COMPARISON OF ANNIE SULLIVAN’S TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR
LITERACY AND COMMUNICATION TO THE CURRENT OUTCOME
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN DEAF-BLINDNESS: AN EXPLORATORY
MIXED-METHODS STUDY
by
DIANE PEVSNER
JERRY PATTERSON, COMMITTEE CHAIR
JOHN DANTZLER, COMMITTEE CHAIR
ROSEMARY NEWTON
MARY JEAN SANSPREE
GEORGE THEORDORE
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the graduate faculty of The University of Alabama at Birmingham,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
2010
Copyright by
Diane Pevsner
2010
COMPARISON OF ANNIE SULLIVAN’S TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR LITERACY
AND COMMUNICATION TO THE CURRENT OUTCOME PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
IN DEAF-BLINDNESS: AN EXPLORATORY MIXED-METHODS STUDY
DIANE PEVSNER
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
ABSTRACT
This study explored teaching strategies for communication and literacy development in deafblind students by determining if there was a significant relationship between the instructional
strategies practiced by Annie Sullivan in the early 1900s and the contemporary instructional
strategies recommended by The National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness to teach literacy and
communication to deaf-blind students. The findings of the study identified 11 Sullivan teaching
strategies that were found similar to the outcome performance indicators.
This study was conducted from the Summer of 2009 to the Spring of 2010. The first phase of
the study was a qualitative exploration of teaching strategies for communication and literacy
instruction used by Sullivan. The strategies that were identified were developed into a checklist
that was used for comparing the strategies to the Outcome Performance Indicators (OPI’s). This
checklist was presented to 53 project directors of deaf blind projects associated with the National
Deaf-Blind Consortium to determine the extent in which Sullivan’s teaching strategies align with
the outcome performance indicators. The findings from this checklist were presented to two of
the four authors of the literacy and communication OPI’s. Each expert participated in an
interview process that determined what implications the results have on the profession of deafblindness.
iii
The intents of this study were to utilize the OPI’s as a measure of the extent in which
Sullivan’s practices were futuristic. The similarities between 11 Sullivan strategies and OPI’s
produce a clear and objective demonstration of Sullivan being a teacher who incorporated
teaching strategies that were truly ahead of her time.
iv
DEDICATION
For more than half of my life, my every step, thought and breath was for the benefit of the
love of my life, Michael B. Pevsner. During the process of reaching this lifelong dream, my 21
year long conversation with my husband was brought to an abrupt halt by his death. His
continuous love and support is what drove me to finish this arduous process while learning to
step, think and breathe again without him by my side.
I dedicate this accomplishment, and all other positive aspects of my life, to the precious
memory and love of my husband, best friend and soul mate Michael B. Pevsner.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A task of this magnitude could never be accomplished alone. While this research has my
name on it, I would have never been able to complete it without the help and support of so many.
First, I thank my committee members, especially my original chair, Dr. Jerry Patterson, whose
guidance, support and wisdom allowed me to believe this was possible. I also appreciate his
willingness to continue to stand by my side even though he entered into retirement. I am very
grateful to Dr. John Dantzler for agreeing to co-chair my committee once Dr. Patterson retired.
Dr. Dantzler’s knowledge and understanding of statistics was instrumental in ensuring my
dissertation was accurate and had integrity. The content knowledge of Dr. Mary Jean Sanspree
was very valuable to me throughout this process. I thank her for her continuous support and
guidance through this and many other endeavors. I also thank Dr. George Theodore and Dr.
Rosemary Newton, whose feedback and support were needed and valued.
The support that I have received from my family through this and many other endeavors is
astronomical. My foundation lies in the support provided by my husband Mike, my mom Betty,
my sister Deborah, my nieces Loni and Robyn, my brother-in- law Jim and the Brown family.
Without the stability provided by this group of family members, I would definitely be on shaky
ground.
I believe that if a person can find one true mentor in their life, they have discovered a gift. I
am fortunate enough to have two such gifts that I am extremely thankful for. Mary Jean
Sanspree and Carol Allison have provided me with tons of knowledge surrounding the
profession of visual impairments and deaf-blindness. However, the additional benefit of this
vi
mentorship can be found in the cherished friendship that has accompanied their guidance. My
gratitude for all that they do for me is beyond words. My debt to them is insurmountable. Their
willingness to always answer questions, provide opinions and laugh with me is invaluable.
Accomplishments in life can never be achieved without the love and support of good friends.
I have found myself very fortunate in this area. Through this journey, and many others, I have
received unbelievable support and encouragement from many, but especially Lou Casey,
Marianne Hall, Chris Davis, Babbi Johnson, Bobbie Fletcher, Paula Tapia and Stephanie
Goldblatt. I am at a cross roads in my life where without friends, I would be completely lost. I
thank these strong, wonderful women for their tireless efforts in making sure that I am doing
what I am supposed to. Many thanks and a lot of gratitude go out to all of my wonderful
supporters.
I was fortunate enough to take the everyday steps of this process with two very good friends,
Pam Paustian and Jennifer Breland. The three of us made an agreement at the beginning of this
journey to always stick by and support one another. Without that promise, this would have been
a very long and lonely journey. I am thankful that every step of the way was taken with these
ladies. They have been my support through the many classes, projects and presentations but
more importantly, they have become my lifelong friends.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION .....................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
Background and Justification ...................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................3
Research Questions ..................................................................................................4
Central Questions .........................................................................................4
Qualitative Question ....................................................................................4
Quantitative Questions .................................................................................4
Significance of Study ...............................................................................................5
Limitations of Study ................................................................................................7
Assumptions.............................................................................................................8
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................8
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................11
Historical Background of Deaf-Blind Instruction..................................................11
Residential Schools ................................................................................................12
Samuel Gridley Howe ............................................................................................14
Annie Sullivan’s Approach ....................................................................................16
Howe Methods ...........................................................................................16
Functional Approach ..................................................................................18
Tadoma Teaching Method .........................................................................20
Deaf-blind Instruction as a Result of the Rubella Epidemic ...................................22
Non Symbolic Communication System .................................................................22
Harmonious Interactions ........................................................................................23
Imitation .................................................................................................................24
Gestures ..................................................................................................................26
Symbolic Communication System .........................................................................27
viii
Object Symbols .......................................................................................................29
Dual Communication Boards ..................................................................................31
Deaf-blind Instruction as a Result of IDEA ............................................................32
National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness ................................................................33
Outcome Performance Indicators ............................................................................36
3 RESEARCH DESIGN ...................................................................................................38
Research Methods ..................................................................................................38
Population and Study Sample ....................................................................38
Qualitative Data Collection Procedures .....................................................39
Qualitative Data Analysis ..........................................................................41
Checklist Development ..............................................................................42
Quantitative Data Collection......................................................................42
Quantitative Data Analysis ........................................................................42
Qualitative Data Collection Phase II..........................................................44
Qualitative Data Analysis Phase II ............................................................44
4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................46
Phase I Qualitative .................................................................................................47
Phase II Quantitative ..............................................................................................50
Phase III Quantitative ............................................................................................54
Phase IV Qualitative ..............................................................................................68
5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY .......................................................................................70
Discussion ..............................................................................................................70
Discussion of Findings ...........................................................................................70
Child Centered Approach ...........................................................................71
Harmonious Interactions .............................................................................72
Symbolic Communication .........................................................................73
Implications............................................................................................................74
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................77
Conclusion ............................................................................................................78
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................79
APPENDIX
A LIST OF STRATEGIES AND RATER AGREEMENT ................................87
B VISUAL DIAGRAM OF RESEARCH MODEL ..............................................92
C CHECKLIST .....................................................................................................94
ix
D TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .....................................................99
E RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR RATERS ....................................................101
F RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS ......................104
G RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR INTERVIEW PARTICIPATION .............107
H INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM ........................110
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1 Minimum Values for Significance ................................................................................43
2 Sullivan Teaching Strategies for Literacy and Communication ....................................49
3 States or Territories Represented ...................................................................................50
4 Minimum Value Needed for Significance .....................................................................52
5 Sullivan Strategies that are Similar to OPI’s .................................................................53
6 OPI’s that Best Matched Sullivan Strategies .................................................................55
7 OPI’s that Best Matched Sullivan Strategies After Discussion .....................................60
8 Similarities in Text Comprehension Strategies..............................................................64
9 Similarities in Interactive Storybook Strategies ............................................................65
10 Similarities in Vocabulary Instructional Strategies .....................................................67
xi
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background and Justification
The term deaf-blindness refers to a condition that includes a combination of an
auditory and visual impairment. This impairment in children has a severe impact on their
educational needs, especially in the areas of communication and literacy. These students
cannot be appropriately educated by those trained in the area of hearing impairments or
those trained in the area of visual impairments (Akhil, 2000; Knoors & Vervloed, 2003).
Janssen and Rodroe (2007) describe communication for a person who is deaf-blind as a
process without words and has often been described as a conversation with bodies. These
conversations can include emotional bodily expressions, tactile cues, muscle tension,
postures, natural gestures, and sounds. These communication methods can also differ
from person to person.
According to Jacobs, Purvis, Steele and Taylor (2008) the outcome performance
indicators (OPI‘s) for promoting literacy and development of communication for service
providers of students who are deaf blind were established in May of 2008. These
outcomes were established using research based methods of teaching that have proven to
be successful. These measures are used as training and measuring tools for teachers of
deaf-blind students. In the profession of deaf-blindness, the outcome performance
measures have been embraced as well as looked upon as building blocks for the
profession.
2
Statement of the Problem
Mcginnity, Seymour-Ford and Andries (2004) discuss that the research based methods
utilized to develop the OPI‘s did not include any reflection on the strategies used by
Anne Sullivan who established a high standard for teachers of students who are deaf blind by her many accomplishments with her student, Helen Keller. She employed
creativity, individuality and freedom of thinking outside the box in her teaching
methods.
Due to the low incidence of the deaf-blind population, the majority of emerging
evidence for practitioners in the area of communication and literacy is based on singlesubject research. According to Parker, Davidson and Banda (2007), seven studies have
been published in the area of communication. Only ten of those were conducted from
1996 to 2006, and only four of those took place from 2002 to 2006. The 17 studies
included 42 participants with 21 of those aged 12 – 21, 16 were aged 5 – 11 and five
being older than 22. Figure 1 presents the ages of the research participants.
Figure 1: Ages of 42 single-subject research participants in deaf-blind communication
studies
3
Parker, et.al (2007) also discuss that while these studies identified several
communication interventions such as alternative communication devices, teacher or peer
planned responses, peer intervention, object symbols and dual-communication boards,
only nine of the 17 studies measured social validity. The findings in these studies offer
practitioners initial information on interventions that have been effective with some
students, but researchers must be ―compelled to explore further types of qualitative,
correlational and mixed-methodology research to provide a focus for essential
experimental research‖ (p.697). This poses a significant problem in the profession of
deaf-blindness because in the past ten years only four studies were conducted concerning
communication and literacy in individuals with deaf-blindness. These four studies were
conducted using single-subject research design and the profession is requesting research
studies utilizing different methods.
Purpose of the Study
This study addressed teaching strategies for communication and literacy
development in deaf-blind students. The purpose of this exploratory mixed methods
study was to determine if there is a significant relationship between the instructional
strategies practiced by Annie Sullivan in the early 1900s and the contemporary
instructional strategies recommended by The National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness to
teach literacy and communication to deaf-blind students. The first phase of the study was
a qualitative exploration of teaching strategies for communication and literacy instruction
used by Sullivan. The strategies that were identified were developed into a checklist that
was used for comparing the strategies to the outcome performance indicators. This
4
checklist was presented to 53 project directors of deaf blind projects associated with the
National Deaf-Blind Consortium to determine the extent in which Sullivan‘s teaching
strategies align with the outcome performance indicators. The findings from this
checklist were presented to at least three of the four authors of the literacy and
communication OPI‘s. Each expert participated in an interview process that determined
what implications the results have on the profession of deaf-blindness.
Research Questions
Central Research Question
Is there a significant relationship between the instructional strategies practiced by
Sullivan in the early 1900s and the contemporary instructional strategies recommended
by The National Deaf Blind Consortium to teach literacy and communication to deafblind students?
Qualitative Questions
1. What Sullivan teaching strategies were identified by the five raters?
2. What possible implications will the findings have on the profession of deafblindness?
Quantitative Questions
1. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of fluency instructional strategies?
5
2. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of text comprehension instructional strategies?
3. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of interactive storybook reading instructional
strategies?
4. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of vocabulary instructional strategies?
Significance of Study
In the profession of deaf-blindness, Sullivan is often referred to as the ―Miracle
Worker‖. Her pupil and lifelong companion Helen Keller is quoted in the book ―The
Miracle of Life‖ as saying ―All the best of me belongs to her – there is not a talent, or an
inspiration, or a joy in me that has not been awakened by her loving touch (Keller, p.10).‖
Helen Keller also described her Teacher in the book ―Helen Keller Public Speaker
Sightless but Seen, Deaf but Heard‖ by Lois J. Einhorn:
My teachers‘ genius and loving tact made the years of my
education so beautiful. It was because she seized the right moment
to impart knowledge that made it so pleasant and acceptable to me.
She realized that a student‘s mind is like a shallow brook which
ripples and dances merrily over the stony course of its education
and reflects here a flower, there a bush, yonder a fleecy cloud; and
she attempted to guide my mind on its way, knowing that like a
brook it should be fed by mountain streams and hidden springs,
6
until it broadened out into a deep river, capable of reflecting in its
placid surface, billowy hills, the luminous shadows of trees and the
blue heavens, as well as the sweet face of a little flower (Einhorn,
1998, p. 1).
This study is significant because the current OPI‘s are standard to measure the extent
to which Sullivan‘s practices were futuristic. Specifically, if the research findings show
similarities between Sullivan strategies and the outcome performance indicators, this will
be a clear, objective demonstration of Sullivan being a teacher who incorporated teaching
strategies that were truly ahead of her time.
Contributions to the body of knowledge in the profession of deaf-blindness will be
made by providing a list of teaching strategies used by Sullivan to teach communication
and literacy. The strategies used by Sullivan are provided in descriptive narrative in
many books but have not been provided in a concise and detailed listing for educators
and researchers to easily access.
A charge to professionals in deaf-blindness was issued by Parker et al (2007) when
researchers were asked to ―explore further types of qualitative, correlational and mixedmethodology research to provide a focus for essential experimental research (p. 697).‖
This research study contributed to the body of knowledge by answering this charge with a
mixed-methodology research design.
7
Limitations of the Study
A limitation to this study is that the Sullivan teaching strategies are being gathered
from one source, The Henney Collection. Descriptions of strategies used by Sullivan can
be found in several of the books and biographies written by numerous authors, including
Helen Keller. This research is focusing on the collection gathered by Nella Braddy
Henney during her preparation to write the definitive biography of Sullivan. This
collection is the result of many years of interviews, information gathering and document
collection. Embedded in these reflections, that came directly from Sullivan and Helen
Keller, are details of the strategies used to teach literacy and communication.
The quantitative checklist results are considered to be limited because they are only
sought from state deaf-blind project directors. According to Malloy (2004), these
directors are identified by the National Consortium on Deaf-blindness and are responsible
for improving the quality of services for individuals who are deaf-blind. This mission is
accomplished by providing training, information, and support to a wide array of agencies.
Other service providers of deaf-blind students are not being asked to participate. The
reason for this exclusion is to guarantee that the participants will be familiar with the
OPI‘s.
The third limitation to this study is the focus on communication and literacy teaching
strategies only. In the profession of deaf-blindness, literacy and communication are
considered to be one subject instead of two separate subjects. An individual who is deafblind will acquire literacy and communication simultanuously because they are both
8
achieved with the incorporation of symbols or gestures. This study will not focus on the
teaching strategies of other subjects such as math or science.
Assumptions
In the qualitative data collection, the researcher assumes that the three raters will
utilize a thorough method of identifying teaching strategies used by Sullivan. The raters
will be trained on the accepted ways of identifying teaching strategies for a qualitative
study. This will be a time consuming activity, and the researcher is assuming that the
raters will be committed to the process.
During the quantitative data collection, the researcher will assume that of the 53 state
deaf-blind project directors, a significant number will participate. Of these participants, it
is assumed that they will be straightforward and honest when responding to the survey
questions.
During the final qualitative phase, the researcher assumes that the experts in the
profession of deaf-blindness will participate in an interview concerning the implications
of the research findings to the profession of deaf-blindness. It is also assumed that the
experts will provide honest and straightforward answers to the interview questions.
Theoretical Framework
According to Einhorn (1998) throughout history, the theoretical framework of
educating individuals who are deaf-blind has been grounded in the educational
techniques of Samuel Gridley Howe. These techniques were embedded with the Anglo-
9
American moral philosophy which was based on the writings of Thomas Reid and
Dugald Stewart. This theory states that the mind is distinct from, and superior to, the
body and that the mind is endowed with a range of distinct faculties. According to
Freeberg (2001) Howe believed that the brain of his student Laura Bridgman contained
an innate ability to understand and create language. He was determined to bring Laura
into the conversation of society as an equal and prove that her mind was intact even
though it lived within a damaged body.
It is reported by Einhorn (1998) that Sullivan studied the work of Samuel Gridley
Howe before she started teaching Helen Keller. While her teaching methods were unique
she did not focus on the dual sensory impairments of her student, but instead on the fact
that she was a child. Sullivan asked herself ―How does a normal child learn language?‖
and by observing a fifteen month old child, she concluded that the answer to her own
question was ―by imitation‖ (p.18). It was at this point that Sullivan decided not to
follow a systematic curriculum but to allow her student to learn language through play
and objects of interest chosen by the student.
According to van Dijk and Nelson (1997) education of deaf-blind individuals prior to
the rubella epidemic was mainly geared towards children who were thought to have a lot
educational potential. However, this type of program was not sufficient for the victims of
the rubella epidemic. These deaf-blind students had to deal with a dual-sensory loss as
well as motor clumsiness. Before the development of any formal communication such as
finger spelling or signing, these students had to develop motor skill coordination.
10
Educators of students who were deaf-blind during the post-rubella period were led by
the work and research of Dr. Jan van Dijk. His academic principles were very similar to
those of Sullivan. Lash (1980) discusses that in order to draw the interest of these
students, the educator had to join in activities that attracted their attention. While the
theories of Sullivan and van Dijk were very similar, the actual activities differed greatly.
The cognitive and motor ability of Helen Keller directed her favored activities to the
identification of trees and plant life, understanding of great literature, and English
composition. According to van Dijk et al (1997) the cognitive and motor ability of van
Dijk‘s students directed their favored activities to flapping of their fingers, jumping and
spinning around. The success of both teachers was directed by their desire to utilize a
child-centered approach that included giving the child the lead and allowing them to
influence their environment instead of being completely dependent upon it.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter reviews journal articles and books published concerning communication
and literacy of deaf-blind students. The literature review begins with historical
background information in deaf-blind instruction to include teaching methods used by
Samuel Gridley Howe and Sullivan. Discussion then focuses on teaching strategies that
developed as a result of Federal funding for deaf-blind services due to the 1964-1965
rubella epidemic. The chapter ends with a discussion of efforts by the National DeafBlind Consortium to incorporate research based teaching strategies for communication
and literacy instruction for deaf-blind individuals.
Historical Background of Deaf-blind Instruction
According to French (2004) the common view of American people in the early 19th
Century was that people who were blind or had any disability could not contribute to
society. In an attempt to make life easier for these individuals, the general population felt
they should not be educated so that they would not realize what they were missing. A
young medical student, John Dix Fisher, had studied in Paris. While there, he visited the
world‘s first school for the blind L‘Institution Nationale des Jeunes Aveugles which was
12
founded by Valentin Hauy in 1784. During his visit, Fisher witnessed students who were
blind reading raised-type books and writing. They were being taught math, geography
and other general subjects. Once witnessing this revolutionary approach to educate
students with disabilities, Fisher committed to bring these experiences to blind children in
America.
French (2004) also discussed that for three years John Dix Fisher tried to influence
family and friends with his idea of educating blind individuals. His dream came to
realization in February 1829 when he convinced a group to incorporate the New England
Asylum for the Blind in Boston, Massachusetts. With money provided by the
Massachusetts legislature, plans began, but not at a pace Fisher was anticipating.
According to Gitter (2001) Fisher shared his dream with a young graduate from
Brown University and Harvard Medical School, Samuel Gridley Howe in 1831. A
director for the new blind school was found during this conversation as Howe had just
returned from the Greek War of Independence and was looking for a new cause.
Residential Schools
French (2004) discussed that in 1832 Samuel Gridley Howe returned to his home after
a long journey visiting European schools for the blind. During this journey Howe studied
how blind individuals were educated. He was not impressed with what he witnessed and
actually opposed many of the methods he observed. He felt that the schools he visited
were overprotective and not correcting unconscious mannerisms common among people
13
who are blind. He did however appreciate the schools for the blind that taught useful
trades to the students as well as those that incorporated daily outdoor exercise.
According to French (2004) Howe returned home with two teachers who were blind.
He utilized the majority of his father‘s house in Boston as a school building and recruited
two pupils from Andover in July 1832. This was the birth of the New England Asylum
for the Blind, now the Perkins School for the Blind, which was the first school for the
blind in the United States.
Roberts (1986) asserted that Howe‘s interest was shared by Dr. John Dennison Russ
in New York City who established and directed the New York Institution for the Blind in
1832 as well. The third school, the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the
Blind, was founded in 1833 under the guidance of The Quakers. In 1839 this school was
relocated and renamed the Overbrook School for the Blind. It was at this time that the
introduction of cottage-style living, modern classrooms, and landscaped grounds were
offered at any of the institutions. This advancement, led under the direction of Edward E.
Allen, so impressed the early profession of blindness that he was asked to become the
director of Perkins in 1906.
Roberts described the first three institutions for blind individuals as being privately
owned and mostly catered to blind children of the wealthy. It was not until 1837 that a
state supported school for the blind was established in Ohio in response to the view that
all children were entitled to a free, public education. By this time the groundwork had
been broken and 30 public and private blind and deaf schools were established between
14
1832 and 1875. ―The majority of the 49 presently existing residential schools were
established before 1900, often after statehood was achieved‖ ( p. 9).
Samuel Gridley Howe
French (2004) suggested that Samuel Gridley Howe changed the way that blind and
deaf students were educated in the United States by establishing the first school for the
blind. His advancements in the profession of blindness included his printing books in
Braille, improving the Braille typeset, which made it easier to decipher, and training
teachers to instruct students on the use of Braille books and other learning materials.
French (2004) offered an explanation that these advancements in the young profession
of blindness were not enough to satisfy Howe. He continued to host a desire to
revolutionize the way blind individuals were taught. Throughout the middle part of the
nineteenth century, Howe continued to study and struggle with the most effective
teaching strategies for educating blind and deaf students.
French (2004) described the challenges of establishing and maintaining a school that
was based on a new concept was not enough for Howe. He was always on the lookout
for a new and adventurous philanthropic activity. In 1837 he met seven year old Laura
Bridgman, who was deaf-blind due to the scarlet fever epidemic.
Miles and Riggio (1999) noted that Howe‘s desire to educate a deaf-blind child was
greeted with national and international praise and astonishment. It was this student and
teacher who launched an earnest attempt to educate children who are deaf-blind in the
United States. Roberts (1986) asserts that it was Howe‘s conviction that each child‘s
15
course of study should be based on interest and ability, which led to his enthusiastic
admission of Laura Bridgman to Perkins in 1837. French (2004) noted that Howe
personally provided much of Laura Bridgman‘s instruction. ―He began by teaching her
to read raised letters by associating words to actual objects by using rote memory. He
gave her familiar objects, such as forks and keys, with name labels made of raised letters
pasted upon them. When he gave her detached labels with the same words, she matched
them with their objects. However, Howe could tell that her progress was all rote
memory‖ (p.14).
According to French (2004) after the short amount of time it took for Laura to
achieve this concept, Howe began to teach her the manual alphabet as a way for her to
facilitate communication. He believed that the use of sign language was too abstract to
convey actual meaning to a deaf or deaf-blind person. He advocated for the use of finger
spelling, which involves spelling out each word in the hand of the deaf-blind person in
order to convey a sentence or idea. McGinnity et al. (2004c) described that Howe cut up
the labels that were attached to the familiar objects so each letter was separate. He then
would show Laura the correct spelling of the word, mix up the letters and expect her to
spell the word correctly. It was through these lessons that Howe believed Laura grasped
the concept of language and communication. Once Laura had acquired the ability to
communicate, her thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. With the exception of having
an instructor at her side at all times to fingerspell to her, Laura followed the same
curriculum as the other students at Perkins which included reading, writing, geography,
arithmetic, history, grammar, algebra, geometry, physiology, philosophy, and history.
16
After completing her education at the age of 20, Laura returned to her family‘s farm in
New Hampshire. It is noted by French (2004) that her busy family had little time or
patience for her which was dramatically different than the life she had become
accustomed to at Perkins. As a result of this isolation, Laura‘s health began to
deteriorate. Out of concern for Laura, Samuel Gridley Howe and Dorothea Dix, a friend
and advocate, raised an endowment to ensure that she would always be able to live at
Perkins. It is reported that Laura often spent summers at the family farm in New
Hampshire, but she lived at Perkins School for the Blind for the rest of her life.
French (2004) described that by not being able to live independently or interact with
the seeing and deaf society, Laura Bridgman did not fulfill the goals established for her
by Howe. However, it was her education that proved to the world that an individual who
is deaf-blind is perfectly capable of learning. This, in turn, opened up a whole new
profession of education.
Annie Sullivan Approaches
Howe Methods
French (2004) noted that Sullivan, who was visually impaired, graduated from Perkins
School for the Blind in 1886 as the Valedictorian. She entered Perkins at the age of 14
after living most of her childhood in the Tewksbury Orphanage. As a result of her
disadvantaged childhood, Sullivan was uncouth and illiterate. These characteristics did
not help her to fit in with the more cultured children at Perkins. The isolation from her
17
peers provided her with the opportunity to befriend a 50 year old Laura Bridgman. The
friends would communicate by signing the manual alphabet in each other‘s hands.
According to McGinnity et al. (2004a) upon graduation, the director of the school,
Michael Anagnos, recommended that Sullivan take a teaching position in Tuscumbia,
Alabama with a young girl by the name of Helen Keller. ―Although a bit intimidated by
the challenge, Sullivan knew this was just the opportunity she needed. She spent the next
few months studying the reports of Laura Bridgman‘s education by Howe and her other
teachers. In March of 1887 she left for Tuscumbia, Alabama to begin a new chapter in
her life‖ (p. 4).
It is reported by McGinnity and Andries (2004b) that Sullivan employed the methods
Samuel Gridley Howe developed when teaching Laura Bridgman. She tried to establish a
strict schedule and introduce new vocabulary words in very formal lessons. But as a
young teacher of 21, Sullivan instinctively developed her own teaching methods early on
when she realized that a rigid routine would not be successful with such an exuberant and
spontaneous child. She abandoned the traditional classroom setting of rigid lessons and
rote learning. She taught Helen the manual alphabet and finger spelled the names of
familiar objects into the hands of Helen instead of preparing labels. In a letter to a friend
at Perkins, Ms. Hopkins, Sullivan explained the reason for abandoning the methods of
Howe:
I am convinced that the time spent by the teacher in digging out of
the child what she has put into him, for the sake of satisfying
herself that it has taken root, is so much time thrown away. It‘s
18
much better, I think, to assume the child is doing his part, and that
the seed you have sown will bear fruit in due time. It‘s only fair to
the child, anyhow, and it saves you unnecessary trouble (Keller,
Macy, & Sullivan, 1903, p. 320)
Functional Approach
Collins (2007) described functional skills as those skills that are meaningful and
immediately useful in a child‘s life across many settings. McGinnity et al.(2004b) and
French (2004) offered an explanation of how Sullivan saw the importance of this
functional approach when she witnessed the caregiver of a preverbal hearing child
naming objects as the child encountered them. She adopted and adapted this strategy for
her student. Sullivan would constantly name whatever drew Helen‘s attention by spelling
the letters of the object in her hand. This unique approach for teaching incorporated
Helen‘s favorite activities and her love of the outdoors. As the student and teacher were
enjoying play and the outdoors, language and vocabulary were being introduced.
Teaching and learning were occurring without the stress of formal education.
McGinnity et al. (2004b) and French (2004) noted that while Helen enjoyed the
constant companionship of her new teacher and the endless ―finger play,‖ she did not
develop an understanding of the concept that words identified objects until five weeks
later. Helen made a connection of the system of language one day as the sensation of
cold water ran over one hand and her teacher spelled w-a-t-e-r in the other. It was at this
moment that Helen understood that everything had a name and that by learning this
19
system, she could communicate with others. Years later Helen Keller wrote of that
moment when she finally grasped the concept:
Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten—a
thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language
was revealed to me. I knew then that ―w-a-t-e-r‖ meant the
wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That
living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!
… Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new
thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched
seemed to quiver with life (Lash, 1980, p.55).
According to McGinnity et al. (2004b) Helen Keller explained the revelation of the
world of language being opened up to her when she stated ―I did nothing but explore with
my hands and learn the name of every object that I touched; and the more I handled
things and learned their names and uses, the more joyous and confident grew my sense of
kinship with the rest of the world. (p. 2)‖ It is reported that Sullivan ―finger spelled to
her constantly, and coached her in the give-and-take of conversation. Many people
believe that Keller‘s love of language, her great articulateness and grace as a writer and
public speaker were built upon this foundation. (p.2)‖
McGinnity et al. (2004b) explained that Sullivan‘s creative teaching approach was
successful for Keller. Within six months it is reported that Helen had learned 575 words,
the Braille system and multiplication tables as high as five. While Sullivan felt that the
opportunity for home schooling contributed to the wonderful foundation for Helen‘s
20
education, she continued to be concerned over the isolation and limited materials
available in Tuscumbia, Alabama. It was this concern that brought the teacher and
student to the Perkins School for the Blind in 1888.
Miles et al. (1999) offered an explanation that Annie‘s creative approach of coaching
her student on the rules of conversation rather than simply teaching her words is credited
as the teaching technique that allowed Helen Keller to be able to use language to express
her feelings so articulately. The inclusion of rich conversations and an immersion in an
environment full of interesting experiences and language made it possible for Helen
Keller to be comfortable enough to converse with heads of state as well as young
children.
Tadoma Teaching Method
Eberhardt et al. (1994) established that in 1913 the Tadoma method was built upon by
Sophia K. Alcorn of Kentucky to teach oral speech to her two students who were deafblind, Tad Chapman and Oma Simpson. The method was enhanced by instructing the
student to place a hand on the face of the speaker, thumbs lightly touching the lips and
fingers spread on the cheek and upper neck. The student could identify speech by feeling
air, lip and jaw movement and vibration of the speaker‘s vocal cords as each sound was
made. This method was introduced at Perkins School for the Blind as the Tadoma
method, named after Ms. Alcorn‘s two students, which led to the establishment of a
separate deaf-blind program to focus on the needs of those students.
21
Miles et al. (1999) further explain that the Tadoma method is the only way a child
who is totally deaf-blind to receive and develop speech. The hands of the child replace
vision and hearing for receiving speech input, and for receiving a model of how to
produce speech. However, for those totally deaf-blind students who have had this
sensory impairment since birth, the Tadoma method is not an effective method for
communicating.
According to Miles et al. (1999) students who are deaf and have a visual impairment,
the Tadoma method may be found to be beneficial. Through proper placement of the
students hand on the speaker‘s face, the child can receive a more complete speech signal
that includes vibration and breath. It is also beneficial because it forces the child to be
closer to the source of speech and because the student will receive a more complete
speech signal by his/her hand receiving tactual cues that may compensate for sounds that
may be missed due to his hearing loss (Miles & Riggio, 1999).
Einhorn (1998) asserted that Helen Keller learned about a deaf-blind girl in Norway
named Ragnhild Kata, who had learned to speak. This provided Helen with the challenge
and desire to learn to speak as well. Sullivan taught her to speak by allowing her to touch
the lips and throat of others while they spoke, combined with her finger spelling letters on
the palm of her hand.
It is reported by Einhorn (1998) that Helen Keller believed that by learning to speak
with her voice she was linked to the world of people and ideas. She was very diligent in
the practice of using her voice but never reached her goal of developing speech that could
be understood by everyone. Her voice has been described as coarse, grainy and harsh in
22
sound. Helen could be understood completely by those who knew her well but only
minimally by those who were not exposed to her speaking on a frequent basis.
Deaf-blind Instruction as a Result of the Rubella Epidemic
Miles et al. (1999) explained that communication is crucial for individuals who are
deaf-blind whether they can learn a formal language system or to read and write.
Because communication is a way a person is connected to his or her environment it is of
great value at whatever level it can be developed.
Hart (2006) noted that this section of history saw a change in the nature of the
congenitally deaf-blind population as a result of the rubella epidemic throughout the
world. An increase in emphasis was placed on the importance of relationship, resonance,
and co-active movements. The central goal of educators of the deaf-blind population was
to help their students develop communicative skills that resembled those of hearing and
sighted people. This goal was achieved by the incorporation of non-symbolic and
symbolic modes of communication.
Non-Symbolic Communication System
Siegel-Causey (1989) explained that a dual sensory impairment such as deaf-blindness
manifests many difficulties in communication. The major difficulty in communication is
the absence of speech or other conventional symbol systems to convey messages. Often
times the development of alternative nonsymbolic modes of communication such as
gestures, vocal sounds, eye contact, body movements and facial expressions are utilized.
23
Harmonius Interactions
Siegel-Causey (1989) explained that communication involves the efforts of at least two
people, so it is necessary for a nondisabled person who is communicating with a person
who is deaf-blind to recognize and respond to the communicative expressions of this
person. It is also important to focus on the interactive process rather than to try and
remediate the deaf-blind persons attempt to communicate.
Pease (2000) asserted that the inherent difficulties that accompany a dual sensory
impairment leaves the child and the caregiver at a severe disadvantage during the process
of communication from the moment of birth. Nafstad et al. (1997) also suggested that the
deaf-blind child will be unable to perceive the invitation of a loving smile from a
caregiver or the benefit of an adult echoing their own vocalizations.
Gergen (1991) described communicatative actions as being nonsensical unless they
are coordinated with actions of others. The extension of a hand and a smile are
meaningless unless they are received by another individual. For the deaf-blind
individual, thousands of attempts to communicate on a daily basis are useless because
they are not perceived by others as an attempt to relay a message. According to Bakeman
and Adamson (1984), Mohay (1986) and Rattray (2000), research has shown that
miscommunication between 2 partners, one of which is deaf-blind has a more profound
effect on development than the dual sensory impairment itself.
Malloy (2007) explained that it is necessary for caregivers of deaf-blind individuals to
enter the world of physical closeness and touch in an attempt to understand the unique
24
communication signals of these students. Deaf-blind individuals must experience
harmonious interactions that will provide them with an opportunity to communicate their
experiences and emotions in order to gain confidence and a desire to explore new things.
Janssen et al. (2006) described harmonious interactions as occurring between a deaf-blind
child and a caregiver when the caregiver demonstrates the ―ability to recognize the
child‘s signals, attune his or her behaviors to those of the child, and adapt the
interactional context to promote the occurrence of a particular child‘s behavior‖ (91).
According to Bruce (2003) attempts to communicate by children who are deaf-blind
and are at the pre-symbolic level of communication are very difficult to recognize by a
caregiver who has not been properly trained. Research by Janssen, Riksen-Walraven,
and van Dijk (2006) includes three separate studies involving a total of 13 children who
were congentially deaf-blind. From these studies, the researchers developed several
characteristics of harmonious interaction. These characteristics include: describing or
introducing something new during an interaction; clearly acknowledging that the other
person is being heard; answering each other by responding positively or negatively;
taking turns in the communication process; focusing on the other person and what they
are doing; maintaining a balance in the tone of the interaction which can be achieved by
allowing the child time to process the information; mutual sharing of emotions through
movement and touch; and performing activites independently.
Imitation
Miles et al. (1999) described another form of pre-symbolic communication which is
referred to as imitation. It is crucial for a deaf-blind child to learn to imitate and to
25
initiate interaction if they are to become an effective communicator. If a caregiver
spends enough time imitating a deaf-blind child‘s movements, the child will in turn
become interested in imitating the movements of the caregivers.
Hart (2006) described four key functions that imitation plays in facilitating
communication. Through these functions, the links between intervention approaches and
theory about infant communication are highlighted. According to Zeedyk (2006);
Heimann (2002); Meltzoff and Moore (1998); and Nafstad et al. (1997) imitation allows
the deaf-blind student to be the undoubted object of another person‘s attention. It is a
way of providing immediate confidence that the deaf-blind person is being noticed and
responded to. Attracting attention is one primary function of imitation. Through
imitation, attention is obtained, sustained and interpersonal togetherness is regained.
The second function of imitation is that of stimulating turn-taking. Hart (2006)
explained that the repetition of an act by a partner naturally creates a turn-taking
exchange. He describes turn-taking with an individual who is deaf-blind as a quality that
has been shown to be central to parent-infant interactions. The desire of stimulating turntaking is not to develop a clear rhythm of my turn, your turn. Instead, the desired
outcome is one of actions overlapping one another in an attempt to create a joint, shared
activity.
Hart (2006) (2001b) and Nafstad et al (1999) described the third function of imitation
as allowing partners to recognize each other. If a caregiver of an individual who is deafblind develops patterns that are frequently repeated with this individual, such as tapping
or patting of the fingers, hands, and elbow, these patterns become a form of recognition
26
and a way of saying hello. Often times, with the deaf-blind population, the reverse of this
action, the patting of the elbow, hands and fingers, becomes a way of saying goodbye. If
two communicative partners develop a ritual of saying hello and good-bye, the path to
more general negotiation of shared meaning is established.
The final function of imitation described by Hart (2006) is that of crafting morality.
Meltzoff (2002) suggested that the moral concept of treating others as you would want to
be treated can not be achieved without imitation. When a person who is deaf-blind is
imitated by a communication partner, they are seeing themselves as an ‗I‘. When the
communication partner imitiates an individual who is deaf-blind, they are expressing that
the person is part of humanity and is no longer invisible. According to Rodbroe and
Souriau (2000) when a person is imitated, it is almost impossible to ignore the
complusion to respond. Imitation is equally powerful for both communication partners
and opens the door to many new communicative possiblities.
Gestures
Actions that are produced with the intent of communicating are defined as gestures.
They can be delivered by the hands, head or entire body (Crais, Douglas, & Campbell,
2004). The deaf-blind child should be encouraged to use gestures and this can be
achieved by proper responsiveness by caregivers to the child‘s gestures (Miles & Riggio,
1999).
According to Bruce, Mann, Jones and Gavin (2007) and Preisler (1995), gestures can
be classified as primitive and conventional or as contact and distal. The physical
27
manipulation of oneself and others is referred to as primitive gestures while conventional
gestures include modes of communication that are less particular to a child‘s experience,
which makes them more interpretable.
McLean et al. (1991) defined contact gestures as those that involve physical contact
with objects and people and distal gestures as those that are about objects, people and
events that are a distance from their bodies. Individuals who are deaf-blind and use distal
gestures have achieved an important milestone towards the use of symbolic
communication.
The role of affect and movement have been emphasized by Daleman,Nafstad,
Rodbroe, Souriau, and Visser (2001) as well as van Dijk (1966). They highlighted the
importance of the memories of the body in motion in tandem with the association of the
emotional experience of communication. The ―emotionally charged movement
experiences inspire the expression of gestures‖ (Bruce, Mann, Jones, & Gavin, 2007, p.
640).
Symbolic Communication System
Rodbroe (1999) explained that words and signs are symbolic ways in which we
communicate our thoughts, ideas and needs. Many children who are deaf-blind learn to
communicate with objects and pictures. Symbolic linguistic systems were the main
educational focus for deaf-blind students in the 1960‘s. Dr. Jan van Dijk (1986)
suggested that by using objects of reference to symbolize activities, events and people, a
child who is deaf-blind will be able to anticipate what is about to happen.
28
According to Bruce (2005) and Park (1997) criteria for success of symbolic expression
is based upon the child‘s understanding of abstract understanding. There are three levels
of representation: index, icon, and symbol. An index is an object that is actually part of
the activity. An example of an index would be a coat for going outside or a swimming
suit to indicate swimming. According to Aitken and Buultjens (1992) by beginning with
real objects, a child‘s development will be assisted in the ability to utilize twodimensional symbols which incorporates ‗a gradual shift from the concrete to the
abstract‘ (p. 108).
Bruce (2005) and Park (1997) explained that an icon is an object that shares a strong
physical or tactile resemblance with the item to be represented. An example of an icon
might be a toy cup to symbolize drink or play money to symbolize shopping. An icon
can also include an object used in everyday life but not in the particular activity being
represented. For example, a wooden spoon can be tacked onto a piece of cardboard to
symbolize cooking.
Park (1997) described a symbol as a sign that is separate from the object it represents
and also has no resemblance to it in any way. An example would be a play block that
would represent a child‘s classroom. According to Bruce (2005), the use of symbolic
communication allows the child to communicate about subjects that are not in the
immediate physical environment. This will free the child to guide the conversation
subjects based on memories of experiences.
According to van Dijk (1967) objects of reference should be regarded as a stepping
stone to more developed modes of communication. While these objects should be used
29
to communicate as long as a child needs them, as their understanding develops more
cognitive modes of communication such as speech, sign, or reading and writing should be
introduced.
Object Symbols
The use of objects as symbols is an outgrowth of van Dijk‘s work (1966, 1967). Van
Dijk‘s intent was for objects of reference to be used with children who were deaf-blind in
the development of receptive and expressive language. Rowland and Schweigert (2000)
explained that the confusion of whether or not these symbols were to be used for either or
both of these purposes placed an emphasis on the objects being utilized for receptive use.
This restriction occurred because the symbols usually represent a cue for an activity that
is about to happen.
Object symbols are defined by Rowland et al. (2000) as a way to build communication
skills by using part or all of a two-dimensional (pictures) or three-dimensional (objects)
item within a meaningful context. This must include associations between the item and
an activity or experience.
According to Miles et al. (1999) a three-dimensional system can consist of actual
objects or symbolic representations. It is also important that objects be used in
conjunction with other forms of communication such as gestures, signs and speech.
Rowland et al (2000) also explained that it is important that the representative object is
one that is handled routinely by the student who is deaf-blind. These symbols are a way
30
of providing an effective bridge between gestures and symbols and they are manipulable
with only a simple motor response necessary.
Rowland and Schweigert (1989) presented four levels of representation for tangible
symbols. The first level is an identical object. This level focuses on the individual who
does not yet have the ability to associate one object for another. This is the highest level
of concreteness for a student who is deaf-blind. An example of an identical object would
be an orange afixed to a piece of cardboard to represent an orange. The second level is a
partial or associated object. This object will not be an identical match but will maintain a
high level of concreteness. An example of this level of representation would be a wash
cloth to represent a bath. An object with shared features is the next level of
representation. This category maintains a high level of concreteness but may only have a
visual resemblance as a shared feature. An example of this might be a plastic apple to
represent an apple. The final level of representation is an arificial object. This object
will have no obvious connection to the object it is representing. An example may be a
scarf to represent a child‘s mother.
According to Rowland and Schweigert (1989), the most common use of object
symbols is to schedule activities or teach time management concepts. The systems
designed for this purpose is often referred to as calendar boxes or anticipation shelves.
Miles and Riggio (1999) explained that if these systems are used correctly, they will
provide opportunity for much conversation surrounding upcoming or completed
activities. It can also become a way for a child who is deaf-blind to request specific
activities.
31
Dual Communication Boards
According to Heller and Allgood (1996) students who are deaf-blind often have
difficulty with single communication systems because the intent of the message is
misinterpretted. The solution for this problem might be a dual communication system.
This system would consist of two identical communication systems. One for the student
for expressive communication and one for the caregiver to use for receptive
communication.
This sytem is effective when the communication partner points to his or her
communication board in an attempt to provide the student who is deaf-blind with a
receptive message that requires a communication response. The student then responds
using his or her communication board in order to clarify or acknowledge the received
message.
This system has also been found effective in community settings during research
conducted by Heller and Allgood (1996). The dual communication systems were
transferred to easily accessible cards that were held together by two rings. The first card
on the communication partners system included directions on the use of the system. The
students would use these cards with people in the community or on a work site by
pointing to relevant pictures that requested an upcoming work task or to indicate a needed
item. The communication partners would then respond by using the communication
cards or gesturing towards the needed objects. When the conversation included social
content, such as ―How are you?‖, communication partners could respond expressively by
using the dual communication cards.
32
Deaf-blind Instruction as a Result of IDEA
Thompson and Freeman (1995) explained that the 1990 amendments to the Education
of the Handicapped Act were amended as a response to the input from several interest
groups, including the National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness. The new legislation was
signed by President George Bush and renamed The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). In response to the recommendations of the National Coalition on
Deaf-Blindness, the new legislation included the following changes in the profession of
Deaf-Blindness:
1. Added local education agencies (LEAs) to state education agencies (SEAs) as
program beneficiaries
2. Included infants and toddlers and early intervention services to the scope of the
program
3. Provided services to facilitate transition from educational to other services by
allowing adolescents and young adults to become eligible for such services
4. Provided a definition of children with deaf-blindness, including in that definition
infants and toddlers identified as having deaf-blindness
5. Authorized support for pilot supplementary services by single and multistate
projects as well as a national clearing-house for children with deaf-blindness
6. Authorized funding for pilot, research, development or demonstration, or
replication projects, preservice and inservice training, and parental involvement
33
activities; children with severe disabilities other than deaf-blindness became
ineligible for project participation
According to Thompson et al. (1995) this legislation brought about significant funding
competitions that resulted in research pertaining to innovative educational approaches in
the profession of deaf-blindness. This research was specifically focused on social skills,
skills related to transition, training of personnel and validations of innovations.
National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness
According to Stremel (2006) the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB) is a
national technical assistance and dissemination center for children and youth who are
deaf-blind which began on October 1, 2006 after receiving five years of funding from the
U.S. Department of Education‘s Office of Special Education (OSEP). NCDB builds on
the technical assistance activities of the national Technical Assistance Consortium on
Children and Young Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind (NTAC), the information services and
dissemination activities of DB-LINK and ads a third focus related to personnel training.
Malloy (2004) asserted that NTAC is a collaborative project between the Teaching
Research Institute at Western Oregon University and the Helen Keller National Center in
Sands Point, New York. The mission of this project is to assist state deaf-blind projects in
improving the quality of services for individuals who are deaf-blind. This mission will be
accomplished by providing training, information, and support to a wide array of agencies.
Malloy (2004) noted that DB-LINK was established in 1992 by Congress as a central
location for the ―collection, organization and dissemination of literature on deaf-
34
blindness‖ (p.6). This unique data-base can make a difference in the lives of individuals
who are deaf-blind by providing accessible information concerning practices and
knowledge for family members, educators, physicians or anyone interested in deafblindness.
Stremel (2006) explained that OSEP has identified two major purposes for this
consortium. The first priority is to promote academic achievement and results for
children and youth (from birth to 26) who are deaf-blind. This will be accomplished by
―offering technical assistance, model demonstration, and information dissemination
activities that are supported by evidence-based practices. These activities are directed
toward families, service providers, state deaf-blind projects, state and local education
agencies, and other organizations responsible for providing early intervention, education,
and transition services. The second purpose is to address state-identified needs for highly
qualified personnel who have the necessary skills to serve children who are deaf-blind‖
(p.2).
According to Stremel (2006) the following objectives provide an overview of NCDB
activities:
1. Communicate, collaborate, and form partnerships as directed by OSEP and with
agencies, organizations, and projects in order to improve results for children and
youth and their families.
35
2. Implement an ongoing, multilevel needs assessment to systematically identify the
needs of children and youth, their families, and service providers, including
personnel training, in order to adequately and appropriately address those needs.
3. Provide national leadership in the implementation of evidence-based practices to
address gaps in knowledge and to scale up current practices.
4. Implement an array of technical assistance and personnel-training activities to
build the capacity of state and local agencies to meet the needs of children and
youth who are deaf-blind and their families.
5. Utilize collaborative partnerships and facilitated efforts to build the capacity of
youth who are deaf-blind and their families in order to promote self-advocacy,
personal empowerment, and knowledge of deaf-blindness.
6. Provide leadership in a coordinated national effort to promote personnel training
on the implementation of IDEA and evidence-based practices in order to address
the shortage of leadership and highly qualified personnel in the profession of
deaf-blindness.
7. Identify, collect, organize, and disseminate information related to deaf-blindness,
including evidence-based practices, in order to respond to inquiries and increase
knowledge that promotes effective early intervention, education, and transition
services, and supports families.
36
8. Expand the utilization of information resources by developing and disseminating
accessible products that synthesize evidence-based research, effective practices,
and emerging knowledge.
9. Implement a comprehensive system of evaluation to assess the impact of the
consortium's objectives and activities across the four outcome domains of child,
family, service provider, and systems.
Outcome Performance Indicators
According to Killoran, Davies, and McNulty (2006) in recent years federally funded
projects have witnessed an emphasis on the need for data collection and reporting of
project outcomes based on funded technical assistance (TA). The Outcome Performance
Indicators (OPIs) were originally developed as a simple list of indicators to be used for
evaluation purposes only. However, their value to guiding technical assistance,
assessment and planning became evident during profession-testing. For this reason, the
OPIs now serve as the resource for outcome-based technical assistance delivery and
evaluation system for the profession of deaf-blindness. The three-fold specific purpose
of the OPI system is:
1. To provide an internal, uniform coding system (common language)
for outcomes and performance indicators identified during the
needs assessment process and used in the development and
implementation of technical assistance.
37
2. To provide an evaluation system and instruments that can be used
to consistently aggregate outcome data from multiple sites during
all phases of TA planning, delivery, and evaluation.
3. To provide an evaluation system and instruments that can be used
to consistently report data across multiple sites and meet a variety
of reporting requirements.
According to Killoran, Davies, and McNulty (2006) the OPIs provide the profession
of deaf-blindness with a common language that can be used and understood across
multiple sites. The indicators have been written and profession-tested to relate to the
needs of service providers of deaf-blind students; children who are deaf-blind; families of
deaf-blind individuals and school system that services students who are deaf-blind.
In May of 2008 the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness published outcome
performance indicators for children, service providers and family members in the area of
literacy. According to Jacobs, Purvis, Steele and Taylor (2008), the indicators were
developed through the combination of an emergent literacy focus with the five areas
necessary for reading instruction as identified by the National Reading Panel (2000).
These five areas include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text
comprehension. The theory that all children are in the process of becoming literate
(Teale and Sulzby, 1986) is also incorporated in the thought process behind the current
performance indicators.
38
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Methods
According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) this research study lends itself to the
exploratory research design. The results of the first qualitative method will assist in
developing the checklist used in the second quantitative method. The five participants,
including the researcher, will first qualitatively explore the teaching strategies of
Sullivan. The findings from this qualitative exploration will guide the development of
items and scales for the quantitative survey checklist. This will then be followed by an
additional qualitative phase that will address the implications of the findings on the
profession of deaf-blindness. A visual model of the mixed methods procedures for this
study is presented in Appendix B.
Population and Study Sample
Participants in the qualitative data collection procedure will consist of five individuals
used as raters. These individuals will be considered as content experts based upon the
following criteria:
1. Professional who has acquired a degree in education.
39
2. Professional who has five years or more experience in the profession of deafblindness.
3. Professional who has completed training on identifying teaching strategies.
4. Professional who is willing to serve as a rater.
5. Professional who is willing to complete the qualitative tasks within the identified
time frame.
The quantitative data collection procedure will involve participants who are identified
by the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness as project directors of state deaf-blind
projects. According to Malloy (2004) these projects are responsible for improving the
quality of services for individuals who are deaf-blind by providing training, information,
and support to a wide array of agencies.
The second quantitative data collection procedure will involve the five content experts
used in the first qualitative phase. These experts will be used to clarify any discrepancies
of the participants in Phase II.
The second qualitative phase will involve at least two of the four authors of the OPI‘s
for literacy and communication participating in an interview process that will address the
implications of the study finding on the profession of deaf-blindness.
Qualitative Data Collection Procedures
This study will utilize the qualitative method of a narrative research design to describe
and identify teaching strategies created and used by Sullivan as described in the
collection of notes and documents gathered by the ―beloved friend and literary counselor‖
40
Nella Braddy Henney (Lash, 1980, p. 3). These notes are the results of many years of
interviews, information gathering and document collection in the preparation to write the
definitive biography of Sullivan. Embedded in these reflections, that came directly from
Sullivan and Helen Keller, are details of the strategies used to teach literacy and
communication.
This information is housed at the Samuel P. Hayes Research Library on the Perkins
School for the Blind campus in Boston, Massachusetts. Permission to utilize this
reference material has been obtained from the director of the historical library at this site.
Permission for this data collection will also be sought from the University of Alabama at
Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Rater consensus, defined as 80% agreement, will be used as a verification method of
this qualitative section of the study. The researcher will collect only information that
pertains to the identified research questions. The selected portion of the Henney
collection will be provided to five raters. The raters will be provided with training on the
preferred ways of identifying teaching strategies and participating in qualitative research.
This training will be conducted by the researcher with each rater on an individual basis.
The raters will then be asked to identify and record teaching strategies that Sullivan used
to instruct communication and literacy to Helen Keller. Upon completion, the researcher
will discuss the identified strategies with the four other raters to resolve any discrepancies
and unintentional omissions.
41
The second qualitative phase will involve at least two of the four authors of the OPI‘s
for literacy and communication participating in an interview process that will address the
implications of the study finding on the profession of deaf-blindness.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The analysis for the qualitative phase will serve to answer the research question ―What
Annie Sullivan teaching strategies were identified.‖ Credibility and trustworthiness of
the qualitative data will be established through the use of three verification procedures: a)
member checking; b) asking others to examine the data; c) rater consensus.
Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) described the member checking procedure as
involving the researcher summarizing the findings and allowing the participants in the
study to indicate if the results are an accurate reflection of their experiences. Asking
others to examine the data is a procedure that is explained by Creswell and Plano Clark
(2007) as allowing others who are familiar with qualitative research and the content area
to review that database and the results with their own criteria. The final procedure, rater
consensus, is explained by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) as having several individuals
code a transcript, compare their work and reach a consensus of agreement.
The teaching strategies identified by the five raters will be compared and
discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The strategies that achieve a
minimum of 80% agreement after discussion will be considered to be reliable and will be
included in the checklist that will utilize a two- point scale to survey the similarities of
the Sullivan teaching strategies to the OPI‘s (Creswell and Ivankova, 2004).
42
Checklist Development
The teaching strategies identified by the five raters with 80% agreement will be
compiled into a two-point checklist to determine the extent to which Sullivan‘s teaching
strategies are similar with the outcome performance indicators (1=similar, 2=not similar).
Participants will be asked if the identified strategies are similar to the OPI‘s and if so, to
indicate the corresponding number of the OPI to the teaching strategy.
Quantitative data collection
The checklist will be presented to the 53 project directors of deaf blind programs
associated with the National Deaf-Blind Consortium. These individuals will be identified
by the National Deaf-Blind Consortium. Each survey participant will be assigned a
participation code to preserve confidentiality. These service providers will be asked to
utilize this survey to determine if the Sullivan teaching strategies are similar with the
outcome performance indicators.
Due to the number of choices of the outcome performance indicators, any
discrepancies will be clarified by the content experts used in Phase One. These experts
will be provided with a data sheet listing the Sullivan strategies that are considered to be
similar along with the OPI‘s that are identified as matching the Sullivan strategy. They
will then be asked to identify which OPI best matches the strategy and why.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The quantitative data will be analyzed using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR).
Lawshe (1975) stated that when experts are requested to make judgments, the question of
43
validity of their judgments will arise. This question of validity will be answered by
determining the number of participants who score a teaching strategy as being ―similar‖.
Content validity will be considered greater for those teaching strategies that are perceived
to be similar by more than half of the participants. Those strategies determined to be
similar by more than half of the participants will have a greater degree of content validity.
The following formula will be utilized to determine the CVR for each strategy on the
checklist:
CVR = ns - N/2
N/2
In the equation ns is the number of participants rating the strategy as similar and N is the
total number of participants rating the strategy. Table 1 indicates the minimum value
needed for a strategy to be identified as being similar to an OPI at a significance level of
<.05 on a one-tailed test.
Table 1
Minimum Values for Significance
Number of Panelists
Minimum
Value
5
.99
6
.99
7
.99
8
.75
9
.78
10
.62
11
.59
12
.56
13
.54
14
.51
44
15
.49
20
.42
25
.37
30
.33
35
.31
40
.29
Note. From ―A Quantitiative Approach to Content Validity,‖ by C.H. Lawshe, 1975,
Personnel Psychology 28, pp. 563-575.
Qualitative Data Collection Phase II
Qualitative data will be collected through an interview of at least two of the four
authors of the OPI‘s for literacy and communication. The interview will consist of open
ended questions concerning the implications the findings this research might have on the
profession of deaf-blindness. The questions will be developed specifically concerning
literacy and communication instruction in the categories developed in the outcome
performance indicators. These categories include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and text comprehension.
Qualitative Data Analysis Phase II
The interviews will be transcribed in preparation for analysis. The researcher will
code the narrative data which involves the process of grouping evidence and labeling
ideas so that they reflect increasingly broader perspectives (Creswell and Plano Clark,
2007). Upon completion of the development of codes and broader perspectives, the
researcher will incorporate member checking as a method to determine validity. The
researcher will provide the experts who participated in the interview process with a
45
summary of the findings to determine if they are an accurate reflection of their responses
to the interview questions.
46
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter contains results from the four phases of the study to compare Annie
Sullivan‘s teaching strategies and the outcome performance indicators (OPI‘s) used today
by professionals in deaf-blindness. The first section of this chapter will present the
qualitative research findings of Phase One. The focus of Phase One is identification of
teaching strategies used by Annie Sullivan by five experts in the profession of deafblindness. All of the Sullivan strategies identified by the five experts will be presented
along with the strategies that were agreed upon by the experts as teaching strategies in the
area of literacy and communication. This inter rater agreement was achieved by reaching
80% agreement by the raters.
The second section of this chapter contains findings from the Phase Two quantitative
checklist. The checklist was presented to members of 53 deaf-blind projects associated
with the National Deaf Blind Consortium (NCDB). These individuals were asked to
review the identified Sullivan strategies and determine if they were similar to the
Outcome Performance Indicators (OPI) in literacy and communication that were
established by the NCDB. Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was used to analyze this data.
47
The next section of this chapter will present the findings of Phase Three. This
quantitative data collection procedure involved the 5 content experts used in the first
qualitative phase. These experts were used to clarify any discrepancies of the participants
in Phase Two.
The findings from Phase Four will be presented last. This qualitative phase consisted
of an interview with two of the four authors of the OPI‘s. The interview questions were
developed to determine the implications of this research on the profession of deafblindness.
Phase One – Qualitative
In Phase One the researcher addressed the qualitative research question ―What
Sullivan teaching strategies were identified by the five raters?‖ Five content experts were
selected to complete this phase. These experts were identified as raters based on the
following qualifications:
1. Professional who has acquired a degree in education.
2. Professional who has five years or more experience in the profession of deafblindness.
3. Professional who has completed training on identifying teaching strategies.
4. Professional who is willing to serve as a rater.
48
5. Professional who is willing to complete the qualitative tasks within the identified
time frame.
Rater one is a female who was awarded a Helen Keller Fellowship with The National
Deaf Blind Consortium (NCDB), has five years experience in vision and deaf blindness
and currently serves on a state deaf-blind project. This project is a federally funded
technical assistance program awarded to 53 states and territories to support training
activities for persons who are deaf-blind, and agencies associated with them and their
families. Rater two has over 30 years of experience as a special educator in the field of
vision and deaf-blindness and currently serves as the project director of a state deaf-blind
project and manages a teacher training program in the profession at the university level.
Rater three has over 20 years experience as a special educator in the field of vision and
deaf-blindness and continues to teach in the public school setting. Rater four has over 30
years experience as a special educator in the field of vision and deaf-blindness and
currently teaches in a public school for students who are deaf, blind or deaf-blind. Rater
five is the researcher who has over 20 years experience working in the field of special
education, visual impairments and deaf-blindness and currently serves as a member of a
state deaf-blind project.
Training was provided on identifying individual teaching strategies and recording
sheets were provided. Documents were retrieved from the Henney Collection of Annie
Sullivan‘s personal notes housed at the library at the Perkins School for the Blind in
Boston, Massachusetts. The notes were combined in a notebook for this study. The
raters were given three weeks to identify strategies used by Sullivan to teach
49
communication and literacy. Upon the return of the recording sheets, the researcher
compiled a list of the 90 identified strategies. The teaching strategies identified by the
five raters were compared and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The
strategies that achieved a minimum of 80% agreement after discussion were considered
to be reliable. The list of strategies, as well as which raters agreed upon inclusion after
individual discussions were held between the raters and the researcher, can be found in
Appendix A.
Ninety strategies were identified by the expert raters from the notes of Annie Sullivan.
Fourteen strategies were identified by only one rater. Thirty-three of the strategies were
identified by two raters and 22 strategies had agreement from three of the raters. Four
raters agreed on 12 of the strategies. All five raters agreed on nine communication and
literacy strategies. There was 80% agreement on 21 of the 90 strategies. Table 2
presents the 21 Sullivan teaching strategies identified with an 80% agreement.
Table 2
Sullivan Teaching Strategies for Literacy and Communication
Sullivan Teaching Strategies
Relate lessons to relevant events in the child‘s environment
Children learn through experience with their environment
Classroom should be similar to playroom
Freedom to explore one‘s environment will facilitate learning
Study and observe living creatures
Repetition facilitates understanding
Allow the student to learn from contextual cues
Provide students with a wide range of experiences
Play is a perfectly good setting for learning
Teacher needs to guide and assist the child to self expression
Small vocabulary with rich concepts is better than large vocabulary
Present complete natural language and it will eventually appear in expression
Allow the child to act out the meaning of new words
50
Language doesn‘t have to be broken down to be taught
Repeat words countless times until they are eventually applied correctly
Present in brightly informal manner
Give a manageable dose of material
Have the student tell you about what they just read
Study the child and adapt instruction to the child‘s needs
Use multi-sensory instructions
Do not accept a memorized lesson as evidence of learning
Teach children to ask questions
Phase Two – Quantitative
Phase Two of the research answered the research question ―Is there a significant
relationship between the instructional strategies practiced by Sullivan in the early 1900‘s
and the contemporary instructional strategies recommended by the National Deaf Blind
Consortium to teach literacy and communication to deaf-blind students?‖
The quantitative section of research consisted of utilizing the 21 identified Sullivan
teaching strategies and developing a checklist to determine the similarity to the OPI‘s.
This checklist was sent to members of 53 deaf-blind projects, which includes all 50
states, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, utilizing the deaf-blind
list serve. Anyone employed with a deaf-blind project was invited to participate.
Twenty-eight checklists were returned which equates to a 52.8% return rate. Twenty-five
of the 28 respondents indicated which state they represented. Twenty-one states and/or
territories were represented. Table 3 summarizes this information.
Table 3
States or Territories Represented
State
California
Colorado
Florida
Number of completed checklists
1
2
1
51
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Louisiana
Maryland
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Unknown
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
All respondents who returned the checklist answered the question of whether or not
the Sullivan strategies were similar to the OPI‘s. Twenty-one of the 28 respondents
identified each OPI that they believed to be similar to the Sullivan strategy.
The data were analyzed using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) formula developed by
C.H. Lawshe (1975). This method was developed to assist in gauging agreement among
raters regarding how useful a particular item is to the study. If more than half of the
panelists agree that an item is useful, then the item has some content validity. Lawshe‘s
Content Validity Ratio formula is:
CVR = ns - N/2
N/2
In the equation, ne is the number of subject matter experts agreeing that a Sullivan
strategy is similar to an OPI. N is the total number of subject matter deaf-blind project
52
respondents. This formula yields values which range from +1 to -1. Any positive values
indicate that at least half the respondents agreed that the strategy was similar to an OPI.
The mean CVR across items may be used as an indicator of overall test content validity.
Table 4 indicates the minimum value needed for a Sullivan strategy to be identified as
being similar to an OPI at a significance level of <.05 on a one-tailed test.
Table 4
Minimum Value Needed for Significance
Number of Panelists
Minimum Value
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
25
30
35
40
.99
.99
.99
.75
.78
.62
.59
.56
.54
.51
.49
.42
.37
.33
.31
.29
With 28 checklists returned, the value needed for a strategy to be identified as being
similar to an OPI at a significance level of <.05 on a one-tailed test is .33. This analysis
indicated that 11 of the 21 Sullivan strategies were considered to be similar to the OPI‘s
for literacy and communication. When taking into consideration Lawshe‘s (1975)
statement that if more than half of the experts agree that an item is useful, then the item
has some content validity, six additional strategies could be considered similar.
53
However, this research focuses on the strategies identified as being similar to an OPI with
a significance level of <.05. Table 5 presents these findings.
Table 5
Sullivan Strategies that are Similar to OPIs
Sullivan Strategy
Relate lessons to relevant events in the child‘s
environment
Children learn through experience with their
environment
Classroom should be similar to playroom
Freedom to explore one‘s environment will facilitate
learning
Study and observe living creatures
Repetition facilitates understanding
Allow the student to learn from contextual cues
Provide students with a wide range of experiences
Play is a perfectly good setting for learning
Teacher needs to guide and assist the child to self
expression
Small vocabulary with rich concepts is better than large
vocabulary
Present complete natural language and it will eventually
appear in expression
Allow the child to act out the meaning of new words
Language doesn‘t have to be broken down to be taught
Repeat words countless times until they are eventually
applied correctly
Present in brightly informal manner
Give a manageable dose of material
Have the student tell you about what they just read
Study the child and adapt instruction to the child‘s
needs
Use multi-sensory instructions
Do not accept a memorized lesson as evidence of
learning
Teach children to ask questions
Number of
participants
rating the
strategy as
similar
26
Content
Validity
Ratio
(CVR)
Strategy is
considered
similar
.85
X
25
.78
X
9
18
-.35
.28
14
26
25
26
15
22
0
.85
.78
.85
.07
.57
13
-.07
16
.14
22
17
24
.57
.21
.71
13
14
27
25
-.07
0
.92
.78
24
16
.92
.14
15
.07
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
54
Phase Three – Quantitative
Phase III of the research study responded to the research questions:
1. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of fluency instructional strategies?
2. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of text comprehension instructional strategies?
3. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of interactive storybook reading instructional
strategies?
4. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of vocabulary instructional strategies?
Phase Two participants were given 20 OPI‘s to choose from when answering the question
―which OPI is the strategy similar to?‖ As a result of many choices, the Phase Two
participants indicated up to nine different OPI‘s as being similar to a Sullivan strategy.
The discrepancies by the participants in Phase Two were clarified by the content experts
used in Phase One. These experts were provided with a data sheet listing the 11 Sullivan
strategies that were considered to be similar along with the OPI‘s that were identified as
matching the Sullivan strategy. They were then asked to identify which OPI best
matched the strategy and why. Discrepancies between the content experts were resolved
through discussion. An agreement of 80% by the five expert raters was reached on ten
55
strategies while one strategy had an agreement of 100%. Table 6 presents this data as
well as each rater‘s response after individual discussions were held between the raters
and the researcher.
Table 6
OPIs that Best Matched Sullivan Strategies
Sullivan Strategy
Relate lessons to
relevant events in
the child‘s
environment
Children learn
through experience
with their
environment
OPI
Rater 1
C
Rater
2
C
Rater
3
C
Rater
4
C
Rater
5
B
B) Creates a literacy-rich
learning environment
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
E) Engages student to
interact with the text during
interactive storybook
reading
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
G) Embeds the use of
symbols or words
throughout the day
I) Provides opportunities to
match words to symbols
and/or symbols to meaning
O) Pre-teaches, teaches and
reviews words/concepts to
increase comprehension
B) Creates a literacy-rich
learning environment
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
G) Embeds the use of
symbols or words
throughout the day
O) Pre-teaches, teaches and
reviews words/concepts to
C
C
C
B
C
56
Repetition facilitates
understanding
Allow the student to
learn from
contextual cues
increase comprehension
A) Models reading and
writing behaviors using
students‘ preferred
communication method,
whether symbols or words
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
G) Embeds the use of
symbols or words
throughout the day
L) Teaches sight words
using systematic prompting
and fading procedures
N) Provides opportunities to
increase fluency through
repeated and monitored
reading practice
O) Pre-teaches, teaches and
reviews words/concepts to
increase comprehension
B) Creates a literacy-rich
learning environment
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
G) Embeds the use of
symbols or words
throughout the day
I) Provides opportunities to
match words to symbols
and/or symbols to meaning
M) Teaches new vocabulary
through the use of symbols
and words within a variety
of activities
O) Pre-teaches, teaches and
reviews words/concepts to
increase comprehension
P) Checks for student
comprehension through the
N
G
G
G
G
I
I
I
M
I
57
Provide students
with a wide range of
experiences
Teacher needs to
guide and assist the
child to self
expression
use of symbols or words
B) Creates a literacy-rich
learning environment
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
M) Teaches new vocabulary
through the use of symbols
and words within a variety
of activities
O) Pre-teaches, teaches and
reviews words/concepts to
increase comprehension
S) Provides writing
opportunities that
incorporate the student‘s
preferred communication
and AAC devices
A) Models reading and
writing behaviors using
students‘ preferred
communication method,
whether
symbols or words
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
G) Embeds the use of
symbols or words
throughout the day
L) Teaches sight words
using systematic prompting
and fading procedures
M) Teaches new vocabulary
through the use of symbols
and words within a variety
of activities
O) Pre-teaches, teaches and
reviews words/concepts to
increase comprehension
Q) Uses evidence-based
strategies to allow student to
C
B
B
B
B
S
S
S
A
S
58
demonstrate comprehension
S) Provides writing
opportunities that
incorporate the student‘s
preferred communication
and AAC devices
Allow the child to
act out the meaning
of new words
Repeat words
countless times until
they are eventually
applied correctly
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
E) Engages student to
interact with the text during
interactive storybook
reading
I) Provides opportunities to
match words to symbols
and/or symbols to meaning
M) Teaches new vocabulary
through the use of symbols
and words within a variety
of activities
N) Provides opportunities to
increase fluency through
repeated and monitored
reading practice
P) Checks for student
comprehension through the
use of symbols or words
Q) Uses evidence-based
strategies to allow student to
demonstrate comprehension
A) Models reading and
writing behaviors using
students‘ preferred
communication method,
whether symbols or words
G) Embeds the use of
symbols or words
throughout the day
I) Provides opportunities to
match words to symbols
and/or symbols to meaning
L) Teaches sight words
using systematic prompting
and fading
procedures
N) Provides opportunities to
increase fluency through
repeated and monitored
reading practice
O) Pre-teaches, teaches and
E
E
E
E
E
G
G
G
G
L
59
Have the student tell
you about what they
just read
Study the child and
adapt instruction to
the child‘s needs
Use multi-sensory
instruction
reviews words/concepts to
increase comprehension
P) Checks for student
comprehension through the
use of symbols or words
I) Provides opportunities to
match words to symbols
and/or symbols to meaning
N) Provides opportunities to
increase fluency through
repeated and monitored
reading practice
P) Checks for student
comprehension through the
use of symbols or words
Q) Uses evidence-based
strategies to allow student to
demonstrate comprehension
A) Models reading and
writing behaviors using
students‘ preferred
communication method,
whether symbols or words
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
E) Engages student to
interact with the text during
interactive storybook
reading
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
L) Teaches sight words
using systematic prompting
and fading procedures
P) Checks for student
comprehension through the
use of symbols or words
A) Models reading and
writing behaviors using
students‘ preferred
communication method,
whether symbols or words
B) Creates a literacy-rich
learning environment
C) Provides opportunities
for emergent literacy
learning throughout the
classroom and throughout
the day
P
P
P
P
Q
F
F
F
F
A
M
S
S
S
S
60
E) Engages student to
interact with the text during
interactive storybook
reading
F) Uses the student‘s
preferred cues to draw
attention, shape response to
and interact with the text
H) Teaches letters using
print, Braille or tactile
representation
M) Teaches new vocabulary
through the use of symbols
and words within a variety
of activities
S) Provides writing
opportunities that
incorporate the student‘s
preferred communication
and AAC devices
Rater consensus of 80% was achieved when an OPI was identified by four of the five
raters as best matching the Sullivan strategy. Table 7 presents these findings along with
various comments provided by the experts as to why they chose the OPI to match the
strategy.
Table 7
OPIs that Best Matched Sullivan Strategies After Discussion
Sullivan Strategy
OPI
Rater Comments
Relate lessons to relevant events
in the child‘s environment
C) Provides opportunities for
emergent literacy learning
throughout the classroom and
throughout the day
Children learn through
experience with their
environment
C) Provides opportunities for
emergent literacy learning
throughout the classroom and
throughout the day
G) Embeds the use of symbols or
words throughout the day
Repetition facilitates
understanding
Allow the student to learn from
contextual cues
I) Provides opportunities to match
words to symbols and/or symbols
to meaning
The child‘s environment should
include activities in both the
classroom and other areas
throughout the day. This
approach is both practical and
functional
Experiences with the child‘s
environment both in the
classroom and outside of it,
facilitate and deepen learning.
If the words are embedded
throughout the day, natural
repetition will occur
Using context cues allows each
child the opportunity to use
related and repeated experiences
61
Provide students with a wide
range of experiences
B) Creates a literacy-rich learning
environment
Teacher needs to guide and assist
the child to self expression
S) Provides writing opportunities
that incorporate the student‘s
preferred communication and
AAC devices
E) Engages student to interact
with the text during interactive
storybook reading
G) Embeds the use of symbols or
words throughout the day
Allow the child to act out the
meaning of new words
Repeat words countless times
until they are eventually applied
correctly
Have the student tell you about
what they just read
Study the child and adapt
instruction to the child‘s needs
Use multi-sensory instruction
P) Checks for student
comprehension through the use of
symbols or words
F) Uses the student‘s preferred
cues to draw attention, shape
response to and interact with the
text
S) Provides writing opportunities
that incorporate the student‘s
preferred communication and
AAC devices
The child must be provided with
experiences and activities that are
relevant to his or her everyday
life
In order for a child to be capable
of self expression, then some type
of communication must be
developed
Acting out a story is a great way
to demonstrate the understanding
of a word or words
Multiple, meaningful repetitions
with sufficient context will help
the student to build mastery
Allowing a child to discuss what
he or she has just read is an
excellent strategy to use to
evaluate the child‘s level of
comprehension
This will provide an opportunity
to allow the child to ―guide‖ you
to something that keeps them
interested
By using a student‘s preferred
communication style as well as
AAC devices, you will address
the different learning styles they
might have
The data were analyzed to answer the four qualitative research questions:
1. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of fluency instructional strategies?
Five of the 20 literacy OPI‘s were identified by the researcher as being related to the area
of fluency. These OPI‘s include teaching phonemic awareness skills; phonics skills;
sight words recognition; increasing fluency through repeated and monitored reading
practice; and increasing independence toward conventional literacy.
The OPI concerning sight word recognition was chosen by the checklist participants
as matching four Sullivan strategies; however, the experts agreed at least 80% of the time
that another OPI was more similar to those Sullivan strategies. One expert explained that
the OPI emphasizes teaching sight words using systematic prompting and fading and that
62
this method seems to be more restricted that Sullivan‘s methods and philosophy. The
expert continued to explain that in Sullivan‘s writings, she seemed to promote large
quantities of input in many contexts. If the words are embedded throughout the day,
natural repetition will occur.
The OPI concerning increasing fluency through repeated and monitored reading
practice was also chosen by the checklist participants. This OPI appeared three times in
the checklist results; however the experts agreed at least 80% of the time that another OPI
was more similar to the Sullivan strategy. The experts found that the OPI concerning
embedding the use of symbols or words throughout the day better match the Sullivan
strategy of repeating words countless times until they are eventually applied correctly.
One expert found this OPI to focus more on the use of whole language which Sullivan
favored. One expert felt that the term ―embedded‖ that is utilized in the OPI matched
Sullivan‘s philosophy of multiple, meaningful repetitions with sufficient context to build
mastery.
The other OPI‘s concerning fluency were not chosen by the checklist participants.
Because an OPI related to fluency was not considered to be the most similar to a Sullivan
strategy by the experts, there was no evidence of a significant relationship between
Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome performance indicators in the area of fluency
instructional strategies.
2. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of text comprehension instructional strategies?
63
Five of the 20 OPI‘s in literacy were identified as being related to the area of text
comprehension. These OPI‘s include teaching print and book awareness; teaching letters;
teaching words/concepts to increase comprehension; checking for comprehension; and
strategies for allowing the student to demonstrate comprehension.
The OPI concerning teaching words/concepts to increase comprehension was chosen
by the checklist participants as matching seven of the strategies, but was not found to be
the most similar to a Sullivan strategy by the experts. The experts agreed that Sullivan
supported the use of whole language and real life experiences to assist students in
comprehension. The experts found the OPI that focuses on providing opportunities for
emergent literacy learning throughout the classroom and throughout the day to better
match the Sullivan strategy of providing students with a wide range of experiences. This
decision was explained by an expert‘s comment that stated ―By learning through
everyday events and providing such opportunities to learn from unstructured activities as
well as structured, the students learn more‖.
The OPI concerning allowing the student to demonstrate comprehension through
increased wait time, corrective feedback and praise was chosen by the checklist
participants as matching three of the strategies, but was not found to be the most similar
to a Sullivan strategy by the experts. The experts agreed that Sullivan encouraged her
student to interact with the story by playing the roles of the characters. They found that
the OPI which encourages the engaging of a student to interact with the text during
interactive storybook reading was more similar to the Sullivan strategy of allowing
students to act out the meaning of new words. The comment of one expert explained this
64
reasoning by stating ―What better way to be able to demonstrate the understanding of a
word or text than to be able to act it out. The OPI and Sullivan strategy supports
allowing the student to be engaged in the story.‖
The OPI concerning checking for comprehension through the use of symbols or words
was chosen by the checklist participants as matching four of the strategies and was
chosen by the experts as being the most similar OPI for the Sullivan strategy that
discusses having the student tell you about what they just read.
Table 8 presents this information. This relationship was established by achieving rater
consensus of at least 80% on the following Sullivan strategy best matching the following
OPI.
Table 8
Similarities in Text Comprehension Strategies
Strategy
OPI
Have the student tell you about what they
P) Checks for student comprehension
just read
through the use of symbols or words
3. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of interactive storybook reading instructional
strategies?
Three of the 20 OPI‘s in literacy were identified as being related to the area of
interactive storybook reading. These OPI‘s include engaging students to interact with
65
text and using the student‘s preferred cues to interact with text. The OPI concerning
engaging student to interact with text was chosen by the checklist participants as
matching four of the strategies and was chosen by the experts as best matching the
Sullivan strategy that discusses allowing the child to act out the meaning of new words.
The OPI concerning using the student‘s preferred cues to interact with text was chosen by
the checklist participants as matching eight of the strategies and was chosen by the
experts as best matching the Sullivan strategy that discusses adapting instruction to the
child‘s needs.
Table 9 presents the relationship between the Sullivan strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of interactive storybook reading instructional
strategies. This relationship was established by achieving rater consensus of at least 80%
on the following Sullivan strategies best matching the following OPI‘s.
Table 9
Similarities in Interactive Storybook Strategies
Strategy
OPI
Allow the child to act out the meaning E) Engages student to interact with the
of new words
text during interactive storybook
reading
Study the child and adapt instruction
F) Uses the student‘s preferred cues to
to the child‘s needs
draw attention, shape response to and
interact with the text
66
4. Is there a significant relationship between Sullivan‘s strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of vocabulary instructional strategies?
Six of the 20 OPI‘s in literacy were identified as being related to the area of
vocabulary instructional strategies. These OPI‘s include modeling reading and writing
behaviors, creating a literacy-rich environment, providing opportunities for literacy
learning throughout the day, embedding the use of symbols throughout the day, teaching
new vocabulary through symbols and a variety of activities, and providing writing
opportunities using the student‘s preferred communication.
The OPI concerning modeling reading and writing behaviors was chosen by the
checklist participants as matching five of the strategies but was not chosen by the experts
as best matching a Sullivan strategy. The experts agreed that Sullivan supported the use
of interactive education more than that of modeling proper behaviors. For this reason, the
experts found the OPI which supports checking for student comprehension through the
use of symbols and words best matched the Sullivan strategy of having the student repeat
words countless times until they are eventually applied correctly because it focuses on the
student applying the repeated concepts instead of the behavior being modeled by the
teacher.
The OPI concerning teaching new vocabulary through symbols was chosen six times
by the checklist participants but was not chosen by the experts as being the best matched
OPI to a strategy. The experts agreed that Sullivan‘s strategies utilized context cues more
than the teaching of vocabulary words in isolation or out of context.
The OPI concerning creating a literacy-rich environment was chosen by the checklist
participants as matching five of the strategies and was chosen by the experts as best
67
matching the Sullivan strategy concerning providing students with a wide range of
experiences. The OPI concerning providing opportunities for literacy learning
throughout the day was chosen by the checklist participants as matching nine of the
strategies and was chosen by the experts as matching the Sullivan strategies concerning
relating lessons to the child‘s environment and allowing children to learn through
experiences with the environment. The OPI concerning embedding the use of symbols
throughout the day was chosen by the checklist participants as matching six of the
strategies and was chosen by the experts as matching the Sullivan strategies concerning
using repetition to facilitate understanding and repeat words countless times. The final
OPI concerning providing writing opportunities was chosen to match three strategies by
the checklist participants and was chosen by the experts as the best matched OPI to the
Sullivan strategies concerning guiding and assisting the child to self expression and using
multi-sensory instruction.
Table 10 presents the relationship between the Sullivan strategies and the outcome
performance indicators in the area of vocabulary instructional strategies. This
relationship was established by achieving rater consensus on the following Sullivan
strategies best matching the following OPI‘s.
Table 10
Similarities in Vocabulary Instructional Strategies
Strategy
OPI
Provide students with a wide range of
B) Creates a literacy-rich learning
experiences
environment
Relate lessons to relevant events in the child‘s C) Provides opportunities for emergent
environment
literacy learning throughout the
classroom and throughout the day
Children learn through experience with their
C) Provides opportunities for emergent
environment
literacy learning throughout the
68
Repetition facilitates understanding
Repeat words countless times until they are
eventually applied correctly
Allow the student to learn from contextual
cues
Teacher needs to guide and assist the child to
self expression
Use multi-sensory instruction
classroom and throughout the day
G) Embeds the use of symbols or
words throughout the day
G) Embeds the use of symbols or
words throughout the day
I) Provides opportunities to match
words to symbols and/or symbols to
meaning
S) Provides writing opportunities that
incorporate the student‘s preferred
communication and AAC devices
S) Provides writing opportunities that
incorporate the student‘s preferred
communication and AAC devices
Phase IV – Qualitative
Data for Phase IV of this research study was collected qualitatively through interviews
with two of the four authors of the OPI‘s for literacy and communication. These open
ended questions included:
What implications, if any, do you think these findings might
have on the profession of deaf-blindness?
What benefits, if any, do you think might come from having a
listing of Annie Sullivan‘s teaching strategies in the area of
literacy and communication?
Do you have any other comments or thoughts concerning this
study or the findings of this research?
This data was analyzed by coding the narrative data by grouping evidence and
labeling ideas so that they reflect an increasingly broader perspective. The results
indicate that the authors of the OPI‘s found it interesting that a number of the Sullivan
strategies correlate to current teaching strategies. It was also indicated that a good
69
teaching strategy will withstand the test of time. The authors of the OPI‘s also stated that
implications can be drawn from this research because educators are involved in an era
that is searching for evidence-based practices.
70
Chapter 5
Discussion
The ―miracle‖ that was performed by Annie Sullivan has been portrayed in books,
movies and plays demonstrating the significance of her teaching strategies. The pure
teachings of Sullivan and Helen Keller‘s learning ability have provided the deaf-blind
community and profession with a role model to follow. Worldwide, people remain in
awe of the two women and their ability to break barriers to reach unfathomable goals.
The cognition of language and educational achievement were products of the hard work
and dedication of Sullivan. In this chapter the popularized view of the significance of
this educational performance will be expanded to qualify the significance Sullivan‘s
teaching strategies have on the profession of deaf-blindness centuries later.
Discussion of the Findings
This research study utilized the OPIs as standards of measure to determine the extent
in which Sullivan‘s teaching practices were futuristic. The similarities between 11
Sullivan strategies and OPIs produce a clear and objective demonstration of Sullivan
being a teacher who incorporated teaching strategies that were truly ahead of her time.
The literature concerning literacy and communication instruction for individuals who are
71
deaf-blind revolves around three central approaches: the child centered approach,
harmonious interactions and symbolic communication. The findings of this research
demonstrate Sullivan‘s incorporation of these approaches before they were actually
researched, defined and named.
Child Centered Approach. The child centered approach is discussed by van Dijk and
Nelson (1997) as a strategy that gives the child the lead and allows them to influence
their environment instead of being completely dependent on it. Research by McGinnity
et al (2004b) and French (2004) discuss strategies utilized by Sullivan that involve her
constantly naming whatever drew Helen‘s attention by spelling the letters of the object in
her hand. As the student and teacher were enjoying play and the outdoors, language and
vocabulary were being introduced. Teaching and learning were occurring without the
stress of formal education.
Lash (1980) discussed the education of deaf-blind students during the post-rubella
period. This era was led by the research and work of Dr. Jan van Dijk beginning in the
mid 1960‘s. His academic principles were very similar to those of Sullivan. Dr. van Dijk
practiced the child centered approach by joining in activities that attracted the interest of
the student.
The findings from this research study demonstrate Sullivan‘s use of a child centered
approach in the early 1900‘s. Three of the 11 Sullivan strategies that were found to be
similar to the OPI‘s reflect the theory of allowing the child to learn while participating in
activities that interest them. In an attempt to enhance communication and literacy,
Sullivan would relate lessons to relevant events in Helen‘s environment; incorporate
72
learning opportunities through experiences in her student‘s environment; and provide her
student with a wide range of experiences.
The findings of this study provide a clear and objective demonstration of Sullivan
incorporating a child centered approach to teaching literacy and communication to
students who are deaf-blind. This is an indicator of her utilizing strategies that were well
ahead of her time since this approach did not reappear in the literature until Dr. Jan van
Dijk and the post-rubella era.
Harmonious Interaction. According to Janssen, et al (2006) harmonious interaction is the
necessity of caregivers of deaf-blind individuals to enter into the world of physical
closeness and touch in order to understand the unique communication signals of these
students. Nafstad and Rodbroe (1997) describe the strategy of harmonious interactions as
the recognition and response of one individual to the communicative expressions of
another.
While Sullivan did not refer to her strategies as harmonious interactions, she clearly
demonstrated this concept by developing an understanding of her student‘s
communication method. There is unmistakable recognition and response of
communication styles shared by Sullivan and Keller. Three of the 11 Sullivan strategies
that were found similar to OPIs demonstrate this concept. Sullivan guided and assisted
Helen to self-expression, she allowed her student to act out the meaning of new words
and she studied the child and adapted instruction to the child‘s needs.
73
The findings provide another demonstration of the quality of Sullivan‘s teaching
strategies. Sullivan‘s forward thinking is evident by the similarities in her teaching
strategies and the outcome performance indicators. Sullivan incorporated strategies that
relate to harmonious interactions in the 1900‘s. This term was not researched or defined
until the early 21st century. This is another supporting factor of Sullivan being an
inventive educator who laid the foundation for many educators to follow.
Symbolic Communication. Jan van Dijk (1966, 1967) discussed the use of objects as
symbols for students who are deaf-blind. The intent of van Dijk‘s study was for objects
of reference to be used in the development of receptive and expressive language.
However, there was confusion of whether or not these symbols were to be used for either
or both of these purposes so an emphasis was placed on the object being utilized for
receptive use. According to van Dijk (1967) objects of reference should be regarded as a
stepping stone to more developed modes of communication such as speech, sign, and
reading and writing.
Without realizing it, Sullivan incorporated this theory into her daily instruction by
utilizing repetition, context cues and discussion of reading comprehension in the
instruction of receptive and expressive language. Four of the 11 Sullivan strategies that
were found to be similar to the OPIs relate to the use of symbolic communication in the
development of receptive and expressive language. Sullivan had her student repeat
activities to facilitate learning, use context cues for better understanding, repeat words
until they were applied correctly and restate a reading passage in order to measure
comprehension.
74
By connecting these research findings to the literature in the profession of deafblindness, the innovative teaching strategies of Sullivan are once again highlighted.
Strategies that she developed and incorporated in the early 1900‘s continue to be
discussed, researched and used in the current literacy and communication education of
students who are deaf-blind.
Implications
The research has provided the profession of deaf-blindness with a listing of 90
teaching strategies that were created and used by Sullivan. Twenty-one of those
strategies are directly related to the communication and literacy education of these
individuals. This listing will provide educators with the opportunity to view a clear list of
successful strategies used in the education of a deaf-blind individual. This list of
strategies will offer educators with an initial strategy that can then be modified and
adapted to meet the needs of their individual students. This list of teaching strategies has
provided the profession with a reference of strategies that have proven to be successful in
literacy instruction for students who are deaf-blind.
This research has provided the profession of deaf-blindness with 11 teaching strategies
that reinforce the current evidence based outcome performance indicators in the area of
communication and literacy. These teaching strategies were successful centuries ago and
were also found to be similar to the strategies that are currently recommended by the
National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness. As a result, this research has identified 11
teaching strategies that are essential for literacy and communication education for
students who are deaf-blind.
75
These 11 strategies focus on the student‘s environment, experiences and preferred
mode of communication. If a student is given the opportunity to experience the
surroundings in their environment, they will learn from those experiences. It is the
responsibility of the teacher and caregiver to nurture this mode of learning by providing
the student who is deaf-blind with as many different experiences as possible. The
education of a student who is deaf-blind should be one full of activity. Experiences
should be provided through tactile sensations and physical movement.
Another important aspect of education for these students is to make sure the
information is provided in their preferred mode of communication. Whether the
preferred mode is symbols, sign language or adaptive devices, the student should be
given the opportunity to express themselves and demonstrate their comprehension using
the mode of communication that suits them best.
The research indicates that these strategies are successful because they begin with the
environment and interest of the student. A student who is deaf-blind should have their
lessons occur in surroundings that are familiar to them instead of in a text that has no
significant relevance to the child. When a student is able to learn the concepts of open
and close by physically opening and closing a door in their environment, the lesson is
more meaningful and the concepts are tangible to the student.
The findings also reflect the importance of an educator utilizing a student‘s interest,
environment and familiar surroundings to facilitate learning. It has been concluded in the
Sullivan strategies, as well as the Outcome Performance Indicators, that a student benefits
from lessons that are relevant to their interest and environment. When a student‘s
76
environment is literacy rich and lessons are related to the environment, the opportunities
for literacy and communication increase.
Another implication of Sullivan‘s strategies is that students who are deaf-blind need to
interact with their environment to enhance learning. These students need to participate in
the learning process tactually and actively. With a dual sensory loss, a student will
benefit more from their educational experience if it is an interactive one.
A concern that was expressed by the authors of the OPIs during the interview data
collection was that Helen Keller was an atypical deaf-blind student. The process of
linking the research findings to the current literature in the area of literacy and
communication for students who are deaf-blind offered the implication that this concern
should not reflect on this research. According to van Dijk and Nelson (1997) the
academic principles of Dr. Jan van Dijk were based on the child-centered approach of the
educator joining in activities that attract the attention of their students. This is very
similar to the approach utilized by Sullivan. The difference between the two educators
was the ability of their students. Sullivan‘s student, Helen Keller was interested in trees,
plant life, literature and composition while van Dijk‘s students, who were of the postrubella era, were interested in flapping of their fingers, jumping and spinning around.
The success of both teachers was directed by their desire to utilize a child-centered
approach that included giving the student the lead and allowing them to influence their
environment instead of being completely dependent upon it. This connection implies that
the child-centered approach, which is based on the student‘s interest, is the key to success
for these students, regardless what their interest may be.
77
Recommendations for Further Research
The 11 Sullivan strategies that were not found to be similar to an OPI are centered on
learning through play and allowing the student to have freedom to learn through
exploration. This type of educational setting is very difficult for educators today for
several reasons. Teachers today are expected to structure their strategies towards the
many different learning styles of all of their students while within the confines of a
traditional classroom. In some instances they are also expected to follow the academic
curricula that are found in a typical classroom. The freedom experienced by Sullivan to
teach her student whenever and wherever learning opportunities arouse was beneficial
because learning opportunities were not missed due to rigid scheduling.
These 11 Sullivan strategies suggest that the process of inclusion and strict curricula may
hinder the deaf-blind student. The social advantages to a deaf-blind student being
included in a typical classroom are evident. However, if this inclusion is occurring
before the student has reached the emergent literacy level are they getting the type of
instruction and one-to-one attention necessary for communication and literacy to
develop? If these skills of communication are not developed, are the students benefiting
from the social structure of an inclusive classroom? These are questions that would
benefit from further research.
Another area of recommended research would be to determine the similarities between
the Sullivan strategies and the OPIs with the use of educators of deaf-blind students. It
would be interesting and beneficial to the profession of deaf-blindness if teachers were
utilized to determine the significance of Sullivan‘s strategies in today‘s educational
78
settings. The check-list participants used in phase II are considered experts in the deafblind profession but are not necessarily in an educational setting.
The final area of recommended research would be to compare the Sullivan strategies
to the Council for Exceptional Children Division of Visual Impairments (CEC-DVI)
Knowledge and Skills competencies. These standards were established in 2009 for
interveners of students who are deaf-blind. These standards broadly describe the
knowledge and skill that is expected of individuals who work with students who are deafblind.
Conclusion
This research is beneficial to the profession of deaf-blindness and other educators
because it offers a listing of successful teaching strategies utilized by Annie Sullivan.
These strategies reveal the benefits of treating each child as an individual and adapting
lessons to reflect the particular interests of that student. While manufactured and scripted
curricula are convenient, the use of these materials may not always be in the best interest
of the student.
This research also demonstrated the remarkable teaching skills of Sullivan. It displays
the talent and forward thinking of Sullivan‘s teaching ability. Annie Sullivan overcame
great obstacles to provide her student with the best education possible. She demonstrated
magnificent teaching strategies through trial and error and tenacity. She was able to
demonstrate to a deaf-blind child the concept of language and communication. It is a
moment at a water pump that will be remembered for years to come.
79
REFERENCES
Akhil, S. (2002). Persons who are deafblind. Visual Impairment Handbook , 444-459.
Aitken, S. & (1992). Vision for Doing: Assessing Functional Vision of Learners who are
Multiply Disabled. Edinburgh: Moray House Publications.
Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L.B. (1984). Co-ordinating attention to people and objects in
mother/infant and peer/infant interactions. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 4, 43-49.
Bruce, S. (2002). Impact of a Communication Intervention Model on Teachers' Practice
with Children Who Are Congenitally Deaf-Blind. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 154-168.
Bruce, S. M. (2003). The Importance of Shared Communication Forms. Journal of Visual
Impairment and Blindness,106-109.
Bruce, S. M. (2005). The Impact of Congenital Deafblindness on the Struggle to
Symbolism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education , 233251.
Bruce, S. (2005). The Application of Wernerand Kaplan's Concept of Distancing to
Children Who Are Deaf-Blind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 464-478.
Bruce, S. M., Mann, A., Jones, C., & Gavin, M. (2007). Gestures Expressed by Children
Who Are Congenitally Deaf-Blind: Topography, Rate, and Function. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 637 - 652.
Collins, B. C. (2007). Moderate and Sever Disabilities. Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education.
Crais, E., Douglas, D.D., Campbell, C.C. (2004). The intersection of the development of
gestures and intentionality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47,
678-694.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
80
Daleman, M., Nafstad, A., Rodbroe, I., & Souriau, J. &. (2001). Congenitally deafblind
persons and the emergence of social and communicative interaction. Phase III: The
formation of meaning. Dronninglund: Nordic Staff Training Centre for Deafblind
Services.
Durand, V. &. (1991). Treating behavior problems with communication. Journal of the
American Speech Language Association, 37-39.
Eberhardt, S.P., Bernstein, L.E., Barac-Cikoja, D., Coulter, D.C., and Jordan, J. (1994).
An Inducing Dynamic Haptic Perception by the Hand: System Description and Some
Results,@ Proc. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. 55: 345-351.
Einhorn, L. J. (1998). Helen Keller, Public Speaker Sightless But Seen, Deaf But Heard.
Westport: Greenwood Press.
Freeberg, E. (2001). The Education of Laura Bridgman. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Freeman, C. & Thompson, P. (1995). A history of federal supports for students with
deaf-blindness.
French, K. (2004). Perkins School for the Blind. Charleston: Arcadia.
Gergen, K.J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New
York: Basic Books.
Gitter, Elizabeth. The Imprisoned Guest: Samuel Howe and Laura Bridgman, the
Original Deaf-Blind Girl. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2001.
Hart, P. (2001). My head is alive-a prelude to self-determination in A minor by Johann
Sebastian Bach. Presentation at Sense Scotland conference. Glasgow, September.
Hart, P. (2006). Using Imitation with Congenitally Deafblind Adults: Establishing
Meaningful Communication Partnerships. Infant and Child Development, 263-274.
Heimann, M. (2002). Notes on individual differences and the assumed elusiveness of
neonatal imitation. In A.N. Meltzoff, & W. Prinz (Eds.). The imitative mind:
Development, evolution, and brain bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heller, K. W., Allgood, M. H., Ward, S.P., & Castelle, M.D. (1996). Use of dual
communication boards at vocational sites by students who are deaf-blind. RE:view, 27,
180-190.
81
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA), PL101-476. (October 30,
1990). Title 20, USC 1400 et seq.: U.S. Statutes at Large, 104, 1103-1151.
Jacobs, L., Purvis, B., Steele, N., & Taylor, E. (2008). The NCDB Outcomes and
Performance Indicators: Literacy. National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness Topical
Conference. Orlando: NCDB.
Janssen, M., & Rodbroe, I. (2007). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. The
Netherlands: Than Danish Resource Centre on Congenital Deafblindness.
Janssen, M. J., Riksen-Walraven, J., & van Dijk, J. P. (2003). Toward a Diagnostic
Intervention Model for Fostering Harmonious Interactions Between Deaf-Blind
Children and Their Educators. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 197-214.
Janssen, M. J., Riksen-Walraven, M., & van Dijk, J. P. (2006). Applying the Diagnostic
Intervention Model for Fostering Harmonious Interactions Between Deaf-Blind
Chilren and Their Educators: A Case Study. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 91-105.
Keller, H., Macy, J. A., & Sullivan, A. (1903). The Story of My Life. Doubleday Page &
Company.
Killoran, J., Davies, P., & McNulty, K. (2006). The NTAC Outcomes and Performance
Indicators: A System for Documenting Outcomes for Children and Youth with DeafBlindness, their Families, and the Service Providers and Systems that Serve Them.
Monmouth, Oregon: National Technical Assistance Consortium on Children and
Young Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind, Teaching Research Institute, Western Oregon
University.
Knoors, H. &. (2003). Educational programming for deaf children with multiple
disabilities: Accommodating special needs. Oxford handbook of deaf studies,
language, and education, 82-94.
Lash, J. P. (1980). Helen and Teacher. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lawshe, C.H., (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology
28, 563-575.
MacFarland, S. (1995). Teaching strategies of the Van Dijk curricular approach. Journal
of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 222-228.
Marks, S. (1998). Understanding and preventing learned helplessness in children who are
congenitally deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 200-212.
McGinnity, B. S.-F., & Andries, K. (2004a). Anne Sullivan. Watertown: Perkins School
for the Blind.
82
McGinnity, B.L., Seymour-Ford, J. and Andries, K.J. (2004b) Helen Keller. Perkins
History Museum, Perkins School for the Blind, Watertown, MA.
McGinnity, B.L., Seymour-Ford, J. and Andries, K.J. (2004c) Laura Bridgman. Perkins
History Museum, Perkins School for the Blind, Watertown, MA.
McLean, J., Snyder-McLean, L., Brady, N., & Etter, R. (1991). Communication profiles
of two types of gesture using nonverbal persons with severe to profound mental
retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 294-308.
McLean, L., Brady, N., & Mclean, J. (1999). Communication forms and functions of
children and adults with severe mental retardation in community and institutional
settings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 231-240.
Malloy, P. (2004). Educational Services, Programs for Children Who are Deaf-Blind.
Counterpoint, 4-5.
Malloy, P. (2004). Trends in Deaf-Blind Education. Counterpoint, 5-7.
Malloy, P. (2007, June). Harmonious Interactions. Practice Perspectives - Highlighting
Information in Deaf-Blindness, pp. 1-4.
Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). Elements of a developmental theory of imitation. In A.N.
Meltzoff, & W. Prinz (Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain
bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M.K. (1998). Infant intersubjectivity: Broadening the dialogue
to include imitation, identity and intention. In S. Braten (Ed.), Intersubjective
communication and emotion in early ontogeny. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Miles, B., & Riggio, M. (1999). Remarkable Conversations. Watertown: Perkins School
for the Blind.
Mohay, H. (1986). The adjustment of maternal conversation to hearing and hearing
impaired children: A twin study. Journal of the British Association of Teachers of the
Deaf, 10(2), 37-44.
Nafstad, A., & Rodbroe, I. (1997). Congenital deafblindness, interaction and
development towards a model of intervention. In M. Laurent (Ed.), Communication
and congenital deafblindness. The development of communication. What is new?
Suresnes: Editions du Centre national de Suresnes.
Nafstad, A., & Rodbroe, I. (1999). Co-creating communication. Oslo: Forlaget-Nord
Press.
83
National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2008, from DB-LINK:
http://www.nationaldb.org/about.php
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Ogletree, B., Fischer, M., & Turowski, M. (1996). Assessment targets and protocols for
nonsymbolic communicators with profound disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 53-58.
Park, K. (1997). How do objects become objects of reference? British Journal of Special
Education, 108-114.
Parker, A. T., Davidson, R., & Banda, D. R. (2007). Emerging Evidence from SingleSubject Research in the Field of Deaf-Blindness. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 690-700.
Pease, L. (2000). Creating a communicating environment. In S. Aitken, M. Buultjens, C.
Clark, J.T. Eyre, & L. Pease (Eds.), Teaching children who are deafblind. London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Preisler, G. (1995). The development of communication in blind and in deaf infants Similarities and differences. Child: care, Health and Development , 79-110.
Rattray, J. (2000). Dancing in the dark: The effects of visual impairment on the nature of
early mother/infant dyadic interactions and communication. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Dundee.
Reichle, J., York, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Implementing augmentative and alternative
communication. Strategies for learners with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Roberts, F. K. (1986). Education for the Visually Handicapped: A Social and Educational
History. In G. T. Scholl, Foundations of Education for Blind and Visually
Handicapped Children and Youth (pp. 1-18). New York: American Foundation for
the Blind.
Rodbroe, I. S. (1999). Communication. In J. McInnes, A guide to planning and support
for individuals who are deafblind (pp. 119-149). Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Rodbroe, I., & Souriau, J. (2000). Communication. In J.M. McInnes (Ed.), A guide to
planning and support for individuals who are deafblind. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
84
Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible Symbols, Tangible Outcomes. AAC
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 61-78.
Siegel-Causey, E. (1989). Comparison of Intervention Strategies for Facilitating
Nonsymbolic Communication Among Young Children with Multiple Disabilities.
Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System of Higher Education, 59-86.
Slade, A. (1987). Quality of attachment and early symbolic play. Developmental
Psychology, 78-85.
Stremel, K. (2006). New National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness. Deaf-Blind
Perspectives , 1-3.
Taylor, E., & Beaird, S. (2005). Designing, Redesigning and Implementing Evaluation
Systems and Databases. NTAC Areas Workshop (pp. 8-11). Nashville: NTAC.
Teale, William, & Sulzby, Elizabeth. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Turiansky, K. &. (1975). Methods of Language Development - Van Dijk. In C. (.
Fiociocello, Language Development of Multihandicapped Children. Dallas: South
Central Regional Centre for Servies for Deaf-Blind Children.
van Dijk, J. (1966). The first steps of the deaf-blind child toward language. International
Journal for the Education of the Blind, 15, 112-114.
van Dijk, J. (1967). The non-verbal deaf-blind and his world: His outgrowth toward the
world of symblols. Proceedings of the Jaarsverslag Instituut Voor Doven, 73-100.
van Dijk, J. (1986). An educational curriculum for deaf-blind multi-handicapped
persons'. In D. Ellis, Sensory Impairments in Mentally Handicapped People. London:
Croom Helm.
van Dijk, J., Carlin, R., & Hewitt, H. (1991). Persons handicapped by rubella: Victors
and victims, A follow-up study. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
van Dijk, J. (1999). Development through relationships: Entering the social world.
Proceedings of the Developing Through Relationships XII Dbl World Conference.
Estoril, Portugal: Casa Pia de Lisboa.
van Dijk, J. & Nelson, Catherine (1997). History and change in the education of children
who are deaf-blind since the rubella epidemic of the 1960s: Influence of methods
developed in the Netherlands. Deaf-Blind Perspectives, 5, 1-5.
Visser, T. (1988). Educational programming for deaf-blind children: some important
topics. Deaf-Blind Education, 4-7.
85
Werner, H. (1964). Symbol formation: An organismic-developmental approach to
language and expression of thought. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Zeedyk, M.S. (2006). From intersubjectivity to subjectivity: The transformative roles of
emotional intimacy and imitation. Infant and Child Development, 15(3), 321-344.
86
APPENDIX A
LIST OF STRATEGIES AND RATERS AGREEMENT
87
Strategy
Utilize trial and error to find what works best
Relate lessons to relevant events in the child‘s
environment
Create an environment where a child can be a
child
Make lessons fun
Be informal and spontaneous; active not
passive
Children learn through experience with their
environment
Children should learn through curiosity, not
some criterion based system
Utilize no scheduled class periods; no
traditional exams
Classroom should be similar to playroom
By caging a child in, the child is formed into
what society wants them to be, not who they
may become
Problem behavior may be because of their
environment
Freedom to explore one‘s environment will
facilitate learning
Important thing to remember is that it‘s always
about the child
Freedom leads to self control and self
dependence; will power; initiative and self
education
Don‘t make assumptions about the child‘s
abilities
Repetition facilitates understanding
Allow the student will learn from contextual
cues, whether or not they know the meaning
Teacher needs to guide and assist the child to
self expression
Imagination is important for learning and
playing make believe can be very fun and
provides a good learning experience
Speech – daily practice and feel positions of
tongue
Study and observe living creatures
Abstract ideas can‘t be taught. They are
learned through the result of recognizing and
remembering
Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater
1
2
3
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
88
Teachers need to be adaptable, flexible and pay
attention to the individual student‘s needs
Discovery learning will lead to self discipline
Teachers can mold without having the students
be soldiers
Provide students with a wide range of
experiences
Allow student to have freedom of interests but
insist on obedience to train without breaking
the spirit
All children are individuals
Freedom of the child is fundamental
Be open minded and have an opinion
Teach the students to think for themselves
Basic living skills are important to teach as well
as academics
True purpose of education is to open wide all
the windows of the mind to knowledge, truth,
and justice
Train young people to think for themselves and
take independent charge of their lives
Words are repeated countless times and
eventually applied correctly.
Teach the student how to use their knowledge,
not just regurgitate it back to you
Provide a slow presentation at level of
comprehension
Teaching words in isolation leads to quaint
staccato language
Spell into her hand all day long. Present
complete natural language and it will
eventually appear in expression
Whole words before alphabet
Use no censorship
Explain abstract ideas simply and naturally
when the child asks
Discuss important matters and issues
Present materials in a brightly informal manner
Give manageable doses of materials
Present complete natural language
Acquisition of language is the natural method
Children with disabilities should be treated the
exact same as children without disabilities
Do what works
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
89
Patient, individual attention leads to rapid
progress`
Allow the child to go at his/her pace, even if
it‘s faster
Change your method if it‘s not working – not
the child
Get the child to think for himself
Mind is receptive when the body is in motion
Multi-sensory instructions
Natural environments/outdoors settings
Support the nature of the child
Systems and procedures should not supersede
the child‘s needs
Do not accept a memorized lesson as evidence
of learning
Small vocabulary with rich concepts is better
than large vocabulary
Suggest rather than impart information
Inspire the child to find out things for himself
Concepts have less to do with physical
characteristics than the psychological
experiences
Avoid physical barriers to exploration
Qualities of a teacher include good disposition,
heart of patience
Avoid misbehavior by avoiding restraints and
repressions. School room is not a cage but the
nest
Aspirations and expectations should be higher
than broom making
Experiences remain latent in the mind,
accessible via language and incorporated into
concepts
Education must be talked about in a positive
way
If the teacher takes an interest, the better the
learning experience
Play is a perfectly good setting for learning
Prepare before the lessons to ensure you know
the topic well
Teach the child to pay attention
Have the student tell you about what they just
read
Find value in all experiences
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
90
Play noisily
Begin education early
Teach children to ask questions
Analyze reasons for failure
Provide details about abstract concepts
Don‘t be afraid to work hard
Stimulate pleasure in a given subject until
mental discipline is developed
Accuracy and clear understanding lead to self
criticism and self control
There are learning opportunities all around us
Be enthusiastic
Children who run wild outdoors learn without
clocks or bells
Assess learning through conversation instead of
testing
Family involvement is helpful and reinforcing
to the skills that the student is learning
Watch for misbehavior and redirect the child
Alphabet glove for communicating
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
91
APPENDIX B
VISUAL MODEL OF RESEARCH
92
Qualitative
Data
Collection
Quantitative
Data
Collection
Qualitative
Data
Analysis
Quantitative
Data
Analysis
Qualitative
Data
Results
Quantitative
Data
Results
Quantitative
Data
Collection
Quantitative
Data
Analysis
Quantitative
Data
Results
Qualitative
Data
Collection
Qualitative
Data
Analysis
Qualitative
Data
Results
93
APPENDIX C
CHECKLIST
94
1. Please provide demographic information. All responses will be kept
confidential.
Demographic
Information
Position held
State Represented
Please provide demographic
information. All responses will be
kept confidential. Demographic
Information Position held
State Represented
2. Is the identified teaching strategy used by Annie Sullivan similar to a
service provider OPI for literacy? If so, please choose the OPI that it
relates to by using the pull down menu. OPI's can be used more than once.
Similiar
Is the identified teaching
strategy used by Annie
Sullivan similiar to a
Relate lessons service provider OPI for
to relevant
literacy? If so, please chose
events in the the OPI that it relates to by
child's
using the pull down menu.
environment
OPI's can be used more
than once. Relate lessons
to relevant events in the
child's environment
Similiar
Children
learn through
experience
with their
environment
Classroom
should be
similar to
playroom
Freedom to
explore one's
environment
will facilitate
learning
OPI
OPI
Children learn through
experience with their
environment Similiar
OPI
Classroom should be
similar to playroom
Similiar
OPI
Freedom to explore one's
environment will facilitate
learning Similiar
OPI
95
Similiar
OPI
Study and
observe living
creatures
Study and observe living
creatures Similiar
OPI
Repetition
facilitates
understanding
Repetition facilitates
understanding Similiar
OPI
Allow the student to learn
from contextual cues.
Similiar
OPI
Allow the
student to
learn from
contextual
cues.
Provide
students with
Provide students with a
a wide range wide range of experiences
of experiences
Similiar
Play is a
perfectly good
setting for
learning
Play is a perfectly good
setting for learning
Similiar
Teacher needs
to guide and Teacher needs to guide and
assist the child
assist the child to self
to self
expression Similiar
expression
Small
vocabulary
with rich
concepts is
better than
large
vocabulary
Present
complete
natural
language and
it will
eventually
appear in
expression
Allow the
OPI
OPI
OPI
Small vocabulary with rich
concepts is better than
large vocabulary Similiar
OPI
Present complete natural
language and it will
eventually appear in
expression Similiar
OPI
96
Similiar
Allow the child to act out
the meaning of new words.
Similiar
OPI
OPI
Language
doesn't have
to be broken
down to be
taught.
Language doesn't have to
be broken down to be
taught. Similiar
OPI
Repeat words
countless
times until
they are
eventually
applied
correctly.
Repeat words countless
times until they are
eventually applied
correctly. Similiar
OPI
Present in
brightly
informal
manner
Present in brightly
informal manner Similiar
OPI
Give
manageable
dose of
material.
Give manageable dose of
material. Similiar
OPI
child to act
out the
meaning of
new words.
Have the
student tell
Have the student tell you
you about
about what they just read.
what they just
Similiar
read.
Study the
child and
adapt
instruction to
the child's
needs
Use multisensory
instruction
OPI
Study the child and adapt
instruction to the child's
needs Similiar
OPI
Use multi-sensory
instruction Similiar
OPI
Do not accept
a memorized Do not accept a memorized
lesson as
lesson as evidence of
OPI
97
evidence of
learning
Teach
children to
ask questions.
Similiar
learning Similiar
OPI
Teach children to ask
questions. Similiar
OPI
98
APPENDIX D
TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
99
Interview Questions:
What implications, if any, do you think these findings might have on the field of
deaf-blindness?
What benefits, if any, do you think might come from having a listing of Annie
Sullivan‘s teaching strategies in the area of literacy and communication?
Do you have any other comments or thoughts concerning this study or the
findings of this research?
100
APPENDIX F
RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR RATERS
101
Recruitment Letter for Raters
Title: Comparison of Annie Sullivan's teaching strategies in communication and literacy
to the outcome performance indicators established by the national consortium on deafblindness
IRB Protocol Number: X090615007
Contact Information: Diane Pevsner
205-317-1712
[email protected]
Dear Alabama Deaf Blind Project Member,
Please allow me to introduce myself as Diane Pevsner. I am conducting a research
project as part of the doctoral program in educational leadership at UAB. The title of my
research is Comparison of Annie Sullivan‘s teaching strategies for literacy and
communication to the current outcome performance indicators in deaf-blindness: An
Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study.
The purpose of this research is to determine if there is a significant relationship
between the instructional strategies practiced by Annie Sullivan in the early 1900‘s and
the contemporary instructional strategies recommended by The National Consortium on
Deaf-Blindness to teach literacy and communication to deaf-blind students. As a
member of the Alabama Deaf Blind Project, you have been selected as a possible
participant in this study.
I am requesting that you agree to participate as a rater in this research. This task will
include identifying teaching strategies used by Annie Sullivan for communication and
literacy from the Nella Braddy Henney Collection. This task should take about 8 hours to
complete during the month of July.
I will provide training on the preferred ways of identifying teaching strategies and
participating in qualitative research on an individual basis through email and/or
telephone conversations. You will then be asked to identify and record teaching
strategies that Sullivan used to instruct communication and literacy to Helen Keller.
Upon completion, we will discuss the identified strategies to resolve any
discrepancies and unintentional omissions via a conference call.
102
Participation in this research project is voluntary. I welcome any questions you may
have before, during, or after the research is conducted. I will be happy to share my
research findings with you once the study is completed. Your name will not be
associated with the findings and your identity will remain confidential.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or
complaints about the research, you may contact Ms. Sheila Moore. Ms. Moore is the
Director of the Office of the Institutional Review Board for Human Use (OIRB) at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Ms. Moore may be reached at (205) 9343789 or 1-800-822-8816. If calling the toll -free number, press the option for ―all other
calls‖ or for an operator/attendant and ask for extension 4-3789. Regular hours for the
Office of the IRB are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday. You may also
call this number in the event the research staff cannot be reached or you wish to talk to
someone else.
103
APPENDIX G
RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR CHECKLIST PARTICIPANTS
104
Recruitment Letter for Survey Participation
Title: Comparison of Annie Sullivan's teaching strategies in communication and literacy
to the outcome performance indicators established by the national consortium on deafblindness
IRB Protocol Number: X090615007
Contact Information: Diane Pevsner
205-317-1712
[email protected]
Dear Deaf Blind Project Director,
Please allow me to introduce myself as Diane Pevsner. I am conducting a research
project as part of the doctoral program in educational leadership at UAB. The title of my
research is Comparison of Annie Sullivan‘s teaching strategies for literacy and
communication to the current outcome performance indicators in deaf-blindness: An
Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study.
The purpose of this research is to determine if there is a significant relationship
between the instructional strategies practiced by Annie Sullivan in the early 1900‘s and
the contemporary instructional strategies recommended by The National Consortium on
Deaf-Blindness to teach literacy and communication to deaf-blind students. As project
directors of your states deaf-blind grant, you have been selected as a possible participant
in this study.
I am requesting that you agree to participate in Phase 2 of this research which is a
survey that will be administered during the month of November and should take
approximately 45 minutes. For your convenience the surveys will be administered
electronically utilized Survey Monkey.
Participation in this research project is voluntary. I welcome any questions you may
have before, during, or after the research is conducted. I will be happy to share my
research findings with you once the study is completed. Your name will not be
associated with the findings and your identity will remain confidential.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or
complaints about the research, you may contact Ms. Sheila Moore. Ms. Moore is the
Director of the Office of the Institutional Review Board for Human Use (OIRB) at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Ms. Moore may be reached at (205) 934-
105
3789 or 1-800-822-8816. If calling the toll -free number, press the option for ―all other
calls‖ or for an operator/attendant and ask for extension 4-3789. Regular hours for the
Office of the IRB are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday. You may also
call this number in the event the research staff cannot be reached or you wish to talk to
someone else.
106
APPENDIX G
RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
107
Recruitment Letter for Interview Participation
Title: Comparison of Annie Sullivan's teaching strategies in communication and literacy
to the outcome performance indicators established by the national consortium on deafblindness
IRB Protocol Number: X090615007
Contact Information: Diane Pevsner
205-317-1712
[email protected]
Dear National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness member,
Please allow me to introduce myself as Diane Pevsner. I am conducting a research
project as part of the doctoral program in educational leadership at UAB. The title of my
research is Comparison of Annie Sullivan‘s teaching strategies for literacy and
communication to the current outcome performance indicators in deaf-blindness: An
Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study.
The purpose of this research is to determine if there is a significant relationship
between the instructional strategies practiced by Annie Sullivan in the early 1900‘s and
the contemporary instructional strategies recommended by The National Consortium on
Deaf-Blindness to teach literacy and communication to deaf-blind students. As a creator
of the outcome performance indicators on literacy and communication, you have been
selected as a possible participant in this study.
I am requesting that you agree to participate in a telephone interview as part of this
research. This task will include answering questions concerning the implications the
findings from this research might have of the field of deaf-blindness. This interview
should take about 30 minutes to complete during the month of August.
Participation in this research project is voluntary. I welcome any questions you may
have before, during, or after the research is conducted. I will be happy to share my
research findings with you once the study is completed. Your name will not be
associated with the findings and your identity will remain confidential.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or
complaints about the research, you may contact Ms. Sheila Moore. Ms. Moore is the
Director of the Office of the Institutional Review Board for Human Use (OIRB) at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Ms. Moore may be reached at (205) 9343789 or 1-800-822-8816. If calling the toll -free number, press the option for ―all other
108
calls‖ or for an operator/attendant and ask for extension 4-3789. Regular hours for the
Office of the IRB are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday. You may also
call this number in the event the research staff cannot be reached or you wish to talk to
someone else.
109
APPENDIX H
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM
110