH students. By equipping educators with various strategies proven to
increase the engagement of deaf and hard of hearing students in reading instruction, we could
prevent further damage to the academic achievement of this frequently under-supported student
population.
Research and applicable collected data were conducted through the process of action
research, or “A form of research that seeks to improve both teacher praxis and learner
achievement” (Phillips & Carr, 2010, p. 3). Through designed interventions, participant
observation, data collection, and reflection, I was able to develop a rich, deep understanding of
my students, and in turn, identify an instructional adjustment that better suited their needs for
engagement. Furthermore, I chose to utilize a qualitative research design, or “a form of inquiry
that is primarily concerned with exploring how participants understand and experience a
particular issue,” as it allowed me to extract data from an “outside” perspective, as well as an
“inside” perspective regarding the principles and characteristics of student engagement
(Creswell, 2009, p. 4). In addition to student observation and work samples, I also incorporated
data in the form of feedback and insight from the students, themselves. By providing a cross
verification from more than two sources, I triangulated the collected qualitative data to increase
the validity of my findings.
Action Plan
The data collected for this action research project took place over three weeks in
February of 2021 and included two days of modified reading instruction per week. The
participating students received reading instruction in the morning via a Zoom breakout room,
during the class’s regularly scheduled one to two hours of language arts. Reading instruction was
centered around read-alouds that featured medium-length, grade-appropriate, fiction, and
nonfiction literature. For the sake of consistency and accuracy, all implemented reading
instruction followed the same basic order and structure via Google slides:
1. Attendance
2. Literature preview and predictions
3. Guided reading of the literature
4. Literature discussion and recall
5. Journal writing response

6. Guided drawing
For the first week, I implemented reading instruction that did not contain instructional
modifications, in order to serve as a “control” or baseline that could be used to assess the effect
of the future interventions. The second week of instruction included the instructional
modification of “Rich Visual Material” or RVM, that of which focused on an increase in the use
of visual support by way of “photographs, cinema, and video films, videotapes, paintings,
drawings, cartoons, prints, designs, and three-dimensional art such as sculpture and architecture”
(Komesaroff, 2008, p. 209). This altered daily instruction by explicitly replacing the typical
lecturing format with simple verbal or signed instruction further supported with RVM.
The third week I halted the use of RVM and instead began reading instruction that
involved the use of “Decreased Multi-tasking Demands,” or DMD. As previously mentioned in
the literature review, multitasking demands have a negative impact on the educational experience
of DHH students and prevent learners from fully engaging in instruction, as “they must attend to
a video representation of audio content in addition to the same visual information hearing
students are presented with” (DCD, 2020, p. 5). For the purpose of this study, DMD altered
typical instruction by decreasing the frequency of any activity that required students to:
1. Do hands-on work while listening to a lecture or instruction.
2. Watch videos that require separate ASL interpretation for access to audio-based input.
Assessment Plan
Data was collected and triangulated using three different data collection techniques. I
summarized the data by week and then compared the subsequent weeks to each other in
attempting to bring clarity to the instruction techniques that most effectively promoted sustained
engagement from the focus students. In assessing the collected data, this study could provide
insight as to how reading instruction could be altered to increase engagement in elementary-age
deaf and hard of hearing students during virtual reading instruction.
Prompted/Unprompted Participation
I evaluated the focus students’ engagement during modified reading instruction by
recording the number of times each student responded- either prompted or unprompted- to posed
questions or class discussions. In this case, I looked at the frequency of student participation as a
measure of engagement as indicated by students’ willingness to communicate a response, ask
questions, or direct information towards the teacher, their peers, or the class as a whole. A
student's willingness to participate in discourse or comply with an educator's request for
participation can be marked as a clear display of engagement (Phillips & Carr, 2010).
To analyze the collected data, I tallied up the students' unprompted and prompted
responses, and created a bar graph representing the two days of student responses for each given
intervention week. Then I compared the resulting graphs to the collected data from the control
week, to see if there was any noticeable change to students’ unprompted or prompted responses
after implementing RVM or DMD. This helped me identify how or if the instructional
modifications influenced the students’ willingness to participate or engage in reading instruction.
Task Compliance
For each instructional day, I collected one work sample from each of the eight students
from one specific activity in order to evaluate their task compliance. The term “task compliance”
was used to describe a student's ability to follow prescribed directions, that of which could be
identified in the proper completion of an assigned task, or the absence of disruptive behaviors
(Guardino & Antia, 2012). This process involved collecting two work samples per week for each
of the eight focus students. I then analyzed the work samples based on the students’ level of task
compliance, or their ability to follow the initial activity instructions. This was done by filling out
a task compliance probe for each student work sample, which noted the initial activity
instructions, performance expectations, and a detailed description of the student's attempt. At the
end of each week, I used the data recorded on the task compliance probe to rate each work
sample based on its resemblance to the indicated performance expectations. Each collected work
sample was then given a score of 1-4, based on the following rubric as shown in Table 2:
Table 2
Task Compliance Rubric
1 The work sample is incomplete or does not align with performance

expectations.
2 The work sample shows a minor resemblance to performance

expectations.
3 The work sample moderately resembles performance expectations.
4 The work sample sufficiently resembles performance expectations.

Note. This rubric indicates a student’s level of accuracy in completing a specified task, with
specific consideration for how the student’s assignment resembled the initial performance
expectations.
The data was then summarized and separated into graphs to showcase students’ task
compliance for each instructional modification. By comparing students' task compliance scores,
I was able to identify whether or not the implemented instructional adjustment made a significant
impact on each student's task compliance.
Critical Moments As Noted By the Instructor
Throughout each day of modified instruction, I recorded my thoughts and observations
regarding any noticeable changes in student engagement, as well as noting any critical moments
that may have taken place. I then use my recorded insight as the educator to supply additional
qualitative information that may have been missing from the student participation and work
sample related data.
Triangulation
Triangulation is necessary as a qualitative analysis technique for testing validity through
the convergence of data from various sources (Creswell, 2009). The effectiveness of the
combination of these strategies was assessed through the triangulation of: (a) daily participation
count, (b) student work analysis, and (c) critical instructional moments as documented by the
instructor.
Implementation
Week One: Control Week/Baseline Data
The first week of data collection did not include an instructional modification, and
instead, it followed the reading instruction layout that the students' have been familiar with since
the beginning of their online school year. Furthermore, the days began by taking the students’
attendance simply by asking for a raise of hand once their name was called. I introduced the
literature by sharing the title of the text and discussing the photo featured on the front cover.
From here, I asked the students to raise their hand and share their prediction of what the story
will be about based on the information they were presented. I then shared a video that featured
each page of the book with audio narration, which played alongside a pinned video of the ASL
interpreter. Following the read-aloud, I would begin a discussion with the students regarding the
main events in the story and take a vote on which event the students would like to write about.
Student responses were typed up on a blank Google slide and shared with the class. Next, I used
a document camera to capture my writing, that of which the students used as a guide to complete
their journal entries. Lastly, I continued to use the document camera to lead a step-by-step
drawing related to the topic of our journal entry. Students were given five to ten minutes to color
and add detail to their drawings before being asked to hold up their final product to their camera.
Critical Moments from the Instructor’s Perspective. As the students had been
participating in the same online reading instruction layout since the beginning of the school year,
their behavior during instruction was relaxed and fairly typical. Students appeared somewhat
engaged for the beginning of the lesson but noticeably lost interest by the time the lesson moved
onto the writing portion. Students paid the least attention to their screens when showing the
guided reading video, with many of them looking off to the side or fidgeting with nearby objects.
The students were most notably engaged when being given the opportunity to talk about pictures,
or during the segments of time in which they were permitted to work on their drawings.
Summary of Data. Data regarding participation rate was collected by tallying each time
a student spoke unprompted, or as a response to a prompt. From here, I collected the average
response count for each of the two days and then combined these two numbers to find the
average participation rate for the entire intervention. As indicated in Figure 3, Without the
presence of an intervention during the first week of reading instruction, the students averaged 2.5
replies per day, with a median of 3 responses and a mode of 4. These numbers may be lower due
to the fact that a majority of student participation during this intervention was a response to
instructor prompting, as students may have only responded if asked questions directly.
To continue, data regarding task compliance was gathered by comparing student work to
the expected performance outcome based on the initial task instructions. This information is then
used to rate each piece of student work on a scale from one to four, with one indicating the
“Work sample is incomplete or does not align with performance expectations,” two meaning the
“Work sample shows a minor resemblance to performance expectations,” three meaning the
“work sample moderately resembles performance expectations, and four meaning, the “work
sample sufficiently resembles performance expectations,” Furthermore, the average task
compliance score for this instructional modification was 3, with a median score of 3, and a mode
of 3, indicating that a majority of the students’ work moderately resembled the expected
performance outcome.
Figure 3
Week One Intervention Data
Week One:
No Intervention/Baseline Data
Average Student Participation Mean: 2.5

Rate Median: 3
Mode: 4
Average Task Compliance Score Mean: 3

Median: 3
Mode: 3
Note. This chart displays the data collected from the first week of Phase 1 and showcases the
average student participation rate, as well as the average task compliance score from the
implemented intervention.
Week Two: Rich Visual Material
Week two included reading instruction modified to optimize visual input and increase the
use of visually rich material. To begin, I took attendance by sharing a slide with the class that
featured a list of all student participants. I then moved a yellow star next to the name of each
student that raised their hand when their name was called to mark them a present. After taking
attendance, I used my document camera to showcase a physical copy of the chosen text, and
brought attention to the title of the text and the photo on the front cover. As students shared their
predictions for the story, I recorded their answers by filling out a slide with images or keywords
to represent each students’ response. Next, I captured myself on camera and began to read the
chosen literature aloud using the physical copy text, with the ASL interpreter spotlighted on the
screen to provide a live transcription. In addition, I used a large arrow pointer to underline each
word in the book as I read it aloud. Following the read-aloud, students were asked to recall the
main events in the story. This was done by sharing the computer screen with the students and
adding snapshots from the book that corresponded with each students’ reply. From here, writing
instruction was done using a document camera, which allowed the students to have a clear view
of my paper as they followed along in real-time. For the guided drawing portion of the
instruction, the students were shown detailed real-life photos or images of the character or
animal in the story, that of which I used as a model to walk the students through a step-by-step
guided drawing through the use of the document camera.
Critical Moments from the Instructor’s Perspective. Throughout the two days of RVM
instruction, I noted students' higher visual attendance than usual, as the bright colors and detailed
images kept their attention to the screen. I also noticed a change in engagement when it came to
using a physical book to read aloud, as compared to playing the story via a YouTube video with a
voiceover. Not only could I stop the book and point out details or pose questions on certain
pages, but the pauses in my reading allowed students to make predictions or recount what had
just been read. The use of a physical text made the entire experience more interactive, with an
additional benefit that came from the students’ ability to observe appropriate book handling
skills. Additionally, when it came to story predictions and recall, it was extremely beneficial to
have photos taken directly from the text as the students frequently referred to the photos when
recalling instances in the story. Students that were usually quiet during discussions were willing
to participate, as the photos offered them an additional level of support when referring to
moments in the book.
Summary of Data. After totaling the prompted and unprompted participation of the eight
students over the two days of RVM instruction, the students averaged 3.18 replies per day, with
a median of 2.5 responses and a mode of 4 (as shown in Figure 4). When looking at task
compliance, students can receive a score from 1-4, with 4 being the highest grade possible. The
average task compliance score for this instructional modification was 3.13, with a median score
of 3, and a mode of 3.
Figure 4
Week Two Intervention Data
Week Two:
Rich Visual Material
Average Participation Rate Mean: 3.18

Median: 2.5
Mode: 4
Average Task Compliance Score Mean: 3.13

Median: 3
Mode: 3
Note. This chart displays the data collected from the second week of Phase 1 and showcases the
Week Three: Decrease in Multitasking Demands
Week three featured a reading instruction modified to be more simple in its execution,
with extra caution taken to decrease instances that would require students to engage in
multitasking activity. I conducted a majority of this instruction either verbally with ASL
interpretation or through ASL directly, with the screen only showcasing my face. I then took
attendance by asking the students to wave upon hearing their name. From here, I took out a large
whiteboard that featured an image of the chosen text, that of which initiated a discussion
regarding the students’ predictions of the story. All conversations regarding book predictions as
well as story recall were all discussed and shown by aiming the camera directly at the instructor
and writing student responses on the whiteboard. Read aloud was done by sharing a pre-recorded
video, that of which included me reading a physical copy of the book with an ASL interpreter
sitting next to me, singing alongside my reading. Writing instruction was conducted by having
the camera aimed directly at me while I wrote on the whiteboard in real-time, with the students
following along and writing in their own journals. Lastly, I guided the students through a
drawing by aiming the camera directly at the whiteboard as I talked them through each step.
Critical Moments from the Instructor’s Perspective. This instructional modification
more closely resembled in-person instruction, as it required the least amount of use of
technology. This became most apparent when observing the students as they watched the
literature video, as they no longer had to look from screen to screen to follow along with the
interpreter. The DHH students could sit and engage in the literature that was being read to them
as the interpreter and instructor were both on the same screen. To add, this modification was
beneficial due to the fact that because a majority of the instruction was delivered with just my
face on the screen, I could more easily observe students' faces and body language which made it
much easier to get a sense of their engagement during the lesson. On another note, there was an
instance during the two days of instruction in which this instructional modification caused
confusion during instruction. This was a result of my using the whiteboard during class
discussions, when recording class feedback, as well as during writing instruction. As the students
often use whiteboards during mathematics instruction, several of them asked me why I was using
a whiteboard during our writing instruction and not using the journal booklet that they were
instructed to use during this time. This was not enough confusion to stop them from engaging in
their task, however, it did give me insight as to their awareness of the materials I am using when
I model certain instructional activities.
Summary of Data. As shown in Figure 5, After totaling the prompted and unprompted
participation of the eight students over the two days of DMD instruction, the students averaged at
3.63 replies per day, with a median of 3 responses and a mode of 4. When looking at task
compliance, students can receive a score from 1-4. The average task compliance score for this
instructional modification was 3.19, with a median score of 2.8, and a mode of 3. This score
indicates that a majority of the students’ work moderately resembled the expected performance
outcome.
Figure 5
Week Three Intervention Data
Week Two:
Decrease in Multitasking
Demands
Average Participation Rate Mean: 3.63

Median: 3
Mode: 4

Median: 2.8
Mode: 3
Note. This chart displays the data collected from the third week of Phase 1 and showcases the
Findings
The Chosen Interventions Were Not Strong Enough to Make a Significant Impact on
Student Engagement
As noted by instances of observation or “critical moments from the Instructor’s
perspective,” several aspects of both the RVM and DMD interventions had positive effects on
student engagement. The use of RVM not only kept students looking at the screen with the use of
detailed images and bright colors, but the use of photos taken directly from the text gave students
additional support when it came to recalling specific instances in the story. Additionally,
instruction that included an effort to decrease multitasking demands allowed for the instructor to
more easily attain student feedback, while it also provided students relief from having to switch
their attention from screen to screen, as the interpreter and instructor occupied the same space
during read-alouds.
However, while all the Phase 1 interventions went relatively smoothly and I was able to
collect all requisite data, when looking at the data from the control week it can be seen that the
intervention caused only a mild improvement to student engagement. As shown in Figure 6,
when looking at the data regarding student participation, data gathered from the control week
indicated an average participation rate of 2.5 replies per student. Upon implementing the first
intervention, RVM, there was a change of .68 from the baseline participation rate. Further, when
looking at the second intervention, DMD, the participation rate changed by 1.13 points when
compared to the baseline participation rate.

Figure 6
Average Student Participation Rate
Note. This horizontal bar graph displays the average student participation rate of the control
(baseline) week, compared to the two implemented instructional interventions.
Figure 7
Average Student Participation Rate
Note. This horizontal bar graph shows the average task compliance score of the control
(baseline) week, compared to the scores collected after implementing the two instructional
interventions.
To continue, both the data gathered from the control week, as well as from both
interventions resulted in an average task compliance score of three out of four. As shown in
Figure 7 above, the RVM intervention only changed the average score of 3 from the control week
by 0.13 points, and the DMD intervention increased from the control week by 0.19 points. This
indicates that even when implementing the instructional modifications, student work continued
to moderately resemble performance expectations. As the interventions did result in a slight
increase in the average student participation rate and student compliance score, the increase was
not statistically significant enough to indicate that the interventions improved student
engagement during online reading instruction.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Phase 1
In reflecting on Phase 1 of this study, both positive and negative aspects of the
implemented study methodology were identified.
Strengths
Clear Measurement System. One beneficial aspect of this study’s design that was
successful includes the measurement system that made it manageable to both teach and record
data simultaneously. Using a tallying technique to record students’ unprompted and prompted
responses made it possible for me to collect data without significantly impacting the flow of my
instruction. Additionally, my creation of a task compliance rubric, that of which was designed
with consideration for the demands on online schooling, allowed me to accurately assess each
piece of student work on a more fair and relevant scale.
Study Organization. My decision to organize the daily instruction via Google Slides
benefited me greatly throughout my entire study: most notably during the process of data
collection and analysis. I was able to create a single master document that compiled all the slides
used during each day of reading instruction, which in turn were further organized into three
groups; The control (baseline) week, Week One, RVM, and Week Two, DMD. This allowed me
to review the lesson layout as well as the data collected following the lesson’s implementation on
the very same document. The notes section of Google slides allotted me the ability to write
detailed notes and descriptions on individual slides. This allowed me to document student
behaviors as they occurred during specific moments of the lesson, and thus, I was able to reflect
on how these student behaviors may have been connected to explicitly altered moments in their
instruction.
Instructional Layout. The decision to use the same instructional layout for the control as
well as the interventions simplified the process of observing and comparing changes in student
behavior. As students were familiar with the layout, they were more focused on the content that I
was teaching rather than the way in which I was teaching them. This displayed more
responsiveness to my actions and in return, allowed me to collect data that reflected a more
accurate representation of their behavior.
Weaknesses
Focus on Individual Modalities. I believe that implementing a single instructional
modification at a time was the main weakness of this phase, as the use of individual modalities is
not only unrealistic when it comes to the nature of teaching, but it also may have limited the
efficiency of the implemented interventions. Additionally, using one instructional strategy at a
time is dangerous in that it may only cater to a single learning style. This may result in an
unequal distribution of learning support, as the students whose learning style corresponds with
the chosen instructional modification will display greater academic success than that of their
peers. Instruction that includes the use of more than one teaching strategy more closely
resembles real-life teaching practices.
Lack of Flexibility in the Interventions. While the explicit design of each planned
intervention added an element of simplicity to the implemented reading instruction, it did not
allow for much flexibility when it came to making teaching modifications based on student
feedback or perceived students’ needs. Generally, skilled educators will make instant changes in
their instruction, often switching from one approach to another depending on their assessment of
their student needs for support depending on the chosen content. An instructional intervention
designed with real-teaching practices in mind should give the instructor the flexible switch from
one teaching modification to another, depending on how they see fit.
Next Steps
In reviewing the results of Phase 1, it became clear that properly designed reading
instruction should include the use of more than one teaching strategy at a time, to support both
the learning and engagement needs of the diverse learners. Initially, in order to test the efficacy
of the two engagement strategies, I separated the strategies into two different weeks of online
reading instruction. This design methodology allowed me to organize and collect data specific to
each strategy and gave me the opportunity to observe how student behavior shifted from week to
week. However, in analyzing the collected data from Phase 1, it can be seen that while the RVM
and DMD interventions were successfully implemented, neither yield significant changes in
student engagement when comparing the data to that of the control week. Furthermore, while the
use of RVM and DMD did not result in significant changes to student engagement when
implemented separately, reading instruction that combines the use of both instructional strategies
may result in an entirely new outcome.
Phase 2
Action Plan
After reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses in the design and implementation of
Phase 1, the second phase of this study featured online reading instruction that included the use
of more than one instructional modification at a time, in order to cater to a wider variety of
student engagement needs. Phase 2 integrated the use of both Rich visual material (RVM) and
Decrease in Multitasking Demands, (DMD) into two days worth of reading instruction.
Instruction promoted the use of rich visual material while reducing the demand for any activity
that required multitasking. As successful teaching in diverse classrooms requires “selecting and
implementing powerful instructional methods that simultaneously address a variety of different
learning needs,” the goal of this phase was to test the benefits of combining two different
successful interventions in order to support a wider spectrum of students (Freeman King, 2017,
p. 27).
Assessment Plan
Due to the strength of the assessment tools used in Phase 1, Phase 2 of this study
employed the same tools, including the rate of student participation, student task compliance, and
critical moments as noted by the instructor.
Implementation
Phase 2 of this study took place over the span of one week, and included two full days of
modified reading instruction.
Week Four: Rich Visual Material and Decrease in Multitasking Demands
Week four included reading instruction modified to utilize the most effective components
of the previously conducted RVM and DMD instructional modifications. Further, instruction was
modified to increase the use of rich visual material with additional caution taken to decrease
instances that would require students to engage in multitasking activity. Instruction started with
attendance, in which the instructor's screen was made visible to the students, and a yellow star
was moved next to the name of each student that was present. Discussion including predictions
for the chosen literature as well as conversations of recall involved aiming the camera directly at
the instructor, who wrote down the students’ responses on the whiteboard using a “T” chart
layout. The chosen literature was showcased on a pre-recorded video, which displayed the
educator reading the physical book aloud with the ASL interpreter sitting near, singing along.
Writing instruction was done using a document camera, which allowed the students to have a
clear view of the instructor's paper as they followed along in real-time. Lastly, the instructor
shared a short video clip of the selected topic, which was then followed by a guided drawing in
which the camera was aimed directly at the instructor, who walked the students through the
drawing using a large whiteboard.
Critical Moments from the Instructor’s Perspective. This instructional modification
allowed me to decide whether it was most appropriate to use RVM or DMD depending on the
context and order of the lesson. The students were now familiar with the use of the whiteboard
and “T” chart when discussing story predictions and in recalling important details from the text,
and I noticed an increase in unprompted responses the second I took out the whiteboard.
Additionally, the use of the pre-recorded literature video proved to be effective in holding the
attention of the DHH students once again, as this allows the child to “see the book, their face,
and the interpreter simultaneously during reading instruction,” (DCD, 2020). Lastly, I
successfully avoided confusion during this instructional modification by using the document
camera to write alongside the students during writing instruction and showcasing the very same
materials that they had in front of them.
Summary of Data. After totaling the prompted and unprompted participation of the eight
students over the two days of DMD instruction, the students averaged 5.24 replies per day, with a
median of 4 responses and a mode of 5. When looking at task compliance, students can receive a
score from 1-4, with 4 being the highest grade possible. The average task compliance score for
this instructional modification was 3.63, with a median score of 3.5, and a mode of 3. Again, this
score indicates that a majority of the students’ work moderately resembled the expected
performance outcome.
Figure 8
Phase 2 Intervention Data
Combined RVM/DMD
Intervention
Average Participation Count Mean: 5.24

Median: 4
Mode: 5

Median: 3.5
Mode: 3
Note. This displays the data collected during Phase 2 and showcases the average student
participation rate, as well as the average task compliance score from the implemented
intervention.
Phase 2: Findings
The Phase 2 Intervention Resulted In A Significant Increase In Student Participation
Based on the collected data from Phase 2, the average student participation rate from the
RVM/DMD instructional intervention was 5.24. This is a very significant increase, as this rate is
2.74 points higher than the average student participation taken from that of the control week.
Additionally as shown in Figure 9, this is 2.06 points higher than the average participation count
from the week two intervention (RVM) and 1.61 points higher than the participation count from
the week three intervention (DMD). From this, we can conclude that online reading instruction
featuring both strategies, RVM and DMD, was the most effective intervention at promoting a
higher rate of student participation.
This may be due to the fact that the action of combining the two instructional strategies
supported a wider student audience, which in turn, promoted a higher level of student
participation than the Phase 1 instruction. Thus, as some students in the focus group may have
responded better to the use of rich visual material, other students may have had a more
noticeable response when instruction included a decrease in multitasking demands. Data
collected in Phase 2 supports the idea that instruction that utilizes a variety of teaching strategies
will engage a higher number of students in a given classroom, as it will increase the chances for
a student to be exposed to a strategy that aligns with their preferred individualized learning style.
Figure 9
Average Student Participation Rate of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Interventions
Note. A horizontal bar graph showing the average student participation rate of the control
(baseline) week, compared to the three implemented instructional interventions. The red bar
indicates the Phase 2 intervention, in which RVM and DMD were combined.
Phase 2 Intervention Did Not Result in a Significant Increase in Task Compliance Score
The average task compliance score for the RVM/DMD intervention came out to be 3.63
out of 4. Compared to the control week average score of ‘3’, the RMV/DMD intervention only
resulted in a 0.63 difference in average score. Further, as shown in Figure 10, the average task
compliance score from the RVM/DMD intervention is 0.5 points higher than the average task
compliance score from week two, RVM intervention, and 0.44 points higher than the average
task compliance score from the week three, DMD intervention. Nonetheless, while the
RVM/DMD intervention does feature a slight increase in average task compliance score, it is not
mathematically significant enough to indicate that this intervention impacted the students’ ability
to more accurately complete a given task.
One interpretation as to why none of the implemented interventions made a substantial
impact on the students’ task compliance score exists in the idea that task compliance may not be
a strong indicator of student s’ engagement. For instance, even when a child completed a task
that successfully matches the performance expectations, this does not guarantee that the student
was able to make meaningful connections with the content. In other words, “The absence of
misbehavior does not necessarily indicate the presence of learning” (Center for Inspired
Teaching, p. 2, 2018). Contrastingly, a student’s inability to appropriately complete a task may
be completely independent of their capacity to authentically and meaningfully engage with the
content.
Figure 10
Average Student Participation Rate of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Interventions
Note. A horizontal bar graph showing the average task compliance score of the control (baseline)
week, compared to the scores collected after implementing the three instructional interventions.
The red bar indicates the Phase 2 intervention, in which RVM and DMD were combined.
Strengths & Weaknesses of Study Design
In reflecting on Phase 2 of this study, there were both positive and negative aspects of the
implemented study methodology.
Strengths
Consistent Measurement System. I chose to reuse the measurement tools designed in
Phase 1 of this study due to their clarity and simplicity and ease in which I could use these tools
to record data while simultaneously implementing online reading instruction. Most importantly,
the decision to use the same assessment tools utilized in Phase 1 of the study allowed me to
successfully compare data between both phases. It supplementarily gave me the ability to utilize
the data collected during the control week; an important component in having the ability to
detect a change in student engagement before and after the presence of an instructional
modification.
Improvement in Results Compared to Phase 1. The data collected in Phase 1 led me to
believe that a combination of RVM and DMD would yield more positive results than when
implementing the modifications separately. This is precisely what happened, as Phase 2 resulted
in a significant increase in student participation as predicted in the Phase 1 analysis. I was able to
successfully implement an intervention that was both flexible and included more than one
modality, in order to create an instructional modification that catered to the constantly changing
student needs reflected in real-life teaching practices.
Weaknesses
Many weaknesses were observed in reflecting on the efficiency of this study and the
applied methodology.
Impaired Validity Due to Short Duration of Time. This phase only occurred in one
week’s worth of reading instruction. This was partially due to the fact that my focus students
returned to in-person learning shortly after concluding the last intervention of Phase 1. As a
result, I was given a limited timespan in which I could conduct Phase 2. While I still collected
significant data during the short time period, the validity of the findings was impacted due to a
short period of replication. In other words, the fact that the Phase 1 intervention was only
conducted two times diminished the ability to declare these findings as valid and reliable.
Limitation of Data Sources. Due to the nature of online schooling, I, as the researcher,
did not have access to the students’ immediate environment. As a result, it would have been in
the best interest of the study to collect additional data that captured student voice, as well as
parent insight, in order to form a more comprehensive image of the students learning needs,
schooling experience, and daily work environment. Without the representation of student voice,
the collected data only offered a “one-sided” perspective of the efficacy of each intervention. As
this study involved student participants, it was necessary to obtain the students’ experience of the
instructional modalities, in order to counteract possible biases that often derive from
self-reported data.
Oversimplification in Measurements of Student Engagement. My study was
dependent upon three different pieces of data to indicate a student was engaged in reading
instruction including the students’ rate of participation, their level of accuracy in completing a
given task, and observations noted by the instructor during instruction. However, the data
collected from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this study brought to my attention the gross
oversimplification of student engagement, which is as multidimensional and diverse as the
students that make up any given classroom. As a student's willingness to participate in class
discussions or ability to accurately complete a task can be indicative of the student's engagement
in instruction, this may not be the case for all children as engagement may look different from
student to student. For this reason, engagement should be assessed from a more holistic
perspective, and take into account each student's intellectual, emotional, physical, and behavioral
standpoint. A student who is truly engaged in instruction will elicit positive outcomes in more
than just one domain at a time (Center for Inspired Teaching, 2018). By focusing on only two
indications of engagement, my data was not only limited, yet it also failed to account for other
signs of engagement that could have given more insight into the effectiveness of the
implemented instructional modifications.
Discussion
This action research study sought to identify instructional modifications that could be
utilized to promote sustained engagement of elementary-age deaf and hard of hearing students in
online reading instruction. After synthesizing research on current engagement strategies, I

designed an action research plan that proposed two different instructional modifications
including: instruction that prioritized the use of rich visual material, and instruction that
decreased the prevalence of multitasking demands. To assess the success of the implemented
interventions, I analyzed three different forms of data. The first piece of data looked at the
students’ frequency of participation, which I recorded by tallying each time a student responded
to a prompt or engaged in unprompted conversation. The second piece of data looked at students’
task compliance, which I analyzed by collecting a work sample from each day of reading
instruction and rating their work based on its resemblance to the expected performance outcome.
Lastly, I noted critical moments that took place while delivering the students’ modified reading
instruction.
The study took place on the video chat platform of Zoom and involved a group of eight
participating kindergarten-age students from an American Sign Language-Bilingual Elementary
school in Southern California. Data collection was separated into two different phases and
occurred over 4 weeks in total, with one intervention being tested per week. The first week of
Phase 1 was dedicated to gathering baseline data, by implementing the students’ “normal”
reading instruction without the inclusion of any instructional modifications. The second week,
entitled “RVM”, consisted of reading instruction that was modified to emphasize the use of rich
visual material. Some examples of this include replacing the typical “video” format of read-aloud
with a physical copy of the text or using images from the story to create a visual chart when
discussing important events from the text. The third week, or “DMD”, was organized to include
instruction that decreased the presence of any activity that required students to multitask. Notable
elements of this intervention included the use of a pre-recorded read-aloud video that featured
the instructor reading the text aloud with the ASL interpreter on the same screen, as well as
prioritizing the use of the camera to show the instructors face during instruction, rather than
screen sharing.
In looking at the data collected in Phase 1, it could be seen that the RVM and DMD
interventions only caused a mild increase in both student participation rate as well as task
compliance scores, when compared to the data collected during the control week. In analyzing
the results of Phase 1, it was perceived that attempts to improve student engagement may have
been impaired due to the use of individual modalities, as one intervention may cater to one
learning style over another. It was also noted that the use of instruction that utilizes individual
modalities is unrealistic outside the context of research, as real-life teaching practices more often
reflect the use of than one teaching device at a time. Further, while my literature review
mentioned the successes in supporting DHH students through the use of various instructional
modifications, it did not include information regarding the importance of implicating more than
one modification at a time, in order to cater to a wider variety of student needs.
As a result, Phase 2 was designed to implement reading instruction that utilized a
combination of the most effective aspects of RVM and DMD. More specifically, the instruction
promoted the use of rich visual material while reducing the demand for any activity that required
multitasking. This intervention was most notably flexible in that it allowed for the instruction to
switch from one modality to another based on the instructor's perceptions of the students’ needs
for engagement. Upon the completion of Phase 2, it could be seen that the decision to combine
both RVM and DMD resulted in a significant increase in the average student participation rate,
with a mild increase to the task compliance score. A reflection of Phase 2 findings led to the
following findings: 1) A variety of teaching strategies will engage a higher number of students in
a given classroom, as it will increase the chances for a student to be exposed to a strategy that
aligns with their preferred individualized learning style, and 2) Task compliance may not be an
accurate indicator of student engagement.
Conclusion
As student engagement is identified as one of the most significant components of
learning, it was my mission was to design instructional interventions that would promote the
authentic engagement of DHH students in the context of an online learning environment. The
valuable information supplied from the literature review, as well the students’ lack of interest in
literature as indicated by the needs assessment, contributed to the study’s aim towards increasing
engagement in reading instruction. While the study hypothesis initially looked at the possible
success in utilizing one instructional modification at a time, it was found that the use of two
modifications, both RVM and DMD, was the most effective in increasing student participation; a
component of student engagement. It was also found that one assessment method, that of which
measured task compliance, was not an accurate way to assess student engagement.
The success of the applied instructional modifications most likely occurred due to the use
of more than one instructional modification, which catered to a wider variety of student needs, as
well as the direct consideration for DHH students’ presumed kinesthetic, visual or tactile
dominant learning styles. In other words, the ability to successfully engage any student
population begins with a thorough understanding of the students’ dominant mode of receiving
input. As research on the engagement needs of DHH students is relatively underdeveloped,
educators must take initiative “to develop a firm knowledge of these students as learners– who
they are, what backgrounds (and baggage) they bring to class, what preferences they have for
learning, and what their interests are” (Center For Inspired Teaching, 2018, p. 27). Nonetheless,
this study showcased that in devoting both time and energy to identifying the dominant learning
needs of their students of special populations, educators can provide their often under-supported
students with the building blocks for a quality education that is authentic, meaningful, and
empowering.
Significance
The findings of this study supported the following educational implications.
Educators Must Work to Identify the Engagement Needs of Their Students From Special
Populations.
Historically, the education system has prioritized student compliance over student
engagement (Freeman King, 2017). As explained by the Center for Professional Education of
Teachers at Columbia University, “Compliance is focused on a mindset of having power over
students, rather than empowering them” (Kang, 2021, p. 4) For students of minority populations,
especially users of minority languages such as the Deaf community, a lack of effort towards
promoting student engagement not only puts these students at a disadvantage but “research
suggests that early disinterest is indicative of future disengagement, increasing the chances of
dropping out of school (Kang, 2021, p. 3). Educational researchers must continue to identify
teaching approaches that successfully cater to the learning needs of minority communities, to
ensure that all students are given the tools they need to receive a quality education. Educational
Policymakers must ensure that enough research dollars are available to finance the widespread
use of these identified resources to encourage literacy in DHH children.
As identified through the students' needs assessment and later confirmed in current
research, literacy, and reading is one of the most challenging hurdles for the modern day deaf or
hard of hearing student. This is why it is more important than ever to equip educators of the Deaf
with the tools needed to provide their DHH students with means for authentic engagement in
school. Unfortunately, the challenge to engage DHH students in literacy education was further
exacerbated by the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to online schooling
containing low quality academic accommodations, impaired language support, and an inability to
differentiate instruction. Furthermore, this study was designed to identify effective instructional
modifications that promote the engagement of DHH children during a time of online reading
instruction. The results of this study showed some success in reading instruction that included
rich visual material with an additional reduction in multi-tasking demands. By adopting these
teaching techniques in both their online or in-person classrooms, educators of the Deaf could
take steps in the right direction to meet the specific engagement needs of their DHH students.
It is not enough for students to merely be present in class; successful learning requires
students to be presented with information in a way that captures their genuine interest and offers
them opportunities for authentic engagement. In addition to fostering a more positive
relationship with academics, students who are authentically engaged in learning, “will devote
their attention and energy to mastering the task at hand, persevere when challenges occur, form
positive relationships with adults and peers, and feel connected to their school” (Freeman King,
2017). Not only that but there is a large correlation between "student involvement and
participation in the schooling process" and students completing school (Freeman King, 2017).
Further, if educators dedicated time to providing their DHH students with opportunities for
authentic learning and engagement, this could be the catalyst to the growth of a new generation
of DHH students who not only enjoy their time in school but are empowered through their
attainment of literacy.
Implications for Future Research
Future research regarding ways to best promote the sustained engagement of DHH
students in online reading instruction could greatly benefit from several advancements based on
my research findings. To ensure greater applicability and transferability of study findings, future
research should involve a participant sample that is both larger in size and more diverse in
selection. The study should include sufficient representation of students of all ages, genders,
cultural and ethnic backgrounds, hearing levels, and abilities, in order to truly account for the
intersectional identities that make up the Deaf community. The research setting should also be
expanded to include students from different schools and community backgrounds.
A future study on this topic could also represent longitudinal research to provide the
researcher time to collect data on the participating students over a much longer period. This will
support more accurate findings as an instructional modification that truly elicits student
engagement will yield results that are pervasive throughout the duration of the study. By
conducting several observations of the same participants over a longer period of time, the study
findings will rule out rival explanations and avoid any bias that comes from errors in recall.
Most importantly, future researchers should continue to test the efficiency of instructional
modifications based on the ability to observe authentic indicators of student engagement. Future
studies must avoid the notion of looking at engagement as “black and white”, and instead
observe changes to student engagement from an intellectual, emotional, physical, and behavioral
standpoint. Additionally, based on Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this study, I now believe that
educational researchers should no longer consider compliance as a definitive signifier of
engagement. For instance, while a student may be observed "behaving" and meeting academic
expectations if he or she isn't actually making sense of the material, active engagement hasn't
been attained.
Lastly, future research that focuses on designing instructional interventions with real-life
teaching practices in mind must consider the importance of designing interventions that can be
successfully integrated into an educator's classroom instruction. For instance, the concept of
testing one instructional modification at a time is unrealistic when placed outside of the context
of research, as educators more commonly interweave multiple modifications into their
instruction based on the chosen content and varying degree of student needs. For the study
results to truly be applicable, the implemented interventions should be flexible enough to be
adopted in a variety of classroom settings. Nonetheless, my questions for future research include
the following: “How can educators implement both online and in-person reading instruction in a
way that promotes “authentic engagement” of their DHH students?” as well as “Can the
effectiveness of this instructional modification be proven through indications of the student’s
intellectual, emotional, physical, and behavioral engagement?”.
Research Limitations
As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations.
Sample Size
Due to the circumstances of Covid-19 and the provisional structure of online schooling, it
was in the best interest of the class to only remove a small fraction of its students to reduce
unnecessary disruption to daily instruction. Considering this, it is important to consider that the
results of this study are not generalizable, as the use of a small sample size of eight students
cannot be used to represent the experience or learning preferences of the wider population of
deaf or hard of hearing students. The data gathered from this study should primarily be
considered within the context of the school and class from which it was drawn. Generally, the
larger the sample, the more accurate a study’s results will be. Using a larger study sample size
would result in a more accurate average, and in turn, the data would reflect a more authentic and
comprehensive student population.
Researcher Bias
Due to the fact that data collection and teaching instruction were acted out by the same
individual, bias in reported data was both unavoidable and highly probable. Future research
should include instruction implemented by an outside individual, to prevent any presence of the
teacher’s opinion in observation or data analysis. Additionally, all the data collected for this
study was limited to the confines of the video conferencing application of Zoom. All information
regarding student behavior was empirical data limited by what could be captured by the students’
video cameras. By nature of online teaching, I did not have access to the students’ surrounding
physical environment; which could have a considerable impact on student’s learning and ability
to engage in virtual instruction. A more thorough study should be conducted in a manner in
which the students’ environment is either controlled or clearly defined, to collect data that will
result in a more accurate reflection of student behavior.
Limitation of Data Sources
In an attempt to capture the classroom from a variety of angles, my study methodology
investigated the impact of various instructional modifications on student engagement by way of
student participation rate, task compliance, and instructor insight. However, this study did not
include any data that derived from student voice; a necessary aspect of any form of educational
research that aims to provide a holistic view of student learning or experience. More specifically,
the input supplied by student voice could have provided a deeper understanding regarding the
efficacy of the interventions. Not only that but secondary data could have been collected in the
form of a parent questionnaire; that of which could have supplied the parents’ perspective of
what their child requires for sustained engagement. Further, the omission of data surrounding the
participant experience may have resulted in a study outcome that was both skewed and biased.
Time Constraints
This study included numerous time constraints. To begin, online instruction time was cut
in half by the school district in light of the short attention span of younger students, as well as to
better suit families facing difficult circumstances brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. Not
only did the shortened schedule give me less time with the students, but to ensure this study did
not interfere with important academic instruction, I could only fit in two, one-hour sessions with
the case study group per week. Further, due to the fact that the IRB (Institutional Review Board)
approval process was delayed by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, I was permitted to begin
the process of implementing my instructional modifications by early March 2021, leaving me
only three months to complete the study. Ideally, to provide a more accurate reflection of student
engagement, the study would include data collected from segments of daily reading instruction
collected over four weeks. This would also formulate a more comprehensive reflection of
students’ engagement as it changes through an entire school week, rather than collecting data
from independent days where engagement can vary due to confounding factors.
Participant Circumstance and Self-Interest
It is important to consider how student self-interest, mood, energy level, comfortability,
and internet connection may have impacted the students’ engagement on a given day, and in turn,
influenced student participation and/or their task compliance. For instance, a personal interest in
a given piece of literature could have a large influence on the data collected, just as a student
with access to a large breakfast would have more energy to promote sustained engagement.
Additionally, a student with a more developed relationship with their instructor may have felt
more inclined to respond to prompting or to speak. Additionally, it is important to consider how
the presence of a students’ parents during remote schooling could have impacted student
engagement. For example, a student whose parents encouraged them to “speak up” more during
instruction may have contributed to skewed data. The same could be said for a student who
experienced “stage fright” in the presence of their parents.
Reflection
The opportunity to perform action research in a highly relevant area of study during such
a unique time period for the world of education was both challenging and deeply enriching. As a
teacher-researcher, the experience of designing and implementing my own research amidst a
global pandemic, while also engaging in full-time student teaching online pushed me to preserve,
work smart, and practice true resilience, in order to complete my Master’s research during utter
chaos. Luckily, this process also revealed to me the beauty that exists within the complexity of
research. While at first, the entire action research process felt overwhelming and near impossible,
as time progressed I began to discover a feeling of ‘peace within the chaos; as research (much
like life) often evolves only to curate more questions than answers. This is a concept that I grew
to admire as I watched my study grow and develop over the greater course of a year.
As I reflect on the very beginning of my research journey, I cannot help but think about
how lucky I was to work alongside such a warm and supportive group of teachers and students
from the DHH school at which I taught. If teaching during the pandemic has taught me anything,
it is that fact that it is not the physical environment that makes a school, but rather the continued
presence of students and faculty that come together daily for the sake of empowering young
minds and building a brighter future. While I missed the school supplies, the face-to-face
interactions, and the presence of the school grounds, I can now confidently say that my love for
teaching knows no bounds. Nonetheless, my connection to my school is what led me to the
development of my research question, as it was both a source of heartbreak and inspiration to
experience the deterioration of my students’ engagement as we made the shift to online learning.
Not only that, but my long term involvement with the Deaf community, as well as my innate
passion for social justice, has contributed to my personal philosophy that centers around
empowering the voices of minority groups; that of which begins with ensuring all students have
access to education that is both high quality and equitable. Moreover, while it can be argued that
all students were negatively impacted by virtual schooling, I felt as if it was a personal
responsibility of mine to highlight the struggles of a community that faced obstacles in
academics both inside and outside the context of a global pandemic.
My initial research methodology was focused on DHH students’ general needs for
engagement in all sectors of education, and sought to test the efficiency of tried and proven
engagement strategies in the context of online learning. However, it became clear that this idea
was far too vague, as the data that would result would either be too ambiguous to yield practical
solutions or would require time and effort beyond my capabilities. As a result, my Thesis
Professor advised me to conduct a needs assessment in my own DHH classroom, as the
information that followed could guide me towards a question that was more relevant and concise
in structure. This is precisely what happened, as my needs assessment revealed students’ general
lack of interest when it came to instruction involving reading and discussions of literature.
Further research confirmed literacy as the most prominent challenge for deaf and hard of hearing
students, as “about one in three deaf students who graduate from high school have reading skills
between the second and fourth grade level” (Marschark, 2012, p. 25). From here, I decided to
redirect my project towards the identification of instructional strategies that could improve DHH
students’ engagement in online reading instruction.
I benefited a great deal from the hardships that I went through in conducting this study. I
looked forward to my instructional time with my participating students and found joy in
analyzing and comparing the collected data. In implementing the various interventions, I was
able to improve my abilities in note-taking (describing student behavior) and note-making
(personal interpretations of the described actions), a skill I believe will greatly benefit my future
teaching practices. This ability is important in that skilled educators should be able to observe
and record student behavior that is (to the best of their ability) void of bias or personal
interpretation. Additionally, the pressure that came from the study’s limited time availability
forced me to follow a strict schedule over an extended period of time, with the added need to
effectively store and sort large amounts of information for easier future retrieval. This will
unquestionably benefit me in the future, as the ability to work effectively under pressure is a skill
frequently utilized by any classroom teacher.
Most importantly, this study required me to practice clear and concise communication
when it came to communicating with my CT (cooperating teacher), critical friend, cohort
members, and other professionals. From this, I learned the importance of being proactive and
explicit when requesting the time of others. Most people will be happy to collaborate with you as
long as you approach them respectfully, are considerate of their time and energy, and make
efforts to express your gratitude for their willingness to work with you. I was lucky enough to
work with many wonderful individuals through this project. For instance, My CT was not only a
source of support as she truly believed in my project, but she also gave me the flexibility to pull
out students from class, take time away from the ASL interpreter, and adjust instruction
according to the needs of my study. My Thesis Professor was an extremely valuable resource
during this study, as both a guide to lead me through the complex steps involved in research, as
well as a source of support, to remind me that research is merely a starting point and not an
“answer key”. Lastly, my critical friend acted as my home base by helping me stay on track, and
providing me with a soundboard to express my thoughts and concerns on a weekly basis.
Nonetheless, this project taught me the value of collaboration, as colleagues and peers can offer
you both a fresh perspective, and an invaluable source of support.
All in all, this study represents a period of growth for me as a professional educator, and
I wish to further explore topics relating to student engagement as I continue my journey as a
21st-century educator. I hope that my findings can serve as a foundation for future research and
development to further facilitate the learning needs of minority populations, such as young
learners of the Deaf community. Most importantly, I hope that teachers adopt the notion that
while student attendance is important, it is not enough for students to merely ‘show up to school
and finish their assigned tasks. Educators must do their part to ensure that every student is
presented with information in a way that equally considers their individual needs for
comprehension, engagement, and accessibility. In times as turbulent as these, educators must
take it upon themselves to certify that no student is left behind by taking the necessary steps to
provide all students with opportunities for authentic engagement, regardless of their age, gender,
cultural and ethnic background, and or abilities.

References
Center For Inspired Teaching. (2018). The Critical Need For Replacing Compliance-Based
Teaching With Engagement-Based Teaching. Inspiredteaching.org.
https://inspiredteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/white-paper-engagement-1.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Crossland, A. (2020, July 20). Digital Accessibility.
https://www.air.org/resource/digital-accessibility-how-schools-and-teachers-can-support-
students-disabilities-remote.
Division for Communication, Language, and Deaf/Hard of Hearing (DCD). (2020). Teaching
Remotely to DHH Students. Rochester, NY. http://dcdcec.org/.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, Reliability, and Validity of the Index of
Learning Styles. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long
Learning, 21(1), 103–122.
Felder, J., & Henriques, T. (1995). Deaf Children and Academic Achievement .
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/283744/7/07_chapter%201.pdf.
Ferreiro-Lago, S. (2017). Factors Affecting the Participation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in
e-learning and Their Satisfaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 18(7), 268–291.
Freeman King, J. (2017). Incidental Learning and the Deaf Child.
http://www.eparent.com/features-3/incidental-learning-deaf-child/.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The right of the deaf child to grow up bilingual. Sign language studies, 1
(2), 110-114. Retrieved from http://www.gallaudet.edu/Documents/DSDJ_Grosjean.pdf
Guardino, C., & Antia, S. D. (2012). Modifying the Classroom Environment to Increase
Engagement in Students Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 17(4), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens026
Holcomb, Thomas. (2013). Introduction to American Deaf Culture. Oxford University Press.
Humphries, T., et al. (2012). Language acquisition for Deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero
tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9(1), 16.
doi:10.1186/1477-7517-9-16
Kang, R. (2021). Engagement is Everything: Three Pillars of Student Engagement.
https://cpet.tc.columbia.edu/news-press/engagement-is-everything-three-pillars-of-student
-engagement.
Komesaroff, L. (2008). Disabling Pedagogy: Power, Politics, and Deaf Education. Gallaudet
University
Lee, A. M. (2020, September 29). Special Education and the Coronavirus. Understood For All
Inc. https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-education-coronavirus-faqs.
Lane, H. (1992). The Mask of Benevolence (1st ed.). Random House.
Marschark, M. (2012). How Deaf Children Learn. Retrieved from
http://www.inf.unibz.it/marcmarscharkWFD_Regional_Secretariat_11-12.full
Models of Deafness. (2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_deafness.

National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes. (2021). Online Learning: Benefits and
Barriers. Austin, TX; U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education. (1992, October).
Deaf students education services policy guidance report. Fed Register, 57, 49274-49276.
Phillips, D. K., & Carr, K. (2006). Becoming a teacher through action research: Process,
context, and self-study. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stamps, F. (1999). ASL & English: ASL/PSE/MCEs.
Retrieved from http://tobermorey.com/deaf/asl.phpiu
Stinson, M. (2001). Participation of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in Classes with Hearing
Students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(3), 191–203.
Silverman, A. (2016). Disability Stigma. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from
http://agerrtc.washington.edu/info/factsheets/stigma
Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test: National norming and performance
standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 5(4), 337–348.
Van Staden, A. (2013). An evaluation of an intervention using sign language and multi-sensory
coding to support word learning and reading comprehension of deaf signing children.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(3), 305–318.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013479961
Virginia Department of Education. (2019). Instructional Strategies for Students who are Deaf
and Hard of Hearing. TTAC online.
https://ttaconline.org/instructional-strategies-students-deaf-hard-of-hearing.
Virtual Education for Students Who Are Deaf/Hard of Hearing. (2020). Resource Materials and
Technology Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
https://www.rmtcdhh.org/virtual-education-resources/.

Greene Rory-Edte-515s-02 - sp21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greene Rory-Edte-515s-02 - sp21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greene Rory-Edte-515s-02 - sp21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Promoting Engagement of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Online Reading

Department of Learning and Teaching, University of San Diego

EDTE 515: Capstone Seminar

Dr. Professor Flewelling

instructional modifications that could successfully promote the sustained engagement of

collected from a small group of participating kindergarten students from an ASL-Bilingual

modification that catered to the quintessential visual/kinesthetic/tactile learning style

them opportunities for authentic engagement.

Project Conceptualization and Rationale

historically fought for the right to quality education.

Specifically, the Deaf community was disproportionately affected by the presence of

in their cognitive development, without the proper support of in-person academic

academics; as children need to be authentically engaged in their education for lasting,

meaningful learning to occur.

negative influence on the development of speech or English fluency.

Children's Language Developmental Milestones), have ensured vital protections and

social success of deaf students, as there is not widespread understanding of educational

the right track for their language development (Traxler, 2000).

This study features participants from an ASL-Bilingual Elementary School in Southern

through language use, as well as by providing students with a rigorous, standards-based

instructional program responsive to individual learning styles.

comfortably participate in the digital learning environment.

Classroom Procedures and Practices

assessment tool due to its user-friendly and simple platform.

week, with granted permission from their legal guardians.

I performed a needs assessment in the aforementioned DHH classroom in order to gain

observations, my research focused on identifying instructional modifications for online

instruction that promoted authentic learning and engagement of DHH students.

Survey Response to “My Favorite Online School Activities”

noted as the least desirable options.

Purpose of Action Research

learners- had been eliminated in the context of remote schooling.

with accessible reading material via virtual instruction.

delivery of effective instruction, it is prospectively detrimental to assume that DHH students

material and compromised language support (DCD, 2020).

author Harlan Lane (1992), like any minority group,—whether it be Deaf-Americans,

African-Americans, or Hispanic Americans— members are disadvantaged by the beliefs and

practices of the majority in the United States.

and equitable in nature.

My central research question was: How can I promote sustained engagement of

adopt the implemented instructional modifications?

In regards to reading instruction during the Covid-19 pandemic, research pertaining to

language support, adequate kinesthetic-tactile engagement, low-quality audio, and

two-dimensional instruction. In attempting to inform educators seeking to better engage their

instruction for DHH students.

Barriers to Online Education

learning barriers faced by DHH students in the online schooling environment.

Whether the medium of instruction is in-person or in an online format, an educator that

general education curriculum (Holcomb, 2013). This conditionality is described as a form of

As outlined by Linda R. Komesaroff in Disabling Pedagogy: Power, Politics, and Deaf

underachievement in education and remain unaware of deaf students’ potential to succeed

confidence of the DHH student” (Stinson, 2001, p. 194).

instruction (Crossland, 2020).

Re-engagement and Communication

technologies or lip-reading skills, these students still experience a “limited ability to

communicate with others in their environment, whether it is expressing their thoughts or

Research conducted by the American Speech/Language Hearing Association revealed

learning due to the switch to online school (Freeman King, 2017).