Citation
Universal Design for Learning as a Digital Media Design Resource for Teachers of Bilingual Deaf Students with Special Needs

Material Information

Title:
Universal Design for Learning as a Digital Media Design Resource for Teachers of Bilingual Deaf Students with Special Needs
Creator:
Brandt, Sarah E
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (334 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ed.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Curriculum and Instruction
Teaching and Learning
Committee Chair:
DAWSON,KARA MARIEHOPKINS
Committee Co-Chair:
BEAL,CAROLE R
Committee Members:
FANG,ZHIHUI
GRIFFIN,CYNTHIA CARLSON

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
bilingual -- curriculum -- deaf -- design -- disabilities -- disability -- media -- pd -- teaching -- udl
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Curriculum and Instruction thesis, Ed.D.

Notes

Abstract:
This instrumental case study examined universal design for learning (UDL) as a digital media design resource for teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Ten teachers from a school program for bilingual Deaf children with special needs engaged in professional development (PD) provided through the professional teaching and learning cycle (PTLC) on the application of UDL to this population of students. Through the stages of the PTLC, teachers learned about UDL, used this knowledge to incorporate specific UDL guidelines into a lesson plan including a digital media component, and implemented that plan with their students. Teachers reconvened to analyze their use of UDL and adjust their practice. This study involved analysis of data sources including interview, document, artifact, rubric, survey, and research journal. In examining the role of UDL, the data revealed that teachers utilized the UDL principles, tiers, and individual guidelines to make design decisions. They were guided by their grounding in Deaf education, their experiences and backgrounds with this population, and the learning needs of their students. Teachers utilized the structure of the UDL guidelines to reflect on their teaching practice and push themselves and their students to higher skill levels. In examining the feature of PD and teacher learning, the data revealed that the presence of five critical features of PD was more relevant to the success of the PD than the structure of the PTLC. The presence and strength of these five critical features (content focus, cohesion, duration, active learning, collective partnerships) supported and hindered teacher learning in various ways. This study is significant because it explored digital media design for a population underrepresented in the literature. Bilingual Deaf students with special needs demand unique and specialized instruction across all areas of language, literacy, academic, social, and life skill development. This study illustrated that UDL is a powerful tool that can be utilized as a design resource for teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs to provide instruction that increases opportunities for success. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2017.
Local:
Adviser: DAWSON,KARA MARIEHOPKINS.
Local:
Co-adviser: BEAL,CAROLE R.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sarah E Brandt.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
LD1780 2017 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING AS A DIGITAL MEDIA DESIGN RESOURCE FOR TEACHERS OF BILINGUAL DEAF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS By SARAH E. BRANDT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017

PAGE 2

2 2017 Sarah E. Brandt

PAGE 3

3 To my husband Rick and our daughter Fiona for their love encouragement, an d patience through out this journey; to my parents for instilling in me a n infinite love of learning; to Papa for his passion for asking questions; and to the remarkable students and colleagues with whom I am privileged to work every day

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS I would like to thank the administrators, teachers, and students at The Communication School for their support and involvement in bringing this project to life. I would also like to acknowledge the guidance and support of my committee chair Dr. Kara D awson and members Drs. Carole Beal, Cynthia Griffin, and Zhihui Fang. Finally, this journey was not taken alone, and I am privileged to have followed this path alongside the members of the University of Florida Educational Technology Co4ort.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CO NTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Researcher Background ................................ ................................ ......................... 18 Language in Deaf Populations ................................ ................................ ................ 19 Language and Learning at SDC ................................ ................................ ............. 20 Pedagogical Approaches ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Best Practices for Deaf Bilingual Learners ................................ ....................... 23 Universal Design for Learning ................................ ................................ .......... 25 Professional Development ................................ ................................ ...................... 26 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 Research Design and Limitations ................................ ................................ ........... 28 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 30 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 32 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 33 The Deaf Student ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 33 Characteristics of Deaf Students ................................ ................................ ...... 33 Bilingualism ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 35 Bilingualism in Deaf Students ................................ ................................ ........... 36 Deaf Students with Additional Special Needs ................................ ................... 38 Educating Deaf Students ................................ ................................ ........................ 54 Educational Settings for Deaf Students ................................ ............................ 55 Best Practices for Deaf Bilingual Learners ................................ ....................... 56 Learning from Multimedia ................................ ................................ ....................... 59 Defining Multimedia ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 The Potential of Multimedi a for Deaf Learners ................................ ................. 60 Cognitive Foundations of Learning through Multimedia ................................ ... 61 Universal Design for Learning ................................ ................................ ................. 71 Evolution of UDL ................................ ................................ .............................. 71 UDL and Neural Networks ................................ ................................ ................ 73 UDL Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ 74

PAGE 6

6 UDL and Differentiated Instruction ................................ ................................ ... 87 Professional Development ................................ ................................ ...................... 90 Defining Prof essional Development ................................ ................................ 91 Critical Features of Professional Development ................................ ................. 92 Professional Learning Communities ................................ ................................ 95 Professional Teaching and Learning Cycle ................................ .................... 102 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ......................... 103 3 METHODOLOG Y ................................ ................................ ................................ 111 Purpose Statement ................................ ................................ ............................... 111 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................. 111 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 112 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 114 Professional Teaching and Learning Cycle ................................ ........................... 117 Overview of the PTLC Stages ................................ ................................ ........ 117 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ............................... 118 Delivery of the Professional Development ................................ ...................... 119 PTLC Study Stage ................................ ................................ .......................... 120 PTLC Select and Plan Stages ................................ ................................ ........ 124 PTLC Implement Stage ................................ ................................ .................. 126 PTLC Analyze and Adjust Stages ................................ ................................ .. 129 Post PTLC ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 131 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 136 Rigor ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 139 Researcher Bias ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 142 Methodological Limitations ................................ ................................ .................... 143 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 144 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 148 Participation in the Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 148 Preschool ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 149 Elementary ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 151 Upper ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 153 Sub Question One ................................ ................................ ................................ 155 Theme One: Teachers Utilized the Three UDL Principles to Make Design Decisions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 159 Theme Two : Teachers Utilized the Three Tiers of the UDL Guidelines to Make Design Decisions ................................ ................................ ............... 162 Theme Three: Teachers Utilized Individual UDL Guidelines to Make Design Decisions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 170 Sub Question One: Summary ................................ ................................ ........ 186 Sub Question Two ................................ ................................ ................................ 188 Theme One: The Presence of Criti cal Features of PD was More Relevant to Teacher Learning than the Structure of the PTLC ................................ ....... 189

PAGE 7

7 Theme Two: Teacher Learning was Supported and Hindered by the Presence of Five Critical Features of PD ................................ .................... 190 Sub Question Two: Summary ................................ ................................ ........ 212 Primary Question ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 214 Limita tions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 215 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 218 5 IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ..... 245 Study Pa rticipants ................................ ................................ ................................ 247 Study Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 249 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 250 Utilization of the UDL Guidelines ................................ ................................ .......... 252 UDL Principles ................................ ................................ ................................ 252 UDL Tiers ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 254 Individu al UDL Guidelines ................................ ................................ .............. 257 UDL Guidelines in This Context ................................ ................................ ..... 261 Role of Professional Development ................................ ................................ ........ 262 PTLC ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 262 Critical Features of PD ................................ ................................ ................... 264 PD in This Context ................................ ................................ ......................... 269 A Reflection on UDL as a Design Resource for Teachers of Bilingual Deaf Students with Special Needs ................................ ................................ ............................ 270 My Professional Practice ................................ ................................ ...................... 271 Concluding Thoughts ................................ ................................ ............................ 272 APPENDIX A STUDY OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION ................................ ........................ 274 B PARTICIPANT CONSENT ................................ ................................ .................... 276 C TRAINING MATERIALS: STUDY STAGE ................................ ............................ 278 D RESEARCH JOURNAL GUIDE: ALL STAGES ................................ .................... 292 E TRAINING MATERIALS: SELECT AND PLAN STAGES ................................ ..... 293 F UDL LESSON PLANNER: SELECT AND PLAN STAGES ................................ ... 297 G STUDENT USE S URVEY: IMPLEMENT STAGE ................................ ................. 300 H TRAINING MATERIALS: ANALYZE AND ADJUST STAGES .............................. 301 I DOCUMENT RUBRIC: POST PTLC ................................ ................................ .... 304 J INTERVIEW GUIDE: POST PTLC ................................ ................................ ....... 307

PAGE 8

8 K DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY: POST PTLC ................................ ............................. 308 LIST OF REF ERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 309 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 334

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Best practices for Deaf b ilingual learners ................................ ........................... 31 2 1 Educational settings for deaf students ................................ .............................. 104 3 1 SDC classroom demographics, 2016 2017 school year ................................ ... 145 3 2 Coding methods ................................ ................................ ............................... 145 4 1 Attendance across PTLC stages ................................ ................................ ...... 219 4 2 Data collected from teacher participants ................................ .......................... 219 4 3 Participant descriptions ................................ ................................ .................... 220 4 4 Checkpoints from the representation guide line provide options for perception 221 4 5 Checkpoints from the engagement guideline provide options for recruiting interest ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 222 4 6 Checkpoints from the action and expression guideline provide options for expression and communication ................................ ................................ ........ 223 4 7 Checkpoints from the action and expression guideline provide options for phy sical action ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 224 4 8 Checkpoints from the engagement guideline provide options for self regulation ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 225 4 9 Checkpoints from the action and expression guideline provide options for executive functions ................................ ................................ ........................... 226 4 10 every stage of the PTLC ................................ ................................ ................... 227

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Visual organization of literature review ................................ ............................. 105 2 2 Compa ring Deaf and hearing bilinguals ................................ ............................ 106 2 3 ................................ ......... 106 2 4 Key concepts in UDL ................................ ................................ ........................ 107 2 5 U DL guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ 108 2 6 Key relationships in differentiated instruction ................................ ................... 109 2 7 Key relationships in UDL ................................ ................................ .................. 109 2 8 Conceptual framework ................................ ................................ ...................... 110 3 1 Expanded conceptual framework ................................ ................................ ..... 146 3 2 Example of paper based second cycle pattern coding approach ..................... 147 4 1 Frequency of checkpoints used ................................ ................................ ........ 228 4 2 ................................ ........................... 229 4 3 .................. 230 4 4 UDL checkpoints already established ................................ ............................... 231 4 5 UDL checkpoints targeted ................................ ................................ ................ 232 4 6 Visual provided to Ella during her i nterview ................................ ...................... 233 4 7 ................................ ............ 234 4 8 ................................ .......... 235 4 9 displayed in descending order ................................ ................................ .......... 236 4 10 Examples of options for perception ................................ ................................ .. 237 4 11 Examples of options for expression and communication ................................ .. 238 4 12 Examples of options for self r egulation ................................ ............................. 239 4 13 ......................... 240

PAGE 11

11 4 14 Examples of options for executive funct ............ 241 4 15 Participant reflection on the structure of the PTL C ................................ ........... 242 4 16 Visuals from the Around th e World active learning strategy ............................. 243 4 17 Primary and sub questions, themes, and broad theme ................................ .... 244

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AEBPD ASL/English Bilingual Professiona l Development ASD a utism spectrum disorder ASL American Sign Language BP DBL best practices for Deaf bilingual learners CAST Center for Applied Special Technologies CEC Council for Exceptional Children CTML c ognitive theory of multimedia learning DC T d ual coding theory DI differentiated instruction DSM V Diagnostic and Statistical M anual of Mental Disorders, 5 th Edition ESL English as a second language ID intellectual disability MCEs manual codes of English NCDB National Consortium on Deaf Blin dness PD professional development PLC professional learning community PTLC professional teaching and learning cycle SDC School for Deaf Children SEDL Southwest Educational Development Library SFC School for Communication SLD s pecific learning disord er TBI t raumatic brain injury UDL universal design for learning

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education UN IVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING AS A DIGITAL MEDIA DESIGN RESOURCE FOR TEACHERS OF BILINGUAL DEAF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS By Sarah E. Brandt December 2017 Chair: Kara Dawson Major: Curriculum and Instruction This instrumental case study examined univer sal design for learning (UDL) as a digital media design resource for teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Ten teachers from a school program for bilingual Deaf children with special needs engaged in professional development (PD) provided through the professional teaching and learning cycle (PTLC) on the application of UDL to this population of students. Through the stages of the PTLC, teachers learned about UDL, used this knowledge to incorporate specific UDL guidelines into a lesson plan including a digital media component and implemented that plan with their students. Teachers reconvened to analyze their use of UDL and adjust their practice. This study involved analysis of data sources including interview, document, artifact, rubric, s urvey, and research journal. In examining the role of UDL, the data revealed that teachers utilized the UDL principles, tiers, and individual guidelines to make design decisions. They were guided by their grounding in Deaf education, their experiences and backgrounds with this population, and the learning needs of their students. Teachers utilized the structure of the UDL guidelines to reflect on their teaching practice and push themselves and their students to higher skill levels.

PAGE 14

14 In examining the feature of PD and teacher learning the data revealed that the presence of five critical features of PD was more relevant to the success of the PD than the structure of the PTLC. The presence and strength of these five critical features content focus, cohesion, duration, active learning, and collective partnerships supported and hindered teacher learning in various ways This study is significant because it explored digital media design for a population underrepresented in the literature. Bilingual Deaf stude nts with special needs demand unique and specialized instruction across all areas of language, literacy, academic, social and life skill development. This study illustrated that UDL is a powerful tool that can be utilized as a design resource for teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs to pro vide instruction that increases opportunities for success.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The school day begins much like any other. Three high school students arrive on their district buses. The first studen t, Dani, enters the school independently. She puts her things away in her locker and brings her home/school communication book into the classroom. Dani knows her morning job is to set up the schedule chart for the day. She lans online to ensure that each activity is displayed on the chart at the correct time. She also writes out several therapies that will occur for herself or her peers, including speech language, occupational, and physical therapy. Dani smiles when she noti ces that the class has art today. When this is completed, Dani grabs her morning work folder and sits quietly at her desk, concentrating intensely. The second student, Kelly, is greeted by a paraprofessional at the bus. The paraprofessional carries a clipb oard with a behavior data chart, a timer, and a visual first then board. Before Kelly enters school, the paraprofessional uses American Sign Language (ASL) to remind her that the first activity of the day will be going to her locker, followed by morning ex ercises as prescribed by her physical therapist. These activities are displayed visually to Kelly on her first then board. Kelly selects her first preferred reward of the day playing with her pony figurines to be earned by displaying preferred behavior s. As they walk into school, the paraprofessional starts the timer. It will ring every three minutes for the duration of the school day, at which point Kelly may earn a check for positive behavior. After visiting her locker and proceeding through half of h er exercises, Kelly has earned the six checks necessary to play with her pony figurines.

PAGE 16

16 The third student, Caleb, is greeted at his bus by the teacher. Caleb starts signing through the window before he has even stood up. Smiling, the teacher reminds Cale b that he needs to focus on his walking. As he disembarks the bus, the teacher tells Caleb, who is a hearing student, that she is so glad to see how enthusiastic he is to come to school. She guides him to his walker and buckles his gait belt around his wai st to the school nurse, who assesses his health and tends to his medications. Then, he ma kes his way to the classroom, stopping frequently to greet peers and staff in ASL. When Caleb arrives in the classroom, Dani and Kelly are ready to begin the school day. The teacher starts the day with a class meeting. She turns on the interactive whitebo ard and uses a PowerPoint she created to discuss the upcoming special activities that week. Then, she hands the classroom iPad to Kelly, who checks the current temperature and forecast. Kelly shares this information with her peers, and Dani graphs the temp erature on a paper line graph that stretches across an entire wall of the room. Caleb repeatedly signs something about Friday, and even with clarification, the teacher does not understand. Caleb then uses his communication device to create the riday Aunt P A U L I N then, Dani flashes the overhead lights, signaling to everyone in the room that she needs their attention. She announces that she has language therapy and Kelly has physical therapy. Dani heads to her therapy independently, while the paraprofessional, carrying

PAGE 17

17 the clipboard and timer, accompanies Kelly. The teacher and Caleb stay in the classroom to review some money related math facts from the previous week. This fictional vignette is typical of the classrooms that can be found at the School for Deaf Children (SDC) ( all identifying information has been changed to protect confidentiality ) in Massachus etts. SDC serves students from birth to age 22 with multiple disabilities. In the vignette the three SDC high school students have very complex yet different disabilities. Dani is profoundly deaf and has language and cognitive delays. Kelly is hard of hea ring and has significant motor, cognitive, and behavioral disabilities. Caleb is hearing but has cerebral palsy, making verbal communication not viable. He understands spoken English and ASL and expresses himself using ASL and a communication device. Other students at SDC have a variety of challenges such as learning and motor disabilities, autism spectrum disorder or complex medical needs. This implies that all students need highly individualized instruction across all areas of learning and functioning in order to make progress. Deaf students at SDC are taught using a specialized bilingual approach. They learn using ASL written English, and possibly spoken English, depending on their abilities and interests. This approach was originally developed for tra ditional Deaf education classrooms in which students are Deaf but have no additional special needs. The students at SDC do not fit the description of the traditional Deaf education student because 90% of students at SDC have additional disabilities that ad d layers of complexity to their educational needs. Practitioners at SDC, and those in the wider field, should examine the ways in which this approach does and does not meet the needs of Deaf students with additional special needs.

PAGE 18

18 In this chapter, the rea der is oriented to my professional experiences, the role of language in Deaf populations, and the language and learning philosophy used at SDC. The suitability of this language and learning philosophy to design digital media is questioned, and a possible a lternative approach known as universal design for learning (UDL) (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014) is described. These arguments frame the research questions and design that guide d this study. Researcher Background There were two primary areas that contribut ed to my interest in exploring UDL as a framework for digital media design for teachers of bilingual Deaf students who have special needs. The first was my educational background. I studied ASL, linguistics, and special education with a concentration in de af and hard of hearing. This gave me a comprehensive understanding of language development and education, particularly in deaf children. The second area that has contributed to this interest and inquiry is my professional experience. I have worked for ove r ten years at SDC in a variety of roles. As a Teacher of the Deaf, I worked with students from preschool through middle school age. Additionally, I worked as a Deaf Education and Media Specialist, supporting classroom teachers with teaching strategies and classroom management as well as student centered media development and integration. It was during my time in the classroom and as a Media Specialist that I developed both a passion for and technical skills in media development and integration. In 2015, I accepted the role of Curriculum Coordinator, which allows me to support teachers and classrooms even more comprehensively. In addition, I am responsible for developing professional development (PD) on the bilingual educational

PAGE 19

19 philosophy used to design ins truction for our bilingual D eaf students who are learning ASL as a first language and English as a second language, either spoken or written. This educational and professional background has supported the development of my expertise and interests including the education of complex bilingual Deaf students and the use of digital media to provide highly adapted curriculum. Language in Deaf Populations A deaf to the choices made regarding the use of various communic ation app roaches. The two major paradigms are the oral and manual approaches. The oral approach emphasizes speech, articulation and lipreading. The manual approach emphasizes the use of visual communication on the hands and includes ASL as well as manual codes of E nglish (MCEs) All these modes of communication have been utilized at SDC at some point in history. ASL is a natural visual language distinct from English; ASL is not English represented on the hands. It has a rich set of rules including syntax, morpholog y, semantics, pragmatics, and phonology, akin to any natural language (Fischer & van der Hulst, 2003; Schirmer, 2001). The grammar of ASL is different tha n the grammar of English. ASL uses a unique system of non manual markers including facial expressions, eye gaze and body movements that are part of the grammatical structure of the language. ASL is the natural language of the communities of Deaf individuals across the United States and Canada. Throughout this study, I will abide by the convention of writi ng the word Deaf with a capitol D when referring to the community of people who embrace ASL and Deaf culture (Schirmer, 2001). The word deaf with a lowercase d refers to the general population of individuals with hearing loss regardless of their communicat ion and cultural choices.

PAGE 20

20 In contrast to ASL, MCEs were developed with the goal of improving deaf MCEs, signs are often borrowed from ASL but are expressed following the spelling and grammatical structures of English. These systems do not utilize non manual markers. It is important to note that an MCE is not a language in itself but rather a manual representation of English. There is no viable community of MCE users in th e United States akin to that for ASL users (Woll & Ladd, 2003). The differences between ASL and MCEs are extraordinarily significant in the deaf education field, not only in the choice of an instructional language but also in the philosophy behind that c hoice. To many individuals in the Deaf community, the use of MCE is equivalent to a refusal to recognize the value of ASL and Deaf culture, and is viewed as a form of oppression (Woll & Ladd, 2003). Many Deaf adults strongly advocate the right of Deaf chil dren to have access to ASL (Bailes, 2001). As with any discussion of culture, identity, and language, these issues are fraught with complication and nuance. The dialogue about communication modality in deaf education is likely to continue as actively as it has over the last several centuries. Language and Learning at SDC SDC has a rich history of educating deaf students from across the New England region. When the school was established in the late 19 th century the manual approach to communication was util ized. At that time, ASL was not yet formally recognized as a Around the mid 1880s, the school made a switch to the oral method and remained fully oral until the mid 1970s when some classes began incorporating sign language again. Some of these classes used ASL while others used MCE. As a result of these

PAGE 21

21 inconsistencies, the school officially adopted the use of MCE in 1992 and continued its use exclusively for seven years. However, given the lack of student success with MCE, SDC sought to make another official change. The full use of ASL was initiated in the 2007 2008 school year. Teachers participated in a two year intensive training through Gallaudet University called the ASL/English Bilingual Professional Development (AEBPD) program which is still taught in an accelerated format. The development of this program was supported by a U. S. Department of Education grant based at the New Mexico Sc hool for the Deaf. The program was effort among educators and researchers who work together to respond to the educational needs of deaf and hard of hearing children and provide leadership in staff adford, 2002, p. 1 49). This program made no specific mention of how this philosophy applies to Deaf students with special needs. Notably, the population of SDC has shifted considerably in the last two decades. Many deaf or hard of hearing children who wou ld historically have been educated at a school like SDC are now mainstreamed in public schools. This is due to a complex relationship between public law, improvements in amplification technology, and educational climate. At the time of this study, over n in ety percent of SDC students were deaf or hard of hearing but also ha d additional diagnoses, such as social emotional, medical, physical, or cognitive issues among others. Many of the students had a multitude of extremely complex needs that impact ed langua ge, communication and learning Therefore SDC established a range of departments to meet the needs of its students, including speech and language pathology, occupational therapy, physical

PAGE 22

22 therapy, nursing, counseling, behavior analysis, curriculum, assis tive technology, vocational/transition, and vision. This collaborative approach has been a successful way to meet many of the therapeutic needs of the population. However, I question ed the learning needs of these complex students. This brings to light the overarching problem of practice. SDC utilized the bilingual language and learning philosophy as taught in the AEBPD program. However, the intended population of the AEBPD program (Deaf students wi thout additional special needs) did not match the majority population of SDC (Deaf students with complex additional special needs). This problem of practice ha d a vast impact on all aspects of instruction at SDC. This study focuse d on how th e problem of pr actice influenced one specific area: the design of digital media materials. Incorporating ASL in digital media materials is a well established best practice for promoting literacy development in Deaf children (Bailes, 2001; Horn Marsh & Horn Marsh, 2009; Knight & Swanwick, 2002; Padden & Ramsey, 1998; Strong, 1995). However, it also creates a challenge for practitioners who find the commercial availability of materials in both languages is limited. Therefore, many teachers at SDC create d their own digital media instructional materials in ASL and English. For example, a teach er develop ed an e book with a video based ASL interpretation and audio based English narration embedded in each page along with the story picture and written English. In developing mate rials, teachers rel ied on best practices for Deaf bilingual learners (BP DBL) that stem med from the bilingual language and learning philosophy developed for Deaf students. However, given the population at SDC, the ability of BP

PAGE 23

23 DBL to successfully guide te achers in digital media design for this population was worthy of examin ation The aim of this study was to look beyond BP DBL and explore how UDL could a school for Deaf students with special needs. Each of these approaches is described below. Pedagogical Approaches In this section, BP DBL and UDL are described and examined in light of their suitability to guide digital media design for this population Best Practices for Deaf Bilingu al Learners In settings utilizing the bilingual language and learning philosophy, research based best practices guide pedagogical decisions. As an example, Bailes (2001) concisely describes six principles for successfully educating Dea f bilinguals, as show n in Table 1 1 and literacy for children growing up deaf, 95% of whom are born to hearing families who do not know ASL (Schick, 2003; Schirmer, 2001). The provision of ling uistic access is a critical element of BP DBL, such as providing language models in ASL and English and promoting metalinguistic awareness and knowledge in both languages (Bailes, 2001). If a teacher uses these BP DBL to develop digital media, the outcome will be a tool that is highly accessible in ASL, spoken English, and written English. Yet pedagogically, this approach may not be sensible at all times. The bilingual language and learning approach used at SDC does not demand that all information be provid ed equally in ASL and English at all times. Rather, teachers make conscious choices about when, how, and why to use different languages in the

PAGE 24

24 classroom. This may be based on the individual characteristics of the students, the learning goals, and the envir onment. For example, a teacher may use the languages separately based on time (ASL in the morning, English in the afternoon), staff (teacher uses ASL, paraprofessional uses English), or physical place (English in the classroom, ASL in the lunchroom) (Baker 2006). Or, the teacher may use both languages within a lesson purposefully and concurrently, such that the teacher consciously decides which language to use in order to address specific learning g oals and reinforce concepts (Baker, 2006). These BP DBL ar e designed to address issues of language use in the educational setting. However, language use within a digital media product may be quite different. Spoken English and ASL are both examples of transient language: they disappear immediately after they are produced. Once something is said or signed, it cannot be repeated in exactly the same way; it is ephemeral. However, written English and videotaped ASL are permanent. They can be read or viewed repeatedly at will, such as a written English story or a vide otaped poem in ASL. The BP DBL described here focus primarily on ephemeral language use. But language used in digital media products will necessarily be permanent. The application of best practices developed for transient language use in the classroom to p ermanent language use in digital media products should be investigated. BP DBL makes no specific recommendations about how to make decisions regarding language use in the context of these language permanent digital media designs. It merely recommends mind ful provision of access to transient language learning opportunities.

PAGE 25

25 Universal Design for Learning UDL encourages inclusive classroom practice through curriculum design that customizes instruction by incorporating adjustable supports, scaffolds, and chall enges while eliminating barriers to learning (Lapinski, Gravel, & Rose, 2012). There is a growing library of support (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2011; Rose & Dalton, 2006) for the use of UDL to design curricul um not only for learners with disabilities but also for typically developing of individual learning differences, and dedication to the improveme nt of teacher practice mad e it an attractive choice for exploration in the context of this study. UDL provides overarching principles, narrower guidelines, and specific checkpoints that guide curriculum development. Incorporating these UDL features creates expert learners who are purposeful, motivated, resourceful, knowledgeable, strategic, and goal directed through the provision of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). The specificity with which UDL describes curricul um development provides teachers with actionable recommendations regarding digital media design. UDL provides design options for teachers that go beyond the affordances of BP DBL. As described, BP DBL are focused primarily on the complex relationship between language and literacy for Deaf children with no additional d isabilities. The use of these recommendations to design digital media materials for Deaf students with special needs may not be a sound pedagogical choice. In this study, I wanted to explore whether the UDL guidelines provide d structure that could give tea chers a roadmap to making design decisions for a more complex population of students.

PAGE 26

26 book about moon phases for her students to use independently. Given BP DBL alone, she might design the e book with ASL, spoken and written English, and photos of moon phases all embedded on each page. However, a UDL engagement checkpoint would guide this teacher to optimize individual choice and autonomy (Meyer Rose, & Gordon, 2014) such that s tudents could select the language in which they wanted to receive that information within the e Another engagement checkpoint would guide the teacher to increase mastery oriented feedback (Meyer, R ose, & Gordon, 2014) As a result, the teacher would be sure to incorporate a quiz within the e book to determine specific strengths and needs regarding moon phases. For Kell y, the teacher could include both mastery oriented content f eedback as well as behaviorally based feedback. These design elements, outlined by UDL, would not have been evident in a design by following BP DBL alone. Based on the affordances of UDL, it wa s worth y of investigation in a setting like SDC. However, before examining this framework, SDC teachers needed the opportunity to learn about UDL through structured PD Professional Development As described, the problem of practice in this context wa s the us e of a language and learning philosophy for a population for whom it may not have be en appropriate. Th is study explore d the use of UDL as an alternative framework to guide the design of digital media materials for Deaf students with special needs. This req uire d that teachers at SDC be oriented to the concepts and terminology that encompass a UDL based approach. This was accomplished through structured PD

PAGE 27

27 SDC identifie d itself as a professional learning community (PLC). Educators in a ment that fosters mutual cooperation, emotional support, and (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. xxi). Teachers and staff gather ed in collaborative learning teams (CLTs) on a regular basis with the goal of achieving common objectives with high quality results. This study integrate d PD on UDL into this existing structure. In addition, the study utilize d the professional teaching and learning cycle (PTLC) to frame the PD. The PTLC trad itionally focuses on giving teachers the opportunity to collaborate on standards based instructional methods (Tobia, 2007). This study appl ied that particular cycle to the examination of the use of the UDL guidelines in the digital media design process. Th e PTLC gives teachers the opportunity to collaborate and allows for frequent, repeated analysis and revision (Southwest Educational Development Library, 2008; Tobia, 2007) to the digital media design process. Teachers at SDC had the opportunity to particip ate in the PTLC to learn how UDL could be utilized to guide digital media design decisions for their Deaf students with special needs. Research Questions Based on this context and problem of practice, this study ask ed a primary research questi on along wit h two sub questions. The primary question asked, How did PD in UDL influence the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs? In order to addres s the primary question, two sub questions we re posed. The first focuse d on the application of UDL to the digital media design process, while the second focuse d on the features of the PD and teacher learning The sub questions were :

PAGE 28

28 1. How did teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to make decisions when d esigning digital media materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program? 2. What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC? The goal of asking these questions was to determine how UDL can be used to develop digital media materials for Deaf students who have special needs and how teachers felt the features of PD supported or hindered teacher learning during the PTLC. Research Design and Limitations To address these research ques tions, I utilize d a single instrumental case study approach. In this approach, the focus is on understanding an issue illustrated by a single bounded case that can be described within specific parameters, such as time, place, activity, definition, and cont ext (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Creswell, 2013). An instrumental case study provides insight into an issue, phenomenon, or situation, or helps to refine a theory (Baxter & Jack, 2008). In this study, the single case sele cted as the unit of analysis was a group o f participating SDC teachers These teacher participants are thoroughly described in the context in which the case wa s embedded in later chapters. This qualitative study involve d several data sources: research journal, document s survey s interview s arti fact s, and rubric s These sources were chosen based on the ability of each to provide particular information related to the research questions. The use of multiple sources contribute d to the rigor of the study (Creswell, 2013).

PAGE 29

29 During the study, teachers create d a document reflecting the learning goals and targeted UDL checkpoints they would incorporate in to t heir digital media design. The design artifacts were collected as a data source as well. Ar tifacts have the strength of being stable and unobtrusive, and can be used to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources and support the development of inferences (Yin, 2014). A researcher created rubric was used to assess each artifact for the presence and strength of UDL guidelines. The use of a rubric was a consistent method of assessment used with each participant in the study (Rochford & Borchert, 2011) that allowed me to explore the characteristics of the digital media designs. One survey was used during the study. The use of a survey allow ed for t he collection of information on observations, attitudes, and perceptions across partici pants. The design of the survey follow ed step process for questionnaire development. Teachers were asked to complete the survey immediately after students engage d with the digital media materials This s urvey focus ed on student response to the digital media materials and provide d teachers an opportunity to gauge constructs including student motivation, knowledge, independence, and educational succe ss. Teachers also had the opportunity to participate in an individual interview. I nterviewing provid e s perspectives and the meaning taken from an experience (Patton, 2002). Questions explore d the and student response to the material. The use of the interview allow ed me to examine design decisions and explore why teachers perceived some guidelines and checkpoints as worthy of in clusion while excluding others.

PAGE 30

30 PTLC were explored during interviews. This provided the opportunity to discuss the impact of the PTLC on their learning Throughout the research process, I maintain ed a journal to rec ord my reflections, thoughts, and emerging ideas. The research journal was guided by topics including the research process, as well as and teaching practice Additionally, reflections include d a robus t discussion of potential biases and challenges (Creswell, 2013). This wa s relevant given my dual role as a researcher and Curriculum Coordinator in the setting. It wa s critical to consider the limitations of this study. One potential limitation of this s tudy was that it was performed in my own professional context. With over 10 years of experience at SDC, I had established biases, knowledge, and opinions that I need ed to mindfully acknowledge and study in relation to the conclusions I dr e w about the impac t of UDL on the digital media designs of teachers with whom I work ed very closely. Studying the practice of individuals with whom I had a professional relationship had the potential to raise issues of power imbalance between myself and the participants. Th is was addressed through the use of multiple strategies of validation (Creswell, 2013), as described above. Significance This study contribute d significantly to the fields of Deaf education and educational technology. This project involve d an investigatio n into the use of UDL as a design resource for teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. While UDL has been applied to Deaf po pulations (Stahl, 2006), there wa s little evidence that it ha s been used as the guiding element for the development of digital media materials specific to this population. The research questions were asked within the context of the

PAGE 31

31 PTLC in order to provide structured, meaningful, small group training to teachers in a specific instructional setting. In addition, this st udy was useful in my professional context. SDC teachers were given the opportunity to learn about and implement an evidence based framework with the potential to influence their daily teaching practice. This study also contributed to the body of knowledge regarding how PD can be structured with teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs, such as the teacher participants at SDC. Table 1 1. Best practices for Deaf bilingual learners (Bailes, 2001) Principle Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 Provision o f language models in ASL and English ASL as the first and natural language for Deaf children World knowledge as a prerequisite for written English literacy Promoting metalinguistic awareness and knowledge in ASL and English Valuing approximations in both A SL and English Involvement of parents in the literacy lives of deaf children

PAGE 32

32 Definition of Terms BEST PRACTICES FOR DEAF BILINGUAL LEARNERS. A set of practices that guide educational and linguistic decisions for students who use a visual language such as American Sign Language (ASL) as a primary mode of communication (Bailes, 2001) DEAF PERSON (lowercase d deaf). An individual with an educationally significant hearing loss that interferes with access to classroom instruction and impacts the ability to com municate, learn and develop peer relationships (Johnson & Seaton, 2012) through speech and listening alone DEAF PERSON (uppercase D Deaf). An individual who makes the linguistic and cultural choice to utilize American Sign Language as their primary mode o f communication through which to understand their world and interact with others (Schirmer, 2001) DEAF BILINGUAL. An individual who uses American Sign Language and English (spoken or written) both expressively and receptively (Strong, 1995) in everyday lif e BILINGUAL. An individual who uses two or more languages in everyday life (Grosjean & Li, 2013) for different purposes, in different domains of life, and with different people (Grosjean, 2010) PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY. An environment for educators that fosters mutual cooperation, emotional support, and personal growth as they work together to achieve what they cannot accomplish alone (DuFour & Eaker, 1998) PROFESSIONA L TEACHING AND LEARNING CYCLE. A training cycle that proceeds through six steps ( S t udy, S elect, P lan, I mplement, A nalyze, and A djust ) to give teachers the opportunity to collaborate on instructional methods, and allows for frequent, repeated analysis and revision (Southwest Educational Development Library, 2008; Tobia, 2007) UNIVERSAL DE SIGN FOR LEARNING. A framework to improve and optimize educational practice for all people that provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engage d This reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2008)

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITE RATURE The goal of this literature review is to establish knowledge and develop an three broad questions: 1. Who are the students in this population? 2. How do the students in this population learn? 3. How do practitioners learn in a professional context? Following the in depth examination of these questions, the gaps across the literature are reiterated and presented within the conceptual framework guiding this study. The o rganization of this literature review is presented visually in Figure 2 1 The Deaf Student There is no single definition or description that fit s the diversity of the population of deaf student s The goal of this section is to provide foundational knowle dge of the characteristics of the population, bilingualism, bilingualism in Deaf students, and a description of deaf students with additional special needs. This addresses the question: Who are the students in this population? Characteristics of Deaf Stude nts From the perspective of educational institutions, a hearing loss becomes important when it is educationally significant. From a legal standpoint, an educationally significant hearing loss is "any hearing lo ss that potentially interferes with access to classroom instruction and impacts a child or youth's ability to communicate, learn and For many deaf children,

PAGE 34

34 an educationally significant hearing loss impacts the accessible modes of communicat ion, as described below. Many deaf individuals rely on visual communication such as ASL, a rule based language distinct from English with a development that parallels that of spoken language (Schick, 2003). Children exposed to ASL from birth by ASL fluent parents develop the language naturally. These children display common but modified early language characteristics including manual babbling, manual articulation errors, lexical development, and syntactical agreement (Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002). H owever, 90 95% of the 10,000 deaf children born annually in the United States are born to hearing parents (Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002; Mellon et al., 2015; Schick, 2003; Schirmer, 2001). This statistic has a lasting impact on this population. The m ajority of hearing parents with deaf children never achieve high fluency in ASL (Schick, 2003; Schirmer, 2001). This leads to a mismatch between the expressive process that modality (Hamers, 1998). These language and communication characteristics of deaf children have a direct impact on learning. Due to the communication mismatch, most deaf children begin school with delayed language when compared to their hearing peers (Ka rchmer & Mitchell, 2003). In many cases, this d elay has lasting consequences: o lder students also display poor academic outcomes. More than 30% of deaf students complete school functionally illiterate (Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002) and many achieve n o higher than a third to fourth grade reading level (Paul, 2003; Wang, 2012). Deaf children of Deaf parents who use ASL do not experience the same challenges. With ASL access

PAGE 35

35 from birth, these children perform higher on tests of performance IQ (Schirmer, 2001) and English reading (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). However, for the 90 95% of children who experience a communication mismatch, these learning challenges persist across all areas of functioning. Communication and learning have an integral relationship for young deaf children. communication partner(s), situation, context, and purpose of the exchange. Though some deaf individuals use speaking and listening to varying degrees, access is lim ited and often distorted (Schirmer, 2001) even with amplification such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Success with spoken language is also impacted by individual factors including fatigue and motivation and by environmental factors such as backgrou nd noise (Bernstein & Auer, 2003). While some deaf adults use speechreading, or lipreading, as an effective way to access English, speechreading is an extremely difficult skill to attain (Lidestam & Beskow, 2006). Despite many advances in technology, such as hearing aids and cochlear implants, some limited and often distorted access to spoken language makes speaking and listening an ineffective and inefficient mode of communication. Communication mode choices, such as speech and listening or ASL, and family and learner characteristics share a complex relationship in how they impact the academic, social emotional, and linguistic development of deaf learners. Bilingualism B ilingualism is the use of two or more languages in everyday life (Gros jean & Li, 2013) for different purposes, in different domains of life, and with different people (Grosjean, 2010). The goal of using bilingual teaching strategies is not to attain full

PAGE 36

36 fluency in both languages. Rather, it is to achieve communicative compe tence, or the use of language to accomplish communication goals (Baker, 2006; National Capital Language Resource Center, n.d.) in each language. Necessary levels of communicative competence are determined by the context of use. Scholarly academic language demands a different level of competence than social and familial use (Baker, 2006). An individual is considered communicatively competent, and thus bilingual, if the use of each language accomplishes specific contextual goals. B ilinguals display many cogni tive advantages linked to bilingualism. One advantage is greater divergent and creative thinking. This involves being able to describe a variety of uses for objects and is determined by fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Baker, 2006). Anot her cognitive benefit of bilingualism is greater metalinguistic awareness, or the ability to think and discuss characteristics and structures of language (Bialystok, 1991). Bilinguals also have greater communicative sensitivity, or an increased awareness o f the social nature and communicative functions of language (Baker, 2006). These cognitive advantages are observed across Deaf and hearing bilinguals. Bilingualism in Deaf Students For many Deaf children who experience a communication mismatch at home AS L used at school become s their first language. These children may be educated in school programs utilizing a bilingual language philosophy tailored to Deaf learners. A Deaf bilingual is an individual who uses ASL and English (spoken or written) both expres sively and receptively (Strong, 1995). Deaf bilinguals fit the definition of bilingualism (Grosjean & Li, 2013) by using two languages in everyday life for specific communication goals. For example, a student

PAGE 37

37 may primarily use ASL at school and English at home. While access to spoken language may be limited by the communication mismatch (Hamers, 1998), the student is achieving communicative competence by using each language for particular purposes. Additionally, Deaf and hearing bilinguals share many chara cteristics such as a high level of diversity, an unlikelihood to view themselves as bilingual (Grosjean, 1998), little recognition of their bilingual status by the general public, and qualitatively different acquisition processes for their first and second languages (Grosjean, 2008). These characteristics also demand unique approaches to learner assessment (Baker, 2006). Despite fitting the overall definition, Deaf bilinguals also display many differences from hearing bilinguals. The use of ASL does not pr epare children for the task of developing English literacy skills in the same way that spoken English does. This is because the building blocks of ASL are different than those of English (Padden, 1998) Hearing children learn language and foundational lite racy skills through natural awareness, phonology skills, and syntactic rules, and bring a vast amount of English knowledge to the task of developing English literacy (Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004). Many Deaf children do not have this advantage because the communication mismatch prevents fluent early language exposure (Hamers, 1998). Therefore, while Deaf bilinguals share some characteristics with hearing bilinguals, ther e are fundamental differences as well. Based on these differences, it is not always appropriate to apply bilingual teaching strategies developed for hearing learners to Deaf

PAGE 38

38 bilinguals (Mayer & Wells, 1996). Figure 2 2 illustrates the similarities and diff erences between hearing and Deaf bilingual learners. D espite significant research on bilingualism in D eaf learners (Bailes, 2001; Grosjean, 2010; Horn Marsh & Horn Marsh, 2009; Padden & Ramsey, 1998), there is a noteworthy challenge in adapting best pract ices of bilingual education for two spoken languages to ASL/English bilingual education. As a visual spatial language with no written form, ASL presents a unique instructional problem. There is a paucity of educational materials available in ASL, forcing m any teachers of the Deaf to create their own instructional materials This becomes a particular challeng e when D eaf students have additional special needs. Deaf Students with Additional Special Needs Identifying and educating children who are deaf and hav e additional special needs is a complex and challenging task. O ver 40% of deaf and hard of hearing students have one or more additional conditions (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003) such as intellectual disability, specific learning disorder, autism spectrum diso rder, physical from the combined presence of two or more disabilities with great repercussions for (Knoors & Vervloed, 2003, p. 82). These issues are more complex than when considering any disability in isolation. Identification and a ssessment Issues Identifying deaf children with an additional disability is made extremely challenging by unique assessm ent issues. Some additional disabilities, such as vision loss or a physical disability such as cerebral palsy, may involve examining physical

PAGE 39

39 characteristics or the functioning of parts of the body. Other disabilities, such as intellectual disability, a sp ecific learning disorder such as dyslexia, or an autism spectrum disorder, involve complex relationships among language, learning and social functioning. While diagnosis of any disability can be challenging, this process is confounded by the communication and language issues face d by deaf children (Luckner & Carter, 2001) Some of the unique challenges inherent to the identification of additional disabilities in deaf students are related to the presence of characteristics or indicators that can cross disa bility category. For example, autism spectrum disorders are characterized by persistent deficits in social communication and social inter action across multiple contexts (American Psychiatric Association 2013 ). These deficits parallel those present in some deaf children including greater impulsivity, poorer emotional regulation, impoverished vocabulary of emotion language, and overall gaps in social emotional development (Calderon & Greenberg, 2003). If a child has an identified hearing loss and presents wi th deficits in social communication, a diagnostician is challenged to determine the source of these deficits: Is it the hearing loss or is it a potential autism spectrum disorder? Practitioners working with complex, multiply disabled children face these is sues on a regular basis. Definitions, examples, and the impact of comorbidity for disability categories including intellectual disability, specific learning disorder, autism spectrum disorder, physical disability, and deafblindness are presented below. D eafness and i ntellectual d isability An intellectual disability (ID) is characterized intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and

PAGE 40

40 practical Schalock, Borthwi ck Duffy, Buntinx, Coulter, & Craig, 2010, p. 5 ) the onset of which occurs during the developmental period ( American Psychiatric Association 2013 ). The American Psychiatric Association (2013) further defines intellectual functioning as reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience A daptive functioning is defined as those communication, social participation, and independent daily living skills that support meeting the developmental and so ciocultural standards for personal independence and social responsibility ( Am erican Psychiatric Association, 2013) Across the literature, the terms intellectual disability and intellectual developmental disorder are observed, though in the past the now st rongly disfavored term mental retardation was used. Diagnosis of ID occurs through the use of clinical assessment and standardized testing of intellectual and adaptive functions (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Severity can range from mild to pro found, and the overall prevalence of intellectual disabilities is estimated between 1 3% in the general population of the United States ( Roeleveld Zielhuis & Gabrels 1997), varying across severity levels and age. The prevalence of ID in the population of deaf and hard of hearing children in the United States is much greater, with 8.3% identified (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011). In addition, 5.3% are identified with a developmental delay (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011), which implies that an in dividual is under 5 years of age and clinical severity cannot be reliably assessed (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). When an individual is identified with both deafness and ID, language and social functioning can be impacted. Given the communicati on mismatch, the language of

PAGE 41

41 many deaf children is significantly delayed. Some hearing parents of Deaf children may h e se children are faced with learning a language at the same time their parents ar e learning it. The parents are unable to model fluent language structures or use. Therefore, a typical spoken or signed language may not be an appropriate mode of communication through which to assess a deaf child for ID. Poor language skills can lead not only to assessment issues but also the serious error of misdiagnosis (Denmark, 1985). Hearing loss alone does not guarantee acceptance into the Deaf community and culture. Membership is achieved rather than ascribed (Carvill, 2001) with the most foundatio nal aspect being the use of ASL (Schirmer, 2001). For individuals who are deaf and have ID, opportunities to identify and participate in this community and culture are limited (Carvill, 2001). This may in turn affect the social functioning of an individual Membership in the Deaf community and culture can support self esteem by promoting group identification (Bat Chava, 1994). However, deep and meaningful interactions within the Deaf community and culture may be limited for individuals who are deaf and have ID. Deafness and s pecific l earning d isorder Specific learning disorder (SLD) is characterized by persistent difficulties that appear during the school age years in general academic skills such as word reading, reading comprehension, spelling, written exp ression, number sense, number facts, calculation, or mathematical reasoning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). SLD can manifest in a variety of ways, such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and language processing disorder among others (Learning Disabilities Association of

PAGE 42

42 incoming information (Stewart & Kluwin, 2001). The terms specific learning disorder and learning disability are often used interchangeably. A key feature of SLD is that the learning difficulties cannot be attributed to ID, hearing loss, vision loss, neurological disorder, psychosocial adversity, lack of language proficiency, or inadequate educational instruction (American Psychiatric Associat ion, 2013). Due to these diagnostic criteria, it can be extremely challenging to diagnose a deaf child with SLD. If the child has not had the opportunity to develop fluent language due to the communication mismatch, general academic skills may be impacted without the addition of SLD. The relevance of processing is of major importance. Deaf children inherently have a perception issue such that incoming information may not be perceived by their sensory systems (i.e. audition) in full. However, this does not n ecessarily imply a processing issue. For a child with achievement issues, it is critical to determine if those issues stem from the perception issue (hearing loss) or a processing issue (SLD) (Soukup & Feinstein, 2007). Correct identification is critical i n order to provide those with a dual diagnosis with appropriate intervention and services. The prevalence of SLD ranges from 5% 15% among children across different languages and cultures (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The prevalence among deaf children can be more difficult to determine due in part to the exclusionary diagnostic criteria described above. Without this exclusionary clause, 75% of deaf children could be diagnosed as learning disabled (Morgan & Vernon, 1994). Given that many causes of hearing loss such as premature birth, meningitis, maternal rubella, cytomegalovirus, and genetic syndromes are also associated with SLD (Edwards, 2010), prevalence estimates become even more difficult to determine. The most recent

PAGE 43

43 national survey conduc ted by the Gallaudet Research Institute ( 2011) indicates that 8% of deaf and hard of hearing children also have a diagnosis of SLD. However, no specific definitions or diagnostic criteria in relation to this survey are provided. Clearly, diagnosis is a com plex process. Similar to other disabilities, the comorbidity of deafness and SLD impacts an individual more complexly than either disability alone. Laughton (1989) proposed a definition specific to deaf individuals with SLD: Learning disabled, hearing im paired individuals have significant difficulty with acquisition, integration, and use of langu age and/or nonlinguistic abili ties. These disorders are presumed to be caused by the coexisting condi tions of central nervous system dys function and peripheral se nsorineural hea ring impairment, and not by ei ther co ndition exclusively. The condi tion can vary in its manifestations and degrees of severity and can affect edu cation, communication, self esteem, socializati on, and/or daily living activi ties throughout lif e (p. 74) The broad impacts of such a definition are echoed in the educational world. There is a critical shortage of teachers with the training and skills to work with multiply identified deaf children (Luckner & Carter, 2001; Soukup & Feinstein, 2007). Additionally, teacher preparation programs often do not take an interdisciplinary approach (Luckner & Carter, 2001), providing only isolated instruction on disabilities rather than the impact of their comorbidity (Soukup & Feinstein, 2007). In a survey, So ukup and Feinstein (2007) found that 50% of teachers did not feel adequately prepared to teach students who were deaf and had SLD. These issues make the (1989) definition highli ghts the far reaching impact of this comorbidity on education, communication, self esteem, socialization, and daily living activities. It is essential that

PAGE 44

44 practitioners working with deaf children with SLD have the tools necessary to provide these children with an appropriate education. Deafness and a utism s pectrum d isorder Autism s pectrum d isorder (ASD) is characterized by persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, and restricted, repetitive patterns of be havior, interests, or activities that are present in the early developmental period and impair everyday functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The American Psychiatric Association (2013) identifies social emotional reciprocity, nonverbal com municative behaviors used for social interaction, and developing, maintaining and understanding relationships as skills inherent to social communication and social interaction. Likewise, restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or acti vitie s are described as stereotypic or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech, insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, highly restricted and fixated interests, and hyper or hyporeactivity to sensory input (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). ASD can range greatly in severity. Other terms utilized in relation to ASD include autism, a developmental disorder not otherwise specified. Estimates of the prevalence of ASD have c hanged dramatically in recent decades. A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note a rate of 14.6 per 1000, or one in 68 children aged 8 years (Christensen et al., 2016). The authors note differences across gender, with ASD more preva lent in boys (23.6 per 1000) than girls (5.5 per 1000), and ethnicity, with ASD more prevalent in non Hispanic white children (15.5 per 1000) than non Hispanic black children (1 3 2 per 1000) or Hispanic children (10.1 per 1000). The overall prevalence rate has been steadily

PAGE 45

45 increasing from one in 150 in 2000 to one in 68 in 2010 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Several theories have been proposed to explain these increases. These include an underestimation of ASD in the past, early diagno sis, changing diagnostic criteria, and the success of national efforts to educate the public about the early signs of ASD ( Duchan & Patel 2012). No single theory has been shown to individually explain the increase in prevalence of ASD. Determining the pre valence of ASD in deaf children is complicated by the fact that many characteristics of ASD are also present in deaf children ( S z y manski & Brice, 2008), such as deficits in social communication and social emotional development ( Calderon & Greenberg, 2003). The most recent national survey conducted by the Gallaudet Research Institute ( 2011) indicate s that 1.7% of deaf children surveyed are also diagnosed with ASD, which equates to one in 57 children. This number is slightly higher than that national rate of one in 68 children. Though this rate does not include and International Affairs has been collecting educationally relevant information on deaf students since 1968 (Gal laudet University, 2015) and represents a respected source of demographic information. A notable difference between hearing and deaf children with ASD is the average age of identification. Deaf children with ASD are identified later than hearing children with ASD (Jure, Rapin, & Tuchman, 1991; Roper, Arnold, & Monteiro, 2003). Mandell, Novak, and Zubritsky (2005) noted that the average age of identification was 3 1 years for hearing children with autistic disorder, 3.9 years for pervasive developmental di

PAGE 46

46 factors impacted age of identification, such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and environment (e.g. rural v. urban), hearing loss was associated with a 0.8 year, or 10 mon th increase in age of diagnosis. This implies that deaf children with ASD are diagnosed with ASD later than their hearing peers. This may be due to the challenge of distinguishing the characteristics of the two conditions, a lack of resources for parents a nd educators, a lack of diagnostic tools developed specifically for this population, or a combination of these factors ( S z y manski & Brice, 2008). There may also be a problem with diagnostic overshadowing in which one condition masks the presence of another such as hearing loss masking ASD or vice versa ( S z y manski Brice, Lam, & Hotto, 2012). This older age of identification has a great impact on access to intervention and appropriate educational services. There are a number of relevant factors when a chil d presents with comorbid deafness and ASD. As with other deaf children, a mode of communication must be selected to promote interaction and learning in children who are deaf and have ASD. Sign language has been used successfully with autistic children for over 40 years, though the signs themselves are often simplified and do not always reflect fluent use of ASL ( S z y manski & Brice, 2008). A foundational requirement for using ASL is sustained eye contact, which is commonly a challenge for children with ASD (A merican Psychiatric Association, 2013; Morton, 2008; S z y manski & Brice, 2008). Language development may therefore be impacted for a student who presents with both hearing loss and ASD. There are a limited number of programs nationwide that specialize in t he education of deaf students with ASD Explanations that have been proposed include the

PAGE 47

47 lack of appropriate assessment resources, a shortage of curriculum materials and methods, and the scarcity of well prepared educators (Bruce, DiNatale, & Ford, 2008; L uckner & Carter, 2001; S z y manski Brice, Lam, & Hotto, 2012). Typically, teacher preparation programs focus on deafness or on ASD, but not on both. For a child whose primary disability is believed to be deafness with ASD as a secondary disability, educatio nal placement would likely be in a school for the deaf. While this placement would provide visual language in the form of ASL, professionals there may not have any specific training on working with students with ASD. On the other side of the coin, if ASD i s considered the primary disability with deafness as the secondary, placement may be in a program designed for children with ASD. While these programs can be very successful for hearing children with ASD, professionals may not have the training to wo rk wit h deaf students and ma y not provide students with fluent language models in either the staff or peers. Potential s olutions to these challenges are as multifaceted as the issue s themselves For example, altering the content of teacher preparation programs to include more in Hampton, 1985), training in how to work as a memb er of an interdisciplinary team (Luckner & Carter, 2001), and providing targeted professional development (Miller, 2000) may address these challenges The Joint Standards Committee of the National Council on Education of the Deaf and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (1996) hearin g and is an expansion of the 107 CEC Common Core Knowledge and Skills

PAGE 48

48 professionals and preparation programs. While these recommendations are not specifically targeted t o deaf students with ASD, they nonetheless provide actionable steps to address the gap in knowledge and skills in the education of children dually diagnosed with deafness and ASD. Deafness and p hysical d isability Physical disabilities range in etiology an d severity. Some disorders with physical attributes, such as developmental coordination disorder, stereotypic movement disorder, and tic disorders, are included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5 th Edition (DSM V) ( American Psy chiatric Association, 2013) Other disorders that affect physical movement are neurologically based, such as cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, degenerative disorder s and traumatic brain injury (TBI) and are excluded from the DSM V. Whatever the etiolog y, the interaction of physical disabilities with deafness leads to unique student characteristics in language and learning. The American Psychiatric Association (2013) describe s the characteristics of neurodevelopmental motor disorders by providing specif ic diagnostic criteria. These include lack of coordinated motor skills that interferes with daily living (developmental coordination disorder), repetitive, driven and purposeless motor behavior that interferes with daily living and may be self injurious ( stereotypic movement disorder), or sudden, rapid, recurrent, nonrhythmic motor movement or vocalization (tic disorder). Neurological conditions can also affect movement. The most common of these in childhood is cerebral palsy, which impacts the ability to move and maintain balance and posture (National Institutes of Health, 2016a). Physical symptoms are also seen in neurodegenerative disorders (e.g. issues with balance and movement), muscular

PAGE 49

49 dystrophy (e.g. muscle weakness and muscle loss), and TBI (e.g. dizziness, weakness or numbness in the arms and legs) (National Institutes of Health, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d). As with other disabilities, the exact manifestation of a physical disability varies across individual s Severity, age of onset, characteristics, and comorbidity with other disabilities can range greatly. With so many disorders including a physical correlate, it is difficult to determine an overall prevalence rate in the general population. Within the deaf population, the Gallaudet Research Institute ( 2011) utilize s the term orthopedic impairment but does not provide specific diagnostic criteria. Nationwide, 4.4% of deaf students are identified as having an orthopedic impairment while 0.3% are identified as having a TBI though there is no indication o f the presence or severity of a physical component to these injuries (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011). Research on the comorbidity of deafness and physical disabilities is far sparser than that of deafness and ID, SLD, or ASD. Often, physical disabili ties are present in individuals who are severely multiply involved, such that cognitive, motor, social, and sensory development are all impacted. Significant research has been performed on individuals labeled as severely handicapped, multi handicapped, and profoundly disabled among other terms. However, it is difficult to locate research that examines deaf individuals with physical disabilities and no involvement of the cognitive or social systems. In many cases, an overarching genetic, developmental, or p hysical condition may lead to physical disabilities along with cognitive and social challenges. For example, a TBI can lead to loss of coordination, and weakness and numbness in the legs and arms. Apart from these physical correlates, TBI can also lead to slurred

PAGE 50

50 speech, seizures, trouble with memory or thinking, and increased confusion ( National Institute of Neur ological Disorders and Stroke, 2012). Physical disabilities interact with deafness (and other conditions) in complex ways. Physical disabilities c access to their environment. If a student has impaired movement, the ability to use a signed language clearly will be affected. The movement of the body is an integral part of ASL, used to express pro nouns and achieve perspective shift (Wilbur, 2003). For a Deaf student with a physical disability, the challenge of fluent movement in the trunk, shoulders, arms, and fingers can impact the ability to fluently express thoughts, feelings, and ideas. This ca n be extended to learning as well. The complex relationship between language and learning for Deaf students has been demonstrated. For Deaf students with physical disabilities, these issues persist. Finally, the severity of the physical disability may impe opportunity to interact with and access the environment. While the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 sets minimum requirements for access to facilities (Department of Justice, 2010), there are many legal exceptions that limit an indi environment. Deaf students with physical disabilities face many unique challenges. While a physical disability may appear along with other cognitive and social deficits, this is not always the case. It is critical to examine the imp act of these disabilities for all deaf students with motor involvement. Deafblindness Of all comorbid conditions, deafblindness is the best documented both in the research literature and in popular culture. Terms including deaf/blind, deaf blind,

PAGE 51

51 deafblin d, and dual sensory disabled are often utilized to emphasize the unique and complex attributes of this dual sensory loss as far more than d eafness plus blindness ( Knoors & Verv l oed, 2003). Federally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act defines deaf hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for children with d eafness or children with blindness (U. S. Department of Education, 2004) This combined sensory loss does not indicate that a person is necessarily both profoundly deaf and completely blind. Each sensory loss can occur across a range of severity. However, the term deafblind is used as an umbrella to include those with mild to severe dual sensory loss in order to emphasize their unique living circumstances (Van Dijk, Nelson, Postma, & Van Dijk, 2010). Some deafblind individuals may present with a severe sen sory loss in hearing or vision and a milder loss in the other sense. Despite its low incidence, there is great variability in the deafblind population. The National Child Count of Children and Youth who are Deaf Blind is a running registry of deafblind ch ildren and youth, representing a collaboration between The National Consortium on Deaf Blindness (NCDB) and every state and territory in the United States (NCDB, 2016). The 2015 count identified 9574 deafblind children and youth from birth through age 21. Of this total, 8470 had additional disabilities, representing 88% of the total deafblind population. Categories of additional disability included orthopedic physical impairments, cognitive impairments, behavioral disorders, complex heath care needs, speech language impairments, and other impairments.

PAGE 52

52 These trends are consistent with additional annual reporting (Killoran, 2007). In 2011 ) identified 1827 deaf youth as having low vision, legal blindne ss, or Usher syndrome. These numbers show great discrepancy. The National Child Count derives its information from a collaboration between the NCDB and each state or multi state deaf blind project (NCDB, 2016). The Annual Survey derives its information pri marily from school programs des igned to serve deaf and hard of hearing youth (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011). Given the complex nature of deafblindness and the high likelihood of concomitant disabilities, the Gallaudet Annual Survey may be underestima ting the number of deafblind children and youth in the United States. In any case, this disability is marked by both its low incidence and high likelihood of additional disabilities. Hearing and sight are known as distance senses. The auditory system can receive and process auditory input from a relative distance while the visual system does the same thing for visual input; there is no need to be physically close to the input. This differs from touch, taste, and balance, which are known as close senses, an d smell, which combines close and distance information. When both distance senses are impacted, a child faces challenges in communication, learning, mobility, and socialization. Deafblind individuals communicate in a variety of ways. These may include spok en language, signed language, tactile sign language, deafblind fingerspelling, haptics, and finger Braille, among others (Hersh, 2013). Each method has benefits and preferences, the communication partner, and other factors. Barriers to communication

PAGE 53

53 and misunderstandings are common for deafblind people. These may in turn lead to frustration, vulnerability, social isolation, and a reduction in functional independence (Hersh, 2013). In addition, deafblind children are at risk for developing limited anticipation skills, curiosity, exploratory play, self initiated communication, and emotional bonds, as well as increased learned helplessness and self stimulation (Knoors & Vervloed, 2003 ). No matter the mode of communication, a linguistic challenge for deafblind children is the development of symbolic representation. This refers to the understanding that objects have names (Van Dijk, Nelson, Postma, & Van Dijk, 2010). A well known exampl A T E R fingerspelled into her hand referred to something that is, water being expelled from a pump. Many deafblind children, even those without additional disabilities, struggle to develop symbolic rep resentation. Petroff (1999) found that 50% of a sample of 97 deafblind youth used nonsymbolic communication. This may be impacted by the age of onset and severity of the sensory losses. When both distance senses are compromised, only close senses can be us ed to manipulate and understand the world. The education of deafblind children has received considerable research. A well is still utilized today. This approach emphasiz es the development of attachment bonds between child and caregiver through child guided activities, direct physical contact and co movement, imitation, establishment of joint attention, and use of concrete objects of reference to build sequencing knowledge (Van Dijk, Nelson, Postma, & Van Dijk, 2010). Many educational programs for deafblind students also include various assistive

PAGE 54

54 technologies and orientation and mobility training to promote access to information and interaction with the environment (Hersh, 2013). The education of individuals who are deafblind is an issue that is far more complex than the sum of deaf education and blind education. While there has been considerable research on the compound impact of dual sensory impairment, this has not always translated to meaningful instructional approaches or curricula for the deafblind population. This section described the characteristics and prevalence of deafness and additional disabilities including intellectual disability, specific learning disorder, a utism spectrum disorder, physical disabilities, and deafblindness. The impact of comorbidity on communication, learning, and social emotional development was explored. The presence of additional special needs plays a major role in the various linguistic an d educational approaches utilized with deaf students. Educating Deaf Students Defining what constitutes an appropriate education for deaf students has sparked considerable debate over many decades. While an in depth description of this debate is beyond th e scope of this paper, it is critical to note that a major divide exists between those promoting placement in a mainstream setting with typically developing hearing peers and those promoting substantially separated placement with other signing Deaf peers. Both are deserving of consideration and every placement decision should be each deaf child. Trends in educational placement are described below, followed by an in dept h examination of best practices for those Deaf learners who are bilingual and utilizing ASL as a primary mode of communication and learning.

PAGE 55

55 Educational Settings for Deaf Students National influences such as Public Law 94 142 guarantee of a free, approp riate pub l ic education for all children (Lang, 2003) and the improvement of amplification technology such as the cochlear implant (Blamey, 2003) have impacted the educational settings for d eaf children. As shown in Table 2 1 (Gallaudet Research Institute 2011; Karchmer & Mitchell, 200 3 ; Schildroth, 1988), the demographics regarding student characteristics and school placement have changed over time. The percentage of deaf students being educated in regular education settings alongside their peers has rise n from 24.4% in 1986 to 31.7% in 2001 and 57.1% in 2010. Likewise, the percentage of students being educated in special school settings (e.g. state schools, residential schools, special schools) away from the general education classroom dropped from 54% in 1986 to 24.7% in 2001 and 24.3% in 2011. Upward trends can also be observed in the percentage of deaf students within each type of setting who have additional disabilities. In regular education settings, the percentage rose from 20.3% to 29.3% from 1986 t o 2001, and in special school settings the percentage rose from 29.9% to 47.7% in the same time frame. These data are impacted by changes in diagnostic criteria and assessment practices for various disabilities. These data indicate that while deaf children are overall more likely to be educated in the general education classroom today than they were two decades ago, those with additional disabilities are more likely to be educated in a special school setting.

PAGE 56

56 Best Practices for Deaf Bilingual Learners As described, Deaf bilinguals display both similarities to and differences from hearing bilinguals. Therefore, established best practices for this population will necessarily include approaches for hearing bilingual learners as well as those specific to Deaf bilinguals. Bailes (2001) provides several best practices for Deaf bilingual learners (BP DBL) through six principles for successfully ed ucation Deaf bilingual s as shown in Table 1 1 Below, a discussion of best practices for Deaf bilingual learners is f ramed by Principle 1: Provision of lan guage models in ASL and English Providing Deaf children with fluent language models in ASL and written and spoken English supports their language and literacy development (Bailes, 2001). Gen erally, language models should provide input that is comprehensible within meaningful exchanges (Baker, 2006). This means that language instruction should be Specific to De af bilinguals, ASL and English should be clearly separated according to the purpose of communication (Knight & Swanwick, 2002), such as the use of ASL for social exchanges with peers and the use of written English to compose a letter. Strategies such as sa ndwiching, chaining and fingerspelling should be used to associate ASL fingerspelling with words written in English (Padden & Ramsey, 1998) in order to promote literacy development. Principle 2: ASL as the first and natural language for Deaf childr en Rec ognizing ASL as a natural and accessible first language for Deaf children is a primary part of the bilingual language philosophy for Deaf learners (Bailes, 2001;

PAGE 57

57 Strong, 1995). A primary goal of bilingual education of the Deaf is to promote a positive sens e of self and identity (Pribanic, 2006) through the provision of ASL as an accessible uage learning for English as a s econd l anguage learners by supporting the first language and culture of the student. Principle 3: World knowledge as a prerequisi te for written English literacy Hearing students build world knowledge through their interactions in English at home and br ing this substantial knowledge to the task of literacy development (Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004). Many Deaf students do not have this advantage due to the communication mismatch at home (Hamers, 1998). With a dearth of world knowledge, Deaf s tudents are at a disadvantage when it comes to developing English literacy. World knowledge can be promoted by deploying meaningful and powerful instruction (Freeman & Freeman, 1998), such as reading and signing aloud, sharing news, and capitalizing on tea chable moments (Bailes, 2001). Principle 4: Promoting metalinguistic awareness a nd knowledge in ASL and English Metalinguistic awareness is the ability to think and discuss characteristics and structures of language (Bialystok, 1991). For Deaf bilinguals, metalinguistic awareness can be fostered by encouraging critical analysis of ASL and English (Knight & Swanwick, 2002). For example, students can use ASL to discuss and analyze challenging English grammatical structures. Traditional English literacy activ ities such as the writing process can be deployed in ASL by videotaping ASL productions (Horn Ma rsh & Horn Marsh, 2009) and using them for classroom discussion and learning.

PAGE 58

58 Principle 5: Valuing approxi mations in both ASL and English Deaf children, like hearing children, make language and literacy errors during natural stages in their development. For example, invented spellings of hearing children often rely heavily on graphophonic cues, such as writing skool for school. Errors made by Deaf children ofte n rely on positional graphemic rules and visual similarity, such as writing sahool for school (Padden, 1998). Pract itioners working with Deaf children must be aware of error patterns specific to this population. Principle 6: Involvement of parents in the l iteracy lives of deaf children Finally, Bailes (2001) emphasizes the role of parents in encouraging positive literacy outcomes for their Deaf children. Even if a parent is new to ASL, they can nguages in their environment (Hamers, 1998). One beneficial practice parents can establish is reading with their Deaf child on a regular basis. Schleper (199 7 ) provides fifteen principles for reading to Deaf children based on the behavior of Deaf p arents when reading to their Deaf children. For example, parents can adjust sign placement to fit the story and connect concepts in the story to the real world (Schleper, 1997 ). Parents can support the successful education of their Deaf child by being acti ve members of the literacy development process. Principles in practice The six principles described above provide an overview of BP DBL An overall theme of these principles is access to language across all settings. For many Deaf children, this may imply the ready accessibility of ASL, spoken English, and written English. A practitioner developing a digital media tool based on BP DBL would thereby include all modes. For example a still im age of a multimedia version of the popul ar

PAGE 59

59 Brown B ear Brown Bear, What Do You See ? (Martin & Carle, 1967) that includes the text, story illustration, ASL text interpretation, and spoken English narration is provided in Figure 2 3 This example follows BP DBL through the use of accessible language modes. However, it is critical to be mindful that Deaf children with additional special needs form a unique population with complex educational and linguistic needs. T his multimedia tool may not be appropriate for those learners Learning from Multim edia Digit al multi media is a daily part of 21 st century life. Children of all abilities are regularly exposed to a variety of multimedia for many different purposes, such as learning and entertainment. From an educational standpoint, it is critical to define multime dia and explore h ow it can be beneficial for Deaf learners. In addition, a robust discussion regarding current theories of multimedia learning will contribute to this Defin ing Multimedia Though it goes by many names, such as hypermedia and new media, multimedia can be defined in relatively straightforward terms. Mayer (2014b) defines multimedia as the presentation of words (e.g. spoken or printed text), and pictures (e.g. il lustrations photos, animation or video). It is this combination of elements that underlies multimedia. A picture with a written word, a video with voiceover narration, or an animation with a description are all examples of multimedia according to (2014b) definition. The value of multimedia is in its functional capability to enable particular methods of teaching and learning (Moreno, 2006), many of which are well suited to Deaf learners.

PAGE 60

60 The Potential of Multimedia for Deaf Learners There is great potential for Deaf learners to take advantage of the characteristics of multimedia to address their unique language and learning needs. As a visual spatial language with no written form, ASL presents a unique instructional problem. How can a t eacher provid e materials, independent work, or homework to a student in ASL ? This was not possible until the widespread accessibility of multimedia Without a written form, ASL materials could not be sent home for independent use by students, and most students did not have access to ASL fluent individuals in their home (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). With the technological advances of the last several decades, Deaf students have a vast number of opportunities for ASL enrichment. Tools like Face book, YouTube, Skype, Glide, video blogs, iMovie, mobile applications, and user friendly video production software provide Deaf students the opportunity to view and create authentic ASL materials. Additionally, teachers can use these tools to create assignments and homework in ASL tha t students can access inside and outside of school. Many empirical studies have examined the implementation of media based learning tools with deaf students. Multimedia based tools have shown a significant impact on deaf children's comprehension (Gentry, C hinn, & Moulton, 2004; Mich, Pianta, & Mana, 2013; Wang & Paul, 2011), time spent in reading activities (Golos & Moses, 2013; Mueller & Hurtig, 2010), vocabulary (Golos & Moses, 2013; Wang & Paul, the instructional environment, motivation, interest, and engagement (Wang & Paul, 2011). However, these em pirical studies often purposively exclude d Deaf children with additional special

PAGE 61

61 needs. Th is may be due to the challenge of including such an extremel y diverse population within the confines of an experimental or quasi experimental study. In order to address the question, How do the students in this population learn? it is important to explore the cognitive elements of multimedia learning within the ge neral population. A strong theoretical foundation can help researchers and practitioners determine h ow the cognitive structures of Deaf learners and those with additional special needs affect media based learning Cognitive Foundations of Learning through Multimedia The cognitive foundations of learning through multimedia relate to how the human brain takes in information, makes sense of that information, adds to existing knowledge and creates new knowledge. In the following sections, t hese cognitive foun dations are explored through the concepts of working memory, dual coding theory, cognitive load theory, and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Working m emory Working memory deals with how the cognitive system process es stimuli from the environme nt and transfer s that information into long term storage (Baddeley, 1986). This theory is highly supported empirically and proposes that working memory, where information is processed before moving to long term storage, has a limited capacity (Miller, 1956 ). The working memory can hold and process only a limited number of items at one time (Baddeley 1986). One key feature of the working memory model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) is its contribution to our understanding of cognitive architec ture. Th ese researchers propose that working memory had a primary processor called a central

PAGE 62

62 executive and two subsystems: a verbal system called the phonological loop and a visual system called the visuospatial sketchpad. The phonological loop is responsible for maintaining and rehearsing verbal information (Wiley, Sanchez & Jaeger, 2014). This element of working memory plays an important role in vocabulary and language development and learning to read (Baddeley, 1986). The visuospatial sketchpad is responsible for setting up, holding, and manipula ting visuospatial images (Wiley, Sanchez, & Jaeger, 2014). Researchers have examined a number of visuospatial skills controlled by this subsystem such as using mental imagery, mental image rotation, and scanning with th 1990). It is considered a multifaceted system that supports images gained through the perceptual system (i.e., vision) as well as the imagined images generated through mental manipulation (Baddeley, 1990). The phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad subsystems work together to process and hold incoming verbal and visual stimuli (e.g., pictures, words, or text). The primary processor called the central executive then integrates those elements. The central executive, a controll ing attentional system (Baddeley 1990), is involved in coordinating the performance of separate tasks and contributes to selective attention, retrieval from long term memory, and taking over when either subsystem is overloaded (Wiley, Sanchez & Jaeger, 20 14). One of the primary roles of the central executive is to integrate visual and verbal information into our existing cognitive structures such as established schema. More recent research (Baddeley, 2000; Henry, 2010) has contributed a new component of w orking memory: the episodic buffer. Similar to the other subsystems, the

PAGE 63

63 episodic buffer is controlled by the central executive and has a limited capacity (Baddeley, 2000; Henry 2010). However, it differs in that the primary role is integrating information from the different subsystems of working memory to create a unified memory, also known as an episode (Henry, 2010). This is achieved through binding information from the phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and relevant long term knowledge into a co herent whole (Henry, 2010). Therefore, the episodic buffer serves as an interface that uses a common multidimensional code. This addition has fundamentally changed the working memory model through its emphasis on coordination and the use of a multimodal co de (Baddeley, 2000). Working memory research in special populations has examined what happens when a learner, such as a deaf child, does not have or utilize a phonological loop. Working memory has been a very fruitful area of research in deaf education ove r the last several decades (Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002). Deaf learners use different encoding strategies than hearing learners F or example, a working memory model for the deaf may include subsystems for articulatory, visual, and sign encoding (Cha lifoux, 1991) as well as kinesthetic representations including fingerspelling, sign movement, and lip movement (Conrad, 1970). The challenges in developing an empirically testable working memory model for the deaf relate back to the diversity of the deaf c ommunity. The heterogeneity in communication modality, age of onset of deafness, access to spoken language, and other characteristics complicate the development of an experimental sample. It has been suggested that deaf learners can be divided into articul atory and nonarticulatory encoders (Conrad, 1970) though even advanced deaf articulatory encoders may need to supplement with other forms of encoding ( Conrad,

PAGE 64

64 1972). Other research ha s suggested that encoding in working memory for deaf individuals is impa cted by modality of the stimulus and early exposure to either spoken or signed language (Hamilton & Holzman, 1989). Research has shown that deaf learners' working memory is limited when compared with hearing learners. Bellugi, Klima, and Siple (1975) show ed that the working memory span for hearing participants was 5.9 items, while the span for deaf participants was 4.9 items. Rudner and Rnnberg (2008) reported the span as 5 1 items for signs and 7 2 items for speech encoded information. R esearchers ha ve theorized that because ASL takes longer to produce than spoken English, D eaf learners have less time for working memory rehearsal than hearing learners (Bellugi, Klima, & Siple, 1975; Rudner & R nnberg, 2008). These results have important implications. Deaf individuals do show working memory strengths such as free recall, visuospatial recall, imagery, dual encoding, phonological encoding, and rehearsal, but also many weaknesses such as sequential recall, processing speed, attention, and memory load (Ham ilton, 2011). Design of multimedia materials must consider the working memory capacity, functioning, strengths, and weaknesses of D eaf students. Dual coding theory Dual coding theory (DCT) examines how incoming information is coded in o ur cognitive systems DCT is closely related to the working memory model and was first proposed by Paivio in 1971. This theory proposes that we have two distinct coding channels: a verbal linguistic system and a nonverbal image processing system (Clark & Paivio, 1991). The ve rbal system contains visual, auditory, articulatory, and modality specific verbal codes and is generally processed sequentially for spoken languages.

PAGE 65

65 The nonverbal code includes images for shapes, environmental sounds, actions, and sensations related to em otions and nonlinguistic objects and can encode information simultaneously (Clark & Paivio, 1991; Paivio, 2007). Distinct similarities between DCT and the working memory model in the deployment of multi channel cognitive systems ar e apparent. DCT is parti cularly interesting considering its application to deaf learners. What happens if a learner does not have a channel through the ears or via spoken English? As a visual language, is ASL encoded in the linguistic verbal channel or the nonverbal visual channe l? These questions have not been theoretically addressed in the academic literature. Research has explored the impact of DCT on cognitive structures in hearing bilinguals. T he similarities between hearing and deaf bilingual learners warrant an examination of these studies. Pai vio & Desrochers (1980) propose that bilingual hearing learners have a verbal code for each language and a common visual code. For example, an English and French bilingual would have a n English verbal code, a French verbal code, and a common visual code. The activation of a code in the first verbal system supports the activation of the parallel code in the second verbal system, but the systems can function independently (Paivio & Desrochers, 1980). The bilingual DCT has been supported empirically on tasks of recall and translation (Paivio & Lambert, 1981) and vocabulary and comprehension (Plass Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 1998). Despite the promising evidence for DCT in the population of hearing bilingual learners, these results should n ot be generalized to D eaf bilinguals without further empirical inquiry The language modalities between these populations are

PAGE 66

66 fundamentally different and critically impacted by the coding processes indicated by DCT. Specific empirical investigations that e xtend DCT into the bilingual D eaf population are recommended. Cognitive load th eory As described, working memory has a limited capacity. What happens when a learner goes over that capacity? That question has driven the developmen t of cognitive load theory which examines how a limited working memory deals with complex input. This theory has extensive implications for teaching and learning. Cognitive load theory incorporates the limited capacity of the working memory model (Baddeley, 1986) and the two codes implied by DCT (Clark & Paivio, 1991; Paivio, 2007). Instructionally, cognitive load theory examines how designers can develop materials that take advantage of the dual codes in order to stay within working V an Merrinboe r & Ayres, 2005). This thereby reduces the resources that must be dedicated to cognitively process that material. Cognitive load theory posits three types of cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane (Paas Renkl, & Sweller, 2003 ; V an Merrinboer & Ayres, 2005). Intrinsic cognitive load is determined by the material that is being learned (Brnken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003; Paas Renkl, & Sweller, 2003 ). Element interactivity refers to the number of elements that require integration in order for the material to be understood and can range from low to high. The specific level of element interactivity of a given instructional material is dependent on the learner using that material (Paas Renkl, & Sweller, 2003 ; V an Merrinboer, Kirshner, & Kester, 2003 ). The level of element interactivity and therefore the intrinsic cognitive load that is demanded by instructional material is based

PAGE 67

67 V an Merrinboer & Ayres, 2005). Cognitive processes th at are not directly needed for learning lead to extraneous cognitive load (Paas Renkl, & Sweller, 2003 ; V an Merrinboer & Ayres, 2005). Instructional designers can use methods to reduce extraneous cognitive load by designing materials appropriately. Many empirical studies are concerned with methods that reduce extraneous cognitive load, thereby making cognitive resources available for other kinds of pro cessing (Mayer & Moreno, 2003; V an Merrinboer Kirshner, & Kester, 2003). Finally, germane cognitive lo ad is required by directly relevant learning tasks such as schema creation and automation (Paas Renkl, & Sweller, 2003 ; V an Merrinboer & Ayres, 2005). Germane cognitive load can be influenced by instructional designers and contributes positively to learn ing (Paas Renkl, & Sweller, 2003 ). When extraneous cognitive load is reduced, cognitive resources can be devoted to processing germane load, which enhances learning. When the sum of the intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive loads exceeds working me mory capacity, learning, or transfer to long term storage, is not possible. Empirical investigations into these cognitive processes, though challenging in their execution (Brnken Plass, & Leutner 2003; Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbe rs, & Van Gerven, 2003 ), are n umerous (Paas Renkl, & Sweller, 2003 ). A significant amount of research on how individual differences affect cognitive load has been performed when looking at second language learners. These studies can

PAGE 68

68 inform future empirical studies that focus more spe cifically on cognitive load theory in populations of learners who are deaf or deaf with additional special needs. Several types of individual differences have been shown to moderate second language learning outcomes in multimedia learning. The benefit of e lements such as animations (Schnotz & Rasch, 2005) and annotations (Wallen, Plass & Brnken, 2005) are regulated by visual and verbal learning preferences, and spatial and verbal ability (Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 1998) The cognitive resources of lo w ability learners impact their ability to process and build connections between elements embedded in multimedia resources and should thereby be an important consideration for designers. High verbal abilities increase second language vocabulary learning w hen using multimedia resources that use certain supports, such as single annotations, but not for other supports such as multiple annotations (Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 2003) These same researchers found that high spatial abilities had no impact. T herefore, while individual difference such as ability can moderate some types of multimedia learning, there are certainly instances when they are not relevant. Indeed, some types of mul timedia supports actually show stronger negative learning effects for h igh ability learners than for low ability learners (Atkinson & Renkl, 2007). Known as the expertise reversal effect, this principle applies when a multimedia support is used in conjunction with the prior knowledge of a high ability learner (Kalyuga, 2014). If a learner already understands a concept but still attends to a multimedia support, cognitive resources are spent unnecessarily on that support, which limits available cognitive resources for germane processing and learning.

PAGE 69

69 There are several lessons f rom these empirical studies that can be applied to the population of interest in this study As stated, individual differences can play a role in how multimedia materials should be designed based on the various cognitive loads that are demanded by the mate rials. However, individual differences do not always interact with materials in an obvious way, as illustrated by the expertise reversal effect. Therefore, designers need to consider not only the instructional material that is being developed, but also the cognitive processing demanded by that material for the intended population. Cognitive theory of multimedia l earning According to t he cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) cognitive processing is limited in capacity, active, and occurs through d ual channels (Mayer, 2014a). These assumptions are clearly related to the working memory model DCT, and cognitive load theory The relationship between these theories can be summarized by stating that CTML is highly concerned with how to design multimedia materials that exploit the dual coding channels to reduce cognitive load and thus increase working memory capacity to allow for effective processing and transfer to long term storage. CTML examines how multimedia the combination of verbal and visual infor mation is integrated during learning and seeks to design multimedia in response to the processes and architecture of human cognitive systems (Mayer, 2014a). Theoretical and empirical studies have led to a set of principles related to CTML. These principl es provide researchers with discrete parameters for functionally examining CTML. Some of these principles include multimedia, temporal and spatial contiguity, modality, verbal redundancy, coherence personalization, guidance, interactivit y, and reflection (Moreno, 2006 ).

PAGE 70

70 In populations with special needs many multimedia effects proposed by CTML are exacerbated. As described, deaf learners are functioning with working memory limitations (Bellugi, Klima & Siple, 1975; Rudner & Rnnberg, 2008). Designing mat erials with CTML in mind is critical to ensure that these learners have the cognitive resources to deal with the instructional input. Similar to working memory models and cognitive load theory empirical studies on CTML have highlighted the relevance of i ndividual differences. For example, if stimuli are separated by time or space, the split attention effect implies that attentional resources are divided (Ayres & Sweller, 2014). Despite support for this effect (Moreno & Mayer, 1999), there is also evidence that individual differences may moderate its presence or strength. Elements including spatial ability (Mayer & Sims, 1994), information coordination ability (Yee, Hunt, & Pellegrino, 1991), expertise (Yeung, Jin, & Sweller, 1998), and experience (Mayer & Gallini, 1990; Yeung, Jin, & Sweller, 1998) are relevant factors. These quantifiable individual differences moderate the application of this CTML principle. I n certain special populations such as E nglish as a second language (ESL) learners ce may parallel the general populati on. The split attention effect was illustrated by Yeung, Jin, and Sweller (1998) when the integration of stimuli enhanced comprehension for l ow ability ESL and English speaking younger learners while reducing comprehensi on for high ability ESL and older English speaking learners. However, considerably more empirical evidence is required in populations of deaf stu dents, bilingual Deaf students, and those who are D eaf with additional special needs.

PAGE 71

71 These cognitive foundati ons of multimedia learning are presented to provide a framework for understanding how people learn from multimedia. While there has been extensive research in this area, very little of that research has focused on deaf learners with even less on D eaf lear ners and almost nothing on Deaf learners with special needs. Turning scholarly research into actionable educational change takes a significant amount of time. Practitioners await meaningful investigations into the cognitive foundations of multimedia learn ing in deaf and D eaf with special needs populations. Meanwhile, a national eye has turned to finding ways to modify curriculum that provide s powerful educational opportu nities for all learners through universal design for learning. Universal Design for Le arning Universal design for l earning (UDL) is a framework that gives practitioners recommendations in providing learners with the opportunity to become expert learners. This section review s the evolution of UDL and its connection to neuroscience research. Then, the each of the nine UDL g uidelines is defined and supported with empirical evidence. Finally, a more specific examination of how UDL has been investigated within deaf populations is provided. Evolution of UDL UDL was born in the early 1980s out of an initial desire to help individuals with disabilities overcome barriers to learning, and later to eliminating thos e barriers altogether (Me yer, Rose, & Gordon 2014 ). This coincided with an increase in personal computing technology in homes and schools. The time was ripe for meaningful investigations into how to level the playing field in education through the creative use of technology and pedagogy. This prompted the founding of CAST the Center for Applied Special Technologies in 1984 in greater Bost on, Massachusetts. The initial

PAGE 72

72 2002). Over time the researchers at CAST reshaped and ref ined their ideas, which grew into the approach now known as UDL This term was based off of the concept of universal design in architecture, developed by Ron Mace and defined as products, buildings, and exterior spaces to be usable by all pe ople to the greatest extent ( Mace, Hardie, & Place, 1991 p. 1 ) and applied it to learning, adapting the name to become universal design for learning According to the refined perspective, barriers are created not by learners but by the curriculum. Technologies need not only be used to provide access to those with disabilities through retrofitting, but to transform the nat ure of the curriculum itself (Rose, Meyer, Strangman, & Rappolt, 2002). Currently, CAST continues to research, publish, and provide professional development in UDL based curriculum planning, software development, educational policy, teacher preparation and support, and education research ( CAST, 2015). UDL has been recognized on a national level by the National Science Foundation and U. S. Department of Education (Rose, 2012) and in the Every Student Succeeds Act signed by President Barack Obama in 2015 (U S. Department of Education, 2016). The current working definition of UDL is a framework to improve and optimize educational practice for all people that provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrat e knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged, and reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains

PAGE 73

73 high achievement expectations for all students ( Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014 ; U. S. Department of Education, 2008) Notably, this definition does not target specific students, such as those with disabilities or those who are second language learners. Rather, UDL proposes that barriers can be reduced to create a community of expert lear ners or those who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, and strategic and goal directed ( Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014 ). UDL and Neural Networks The UDL framework is based on neuroscience research that explores the role of the brain i n learning. This framework is less concerned with what learners know and more focused on what they do to become expert learners. Expert learners successfully utilize three neural networks in their learning: affective, recognition, and strategic. Successful teachers provide curricula that are designed to eliminate barriers to the use of these networks. Educational professionals can foster activation of these neural networks through the implementation of the UDL g uidelines (CAST, 2014), which are outlined aro und these neural networks and key expert learner characteristics. Expert learners who are purposeful and motivated are utilizing the affective network. This involves the development of skills such as self regulation, or set motivating goal s, to sustain effort toward meeting those goals, and to monitor the balance between internal resources and external demands, seeking help or adjusting 90). This can be promot ed by providing multiple means of engagement, including strategies for self regulation, collaboration with others, and individual choice.

PAGE 74

74 Expert learners who are resourceful and knowledge able are utilizing the recognition network. This involves taking in information from the environment, noticing patterns, comprehending that information, and integrating it with previously learned knowledge. This can be promoted by providing multiple means of representation, such as options for how information is presented, use o f multiple media, and activation of background knowledge. The recognition network can be strongly supported by the affordances of media based technologies. Finally, expert learners who are strategic and goal directed are utilizing the strategic netwo rk. These learners use executive function skills such as goal setting, application of strategies, and progress monitoring. This can be promoted by providing multiple means of action and expression, including options for multiple media, tools, and technolog ies. It should be noted that skills used by expert learners do not always fall exclusively into one network. Often, a skill may be utilized in more than one network. For example, a learner who is setting appropriate goals is using their affective network to engage in self regulation and using their strategic network to apply executive functions. Figure 2 4 portrays the relationship between key characteristics of expert learners, neural networks, and UDL principles. In the following section, the UDL guidel ines will be explored in depth, including empirical support for each principle. UDL Guidelines The UDL guidelines are provided in Figure 2 5 in visu al form. This visual, known as v ersion 3.0, is the current form published by CAST as they continue to resea rch and

PAGE 75

75 (novice and expert alike) consider the key sources and types of expected learner variability germane to a particular learning goal and to select or design flexible c urricula 110). The guidelines are organized in a purposeful and functional way to allow education professionals to implement them in everyday planning and practice. Moving left to right, each column represents one of the three principles of UDL: provide multiple means of engagement, provide multiple means of representation, and provide multiple means of action and expression. Each principle is then divided into three guidel ines. The lowest tier guidelines (recruiting interest, perception, physical action) are the most teacher centered and are primarily concerned with providing access to material through removing unnecessary barriers to learning. The middle tier guidelines (s ustaining effort and persistence; language, mathematical expressions, and symbols ; expression and communication) highlight specific strategies for building towards hig h level expertise and represent teacher and learner scaffolds. The highest tier guideline s (self regulation, compr ehension, executive functions) represent the learner centered skills of expert learners (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Provide m ultiple m eans of e ngagement Providing multiple means of engagement uses the affective network to creat e purposeful, motivated learners. This is important because motivation is essential to learning (Keller, 2010; Merrill, 2002 ). The engagement principle proposes three guidelines to support the goal of creating expert learners. Providing options for recruit ing interest. The guideline at the lowest tier of Figure 2 5 is focused on teacher centered actions that can increase acc ess to the

PAGE 76

76 material and remove barriers to learning. This is achieved by individual checkpoints that provid e options for recruiting int erest by optimizing individual choice and autonomy ; optimizing relevance, value, and authenticity ; and minimizing threats and distractions (CAST, 2014). Providing choice to students and recruiting interest has been shown to increase positive attitude towa rd writing and reading (Flowerday, Schraw, & Stevens, 2004) increase intrinsic interest in schoolwork and preference for challenging school activities (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988), increase self reported effort toward research (Schuh & Farrell, 2006), i ncrease positive attitude toward mathematics and problem solving skills (Shyu, 2000), reduce undesirable behavior in students with attention deficit /hyperactivity disorder (Bennett, Zentall, French, & Giorgetti Borucki, 2006), and reduce environmental stre ssors (Mechling, 2005). Teachers can support students in making choices and expanding interests in the classroom. Researchers have also provided specific procedures to support teaching choice making to students with severe disabilities (Shevin & Klein, 200 4) Providing options for sustaining effort and persistence. The middle tier of the e ngagement principle ( Figure 2 5 ) is the guideline of providing options for sustaining effort and persistence. This level represents teacher and learner scaffolds that bui ld towards expert learning This is achieved by individual checkpoints of heightening salience of goals and objectives, varying demands and resources to optimize challenge, fostering collaboration and community, and increasing mastery oriented feedback (CA ST, 2014).

PAGE 77

77 Providing options for sustaining effort has been shown to increase intrinsic interest in schoolwork and preference for challenging school activities (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988), increase self assessment and skill generalization for strugglin g writers (Schirmer & Bailey, 2000), increase comprehension of scientific concepts and vocabulary (Marino, Coyne, & Dunn, 2010), increase peer collaboration, and enhance idea development and individual expression (Riddle, 1995). Guthrie and Alao (1997) sug gest that teachers who want to increase long term motivation for reading design activities that utilize conceptual themes, real world interactions, self direction, interesting texts, social collaboration, self expression, cognitive strategy instruction, an d curricular coherence. Many beneficial impacts of learning collaboratively with peers have been observed, such as positive peer interactions, camaraderie, helpfulness, engagement, confidence, self esteem, (Reinking & Watkins, 2000), enhanced reasoning, pr oblem solving, and learning strategy use (Alfassi, 2000). Providing options for self regulation. The guideline at the highest tier of Figure 2 5 is focused on the learner centered skill of self regulation in expert learners. This is achieved by individual checkpoints of promoting expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation, facilitating personal coping skills and strategies, and developing self assessment and reflection (CAST, 2014). Providing options for self regulation has been shown to improve ada ptive behavior of individuals with developmental disabilities (Wehmeyer, Yeager, Bolding, Agran, & Hughes, 2003), motivate learning (Madden, 1997), increase use of self advocacy strategies (Lancaster, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002), increase successful use of help seeking behaviors (Aleven, Stahl, Schworm, Fischer, & Wallace, 2003), increase

PAGE 78

78 self initiative and perseverance in the face of setbacks (Zimmerman & Tsikalas, 2005), and increase appropriate behaviors in children with ASD (Banda, Matuszny, & Turkan, 2007). Researchers have also noted that skills in self determination can increase problem solving and study planning skills in students with ID (Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, & Agran, 2004) and support choice making, problem solving, decision making, independe nce, and exploration of recreational and leisure activities (Price, Wolensky, & Mulligan, 2002). Provide m ultiple m eans of r epresentation Providing multiple means of representation uses the recognition network to create resourceful, knowledgeable learner s. The representation principle proposes three guidelines to support the goal of creating expert learners. Providing options for perception. T he guideline at the lowest tier of Figure 2 5 is focused on teacher centered actions that can increase access to t he material and remove barriers to learning. This is achieved by individual checkpoints of offering ways of customizing the display of information and offering alternatives for auditory and visual information (CAST, 2014). This guideline is supported by ample empirical evidence. Providing options for perception can increase access to materials and eliminate barriers to learning for all learners by increasing word identification and reading fluency (Hughes & Wilkins, 2002 ), and moderating for learner exper ience (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2000) an d learner ability (Koroghlanian & Klein, 2004) Struggling readers have also benefited from the application of this principle by increasing content area knowledge and improving oral reading fluency and comprehen sion (Horney & Anderson Inman, 1999; Oakley, 2003), increasing reading comprehension skills, word identification, processing speed,

PAGE 79

79 memory recall, and learner reported success (Montali & Lewandowski, 1996), and accessing and using electronic scaffolds (Hor ney & Anderson Inman, 1999). In deaf learners, providing options for perception has led to increased use of descriptive adjectives in writing (Easterbrooks & Stoner, 2006). Increased enjoyment and interest has been shown for deaf readers (Gentry, Chinn, & Moulton, 2005), those with learning disabilities (Dolan, Hall, Banerjee, Chun, & Strangman, 2005), and those who are considered to be struggling (Oakley, 2003). Finally, options for perception can support learners with ASD by attracting and holding attent ion, reducing anxiety, making abstract concepts more concrete, and increasing expressive communication (Rao & Gagie, 2006). Providing options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols. The middle tier of the r epresentation principle ( Figure 2 5 ) is the guideline of providing options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols. This level represents teacher and learner scaffolds that can build towards expert learn ing This is achieved by individual checkpoints of cl arifying vocabulary and s ymbols; clarifying syntax and structure; supporting decoding of text, mat hematical notation, and symbols; promoting understanding across languages ; and illustrating through multiple media (CAST, 2014). Many empirical studies have examined the impact of pr oviding learners with options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols in the presentation of instructional materials. For typical learners, these options have been shown to moderate for learner ability (Hari Narayanan & Hegarty, 2002; Koroghlan ian, & Klein, 2004; Mayer & Sims, 1994), increase vocabulary learning (Nikolova, 2002), increase reading achievement in early elementary grades (Boone & Higgins, 1993), and increase

PAGE 80

80 mathematics achievement and positive attitude about cooperative learning ( Weiss, Kramarski, & Talis, 2006). For second language learners, these options have been shown to increase vocabulary learning (Al Seghayer, 2001; Dubois & Vial, 2000), increase retention of words and story comprehension (Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 199 8), increase access and use of embedded resources (Chun, 2001; Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007) and dynamic visual advance organizers that aid in overall comprehension (Chun & Plass, 1996), and moderate for learner differences (Chun, 2001; Plass, Chun, Ma yer, & Leutner, 1998; 2003). For struggling readers, these options have been shown to increase reading comprehension skills, word identification, processing speed, memory recall, and learner reported success (Montali & Lewandowski, 1996), increase content area knowledge, improve oral reading fluency and comprehension, increase access and use of electronic scaffolds (Horney & Anderson Inman, 1999), and increase reading rate, attention to reading, and sustained time in reading while reducing distractibility, stress and fatigue (Elkind, Cohen, & Murray, 1993; Hecker, Burns, Katz, Elkind, & Elkind, 2002). Finally, deaf readers have benefitted from the provision of language options by showing increased enjoyment and interest (Gentry, Chinn, & Moulton, 2005). Pr oviding options for comprehension. The guideline at the top tier of Figure 2 5 is focused on the learner centered skill of comprehension in expert learners. T his is achieved by individual checkpoints of activating or supplying background knowledge ; highlig hting patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships ; guiding information

PAGE 81

81 processing, visualization and manipulation ; and maximizing transfer and generalization (CAST, 2014). Empirical evidence shows that comprehension tools such as concept maps or visual navigation options increase positive attitude toward mathematics and problem solving (Shyu, 2000), improve navigation and essay production (Puntambekar, Stylianou, & Hubscher, 2003), and support problem solving skills, coordination of cognitive skills, and information processing (Liu & Bera, 2005) in typical learners. Options for comprehension allow for the moderation of text structure, access, and level of advisement based on prior knowledge (Shin, Schallert, & Savenye, 1994). In learners with d isabilities, these comprehension options improve i nformation retention (Higgins, Boone, & Lovitt, 1996) and reading com prehension of content material, as well as increase independence (Blankenship, Ayres, & Langone, 2005). Provide mu ltiple m eans of a ction and e xpression Providing multiple means of action and expression uses the strategic network to create strategic, goal directed learners. This principle proposes three guidelines to support the goal of creating expert learners. Providing options for physi cal action. As with the other principles, the guideline at the lowest tier of Figure 2 5 is focused on teacher centered actions that can increase access to material and remove barriers to learning. This is achieved by individual checkpoints of varying the methods for response and navigation and optimizing access to tools and assistive technologies (CAST, 2014). There is extensive empirical data to support the use of flexible response, navigation c, communication, vocational, and social emotional development. In the area of literacy,

PAGE 82

82 students have shown increased accuracy in reading scores (Anderson Inman, Knox Quinn, & Horney, 1996), vocabulary acquisition, mai ntenance, and generalization (Ky h l, A lper, & Sinclair, 1999) Students have shown improved word recognition ability ( Raskind & Higgins, 1999 ), attitude toward reading (Wise et al., 1989), and fluency ( Van Daal & v an der Leij, 1992). Reading comprehension has also been impacted by the use of a ssistive technologies ( Higgins & Raskind, 1995; 2000 ; Lange, McPhillips, Mulhern, & Wylie, 2006 ). Improvements have also been observed in writing (Goldberg, Russell, & Cook, 2003 ; Higgins & Raskind, 1995; Zhang, 2000) including spelling accuracy (Dalton, W inbury, & Morocco, 1990; Higgins & Raskind, 2000; MacArthur, 1998; Maki, V auras, & Vainio, 2002; Van Daal & v an der Leij, 1992), grammar usage (Zhang, Brooks, Frields, & Redelfs, 1995), error detection and revision ( Graham & MacArthur, 1988 ; Maki, Vauras, & Vainio, 2002 ; Raskind & Higgins, 1995 ), organization and structure (Hetzroni & Shrieber, 2004), and legibility (MacArthur, 1998). Provid ing options for physical action has also led to greater student satisfaction (Dalton, Winbury, & Morocco, 1990) conf idence (Graham & MacArthur, 1988) better attitude ( Maki, Vauras, & Vainio, 2002 ), participation in collaborative learning, engagement and motivation (Goldberg, Russell, & Cook, 2003). Students learned applied, generalized and mainta ined new study st rate gies (Anderson Inman, Knox Quinn, & Szymanski, 1999) improved retention abilities (Higgins, Boone, & Lovitt, 1996) and decreased reliance on prompts (Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002b). In mathematics, students demonstrated increased accurac y on multiplic ation performance (Irish, 2002).

PAGE 83

83 Impact on l anguage and communication ha s also been shown empirically when students are provided w ith options for physical action through the use of assistive technology tools. For example, students have displayed an i ncrea se in the number and quality of interac tions (Glaser, Rieth, & Kinzer, 1999) including initiations of requests (Dicarlo & Banajee, 2000) and conversation participation (Dattilo & Camarata, 1991). When given options for physical action, students working on transition and life skills increased initiation (Epstein, Willis, Conners, & Johnson, 2001) and independence in completing school tasks (Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2001; 2002a) and community travel (Lancioni & Bracalente, 1998). They also increased skills in community based literacy (Mechling & Gast, 2003) and mathematics (Ayres & Langone, 2002) as well as making informed choices regarding their own leisure time (Dattilo, Guerin, & Cory, 2001). Critically for this population, they acquired self advocacy k nowledge and skills (Lancast er, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002), enhanced their self determination (D avies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2001), and expressed satisfaction ( Dattilo, Guerin, & Cory, 2001 ; D avies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002a; Lancas ter, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002). Regarding attitude and behavior, students given options for physical act ion showed improvements in self efficacy (Ferretti, MacArthur, & Okolo, 2001 ; Okolo & Ferretti, 1996), persistence (Okolo, 1992), a ttitude toward cooperative learning, and moti vation to learn ( D avies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002b; Okolo & Ferretti, 1996; 1998). Increases in appropriate social behaviors (Hutinger, Johanson, & Stoneburner, 1996) and decreases in inappropriate social behaviors (Embregts, 2002 ; 2003 ) have also been obse rved.

PAGE 84

84 This evidence shows both that providing options for physical action is strongly supported empirically and that the implementation draws significant interest from researchers. As the lowest tier of the UDL guidelines, options for physical action are relatively eas y to manipula te in a learning environment and within an empirical study Certain assistive technologies, such as a speech to text or navigational assistance, can be systematically included or excluded in learning materials. Their educational benefit has been illustrated within the research literature. Providing options for expression and communication. The middle tier of the a ction and e xpression principle ( Figure 2 5 ) is the guideline of providing options for expression and communication. Th is level represents teacher and learner scaffolds that can build towards expert learners. This is achieved by individual checkpoints of using multiple media for communication, using multiple tools for construction and composition, and building fluencies wi th graduated levels of support for practice and performance (CAST, 2014). This is of particular relevance when considering the population of D eaf learners who use ASL. When provided with options for expression and communication, students engaged in reading tasks displayed improved reading vocabulary (Jones et al., 2004) and comprehension (Dalton, Pisha, Eagleton, Coyne, & Deysher, 2002 ; Ligas, 2002 ; Reinking, 1988 ; Solan, Shelley Tremblay, Ficarra, Silverman, & Larson, 2003 ; Vollands, Topping, & Evans, 1999 ) Struggling readers and spellers developed basic literacy skills (Fasting & Lyster, 2005) including word acquisition (Xin & Reith, 2001) text recall (Henao, 2002) and oral reading accuracy (Vollands, Topping, & Evans, 1999) In writing tasks, students displayed greater volume and linguistic complexity in writing

PAGE 85

85 (Vincent, 2001) as well as f ewer spelling mistakes, reading errors, and a higher overall quality of organization and structure (Hetzron i & Shrieber, 2004) Deaf learners also displayed an increa sed use of descriptive adjectives in writing (Easterbrooks & Stoner, 2006). The provision of options for expression and communication has also been shown to impact learning in mathematics and science. This include s the increased ability to communicate und erstanding of mathematics concepts (Wilson, 1999), an increase in science concept learning and knowledge (Leu et al., 2005; Liu, 2004), as well as the independent application of literacy strategies to science texts (Reinking & Rickman, 1990) When given op tions for expression and communication, s tudents displayed more desirable learning behaviors such as increased time on task (Dalton, Pisha, Eagleton, Coyne, & Deysher, 2002) attention (Solan, Shelley Tremblay, Ficarra, Silverman, & Larson, 2003) motivati on (Kramarski & Feldman, 2000) retention (Higgins, Boone, & Lovitt, 1996), and persistence (Morse, 2003) Providing options for executive functions. The guideline at the top tier of Figure 2 5 is focused on learner centered executive functions skills in expert learners. This is achieved by individual checkpoints of guiding appropriate goal setting, supporting planning and strategy development, and enhancing capacity for monitoring progress (CAST, 2014). Providing options for executive functions has been shown to support learners empirically. For example, strategy instruction positively impacted the acquisition and retention of skills in the essay writing process (Graham, MacArthur, Schwartz, & Page

PAGE 86

86 Voth, 1992) and led to lasting improvements in story comp leteness, length, and quality (Lane et al., 2008) Notably, t he provision of individualized supports for learners with SLD led to greater quantity and quality ( Englert, Manalo, & Zhao, 2004) and organization of writing (Englert, Wu, & Zhao, 2005) In other content areas, setting goal s in mathematics promoted computation skills, motivation and self efficacy (Schunk, 1985) while use of strategy instruction supported a d eeper understanding of conceptual relationships in science texts (Puntambekar & Goldstein, 2007). Taken together, these nine guidelines comprise a set of recommendations on how, according to UDL, to create expert learners. The next two sections explore related areas: the use of UDL with d eaf learners, and the similarities and differences betwee n UDL and differentiated instruction. UDL and Deaf Learners The application of the UDL g uidelines has led to a wide range of benefits to many types of students across educational, communicative, and social emotional domains. Empirical studies have also ex amined elements of the UDL guidelines with d eaf learners and outlined benefits to this population. It is noteworthy that the majority of these studies have reported benefits in the development of resourceful, knowledgeable learners by providing multiple me ans of representation. These studies primarily looked at curricular modifications that involved providing options for perception, and more specifically, offering alternatives for auditory information (Dalton, Schleper, Kennedy, Lutz, & Strangman, 2005; Eas terbrooks, 1999 ; Easterbrooks & Stoner, 2006 ; Gentry, Chinn, & Moulton, 2005 ; Jensema, Danturthi, & Burch, 2000 ; Jensema & El Sharkawy, 2000; Marschark, 2006 ; Nugent, 1983 ; Scherer, 2005 ; Thorn & Thorn, 1996; Vesel,

PAGE 87

87 2005 ; Zazove et al., 2004) These studie s investigat ed how offering options for auditory resourceful and knowledgeable. Several other s tudies looked at the representation principle by examining the provision of options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols. For example, Friedmann and Szterman ( 2006) and Yoshinaga Itano and Downey (1996) examined how clarifying syntax and structure impacts deaf lea rners. Mayer and Akamatsu (2003) examined how und erstanding can be promoted across languages, and Gentry, Chinn, and Moulton (2005) looked at how information can be illustrated through multiple media. As stated, the UDL guidelines are not exclusive: there can be crossover between th e categories. For exa mple, the r epresentation checkpoint of illustrating through multiple media shares many features with the action and e xpression checkpoint of using multiple media for communication. However, it is also clear from this review of the literature that the major ity of empirical investigations within deaf population s have strongly focused on the r epresentation principle. Even with the impact of category crossover, there is a lack of data on the impleme ntation of the engagement, and action and e xpression principles of UDL. Critically, these investigations into the use of UDL with deaf learners have generally excluded those with additional disabilities. This creates gaps in knowledge regarding the use of all principles of UDL particularly for deaf students with spec ial needs. UDL and Differentiated Instruction As described, UDL is a framework for reducing barriers within curricul um in order to create expert learners. A related concept that has also received a great deal of scholarly and popular attention is differen tiated instruction (DI). UDL and DI are not

PAGE 88

88 mutually exclusive: there are many similarities between these constructs and the outcomes they seek for students of all abilities. However, there are fundamental differences between UDL and DI as well that are wo rthy of examination in this review. First, the foundation of DI is described below. The DI model proposes that the needs of students should inform the varied and adaptable approaches used in instruction. DI is a compilation of many theories and practices (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2011) and is an innovative way of thinking about teaching and learning rather than a single instructional strategy (Subban, 2006). At its core, DI emphasizes students (Stanford & Reeves, 2009) through varied response to readiness, interest, and learning profile (Tomlinson, 2001). This varied response, or differentiation, can occur at the content, process, or product levels. Content differentiation relates to input, and occurs when teachers vary what is taught and how stu dents access that information. Process differentiation involves giving students varied opportunities for sense making activities that allow them to attain more complex understandings of ideas and information. Finally, product differentiation relates to out put, and allows students a range of ways to show what they know, in other words, to represent their knowledge (Tomlinson, 2001). This differentiation is not performed with the goal of providing completely individualized instruction. Rather, DI advises teac hers to make proactive, student centered responses to the varied needs of their learners. There are many similarities between the DI and UDL constructs. Both seek to challenge the full range of students in the classroom (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2011), s ee the value of social and collaborative learning (Subban, 2006), and recognize the

PAGE 89

89 diversity of unique (according to DI) or variable (according to UDL) learners (CAST, 2013). Both emphasize the importance of setting clear goals, performing ongoing assessm ent (CAST, 2013), providing continuous and consistent teacher professional development, and eliciting whole school support structures and cooperative teamwork (Subban, 2006). DI and UDL are both concerned with providing instruction that meets the needs of diverse learners. However, how each goes about accomplishing that is different. The primary difference between DI and U DL is related to timing. Figure 2 6 and Figure 2 7 show the relationship between curriculum and instructional approaches across three uni que students under both the DI and UDL umbrellas. As shown in Figure 2 6 DI begins with a single curriculum brought to three unique students. A teacher then performs the complex task of differentiating instruction by content, process, and product. This re sults in three distinct instructional approaches for the students, each framed by the curriculum. In contrast, UDL begins with the students in mind as shown in Figure 2 7 throu gh the provision of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. Similar to DI, this also results in three distinct instructional approaches for the students, each framed by the curriculum. Figure 2 6 and Figure 2 7 aim to clari fy that while DI emphasizes responding to individual needs, UDL emphasizes the proactive design of the curriculum (CAST, 2013). In UDL, the curriculum is developed with student variability in mind, while in DI, the curriculum is differentiated based on stu

PAGE 90

90 provision of instruction that meets the needs of diverse learners. However, the path to reaching that goal differs between DI and UDL. This section of the literature review has addressed the critical question, How do the students in this population learn? This has involved examining th e education of deaf students including settings and best practices, how individuals learn from multimedia, and how barriers to learning can be reduced or eliminated through UDL. A critical gap has been identified in empirical evidence of the foundations of multimedia learning in populations of learners who are D eaf and D eaf with additional special needs. Another gap has been illustr ated in the a pplication of the engagement, and a ction and e xpression principles of the UDL framework. This study seeks to examine these gaps by providing structured professional development in UDL to teachers at a school for bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Therefore, it is important to explore professional development as a construct and define how it can help address the question, How do practitioners learn in a professional context? Professional Development Professional development (PD) is an important elem ent through which educational professionals work to improve practice and increase positive student outcomes. In many cases, PD is established and encouraged by school administrators and targeted to teachers and other personnel. Across many settings, PD pla ys a critical role in influencing a variety of outcomes. In this review, PD is the vehicle through which the question, How do practitioners learn in a professional context? is addressed. The importance of PD is illustrated by the fact that the continuing development improving

PAGE 91

91 student achievement (Desimone, Smith, Hayes, & Frisvold, 2005 ), ensuring th e effectiveness of policies for teachers and teaching practice (Desi mone, Smith, & Frisvold, 2007) and educational reform (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Given these loft y goals, substantial resources including federal monies are devo ted to PD every year (Desimone, 2009). Despite the acknowledged role of PD and the financial support it receives PD must be designed to meet the needs of teachers staff and students in order to be successful Therefore, it is important to present a de finition of PD as well as illustrate those critical features that make PD successful. In addition, PD models relevant to this study will be reviewed, including professional learning communities (PLCs) and the professional teaching and learning cycle (PTLC) Defining Professional Development As with several other constructs reviewed in this study, a concise and mutually agreed upon definition of PD does not exist. Teacher learning can occur formally or informally, discretely or continuously, and embedded in or separated from educational contexts (Desimone, 2009). Many teachers may in fact derive great benefit and learning from activities outside of formal PD, such as mentoring relationships. However, it is both important and possible to build a picture of PD by examining critical shared features identified throughout the literature. prepare paid staff members for improved performance in present or future roles in the school dis This may involve a traditional PD opportunit y such as a workshop. A workshop is a structured and scheduled approach to providing PD that typically occurs outside of the classroom and is moderated by a leader with specialized

PAGE 92

92 expertise (Ga ret, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon would also include informal activities such as teacher communities that foster growth and development (Desimone, 20 through self exam ination can be a powerful teacher learning experience (Putnam & Borko, 2000). While a single concise definition of PD is difficult to determine, the literature has highlighted features that contribute to a working understanding of what successful PD is an d how that definition shapes the way it is investigated. Critical Features of Professional Development While PD can be defined and structured in a variety of ways, a significant amount of research has focused on determining what features are shared acro ss successful teacher learning opportunities. Five critical features identified in this review include content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective partnership. Content focus T h e array of possible topics that can be considered PD is vast. There is evidence however, that changing teacher practice is most successful when PD is focused on subject matter content and how children learn ( Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001) and think (Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2 009) This dual focus has positive effects on student achievement outcomes such as conceptual understanding ( Kennedy, 1998) and has been shown to increa se teacher knowledge and skills and improve teacher practice (Desimone, 2009). Teachers also report a de sire to engage with content hungry for Wei, Darling Hammond, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos ( 2009) noted that the most

PAGE 93

93 useful forms of PD focus on concrete activities such as teaching, observation, and inform their instructional 209) These reported benefits of content focused PD were developed through the examination of a variety of sources including case study data, correlational analyses, quasi experimental studies, l ongitudinal studies, meta analyses, and experimental designs (Desimone, 2009). Active learning Effective PD involves active learning, which means being actively involved in meaningful discussion, planning, and practice ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). Some examples of active learning activities for teachers include observation, both of and by expert teachers in the classroom (Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ), interactive feedback and discussion (Desimone, 2009) and exploring curriculum and teaching materials for inclusion in classroom practice ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). Another example of an active learning activity for teachers is examining student work. By engaging in this activity, t eachers can learn to design lessons at an in turn inform teachers understa n reasoning and cognitive strategies ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). Coherence

PAGE 94

94 content and form must be contextualized in order to be effective. Authen ticity is emphasized as an important element for learners (Freeman & Freeman, 1998), and this are an authentic learning environment and provide a powerful context for t heir learning performance expectations will be more effective ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). Examples of coherent PD include keeping records of classroom pract ice, envir onment, teachers are more likely to make authentic and sustained changes ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). Duration While there is n o single unit of time that is considered appropriate, the literature suggests that PD must be sustained over time in order to be effective ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). While quantifications of this concept differ from context to context, some researchers (Desimone, 2009) suggest that PD activities include a minimum of 20 contact hours. This in cludes the span of time (e.g. over the course of a full school year) and length of time (e.g. several uninterrupted hours). depth discussion of content, student conceptions and misconceptions, and pedagogical st Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001, pp. 921 922). This in turn leads to greater intellectual and pedagogical change (Desimone, 2009 ).

PAGE 95

95 Collective p artnership s A final critical feature of effective PD is the inclusion of collective partnerships. Collective partnerships are established through PD participation by individuals from the same school, grade, or department (Desimone, 2009). B y participating in collective partnerships, teachers can engage in discussion, improve their understandings, and increase their capacity to grow (Ball, 1996). Discussions within collective partnerships can be important contributors to teacher success. When facing a challenging issue, whether it be related to curricul um choices, classroom management, or instructional strategies, collective partnerships allow teachers to encourage one another and share possible solutions ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yo on, 2001 ). In addition, PD intended for collective partnerships has a number of advantages for designers. Participants may share materials, resources, requirements, and experiences ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ) that are unique to their ed ucational context. Some teachers may even share the same students. Collective partnerships are one way to promote sustained changes in practice ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ) and powerful teacher learning (Desimone, 2009). Collective partn erships may also impact changes on an organizational level by contributing to school reform (Borko, 2004). Professional Learning Communities One model that incorporates the critical features of effective PD is the professional learning community (PLC). A PLC is a n environment for educators that fosters mutual cooperation, emotional support, and personal growth as they work together to achieve what they cannot accomplish alone (DuFour & Eaker, 1998) Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas ( 2006) define a PLC

PAGE 96

96 sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented, growth ek and share learning, and act on their learning (p. 1) Beyond teacher sharing, Seashore, Anderson and Riedel (2003) wide culture that makes collaboration expected, inclusive, genuine, ongoing, and focused on crit ically examining practice to While these definitions vary, they share the view that PLCs are a powerful way to enact authentic and meaningful change. The ultimate purpose of a PLC is to provide benefits to students (Hord, 1997; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006) One particular component of a PLC is deserving of an in depth investigation: community. This review has provided background on the critical features of effective professional learning in PD but PLCs place this in the context of a community. This is relevant given the specific affordances of learning within a community. Learning in a community is different than learning individually. Communities emphasize the development of mutually supportive relatio nships, shared norms and values (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006) and shared professional culture ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). This is a parallel to of a communit y : shared beliefs interaction and participation, interdependence, concern for individual and minority views, and meaningful relationships. Establishing teacher communities that encourage collaboration to reinvent practice and share professional growth (Little, 1999) can be difficult and time consuming

PAGE 97

97 (Borko, 2004). However, Whitcomb, Borko, and Liston (2009 ) note that teachers in such push them to deepen understanding and attempt new pr actices that will reach more community. These include the development of a group identity and norms for interaction, the formulation of a sense of communal responsibility for the regulation of norms and behavior, and the willingness of community members to assume Woolworth, 2001) Benefits of PLC s Given their alignment with the critical features o f effective PD, PLCs are an idea l model for increasing the success of teacher learning. The benefits of a well established and run PLC include teacher learning, instructional improvement, (Andrews & Lewis, 2007 ; Desimone, 2009), self inquiry a nd reflection (Whitcomb, Borko & Liston, 2009), student achievement gains, and redu ction in feelings of isolation (Hord & Sommers, 2008 ; Louis & Marks, 1998 ). Organizational gains are noted as well. Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas ( 2006 ) identified the poten tial of PLCs to develop educational reform and promote student learning. Other benefits of PLCs identified in the literature include increased classroom motivation, work satisfaction, and collective responsibility for student learning (Stoll, Bolam, McMa hon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006). The benefits of effective PLCs are well illustrated in the literature.

PAGE 98

98 Characteristics of PLCs In the same way that critical features of effective PD have been illuminated by the literature, successful PLCs also display a set of common characteristics. DuFour and Eaker (1998) identified six characteristics of the PLC model: s ha red mission, vision, and values; collective inquiry; collaborative teams; action orientation and experimentation; continuous improvement; and results orientation. As described below, o ther researchers have corroborated many of these features and proposed several others. 2006 ) use the phrase d the primary elements of this characteristic include a consistent focus on student and to guiding principles that articulate what the people in the school believe and what they seek to Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas ( 2006 (p. 12). While slight differences exist, the primary elements of this char acteristic are an endless desire f or improving practice through shared dialogue and the search for new ideas and methods. This may take the form of reflective dialogue, observation and analysis of practice, joint planning an d curriculum development, and mu tual problem solving (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006

PAGE 99

99 team members to develop new skills and capabilities, which in turn lead to new DuFour and Eaker (1 998) identify collaborative teams as an important characteristic of PLCs. Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas ( 2006 ) describe (p. 12) also relates back to collab oration in teams. The role and benefit of collaboration community, and community building has already been described in this review. DuFour using the PLC model is ma de up of collaborative teams. These are often referred to as collaborative learning teams. Collaborative learning in teams has many reported benefits including increased teacher confidence, enthusiasm, commitment, willingness to try new things and enhanc ed student motivation and performance ( Cordingle y, Bell, Rundell, & Evans, 2003). Supporting e ffective collaboration on a team may involve providing participants the freedom and flexibility to identify their own focus, support from peers rather than superv isors, and resources for professional growth (Cordingley Bell, Rundell, & Evans, 2003) Establishing respect and trust between collaborative learning team members, administrators, and other key stakeholders is an essential part of effective collaboration within a PLC (Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2009). Another characteristic of PLCs identified by DuFour and Eaker (1998) is an action orientation and experimentation. This involves a willingness to take action and try new strategies and methods. In a strong P LC, a teacher action that does not produce intended results is not considered a failure. Rather, it is a critical part of the learning

PAGE 100

100 ( 2006 ) idea of collective responsi bility, in which commitment is sustained by accountability to peers. An action orientation demands participation and collective responsibility to authentic change. DuFour and Eaker (1998) identify continuous improvement as a key characteristic of an effective PLC. These authors highlight a consistent dedication to the use of innovation and experimentation as opportunities for improvement. While the term Bolam et a From this perspective, a PLC is never done; there is always the opportunity to identify an area for improvement. The fi nal characteristic identified by DuFour and Eaker (1998) is a results orientation This relates back to the first characteristic of a shared mission and vision such that individuals in a PLC work collaboratively to achieve results consistent with the visio n they share. A results orientation also implies that there must be assessment of the activities within a PLC. (1998) six key components. For example, Hord and Sommers (2008) note the importance of supportive conditions. Many of these relate to the need to provide the time, space, and resources for PLCs to occur. Members must feel a sense of mutual trust, respect, and support (Bolam et al., 2005; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Th omas, 2006 )

PAGE 101

101 In addition, Hord and Sommers (2008) identify shared and supportive leadership as a key characteristic of PLCs. This method of leadership, rather than a supervisory approach, is critical and therefore deserving of more in depth examination. L eadership Establishing an effective PLC relies on more than staff participation within a specific structure Successful leadership is an integral component of a PLC. Particularly when moving to a PLC model for the first time, significant individual and or ganizational change is required. This type of change depends on establishing a supportive culture of reform (Knapp, 1997). An effective leader can promote this by establishing trust, respect for every individual, and open and critical communication (Borko, 2004) between administration, teachers, staff, and stakeholders (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006 ). Leadership in a PLC is exemplified by four critical roles defined by Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas ( 2006 ): creating a learning c ulture, ensuring learning at all levels, providing enquiry minded leadership, and maintaining the human side of leadership. These authors note that these roles are influential in ensuring individual and organizational readiness for change, fostering and su staining effective learning, facilitating growth, promoting reflective enquiry and evaluation, and using emotional intelligence effectively. McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) state that p rincipals set conditions for teacher community by the ways in which they manage school resources, relate to teachers and students, support or inhibit social interaction and leadership in the faculty, respond to the broader policy context, and bring resources into the school. (p. 98) As illustrated, leadership within a PLC is a critical way to ensure that effective PD practices can be established that lead to authentic change and pedagogical development.

PAGE 102

102 Professional Teaching and Learning Cycle In a PLC, teachers and staff work collaboratively to examine practice and achieve st ated goals. One approach to accomplishing this is through the professional teaching and learning cycle (PTLC). The PTLC developed by the Southwest Educational Development Library (SEDL), sharing, and the process improves alignment of curriculum, instruction, and step job embedded cycle, the PTLC provides structure to a collaborative learning team that reflects the ideal characteristics of a PLC, including collective inquir y, action orientation and experimentation, and continuous improvement (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Tobia (2007) notes that the PTLC was developed to give teachers an opportunity to collaborate on standards based instructional methods. For example, teachers str uggling to teach a specific mathematical skill outlined in a learning standard would move through the PTLC to gain a better understanding of the standard and how it could be addressed. While collaboration on standards based instructional methods is outside the scope of this study, the PTLC still provides a structure that can benefit individuals participating in PD within the context of a PLC. The six steps of the PTLC are S tudy, S elect, P lan, I mplement, A nalyze, and A djust (SEDL, 20 08). D uring the S tudy sta ge, individuals work in collaborative teams to critically examine and discuss learning expectations and practice. At the S elect s tage, collaborative teams perform research, determine learning goals, select instructional strategies, and locate resources for enhancing learning. During the P lan stage, teams develop lessons incorporating the selected strategies and resources. During the I mplement stage, lessons and self reflection are carried out. At the A nalyze stage,

PAGE 103

1 03 collaborative teams reconvene to determine the success of the selected strategies and materials in meeting the learning goals. Finally, during the A djust stage, collaborative teams reflect on the overall process and determine alternative strategies or modifications to the lesson that are more like ly to promote student learning. The use of a cycle allows for frequent, repeated analysis and revision. As described, leadership is a critical component to an effective PLC model. This extends to the facilitation of the PTLC model as well. A facilitator ca n s upport the PTLC by communicating clear expectations, building the capacity of those who need support, and monitoring and reviewing the implementation and impact (SEDL, 2008). Engaging in these leadership tasks aligns with several of the critical leaders hip roles defined by Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas ( 2006 ), including creating a learning culture, ensuring learning at all levels, and providing enquiry minded leadership. This section of the literature review explored the question, How do p ractitioners learn in a professional context? This has involved the examination of elements of teacher learning such as the definition and critical features of PD, PLCs, the PTLC, and the role s of community and leadership. Conceptual Framework The concept ual framework guiding this study was developed to show the relationship between the problem of practice, foundational research, and research questions. It brings together the concepts reviewed here, such as the exploration of the questions, Who are the stu dents in this population? How do the students in this population learn? and How do practitioners learn in a professional context? I reframe d that information into a conceptual framework that guide d the study moving forward.

PAGE 104

104 Figure 2 8 displays the conceptu al framework in a visual form. The overarching problem of practice is described in the orange horizontal bar while the research questions are posed in the purple bar. As show by the green bar, teachers will move from left to right through one iteration of the PTLC by participating in PD activities shown in the red bar. An in depth description of how this conceptual framework informs methodology is described in Chapter 3. Table 2 1. Educational settings for deaf students Percentage of deaf students 1986 (S childroth, 1988) 2001 (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003) 2010 (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011) I n regular education settings 24.4 31.7 57.1 I n special school settings 54 24.7 24.3 W ith additional disabilities in regular education settings 20.3 29.3 n/a W ith additional disabilities in special school settings 29.9 47.7 n/a

PAGE 105

105 Figure 2 1. Visual organization of literature review

PAGE 106

106 Figure 2 2. Comparing Deaf and hearing bilinguals ( Baker, 2006; Bialystok, 1991; Grosjean, 1998, 2008; Grosjean & Li, 2013; Hamers, 1998; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Ste v enson, 2004; Padden, 1998) Figure 2 3 Still image of m ultimedia version of Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? (Martin & Carle, 1967) with ASL, written English, spoken Englis h, and illustration

PAGE 107

107 Expert Learners Purposeful and Motivated Learners Resourceful and Knowledgeable Learners Strategic and Goal Directed Learners Are eager for new learning and are motivated by the mastery of learning itself Are goal directed in their learning Know how to set challenging learning goals for themselves Know how to sustain the effort and resilience that reaching those goals will require Monitor and regulate emotional reactions that would be impediments or distractions to their successful learning Bring considerable prior knowledge to new learning Activate that prior knowledge to identify, organize, prioritize, and assimilate new information Recognize the tools and resources that would help them find, structure and remember new information Know how to transform new information into meaningful and useable knowledge Formulate plans for learning Devise effective strategies and tactics to optimize learning Organize resources and tools to facilitate learning Monitor their progress Recognize their own strengths and weaknesses as learners Abandon plans and strategies that are ineffective Neural Networks Affective Recognition Strategic The why of learning The what of learning The how of learning Monitor the internal and external environment to set priorities, to motivate, and to engage learning and behavior Sense and perceive information in the environment and transform it into usable knowledge Plan, organize, and initiate purposeful actions in the environment UDL Principles Provide Multiple M eans of Engagement Provide Multiple Means of Representation Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression Stimulate interest and motivation for learning Present information and content in different ways Differentiate the ways that students can express what they know Figure 2 4. Key concepts in UDL including characteristics of expert learners, neural networ ks, and UDL principles (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014)

PAGE 108

108 Figure 2 5 UDL g uidelines (CAST, 2014)

PAGE 109

109 Figure 2 6 Key relationships in differentiated inst ruction across three unique students Figure 2 7 Key r elations hip s in UDL across three unique students

PAGE 110

110 Figure 2 8 Conceptual framework illustrating relationship between problem of practice, research questions, and foundational theoretical research (CAST, 2014; SEDL, 2008)

PAGE 111

111 C HAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The goal of this chapter is to describe the methodological approaches that guide d this single instrument al case study. This includes the purpose and context of the study, research questions, research design, professional development, data collection and instrumentation, data analysis strategies, rigor, researcher bias, and limitations. Purpose Statement The purpose of this study was to determine how teachers used universal design for learning (UDL) to develo p digital media materials for Deaf students who had special needs and how features of professional development (PD) supported or hindered teacher learning. Research Questions This study ask ed three related questions. The primary question ask ed : How does PD in UDL influence the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs? In order to address the primary questi on, two sub questions were posed The first sub question focuse d on the application of UDL to the digital media design process within this populati on. Sub question on e asked : 1. How do teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education pro gram? The second sub question focuse d o n the features of PD and teacher learning. Sub question two asked: 2. What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC?

PAGE 112

112 The goal of asking these questions was to determi ne how UDL can be used to develop digital media materials for Deaf students who have special needs and how teachers felt the features of PD supported or hindered teacher learning during the PTLC. Context This section explore s the context in which this stud y took place, including the student and faculty populations at the educational setting. This study t ook place at The Communication School (all identifying information was changed to protect confidentiality). The Communication School ha d two school program s: the School for Deaf Children (SDC) and the School for Communication (SFC). Both of these programs sought to provide communication rich instructional and therapeutic programming to children with developmental and communication challenges. However, studen ts at SDC who were generally identified with a hearing loss, require d programming specific to Deaf ch ildren, while students at SFC did not. While teachers from both the SDC and SFC programs attended the PD program data was only collected from teachers w ho worked in the SDC program. SDC serve d students from birth to age 22 with multiple disabilities. At the time of implementation, o ver 90% of SDC students were identified with hearing loss along with one or more additional disabilities, such as deafness an d cerebral palsy, deafness and autism spectrum disorder or deafness and developmental delay. SDC abode by the bilingual language and learning philosophy for Deaf children, such that American Sign Language (ASL) and English were available and accessible to students thr oughout the school environment. However, given the complex range of educational profiles educational programming w as necessarily modified to meet the needs of the students at SDC.

PAGE 113

113 Students were placed at SDC if t heir educational team determi ned that the school distr ict in which the student resided d id not have an appropriate placement for that child within the district. Students therefore were geographically in addition to educationally, linguistically, and medically diverse. SDC provide d a w ide range of related services for students including speech and language, occupational, and physical therapy, behavior analysis, ASL/English interpreting, vision, counseling, nursing, and adaptive curriculum. All students participate d in weekly adaptive ph ysical education, music, and art classes. The needs of the students were such that all require d year round educational and therapeutic services. SDC was therefore open year round with several weeks off at the beginning and end of each summer as well as mi d year vacations that align ed with area public schools. At the time of implementation there were 10 classroom s at SDC. As shown in Table 3 1, this included three preschool level four elementary level and four upper level classrooms. Classrooms ranged i n size from three to five students Students were grouped into classrooms based on their educational, language, developmental, and therapeutic needs in addition to their age and grade. Each SDC preschool classroom included not only SDC students, but also o ne to two same age typically developing peers who serve d as language and learning models. Along with the students and teacher, each classroom had at least one paraprofessional. SDC strove to have at least one native ASL signer in each classroom, meaning ei ther a Deaf person who grew up with ASL as a first language or a hearing individual who learned ASL from their Deaf parents. In cases whe re a native signer wa s administration work ed to ensure that language models include d hearing individuals who

PAGE 114

114 had achieved high fluency in ASL as a second language. These classroom demographics are provided to give the reader a basic sense of the classroom populations at SDC. Research Design The purpose of this study was to determine how t eachers used UDL to develop digital media materials for Deaf students who had special needs and how features of PD supported or hindered teacher learning. In order to address t his purpose, this study utilized the qualitative research paradigm, which has a rich and robust history in educational research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2010; Creswell, 2013). This project aligned with many key characteristics of qualitative research including the use of a natural setting, the researcher as a key instrument, multiple source and a holistic account (Creswell, 2014) as described below SDC was a natural setting where both the researcher and teacher participants learn ed collaborate d and taug ht on a daily basis. This allow ed for face to face interaction within this nat ural setting. Related to this is the concept of the researcher as an instrument in the study. A key characteristic of qualitative approaches is that the researcher collects data herself, often through the use of instruments designed specifically for the case study. I n this project, I, as the researcher wa s employed at SDC and was a key instrument through the development of study instruments, design and implementation of PD, and c ollection and analysis of data. As described, the use of multiple sources of data is another key characteristic of a qualitative approach. In this study, research journal document, survey, interview, artifact, and rubric were utilized. A qualitative resea rcher also engages in inductive data analysis (e.g. identifying patterns,

PAGE 115

115 categories, and themes) and deductive data analysis (e.g. data checking). Both of these data analysis methods were utilized in this study, as described later in this chapter. Anothe r key characteristic of qualitative designs is the focus on finding in the literature (Cres well, 2014). This study involved teacher participant s across all stages of the PTLC and utilized the PLC as a collaborative and active form of PD. This support ed meanings. Reflexivity is a key characteristic that involves the researcher defining and exploring her role in the setting and stu dy. This may involve an exploration of how is exemplified through an exploration of my role and po tential biases in this chapter and through their influence on the results and implications in the following chapters. Finally, a qualitative researcher presents a holistic account of the issue of study, in this case, the exploration of the influence of PD in UDL on the digita l media design process of teachers working with bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Creswell reporting multiple perspectives, identifying the many factors involved in a situation, and generally sk etching the larger picture that emerges d a group of teacher participants, allowing for multiple perspectives to be reported. In addition, the project provide s rich details regarding the implementation of an d teac and the characteristics of the digital media designs produced during the study.

PAGE 116

116 As des cribed, this project exemplified many of the key characteristics of qualitative research in general. More specifically, this study utilize d a p articular approach to q ualitative research: the single instrumental case study. Each element of this design is described below. An instrumental case stud y provides insight into an issue, phenomenon, or situation, or helps to refine a theory (Baxter & Jack, 2008). This is accomplished when describ ing the case within specific parameters, such as time, place, activity, definiti on, and context (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Creswell, 2013). In this case, th e single bounded case sel ected as the unit of analysis was the group of SDC teachers participating in the PD. The use of a single bounded case design is appropriate under a variety of circumstances including a critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal case (Yin, 2014). In this study, the rationa le for the single case design was nested in the critical case composed of teacher participants at SDC. A single critical case can represent a significant contribution to knowledge and theory building by confirming, review, UDL has been examined in traditional Deaf populations. However, the majori ty of these studies examined the provision of multiple means of representation to develop resourceful, knowledgeable learners There is a lack of data on the implementation of UDL guidelines with bilingual Deaf students with special needs, as well as those from the engagement, and action and expression principles of UDL. This implies that the

PAGE 117

117 critical case of te acher participants, as curriculum designers, may confirm, challenge, or extend the theory (Yin, 2014), which justifie d this study in its use of a si ngle case. This section provided a rationale for the use of a qualitative single instrumental ca se study. This research design was appropriate given the purpose of the study and my role as the researcher. Professional Teaching and Learning Cycle The PTLC (SEDL, 2008) guide d the design of the PD activities in this stu dy. Teacher participants engage d in the six PTLC stages: S tudy, S elect, P lan, I mplement, A nalyze, and A djust. In this section, the reader is provided with a brief description of each stage La ter in this chapter, details are provided regarding the design of PD activities and materials as well as the data sources and instrumentation utilized during each stage Overview of the PTLC Stages Before engaging in the PTLC, I provided teachers with an overview of the purpose and timeline of the study (Appendix A). This also provide d a forum to seek written, informed consent from participants (Appendix B). Teachers ha d the opportunity to participate in the PD activities without consenting. This support e d the ethical provision of the intervention even if teachers did not select to be involved in the data collection and analysis phase s of the study. Teachers from SDC and SFC were involved in the PD However, only consenting SDC teachers were included in da ta collection. Following this introduction, the teacher participants moved through the PTLC. The S tudy stage introduc ed UDL through a collaborative, small group training. The S elect stage involve d the identification of learning goals and UDL guidelines of focus in lesson and digital media materials. During the P lan stage, the

PAGE 118

118 participa nts design ed create d and reflect ed on th e design of their lesson and digital media materials. During the I mplement stage, the lessons and digital medi a designs were utilized with SDC students and teacher participants engage d in a reflection about student response During the A nalyze stage, the small group reconvene d to examine the role of UDL in their design process. Finally, during the A djust st age, p articipants examine d the role of the PTLC in their understanding and use of UDL in the design process. These six stages Study, Select, Plan, Implement, Analyze, and Adjust represent one iteration of the PTLC. Data Collection The data collected during the PTLC involve d a variety of sources and instruments illustrative of the case study approach, including research journal, document, survey, interview, artifact and rubric These sources were chosen based on the affordances of each to provide particular i nformation related to the research questions. Later in this section, a description of the activities and materials for each PTLC stage is followed by a rationale for each data source and description of the development of each instrument used at that stage. Though d ata was collected at each stage of the PTLC the data sources var ied across the stages. The conceptual framework for this study was modified to incorporate these methodological approaches. Th e modified visual expands on the problem of practice, r esearch questions, PTLC, and PD activities provided in C hapter 2. In addition to these elements, the expanded framework includes PD materials, data sources, and instrumentation ( Figure 3 1 ). The vertical alignment within the visual shows how different data sources and instrumentation were utilized at different stages to address the research question s

PAGE 119

119 To maintain organization across data types, a filing system was utilized. A numbered folder was set up for each teacher participant contain ing all training m aterials and instruments that were needed during the PD. This allowed for organized data collection during and following the PTLC and supported data analysis. Delivery of the Professional Development The delivery of the PD occur red in a collaborative, sma ll group manner. This approach was selected to align with several of the critical feature s of successful PD reviewed in C hapter 2 For example, PD is more successful when it is content focused, promotes active learning, coherent, and includes collective pa rtnerships (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Freeman & Freeman, 1998; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2009) The PD described in this section exemplifie d these features. It was focused on subject matter content (UDL) t hat examine d how students learn and think. Active participant engagement was elicited during the training activities described below. The PD wa s coherent in that it was contextualized to the everyday experiences of Fi nally, teacher participants engage d in collective partnerships through PD activities such as discussion, collaborati on on digital media designs and provi sion of authentic feedback to peers. An exploration of how the PD exemplified these critical features of PD is explored in later chapters. All PD trainings in this study occur red during established training sessions within The majority of these were during daily meetings that occurred for 45 minutes before students arrive d in the morning. One session occurred on a dedicated PD day, implying that teachers and staff were present but students were not. This provide d an extended and more flexible block of time.

PAGE 120

120 The initial goal wa s to move through the PTLC over a two month period by meeting fo r PD trainings once weekly in addition to the PD day. However, following the overview, timeline and consent session, some changes occurred in T he administration team requested that the training proceed on a daily basis over the course of a pproximately one week. This allowed for the completion of the Study, Select, and Plan stages. This was followed by a break while the teachers engaged in the I mplement stage before reconvening for the A nalyze and A djust stage s The PTLC was therefore comple ted within the span of four weeks This was followed by individual interviews with teacher participants. PTLC Study Stage During the S tudy stage of the PTLC, participants engage d in a structured training (Appendix C) that provided foundational information about UDL and actionable recommendations regarding UDL implementation This section provides information regarding the activities and materials of the PD as well as the data sources and instrumentation collected during the Study stage. Activities and mate rials h e Study stage of the PTLC occurred over two days. The first was a 45 minute morning meeting time. The second was during a PD day during which teachers met for a longer block of time. Th e content of the Study stage training was delivered to teacher participants via a PowerPoint presentation developed through two primary sources: the research literature and the Center for Applied Special Technology ( CAST ) UDL was developed at CAST to red uce barriers in order to create a community of expert learners, or those who are purposeful, motivated, resourceful, knowledgeable,

PAGE 121

121 strategic and goal directed ( Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014 ). Empirical evidence supporting the implementation of UDL, reviewe d in the previous chapter provided the foundation for the exploration of UDL at SDC. In order to learn more about UDL, I attended a multiday UDL in stitute at CAST. Many resources including information, visuals, and examples, were gathered at the UDL inst itute and incorporated into the training. Feedback on all training materials was also provided through peer review by CAST employees, as described later in this chapter. Th e content areas explored in the Study stage materials include the history and defin ition of UDL, core concepts of UDL, neural networks and UDL, and UDL guidelines. The design of each of these areas within the training is described below. History and definition of UDL. The first section of the training provide d an overview of the develop ment of U DL. This included a brief history of CAST, the current federal initiatives incorporating UDL, the relationship between universal design and UDL, and the differences between equality, equity, differentiated instruction, and UDL Core concepts of U DL. The second section of the training introduce d the three core concepts of UDL: goals, variability, and context ( Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014 ). Instruction designed according to principles of UDL should have clear goals with embedded and flexible means. T his implies that teachers and learners know what the learning goal is and what the various options are to reach that goal. The core concept of variability proposes that the idea of an average learner is a myth and educators need to expect variability and d esign with options. This core concept is supported empirically by neuroscience research ( Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014 ). The final core concept of UDL is that context, or environment, matters. Educators should focus on changing the

PAGE 122

122 environment by reducing ba rriers to meet the needs of a student, rather than focusing on changing the student to meet the structure of the environment. These three core concepts of UDL goals, variability, and context were critical to the introduction to UDL through the Study st age materials Neural networks and UDL. The next section in the PD wa s an overview of how UDL incorporates the role of the brain in l earning. Three neural networks affective, recognition, and strategic were reviewed. Engaging the affective network cre ates purposeful and motivated learners by stimulating interest in learning. Utilization of the recognition network creates resourceful and knowledgeable learners by presenting content in different ways. Finally, engaging the strategic network creates strat egic and goal directed learners by differentiating the ways that students can express what they know (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). One goal of UDL based instruction is to engage all the neural networks to create expert learners through the provision of mu ltiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. Reviewing these neural networks provide d the teacher participants a bridge to the problem solving framework of the UDL guidelines. UDL guidelines. A significant amount of the training a t the Study stage focuse d on the UDL guidelines. The guideli nes and related terminology, such as principles, goals, guidelines, and checkpoints, were introduced, along with the structure of the guidelines. For example, the checkpoints at the lowest tier of the visual ( Figure 2 5 ) represent the access level and are highly teacher guided. The checkpoints at the middle tier are scaffolded and guided by both the teacher and learner. The checkpoints a t the highest tier display expert learning and are guided by t he learner ( Meyer, Rose, &

PAGE 123

123 Gordon, 2014 ). The terminology and structure of the UDL guidelines were given ample review in the Study stage training to e nsure that all participants had an opportunity to develop a common understanding of these concepts in orde r to engage in successful collaborative discussions later in the PTLC. Next, teacher participants w ere given an in depth look at each principle: engagement, representation, and action and expression. Each principle was introduced by a reflective question a nd response with specific examples. T he engagement principle explored the relationship between emotions and learning. The representation principle examine d what multiple representations look like. Finally, the action and expression principle explore d how e ffective visuals support students in becoming strategic learners. After the introduction to the principles, each of the nine guidelines and related checkpoints were introduced by providing specific examples of how these can be exemplified in practice. The content of th e Study stage materials sought to provide teacher participants with a foundational understanding of UDL concepts and concrete examples of implementation. Given the nature of this study, a solid understanding of these guidelines wa s critical. Data sources and i nstrumentation The Study stage of the PTLC involved a single data source the research journal in which I record ed reflections, thoughts, and emerging ideas. A robust journal can make significant contributions to the research process such as articulating procedures, establishing goals, pursing ideas, structuring thoughts, describing progress, addressing anxiety, dealing with negative feedback, and exploring a variety of formats for writing (Borg, 2001). A research journal can also cont ribute to the research product

PAGE 124

124 by providing a forum for evaluating progress, motivating the researcher, and document ing reflections should include a robust discussion of potential biases and challenges (Creswell, 2013) that emerge during the study. This wa s critical given my dual role as the researcher and a Curriculum Coordinator in the setting. The research journal utilized in this study was recorded digitally. Entries were written dir ectly after study procedures, such as PD trainings or interview s to allow me to record the maxim um amount of detail. Each entry was guided topically by the Research Journal Guide (Ap pendix D ). This document included the following prompts: date, descriptio other. These scaffolds were not intended to limit my reflections Rather, they focus ed each e ntr y on the research questions and research processes. PTLC Select and Plan Stage s The next two stages of the PTLC, Select and P lan, were completed in conjunction with one another. First, t his involved identifying learning goals and UDL checkpoints includ ing those that were already established in the learning environment and those being targeted by the teacher in a lesson plan incorporating digital media Then, teachers designed and created those materials and digital media. This section provides informati on regarding the activities and materials of the PD as well as the data sources and instrumentation collected dur ing the Select and Plan stage s Activities and m aterials The Select and Plan stages took place over two morning training periods. The material s were developed and delivered in a similar manner to that described in the

PAGE 125

125 S tudy stage. However, rather than focusing primarily on providing foundational information, the Select and Plan stages emphasized collaboration between teacher s through small group discussion and reflection. These stages were guided by a set of training visuals (Appendix E). These visuals provided a brief review of the sched ule and UDL guidelines. Then, teachers were introduced to the UDL Lesson Planner (Appendix F ) This document utilized by all teachers included basic lesson information such as the title of the lesson, subject area, unit plan and gr ade(s) of the students. Teachers were then guided to identify t he learning goals of the lesson, the activities that would address t hese goals and any barriers to learning that they sought to reduce or eliminate Next, teacher participants noted those UDL checkpoints that were already established in the learning environment and those that were targeted in the lesson They were also pr ompted to explain the reasoning behind those choices. The training visuals used d uring the Select and Plan stages provided t eacher s with a completed UDL Lesson Planner as an example. Following this, they completed the UDL Lesson Planner collaboratively or individually based on their preference as a learner Throughout all stages I was available to the teachers to answer questions, clarify any misconceptions, and provide support. Once their lesson and materials were planned, teachers brought their design s to life. They were encouraged to use a digital media component that supported the learning goals identified in the UDL Lesson Planner, such as a presentation, e book, video, or other medium. These artifacts were collected digitally to support analysis at a later stage in the PTLC.

PAGE 126

126 Data sources and instrumentation The Select and Plan stages involved two data sources: the research journal and a document. The format for the research journal was identical to that used in the S tudy stage including the use of the Research Journal Guide instrument. The document created by teacher participants at the Select and Plan stages was the UDL Lesson Planner. As described, this document provided teacher s with a common template to develop their ideas and explore the impl ementation of UDL. The document sought information in line with the core concepts of UDL, such as clear learning goals and the context of learning (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). This was illustrated through prompts in the UDL Lesson Planner for learning go als, barriers to learning, and establishe d and targeted UDL checkpoints. In this way, teachers concentrate d on successfully integrating a small number of UDL guidelines into their designs rather than becoming overwhelmed. Teachers were also prompted to pro vide a rationale for their choices. PTLC Implement Stage This section provides information regarding the activities and materials as well as the data sources and instrumentation collected during th e I mplement stage. Activities and m aterials The I mplement s tage was the only stage in the PTLC that did not involve group meetings. Rather, teachers took this time to teach their UDL based lessons and implement their UDL based digital media materials. This occurred in their regular classrooms over a period o f two and a half weeks. Teachers had the flexibility to implement their lesson at any time during this span of time and to incorporate repetition as needed.

PAGE 127

127 the UDL based lessons and materials through use of a survey. At the end of the S elect and P lan stages, teachers were provided with instru ction on how to complete the Student Use Survey (Appendix G ) motivation, knowledge, indepe ndence and educational success. The development of this instrument is described below. Data sources and instrumentation The I mplement stage involved two data sources: the research journal and a survey. The format for the research journal was identical to that used in previous stages, including the use of the Research Journal Guide instrument. During this stage, two and a half weeks were provided during which teacher s taught their UDL based lessons, used their UDL based digital media designs, and reflected on those designs. At SDC, students were often provided with multiple opportunities to engage with instructional materials. This implie d that teacher s may have utilize d the single digital media design they created during the P lan stage on several occasions Teachers were asked to complete the Student Use Survey immediately after implementation with students, necessitating its brevity. The Student Use Survey focuse d on student response to the UDL based lesson and digital media materials The survey provided teachers an opportunity to gauge student motivation, knowledge, independence, and educational success. These constructs were selected to align with the goals for each UDL principle. The goal of the engagement principle is to create purposeful, motivated l earners, while the representation principle strives to create resourceful, knowledgeable learners. Finally, the goal of the action and expression

PAGE 128

128 principle is to create strategic, goal directed learners. Together, these UDL guidelines aim to create expert learners (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Therefore, the Student Use Survey examine d three constructs that relate to the three principles: motivation, knowledge, and independence. Additionally, the survey examine d educational success as a reflection of the c reation of expert learners. The selection of these constructs for inclusion in the Student Use Survey was supported by the lit erature upon which this study was built. After rating the presen ce of these constructs, teachers were prompted to describe the obs ervations that led to these conclusion s Teachers were also given the opportunity to note their overall view on the digital media material as well as ways they would make changes. In this way, the Student Use Survey align ed with the purpose of questionnair es, which should collect information on attitudes, perceptions, or facts (Harlacher, 2016). Given the population of students at SDC, obtaining reliable measures of success of a given digital media product directly from the students themselves would be cha llenging. With such a wid e range of abilities, success would be measured in vastly different ways. One stu dent may be expected to write a five sentence paragraph while another is focused on object tracking or identification. Therefore, success of the digi tal media designs was determined by the use of the Student Use Survey. The use of a survey allow ed for the collection of information on observations, attitudes and perceptions across all teacher participants. The design of the survey (2016) five step process for questionnaire development. Open ended questions were included because they are highly flexible and allow ed teacher s to

PAGE 129

129 use their own words (Harlacher, 2016). Open ended responses were included in the analysis through coding, a s described later in this chapter. PTLC Analyze and Adjust Stages The final two stages of the PTLC, A nalyze and A djust were also completed in conjunction. This involved reconvening after implementation to reflect and examine the role of UDL in the design process through small and whole group discussion. Teachers also examine d how the features of PD supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC. This section provides information regarding the activities and materials as well as the data sources and instrumentation collected during th e A nalyze and A djust stage s Activities and m aterials The A nalyze and A djust stages took place during one morning PD session. This meeting was heavily collaborative and participant guided. A PowerPoint (Appendix H ) was u tilized as a visual to guide the session. This meeting began with a brief review of the UDL guidelines in order to address any questions or confusion that emerged during the I mplement stage. Then, I provided some information about the submitted UDL Lesson Planner documents, such as an overview of the topics selected. I also presented a compiled visual highlighting the UDL checkpoints that were identified as already established in the environment and compared it to a visual highlighting those checkpoints th at were targeted in the UDL based lessons. Quotes from the UDL Lesson Planner were also shared that illustrated the ba rriers to learning that teachers were trying to reduce or eliminate, as well as the reasons why specific UDL checkpoints were targeted.

PAGE 130

130 F ollowing this, the teacher participants br oke into small groups to participate in two reflection s The first set of questions was provided to prompt discuss ion regarding how the teacher experiences in the PD influen c ed their design process, implementatio n, and future use of UDL The second set of questions was provided to prompt discussion regarding how the teacher experiences in the PD influenced their knowledge, design process, collaboration, teaching practice and overall view of the PTLC Between th e two reflections, the whole group reconvened and each small group was provided the opportunity to share any meaningful discussion with the group as a whole. The constructs included during these reflections were selected with purpose. re review revealed that PD is noted as effectiveness of teaching practice ( Desimone, Smith, & Frisvold, 2007). Similarly, changing teacher practice is most successful when PD is focused on subject matter content (i.e. knowledge ), and how children learn (Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001) and think (Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2009), reflected in the design process. Collaborati on was included because effective PD involves active learning, which means being actively involved in meaningful discussion, planning, and practice (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001, p. 925) in order to improve understanding and increase the c apacity to grow (Ball, 1996) relating to implementation and future use As illustrated, the concepts included during the A nalyze and A djust stages were selected based on relevant information reflected in the current literature.

PAGE 131

131 Data sources and instrumen tation The A nalyze and A djust stage s involved a single data source : the research journal. The format for the research journal was identical to that used in previous stages, including the use of the Research Journal Guide instrument. Post PTLC When all six stages of the PTLC were completed, I engaged in several activities relevant to this study. This involved the analysis of documents and artifacts developed during the study and individual interviews with teacher participants. This section provides informa tion regarding the activities and materials as well as the data sources and instrumentation collected during the post PTLC stage. Activities and m aterials The post PTLC stage involved my analysis of the UDL Lesson Planner s and digital media artifacts This was accomplished through the use of the Document Rubric (Appendix I ). This rubric gave me the opportunity to examine each set of UDL based lessons and materials for the presence and strength of the UDL checkpoints established and targeted by the teacher p articipants. It also allowed me to make note of any observable checkpoints that were not reflected in the UDL Lesson Planner. The development of the Document Rubric is described in the following section I ndividual interviews with teachers were scheduled at mutually convenient times during the week following the conclusion of the PTLC. This allowed teachers to have completed an entire cycle before reflection. With permission interviews that occurred in spoken English were audio recorded All recordings we re then transcribed into written English. S ections of the audio that were unclear were brought back to teachers to ensure accuracy in the transcriptions. The single interview that occurred in ASL was

PAGE 132

132 video recorded with permission and transcribed into writ ten English. Sections of the video that were unclear were brought back to the teacher to ensure accuracy in the transcriptions. Additionally, s ections of t h e transcription for the interview that occurred in ASL were checked for translation quality by a lic ensed ASL interpreter employed at SDC. All i nterviews occurred in quiet, private spaces with in the school and were guided by a set of questions on an interview guide. The development of the Interview Guide (Appendix J ) is described in the next section Tea cher d emographic information was collected during interview and confirmed using a survey. The five question survey (Appendix K) gathered information includ ing changed for confidentiality ), age, total years teaching, years teaching at SD C, Massachusetts teaching license, and background with UDL. The name, age, and years teaching questions were open response. The response options for Massachusetts teaching license, for which teachers could select all applicable responses, included I am not a licensed educator, I have a license in Deaf/hard of hearing, I have a license in special education, and other with a write in option The response options for background with UDL, for which teachers could select one response, included I had no backgr ou nd with UDL. I had never heard of UDL before I had heard the term "UDL" or "universal design for learning," but I didn't really know what it was. I h ad a little experience with UDL. I had a lot of experience with UDL I was already an expert with UDL.

PAGE 133

133 T e acher demographic information in response to this survey and discussed during int erview is presented in the next chapter Data s ources and instrumentation Data sources collected after the comp letion of the PTLC included a research journal, rubric, and int erview. The format for the research journal was identical to that used in previous stages, including the use of the Research Journal Guide instrument. During the PTLC, teacher participants designed a UDL based lesson that included a digital media artifact such as a PowerPoint, video, or e book. The UDL Lesson Planner guided teacher participants in identifying components including goals, barriers, and established and targeted UDL checkpoints. During the post PTLC phase, I utilized the Document Rubric (Appe ndix I) to analyze the presence and strength of UDL checkpoints in each document and artifact The use of a rubric wa s a consistent method of assessment across each document and artifact in the study (Rochford & Borchert, 2011). The first page of the Docu ment Rubric contain ed basic information about the document, such as the participant code, title of the lesson, subject area, and targeted UDL checkpoints. These were transferred directly from the UDL Lesson Planner. The first page of the rubric also introd uce d the levels of performance 0 through 3. The level of performance wa s rated on a scale of four to push me into a positively or negatively leaning response, rather than allowing for neutral resp onses. In addition, each level wa s defined based on absolut e performance, rather than being defined relativ e to other levels. This involved avoiding comparative and evaluative language (Rochford & Borchert, 2011). These levels of performance were expanded through narrative description that could be accessed during use.

PAGE 134

134 The second page of the Document Rubric provided space for my analysis. Each UDL checkpoint was listed and noted as identified as already established by the teacher, targeted by the teacher, or observed by the researcher. This allowed me to explore t hose checkpoints that the teachers noted as already established or targeted as well as those that I observed in their designs that may not have been noted on the UDL Lesson Planner. For each UDL checkpoint t he level of performance was noted and I provided comments Both the UDL Lesson Planner and any related digital media artifact s were analyzed to complete the Document Rubric. Another data source employed during the post PTLC phase was interview. p understanding of their perspectives and the meaning taken from an experience (Patton, 2002). I sought to engage in i ndividual interviews with all teacher participants. Of the ten consenting SDC teacher participants, seven attended at least five of the PD sessions and were therefore sought for interview. Three teacher participants missed two or more PD sessions and were therefore excluded from the interview s. I had an opportunity to develop a foundation in UDL st rong enough to successfully design, implement, and reflect on the process. Therefore, seven individual interviews were completed. Individual i nterviews support ed the examination of the UDL based design process as well as specific design decisions, such as why teachers targeted certain UDL checkpoints During all interviews, teachers were provided with a copy of their UDL Lesson Planner as well as visual that reflected their use of the UDL guidelines stated in their UDL Lesson Planner. This visual highlight ed those checkpoints identified as

PAGE 135

135 already established in yellow and highlighted targeted checkpoints in pink. Interview also provide d an opportunity to more deeply explore student responses to the digital media designs. Finally, teacher participants wer e asked to reflect on the features of PD including the PT L C as a structure for PD These interviews follow ed the general interview guide approach by establishing the issues that would b e explored before the interview occur red These issues were outlined i n the Interview Guide (Appendix J) These questions were intended to be guiding rather than limiting; the interview still maintain ed a conversational style and follow ed spontaneous topics. However, a guided interview has the advantage of using time wisely while still being comprehensive and systematic (Patton, 2002). The questions in the Interview Guide represent ed six types of ques tions outlined by Patton (2002): experience/behavior, opinion/value, feeling, knowledge, sensory, and background. Patton (2002) recommends researchers consider the time dimension of questions such that all six types of questions are considered for inclusio n referencing the past, present and future. This creates a question matrix that allows researchers to ensure that a variety of questions are being asked. The development of the Interview Guide used in this study utilized the question matrix approach. Rathe r than focus on the time dimensions of past, present and future, I realigned these to the study constructs of design process, implementation, and future use In this way, the questions target ed the issues and timing critical to this study.

PAGE 136

136 As described, a range of activities and materials were implemented across the stages of the PTLC. Data sources and instrumentation also varied, including a research journal, document, survey, artifact, rubric and interview. These activities, materials, and data sources were selected and instruments designed based on the research literature in order to provide teacher participants with multiple opportunities to share their experiences, perspectives, and thoughts. This contribute d to the rigor of the study, which is exami ned later in this chapter. Data Analysis d specific techniques that continually reference d the theoretical fo undation upon which the study was based. To reorient the reader, this study involved the provision o f structured, collaborative PD on the use of UDL in a particular context and with a specific population. The theories born of these concepts guided the development of the research questions, review of the literature, and research design. In addition, the i nstruments were designed to collect specific types of data that would inform the research questions built on the foundation of these relevant contextual conditions to be d (Yin, 2014, p. 136). Creswell (2013) represents data analysis as a spiral, such that the researcher analysis techniques ma y be revisited and utilized on multiple occasions as information is revealed in the analysis. The major data analysis technique that was used throughout this study wa s coding. Saldaa symbolically assig ns a summative, salient, essence capturing, and/or evocative attribute

PAGE 137

137 for a portion of language were created, reconstructed, and reconfigured in search of patterns, categories, and themes. The use of meticulous coding a llow ed for the qualitative interpretation of the data through the identification of patterns and relationship between catego ries (Creswell, 2013). Coding was a critical element of this case study. Charmaz (2014) states the bones of y Organization and management of data was prioritized throughout the study. Any hard copy documents, rubrics, or surveys from the data collection phase were digitized fo r analysis. Digital f iles were maintained on a password protected cloud based system. The q ualitative analysis software NVivo was u tilized to support data organization and analysis at all stages in the study as described below The initial step in the data analysis spiral was first cycle coding. During this process, I utilized several first cycle coding methods including attribute, descriptive, and in vivo coding. Saldaa (2016) recommends these basic coding methods as a generic approach to data and analysi s. These methods were appropriate given the goals of the study and my level of experience with deep qualitative inquiry. As recommended by Saldaa (2016), a ttribute coding was used for all data as a management technique, while d escriptive coding was used f or all data as a detailed inventory of their contents. Finally, in vivo coding was used to attune myself to Sample codes for each of these methods is provided in Table 3 2 I strove to maintain an open mind and code li berally. For example, codes such as student motivation and student engagement were both utilized during first cycle coding During later coding

PAGE 138

138 cycles, these codes were examined and combined. Initial first cycle coding of all qualitative data was performed in the NVivo software environment Moving through the data analysis spiral, second cycle coding reorganize d and reanalyze d data from the first cycle coding. The goal of second cycle coding wa s to /or theoretical organization Saldaa 2016, p. 233). Major themes, categories, and concepts were identified through pattern coding, leading to metacodes ( Saldaa 2016). As I approached second cycle coding, I did not feel that the NVivo software allowed me to visualize my data in a way that appealed to me as a thinker. I used NVivo to export data for individual c odes. Then I labeled each piece of data with the initial code I had assigned it and left space for notes bel ow ( Figure 3 2 ). These were printed on different colored paper based on the pattern codes I had developed and cut into strips. In this way, I was able to physically spread out my data in front of me and manually manipulate and group items in a way that I d o not feel that NVivo would have allowed, given my experience. The second cycle codes were then rec orded in the notes section on each individual strip of paper and reentered into NVivo. Sample patterns codes are provided in Table 3 2 Thr oughout all codin g cycles, it was critical to develop analytic memos. Analytic memos provide an opportunity for a researcher to reflect on coding processes and choices ( Saldaa 2016). The relationship between the researcher, data, and analytic s (2005) assertion that m emos are sites of conversation After the first and second coding cycles, I used PowerPoint to create visuals for my codes and emerging themes and record my analytic

PAGE 139

139 memos. As I played with the data, I found new ways of organizing the information. For each iteration, I added a slide to this analysis PowerPoint and dated the work I completed. In this way, I had a running visual record of my emerging thoughts and memos about why I made certain coding choices. This method was invaluable to me throughout the analysis process. The data analysis methods described in this section were nested in the data analysis spiral. In this way, the approaches were utilized and revisited to direct and hone the re Rigor In this case study, specific strategies that support the credibility and dependability of the research process were utilized to establish rigor. Credibility of a qualitative study relies on the use of rig orous methods, the credibility of the researcher, and a belief in the value of qualitative inquiry (Patton, 2002). This study used prolonged engagement, clarifying researcher bias, triangulation, peer review, member checking, and rich description. Prolonged engagement in the field involves building trust with participants, learning the culture, and deciding what is salient to study (Creswell, 2013). While t here is no set frame of time to quantify the term prolonged the data collection in this study took place over several weeks This invo lve d regular meetings as teachers progress ed through the PTLC. After learning about UDL, teachers were provided with the opportunity to select relevant UDL guide lines and design a digital media artifact as well as collaborate with their peers during this process. Then, they implement ed the designs with th eir students and reflect ed on that process before reconvening with other

PAGE 140

140 participants and analyzing this proces s. This was followed by the opportunity to participate in an interview. Th e four week PTLC was intensive, collaborative, and supportive. While four weeks is a relatively limited amount of engagement in the field, I had over ten years of experience at SDC t o establish professional, trusting relationships with staff and to learn and participate in the school culture. In seeking a profes sional practice doctorate, I explored salient questions for study for several years. These contribute d to the credibility of the study. As a result of my prolonged employment at the research setting, it was critical to clarify researcher bias as a met hod of validation. This involved explorations of experiences, biases, prejudices, and orientations (Creswell, 2013) that could ha ve impact ed the study. A robust discussio n of researcher bias provided in the next section, contributed to my credibility and therefore the overall rigor of the study. Another validation strategy used in this study wa s triangulation of data As stated, t his study collected data from a variety of sources including document, artifact, rubric, interview, survey and research journal The use of these sources provide d corroborating evidence to illuminate emerging themes (Creswell, 2013). Triangulation of data sources also reve a l ed inconsistencies, which provide d me with the opportunity to The rigor of this study was also supported by peer review. The PD materials described in this chapter were peer reviewed by individuals external to the study. The During the UDL institute, I developed supportive pro fessional relationships with several CAST staff members who were

PAGE 141

141 experts in UDL and UDL implementation. T he PD materials were given to the CAST staff members digitally and their comments, suggestions, and reflections were discussed in a face to face meetin g at the CAST office. In this way, individuals external to the study contribute d to the rigor by providing peer review of the materials used to instruct the teacher participants on the foundational concepts of UDL. While peer review is a validation strate gy that involves an external individual, internal checks were completed through member checking. In member checking, the of analytical triangulation (Patton, 2002). Member checking is critical in establishing credibility. To engage in member checking, the researcher took the participants so that they can judge the acc (Creswell, 2013, p. 252). The comments, ideas, and reflections were recorded and utilized to guide the researcher a long the data analysis spiral. Rich, thick description is a validation strategy that is related to the transferability of data (Creswell, 2013). Thick (Stake, 2010, p. 49) and may involve direct quotes and descriptions of the participa nts, setting movement, and activit ies (Creswell, 2013). Rich, thic k description is provided in the next c hapter regarding the participants, context, and findings, and many direct quotes f rom participants are provided. The validation strategies described in this section include prolonged engagement, clarifying researcher bias, triangulation, peer review, member checking, and rich description. These strategies contribute to the rigorous design of this single

PAGE 142

142 instrumental case study. Inherent to rigor is an exploration of researcher bias, provided in the next section. Resea rcher Bias It is impossible to avoid all bias in a research design. Yin (2014) notes that qualitative researchers, heavily involved in the data collection and analysis process, are particularly prone to the impact of bias. This is because their understandi ngs of the contrary evidence. Case study data in its entirety wi ll not fit neatly into predetermined categories and support singular conclusions. One of the benefits of case study is its naturalistic setting, which is therefore real, authentic, messy, and unpredictable. ons more sleek and presentable is an several strategies, such as member checking a nd repeated coding cycles. These strategies were utilized throughout th e study and illustrated in the results and implications chapters. C ontrary evidence was illuminated through repeated coding cycles checked by members and presented in the narrative. A nother strategy to reduce bias is to strive for reflexivity in writing. This involves experience s values, perspectives, and other factors (Creswell, 2013). Deeply and c learl y describing and reflecting on these elements can increase reflexivity in the constructions, representations of

PAGE 143

143 I strove for reflexi vity in these co constructions by describing past experiences with the issues of the study including application of UDL prior to this study and past PD opportunities at SDC and exploring how these experiences shape d the interpretations within the study By actively and unceasingly engaging in strategies such as locating contrary evidence and striving for reflexivity, I sought to acknowledge and reduce researcher bias within this study. Methodological Limitations This study contain ed several methodologi cal limitations related to the research design as well as my role as the researcher. General limitations of all qualitative and case study approaches influence d this study. As a bounded case that represent ed a very specific population and context, the opp ortunities for generalizability are limited. However, many qualitative researchers are not particularly focused on generalizability (Creswell, 2013). This study utilize d rich description of the case to provide adequate information regarding the population of students and teachers at SDC. This will support readers in determining the generalizability of the results to their population. My role as the researcher was also considered as a limitation. I ha ve over ten years of employment experience in a variety o f roles at SDC. While in many ways this wa s a benefit that support ed a deep knowledge of the setting and rich description, it was also a limitation. As described in the previous section, researcher bias wa s inevitable and strategies had to be consciously a nd continuously employed in order to reduce the impact of bias.

PAGE 144

144 Any research design and researcher role will have an impact on a study. In thi s study, the qualitative single instrumental case study was selected by a researcher with extensive experience at the research setting on the basis of the affordances of the design to address the research questi ons. However, it was critical to acknowledge and discuss all limitations and consider how they impact ed the results of the study. Summary This section describ ed and justifi ed the methodology of this study. This include d the purpose and context of the study, research design, PTLC process, PD design, data sources and instrumentation, and data analysis. In addition, information regarding the rigor of the study, re searcher bias, and limitations was provided

PAGE 145

145 Table 3 1. SDC classroom demographics 2016 2017 school year Level Total students Student age range Student grade range Total staff Native signing staff Preschool 5 3 4 Pre K 4 2 Preschool 5 3 4 Pre K 4 2 Pre school 4 3 5 Pre K 2 1 E lementary 4 5 8 K 3 4 0 E lementary 4 7 11 1 5 4 0 E lementary 5 9 10 2 4 3 1 E lementary 5 8 11 3 5 3 0 U pper 5 11 16 5 10 4 4 U pper 5 13 16 6 10 4 1 Upper 3 17 20 10 12+ 3 2 Table 3 2 C oding methods ( Saldaa 2016) Coding Me thod Description Examples from this analysis First cycle : Attribute Basic descriptive information used as a management technique SDC experience, teaching experience, UDL background, SDC use of UDL student diversity First cycle: Descriptive Basic topic of a passage that gives an inventory of its contents student socialization, families, teacher collaboration, teacher planning, PD suggestions, multimedia, design process, structure of UDL guidelines First cycle : In vivo la nguage to attune to participant perspective and action It was more work, but at the same time, it made the lesson more interesting for me and also for the kids. Second cycle: Pattern For the categorization of coded data into a smaller number of categories or meta codes teacher beliefs, feelings of isolation, design process, duration, active learning, high expectations

PAGE 146

146 Figure 3 1. Expanded conceptual framework including methodology (CAST, 2014; SEDL, 2008)

PAGE 147

147 Figure 3 2. Example of paper based secon d cycle pattern coding approac h Photo courtesy of author.

PAGE 148

148 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents the results of this analysis through structured examination of the research questions. This study asked one primary research question: How does professional d evelopment (PD) in universal design for learning (UDL) influence the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs? In order to address the primary question, two sub questions were posed The first sub question focused on the application of UDL to the digital media design process within this p opulation, while the second sub question focused on the features of the PD and teaching learning. These questions asked: 1. H ow do teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program? 2. What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the professional teaching and learning cycle (PTLC) ? The goal of asking these questions was to determine how teachers can use UDL to develop digital media materials for Deaf students who have special needs and how the features of PD supported or hindered teacher learning during the PTLC. First, teacher participation in the PTLC PD sessions is described. This is followed by the results of the analysis for sub question one, sub question two, and the primary question. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the limitations relate d to the results of the study. Participation in the Study The PTLC PD sessions were attended by teachers from both programs at The Communication School: the School for Deaf Children (SDC) and the School for Communication (SFC). However, participation in d ata collection was only sought for

PAGE 149

149 SDC teachers, given their role in the education of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Therefore, there was a maximum of 21 teachers (10 SDC, 11 SFC) along with several administrators present during the PTLC PD se ssions. Attendance during the PTLC PD sessions varied across different meetings as displayed in Table 4 1 While 10 SDC teachers consented to participation in the study a complete set of data was not obtained from all 10 teachers. Six teachers submitted individual documents (UDL Lesson Planner, digital media artifact, one or more Student Use Survey) and participated in interview. Two teachers collaborated on their documents and therefore submitted a single set of documents. However, only one of those coll aborating teachers was responsive to my request for interview. This resulted in seven sets of documents and seven individual interviews. Two teacher participants did not submit any documents and were therefore not considered for interview. Data collected f rom teacher participants is reflected in Table 4 2 The following section provides a description of the se eight participating t eacher s This includes their name (changed to maintain confidentiality), gender, age, total years teaching, years teaching at SD C, student grade range, education, Massachusetts educator license, reported background with UDL, and topics for their UDL based lesson and digital media design. This information is summarized in Table 4 3 Preschool During the 2016 2017 school year, there were three preschool classrooms at SDC. All three teachers at this level submitted documents, and two participated in interviews. Hannah was a 35 year old female. She had 13 years of teaching experience including 10 years in the public school setting and 3 years at The Communication

PAGE 150

150 School. Her public school teaching roles included special education inclusion and co teaching in English, science, and math across various elementary, middle, and high school environments. At The Communication School, she taught one year in the SFC program and one year in a mixed class with SDC and SFC students. The 2016 2017 school year was her first teaching fully in the SDC program. All three years at The Communication School involved preschool or early elementary aged studen ts. Hannah held a Massachusetts educator license in special education and during the time of the study was pursuing a m was kind had a little experience with UDL. For her UDL based lesson, Hannah foc used on two dimensional shape identification using tangrams. Her digital media artifact was series of web based videos that used music and animation to review shapes and their names. Hannah did not create these videos. Ella was a 30 year old female who st arted working at SDC immediately after graduate school. She had degrees in speech pathology, sign language interpreting and Deaf education. At the time of the study, Ella did not hold a Massachusetts educator license. She had 4 years of teaching experienc e, all at SDC. Three of those years were in SDC elementary classrooms and one was in an SDC preschool classroom. When (Interview 3, April 11, 2017). For her UDL based lesson, Ella collaborated with Eliza to focus on the life cycle of a plant,

PAGE 151

151 which they studied in the context of a larger unit on animal habitats. Their digital media artifact was a teacher created PowerPoi nt about grasslands that used written English, pictures, and images of ASL signs to walk students through the steps of planting grass seed. The final SDC preschool classr oom was taught by Eliza. Eliza was a 33 year old female with a variety of experiences at The Communication School. She worked for 3 years as a paraprofessional in the SFC program before becoming a teach er in the SDC program. The 2016 2017 school year was her first year as a teacher. She had a m sabilities and held a Massachusetts educator license in special education. Eliza and Ella worked collaboratively on their UDL Lesson Planner and digital media artifact. However, Eliza was not responsive to my request for an interview and therefore did not participate in that component of the study. Elementary During the 2016 2017 school year, SDC had four elementary level classrooms. Though all four teachers consented to participation in the study, only three submitted documents and participated in intervie ws. Those three teachers are described below. Isla was a 25 year old female who had 3 years of experience at SDC. S he worked as a paraprofessional during her first year at SDC before moving into the role of elementary teacher Her background was in psychol ogy but she had a Massachusetts educator license in instructional technology and a m technology. Isla indicated that she was already an expert with UDL, in large part due to For her UDL

PAGE 152

152 classroom of SFC post high school transition students. Th ese two classes learned about germs in their environment, swabbed for bacteria, and used microscopes to view germ spores created PowerPoint that revi ewed basic concepts about germs and the process of swabbing for germs to grow in a petri dish, and prepared students to view the germs under a microscope. This PowerPoint incorporated written English, pictures, and images of ASL signs. Molly was a 32 year old female with 9 years of tea ching experience, all at SDC. She had a degree in special education and a m Massachusetts educator license was in special education, and she had taught preschool through middle school aged students at SDC. Molly indicated that even m 2017), she had no background in UDL. For her UDL based lesson, Molly focused on a cooking activity in which students made a banana yogurt parfait and then reviewe d the recipe. She created two digital media artifacts to support this lesson. First, she created a heavily animated PowerPoint that displayed the materials, ingredients, and process for making the recipe. Second, she created three levels of a digital recip e review based on the needs of her students. The goal was to make this recipe and review available and accessible for students to do at home with their families. The final elementary teacher participant was Corey, a 30 year old female. She had 3 years of teaching experience, all in SDC elementary classrooms. Corey had 5 years of experience as a teaching assistant at a school for students with multiple sensory impairments. She had a degree in Deaf studies and a m

PAGE 153

153 education and held a Massachu setts educator license in Deaf and hard of hearing. based lesson, Corey focused on the creation of scienc e lab reports following the use of a microscope. Her digital media artifacts were a single slide PowerPoint that reviewed the targeted vocabulary for the lesson and templates for written and picture based lab reports. Upper During the 2016 2017 school yea r, SDC had three upper level classrooms: one middle school, one middle/high school, and one high school/transition classroom. Though all three teachers consented to participate in the study, only the middle school and high school/transition teachers submit ted documents and participated in interviews. Those two teachers are described below. Tina was the most experienced teacher who participated in this study. Tina was a 60 year old female with 36 years of teaching experience, 33 of which were at SDC. She beg residential dormitory, which was no longer operational at the time of the study before transitioning to the teacher role. She noted that she ha d been a first hand observer of the many changes at The Co mmunication School, particularly in how language philosophies, such as the use of manual codes of English such as Signing Exact English II (SEE II) and the bilingual approa ch, have changed over the years. Tina said, education while I have been here. First, things were total communication, then SEE II, special education and a m held Massachusetts educator licenses i n both special education and in school counseling for the Deaf. Tina indicated

PAGE 154

154 that she had heard the term UDL but she did not really know what it was. For her UDL based lesson with her middle school students, Tina focused on animal adaptations. She used t hree digital media artifacts in her design She developed one PowerPoint herself and downloaded a second PowerPoint from a teacher website. B oth of these artifact s incorporated written English and pictures. The third digital media artifact was a closed cap tioned not create this video. The final teacher who participated in this study and the only male was Sean. Sean was a 26 year old teacher with three years of teaching experienc e, all in the SDC middle and upper schools. During the time of the study, Sean was working in a high school/transition classroom, indicating that some of his students were in their post high school ye ars. SDC student generally stay ed until they turn ed 22 y ears of age, focusing on those transitional and/or vocational skills relevant to their future endeavors. Sean had a degree in Deaf studies and a m educator license in Deaf and hard of hearing. On the demograph ic survey, Sean indicated that he had heard the term UDL but did not really know what it was. For his UDL based lesson, Sean focused on encouraging students to perform independent research on a community outing they wished to take with their class. His dig ital media artifact was a FlipChart, similar to a PowerPoint, about community outings and the research process. As stated, this study ask ed a primary research question and two sub questions. The sub questions each address ed an element of the primary questi on; sub question one focused on the use of the UDL guidelines in the design process while sub question

PAGE 155

155 two focused on the features of the PD and teacher learning. The results of the study are presented by first examining the sub questions, then exploring h ow that information can be integrated to address the primary question. All teacher and student names used in this study have been changed to maintain confidentiality. Sub Q uestion One Sub question one asked, How do teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to ma ke decisions when designing digital media materials for students with special needs in a framework of design to plan, create, implement, and reflect on a lesson plan that incorpora ted digital media. Data sources addressing this question were created and collected across several stages of the PTLC, a s shown in Figure 3 1 and reviewed below During the first stage of the PTLC (Study), UDL was introduced and reviewed using a structur ed presentation (Appendix C). During the Select stage, teachers identified learning goals using the UDL Lesson Planner (Appendix F). They also used this document to identify any UDL checkpoints that were already established in their learning environment as a part of their regular practice. This implied that while they did not specifically focus on a particular checkpoint, it was observable as part of their typical routine. Teachers also used the UDL Lesson Planner to identify those checkpoints they wished t o specifically target for inclusion in the lesson. During the Plan stage, teachers designed their lesson activities and created their digital media, both of which were also reflected on the UDL Lesson Planner. During the Implement stage, teachers implement responses on the Student Use Survey (Appendix G). Teachers came back together

PAGE 156

156 during the Analyze stage to examine the role of the UDL guidelines in their design process. During the Ad just stage they examined the role of the features of PD and the PTLC on their learning After the PTLC was completed, I used the Document Rubric (Appendix I designs. Finally, teache rs were invited to participate in individual interviews that were guided by the Interview Guide (Appendix J). During these interviews, each teacher had a number of documents available for review and reflection, including their UDL Lesson Planner, Student U se Survey and a visual that highlighted their established and targeted UDL checkpoints. There were seven total designs in the study on a range of content area topics ( Table 4 3 ). During the Select and Plan stages of the PTLC, teachers used the UDL Lesson Planner to identify UDL checkpoints that were already established in their learning environment as a part of their regular practice, as well as those that they were targeting within the lesson. The Document Rubric allowed me to examine the presence and str ength of those teacher identified checkpoints, and note any checkpoints that I observed as a researcher that had not been identified by the teacher. I rated each of the teacher identified and researcher observed checkpoints on a scale of zero to three as a measure of its strength within the design. A rating of zero indicated that the checkpoint was not observed or present in the design despite having been identified by the teacher. A rating of one indicated that there was some evidence of the UDL checkpoint in the design but it was only observable in parts of the design or in limited contexts. A rating of two indicated that there was significant evidence of the UDL checkpoint in the design and it was observable in most parts of the design and in most context s, but there

PAGE 157

157 remained some opportunities for increasing the application of the checkpoint. Finally, a rating of three indicated that there was ample evidence of the UDL checkpoint across all aspects of the design. Checkpoints with ratings of one, two, or t hree were included in the analysis because these three levels of performance indicated some, significant, or ample evidence of the checkpoint within the designs. Given that some teachers learned about UDL for the first time during the PTLC, I felt that it was important to include all observed checkpoints, even those that were observed only weakly. Given their inexperience with UDL, some teachers may not have had the experience to strongly implement a UDL checkpoint. However, their decision to target that ch eckpoint was still worth exploring as a part of their design process. T herefore, UDL checkpoints with rating s of one, two, or three were included in the analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, a ny checkpoint with a rating of zero was removed from the analysis. This decision was made because this rating indicated that there was no evidence of this UDL checkpoint in the design. This occurred in four instances across all seven designs. In three designs, teachers identified the lowest tier engagement check point minimize threats and distractions as already established in their learning environment without providing evidence within the UDL Lesson Planner of how this checkpoint was present. In one design, a teacher identified the lowest tier representation checkpoint offer ways of customizing the display of information without evidence to support this. These four instances involved checkpoints that were identified by teachers as already established in their environment; the teachers were not targeting the se checkpoints. There was enough evidence of the checkpoints targeted for

PAGE 158

158 inclusion to rate each as one, two, or three on the Document Rubric. However, the la ck of evidence for the presence of the checkpoints rated zero indicated that the teachers did not illustrate how they already established the checkpoints within their learning environment. Given that one of the checkpoints was rated zero across three designs, teachers may need more support in either understanding or illustrating this within their desig ns. This led to a list of all the teacher identified and researcher observed checkpoints within the UDL Lesson Planner for each design By tallying the total number of designs in which a checkpoint was identified by teachers or observed by the researcher, I was able to determine the frequency with which each checkpoint was used. Given that there were seven total designs in this study, there were seven opportunities to identify or observe each checkpoint across the designs; the maximum frequency for each in dividual checkpoint was seven. The frequency count for each checkpoint, provided in Figure 4 1 was used to gui de the th ematic discussions. During intervie ws, teachers reflected on the utilization of the UDL guidelines on their design process, designs and digital media artifacts and these data also contributed to thematic analysis. Three themes emerged from the data These theme s were: 1. Teachers utilized the three UDL principles to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with sp ecial needs in a bilingual Deaf education program. 2. Teachers utilized the three tiers of the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for this population. 3. Teachers utilized individual UDL guidelines to make design decisions when designing digital media materials for this population. Each theme illustrated how the UDL guidelines were utilized in a different way to explore the data. Theme one involved looking at the three principles without

PAGE 159

159 consideration of the three tiers. In other words, the three tiers were collapsed into one category for each the engagement, representation, and action and expression principles. Theme two involved looking at the three tiers without consideration of the three principles. In other words, the th ree principles were collapsed into one category for each the lowe st middle, and highest tiers. Theme three examined each of the nine UDL guidelines individually to identify patterns of use. Both principles and tiers were considered. Each theme is explore d in the following sections. T heme One: Teachers Utilize d the Three UDL Principles to Make Design Decisions The first theme revealed in the data was that teachers utilized the three UDL principles to make decisions when designing digital media materials f or students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program. Theme one involved looking at the three principles without consideration of the three tiers. In other words, the three tiers were collapsed into one category for each the engagement, rep resentation, and action and expression principles The total frequency was added for e ach principle, or column, in Figure 4 1 This number was divided by the total number of design opportunities for that principle, which was determined by multiplying the n umber of checkpoints by seven designs T hese data showed that checkpoints from the representation principle were identified or observed most frequently, followed closely by those from action and expression, and engagement. This is displayed graphically in Figure 4 2 The representation principle has 12 total checkpoints. Across seven designs, this led to 84 total opportunities to identify or observe representation checkpoints ( Figure 4

PAGE 160

160 1 ) Checkpoints from the representation principle were identified or obs erve d 49 times, indicating that they occurred in 58 % of design opportunities ( Figure 4 2 ) The action and expression principle has eight total checkpoints. Across seven designs, this led to 56 total opportunities to identify or observe action and expressio n checkpoints ( Figure 4 1 ) Checkpoints from the action and expression principle were identified or observed 28 times, indicating that they occurred in 50% of design opportunities ( Figure 4 2 ) The engagement principle has ten total checkpoints. Across sev en designs, this led to 70 total opportunities to identify or observe engagement checkpoints ( Figure 4 1 ) Checkpoints from the engagement principle were identified or observe d 3 1 times, indicating that they occurred in 4 4% of design opportunities ( Figure 4 2 ) While checkpoints from the representation principle were identified or observed most frequently, those from action and expression, and engagement were consistently used across designs as well. Interviews with teachers revealed ways in which they util ized the three UDL principles to make design decisions. UDL principles was informed by their grounding in the field of Deaf education and the learning needs of their students Molly provided evidence that her grounding and exp erience as a teacher of Deaf students with special needs impacted her utilization of the three principles. She noted (Interview 6, April 12, 2017). The representation principle focuses on the perception, provision, and comprehension of information, language, and symbols.

PAGE 161

161 i s supported by the frequency data in Figure 4 2 which showed that checkpoints from the representation principle were identified or observed most frequently. As described in development of Deaf children. This is reflected in Mo UDL principles. Ella noted that the goals of the three principles in meeting the needs of her students guided her decision making during the design process. For example, she described the type of lessons she generally tri es to plan for her busy preschool students students in becoming motivated (a goal of the engagement principle), and goal directed (a goal of the action and expression principle). This was exemplified in the lesson that she and Eliza developed collaboratively on the life cycle of a plant. While planting gr ass seeds, Ella reflected that o ne of our students has sensory defensiveness. So given the choice, she would not to uch the dirt. Here, use a cup to scoop it instead, she was given that choice and she made the decision on her own going to scoop the soil, the dirt, an April 11, 2017) This example shows mindful decision making regarding the utilization of the UDL principles based on the learning needs of her students. Ella targeted the engagement principle by providing options individual choice to participate in the activity and reduced the threat of feeling forced to touch the dirt when the student was defensive to that sensation. The lesson also showed evidence of the action and expression principle when Ella provided options for physical action. The access to a cup as a tool to scoop dirt gave the student an option

PAGE 162

162 for physical action that allowed her to be a full participant and experience all of the learning, social, and l inguistic impacts of the activity with her peers. With such a heavy emphasis on the engagement of her busy preschool students, excitement of the hands on activities and the language learning. So to be reminded to (Interview 3, April 11, 2017). Ella reflect ed on her teaching practice in this general way and recognize d an area representa tion that she often overlooked. This showed that Ella utilized the UDL principles to guide her decision making process within this design and within her teaching practice. The evidence provided supports the first theme: teachers utilized the three UDL p rinciples to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with principles was informed by their grounding in the field of Deaf education and the lan guage and learning needs of their students. Theme Two: Teachers Utilize d the Three Tiers of the UDL Guidelines to Make Design Decisions The second theme revealed in the data was that teachers utilized the three tiers of the UDL guidelines to make decision s when designing digital media materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program. The lowest tier guidelines are primarily teacher centered and concerned with providing access to material through removing unnecessary barriers to learning. The middle tier guidelines highlight specific strategies for building toward high level expertise and represent

PAGE 163

163 teacher and learner scaffolds. The highest tier guidelines represent the lear ner centered skills of expert learners (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Theme two involved looking at the three tiers without consideration of the three principles. In other words, the three principles were collapsed into one category for each the lowest middle, and highest tiers The total frequency was adde d for each tier, or row, in Figure 4 1 This number was divided by the total number of design opportunities for that tier, which was determined by multiplying the number of checkpoints by seven designs. In this study, checkpoints from the lowest tier were identified or observed more than those from middle tier, which were in turn identified or observed more than those for the highest tier. This is presented graphically in Figure 4 3 The lowest tier has eight total checkpoints. Across seven designs, this l ed to 56 total opportunities to i dentify or observe checkpoints from the lowest tier ( Figure 4 1 ) Checkpoints from the lowest tier were identified or observed 38 times, indicating tha t they occurred in 68% of design oppor tunities ( Figure 4 3 ). The middle tier has 12 total checkpoints. Across seven designs, this led to 84 total opportunities to identify or observe checkpoints from the middle tier ( Figure 4 1 ) Checkpoints from the middle tier were identified or observed 46 times, indicating that they occurr ed in 55% of design opportunities ( Figure 4 3 ) The highest tier has 10 total checkpoints. Across seven designs, this led to 70 total opportunities to identify or observe checkpoints from the highest tier ( Figure 4 1 ) Checkpoints from the highest tier wer e identified or observed 24 times, indicating that they occurred in 34% of design opportunities ( Figure 4 3 ).

PAGE 164

164 These data show ed that checkpoints from the lowest tier were utilized more than those from middle tier, which were in turn utilized more than thos e from the highest tier. Evidence from teachers revealed ways in which they utilized the three tiers of the UDL guidelines guidelines encouraged them to push into higher tiers, h elped them reflect on their teaching practice, and helped them recognize the benefits of targeting the lowest tier when creating designs based on the nature of the students and goals of the lesson. Evidence from the UDL Lesson Planner showed that t eachers used the three tiers of the UDL guidelines to push into higher tiers. Figure 4 4 displays those checkpoints, highlighted in yello w, that were identified as already established in at least one design. This implie d that while a teacher may not have been spec ifically targeting that checkpoint, it was still present in the learn ing environment as part of the regular practice. Eight lowest ti er, seven middle tier, and three highest tier checkpoints were identified as already established in at least one design. Th is can be compared to Figure 4 5 which displays those checkpoints, highlighted in pink, that were targeted in at least one des ign This implied that these were the checkpoints that teachers were specifically targeting in their designs. Five lowest tier, e ight middle tier, and five highest tier checkpoints were targeted in at least one design. This shows that teachers sought to make a change from their established practice (reflected in the already established checkpoints in Figure 4 4 ) in their designs for implementation (reflected in the targeted checkpoints in Figure 4 5 ). Teachers pushed themselve s into higher tiers when they determined which checkpoints they wanted to ta rget in their designs.

PAGE 165

165 Teachers reflected that the tiered structure of the UDL guid elines impacted their thinking by encouraging them to create designs that pushed into higher tiers thereby reducing scaffolding and increasing learner control. Ella Tina, and Corey reflected how the tiered structure impacted their general design process Ella noted that i in something from the third tier, I have this actual chart to see and to be given tho do it. (Intervi ew 3, April 11, 2017) Tina had a similar reaction. She helps us focus on bringing the kids up I nstead of becoming stuck or stagnant at one level, you can try to push them up animal adaptations lesson. She identified five checkpoints as already established in her environment, all of which came from the lowest tier. This indicates that while she was not specifically targeting those checkpoints, they w ere present in the learning environment based on her regular teaching practice. Tina targeted five checkpoints from the middle tier and one from the lowest tier. This shows that she mindfully pushed herself and her students into higher level skills ref lected in the UDL guidelines. For example, Tina targeted a mi ddle tier engagement checkpoint: foster collaboration and community. During a group discussion about the possible adaptations of the animals displayed in her PowerPoint, Tina sought to transfer ownership to the students rather than control the conversation herself. T can collaborate together. How to make that happen more often? And to build on their strengths and minimize my control. I can con trol it, but not too closely. Trust faith in the learner, all that. (Interview 5, April 12, 2 017)

PAGE 166

166 This shows that Tina used what she had learned in the PD about the tiered structure of the UDL guidelines to design a lesson that would push her students to take greater control of their learning. Corey also reflected on those UDL checkpoints that she identified as already present in the learning environment as part of her regular teaching practice, as well as those she targeted in her lesson. Corey felt tha nce the ones that we already do fe ll t just became obvious that we should be pushing them up report lesson. She identified six checkp oints as already established in her environment a ll of which came from the lowest tier. She targeted four checkpoints from the middle tier. For example, Corey targeted a middle tier action and engagement checkpoint: use multiple tools for construction an d composition. After viewing a variety of leaves under the microscope, students were given the option to complete their lab report in written English and/or pictures, or a spoken English or ASL video. She described how her students responded to these optio ns for expression and communication. She noted oves having a choice and then she just kind of April 12, 2017). Corey reflec ted that Brian, whom she described as more comfortable with spoken English than ASL, initially chose to do an ASL video. However, he changed

PAGE 167

167 going through the process, and quic (Interview 4, April 12, 2017). students find unique ways to express and communicate their knowledge. During her in terview, Corey shared that she had carried this concept into other areas of teaching as well. While studying European explorers in social studies, students wrote a letter home or expressing a letter to mom and d ad however you want to do this! Do you want to write Corey applied what she learned during the PTLC about the three tiers of the UD L guidelines to the creation of a design that provided her students with specific strategies that increased their control while maintaining their success. There was also evidence that the three tiers of the UDL guidelines helped teachers reflect on their practice and identify areas for improvement. During all interviews, teachers were provided with a visual that reflected their use of the UDL guidelines stated in their UDL Lesson Planner. This visual highlighted those c heckpoints identified as already esta bl ished in yellow and highlighted targeted checkpoints in pink. When provided with this visual for her design ( Figure 4 6 ), Ella explained how the three tiers helped her reflected on her prac tice. All established and targeted checkpoints in her design came from the lowest and middle tiers While emphasizing the linguistic diversity of her students, she reflected that she needed to challenge the higher level students as much as th ose with more emerging skills.

PAGE 168

168 The kids are s a l ot of them vary S ome of them have higher language, some of them have lower. So after looking at as, it kind of makes The kids who have that higher language, we should have been pu lling them up by asking them some of the questions or giving them something from the top tier (Interview 3, April 11, 2017) She also stated that having the highest tier checkpoints available in the UDL guideline beneficial to actually see writ ten down on paper to remind me to kind of prompt for that knowledge to utilize the three tiers of the UDL guidelines to self reflect on her own practice and identify areas of need. While Tina, Co rey, and Ella described the value of pushing into the higher tiers, Isla who had the strongest UDL back ground of all the participants took a different approach. She purposely targeted three checkpoints from the lowest tier and one from the middle tier. She sought to set students up for success based on the nature of her activity and the inherent challenges it posed to her and her students Nicole. Nicole taught a classroom of SFC post high school transition students. These students did not use ASL as a primary mode of communication, but instead used a mix of various alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) eye and head switch controlled device s such as a Tobii. In add students, all of whom were Deaf, used a variety of communication approaches including ASL, spoken English, and AAC devices. Even with these entirely unique student groups, Isla and Nicole decided to

PAGE 169

169 experiences, act as peer models, and provide everyone with an opportunity to interact in unique ways. Isla focused on a lowest tier action and expression checkpoint because I wanted to have the varied methods of response, especially because I knew that students had such variety in their comm unication A nd my students we were pretty different in a lot of ways But it worked out really well because we could see how a switch was used to access y es/no questions with the Tobii (Interview 2, April 11, 2017) Beyond the use of switches and yes/no questions, the varied methods of response also showed unexpected interest and engagement in the lesson. I could also ask some critical thinking ques tions for one of her students, and he was able to respond H e was actually really willing to, and they were a bit shocked I think it was nice that he was so interested and engaged in that. (Interview 2, April 11, 2017) and background in UDL guided her to target checkpoints from the lowest tier. This shows that pushing into the higher tiers is not always the appropriate approach to take. With her focus on lower level checkpoints, Isla was able to engage students across a range of ages and abilities and have a very successful lesson. Another example of the benefit of targeting checkpoints from the lowest tier came part of the represe ntation principle, s he offered alternatives for visual information as shown in Figure 4 7 This was geared particularly for a student had low vision and needed tactile materials. Isla described the adaptation process and the benefi and her own class. the flat on the bottom, and on the outside I did hot glue on where the

PAGE 170

170 spores were. Bigger dots of hot glue where there were big ger spores and all that stuff. It was all tactile so she could feel it. All my other students towards the student who has significantly low vision and is blind, but all the other stu dents thought it was rea lly cool (Interview 2, April 11, 2017) By providing options for perception, she engaged students across a range of skills. These examples show that while some teachers focused heavily on pushing into the higher tiers, there were a lso benefits to targeting the lowest tiers when creating desi gns. The evidence provided supports the second theme: teachers utilized the three tiers of the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with special n of the three tiers of the UDL guidelines was illustrated by striving to push into higher tiers, reflecting on their own practice, and thoughtfully targeting lower tiers based on the nature o f the students and goals of the lesson. Theme Three: Teachers Utilize d Individual UDL Guidelines to Make Design Decisions The third theme illustrates how teachers looked beyond the structure of the principles and tiers and utilized individual UDL guideli nes to mak e design decisions. This theme examined each of the nine UDL guidelines individually to identify patterns of use : both principles and tiers were considered. The data for all nine guidelines are displayed in Figure 4 8 The percentage of each guid calculated by dividing the frequency of use of each individual guideline by the number of total opportunities ac ross all designs. The se data reveal ed several patterns that were compared to themes one and two. Theme one examined how teachers generall y utilized the three principles, without exploring the role of the three tiers. Theme two

PAGE 171

171 examined how teachers generally utilized the three tiers, without exploring the role of the three principles. Theme thre e explore d how teachers made design deci sions when considering both axes of the UDL guideline visual: the three principles and the three tiers. Examining the utilization of individual principles at each tier level Data from theme one showed that overall, c heckpoints from the representation principle were identified or observed most frequently, followed closely by those from action and expression, and engagement. These data looked at all three tiers simultaneously. Based on theme one, one might expect that e ach individual tier would follow the same p attern. However, this pattern was not always repeated when looking at each tier individually. The general pattern from theme one only holds true for the highest tier. This is because the representation guideline ( provide options for comprehension) was observed most frequently, followed by the action and expression (provide options for executive functions) and engagement (provide options for self regulation). However, the spread between the three principals at the h ighest tier (19 54%) was greater than it was when considering all three tiers as performed for theme one (44 58%). Therefore, there were differences when looking at the principles from the highest tier individually as compared to the principles as a whole. When looking at the middle tier, the action and expression guideline (provide options for expression and communication) was used the most frequently, followed by representation (provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols), and th en engagement (provide options for sustaining effort and persistence). Therefore,

PAGE 172

172 different than when looking at the principles as a whole. At the lowest tier, the representation guideline (provide options for perception) was used the most, followed by engagement (provide options for recruiting interest), and then action and expression (provide options for physical action). Once again, the pattern revealed in theme one does not hold when looking at the lowest tier individually as compared to the principles as a whole. This shows that while theme one provides relevant general information about how teachers utilize the three UDL principles to make design decisions, tha t theme cannot be grossly applied to each of the three tiers individually. Examples supporting theme three will illuminate how the characteristics of teachers of Deaf students with special needs influenced design decisions when considering all nine guideli nes. Examining the utilization of the tier levels for each individual p rinciple Data from theme two showed that across all three principles, checkpoints from the lowest tier were identified or observed more than those from middle tier, which were in turn identified or observed more than those for the highest tier. When looking at each principle individually, this pattern holds only for the engagement principle. The lowest tier guideline (provide options for recruiting interest) was observed more than the m iddle tier (provide options for sustaining effort and persistence), which was in turn observed more than the highest tier (provide options for self regulation). This is the only principle for which the pattern revealed in theme two hold s When looking at t he representation principle, the lowest tier guideline (provide options for perception) was utilized the most. However, the middle tier guideline (provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols) and highest tier

PAGE 173

173 guideline provide optio ns for comprehension) were utilized by teachers to the same degree. Therefore, when looking at the representation principle, the pattern from theme two does not hold. The guideline utilized the most for the action and expression principle is the middle tie r (provide options for expression and communication), followed closely by the lowest tier guideline (provide options for physical action). The highest tier guideline of the action and expression principle (provide options for executive functions) was utili zed the least for that principle. Once again, the pattern from theme two does not hold for this principle. This shows that while theme two provides relevant general information about how teachers utilize the three tiers of the UDL guidelines to make desig n decisions, that theme cannot be grossly applied to each of the three principles. Theme three illuminates how the characteristics of teachers of Deaf students with special needs dictate design decisions when considering all nine guidelines individually. In the following sections, I describe how teachers chose individual UDL guidelines based on their experiences and goals, and avoided those guidelines that lesson. I also provide examples and contexts for those checkpoints that were observed R ole of teacher background and experience in the utilization of individual UDL guidelines Theme three was supported by teachers reflections on the process of using UDL with special needs impacted the identification and observation of UDL guidelines that

PAGE 174

174 did not follow the patterns revealed in themes one or two. For example, the middle tier of the action and expression principle encourages teachers to provide options for expression and communication. As displayed in Figure 4 8 this middle tier guideline was identified or observed more frequently that the lowest tier guideline for action and expression. As supported by the literature review in this study, Deaf students have unique and specialized needs in language and communication development. Ella encompassed this way of thinking W e teach in a biling ual classroom O ne of our students might understand the concept in English, but is learning sign language and might not know how to represent that language in sign language. T o giv e them both, equal T hat was something that we had actually talk ed about as a team: remembering to do both A nd exposing the kids to so important. ( Interview 3, April 11, 2017) How (Interview 6, April 12, 2017). With language and communication at the forefront of their minds, these teachers mindfully utilized an individual UDL g uideline based on their background and experience as teachers of Deaf students. Other evidence supporting theme three was revealed when two teachers shared the belief that some guidelines were level or the goals of the lesson. Tina and Corey independently reflected that they specifically avoided checkpoints from the middle tier representation guideline for a similar reason. Tina worked with middle school aged students and focused her lesson lab reports after using a microscope. B oth teachers noted that they avoided representation checkpoints from the provide options for language, mathematical

PAGE 175

175 expressions, and symbols guideline They felt that focus ing on those chec kpoints would negatively impact the motivation and attention of t he Deaf students, particularly when the learning goals were for science content. Tina reflected that she avoided this going to be turned off. That can impact their atte S imilarly, Corey reflected that f or what I was doing, I stayed away from syntax and structure. I wanted this to be a successful lesson and those are more stressful and definitely more triggers for Deaf students in gen eral, but then behavioral Deaf stud I ction for this specific lesson (Interview 4, April 12, 2017) This is an example of the complex relationship between language background, literacy development, and motivation in Deaf students. Both Tina and Corey felt that in order to teach a successful science lesson, they had to avoid specific representation checkpoints that could impact attention and cause stress. This shows mindful utilization of the individual UDL guidelin es while making design decisions based on the belief that a particular guideline was inappropriate for the students and lesson. teacher of Deaf students with special needs, viewe d the importance of both the UDL principles and tiers in her design process. She noted that she most often designed within the lowest and middle tiers of the representation and ac tion and expression principles. This was based on her constant desire to addr ess the language needs of her Deaf students. Therefore, Molly chose to challenge herself by making mindful design decisions using the UDL guidelines he first and second level and not up on that top tier. So I intentionally picked something that was on the left side on the

PAGE 176

176 top tier that I was trying to get out of everybody. (Interview 6, April 12, 2017) (Interview 6, April 12, 2017), Molly presented with a very robust desig n and her Document Rubric showed the strongest implementation of UDL checkpoints across all seven teachers despite the fact that UDL was a new concept for he r at the beginning of this study. These examples show that many factors influence d f the UDL guidelines. Their background and experience, such as knowledge of the unique language and learning needs of Deaf students with special needs, impacted the way they utilized individual UDL guidelines in their design process. Frequency of individu al UDL guideline use Frequency of use varied across each UDL guideline. In this section, the most frequently and infrequently used guidelines are explored in more depth. This information can be used as a guide to determine the contexts in which individual UDL guidelines are more or less likely to be utilized in the designs of teachers of Dea f students with special needs. Individual UDL guidelines were identified or observed in the following order, from highest percentage to lowest: perception (lowest tier of representation); recruiting interest (lowest tier of engagement); expression and communication (middle tier of action and expression); physical action (lowest tier of action and expression); comprehension (highest tier of representation); language, math ematical expressions, and symbols (middle tier of representation); sustaining effort and persistence (middle tier of engagement); executive functions (highest tier of action and expression); and self regulation (highest tier of engagement). This is display ed visually in Figure 4 9

PAGE 177

177 Frequently utilized UDL guidelines The f our UDL guidelines that were identified or observed most frequently include all three of the lowest tier guidelines along w ith one middle tier guideline ( Figure 4 9 ) Providing options for perception (representation) was identified or observed in 71% of design opportunities. Providing options for recruiting interest (engagement) and providing options for expression and communication (action and expression) were both identified or observed i n 67% of design opportunities. Finally, providing options for physical action (action and expression) was observed in 64% of design opportunities. The use of any of these four guidelines does not imply a superior design process when compared to designs tha t did not utilize them. However, their frequent use across the seven designs in this study warranted a deeper analysis in order to reveal the contexts of their use. The most frequently used guideline provide options for perception comes from the lowes t tier of the representation guideline. At least one of the three checkpoints in this guideline was Tina, Ella and Eliza and C orey. Table 4 4 describes how these teachers implemented thes e checkpoints. Teachers provided options for perception by incorporating multiple modalities into their lessons and digital media designs. Lessons were conducted in spoken English and ASL, with AAC communication devices included as well. Digital media prod ucts reflected written English, images of ASL, pictures, and animations. Th is is illustrated in Figure 4 10 which shows still artifacts Both of thes e slides were animated, which cannot be reflected in Figure 4 10 By incorporating

PAGE 178

178 these multiple modalities in their lessons and digital media designs, teachers provided options for perception. Molly reflected that providing options for perception was a time consuming but beneficial practice. Her PowerPoint was heavily animated to isolate each individual step of creating the banana yogurt parfait recipe. She noted that adding the animation to the (Interview 6, April 12, 2017). She noted benefits to using animations in her Student Use Survey Taking the time to make a quality presentation with digital visuals is important and when I thought about what my goal for the motions was, I never dreamed it would work so well for everyone. It was great. It really highlighted vocabulary that I hope sticks with the students, and at the very least we will make sure to highlight materials ingredients and direction s over and over so t hat every c hild can define them. ( Student Use Survey April 12, 2017) Molly reflected that the use of animations as an option for perception was an important element of her design. The use of videos in ASL is another option for percepti on that I expected to see in digital media artifacts. However, none of the digital artifacts collected incorporated video based ASL content. Tina spoke of her desire to both include more ASL videos and analyze videos from the Described and Captioned Media (DCM) Program. I can see using UDL more for developing more PowerPoints, to include more videos, throwing some YouTube clips in there. And to analyze the movies from DCM more carefully. I wish there were more movies in ASL. To not be depending on words. ( Interview 5, April 12, 2017)

PAGE 179

179 She identified time as the greatest barrier to creating or locating ASL accessible (Interview 5, April 12, 2017). Molly oupled with the evidence from the UDL Lesson Planner and Student Use Survey documents, show that teachers valued providing options for perception for their Deaf students with special needs. They accomplished this by incorporating multiple modalities within their lessons and digital media designs. Another frequently used guideline provide options for recruiting interest comes from the lowest tier of the engagement principle. At least one of the three checkpoints in this guideline was identified or obser to make choices within the context of engaging, relevant, and hands on activities. Table 4 5 describes how teachers implemented thes e checkpoints. Hannah reflected that providing hands on activities was the most successful way to engage her preschool students. On her Student Use Survey, she reflected on the he hands on portion was much more engaging and motivating for them when compared to the web based video she selected Sean recruited interest from his high school/transition students by informing them g would be selected based on the research done during the lesson. Students had the autonomy to select a community location of interest to them and support their choice through guided research. Sean noted that the structure of his high school / transition cla ssroom was often different than a more traditional

PAGE 180

180 classroom, given the age and goals of his students. A significant amount of time was devoted to preparing students for their transition to their post secondary adult lives. W hat happens if this happens. as A lot of the stuff that we do, that I think could benefit them best. (Interview 7, April 12, 2017) Sean recruited interest by providing appealing choices to his students within the context of an authentic and relevant activity. Similarly, Molly shared that she expected her cooking activity would recruit interest because her students would be able to eat their recipe once it was ready. She also focused on the value and authenticity of a task that could be repeated at home with families. As described in the literature review of this study, there is often a communication modality mismatc h between Deaf children and their parents and families. Opportunities for meaningful language based interactions can be difficult to establish, especially as children become older. This modality mismatch means that Deaf children who arrive home from school often cannot describe their day to their families. Molly sought to use the lesson and the recipe review as a way to increase the opportunity for interaction and carryover at home. She described her goal for one student who was in the early stages of expre ssive ASL ability if he did and signed that perfectly, beautifully, would that is what this i you the family could be like, In these examples, Sean and Molly designed lessons that engaged their students

PAGE 181

181 opportunities to make choices within the context of engaging, relevant, hands on activities. Another frequently used guideline provid e options for expression and communication come s from the middle tier of the action and expression principle. At least one of the three checkpoints in this guideline was identified or observed in all Table 4 6 describes how teach ers implemented these checkpoints. Teachers provided options for expression and communication by providing students with multiple modalities for both receptive and expressive communication of ideas. Across designs, teachers utilized spoken and written Engl ish, ASL, pictures, images of ASL signs, animations, and video. Some of the multiple modalities within these designs have already been described in this chapter Figure 4 10 and the variety of modality choices for C microscope lab report. In her Student Use Survey, Corey noted positive responses when students were given multiple tools for composition. For example, Rhea umped at the chance to make a PowerPoint icked all images herself constructed sen tences with minimal support Survey, April 6, 2017). This evidence illustrates how Corey provided options for expression and communication in her design. In her design, Hannah provided options for expression and communication by giving her stu preschool students worked on identifying two dimensional shapes within the context of completing tangram patterns. In the first part of the activity, she provided her students with the opportunity to

PAGE 182

182 explore multiple tangram templates and pattern blocks In the second part of the activity, she also provided a worksheet on which students recorded how many of each shape they utilized in their pattern. These activities are illustrated in Figure 4 11 Hannah prov ided her students with multiple means of action and expression by giving them the opportunity to use pattern blocks in different ways as they identified two dimensional shapes. These examples illustrate how teachers provided options for expression and com munication for their bilingual Deaf students with special needs. They accomplished this by incorporating multiple modalities and tools for composition and construction within their lessons and digital media designs. The final frequently used guideline that is explored comes from the lowest tier of the action and expression principle: provide options for physical action. At least one of the two checkpoints in this guideline was Isla, Molly, Sean, Tina, Ella an d Eliza and Corey. Table 4 7 describes how teachers implemented these checkpoints. Teachers provided options for physical action through a variety of lesson materials and activities Some of these have already been described in this chapter such as Corey microscope three levels of digital recipe review. This was also reflected when Ella and Eliza provided students with tools such as a cup to scoop dirt in their grass seed lesson This option fo r physical action gave a student with sensory defensiveness the opportunity to engage with the materials and lesson. Similarly, i n her Student Use Survey, Isla noted that one

PAGE 183

183 for bacteria) because h e got to wear gloves like a scientist and have a choice of what he wanted to test! These examples illustrate ho w teachers provided options for physical action for their Deaf students with special needs. They accomplished this by including a variety of lesson materials and activities within their lessons and digital media designs. Infrequently utilized UDL guidelin es. Two UDL guidelines were identified or observed nearly half as often as any of the other guidelines as shown in Figure 4 9 Both of these guidelines come from the highest tier. Providing options for self regulation (engagement principle) was identified or observed in 19% of desig n opportunities and providing options for executive function (action and expression principle) in 24% of design opportunities. It is important to note that it would never be expected for any single design to address all UDL chec kpoints. However, the notable lack of consistent use of these two guidelines warranted a deeper analysis. This information is not intended to indicate designs incorporating these infrequently utilized guidelines were superior to those that did not include these guidelines. Rather, these examples can be used as a guide to determine the contexts in which these infr equently utilized guidelines can be implemented. The self regulation guideline of the engagement principle contains three checkpoints. These were i dentified or observed in the designs of Molly, Sean, and Ella and Eliza. Table 4 8 display s how these teachers implemented these checkpoints. Teachers provided options for self regulation by setting and maintaining high expectations, incorporating structu red opportunities for stud ents to participate in self

PAGE 184

184 reflection, and incorporating individual strategies for success. Sean illustrated this when he described his perspective on setting expectations for his students I think quickly at this school, I saw m y expectation of kids always has to be this level . ting them to be always that low. (Interview 7, April 12, 2017) After his community outings lesson, Sean completed his Student U se Survey. He indicated that he observed an increase tudents embraced the opportunity to 2017). Overall, design accounted for four of the nine examples of chec kpoints from the two infrequently utilized guidelines. He often referred to having high expectations and pushing his students to reach their maximum potential. As described, Molly sought to challenge herself by targeting a checkpoint from the self regulat ion guideline of the engagement principle This was an area she felt she did not address frequently enough She provided options for self regulation by designing three levels of a digital recipe review that students used to self reflect on the recipe that was cooked ( Figure 4 12 ). Student engagement in self reflection was the goal of this wanted to make it more of an analysis afterwards, as hands 2017). Molly utilized the individual UDL guidelines to promote self reflection and provide options for self regulation. Ella and Eliza targeted self regulation by ensuring the consistent use of a positive reinforcement system their boards. On her Student Use Survey, Ella reflected that their digital media materials also su pported the self regulation of one of

PAGE 185

185 her preschool students. She noted that was able to self regulate and sit appropriately, wait for her turn in order to tap the SmartBoard 2017). Teachers of Deaf students wi th special needs can provide options for self regulation in a variety of ways, such as setting and maintaining high expectations, incorporating structured opportunities for students to participate in self reflection, and incorporating individual strategies for success. The other infrequently utilized guideline comes from the highest tier of the action and expression principle. At least one of the three checkpoints in the executive functions guideline was identified or observed in the designs of Hannah, Moll y, Sean, and Ella and Eliza. Table 4 9 shows that teachers provided options for executive function s by guiding students in setting goals and supporting planning and strategy development. After viewing and discussing the community outings Flip Chart, students were guided by a worksheet to complete independent research. This worksheet ( Figure 4 13 ) guided students to set a goal by selecting a community outing they wished to take The workshee t supported planning by prompting for information such as activities, transportation, past experiences, and logistical concerns The worksheet supported strategy development by asking how the community outing would help students become independent adults a nd why the outing would be appropriate for

PAGE 186

186 design showed mindful consideration of how he could provide options for executive functions for his Deaf students with special needs. Ella and Eliza also supported planning and strategy developm ent in their design for their preschool students learning about grasslands. They introduced the students to the hands on activity planting grass seed by using a PowerPoint to review relevant vocabulary and present the steps for the activity. Within thi s digital media artifact they supported planning by providing a picture based list of necessary mate rials as well as a visual of the s ix steps to plant the grass seed ( Figure 4 14 ). Both of the visuals in Figure 4 14 were animated such that each material or step appeared one at a time, allowing for more isolated review and emphasis on the process. The executive functions guideline includes another checkpoint: enhance capacity for progress monitoring. This checkpoint was not identified or observed across a the only one of the 30 checkpoints to have that designation. The implications of this finding will be discussed in the next chapter The third theme revealed the importance of approaching digital media design for Deaf s s working with Deaf students, the goals of the lesson, and considerations of the appropriateness of each guideline to meet the needs of the students were relevant in guiding teacher guidelines to make design decisions, and illustrated contexts for the most and least frequently utilized guidelines. Sub Question One: Summary The data provided for sub question one illum inate how teacher s utilize d the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with

PAGE 187

187 special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program. The three themes explored how the three principles, three tiers of support, and n ine individual guidelines that make up the structure of the UDL guidelines had an impact on those design decisions. Data supporting theme one showed that guidelines from the representation principle were identified or observed more than those from action and expression or engagement. Data supporting theme two showed that lowest tier guidelines were identified or observed more than middle tier guidelines which were in turn identified or observed more than those from the highest tier. Data supporting theme three showed that looking at the nine guidelines individually can reveal patterns different t han those in themes one or two. T backgrounds, the goals of the lesson, and the appropriateness of the guidelines to the needs of the students. The third theme also explored the most and least frequently used guidelines and illustrated the contexts in which these guidelines were used by teachers of Deaf students with special needs. These three themes addr ess ed sub question one : How do teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program? The goal of sub question one was to determine how the UDL gui delines influenced the design process for teachers of this unique student population. The evidence revealed that the structure of the guidelines including the three principles, three tiers of support, and nine individual guidelines was essential in gui ding teachers in making decisions when designing for this population.

PAGE 188

188 Sub Question Two Sub question two asked, What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC? This focused on the features of PD and teache r learning. In this study, UDL was presented to teachers through a structured PD format: the PTLC. This model of PD, developed by the Southwest Educational Development Library roves step cycle is intended to be implemented on a continual basis as a way to give teachers an opportunity to collaborate and improve their practice (Tobia, 2007). This st udy was designed as a single iteration of the cycle. The six steps of the PTLC teachers progressed through included Study, Select, Plan, Implement, Analyze, and Adjust (SEDL, 2008). The activities involved in each of these stages are described in Chapter 3 and can be viewed visually in Figure 3 1 It should be noted that seven out of ten teacher participants sat down with me for individual interviews. There were three teachers who consented to participation in the study but attended only three or four of t he six PTLC meetings. Additionally, these three teachers did not respond to requests for interview. I did feel some frustration and disappointment at this, but the things t Journal, March 16, 2017). I do question how the perspectives of these three teachers would differ from the seven teachers who did participate in more of the PD sessions as well as the interview. Necessarily, these three viewpoints are not strongly reflected in the study because they did not

PAGE 189

189 participate in interviews. Data from these three teachers would impact the results for this sub question. The analysis of these data revealed two themes: 1. T he presence of critical features of PD was more relevant to teacher learning than the structure of the PTLC. 2. Teacher learning was supported and hindered by the presence of five critical features of PD. Each theme is explored in the following sections. Theme One : The Presence of Critical Features of PD was More Relevant to Teacher Learning than the Structure of the PTLC Teachers reflected on their experiences during the PD through various formats These includ ed small group discussion during the Analyze and Adjust stages of the PTLC and conversation during individual interview. Analysis of these reflections showed that teachers did not share extensively regarding the structure of the PTLC. Rather than speaking to the structure of the PTLC, teachers focused on the various ways the structure of the PD made the experience more or less successful for them. The analysis showed that teachers reflections could be categorized by the ways this PD was and w asked during interview s to reflect on their perspective on the PTLC, they frequently described critical features rather than structural elements of the PTLC. Given this interview question that t hat focused on the structure of the PTLC I used these responses to identify the critical features of PD that the teachers referenced in their related critical feature refe renced in their response are provided in Figure 4 15

PAGE 190

190 As shown in Figure 4 15 teach the PTLC were focused on how the presence of the critical features of PD supported or hindered their learning Hannah de scribed an active learning strategy that she wished had occurred earlier in the PTLC. Isla was glad to get a refresher on the content of UDL and described the coherence of her view of UDL as a mindset. Molly wished for more examples of the content and need ed clarification of how UDL differed from her current practice. Sean expressed that he was glad the PD was shorter than previous experiences. Tina noted that she appreciated the option to engage in active learning strategies either in collective partnershi ps or individually. Ella emphasized the need for more examples of the content to s upport her as a learner. Finally, Corey also wished for more specific examples of the content, and reflected positively about an active learning strategy and the contained du ration of the PTLC. Theme two will explore the ways that each critical feature was or was not present in the PD how each could have been strengthen ed and how these critical features supported or hindered teacher learning. These comme nts illustrate that the teachers found the presence of critical features of PD more relevant to their learning than the structure of the PTLC. The structure of the PTLC was important in that it afforded activities that incorporated these critical features The nature of the p resence of the five critical features of PD is explored in the next theme. Theme Two: Teacher Learning was Supported and Hindered by the Presence of Five Critical Features of PD As described in the literature review, there are five critical features share d across successful teacher learning opportunities: content focus, coherence, duration, active learning, and collective partnerships. The presence and strength of each of these

PAGE 191

191 features in the PTLC supported and hindered teacher learning in various ways. E ach critical feature is explored in the following sections. Content focus PD that maintains a content focus is concentrated on subject matter content, and how children learn (Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001) and think (Whitco mb, Borko, & Liston, 2009). In this study, the presence of this critical feature was valued by the teachers participating in the PTLC. Teachers noted that the content of the PD supported their current practice because it was child focused. Th is PD included an introduction to the core concept s of UDL and the UDL guidelines, an opportunity to design UDL based lessons and materials, implement them in the classroom, and reflect on their use during the PTLC. The literature review of this study explored the benef its of digital media as a tool to help Deaf children learn and think. In this way, PD on digital media design for Deaf children is content focused. Given the affordances of digital media to address the needs of Deaf students with special needs, many SDC te achers already design ed and creat ed digital media as a regular part of their practice. The PD on UDL provided teachers with a different set of parameters to approach this task. When considering her design process, Corey stated that she was r eally trying t Individualized Education Program objectives and what the curriculum outline says. T his was a different set of parameters that I was trying to pull from. So I think just in incorporating all of the things, it was a little bit Interview 4, April 12, 2017) While Corey noted that the UDL based design process taught during the PTLC was different, the or content focus on how children learn, supported her regular practices in providing digital media to her Deaf student with special needs.

PAGE 192

192 Tina felt her current practice was not only supported but also enhanced. She more work, but at the same time, it made the lesson Interview 5, April 12, 2017). This reflection showed that Tina found value in the content of the PD for its benefits not only to the students but to herself as well. I noted in my research journal that we ma y have focused so heavily on how UDL can benefit our students become bored with the same old same old. Teachers do as well. I think this will be a very interesting talking point. ( Research Journal April 12, 2017) showed that the PD was focused on how students learn and think a key ele ment of the critical feature of being content focused (Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Whitcomb, Borko, & Liston, 2009). While these examples illustrate the presence of a content focus in the PTLC, there was also evidence th at this critical feature could have been strengthened. Several teachers reflected that the terminology of the UDL guidelines caused them difficulty. For example, Tina stated the terminology While reviewing the UDL guidelines during her interview, Molly reflected on some checkpoints that were not clear to her, such as heighten salience of goals and objectives really know what that means! show that the content of the PD could have focused more specifically on UDL terminology.

PAGE 193

193 Along with feeling unsure about some UDL terminology, teachers noted that the ir understanding would have been supported by a greater variety of concrete examples during the PD. During the S tudy stage of the PTLC, teachers were provided specific implementation examples for each guideline. In addition, teachers were provided with a c ompleted UDL Lesson Planner during the Select and Plan stages. However, several teachers reflected that these examples were insufficient in meeting their needs. This may have been due to my own familiarity with UDL impacting the number of examples I felt w in my research journal a few months now, and most of these people just got introduced to it last week. Of course Research Journal April 6, 2017). A deeper level of comprehension with the content of the PD would have been supported by more examples. Molly il lustrated this when she stated I think maybe a few more examples of lesso n plans would be helpful. I think probably because it was a lot of principles that are examples of g ood I think I understand this, but I want somebody to tell m (Inter view 6, April 12, 2017) reflective of the many elements of UDL that were already observed in regular teaching practice at SDC, as shown on the UDL Lesson Planner. Molly struggled to distinguish some of the UDL based practices from wha t she referred by type of learner, given example s I think would be very beneficial. How people incorporated media, when they did, what times of day, what equipment they used, did they use pictures, different icons, things like that (Interview 3, April 11, 2017). These statements show that the content focus

PAGE 194

194 understanding of how children think and learn with UDL could ha ve been strengthened with more concrete examples. As described, this PD content focused by exploring different ways that children think and learn. However, more concrete examples were needed to support some tea terminology and concepts of UDL. In this way, the presence of the content focus critical feature during the PTLC supported and hindered teacher learning in various ways. Coherence acher learning is consistent with be effective. Teachers described ways the PD was cohere nt with their beliefs, knowledge, performance expectations, and regular practice. Several teachers illustrated ways the PD provided in the PTLC was consistent with their beliefs. Isla had extensive background in UDL from her graduate program. She repeated ly referred to UDL as a mindset and stated personally love d this professional development because I felt like it w as really embracing what I believe should be the philosophy of teaching and how we should approach teaching and education for all students coherent with her beliefs as a teacher. However, Isla also reflected that this might not have been the case for all teachers, particularly those who were new to UDL. She reflected that they m ight not have really gotten that it was a mindset. I think they were a little more hesitant. Because they saw these Oh, this is like a curriculum

PAGE 195

195 experiences with UDL. C example, Hannah described how the PD helped her understand how some of her knowledge wa s already reflective of UDL. It made me a little more m indful of Wh at do you call this? for it? As opposed to, It kind of put a label to it, which was nice. I was thinking, was this, when I was looking at it. (Interview 1, April 7, 2017) established knowledge principles that are examples of g was coherent with the knowledge provided through the content of the PTLC. As described, many teachers expressed their desire for more experience with UDL terminology, concrete examples of UDL, and lesson plan development. Had these knowledge. Isla provided a suggestion that could have impacted the strength of knowledge coherence in this study. I t would be beneficial to maybe have te achers share a lesson that they were really proud of W hat they thought they did well on, how they did it, And pointing out, T hat was actually UDL, and that was as well. And you w ant to know something cool, if you had done this that would have also ways that you could always make it better (Interview 2, April 11, 2017) see opportunities to improve the PD in ways that could have benefitted teachers through coherence with their knowledge. Another important factor related to teacher learning was coherence with expectations. Sean expressed that he en gaged with this PD

PAGE 196

196 because it was coherent with the performance expectations he set for himself. He state d that the PD did not feel like something you have you want. And yes, you have to do this lesson, but beyond that, you do have to feel panicked by it. (Interview 7, April 12, 2017) s as well. She reflected that she wished for a deeper level of confirmation of her own understanding of the PD content once again reinforcing the need for more concrete examples I just want to know where I am doing it, and where I sti ll could be doing it expectation based on the ways the PD could help him, Corey set a high performance expectation of herself to understand and apply the PD in her practice. While the PD was co with more concrete examples. egular practices supported and hindered teacher learning T eachers had positive reflections on the PTLC when i t aligned with their regular practices, such as their approach to instructional planning and their overall teaching skills. Sean noted that the design process and required time for the UDL based lesson was not different than his regular practice. If you g uys asked us to make a UDL lesson each time we did it, maybe what I wanted to do. And then when I went b points Sean embraced this PD because it aligned with his regular practice. His reflection that his lesson did not change based on the UDL process may indicate that he did not

PAGE 197

197 branch out and at tempt to incorporate elements of UDL that were not part of his regular runs annually from July through June, and the PD took place in March and April. Therefore, teach implemented. Sean noted that he felt that a lot of the stuff is set up. Maybe if we did this again in July, maybe not is so (Interview 7, April 12, 2017) Discussions of timing do bridge into the critical feature of duration. However, it is important to no practices may have been impacted by the fact that the regular practices were already with his regular practice. regular practice. As described, Isla frequently referred to UDL as a mind set. She already incorporated UDL as a mindset in her approach to the design process, implying that it was part of her regular practice. Isl a reflected that some teachers might not have had sufficient a lot about a mindset, 11, 2017). I had a similar reflection after the S a lot of people seemed to need reassurance that they do indeed Research Journal March 21, 2017). wit determined by what those regular practices were

PAGE 198

198 For Isla, the PD was highly coherent with her view of UDL a s a mindset. However, the PD may have been less coherent with the regular practices of teachers without UDL background. This wa s supported by teacher reflection on the PD process made during the A nalyze stage of the PTLC when a teacher noted that at times the PD elt abstract. H ow do I make this applicable to a lesson? Research Journal April 6, 2017). beliefs, knowledge, performance expectations, and regular practices. Align ment with these elements supported teacher learning. Duration The duration of PD refers to the depth and breadth of time over which it is implemented. While there is n o single unit of time that is considered appropriate, the literature suggests that PD mus t be sustained over time in order to be effective ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ). The PTLC was implemented during six 45 minute meetings and one PD day over a period of four weeks in addition to the lesson implementation teachers did in t heir classrooms. The individual interviews were performed throughout the week following the completion of the PTLC. As described, there is no specific unit of time that can be considered appropriate for all groups of teachers. Views on the duration of the PD are influenced by other PD opportunities that teachers are involved in within their context. For teachers used to single day PD, a multi week training might be considered sustained over a long period of time. For teachers involved in annual PD throughou t a full school year or longer, four weeks might be viewed as extremely short. Teachers at SDC had regular opportunities for a variety of approaches. For example, all SDC staff were involved in weekly 45 minute sign language classes

PAGE 199

199 throughout the school year targeted to their skill level and the demands of their particular job. Staff also ha d single 45 minute trainings that review ed instructional approaches, new resources, or other relevant topics. A discussion on the duration of PD must be framed by the experiences of those individuals who are a part of the context in which it occurred. The elements of the duration critical feature that supported or hindered teacher learning included the logistics, and contained and targeted nature of the PD. When conside ring the logistics of the PTLC, several teachers noted that the duration of the PD was short in compari son to other trainings they had experienced. Sean and Tina both expressed positive responses to this short duration, particularly in comparison to longer April 12, 2017). This positive response contrasted to his negative description of some of week thing When it was the last one, I was like, Oh that wa S ean, the short duration was a positive feature of the PD. This contrasts with Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, over time to be effective. Sean lauded the brevity of the PD compared to other opportunitie s at SDC. The brevity may have positively influenced his engagement and thereby the PD was more ef fective for Sean than would be training sustained over a longer period of time. He expanded on his comments to make a recommendation to

PAGE 200

200 SDC regarding the logi stics of future PD planning. He reflected particularly on how the S tudy, S elect, and P lan phases of the PTLC occurred on four sequential days. That is kind of what I would suggest to the school. Just kind of bang it out. Give us a week. And I guess that w eek is tough because you have less 7, April 12, 2017) his learning was supported by the duration of the PD in this case, the short duration. The dur ation of the PTLC may have had a different impact on teacher learning for other teachers As described, some teachers, such as Tina and Molly, expressed the desire to develop a deeper understanding of the terminology related to UDL. Other teachers, includi ng Molly, Ella, and Corey, expressed that they needed more concrete (Interview 1, April 7, 2017). During the A nalyze stage, I as al ways, I wish there was more time! Research Journal April 6, 2017) as the PD provider. These statements indicate that the duration was not extensive enough for some individuals. Increasing the duration of the PD may have led to more effective results for some teachers, like Tina, Molly, Ella, and Corey, but not for others, like Sean. The timing within the year was also a logistical concern expressed by Sean. As described, the PTLC took place in March and April during a school year that runs from July thro ugh June. The PTLC may have had a different impact on teachers if it took so established Another element of the duration feature that was observed to influence the effectiveness of the PTLC was that it was contained to an allotted time. This implies that

PAGE 201

201 from the first meeting of the PTLC, teachers were informed exactly how long the cycle would last, what they would do for each step, and whe n it would end. Additionally, each step of the cycle involved ample devoted time for teachers to engage deeply in the it at home, or during my lunch break, or 2017). Another teacher reflected during the A Research Journal April 6, 2017). Ella also described how the contained nature of the PD suppo rted her as she used the information she learned in the S tudy stage to complete her UDL Lesson Planner in the S elect and Plan stages. Given time to actually take it in, take a minute to fill it out, have time to ask each other questions or ask you questio ns I think was beneficial B ecause Here you go, you have to do it on your own (Interview 3, April 11, 2017) Molly had a similar reflection when she stated that she liked it because I felt li ke we had time to do it, and not like, Ok n 12, 2017). M oving through the PTLC stages in the time allotted for this PD was one way I ensured that teachers had ample time to engage with the content. I wa s particularly pleased that we completed the S us Monday and Tuesday to do Select/Plan, and leave people with plenty of time to really collaborate, design Research Journal March 17, 2017). For Ella and Molly, the contained duration of the PTLC supported their learning by allowing them to engage with the UDL content The final element of the dur ation feature relevant to teacher learning was the targeted nature of the PD. Thi s implies that the PD had clear, structured objectives for

PAGE 202

202 teachers to develop a specific set of knowledge and skills within a given timeframe. Tina compared this to bilingual education trainings that many SDC staff were involved in for upwards of four yea a similar idea, but I thought this was more structured. It was to the point. We got right to the point. It was like an instant train ( statement s hows that the structured, targeted nature of the PD was an important element of its duration and supported her learning It allowed her to put the PD into practice right away. This was also observed in A nalyze stage of the PTLC, when it was stated that ugh time to get deep info on it, and use it in a way that was applicable to classrooms Research Journal April 6, 2017). Sean compared the PTLC to other 12 week PD opportunities he experienced at SDC, not ing that the PTLC was helpful rather than required. He said that those longer PD trainings felt like a class, and it feels like something you have to do, instead of, this is s targeted o bjectives and cl ear timeline of the PTLC were beneficial element s of the duration of the PD for these teachers. As a critical feature, duration supported and hindered teacher learning in different ways. Some teachers lauded the brevity of the training whi le others expressed a desire to develop more in depth knowledge that would demand a longer duration. The impacted teacher learning Active learning PD that include s active learning implies that par ticipants are actively involved in meaningful discussion, planning, and practice ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 p. 925). During this PD, a variety of active learning activities were included.

PAGE 203

203 Teachers engaged in meaningful discussion, coll aboration, planning, and reflection on their practice. Activities elicited participation by asking questions and placing teachers in small groups for discussion. The inclusion of active learning supported and hindered teacher learning in various ways by im pacting engagement, comprehension and skills, learning strategies employed during the PTLC. For example, during the Study stage of the PTLC teachers were given approximately 30 minutes to complete an activity called Around the World. During this active learning activity, they moved among posted chart papers that elicited the definition, examples, and bottom line take away message for each of the nine UDL guidelines ( Figure 4 16 ). This allowed teachers to explore, discuss, and refine their ideas as they encountered new terminology and concepts. liked the activity of getting up in the middle of it and walking Interview 4, April 1 2, 2017). Molly also liked the Around the World active learning I like d the breakout activity of us otally April 12, 2017). When I reflected on this active l earning strategy, I noted that I made an on the spot chan ge and instead of moving every three minutes or s o, I just had people float between the chart papers as they wanted. This felt much more relaxed and people were really writing a lot on the I heard a lot of talk about UDL and Research Journal March 17, 2017). This shows that for some teachers, like Corey and Molly, this activity learning strategy

PAGE 204

204 supported their engagement in the PTLC and challenged them to develop a deeper understanding of the content. Another active learning strategy used at the end of every PTLC meeting was the W hip A round. During this activity, each individual was given the opportunity to share a word or short phrase th at encapsulated how they felt about the PD activities that day. The responses to the W hip A round a ctivity are shown in Table 4 10 These responses varied by teacher and day, and provide d an overall sense of how the teachers felt about the PD for each stage of the PTLC. For example, after completing the S tudy stage of ped a lot of information onto the participants today. This was definitely reflected in a few of the W hip A Research Journal March 17, 2017). As an active learning strategy, the W hip A round allowed me to tak e a daily pulse of the project during implementation. However, Corey who used the term W rap A round, had a negative reaction to this active learning strategy. My least favorite part is W rap A roun all I can say. I than willing to say one of those Now ( Interview 4, April 12, 2017) the PD. This shows that not all active learning strategies will support teacher engagement and learning in a PTLC. active learning strategies employed during the PTLC. As active learning strateg ies, d iscussion and collaboration with others encouraged teachers to think critically and analyze their own practice. Tina described how these activities supported her

PAGE 205

205 throughout the PD and compared this to a less active approach such as a lecture based pr e sentation. I liked that first you explained everything. Then we could discuss in small always feel like I fit in a small group discussion. I like working on my own, h aving that option. Then we try something, share it with others, discuss, and get some feedback from each other. Sometimes sharing ideas helps. Then you can go back to more of an in depth discussion. I like that because sometimes when you just sit through a presentation, then over. Th Other teachers echoed during the A nalyze stage of the PTLC. I noted for people t o really plan and design their lessons, rather than just be presented to all the Research Journal April 6, 2017). This illustrates the value teachers placed on this element of the PD. Tina engaged in various active learning strategies, such as disc ussing with others and sharing feedback, when it felt appropriate to her as a learner. She also appreciated having the option to work individually. The option to engage in these active learning strategies helped Tina approach the task of digital media desi gn and be more critical through self reflection and analysis. Y our presentation also made it meaningful. If you read something, you see if it was really analyzed that a little bit but not really taken a hard look at it. So I thought it was good. I was li 20 17) Tina found the critical analysis of her own media usage an effect ive active learning strategy that supported her learning

PAGE 206

206 supported and hindered teacher learning These included collaboration, discussion, and sharing and confirming ideas with others. These are explored in more depth in the following section about collective partnerships. As a critical feature, the inclusion of active learning strategies supported and hindered te acher learning skills, and experiences with others were impacted by the active learning strategies employed during this PD. Collective partnerships Collective partnerships refer to participation b y individuals with similar professional experiences, such as those from the same school, grade, or department (Desimone, 2009). Participation in collective partnerships allows teachers to engage in discussion, improve their understandings, and increase the ir capacity to grow (Ball, 1996). A variety of types of collective partnerships were utilized in the PTLC. As described, teachers from both programs at The Communication School attended the PD sessions. While the SFC teachers were not the focus of this st udy, their role with in the activities of the PTLC was relevant. When teachers worked in small groups or paired up for discussion, SFC and SDC teachers often collaborated. Teachers across age/grade ranges were observed to work together as well. For example, I observed during the S elect and P lan stages of the PTLC definitely people working together, so that was good. And a little bit of cross program collaboration, which is always nice to see! Research Journal March 20, 2017). The make up, activities, and impact of these collective p artnerships were instrumental to teacher learning.

PAGE 207

207 Teachers reflected on how the make up of the collective partnerships impacted them during the PTLC. Ella and Corey described participating in collective partne rships with teachers from SFC. Ella noted that getting a different perspective from an SFC teac her was beneficial. I t was interesting because during the collaboration time, I sat with one SFC teacher and one SDC teacher. So it was nice to have those diffe rent perspectives definitely B ecause SFC language piece which SDC always does. So I think setting up in gr oups mixed could be really good, could be really beneficial. ( Interview 3, April 11, 2017) Co rey described how a collective partnership between herself, Ella, and an SFC teacher referred to as Fran supported her comprehension of the content particularly during the early stage s of the PTLC. I n the beginning, it was Ella, Fran, and I talking. So it a variety of age ranges and SFC versus SDC conversations and how they all thought i Ok, well I thought it was this S o working some of those things out ourselves and then kind of coming up with the bi g question and asking that rather than just pepperi ng you with ( Interview 4, April 12, 2017). Corey reflected that a collective partnership that mixed programs and age ranges supported her engagement in the PTLC. However, not all tea chers had this type of response to the collective partnerships they experienced during the PTLC. As illustrated in the previous section, Tina noted that she liked having the option to work individually. She did not always feel like she fit in a small group discussion and she provided a few possible reasons for her discomfort. While her students might be a good match with students from down the hall, Tina did not feel comfortable socially to jump in and collaborate with those teachers. She did collaborate oc casionally with a teacher who worked adjacent to her classroom, but Tina did not feel that the students were a good match academically.

PAGE 208

208 I classes down at the other end of the hall. But t feel like it was a good match. ( Interv iew 5, April 12, 2017) perspectives of collaborators from different programs and age ranges was beneficial, while Tina felt that her students differed too much from th e teacher adjacent to her to benefit from a collective partnership. Sean had a reflection similar to Tina when he described his experience as a high school/transition teacher engaging in discussion with Isla, an elementary teacher. Sean lso tough too, because Isla is talking about these specific students, and (Interview 7, April 12, 2017) He reported feeling y (Interview 7, April 12, 2017) Hannah also reflected that the nature of her preschool students made her feel isolated when it came to collective partnerships. I have t he odd group. There is nobody else who is similar. I have no buddy class in the building. I n theory chatting with other teachers about their units and giving an awk ( Interview 1, April 7, 2017) These statements sh ow that Tina, Sean and Hannah had a very different reaction to mixed group collective pa rtnerships than Ella and Corey. These reflections illustrate how the make up of collective partnerships can support or hinder teacher learning within a PTLC. The activ ities of the collective partnerships were another element relevant to teacher learning. Engaging in meaningful discussion is an important contributor to

PAGE 209

209 teacher success (Ball, 1996; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001 ) and this was reflected in this PTLC. I observed this during the A nalyze and Adjust S tage s of the conversation going on Research Journal April 6, 2017). Several teachers reflected on the value they found in discussing the content with others through collective ( Interview 4, April 12, 2017) of the PTLC. Molly described shar i ng her UDL Lesson Planner with Isla and Hannah She said, t hey both (Interview 6, April 12, 2017). In addition to providing the opportunity to receive feedback from other teachers, participating in the col lective partnerships allowed Molly to clarify unclear concepts with others It was (Interview 6, April 12, 2017) These statements illustrate that the chance to engage in meaningful discussion within collective partnerships was a valuable activity for engagement in mean ingful discussion was observed during the St udy stage of the PTLC when Research Journal M arch 16, 2017). Similarly, Isla and Ella reflected that being given the opportunity for collective partnerships during the PD was both welcomed and b eneficial. Isla noted that she t out! I am the teacher of my

PAGE 210

210 see what other people are doing. (Interview 2, April 11, 2017) In this way, the collective partnerships of the PTLC provided Isla with an experience that she did not often have learning about the daily activities of other classrooms. Ella also noted that having time to work with other teachers made the PD more successful for her. She appreciated being given time to actually take it in T ake a minute to fill it out, have time to ask each other questions or ask you questions, I think was beneficial. Because ( Interview 3, April 11, 2017) ded with the time to engage in activities within collective partnerships supported their learning. Finally, collective the PTLC in various ways. Several teachers reported wanting more time to engage in collective reflected that if provided more time for collective partn erships, lesson plans could be really helpful (Interview 3, April 11, 2017). These statements are reflective not only of a desire for more opportunities to engage in collective partnerships, but also of the need to extend the duration of the PD to accommodate this. Several teachers made suggestions about how they envisioned collective partnerships playing a role in future PD at SDC. For example, during the Adjust stage of ning time to Research Journal April 6, 2017). Shortly after that teachers would be provided with an additional 12 hours of collaborativ e prep time

PAGE 211

211 during the first six weeks of school. While teachers shared positive reactions to this change, the full impact of this opportunit y has not yet been determined. Isla recommended bringing SDC and SFC teachers together to increase confidence with implementing UDL. I t would be nice to have some teacher mentorship type situations with people who are more confident in UDL. Ma ybe just to get together in a group. Maybe four of us have the same curriculum, two might be SFC students and two might be SDC And then we kind of work together and tried this, and it was awesome She felt that this type of collective confident and really feeling a sense of community with o ne another. Because I think collective partnerships illustrate s the value she assigned to that critica l feature of PD. Ella suggested that UDL PD involving collective partnerships be extended to paraprofessionals as well as teachers. O nce the teachers get the hang of this, I think this would be something good for the paraprofessionals to be a part of as well. Because yo age as the people you work with (Interview 3, April 11, 2017) She reflected that providing this PD to paraprofessionals would allow all classrooms reflections and suggestions that they wanted more time to engage in collective partnerships can guide future PD opportunities provided at The Communication School, as discussed in the next chapter.

PAGE 212

212 As a critical feature, the inclusion of collective partnerships supported and hindered teacher learning in different ways. The make up, activities, and impact of these collective partnerships were related to teacher learning during the PTLC. Sub Question Two: Summary In this study, the PTLC was a structured approach to providing PD to teachers. Teachers participated in the six steps of the PTLC: S tudy, S elect, P lan, I mplement, A nalyze, and A djust. Teacher interview and research journal data were examined to address the question, What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC? This section explored two themes related to how the teachers felt the structure of the PTLC and critical features of PD supported o r hindered their learning. A review of the literature revealed five critical features shared across a variety of approaches to the provision of PD: content focus, coherence, duration, active learning, and collective partnerships. The first theme revealed in the data for this sub question was that the presence of critical features of PD was more relevant to teacher learning than the structure of the PTLC. Teachers reflected at length on how the critical features impacted their learning during the PTLC Ther e was little evidence that teachers found the six the PTLC was an ineffective vehicle for the PD. Rather, there were other elements namely the presence of critical features that were more relevant in the eyes of the participants. The second theme revealed in the data for this sub question was that teacher learning was supported and hindered by the presence of five critical features of PD.

PAGE 213

213 Teachers responded differently to the presence of these critical features, thereby supporting and hindering their learning in various ways. The PTLC maintained a content focus in that it explored how UDL promotes However, teachers exp ressed a desire for more concrete examples to develop a deeper understanding of the concepts and terminology of UDL. Coherence was observed in different ways across the PTLC. Consistency with ular practices supported and hindered teacher learning. As a critical feature, duration supported and hindered teacher learning in various ways for different teachers. Some teachers lauded the brevity of the training while others expressed a desire to dev elop more in depth knowledge that would demand a a relevant feature The inclusion of active learning strategies in the PTLC supported and hindered teacher learning by impa experiences with others in different ways Finally, t he make up, activities and impact of the collective partnerships in the PTLC were instrumental in teacher learning. These two themes address s ub question two : What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC? The goal of sub question two was to determine how teachers felt the features of PD supported or

PAGE 214

214 hindered their learning during the PTLC. Th e evidence revealed that the teachers felt that five critical features of PD were instrument al in their learning. Primary Question The two sub questions that have been address ed were each part of a primary question that asked, How does PD in UDL influence the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs? The first sub question focused on the application of UDL to the digital media design process within this population, while the second sub q uestion focused on features of PD and teacher learning. In this sec tion, I will explore how the data for these sub questions informs the primary question. Given that the primary question was composed of two sub questions, the results for each sub questio n informed how the primary question was addressed. The first sub question asked, How do teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program. Thre e themes emerged, showing that teachers utilized the UDL principles, tiers, and individual guidelines to make design decisions. Their design decisions were guided by the UDL guidelines in different ways based on their experiences with UDL, student and clas sroom needs, and lesson goals. This implied that the UDL guidelines provided teachers with a set of structured parameters for making informed design decisions. The second sub question asked, What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hinde red their learning during the PTLC? Two themes emerged, showing that the presence of critical features of PD was more relevant to teacher learning than the structure of the PTLC, and that teacher learning was supported and hindered by the

PAGE 215

215 presence of five critical features of PD. The exact nature of how those critical features impacted teachers varied across individuals, experiences, and contexts. This implied that participation in the PTLC impacted teachers because the PD was adapted to their teaching cont exts and mindful of the critical features of PD. Taken together, this leads to a broad theme that ties together the different elements: the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs was influenced by providing teachers with a set of structured parameters for making informed design decisions via PD adapted to their teaching contexts and mindful of the critical features of PD This is displayed visually in Figure 4 17 This broad theme is r espectful of the unique nature of bilingual Deaf students with special needs, like those at SDC. This wa s not, nor will it ever be, a one size fits all population. Teachers need a variety of approaches in their toolbox, and this PTLC provided teachers with another way to approach the complex process of designing for their students: universal design for learning. Limitations The results in this study are impacted by several limitations which are critical to present and discuss in order to maintain rigor. Th ere are limitations in the results related to two areas: data collection and data analysis. These included several 45 minute blocks of time before students arrived in the morning, and a longer block of time during a PD day where teachers were present at school but

PAGE 216

216 administration and there was no flexibility in when to provide the PTLC. This led to two limita tions related to data collection and timing. First, t participation or engagement. During the Whip Around active learning strategy for the Study stage 16, 2017) to describe his/her feelings for that day. However, on the same date I also noted that o verall, the room felt engaged, interested, and excited were actively chatting I was seeing a lot o f nodding and interest from participants ( Researcher Journal, March 16, 2017). The presentation on the PD day concluded on a Friday afternoon, which may also have been a challenge to some participants. Given the timing of this presentation, participants may not have been as engaged as I hoped. Everyone was probably thinking about the weekend and tired f r o here, and I was happy to get through as much as I did. (Researcher Journal, March 17, 2017) H based on the observations I was making, many This data shows that it is possible that teachers had a mixed reaction to the timing of the PD. The s econd limitation also relate d to the timing of the data collection A t times I felt rushed as a presenter to complete a presentation for a particular day. There was no flexibility in the ending times of the PD blocks: these were established as a part of S ensure that participants had a stronger understanding of the content. However, that was not realistic given that this study took place in an authentic context. It is important to consider this limitation and how it may have impacted the participants.

PAGE 217

217 Another limitation of the data collection related to student response to the UDL based lessons. As described, this study did not focus directly on the impact of UDL on student learn ing. That construct was beyond the scope of this study and would demand response to the UDL based lessons and materials as part of this study. Therefore, I requested th at teachers complete the Student Use Survey immediately following the implementation of the lesson in their classroom. I collected a total of 15 Student Use Surveys from teachers because some teachers filled out surveys over repeated implementations of the ir lesson, while others submitted Student Use Surveys for multiple students. In addition, I had to repeatedly ask several teachers to submit their surveys in the weeks following the Implement stage. Several of the surveys submitted later contained more det ail than could have realistically been written down immediately following the implementation of the lesson. SDC classrooms were busy places and teachers would not likely have had time to sit down and write extensively. Therefore, while the information prov ided was useful, I suspect that the Student Use Surveys were not completed in a uniform way. They may not be a reliable measure of student response to UDL based lessons based on the way they were filled out by participants. The limitations described relat e to the collection of data during the PTLC. There were also several limitations related to the analysis of data that occurred after the PTLC. First, based on the nature of this study, I was the only individual who engaged in the coding process. I brought the results revealed through this coding process to the teachers through member checking. However, I did not get extensive feedback from the participants regarding their views, whether positive or negative, on what was revealed in

PAGE 218

218 the results. In this way, the voices of the participants could have been more strongly reflected in the results of the study if they had participated more actively in the member checking process. limit ations related to data collection, such as the timing of the PD, and data analysis, such as coding and member checking processes. Summary This chapter presented the results of this study. This included the participation in the study, results for sub quest ions one and two, and the primary question. The chapter concluded with a presentation of the limitation of these results. The next chapter will explore the implications and provide a discussion of these results.

PAGE 219

219 Table 4 1 Attendance across PTLC stages PD Session 1 PD Session 2 PD Session 3 PD Session 4 PD Session 5 PD Session 6 PTLC Stage Introduction Study Study Select & Plan Select & Plan Analyze & Adjust Participants present (SDC teachers; max. 10) 10 7 8 10 10 6 Non participants present (SFC teac hers, administrators) 1 4 13 12 10 10 12 Total staff present 24 20 20 20 20 18 Table 4 2 Data collected from teacher participants Data Source Total Collected Informed Consent UDL Lesson Planner Digital media artifact Student Use Survey Interview 10 7 7 15 7

PAGE 220

220 Table 4 3 Participant descriptions Teacher Name Gen der Age Years teaching (total) Years teaching (SDC) Student grade range MA educator license Teacher reported b ackground with UDL UDL lesson topic Eliza F 33 1 1 Preschool Special e ducation A l ittle experience Life Cycle of a Plant Ella F 30 4 4 Preschool None N o background Life Cycle of a Plant Hannah F 35 13 3 Preschool Special e ducation A little experience Two Dimensional Shapes Isla F 25 2 2 Elementary Instructional t echnology A lready an expert Germs Molly F 32 9 9 Elementary Special education N o background Cooking and Recipe Reflection Corey F 30 3 3 Elementary Deaf and hard of hearing N o background Microscope Lab Reports Tina F 60 36 33 Middle Special e ducation; School c ounselor fo r the Deaf Had heard the know what it was Animal Adaptations Sean M 26 3 3 High School/ Transition Deaf and hard of hearing Had heard the know what it was Planning a Community Outing

PAGE 221

221 Table 4 4 C heckpoints from the repre sentation guideline provide options for perception Checkpoint Teacher Offer ways of customizing the display of information Isla Students viewed germs on the PowerPoint, through the microscope, and pro jected to the Smartboard. PowerPoint included written English, pictures, and images of ASL. Molly Molly presented the recipe in English text, pictures, and animations. The recipe review was also customized by offering different levels of self reflection Tina for students to view. Ella/Eliza Ella and Eliza included images of ASL within the PowerPoint T he lesson itself was provided in ASL, spoken English, and written English. Corey The final product lab report was customizable based on student preference. Customization also provided within the PowerPoint for a student with low vision. Offer alternatives for auditory informati on Isla Isla included pictures, animations, written English, and images of ASL in the PowerPoint. Molly Molly included pictures, animations, and written English in the PowerPoint. Sean Sean noted that class discussions about the community outing FlipCh art took place in ASL. Tina communication devices for discussion. Ella/Eliza Ella and Eliza included pictures, animations, written English, and images of ASL in the PowerPoint. Corey Corey embedded ASL into the delive ry of instruction as well as an option for the final product. Offer alternatives for visual information Isla Isla created tactilely accessible petri dishes for use in this lesson. Molly Object v isu als and manipulatives, and spoken English provided when appropriate. Ella/Eliza Spoken English was used when appropriate, and an individual iPad was provide d for a student with low vision. Corey Corey encouraged a student to switch his final product f rom an ASL video lab report to a spoken English lab report to highlight his strengths.

PAGE 222

222 Table 4 5. C heckpoints from the engagement guideline provide options for recruiting interest Checkpoint Teacher Optimize individual choice and autonomy Hannah Hannah provide a variety of animal tangram templates for students to select Isla select an object to swab in or der to see if germs would grow in the petri dish. Molly providing multiple avenues through which students could respond. Sean Sean optimized choice and aut onomy by having students select a preferred community outing location to research. Tina Students chose which animal they wanted to research in order to learn more about adaptations. Ella/ Eliza Ella and Eliza provided choice to their students in the w ays that the students accessed the materials and activity and through encouraging independence. Corey pictures) Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity Hannah Hannah provide a variety of animal tangram templates for students to choose. Isla world experiences and background knowledge by reviewing how germs make you sick. Molly s inherently relevant and valuable because students kn e w they could eat the recipe after they ma d e it. Sean inherently relevant and authentic because if students complete d the research, they would go on a class outing to the communit y location. Tina Ella/ Eliza The combination of digital materials to r eview concepts and vocabulary, and hands on activities to recruit interest made this lesson authentic for students. Minimize threats and distractions Tina Tina recorded all student contributions during class discussion on the classroom whiteboard. She fo

PAGE 223

223 Table 4 6. C heckpoints from the action and expression guideline provide options f or expression and communication Checkpoint Teacher Description of checkpoint within each Use multiple media for communication Isla accessible, included written English, pictures, animations, and images of ASL signs. Molly The written En animations. The pictures were appropriate without being too visually busy. Sean s conducted in ASL, with written English and pictures in the FlipChart, and written Eng lish on the worksheet. Tina captioned video. Corey Multiple modalities supported the communication of information within the lab report. Use multiple tools for construction and composition Hannah Molly itself wa s very hands on. Self reflection was promoted by three levels of digital recipe reviews. Sean written English worksheet as a guide to create a multimedia PowerPoint about their research. Tina s used PowerPoint, videos, and class discussion to explore animal adaptations. Corey had multiple options for creating their lab report: paper based (written English or picture) or video based (spoken English or ASL). Build fluencies w ith graduated levels of support for practice and performance Isla ended questions followed by a response. This gave students an opportunity to respond independently be fore increasing the prompt level. Molly Molly created three levels of digital recipe reviews based on student need. Ella/ Eliza Ella and Eliza provided graduated supports as needed, such as the use of pictures labeled with written English, hand over ha nd physical assistance, prompting questions, and the use of an iPad for a student with low vision. Corey Graduated levels of support were apparent in the options for the lab report. Independence was supported and encouraged across all students.

PAGE 224

224 Table 4 7. C heckpoints from the action and expression guideline provide options for physical action Checkpoint Teacher Vary the methods for response and navigation Isla Students were exposed to the material and able to respond via the PowerPoint, microscopes, Smartboard, and hands on act of swabbing objects in order to grow germs. Molly Students responded to the lesson via one of the three levels of digital recipe review pages. Tina Students worked in a w hole group followed by paired work. Corey Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies Isla witch accessible, eye gaze, and communication devices. Molly Molly provided access to the varied levels of the recipe review using the Notability app. She also incorporates AAC devices as needed. Sean ed the Internet, a worksheet and a PowerPoint to perform and share their research. Tina Tina provided printed pictures, a PowerPoint with written English and pictures, and captioned videos. Ella/Eliza Ella and Eliza provided picture support and an iPa d for vision support, and supported physical needs for material access, such as the use of scoop for a student with sensory defensiveness.

PAGE 225

225 Table 4 8 C heckpoints from the engagement guideline provide options for self regulation Checkpoint Teacher Descr Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation Sean igh expectations was evident throughout the design, such as the self ependent research. Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies Ella/ Eliza Ella and Eliza included the use of a positive reinforcement system student token boards throughout the activity. This facilitate d strategies to maintain attention and par ticipation in the lesson. Develop self assessment and reflection Molly Molly provided each student with one of three levels of a digital recipe review that included self assessment and reflection. Sean d reflecting on how the se lected community outing would help students become independent adults.

PAGE 226

226 Table 4 9 C heckpoints from the action and expression guideline provide options for executive function s Checkpoint Teacher Gu ide appropriate goal setting Sean Sean embedded goal into potential community outings by informing them that their research would impact the choice of where the class went on their outi ng. Support planning and strategy development Hannah Hannah provided a choice of templates to support students in selecting and placing shapes onto the animal tangrams. Student planning and strategy was also supported by sorting blocks into piles, identi fying which shapes they would need, and recording how many of each they used on a worksheet. Molly Within the digital media artifact (animated PowerPoint) materials and ingredients using written English and pictures Recipe procedures were provided in a numbered, step by step format and illustrated using animations. Ella/ Eliza Within their digital media artifact (animated PowerPoint) Ella and Eliza provided pictures of necessary materials and a step by step list of instructions for how to plant the grass seeds. This supported their young students in planning their actions for participation in the activity. Sean Sean supported planning particularly in the worksheet by prompting for activities, transportation, pa community outing. Enhance capacity for progress monitoring None This checkpoint was not identified or observed in any designs.

PAGE 227

227 Table 4 10. ning strategy used during every stage of the PTLC PTLC Stage Whip Around Responses Study (Part 1) Accessible learning, informative and eye opening, knowledgeable and sleepy, barrier free, potential e in my think ing about all this break that down Study (Part 2) Planning, anxious, like it but challenging, motivated, reflective, organized, a lot of variety, reminder to move/take breaks, evaluation Select & Plan (Part 1) Excited, student reflectio fying, adaptability, productive, motivated, a bit confused, hands on Select & Plan (Part 2) Less freaked out, coming together, busy, due dates, hopeful, excited, a little overwhelmed, collabora tion, overwhelmed, busy Analyze & Adjust Multimedia, satisfied, applicable, self reflective, planning, strengthen

PAGE 228

228 Provide Multiple Means of Engagement Provide Multiple Means of Representation Provide Multiple Means of Action & Expression Provide optio ns for self regulation Provide options for comprehension Provide options for executive functions 1 Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation 5 Activate or supply background knowledge 1 Guide appropriate goal setting 1 Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies 4 Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships 4 Support planning and strategy development 2 Develop self assessment and reflection 4 Guide information processing, visualization, and manipulation 0 Enhan ce capacity for monitoring progress 2 Maximize transfer and generalization Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols Provide options for expression and communication 3 H eighten salience of goals and objectives 4 Clarify vocabulary and symbols 5 Use multiple media for communication 4 Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge 2 Clarify syntax and structure 5 Use multiple tools for construction and composition 5 Fos ter collaboration and community 1 Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols 4 Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance 1 Increase mastery oriented feedback 6 Promote understanding across languages 6 Illustrate through multiple media Provide options for recruiting interest Provide options for perception Provide options for physical action 7 Optimize individual choice and autonomy 5 Offer ways of customizing the display of information 4 Vary th e methods for response and navigation 6 Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity 6 Offer alternatives for auditory information 5 Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies 1 Minimize threats and distractions 4 Offer alternatives for visual in formation Figure 4 1 Frequency of checkpoints used across all desi gns

PAGE 229

229 Figure 4 2. Percentage of each UDL use across all design opportunities

PAGE 230

230 Figure 4 3. Percentage of each UDL ti use across all design opportunities

PAGE 231

231 Figure 4 4 UDL checkpoints already established in at least one design highlighted in yellow

PAGE 232

232 Figure 4 5 UDL checkpoints t argeted in at least one design highlighted in pink

PAGE 233

233 Figure 4 6. Visual provided to Ella during her interview, displaying those UDL checkpoints she identified as already established highlighted in yellow, and those s he targeted highlighted in pink

PAGE 234

234 A) Standard petri dish growing bacteria, accessible visually B) Bottom of adapted petri dish, accessible tactilely by adding glue from a hot glue gun to represent bacteria spores Figure 4 7 Example of o ptions for perception A) standard petri dish accessible visually and B) adapted petri dish accessible tactile ly for students with low vision Photos courtesy of participant.

PAGE 235

235 Provide Multiple Means of Engagement Provide Multiple Means of Representation Provide Multiple Means of Action & Expression Provide options for self regulation Provide options for c omprehe nsion Provide options for executive functions 4/21 = 19% 15/28 = 54% 5/21 = 24% Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols Provide options for expression and communication 13 /28 = 46% 19/35 = 54% 14/21 = 67% Provide options for recruiting interest Provide options for p erception Provide options for physical action 14/21 = 67% 15/21 = 71 % 9/14 = 64% Figure 4 8. Percentage of each individual UDL use in design oppor tunitie s

PAGE 236

236 Figure 4 9 Percentage of each individual UDL use in design opportunities displayed in descending order

PAGE 237

237 A) pictures, images of ASL signs, and an imation. B) Figure 4 10 Examples of o ption s for perception in still images of animated PowerPoint presentations from A) Isla and B) designs Images courtesy of participant s.

PAGE 238

238 A) In the first part of the activity, students explored a variety of tangram templates and pattern blocks. B) In the second part of the activity, students also recorded how many of each shape they utilized in their pattern on a worksheet Figure 4 11 Examples of o ptions for expression and communication through the use of multiple tools for construction in a A) tangram template and pattern block activity and B) tangram template, pattern block, and worksheet activity Photos courtesy of participant.

PAGE 239

239 A) Level 1: s tudents take a picture with their food, and respond to two 2 array picture based questions B) L evel 2: s tudents take a picture with their fo od, and respond to two 2 or 3 array picture based questions C) Level 3 : s tudents take a picture with their food, rate the recipe out of five stars, and respond in writing to three questions Figure 4 12 Example s of o ptions for self regulation in A) Level 1, B) Level 2, and C) Level 3 of the digital recipe review designed by Molly Images courtesy of participant.

PAGE 240

240 Figure 4 13 Example s of o ptions for executive functions including goal setting, planning and strategy development Image courtesy of participant.

PAGE 241

241 A) Picture based materials list for planting grass seed B) P icture based step by step process for planting grass seed Figure 4 14 Examples of o ptions for executive functions in A) picture based materials list and B) step by step process visual Images courtesy of partic ipants.

PAGE 242

242 Participant Participant Reflection Related Critical Feature of PD Hannah where we did it in the small meeting room, and it was more like getting to see t he lesson Active learning Isla d in the past that UDL is not a set Content focus Coherence Molly think probably because it was a lot of principles that are examples of good teaching, that I w (Interview 6, April 12, 2017). Content focus Coherence Sean (Interview 7, April 12, 2017). Duration Tina small groups, or be on our own. it in a small group discussion. I like work Active learning Collective partnerships Ella by doing, but from examples. So if somebody who is skilled on the subject area, like you, and Y ou could implement this by doing it this way, Content focus Corey les, I thought that everything ran really well. I thought that on professional day, I liked the activity of getting up in the middle of it and walking around. I thought that was fine. I liked that you kept track of where we were in 4, April 12, 2017). Content focus Active learning Duration Figure 4 15 Participant r eflection on the s tructure of the PTLC, and r elated c ritical f eature of PD

PAGE 243

243 A) Definition, examples, and bottom line elicited from teachers for the action and express ion guideline provide options for physical action. B) Definition, examples, and bottom line elicited from teachers for the representation guideline provide options for perception. Figure 4 16 V isuals from the Around the Wo rld active learning strategy utili zed during the S tudy stage of the PTLC for A) providing options for physical action and B) providing options for perception Photos courtesy of author.

PAGE 244

244 Figure 4 17 Primary and sub que stions, themes, and broad theme

PAGE 245

245 CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS AND DISCU SSION The purpose of this study was to determine how professional development (PD) in universal design for learning ( UDL ) influences the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs. This pu rpose was based on a need identified within a specific educational context and unique student population. While elements of UDL ha ve been widely studied in the literature ( National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2011; Rose & Dalton, 2006 ), there is gap in the application of this framework to deaf learners, and especially bilingual Deaf learners with special needs. In addition, the majority of empirical investigations within deaf populations have focused on the representation principle of UDL, lead ing to a lack of data on the implementation of principles from the engagement, and action and expression principles. This study examined these gaps by providing structured PD in UDL using the professional teaching and learning cycle (PTLC) model with teach ers at a school for bilingual Deaf students with special needs. This chapter presents the implications and a discussion of the results of this study. To explore these concepts, this instrumental case study asked one primary research question: How does PD in UDL influence the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs? In order to address the primary question, two sub questions were posed The first sub question focuse d on the application o f UDL to the digital media design process within this population, while the second sub question focused on the features of PD and teacher learning. These questions were :

PAGE 246

246 1. How do teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital me dia materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program? 2. What features of the PD did participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the PRLC? The goal of asking these questions was to determine how UDL can be use d to develop digital media materials for Deaf students who have special needs and how teachers felt the features of PD supported or hindered teacher learning during the PTLC. The results of the study presented in the previous chapter, revealed three theme s for sub question one : 1. Teachers utilized the three UDL prin ciples to make design decisions. 2. Teachers utilized the three tiers of the UDL guid elines to make design decisions. 3. Teachers utilized individual UDL guidelines to make design decisions. In addition two themes were revealed for sub question two: 1. The presence of critical features of PD was more relevant to the success of the PD than the structure of the PTLC. 2. Teacher learning was supported and hindered by the presence of five critical features of PD These themes contributed to one broad theme revealed for the primary question : The digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs was influenced by providing teachers with a set of structur ed parameters for making informed design decisions via PD adapted to their teaching contexts and mindful of the critical features of PD. This chapter presents and discusses the implications of these findings. First, the implications of the s tudy participan ts, context and limitations are discussed. This is followed by an examination of the implementation of the UDL guidelines and PD in this

PAGE 247

247 context. Then, I examine of the use of UDL as a design resource for teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special n eeds both for digital media and general curricul um design. Finally, the bearing of these implications on my professional practice is explored. Study Participants The participants in this study were all employed as teachers at a small private school calle d the School for Deaf Children (SDC). At the time of the study, over 90% of the students at SDC had additional special needs. This implie d that their teachers were charged with the complex job of designing and delivering instruction to meet the unique lang uage and learning needs of this population. In this study, ten teachers were given the opportunity to engage in a PD series focusing on UDL. Seven of the participants attended at least five of the six PD meetings, submitted documents, and participated in a n individual interview. Three participants had low attendance across the PD meetings and did not participate in an individual interview. The seven SDC teachers who participated fully came from a variety of backgrounds including Deaf education, special edu cation, speech pathology, sign language interpreting, and school counseling. They ranged from 25 to 60 years of age, and had between two and 36 years of teaching experience. The study included five hearing females, one Deaf female, and one hearing male. Al l teachers used English (spoken and/or written) and American Sign Language (ASL) for academic and social purposes throughout the school day. The nature of the teachers who participated in this study had implications on both the findings and the application of those findings. The results were framed by the active

PAGE 248

248 participation of the seven teachers who submitted documents and volunteered to participate in individual interviews. T hree teachers had low attendance to the PD sessions and did not participate in i nterviews Their perspectives and thoughts were therefore not strongly reflected in the results. They were present for some sessions and therefore involved in collaboration and discussion. However, they never had an opportunity to deeply share their indivi dual reflections on UDL, the PD, or the impact on their practice. They may have provided a unique and important view that is not observed in the results. Their absence in the data is relevant and should frame the way the implications are discussed. Severa l demographic features of the seven participating teachers were also relevant to the implications of this study. Six of the seven participants were female. Six of the seven participants were hearing. Five of the seven teachers had four or fewer years of te aching experience. Therefore, the data is weighted toward young, hearing, female teachers. This was the nature of the population of teachers at SDC and therefore an unavoidable feature of the study. However, the implications of the study should be viewed w ith the knowledge that there are certain perspectives that are not as strongly reflected in the study. The impact of PD on UDL on male teachers, Deaf teachers, and more experienced teachers, should be examined in future studies. As described in the previo us chapter, SDC teachers came from a variety of educational backgrounds. Four participants had degrees in Deaf education, three in special education, and one in assistive technology. These foundational educational experiences may have played an impact in t he way that the teachers accessed and

PAGE 249

249 used the UDL guidelines in their digital media designs. This will be explored later in th is chapter The teachers who participated in this study naturally impacted the results While this in no way diminishes the authe nticity of their experiences or responses, it is important to be cognizant of the perspectives that were and were not reflected in the study. Study Context As described, this study took place at a private school for Deaf children where over 90% of the stud ents had additional disabilities. Classes ranged from preschool through high school / transition level. Each classroom had from three to five students and from two to four total staff. This low student to teach er ratio, while programmatically necessary given the nature of students at SDC, is relevant to the context of this study. Many SDC students receive d one on one instruction on a regular basis. A whole group lesson at SDC may consist of a teacher, a paraprofessional, and three to four students. The findin gs of this study did not come out of a more typical classroom of 20 25 typically development students, or even a more traditional Deaf education classroom of eight to ten students. SDC is a highly specialized conte x t for unique students. The findings are t herefore necessarily contextualized to this situation. The literature review revealed a gap in the application of the UDL framework to deaf learners, and especially bilingual Deaf learners with special needs. Therefore, this study sought to address this g ap by looking at the use of the UDL framework to design for these learners. However, SDC students demand ed curriculum designs that were both creative and mindful of their language and learning needs. These needs were met by the dedicated and knowledgeable SDC teachers. However, the processes they

PAGE 250

250 undertook to design for their students may have be en inherently different from the processes used by general education, special education, and typical Deaf education teachers. The context of this study was relevant for my own professional practice but also for the opportunity to explore the process of design for this population, which is so underrepresented in the literature. The next section of this chapter will present several limitation s related to the implicati ons of the study, followed by the implications of the themes revealed for sub questions one and two. Limitations The previous chapter presented limitations related to data collection and analysis. This has an impact on the implications of the study as well These limitations are described in this section. The first limitation of the data collection was related to timing. PD was provided sessions and a PD day session that ext ended through a Friday afternoon. I also noted that at times I felt rushed to get through some of the information within the constraints of this schedule. When the morning PTLC sessions finished, teachers went immediately to their classrooms and dove into their daily responsibilities. These limitations were out of my control as a researcher, given that this study occurred in an authentic educational context. However, t his implies that teachers may not have had an opportunity to fully engage with or synthesi ze the information. Another limitation of the data collection related to information regarding student response. Teachers submitted the Student Use Survey as a reflection of their based lessons. However, I note d that

PAGE 251

251 there appeared to be inconsistencies in how these surveys were completed. Therefore, that teachers likely filled these out in different ways. I had asked that the Student Use Surveys be completed immediately following the implementation of the lesson. However, some surveys were very brief while other contained more extensive narrative detail. This implies that not all surveys may have been completed in the same way or within the same time frame. In addition, the students themselves were not directly involved in providing their perspective on the UDL based lesson. Taken together, this limits the implications that can be drawn from this study on student response and l earning. The study does show promise in the use of UDL with bilingual Deaf learners with special needs and warrants future studies that explore student learning in a more direct way. Limitations in data analysis were also described in the previous chapter. These included the fact that I was the only individual who participated in the coding process and that member checking did not yield significant responses from the teacher participants. This has an impact on the implications of this study. Without partici active participation in the member checking process, it is difficult to determine if their views have been accurately analyzed, synthesized, and presented in the results and implications of the study. The implications of this study should, therefore be viewed with this limitation in mind. The next several sections present implications of this study related to the UDL guidelines and professional development. Readers should be mindful of the way the

PAGE 252

252 Utili zation of the UDL Guidelines In this study, teachers engaged in PD with the goal of gaining the knowledge and skills to use UDL as a framework for the design of digital materials to be used with their bilingual Deaf students with special needs. The teacher s completed several documents and participated in individual interviews. I used a rubric to examine their documents and maintained a research journal These instruments led to a corpus of data regarding the way that the teachers used the UDL guidelines ( Fi gure 2 5 ) in their designs. The UDL guidelines are consider the key sources and types of expected learner variability germane to a particular learning goal and to select or design flexible curricula th at help all learners presented in a structured format that includes three principles and three tiers of support. Given this matrix, there are nine individual guidelines. The structure of the UDL guidelines was highly relevant to the three themes that were revealed by the analysis of data in this study. The first theme related to the use of the UDL principles (engagement, representation, action and expression). The second theme involved the use of the three tiers of support, and the final theme examined how teachers use individual guidelines in their designs. The implications of these three themes are explored in the following section s UDL Principles The first theme stated that teachers utilized the three UDL principles to make design decisions. The data showe d that teachers used the representation principle most frequently in their designs, followed closely by action and expression, and engagement.

PAGE 253

253 the UDL principles was informed by their grounding in the field of Deaf education and the learning needs of their students. The literature review in this study revealed a dearth of information regarding the engagement and action and expression principles. The majority of studies examining the use of UDL with d eaf learners have focused on the impact of providing multiple means of representation. These studies primarily looked at curricular modifications that involved providing options for perception, and mo re specifically, offering alternatives for auditory information (Dalton, Schleper, Kennedy, Lutz, & Strangman, 2005; Easterbrooks, 1999 ; Easterbrooks & Stoner, 2006 ; Gentry, Chinn, & Moulton, 2005 ; Jensema, Danturthi, & Burch, 2000 ; Jensema & El Sharkawy, 2000; Marschark, 2006 ; Nugent, 1983 ; Scherer, 2005 ; Thorn & Thorn, 1996; Vesel, 2005 ; Zazove et al., 2004) These studies were, therefore, primarily concerned with empirically examining the impact of one principle of UDL rather than the UDL framework as a whole. In that way, this study address es this gap. In this study, t eachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs used all three principles in their designs. The representation principle was used the most, but the action and expression, and engageme nt principles also had consistent use across designs. This shows that when provided with PD on the UDL guidelines, these teachers impacted the design of the lessons in that mu ltiple modalities were commonly seen, including spoken and written English, ASL, images of ASL signs, pictures, and symbols. This is illustrative of the representation principle. However, deafness did not preclude them from benefitting from the p rovision of multiple means of action and

PAGE 254

254 expression, and engagement. Some studies may focus so heavily on the implications of a learner who is far more alike than different from other l earners, and who needs to be given opportunities to engage in learning, express herself, and show her learning in multiple ways. The findings related to the three principles have implications for future research. This study illustrated that the action and expression, and engagement principles are important elements to holistically designing for bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Teachers noted that students responded positively to the materials they created. However, specific and exact benefits of individual principles and guidelines were not examined in this study and warrant future research. This study showed that scholars need not limit themselves to the representation principle when looking at how UDL can be used with deaf populations, both wit h and without special needs. All three principles played a role in the designs created in this study, and future research should explore how the provision of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression impact s the learning of bi lingual Deaf students with special needs. UDL Tiers The second theme stated that teachers utilize d the three tiers of the UDL guidelines to make design decisions. The data showed that teachers used the lowest tier guidelines most frequently in their desig ns, followed by the middle tier guidelines and finally the highest tier guidelines. guidelines was influenced by reflection on their teaching practice, a desire to push into higher tiers, and the creation of designs based on the nature of the students and goals of the lesson.

PAGE 255

255 As described, the tiers represent the level of support a student needs to be successful with a given activity. Guidelines at the lowest tier are teacher centered or teacher driven, wh ile the middle tier guidelines are teacher and learner centered through scaffolding. The highest tier guidelines are learner center or learner driven. While there have been a significant number of studies examining how the three principles and their guide lines drive design, there is less evidence that the three tiers of the UDL guidelines have been used to frame studies. Certainly, there is ample evidence on how guidelines from the various tiers are observed in practice. However, the three tiers of support are not as strongly emphasized in the structure of the guidelines. Even the UDL guidelines v isual ( Figure 2 5 ) lists the three principles clearly but does not indicate that there is any particular purpose behind the tiered structure. Rather, this is expla ined narratively (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). The utilization of all three tiers was illustrated in this study, leading to several implications. Teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs used all three tiers in their designs. The lowest tier guidelines were used the most, followed by the middle tier, and finally the highest tier. The frequent use of the lowest tier guidelines is reflective of the strengths and demands of designing for bilingual Deaf students with special needs. These stud ents demand highly adapted instruction in order to be successful. Teachers are therefore experienced in performing these adaptations to their materials in order to meet the needs of their students. Many of these adaptations are performed to reduce or elimi nate barri ers to learning within curriculum materials themselves. For example, a presentation may be created on a yellow background for a student with low vision, or ASL added to an instructional video for a student who is Deaf. Many of these adaptions

PAGE 256

256 aim ed at reducing barriers are elements of the lowest tier guidelines. Therefore, teachers already displayed a strength in how to implement strategies from the lowest tier, whether they were aware that they are a part of UDL or not. This led to some confusion on the part of teachers who felt the y already did so much of what UDL entails. This implies that efforts should be made to help teachers recognize elements of UDL that are already in place in their learning environment. While the terminology of UDL was ne w to some teachers, some of the strategies to implement UDL were not. The teachers created many strong examples of UDL based designs after only a few days of PD. Some of this knowledge, particularly that needed for implementation of elements from lower tie rs, therefore, was already a part of their regular practice. Many teachers reflected that they sought to challenge themselves and their students by pushing into higher tiers Independence was frequently a central goal for students at SDC. Therefore, teach ers connected strongly with the idea of pushing into those higher tiers that are learner driven and require less teacher scaffolding. Teachers r students with special ne eds. However, the higher tiers were used less frequently in the designs and several teachers did express in reflection that they would have liked to push into higher tiers. This implies that teachers particularly teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs need support in developing the knowledge and skills to address higher levels of learning, such as self regulation, comprehe nsion, and executive functions. The findings related to the three tiers have implications for future research and pra ctice. The strength teachers displayed in incorporating guidelines from the lower tiers

PAGE 257

257 is indicative of their experience and educational background. Teachers expressed more difficulty and uncertainty in including guidelines from the higher tiers. This imp lies that they need more experience and education in what these guidelines mean and how they can be implemented with bilingual Deaf students with special needs. As described, teachers came from a variety of educational background including Deaf education and special education. T eacher preparation programs differ in the targeted student population and may prepare teachers in fundamentally different ways for the process of teaching. Teachers with a background in Deaf education may not have had the opportunit y to work with students with special needs. Similarly, teachers with a background in special education may not have had the opportunity to develop ASL fluency or work with Deaf students. T eacher practice is impacted when teachers from these two disciplines are tasked with teaching a student population impacted both by deafness and additional disabilities. A deeper look at how various types of teacher preparation programs address higher level skills such as self regulation, comprehension, and executive func tions, would be beneficial. Scholars should pursue lines of inquiry related to supporting teachers in understanding and implementing these skills. All three tiers played a role in the designs created in this study, and future research should explore how t he provision of learning opportunities across all three tiers impacts the learning of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Individual UDL Guidelines The third theme stated that teachers utilized individual UDL guidelines to make design decisions. Th is theme was revealed when looking beyond the structure of the principles and tiers and looking at each of the nine guidelines individually. The data

PAGE 258

258 utilization of the in dividual guidelines was influenced by their experiences, goals, and The patterns of use described in the first and second themes did not always hold true when looking at the guidelines individually. This implies that te achers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs made mindful decisions to use the individual guidelines in their digital designs. This was often determined by the exact nature of a given guideline. The four guidelines that were observed the most frequ ently were providing options for perception, recruiting interest, expression and communication, and physical action. Several of these guidelines are directly related to the specialized learning needs of this population. Providing options for perception pro motes offering visual and auditory alternatives to information a necessary element in Deaf education. Providing options for expression and communication promotes utilizing multiple modalities for communication and learning. Providing options for physical action promotes the use of assistive technologies a necessary element in special education. It is therefore unsurprising that teachers were observed to frequently utilize these guidelines in their plans. This implies that teachers are using their experi ences, goals, and knowledge of their students in approaching the design process. For example, teachers used their experiences, goals, and knowledge to incorporate the guidelines related to language presentation and use. This is unsurprising given the uniqu e language and learning needs of Deaf students, as described in the literature review. This implies that the priorities of these teachers may differ from general education, special education, and typical Deaf education teachers.

PAGE 259

259 This was illustrated not on ly by those guidelines that teachers frequently selected, but also by those that they mindfully avoided. For example, several teachers avoided the use of one particular guideline related to syntax and structure that they felt would negatively impact attent ion and cause stress. Teachers therefore approached the task of designing with UDL armed with their own experiences, goals, and knowledge based on the needs of their unique students. It has been demonstrated that bilingual Deaf students with special needs demand specialized instruction. The findings of this study imply that teachers extend this to the way they use UDL to design lesson for this population: in a specialized way. The findings also showed that two guidelines were used less than half as often a s the others: providing options for executive functions and self regulation, both of which were from the highest tier. The inclusion of these guidelines in some of the s that there are contexts in which they are appropriate for bi lingual Deaf students with special needs. This implies that teachers need support to create designs that incorporate learner centered activities that promote self regulation and executive function. Direction can be taken from the designs that did include t hese guidelines. Teachers provided options for self regulation by setting and maintaining high expectations, incorporating structured opportunities for students to participate in self reflection, and incorporating individual strategies for success. Teacher s provided options for executive functions by guiding students in setting goals and supporting planning and strategy development. These design examples can be used to support teachers such as those in this study who express a desire to create designs t hat

PAGE 260

260 push into the higher tiers, thereby increasing student independence and ownership over their learning. enhance capacity for progress monitoring. This comes from the highest tier of the action and expression guideline, which recommends that teachers provide options for executive functions. There are several possible reasons for this. Teachers may not have felt that this checkpoint was relevant to the goals of the lesson they designed Perhaps they did not fully understand the terminology or concepts. They also may have been unsure of how to enhance progress monitoring. Regardless of the reason, this implies that teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs may benefit from i ncreased opportunities to understand the concept and relevance of progress monitoring and apply it in their practice. The findings related to the individual guidelines have implications for future research and practice. Teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs displayed a strength in incorporating guidelines related to language presentation and use. Guidelines related to addressing learner centered concepts such as self regulation and executive functions were not utilized as frequently across designs. Teachers need research driven guidance on how to incorporate learner centered activities that address regulation and executive functions. Several designs in this study show that it is possible within this population. Scholars need to examine the ways these learner centered concepts can be provided to this specialized population, and develop ways to share that information with practicing teachers.

PAGE 261

261 Individual guidelines played a role in the designs created in this study, and fu ture research should explore how the provision of learning options across all nine guidelines impacts the learning of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. UDL Guidelines in This Context The themes revealed in the findings of this study related to th the principles, tiers, and individual UDL guidelines within their designs. The implications of these findings were explored in this section. The engagement, and action and expression principles are underrepresented in the literature but were utilized by teachers in this study. Future study on how these principles can be implemented with this population is recommended. The teachers responded positively to the three tier structure of the UDL guidelines despite this structure being underem designs showed frequent use of the lower tier guidelines that focus on reducing or eliminating barriers to materials and learning. Fewer designs incorporated the higher tier guidelines that focus on learner centered an d independent learning. Future study on how teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs can incorporate these higher tiers is recommended. Finally, teachers relied on their experiences, goals, and knowledge to select guidelines for use within t guidelines related to language presentation and use. Fewer designs incorporated learner centered concepts such as self regulation and executive functions. Future study on how teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs can incorporate these guidelines is recommended.

PAGE 262

262 This section explored the implications of this study on the utilization of the UDL guidelines. The next section discusses the implications of the PD in this context. Role of Pr ofessional Development In this study, teachers engaged in one iteration of the PTLC. This PD model is p. 1). Teachers participated in different activities across the six stages of the PTLC: S tudy, S elect, P lan, I mplement, A nalyze, and A djust. Reflection on the delivery of the PD via the PTLC was examined through the research journal and individual intervie ws. These instruments led to a corpus of data regarding how the PD supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC. The structure of the PTLC and the critical features of PD were highly relevant to the themes that were revealed by the analysis of dat a in this study. The first theme related to the role of the structure of the PTLC. The second theme explored the critical features and teacher learning The implications of these themes are explored in the following section s PTLC The first theme for sub q uestion two stated that the presence of critical features of PD was more relevant to the success of the PD than the structure of the PTLC. The data showed that the structure of the PTLC was less important to teachers than the presence of the critical featu res of PD. When asked about the structure of the PTLC, supported or hindered their engagement with the UDL content.

PAGE 263

263 The implications of this finding are relevant to the delivery of PD. Th is theme does not suggest that the PTLC as a structure was unsuccessful. Rather, it suggests that there are elements beyond the structure itself that are more relevant to the success of the PD. In other words, like all PD, a successful PTLC must incorporat e the critical features of PD in ways contextualized to the setting in which the teachers work. The six step cycle of the PTLC is designed such that it promotes the presentation of the PD in a certain way. For example, the six steps of the PTLC cannot be c ompleted in one meeting thereby relating to the duration critical feature. The PTLC promotes active collaboration and discussion thereby incorporating the active learning and collective partnership critical features. It is not the structure of the PTLC that makes it successful or unsuccessful as a model of PD, but how that structure leverages the power of the critical features of PD. The findings related to the structure of the PTLC have implications for future research. Tobia (2007) notes that the PTL C was developed to give teachers an opportunity to collaborate on standards based instructional methods. This study applied the PTLC to a different context: collaboration on the use of UDL to design digital media materials. The results show that the PTLC i s promising as a model of PD in contexts other than that for which it was developed. However, additional research is needed to determine how the PTLC applies to different contexts, any modifications that need to be made, and the benefits to both teachers a nd students. A dditionally, more research is needed to deeply explore the relationship between the PTLC and the critical features of PD. This research could determine the ways that

PAGE 264

264 the PTLC leverages the critical features of PD as well as any adaptations to the structure that could strengthen the presence of those critical features. The next section explores the implications of the presence of the five critical features of PD. Critical Features of PD The second theme for sub question two stated that teache r learning was supported and hindered by the presence of five critical features of PD. The data showed that participants felt that the presence of five critical features of PD content focus, coherence, duration, active learning, and collective partnershi ps supported or hindered their learning The implications for each of the five critical features is discussed in the following sections. Content focus The PD in this study maintained a content focus because it centered on teacher practices that support However, teachers expressed a desire for more concrete examples to develop a deeper understanding of the concepts and terminology of UDL. chers often felt that they already incorporated many elements of UDL in their regular practice. In this way, it made the PD more successful because they had a foundational understanding of some UDL concepts, whether they had used them in the context of a U DL based lesson or not. Other teachers expressed confusion on how UDL differed from their current practice. This implies that deeper investigation is needed regarding how UDL is reflective of and can supplement the regular practice of teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. If elements of UDL are already present in their

PAGE 265

265 regular practice, PD on UDL should harness this as a strength and use it to support the development of those elements that are not as strongly reflected. Coherence In this study, c oherence was observed through c beliefs, knowledge, performance expect ations, and regular practices. As a teacher with extensive UDL background, Isla repeatedly used the word mindset to describe how UDL was coherent wi th her beliefs about teaching and learning. She also used this word to explore ideas related to why the PD may not have been as successful for some teachers as it was for her. Those teachers new to UDL had not yet developed this view of UDL as a mindset. R ather, she believed they looked at the UDL guidelines as a checklist to be completed, rather than a guide to reducing barriers to learning and creating expert learners (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). This implies that teachers need time and experience to re fine their views on what UDL is and how it can impact their practice. Many teachers in this study expressed a desire for more concrete examples of UDL based lessons and the UDL guidelines in practice. This has direct implications on the strength of the PD provided specifically in this context: I should have provided more examples. It also has wider implications for individuals who deliver PD across any contexts: participants seek content that supports coherence with their knowledge and practices. With more examples, the leap from research to practice would be supported. Duration The implications of the duration of this PD are necessarily based on the context in which it occurred. Words and phrases used by teachers in this study such as long, short, q uick, fast, instant training, to the point, enough time can only be

PAGE 266

266 defined relative to the experiences from which those words come. This study did not produce a specific recommendation related to the span of time that is appropriate for a PTL C. Rather, the evidence implied that consideration of duration must be performed in relation to the context in which it occurs and the experiences of the teachers involved. Several relevant considerations did emerge. The duration of PD should balance the b enefit of the content with the needs of the teachers. Several teachers in this study lauded the brevity of the training and the fact that they felt they could implement elements of UDL right away. This implies that PD of more extended duration may only be beneficial if it pays frequent dividends to teachers through benefit to practice. This impacts the way that the PD is designed. While the literature suggests that PD must be sustained over time in order to be effective ( Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Y oon, 2001 ), this study also showed that teachers can have negative responses to PD that is extended over time due to disengagement and frustration. This does not imply that extended duration PD is ineffective, but rather the duration should be determined b y how that time allows teachers to be engaged in beneficial learning activates. PD will not necessarily be successful just because it is sustained over time. PD designers need to examine what opportunities that duration may provide and design activities to meet the goals of the PD. In this study, beneficial learning activities were successfully built into a relatively shorter duration opportunity. This implies that duration should be determined by the learning activities required to meet the goals of the PD rather than to fulfill a span of time predetermined outside of the context of the learning environment.

PAGE 267

267 Active learning In this study, teachers participated in a variety of active learning strategies, such as discussion, collaboration, planning, and re on these activities yield several implications. As an active learning strategy, discussion with other teachers generated many positive responses from teachers. This implies that providing opportunities for meanin gful discussion is a valuable active learning strategy that can be built into PD. This also relates to the duration and collective partnerships critical features because time and opportunity must be provided for teachers to authentically engage with others in these discussions. Several t eachers also had positive responses to activities that moved beyond the monotony of attending a presentation without being provided the opportunity to engage more deeply. These activities can be designed and used in PD in m yriad ways. However, several teachers reflected that particular active learning strategies negatively impacted their engagement based on their learner preferences. This implies that while active learning strategies as a whole can be beneficial, the inclusi on of particular This study implies that incorporating particular active learning strategies into PD can positively impact teacher engagement, reflection on practice, and learning. Designers should remain aware of individual learner preferences when considering how to incorporate active learning strategies in PD. Collective partnerships Th e context of this PD was unique in that two school programs came together for the PD training. This allowed for cross program c ollective partnerships that may not be possible in all settings. There were many positive reflections on the benefit of working

PAGE 268

268 with individuals with different experiences, as observed when SDC and SFC teachers collaborated. Still others ref lected that the unique nature of their classroom left them feeling isolated and unable to relate to the experiences of others. This implies that PD should be designed to provide teachers with the opportunity to work with individuals outside of their immedi ate age and grade level cohort. The key word here is opportunity. Teachers appreciated that cross program collective partnerships were available to them during this PD but were not forced. In keeping with UDL, I provided multiple means of engagement by op timizing individual choice and autonomy and minimizing threats and distractions for my teachers as learners. Teachers had the choice to engage in c ollective partnerships or work individually. For some, forcing them to engage in such an activity would have been a threat and distraction and thereby not beneficial. This implies that collective partnerships, as an active learning strategy, can be incorporated into PD in ways that are respectful of teachers as learners. The key word opportunity, as it relates to collective partnerships, also has implications for the other critical features of PD. Teachers in this study described how the time provided to engage with others in collective partnerships was a valuable experience for them. This relates to the duration of the PD. The opportunity to participate in these meaningful discussions helped teachers understand how the content of the PD supported and supplemented their regular practice. This relates to the content focus and coherence critical features. This implie s that the critical features of PD cannot be considered in isolation. The presence of cert ain critical features may support the incorporation of other critical features.

PAGE 269

269 By considering the smorgasbord of options provided by the inclusion of the critical f eatures of PD, trainings can be designed to meet the needs of teachers in unique educational contexts, such as teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. PD in This Context The examination of the structure of the PTLC and the presence of the critical features of PD led to several suggestions for future research. As described, research on the role of the PTLC is needed to determine how that model supports learning within different educational contexts. In addition, scholars should examine how t he critical features of PD support the PTLC model and what combinations of features leverage the power of the PTLC. On a more specific level, the critical features individual ly yield recommended research directions. More research is needed on how to harne content knowledge of UDL to support attaining higher level skills. Deeper examination is needed on how to support novice teachers in developing coherence with the belief that UDL is a mindset. The role of duration in relation to PD goals and activities should be examined more closely. Additionally, research is needed on the specific active learning strategies and opportunities for collective partnerships that support teacher engagement and learning within a PTLC. This section explored th e implications of this study on the design of PD. The next section reflects on the broad potential of UDL as a design resource for teachers of bilingual deaf students with special needs.

PAGE 270

270 A Reflection on UDL as a Design Resource for Teachers of Bilingual D eaf Students with Special Needs The implications garnered from the examination of the sub questions can be examined more holistically. The broad theme identified by the primary research question was that the digital media design process of teachers in a bi lingual Deaf education program for students with special needs was influenced by providing teachers with a set of structured parameters for making informed design decisions via PD adapted to their teaching contexts and mindful of the critical features of P D. The structured parameters identified in this theme are the UDL guidelines, provided to teachers via PD designed for their teaching context. In this study, the implications of this broad theme are based around two primary areas: the use of UDL by teache rs of bilingual Deaf students with special needs as a design resource for digital media design, and more globally in general curricul um design. These are explored below. Given the affordances of digital media to support the language and learning needs of D eaf students, this study provided an opportunity to explore how UDL could support the design process. As a researcher, my intention was to provide strong PD to the teachers in my context that they could then use to design digital media to meet the needs of their diverse and unique students. As described in the previous c hapter, there were elements of the PD that supported and hindered teacher learning in various ways. SDC teachers can use UDL as a design resource for this population. However, as a researche r I recognize that the application of UDL in this study went beyond the narrow window of digital media design. UDL is, as described by Isla, a mindset. Rather than utilizing UDL for the singular purpose of designing digital media, teachers utilized UDL

PAGE 271

271 to design holistic lessons, of which digital media was one element. While several teachers were novices to UDL, they showed emerging understanding of using UDL as a mindset to design their lesson rather than apply it only to their digital media design. With a dditional PD, teachers can deepen their knowledge of UDL and hone their skills in applying it across their environment. Namely, they can make it their mindset. While this study sought to determine the influence of PD on UDL specifically on digital media de signs, the implications are more global. UDL shows promise as a design resource for teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs not only for digital media design but for general curricul um design. More research is needed to explore how the UDL f ramework can support teachers and curricul um designers for this unique population. My Professional Practice This study has direct implications for my professional practice. The willingness of support this project illustrates th eir dedication to providing teachers access to research based approaches to the design and implementation of instruction for bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Given my role as a Curriculum Coordinator, I will have the opportunity to continue to e xplore how UDL can impact the teachers and students of SDC. Several SDC teachers indicated that they plan to continue to use UDL in the future. There was an overall positive response to this PD and teachers found benefit in the content. As a Curriculum Co ordinator, I am well placed to explore how UDL can continue to be an element of design for teachers in their lesson and unit plans. I can make connections between teachers who would benefit from collaborating with one

PAGE 272

272 another. In addition, I hope to contin ue asking questions about how UDL can be used to support language and learning for bilingual Deaf students with special needs Another implication of this study for my professional practice relates to the design and delivery of PD. The response of teachers to the presence of the critical features can inform the way that PD is designed in the future Teachers and therapy staff had performed research on specific therapeutic strategies and instructional and communication approaches in this setting. Ho wever, to my knowledge, this was the first empirical look at how PD is provided to teachers at The Communication School. The data from this study can be presented to the administration of SDC and used to guide future design and delivery of PD. The future looks bri ght for teachers and students at The Communication School. Concluding Thoughts As stated, the purpose of this study was to determine how UDL was used to develop digital media materials for Deaf students who had special needs and how features of PD supporte d or hindered teacher learning The literature review provided a foundation of knowledge and identified gaps in scholarship related to Deaf bilingual learners with special needs, learning through multimedia, UDL, and PD. The methodology was selected to add ress the research questions of the study and harvest data reflective of the stated purpose. A rigorous qualitative analysis was performed using a variety of tools and approaches. The results revealed themes which were t hen examined for their implications t o practice at SDC and beyond. Dani, Kelly, and Caleb, the students from the fictional vignette, still face d many challenges. PD in UDL did not change the communication mismatch that Dani experience d on a daily basis. It did not change the types of behavio ral intervention and

PAGE 273

273 strategies that Kelly need ed to be successful. It did physical or medical conditions. However, PD in UDL can make a difference in these l to approach the task of designing instruction that empowers them to be purposeful, motivated, resourceful, knowledgeable, strategic, and goal directed. In other words, with UDL implemented mindful to their needs as bilingual Deaf students with special ne eds, Dani, Kelly, and Caleb can be expert learners.

PAGE 274

274 APPENDIX A STUDY OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION

PAGE 275

275

PAGE 276

276 APPENDIX B PARTICIPANT CONSENT Protocol Title: How does professional development in universal design for learning influence the digital media design proc ess of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for students with special needs? Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. I am conducting research to explore how professional development in univers al design for learning (UDL) influences the digital media designs that teachers create for bilingual Deaf students who have special needs. Our school setting and school population are quite unique and I wish to explore the pedagogy, instructional approache s, and best practices for educating this population of students. The overarching goal is to gain a deeper understanding of how to provide the most appropriate education to our students. Purpose of the research study: Teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs face a unique challenge in designing instructional tools for their population of learners. While the bilingual language and learning philosophy guides the pedagogy of teacher of traditional bilingual Deaf learners who do not have additio nal special needs, this philosophy does not make specific recommendations on how instruction should be adapted for bilingual Deaf students with multiple additional special needs. This study will explore another framework to examine the influence on the dig ital media design process : universal design for learning (UDL) The purpose of this study is to determine how structured professional development in UDL influences the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual Deaf education program for stude nts with special needs. What you will be asked to do in the study: Participation will occur within established professional development periods. Participation will include group discussions and activities, and the completion of a document, survey and an interview. Group discussions will focus on the design process and the professional development. The document will guide the design of a lesson plan and digital media materials. The survey will examine student response to the digital media designs. You will be asked to put your name on the document and survey to ensure that the researcher knows which data sources go together. The researcher will remove all names when analyzing and reporting results. Time required: Approximately 6 morning professio nal development periods (45 minutes) Approximately 1 afternoon professional development period (2 hours) Approximately 1 mutually convenient interview session (1 hour)

PAGE 277

277 Risks and Benefits: No risks are anticipated. There are no direct benefits to you f or participating in the study. Your participation will allow researchers to improve understanding of how professional development in UDL influences the digital media design process of teachers of bilingual Deaf students with special needs. Compensation: No ne Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participat ing. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Principal Investigator: Sarah Brandt, BSD Curriculum Coordinator. Phone: 978 927 7 070. Email: sarahbrandt@ufl.edu Faculty Supervisory: Dr. Kara Dawson, G518C Norman Hall, School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida. Phone: 352 273 4177. Email: dawson@coe.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I volu ntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: __________________ __ ______________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigato r: _______________________ __ Date: _______________ __

PAGE 278

278 APPENDIX C TRAINING MATERIALS: STUDY STAGE

PAGE 279

279

PAGE 280

280

PAGE 281

281

PAGE 282

282

PAGE 283

283

PAGE 284

284

PAGE 285

285

PAGE 286

286

PAGE 287

287

PAGE 288

288

PAGE 289

289

PAGE 290

290

PAGE 291

291

PAGE 292

292 APPENDIX D RESEARCH JOURNAL GUIDE: ALL STAGES RQ: How does professional development in uni versal design for learning influence the digital media design process of teachers in a bilingual De af education program for students with special needs? RQ1: How do teachers utilize the UDL guidelines to make decisions when designing digital media materials for students with special needs in a bilingual Deaf education program? RQ2: What features of PD did the participants feel supported or hindered their learning during the PTLC? Date Description of research activity knowledge collaboration design process teaching practice Resea rch process Other

PAGE 293

293 APPENDIX E TRAINING MATERIALS: SELECT AND PLAN STAGES

PAGE 294

294

PAGE 295

295

PAGE 296

296

PAGE 297

297 APPENDIX F UDL LESSON PLANNER: SELECT AND PLAN STAGES Your Name Title of Lesson Subject Area Unit Plan Grade(s) Other What are the learning goals of th is lesson? What activities will address these goals?

PAGE 298

298 Use the UDL Guidelines visual on the next page to answer the following questions: What barriers to learning are you trying to reduce/eliminate? What UDL guidelines/checkpoints are already es tablished in the learning environment? What UDL guidelines/checkpoints will you focus on in this lesson? Why did you choose these UDL guidelines/checkpoints ?

PAGE 299

299 Provide Multiple Means of Engagement Representation Action & Expression Provide options fo r self regulation 1. Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation 2. Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies 3. Develop self assessment and reflection Provide options for comprehension 11. Activate or supply background knowledge 12. Highlight patterns critical features, big ideas, and relationships 13. Guide information processing, visualization, and manipulation 14. Maximize transfer and generalization Provide options for executive functions 23. Guide appropriate goal setting 24. Support planning and strategy develo pment 25. Enhance capacity for monitoring progress Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence 4. Heighten salience of goals and objectives 5. Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge 6. Foster collaboration and community 7. Increase mastery oriented fe edback Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols 15. Clarify vocabulary and symbols 16. Clarify syntax and structure 17. Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols 18. Promote understanding across languages 19. Illustrate through mu ltiple media Provide options for expression and communication 26. Use multiple media for communication 27. Use multiple tools for construction and composition 28. Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance Provide options for recrui ting interest 8. Optimize individual choice and autonomy 9. Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity 10. Minimize threats and distractions Provide options for perception 20. Offer ways of customizing the display of information 21. Offer alternatives for auditory informat ion 22. Offer alternatives for visual information Provide options for physical action 29. Vary the methods for response and navigation 30. Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies

PAGE 300

300 APPENDIX G STUDENT USE SURVEY: IMPLEMENT STAGE Your Name Students Using Materials Compared to materials used in the past, when using the UDL based digital media materials, my students : Increased Stayed the same Decreased Motivation O O O What observations make you think so? Knowledge O O O What observations make y ou think so? Independence O O O What observations make you think so? Educational success O O O What observations make you think so? What is your overall view on this digital media material? In what ways would you change it?

PAGE 301

301 APPENDIX H TRAINING MATERIALS: ANALYZE AND ADJUST STAGES

PAGE 302

302

PAGE 303

303

PAGE 304

304 APPENDIX I DOCUMENT RUBRIC: POST PTLC Participant Code Title of Lesson Subject Area Targeted UDL Checkpoints Using the UDL based lesson and digital media artifact, examine each targeted and obs erved checkpoint from the UDL guidelines by completing the rubric on the following pages. The levels of performance are provided in the chart below. Level Text Description 0 Not observed or present in the design This indicates that there is no evidence o f this UDL checkpoint in the design. Not all checkpoints can be included in every design. negative this particular checkpoint may simply not have been targeted in this design. 1 Weakly observed or present in th e design This indicates that there is some evidence of this UDL checkpoint in the design. However it may only be observable in parts of the design or in limited contexts. 2 Moderately observed or present in the design This indicates that there is signifi cant evidence of this UDL checkpoint in the design. It is observable in most parts of the design and in most contexts. There remain some opportunities for increasing the application of this checkpoint. 3 Strongly observed or present in the design This ind icates that there is ample evidence of this UDL checkpoint across all aspects of the design.

PAGE 305

305 UDL Checkpoint Rating Researcher Comments #______ ___Already Established (by teacher) ___Targeted (by teacher) ___Observed (by researcher) #______ __Already Established (by teacher) ___Targeted (by teacher) ___Observed (by researcher) #______ ___Already Established (by teacher) ___Targeted (by teacher) ___Observed (by researcher) #______ ___Already Established (by teacher) ___Targeted (by t eacher) ___Observed (by researcher) #______ ___Already Established (by teacher) ___Targeted (by teacher) ___Observed (by researcher) #______ ___Already Established (by teacher) ___Targeted (by teacher) ___Observed (by researcher) #______ ___ Already Established (by teacher) ___Targeted (by teacher) ___Observed (by researcher)

PAGE 306

306 Provide Multiple Means of Engagement Representation Action & Expression Provide options for self regulation 1. Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivat ion 2. Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies 3. Develop self assessment and reflection Provide options for comprehension 11. Activate or supply background knowledge 12. Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships 13. Guide information proc essing, visualization, and manipulation 14. Maximize transfer and generalization Provide options for executive functions 23. Guide appropriate goal setting 24. Support planning and strategy development 25. Enhance capacity for monitoring progress Provide options for sust aining effort and persistence 4. Heighten salience of goals and objectives 5. Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge 6. Foster collaboration and community 7. Increase mastery oriented feedback Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbo ls 15. Clarify vocabulary and symbols 16. Clarify syntax and structure 17. Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols 18. Promote understanding across languages 19. Illustrate through multiple media Provide options for expression and communication 26. Use multip le media for communication 27. Use multiple tools for construction and composition 28. Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance Provide options for recruiting interest 8. Optimize individual choice and autonomy 9. Optimize relevance value, and authenticity 10. Minimize threats and distractions Provide options for perception 20. Offer ways of customizing the display of information 21. Offer alternatives for auditory information 22. Offer alternatives for visual information Provide options for physic al action 29. Vary the methods for response and navigation 30. Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies

PAGE 307

307 APPENDIX J INTERVIEW GUIDE : POST PTLC 1. Please describe your professional background, including your teaching experience here at SDC. Design Proces s 2. Before this PD, what did you know about UDL? 3. What is your opinion on the use of UDL with this population of students? 4. How did the UDL Guidelines influence your design process ? 5. How did the UDL based design process differ from what you have done in the p ast? 6. Which UDL guidelines did you choose to focus on in your design ? W hy? 7. Were there any UDL guidelines that you consciously chose not to include? If so, why? Implementation 8. When your student was using your digital media design, what did you notice? (Wh at did they do or say? How did they respond? ) 9. What did you notice about student motivation ? 10. What did you notice about student knowledge ? 11. What did you notice about student independence ? 12. What did you notice about overall educational success ? Future 13. Do yo u expect to continue to use UDL in your teaching practice? a. If so, how? b. If not, why? 14. How do you see the Engagement Guideline impacting your teaching practice? 15. How do you see the Representation Guideline impacting your teaching practice? 16. How do you see t he Action & Expression Guideline impacting your teaching practice? 17. What else would you like to explore related to the use of UDL in your classroom? Professional Development 18. Please describe your overall impressions about the professional teaching and lear ning cycle. 19. Which activities were the most valuable to you? Why? 20. How did the professional development impact your knowledge of UDL? 21. How did the professional development impact your design practice? 22. Please describe how you collaborated with other teachers. 23. Was this collaboration valuable? Why? 24. How did the professional development impact your overall teaching practice?

PAGE 308

308 APPENDIX K DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY : POST PTLC Question Responses Name Open response Age Open response Years of teaching experience (total, thr ough the end of the 2017 school year) Open response Years of teaching experience (at SDC, through the end of the 2017 school year) Open response Massachusetts Teaching License (check all that apply) I am not a licensed educator I have a license in Deaf/hard of hearing I have a license in special education Other:______________ Background with UDL (core concepts, UDL guidelines, etc.) before attending this training. I had no background with UDL. I had never heard of UDL before. I had heard the term "UDL" or "universal design for learning," but I didn't really know what it was. I had a little experience with UDL. I had a lot of experience with UDL. I was already an expert with UDL.

PAGE 309

309 LIST OF REF ERENCES Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73 (3), 277 320. Alfassi, M. (2000). The use of technology (ICT) as a medium f or fostering literacy and facilitating discourse within the classroom. Educational Media International, 37, 137 148. Al Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language, Learning & Technology, 5 (1), 202 232. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Anderson Inman, L., Knox Quinn, C., & Horney, M. A. (1996). Computer bas ed study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (5), 461 484. Anderson Inman, L., Knox Quinn, C., & Szymanski, M. (1999). Computer supported studying: Stories of successful transition to postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Children, 22 (2), 185 212. Andrews, D. & Lewis, M. (2007). Transforming practice from within: The power of the professional learning community. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 132 147) Maidenhead: Open University Press. Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example based learning environments: Using interactive elements to e ncourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 375 386. Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2002). Acquisition and generalization of purchasing skills using a video enhanced computer based instructional program. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17 (4), 15 28. Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2014). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2 nd ed.) (pp. 206 226). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer sity Press. Baddeley, A. B. (1986). Working memory New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. B. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PAGE 310

310 Baddeley, A. B. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4 (11), 417 423. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8 47 89. Bailes, C. (2001). Integrative ASL English language arts: Bridging paths to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1 (2), 147 174. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4 th ed.). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters LTD. Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (7), 500 508. Banda, D. R., Matuszny, R. M., & Turkan, S. (2007). Video modeling strategies to enhance appropriate behaviors in children with autism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 (6), 47 52. Bat Chava, Y. (1994). Group identification and self esteem of deaf adults. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 494 502. Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Repor t, 13 (4), 544 559. Bellugi, U., Klima, E. S., & Siple, P. (1975). Remembering in signs. Cognition, 3 (2), 93 125. Bennett, D. E., Zentall, S. S., French, B. F., & Giorgetti Borucki, K. (2006). The effects of computer administered choice on students with and without characteristics of attention d eficit/ h yperactivity disorder. Behavioral Disorders, 31 (2), 189 203. Bernstein, L. E., & Auer, E. T. (2003). Speech perception and spoken word recognition In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook o f deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 379 391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 113 140) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Blamey, P. J. (2003). Development of spoken language by deaf children. In M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 232 246). New York: Oxford Universit y Press.

PAGE 311

311 Blankenship, T. L., Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2005). Effects of computer based cognitive mapping on reading comprehension for students with emotional behavior disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20 (2), 15 23. Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2010). Foundations of qualitative research. In W. Luttrell (Ed.), Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice (pp. 21 44) New York, NY: Routledge. Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P A. (1988). Children's preference for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1), 134 141. Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (1993). Hypermedia basal readers: Three years of school based research. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12 (2), 86 106. Borg, S. (2001). The research journal: A tool for promoting and understanding researcher development. Language Teaching Research, 5 (2), 156 177. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teach er learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 3 (8), 3 15. Bruce, S., DiNatale, P., & Ford, J. (2008). Meeting the needs of deaf and hard of hearing students with additional disabilities through professional teacher development. American Annals of the Deaf, 153 (4), 368 375. Brnken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 53 61. Calderon, R. & Greenberg, M. (2003). Social and emotional development of deaf children: Family, school, and program effects. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 177 189). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carvill, S. (2001). Sensory impairments, intellec tual disability and psychiatry. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 45 (6), 467 483. Center for Applied Special Technology (2013). UDL Intersections: Universal design for learning and universal design Wakefield, MA: CAST. Center for Applied Spec ial Technology (2014). UDL guidelines Wakefield, MA: CAST. Center for Applied Special Technology (2015). CAST timeline Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/about/timeline.html#.WDn awneZPgE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). Autism spectrum disorder: Data and statistic s. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

PAGE 312

312 Center for Universal Design (2008). About UD Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm Chalifoux, L. M. (1991). The implications of congenital deafness for working memory. American Annals of the Deaf, 136 292 299. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd e d.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Christensen, D. L., Baio, J., Braun, K. V. N., Bilder, D., Charles, J., Constantino, J. & Yeargin Allsopp, M. (2016). Pr evalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 65 (3). Chun, D. M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14 (5), 367 403. Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension wit h multimedia. System, 24 (4), 503 519. Clark A. E. (2005) Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Clark, J. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3 (3), 1 49 210. Conrad, R. (1970). Short term memory processes in the deaf. British Journal of Psychology, 61 (2), 179 195. Conrad, R. (1972). Short term memory in the deaf: A test for speech coding. British Journal of Psychology, 63 (2), 173 180. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. & Evans, D. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. Research evidence in education library, Version 1.1. London: EPPI Centre Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Creswell, J. W (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, C A: SAGE Publications.

PAGE 313

313 Dalton, B. Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Peabody, M A: CAST. Dalton, B., Schleper, D., Kennedy, M., Lutz, L., & Strangman, N. (2005). A universally designed digital strategic reading environment for adolescents who are deaf and hard of hearing. Final Report to Gallaudet University Wakefield, MA: CAST. D Two fourth grade boys with learning disabilities learn to use a computer spelling checker. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 177 191. Dattilo, J., & Camarat a, S. (1991). Facilitating conversation through self initiated augmentative communication treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 369 378. Dattilo, J., Guerin, N., & Cory, L. (2001). Effects of computerized education on self determination of youth with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16 (1), 5 17. Davies, D. K., Stock, S. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). Enhancing independent internet access for individuals with mental retardation through use of a specialized web browser: A pilot study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 107 113. Davies, D. K., Stock, S. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2002a). Enhancing independent time management skills of individuals with mental retardation using a palmtop personal computer. Mental Retardation, 40 (5), 358 365. Davies, D. K., Stock, S. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2002b). Enhancing independent task performance for individuals with mental retardation through the use of a handheld self directed visual and audio prompting system. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 209 218. Denmark J. C. (1985). A study of 250 patients referred to a department of psychiatry for the deaf. British Journal of Psychiatry, 146 282 2 86. Department of Justice (September 2010). 2010 ADA standards for accessible design Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 191 199.

PAGE 314

314 Desimone, L. M., Smith, T., & Frisvold, D. (2007). Is NCLB increasing teacher q uality for students in poverty? In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Standards based and the poverty gap: Lessons from No Child Left Behind (pp. 89 119). Washington, D C : Brookings Institution Press. Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., Hayes, S., & Frisvold, D. (2005). Beyo nd accountability and average math scores: Relating multiple state education policy attributes to changes in student achievement in procedural knowledge, conceptual understanding and problem solving in mathematics. Educational Measurement: Issues and Pract ice, 24 (4), 5 18. Dicarlo, C. F., & Banajee, M. (2000). Using voice output devices to increase initiations of young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23 (3), 191 199. Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer based read aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3 (7), 1 33. Dubois, M., & Vial, I. (2000). Multimedia design: The effects of relating multimodal information. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16 (2), 157 165. Duchan E. & Patel, D. R. (2012). Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders. Pediatric Clinics of North Ameri ca 59 (1), 27 43. DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. dicapped hearing impaired students: A review of the literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 130 (1), 9 14. Easterbrooks, S. (1999). Improving practices for students with hearing impairments. Exceptional Children, 65 (4), 537 554. Easterbrooks, S. R., & S toner, M. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in the written language of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27 (2), 95 109. Edwards, L. (2010). Learning disabilities in deaf and hard of hearing child ren. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (2 nd ed.) (pp. 425 438). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 315

3 15 Elkind, J., Cohen, K., & Murray, C. (1993). Using computer based readers to improve read ing comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43 238 259. Embregts, P. J. C. M. (2002). Effects of video feedback on social behaviour of young people with mild intellectual disability and staff responses. International Journal of Disab ility, Development and Education, 49 (1), 105 116. Embregts, P. J. C. M. (2003). Using self management, video feedback, and graphic feedback to improve social behavior of youth with mild mental retardation. Education and Training in Developmental Disabili ties, 38 (3), 283 295. Englert, C. S., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The effects of technology enabled scaffolding on young writers' composition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19 (1), 5 22. Englert, C. S., W u, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20 (3), 184 198. Epstein, J. N., Willis, M. G., Conners, C. K., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Use of a technological prompting device to aid a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to initiate and complete daily tasks: An exploratory study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16 (1), 19 28. Fasting, R. B., & Lyster, S. H. (2005). The e ffects of computer technology in assisting the development of literacy in young struggling readers and spellers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20 21 40. Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching for historical und erstanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24 (1), 59 71. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72 (2), 93 114. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Friedmann, N., & Szterman, R. (2006). Syntactic movement in orally trained children with hearing impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11 (1), 56 75. Gallaudet Research Institute (April 2011). Regional and national summary report of data from the 2009 10 annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Washington, D C : GRI, Gallaudet University.

PAGE 316

316 Gallaudet University (March 2015). D emographics Retrieved from http://www.gallaudet.edu/rsia/research support/research resources/demographics.html Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M ., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 915 945. Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2005). Effectiveness of m ultimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149 (5), 394 403. research. Qualitative Health Research, 15 256 262. Glase r, C. W., Rieth, H. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (1999). A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14 (2), 27 43. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of co mputers on student writing: A meta analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2 (1), 1 24. Golos, D. B., & Moses, A. M. (2013). Developing preschool deaf children's language and literacy learning from an educati onal media series. American Annals of the Deaf, 158 (4), 411 425. revising essays produced on a word processor: Self instructional strategy training. The Journal of Specia l Education, 22 (2), 133 152. Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page Voth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58 (4), 322 334. Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 131 149. Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingualism, bicu lturalism, and deafness. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13 (2), 133 145. Grosjean, F. & Li, P. (2013). The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

PAGE 317

317 Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. The Teachers College Record, 103 942 1012. Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32 (2), 95 105. Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. ( 2011). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation: Effective classroom practices report. Washington, DC: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Hamers, J. F. (1998). Cognitive and language development of bilingual ch ildren. In I. Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 51 75). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, H. (2011). Memory skills of deaf learners: Implications and applications. American Annals of the Deaf, 156 (4), 402 423. Hamilton, H. & Holzman, T. G. (1989). Linguistic encoding in short term memory as a function of stimulus type. Memory & Cognition, 17 (5), 541 550. Hari Narayanan, N., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynami c information. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57 (4), 279 315. Harlacher, J. (2016). Washington, D. C.: REL Central. Hecker, L., Burns, L., Katz, L., Elkind, J., & Elkind, K. (2002). Bene fits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 52 (1), 243 272. Henao, O. (2002). The ability of competent and poor readers to remember information from hypermedia and printed texts. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25 315 328. Henry, L. A. (2010). The episodic buffer in children with intellectual disabilities: An exploratory study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31 1609 1614. Hersh, M. (2013). Deafblind people, communication, independence, and isolation. J ournal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18 (4), 1 18. Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Lear ning Disabilities, 37 (2), 143 154. Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (4), 402 412.

PAGE 318

318 Higgins, K., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compensatory ef fectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159 174. Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2000). Speaking to read: The effects of continuou s vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15 (1), 19 30. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hord, S. M., & Sommers, W. A. (Eds.). (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Horn Marsh, P. M. & Horn Marsh, K. (2009). Bilingual students publish works in ASL and English. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 10 (1), 12 17. Horney, M., & Anderson Inman, L. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading & Writing Quarterl y: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15 (2), 127 168. Hughes, L. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (2002). Reading at a distance: Implications for the design of text in children's big books. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (2), 213 226. Hutinger, P. L ., Johanson, J., & Stoneburner, R. (1996). Assistive technology applications in educational programs of children with multiple disabilities: A case study report on the state of the practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13 16 35. Irish, C. ( 2002). Using peg and keyword mnemonics and computer assisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17 (4), 29 40. Jensema, C. J., & El Sharkawy, S. (2000). Eye movement patterns of captioned television viewers. American Annals of the Deaf, 145 (3), 275 285. Jensema, C. J., Danturthi, R. S., & Burch, R. (2000). Time spent viewing captions in television programs. American Annals of the Deaf, 145 (5), 464 468. Johnson, C. & Seaton, J. (2012). Educational audiology handbook (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

PAGE 319

319 Joint Standards Committee of the National Council on Education of the Deaf and the Council for Exceptional Children (1996). CEC CED joint knowledge and skills statement for all becoming teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 141 (3), 220 223. Jones, J. D., Staats, W. D., Bowling, N., Bickel, R. D., Cunningham, M.L., & Cadle, C. (2004 ). An evaluation of the Merit reading software program in the Calhoun County (WV) middle/high school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 177 195. Jure, R., Rapin, I., & Tuchman, R. F. (1991). Hearing impaired autistic children. Developme ntal Medicine & Child Neurology, 33 (12), 1062 1072. Karchmer, M. A. & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard of hearing students. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, langu age, and education (pp. 21 37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kalyuga, S. (2014). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2 nd ed.) (pp. 576 597). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (1), 126 136. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for lear ning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13) Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Killora n, J. (2007). The national deaf blind child count: 1998 2005 in review. Monmouth, OR: The National Technical Assistance Consortium for Children and Young Adults who are Deaf Blind. Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and sci ence classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67 (2), 227 266 Knight, P. & Swanwick, R. (2002). Working with deaf pupils: Sign bilingual policy into practice London: David Fulton P ublishers.

PAGE 320

320 Knoors, H. & Verv l oed, M. P. J. (2003). Educational programming for deaf children with multiple disabilities: Accommodating special needs. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 82 94). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Koroghlanian, C., & Klein, J. D. (2004). The effect of audio and animation in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 13 (1), 23 46. Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000). Intern et in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International, 37, 149 155. Ky h l, R., Alper, S., & Sinclair, T. J. (1999). Acquisition and generalization of functional words in community gr ocery stores using videotaped instruction. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22 (1), 55 67. Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25 (4), 277 302. Lancioni, G. E., & Bracalente, D. O. (1998). A portable control device for prompting independent indoor travel by persons with severe multiple disabilities. Jo urnal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 92 (1), 63 70. Lane, K. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J. L., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The effects of self regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second grade students wi th behavioral and writing difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41 (4), 234 253. Lang, H. G. (2003). Perspectives on the history of deaf education. In M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 9 20). New York NY : Oxford University Press. Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21 (3), 13 22. Lap inski, S., Gravel, J. W., & Rose, D. H. ( 2012). Tools for practice: The u niversal d esign for l earning guidelines. In T. E. Hall, A. Meyer, & D. H. Rose (Eds.), Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications (pp. 9 24). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Laughton, J. (1989). The learning disabled, hearing impaired student: Reality, myth, or overextension? Topics in Language Disorders, 9 (4), 70 79.

PAGE 321

321 Learning Disabilities Association of America (2016). Types of learning disabilities. Retrieved from https://ldaamerica.org/types of learning disabilities/ Leu, D. J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Lyver, S. (2005). Evaluat ing the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Final report submitted to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/ncrel_files/FinalNCRELReport.pdf Lidestam, L & Beskow, J. (2006). Visual phonemic ambiguity and speechreading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 4 9, 835 847. Ligas, M. (2002). Evaluation of Broward County Alliance of Quality Schools p roject. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 117 139. Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson Koehler (Ed.), handb ook: A research perspective (pp. 491 518). New York NY : Longman. Little, J. W. (1999). Teachers professional development in the context of high school reform: Findings from a three year study of restructuring schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meet ing of the American Educational Research Association Montreal Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 357 379. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (1), 5 21. Louis, K. S. & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teac American Journal of Education 106 (4), 532 575. Luckner, J. L., & Carter, K. (2001). Essential competencies for teaching students with hearing loss and additional disabilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 146 (1), 7 15. MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 151 166.

PAGE 322

322 Mace, R. L., Hardie, G. J., & Place, J. P. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. Raleigh, NC: The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University. Madden, L. E. (1997). Motivating students to learn better through own goal setting. Educatio n, 117 (3), 411 416. Maki, H. S., Vauras, M.M.S., & Vainio, S. (2002). Reflective spelling strategies for elementary school students with severe writing difficulties: A case study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25( 3), 189 207 Marino, M., Coyne, M., & D unn, M. (2010). The effect of technology based altered readability levels on struggling readers science comprehension. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29 (1), 31 49. Mandell, D. S., Novak, M. M., Zubritsky, C. D. (2005). Factors a ssociated with age of diagnosis among children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 116 (6), 1480 1486. Marschark, M. (2006). Intellectual functioning of deaf adults and children: Answers and questions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18 ( 1), 70 89. Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Martin Jr., B. & Carle, E. (1967). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. Mayer, C., & Akamatsu, C. T. (2003). Bilingualism and literacy. In M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 136 147). New York NY : Oxford University Press. Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a bilingual bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1 (2), 93 107. Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2 nd ed.) (pp. 43 71 ) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learni ng (2 nd ed.) (pp. 1 24 ) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715 726.

PAGE 323

323 Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to re duce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 43 52. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual coding theory of multimedia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 ( 3), 389 401. McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago IL : University of Chicago Press. Mechling, L. (2005). The effect of instructor created video programs to teach students with disabilities: A literature review. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20 (2), 25 36. Mechling, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2003). Multi media instruction to teach grocery store word associations and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38 (1), 62 76. Mellon, N. K., Niparko, J. K Rathmann, C., Mathur, G & Lantos, J. D. (2015). Should all deaf children learn sign language? Pediatrics, 136 (1), 170 176. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 50 (3), 43 59. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Mi ch, O., Pianta, E., & Mana, N. (2013). Interactive stories and exercises with dynamic feedback for improving reading comprehension skills in deaf children. Computers & Education, 65 34 44. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 81 97. Miller, K. J. (2000). Welcome to the read world: Reflections on teaching and administration. American Annals of the Deaf, 145 (5), 404 410. Montali, J., & Lewandows ki, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (3), 271 279. Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in high tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychologica l Science, 15 (2), 63 67.

PAGE 324

324 Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 358 368. Morgan, A., & Vernon, M. (1994). A guide to the diagnosis o f learning disabilities in deaf and hard of hearing children and adults. American Annals of the Deaf, 139 (3), 358 369. Morse, T. (2003). Enhancing special education students' multiple literacies through multimedia activities. Journal of Reading Education 28 (2), 39 40. Morton, D. D. (2008). Deafness & autism. Odyssey, 9 (1), 4 5. Mueller, V., & Hurtig, R. (2010). Technology enhanced shared reading with deaf and hard of hearing children: The role of a fluent signing narrator. Journal of Deaf Studies & Dea f Education, 15 (1), 72 101. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40 (5 ), 665 681. National Capital Language Resource Center (n.d.). The essentials of language teaching. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/goalsmethods/goal.htm National Center on Universal Design for Learning (2011). UDL guidelines: Version 2.0 research evidence. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/research/researchevidence National Ins titutes of Health (2016a). Cerebral palsy Retrieved from https://medlineplus.gov/cerebralpalsy.html National Institutes of Health (2016b). Degenerative nerve diseases. Retrieved from https://medlineplus.gov/degenerativenervediseases.html National Institutes of Health (2016c). Muscular dystrophy Retrieved from https://medlineplus.gov/musculardystrophy.html National Institutes of Health (2016d). Traumatic brain injury Retrieved from https://medlineplus.gov/traumaticbraininjury.html National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2012). Traumatic brain injury information page Retrieved from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/tbi.htm Nikolova, O. R. (2002). Effects of students' participation in authoring of multimedia materials on student acquisition of vocabulary. Language, Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 100 122.

PAGE 325

325 Nover, S. M., Andrews, J. F., Baker, S., Everhart, V. S., & Bradford, M. (2002). Staff development in ASL/ English bilingual instruction for Deaf students: Evaluation and impact study final report 1997 2002. USDLC Star Schools Project Report No. 5. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico School for the Deaf. Nugent, G. C. (1983). Deaf students' learning from captioned instru ction: The relationship between the visual and caption display. Journal of Special Education, 17 (2), 227 234. Oakley, G. (2003). Improving oral reading fluency (and comprehension) through the creation of talking books. Reading Online, 6 (7), 1 26. Okolo, C. M. (1992). The effects of computer based attribution retraining on the attributions, persistence, and mathematics computation of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (5), 327 334. Okolo, C. M., & Ferretti, R. P. (19 96). The impact of multimedia design project s on the knowledge, attitudes, and collaboration of students in inclusive classroom s Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7 (3/4), 225 251. Okolo, C. M., & Ferretti R. P. (1998). Multimedia design proj ects in an inclusive social studies classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (1), 50 57. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 1 4. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 63 71. Padden, C. ( 1998). The ASL lexicon Sign Language and Linguistics, 1 39 60. Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18 (4), 30 46. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Paivio, A. & Desrochers, A. (1980). A dual coding approach to bilingual memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34 (4), 388 399. Paivio, A. & Lambert, W. (1981). Dual coding and bilingual memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verba l Behavior, 20 532 539.

PAGE 326

326 Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Agran, M. (2004). Promoting access to the general curriculum by teaching self determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70 (4), 427 440. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Paul, P. (2003). Processes and components of reading. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 97 109). New York, NY: Oxford University Pr ess. Petroff, J. G. (1999). National transition follow up study of youth identified as deafblind: P arent perspectives National Technical Assistance Consortium for Children and You ng Adults Who Are Deaf Blind Briefing Paper. Retrieved from http://documents.nationaldb.org/products/transition.PDF Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second language multim edia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (1), 25 36. Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abil ities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19 (2), 221 243. Pribanic, L. (2006). Sign language and deaf education: A new tradition. Sign Language & Linguistics 9 (1/2), 233 254. Price, L. A., Wolensky, D., & Mulligan, R. (2002). Self determination in action in the classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (2), 109 115 Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and voc abulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39 (1), 71 93. Puntambekar, S., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Effect of visual representation of the conceptual structure of the domain on science learning and navigation in a hypertext environment. Journal of Educa tional Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16 (4), 429 459. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hubscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human Computer Interaction, 18 (4), 395 428. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4 15.

PAGE 327

327 Rao, S. M., & Gagie, B. (2006). Learning through seeing and doing: Visual supports for children with autism Teaching Exceptional Children, 38 (6), 26 33. Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141 158. Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. (1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 47, 251 281. Reinking, D. (1988). Computer mediated text and comp rehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23 484 498. Reinking, D., & Rickman, S. S. (1990). The effects of computer mediated text on the vocabulary learning and comprehen sion of intermediate grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22 395 411. Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students' independent reading. Reading Resear ch Quarterly, 35 (3), 389 419. development. Educational Researcher, 27 (5), 27 31. Riddle, E. M. (1995). Communication through multimedia in an elementary classroom. East L ansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Rochford, L. & Borchert, P. S. (2011). Assessing higher level learning: Developing rubrics for case analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 86 (5), 258 265. Roeleveld, N., Zielhuis, G. A., Gabrels, F. (1997). The prevalence of mental retardation: A critical review of recent literature. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 39, 125 132. Roper, L., Arnold, P., & Monteiro, B. (2003). Co occurrence of autism and deafness: Diagnostic c onsiderations. Autism, 7 (3), 245 253. Rose, D. H. (2012). Transforming education with universal design for learning. Retrieved from https://www.wh itehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/07/transforming education universal design learning Rose, D. H. & Dalton, B. (2006). Engaging the text: Brain research and the universal design of reading strategy supports. In D. H. Rose & A. Meyer (Eds.) A practical

PAGE 328

328 reader in universal design for learning (pp. 133 148). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ACSD. Rudner, M ., & Rnnberg, J. (2008). Explicit processing demands reveal language modality specific organization of working memory. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13 (4), 46 6 484. Salda a, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3 rd ed. ). Washington, D.C.: SAGE. Schalock, R. L., Borthwick Duffy, S. A., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., & Craig, E. M. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11 th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Scherer, M. J. (2005). Assistive technology in education for students who are hard of hearing or deaf. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and prac tice (pp. 393 409). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design. Schick, B. (2003). The development of American Sign Language and manually coded English systems. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education ( pp. 219 231). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schildroth, A. (1988). Recent changes in the educational placement of deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 133 (2), 61 67. Schirmer, B. (2001). Psychological, social, and educational dimensions o f deafness Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Schirmer, B. R., & Bailey, J. (2000). Writing assessment rubric: An instructional approach with struggling writers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (1), 52 58. Schnotz, W. & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating and inhibiting effects of animation in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53 (3), 47 58. Schuh, K. L., & Farrell, C. A. (2006). Student ef fort, media preference, and writing quality when using print and electronic resources in expository writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35 (1), 61 81.

PAGE 329

329 Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self efficacy and skills of learning disabled children. Journal of Special Education, 19 (3), 307 317. Schleper, D. R. (1997). Reading to deaf children: Learning from deaf adults. Washington, D C : Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center at Gallaudet University. Seashore, K. R., Anderson, A. R. & Riedel, E. (2003). Implementing arts for academic achievement: The impact of mental models, professional community and interdisciplinary teaming Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Minneapolis, MH: University of Minnesota. Shevin, M., & Klein, N. K. (2004). The importance of choice making skills for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29 (3), 161 168. Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (199 4). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (1), 33 46. Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan's experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31 (1), 57 69. Solan, H., Shelley Tremblay, J., Ficarra, A., Silverman, M., & Larson, S. (2003). Effect of attention therapy on reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabiliti es, 36, 556 563. Soukup, M. & Feinstein, S. (2007). Identification, assessment, and intervention strategies for deaf and hard of hearing students with learning disabilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 152 (1), 56 62. Southwest Educational Development Library (2008). The professional teaching and learning cycle: Introduction. Austin, TX: SEDL. Stahl, S. (2006). Transforming the textbook to improve learning. In D. H. Rose & A. Mey er (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for learning (pp. 103 132). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York NY : Guilford Press. Stanford, B. & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework, a nd universal design for learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children PLUS, 5 (6), 1 9.

PAGE 330

330 Stedt, J. D. & Moores, D. F. (1990). Manual codes of English and American Sign Language: Historical perspectives and current realities. In H. Bornstein (Ed.) Manual communi cation: Implications for education (pp. 1 20). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Stewart, D. A., & Kluwin, T. N. (2001). Classroom management and learning disabilities. In D. A. Stewart & T. N. Kluwin (Eds.), Teaching deaf and hard of hearing students: Content, strategies, and curriculum (pp. 289 313). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational C hange, 7 221 258. Strassman, B. K., & O'Dell, K. (2012). Using open captions to revise writing in digital stories composed by d/Deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 157 (4), 340 357. Strong, M. (1995). A review of bilingual/b icultural programs for deaf children in North America. American Annals of the Deaf, 140 (2), 84 94. Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7 (7), 935 947. S z y manski, C. & Brice, P. J. (2008). W hen autism and deafness coexist in children: What we know now. Odyssey, 9 (1), 10 15. Szymanski, C. A., Brice, P. J., Lam, K. H. & Hotto, S. A. (2012). Deaf children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42 (10), 20 27 2037. The National Consortium on Deaf Blindness (October 2016). The 2015 national child count of children and youth who are deaf blind. Retrieved from https://nationaldb.org/pages/show/2015 national deaf blind child count/2015 national child count of children and youth who are deaf blind report Thorn, F., & Thorn, S. (1996). Television capti ons for hearing impaired people: A study of key factors that affect reading. Human Factors, 38 (3), 452 463 Tobia, E. (2007). The p rofessional t eaching and l earning c ycle: Implementing a standards based approach to professional development. SEDL Letter, 19 (1), 11 15. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2 nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

PAGE 331

331 U. S. Department of Education (2004). Sec. 300.8 child with a disability Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs,300,A,300%252E8 U. S. Department of Education (2008). Higher education opportunity act 2008. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html U. S. Department of Education (2016). Every student succeeds act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa act of 1965.pdf Van Daal, V. H. P., & van der Leij, A. (1992). Computer based reading and spelling practice for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (3), 186 195. Van Dijk, R., Nelson, C., Postma, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2010). Deaf children with severe multiple disabilities: Etiologies, intervention, and assessment. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), O xford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (2 nd ed .) (pp. 172 191). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Van Merrinboer, J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e learning. E ducational Technology Research and Development, 53 (3), 5 13. Van Merrinb oer, J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 5 13. Vesel, J. (2005). Signing science! Andy and Tonya are just like me! They wear heari ng aids and know my language!? Learning and Leading with Technology, 32 (8), 30 35. Vincent, J. (2001). The role of visually rich technology in facilitating children's writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17 (3), 242 250. Vollands, S. R., Toppin g, K. J., & Evans, R. M. (1999). Self assessment of reading comprehension with the Accelerated Reader: Action research. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15 197 211. Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brnken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the compreh ension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (3), 59 72. Wang, Y. (2012). Educators without borders: A metaparadigm for literacy instruction in bilingual bicultura l education. In P. V. Paul & D. F. Moores (Eds.), Deaf epistemologies: Multiple perspectives on the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 199 217). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

PAGE 332

332 Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2011). Integrating technology and reading i nstruction with children who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effectiveness of the Cornerstones project. American Annals of the Deaf, 156 (1), 56 68. Wehmeyer, M. L., Yeager, D., Bolding, N., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2003). The effects of self regulation s trategies on goal attainment for students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 15 (1), 79 91. Wei, R.C., Darling Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Weiss, I., Kramarski, B., & Talis, S. (2006). Effects of multimedia environments on kinderga rten children's mathematical achievements and style of learning. Educational Media International, 43 (1), 3 17. Westheimer, J. (1999). Communities and consequences: An inquiry into ideology and Educational Administr ation Quarterly, 35 (1), 71 105. Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent: Promising professional development models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (3), 207 212. Wilbur, R. B. (2003). Modality and the structure of lang uage: Sign languages versus signed systems. In M. Ma rschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 332 346). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wiley, J., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). The indiv idual differences in working memory capacity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2 nd ed.) (pp. 598 619). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, M. (1999). Student generated mult imedia presentations: Tools to help build and communicate mathematical understanding. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18 (2), 145 156. (1989). Implementing a long term computerized remedial reading program with synthetic speech feedbac k: Hardware, software, and real world issues. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 21 (2), 173 180.

PAGE 333

333 Woll, B. & Ladd, P. (2003). Deaf communities. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 151 163). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Xin, J. F., & Reith, H. (2001). Video assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students wi th learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 12, 87 103. Yee, P. L., Hunt, E. B., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1991). Coordinating cognitive information: Task effects and individual differences in integrating information from s everal sources. Cognitive Psychol ogy, 23, 615 680. Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23 (1), 1 21. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5 th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Yoshinaga Itano, C., & Downey, D. M. (1996). Development of school aged deaf, hard of hearing, and normally hearing students' written lan guage. Volta Review, 98 (1), 3 7. Zazove, P., Meador, H. E., Derry, H. A., Gorenflo, D. W., Burdick, S. W., & Saunders, E. W. (2004). Deaf persons and computer use. American Annals of the Deaf, 148 (5), 376 384. Zhang, Y. (2000). Technology and the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (4), 467 479. Zhang, Y., Brooks, D., Frields, T., & Redelfs, M. (1995). Quality of writing by elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Rese arch on Computing in Education, 27 (4), 483 499. Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40 (4), 267 271.

PAGE 334

334 BIOGRAPHICAL SK ETCH Sarah E. Brandt has worked in the field of Deaf education for over 11 years. She is a Curriculum Coordinator at a school for Deaf children with special needs, formerly holding the positions of Teacher of the Deaf, Deaf Education Specialist, and Media Specialist. She holds an Ed.D. from the University of Florida (2017) in curriculum and instruction with a concentration in educational technology, a Master of Arts from the University of Arizona in special education with a concentration in deaf and hard of hearing, and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Rochester in American Sign Language and linguistics. Her research interests include digital media design and use, language and literacy development, and curriculum development for bilingual Deaf learners, particularly those with special needs.