Tutoring Deaf Students in Higher Education: A
Comparison of Baccalaureate and Subbaccalaureate Student Perceptions
Harry G. Lang
Eileen Biser
Keith Mousley
Richard Orlando
Jeff Porter
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
Seventy-three deaf college students completed a survey
examining perceptions about tutoring outcomes and emphases, characteristics of tutors, and responsibilities associated
with learning through tutoring. The comparisons revealed
that while baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students have
many similar perceptions about tutoring, there are also some
striking differences. In particular, as compared to the subbaccalaureate students, baccalaureate students have a stronger
preference for focusing on course content and for working
with tutors who actively involve them during the tutoring
sessions. In addition, baccalaureate students prefer to decide
the focus of the tutoring themselves while sub-baccalaureate
students tend to leave the decision to the tutor. The results of
the analyses with three scales measuring perceptions of
tutoring dimensions are summarized and recommendations
for the selection and preparation of tutors, as well as for future
research, are provided.
In the United States, tutoring is an instructional support service that complements the primary teaching/
learning relationship between the classroom teacher
and student. The fundamental role of the tutor is to
support a student’s learning of skills and knowledge.
Such skills and knowledge can relate to the content of
formal curricula, to the student’s mastery and application of learning strategies that enable progressively
more independent and productive learning, or to both
of these simultaneously.
Tutoring deaf students in academic subjects has
become a common support service designed to enhance
All correspondence should be sent to Harry G. Lang, Department of
Research, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute
of Technology, 96 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 (e-mail:
[email protected]).
learning for deaf and hard-of-hearing students enrolled
in postsecondary programs. Among the 2,350 two- and
four-year colleges serving deaf and hard-of-hearing
students sampled in an earlier survey reported in 1993
(not including Gallaudet University and the National
Technical Institute for the Deaf ) for the period between
1989–90 through 1992–93, nearly two thirds cited the
use of tutoring as a special service in support of
coursework (National Center for Educational Statistics,
1993). Tutoring is offered in a variety of ways, primarily
through one-to-one assistance by classroom teachers,
professional tutors, and/or peers. Tutoring often occurs
in faculty offices, resource rooms, or learning centers.
The National Center for Educational Statistics
(1999) reported 23,860 deaf and hard-of-hearing
students in postsecondary programs. More than
12,000 were enrolled in two-year programs offering
certificates, diplomas, and associate degrees (i.e., subbaccalaureate programs). Almost 11,000 were enrolled
in four-year baccalaureate degree programs. Large
institutions were found more likely than small
institutions to provide tutoring, and public two-year
and four-year institutions were more likely than private
two-year and four-year institutions to offer such
services. Neither the 1993 nor 1999 studies included
an analysis of the quality of tutoring provided to deaf
and hard-of-hearing students.
Even with the expansion of support and access
services provided to deaf and hard-of-hearing students
in higher education programs over the past decade, the
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education vol. 9 no. 2 Ó Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enh020
190
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004
academic failure rate remains, on average, dismal; in
the United States, for example, only one of every four
such students graduate (Walter, Foster, & Elliot, 1987;
Stinson & Walter, 1997). This graduation rate of
approximately 25% is about the same for both two-year
and four-year programs in the United States. This
graduation rate for four-year programs is about half of
the rate for hearing students. In 1998, approximately
53% of hearing students were earning bachelor’s
degrees within five years, and there was a 40%
graduation rate at two-year institutions. Both of these
rates were reported as record lows in comparison with
data since 1983 (ACT, 1998). With regard to deaf
students, Lang (2002) reports that while many barriers
to success in higher education programs have been
identified in research studies over the past two decades,
potential solutions have been rarely evaluated.
While practically no research on tutoring has been
conducted with deaf students at any grade level, there
nevertheless appears to be a general consensus that
tutoring is an effective adjunct to classroom instruction
for hearing students. Tutoring has been investigated
systematically for decades as a process for enhancing
the academic achievement of hearing students at all
educational levels (Rosenshine & Furst, 1969; Ellson,
1975; Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Derry & Potts,
1998). Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik (1982), for example,
examined 65 comparative studies with hearing students
and found that in 87% of these investigations, students
from classes with tutoring programs outperformed
those from control classes. Structured tutoring programs (e.g., when the students’ prior knowledge is
known and when the focus of a tutoring session is clear
to tutors and students alike) produced stronger positive
effects than did nonstructured programs, and this
finding agreed with earlier reviews of tutoring by
Rosenshine and Furst (1969) and Ellson (1975). In
addition, tutoring effects were found to be larger for
hearing students when the tutoring programs were
shorter in duration and when lower-level skills were
taught. Tutoring effects were also generally larger when
mathematics rather than reading was the focus. In this
analysis of the 65 studies, Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik
(1982) write that although ‘‘the literature contains
anecdotal reports of dramatic changes in self-concept
brought about by tutoring programs . . . quantitative
studies do not support these reports. Dramatic changes
in self-esteem appear to be atypical’’ (p. 246). Whether
such results would be similar for deaf learners is at
present unknown.
The substantial base of knowledge on these and
other issues associated with tutoring hearing students
may be useful to teachers and educational researchers
interested in seeking answers to questions about
tutoring deaf students. The present study will examine
some of these issues to shed further light on how deaf
students perceive tutors and tutoring as a support
service in their college education.
Review of the Literature on Tutoring
Deaf Students
While there are tens of thousands of deaf and hard-ofhearing students in baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate programs, we know little about the dimensions of
tutoring as they relate to these students with special
needs. We do know that deaf students usually do not get
as much information as their hearing peers from
classroom lectures (Jacobs, 1977). This problem was
described further by Orlando, Gramly, and Hoke
(1997), who summarized deaf college students’ reasons
for requesting tutoring. Several reasons are shared in
common with hearing peers (e.g., poor study skills,
failing grades, and class absences). Other reasons are
related to deafness (e.g., difficulty in understanding
lectures with or without in-class support services,
limited reading and writing skills, and needed clarification of class notes). In one study, Stinson, Saur, and
Panara (1982) reported that deaf college students’ use
of tutors appeared selective, generally occurring when
students expected a low grade. In summarizing this
same study further, Saur and Stinson (1986) wrote that
experienced baccalaureate-level deaf students ‘‘seem
to have an understanding of their own needs and
limitations. . . . [and] have a sense of personal control’’
(p. 19). Stinson (1987) wrote that deaf baccalaureate
students held highly favorable attitudes toward the
tutoring they had received. Deaf students who had
taken advantage of this support service appeared to see
tutoring as a contribution to their academic success in
college courses. Stinson also found that a student’s use
of a tutor did not reduce the perceived need to study
Perceptions of Tutoring
and that the need to study was actually perceived as
being greater in the class in which a tutor was used. The
deaf students rated highly a number of items pertaining
to seeking tutors to better understand course material.
Scherer and Binder (1989) conducted a study with
deaf college students in which they found that
professional tutors were preferred and regarded as
more capable than peer tutors. Consequently, the
frequency of use of peer tutors by these deaf students
was much lower, reflecting the perceptions expressed
during the interviews. Scherer and Binder (1989)
reported that the ‘‘students felt a good tutor also
needed to be able to communicate well, to have
empathy, and to have good teaching skills’’ in addition
to having expertise with the subject matter (p. 7).
Given the general paucity of research regarding the
tutoring of deaf students, Orlando et al. (1997) cited
research on effective classroom teaching, which highlights the same characteristics of an effective tutor
described above by Scherer and Binder (1989). Like
hearing students, deaf college students ranked ‘‘knowledge of course content’’ as the most important
characteristic of classroom teachers (Lang, McKee, &
Conner, 1993). Deaf college students who use sign
language, not surprisingly, have also expressed a special
preference for teachers who use sign language clearly
and who understand deafness, deaf people, and deaf
culture (Lang et al., 1993; Lang, Dowaliby, & Anderson,
1994). Deaf students also perceive a need for teachers
who have the ability to communicate in a variety of
modes (e.g., American Sign Language, signed English,
spoken communication, writing) and who understand
the effects of deafness on learning in general (Lang
et al., 1993; Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002).
With regard to Scherer and Binder’s (1989)
discussion of ‘‘empathy’’ in tutors and ‘‘good teaching
skills,’’ these characteristics also emerge in studies of
perceptions of effective teaching, with special preference for teachers who provide clear explanations at
a good pace, use visual materials, and who establish
rapport through friendly and caring attitudes (Lang
et al., 1993; Lang et al., 1994).
In one study of learning styles of deaf college
students in sub-baccalaureate programs, a profile of six
styles (Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Styles
Scales) was administered. Lang, Stinson, Liu, Kava-
191
nagh, and Basile (1998) found a moderate but
significant correlation between the ‘‘participative’’
learning style and academic achievement as measured
by course grades. As with similar studies with hearing
students, it appears that the more involved a deaf
student is in the learning process, the better that
student’s chance for learning the course material. Lang
et al. (1998) also reported that the sub-baccalaureate
students were found to be highly ‘‘dependent’’ learners,
indicating that they learn best when material is
presented in an organized and structured manner.
Grasha (1996) defined dependent learners as those who
look to authority figures for guidelines as to what to do.
One disadvantage is that these dependent students find
it ‘‘difficult to develop skills for exhibiting . . . selfdirection as a learner’’ (p. 169). This finding suggests
that, in the context of tutoring, it would be helpful to
have more information about deaf students’ perceived
need to learn how to develop self-direction and independent learning skills, about their internal motivation to seek tutoring, and about their perceptions about
who should decide the focus of a tutoring session.
Research on locus of control has also indicated that deaf
students studying for baccalaureate degrees demonstrate greater ‘‘internality’’ as compared to those in subbaccalaureate degree programs (see Saur and Stinson,
1986, for a discussion). The students with greater
internality see the relationship between outcomes and
their ability and effort more than do students with
greater externality. The latter attribute their success to
luck, fate, or powerful others (Wilhite, 1990).
Other factors pertaining to tutoring identified in
the literature include the element of scheduling time
for tutoring and the relationship between the tutor and
classroom teacher. Scherer and Binder (1989), for
example, found the use of tutors by deaf college
students to be influenced by the availability of time.
Students felt so much pressure to satisfy their course
load that they tended to lose motivation to sign up for
tutoring, especially when the availability of tutors was
problematic, requiring students to match schedules
and to compete with other students in group tutoring
sessions or for scheduling assistance.
With regard to the relationship tutors need to have
with the deaf students’ classroom teachers, Saur (1992)
examined tutoring as a re-teaching of material taught
192
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004
by another person in a particular course. She wrote that
tutoring deaf college students should be viewed as an
integral component of instruction: ‘‘Professional/
faculty tutors must keep in contact with the instructor
to be sure that their tutoring is in keeping with the
instructor’s goals in teaching. . . . The tutor, in fact,
becomes a partner of the instructor with positive
results for both hearing and deaf class participants’’
(pp. 109–110).
Since little is known about how deaf college students
view tutoring as a support service, their perceptions
may help us understand the factors that may influence
learning and motivation, which may in turn lead to
improved strategies and more productive outcomes for
both teaching and tutoring at the postsecondary level.
To address these goals, a questionnaire was developed,
items of which were derived from the research findings
reported in the literature review. This study examined
the similarities and differences in the perceptions about
tutoring held by deaf college students in baccalaureate
and sub-baccalaureate majors. Specifically, four research questions were addressed:
Do deaf college students in baccalaureate and
sub-baccalaureate degree programs differ in their
perceptions of what should be the outcomes and
emphases of tutoring?
Do deaf college students in baccalaureate and
sub-baccalaureate degree programs differ in their
perceptions of tutor characteristics?
Do deaf college students in baccalaureate and
sub-baccalaureate degree programs differ in their
perceptions of responsibilities associated with tutoring?
Does prior experience with tutoring influence
perceptions about these tutoring dimensions?
Method
Participants
This investigation involved two groups of deaf college
students at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT),
a university with a current enrollment of more than
1,200 deaf students and 14, 500 full- and part-time
hearing students. As in other universities in the United
States, some deaf students at RIT seek tutoring from
experienced faculty tutors, some attend learning
centers or resource rooms staffed by experienced
tutors, and still others contact their professors directly
for one-to-one assistance. While postsecondary programs, including RIT in some of its learning environments, offer peer tutoring as well, the present study
focuses on deaf students’ perceptions about professional tutors only.
At the time of this study, 42% of the 1,200 deaf
students at RIT were in classes with hearing peers in
baccalaureate degree programs. All of the students
filling out the survey were receiving tutoring and/or
had received tutoring the previous year. Baccalaureate
students were pursuing degrees in the College of
Applied Science and Technology, College of Business,
College of Engineering, College of Imaging Arts and
Sciences, College of Liberal Arts, or the College of
Science. Their tutoring was primarily over an extended
period with faculty tutors working in Support Departments. In this setting, tutoring usually happens on
a one-on-one basis in faculty tutor offices.
Tutors for deaf students in the baccalaureate degree
programs were qualified faculty who had experience in
educating deaf students and whose primary area of
responsibility was to provide this support service.
They include both full-time and part-time faculty. The
part-time tutors held other responsibilities such as
teaching, research, and counseling. These tutors were
assigned to discipline areas associated with the colleges
of Liberal Arts, Business, Science/Engineering, and
Imaging Arts and Sciences.
The remaining 58% of the student enrollment were
sub-baccalaureate students in classes with other deaf
students in technical programs in National Technical
Institute for the Deaf (NTID). These students were
predominantly pursuing associate degrees and certificates in technical career programs such as Photography, Optical Finishing Technology, and Business
Occupations. They most often sought tutoring in
mathematics, humanities and social sciences, reading,
writing, and science in a large learning center during
scheduled hours. This tutoring area is sectioned off for
different content areas. In general, there are one to
three tutors per content area (e.g., mathematics,
science, reading, writing) at any particular hour. The
faculty tutors are teachers, educational researchers, and
other professionals who have appropriate discipline
Perceptions of Tutoring
193
Table 1 Characteristics of deaf student participants
Baccalaureate
Number of subjects
Sub-baccalaureate
F
M
Total
F
M
Total
20
16
36
17
20
37
Hearing status
PTA (left ear)
PTA (right ear)
102 dB
97 dB
High school type
Hearing school with
deaf program
Hearing school without
deaf program
Public residential school
Private day school
Unknown
Test scores
California reading test
NTID math test
NTID writing test
n
19
17
17
106 dB
103 dB
4
3
25
18
3
1
3
13
1
2
M (SD)
10.4 (0.77)
32.5 (12.2)
56.2 (21.8)
backgrounds and knowledge of the college curriculum
and who commit a percentage of their overall workload
or are hired on an adjunct basis. Students are free to
work on their homework in the adjacent study area
and then ask for tutor assistance. Some group tutoring occurs, but generally the focus is on one-to-one
interactions.
Design and Procedures
Recruitment of participants. Sixty-six baccalaureate stu-
dents receiving tutoring were invited by e-mail to join
in the study. For the sub-baccalaureate students, a sign
was posted in the learning center inviting them to
participate in the study. Students were paid $10 for
their participation. All subjects were promised anonymity.
Table 1 summarizes some relevant background
characteristics of the 73 students whose perceptions
were evaluated in this study. Scores are provided for
math, writing, and reading tests. The NTID Mathematics Test includes items related to fundamental
mathematics concepts such as facility with fractions,
decimals, measurement and percents, algebra, and
geometry. Questions are taken from courses offered in
the college, and results are used for placement of
n
31
30
33
M (SD)
8.0 (1.32)
18.8 (8.0)
36.2 (15.4)
students who take the test. The NTID Writing Test
was developed to measure the writing ability of
postsecondary deaf students. Each essay is evaluated
by three judges who rate organization, content,
language use, and vocabulary. The ratings of each
category are added together to form a composite score.
Students are placed in appropriate writing courses
based on the composite score. As indicated in Table 1,
the average reading, writing, and mathematics scores
are higher for students in the baccalaureate degree
programs than for students in the sub-baccalaureate
programs. Although data for reading, writing, and
mathematics were not available for all of the subjects in
the two groups, the mean scores indicate skill level
differences for the sub-baccalaureate and baccalaureate
levels. T-tests for the unpaired groups were conducted
and the differences were significant for the California
reading test, t(1, 48) 5 6.56, p 5 .0001; the NTID
writing test, t(1, 48) 5 3.78, p 5 .0004; and the NTID
math test, t(1, 45) 5 4.62, p 5 .0001.
Seventeen of the 37 sub-baccalaureate students and
16 of the 36 baccalaureate students had previously
experienced tutoring in high school and/or college. Of
these 33 students, 83% valued the prior tutoring they
had received. A summary of tutoring participation
factors for the 73 students involved in the present
194
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004
Table 2 Participation of subjects in college tutoring
Baccalaureate
n ¼ 36
Sub-baccalaureate
n ¼ 37
Total
n ¼ 73
Reasons for students seeking tutoring
Required by teacher
Optional
Recommended by teacher
Recommended after ‘‘crisis’’
3
27
3
2
6
22
7
1
9
49
10
3
Frequency of tutoring received
Once per week or less
Twice per week
Three times per week
More than three times per week
8
16
5
1
12
6
11
4
20
22
16
5
Average length of tutoring session
Less than 30 min
30–45 min
45–60 min
More than 1 h
3
8
22
3
11
7
6
12
14
15
28
15
31
4
27
10
58
14
Type of tutoring
One to one
Small group
study is shown in Table 2. In general, these data do not
show any particular pattern of differences between the
baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate groups with
regard to reasons for going to tutoring, frequency of
tutoring, or the average length of tutoring sessions.
Questionnaire design. The questionnaire, developed to
examine perceptions about tutoring held by deaf
baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students, included
three scales of tutoring Emphases/Outcomes, Tutor
Characteristics, and Responsibilities. Perceptions of
what the outcomes and emphases of tutoring should be
were measured with items pertaining to course grade,
course content knowledge, and general skills (building
confidence about learning, learning how to organize for
class, developing an appreciation for learning, becoming an independent learner, using different learning
strategies).
The scale measuring perceptions about the characteristics of tutors included items related to the tutor’s
educational knowledge (content, understanding the
research methods of the discipline being tutored,
understanding theories of teaching), and knowledge
related to deafness (understanding deafness and Deaf
culture, ability to communicate in a variety of ways
with deaf students). There were also items related to
affective dimensions (showing a caring attitude,
motivating the student), flexibility in scheduling
students for tutoring), and having rapport with the
students’ classroom teacher. Two items related to
scheduling and establishing rules for the tutoring
process.
With regard to the scale measuring perceptions of
responsibilities as they relate to tutoring, items were
developed to examine motivation for going to tutoring,
being realistic about expectations, who should decide
the focus of tutoring sessions, frequency of tutoring,
and giving tutors time to prepare. An item measuring
perceptions of the importance of the tutor actively
involving the student during tutoring was also included. More active involvement by the students
requires greater preparation on their part. Prior
research indicates that deaf students have rated the
importance of their active involvement significantly
lower than do their classroom teachers (Lang et al.,
1993).
A six-point, forced-choice response Likert scale
was used. Participants were asked to choose a response
on the continuous scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ (6). An example item
Perceptions of Tutoring
195
Table 3 Tutoring outcomes/emphases scale: Item mean scores and standard deviations
Baccalaureate
Tutoring should focus on
the content (the subject of
the course)
Tutor should help student
learn how to organize for
class
Tutor should help make
student more confident
Tutoring should help
student become an
independent learner
Tutoring should help
student understand
his/her own different
learning strategies
Tutoring should help
student use different
learning strategies for
different kinds of
assignments
Tutors should improve
student’s course grade
Tutoring should increase
student knowledge of the
subject of the course
Tutor should help student
develop an appreciation
for learning
Sub-baccalaureate
No prior
experience
n ¼ 20
Prior
experience
n ¼ 16
Combined
n ¼ 36
No prior
experience
n ¼ 20
Prior
experience
n ¼ 17
Combined
n ¼ 37
5.31 (0.60)
5.20 (0.77)
5.25 (0.69)
5.12 (0.78)
4.30 (1.34)
4.68 (1.18)
3.69 (1.35)
3.65 (1.42)
3.67 (1.37)
4.24 (1.64)
3.80 (1.74)
4.00 (1.68)
4.69 (1.30)
5.00 (1.03)
4.86 (1.15)
5.12 (0.93)
5.10 (1.33)
5.11 (1.15)
5.06 (0.77)
5.30 (0.98)
5.19 (0.89)
5.00 (0.94)
5.30 (1.22)
5.16 (1.09)
5.31 (0.70)
5.15 (1.09)
4.22 (0.93)
5.06 (0.90)
5.10 (0.72)
4.08 (0.80)
5.19 (0.91)
5.05 (1.00)
5.11 (0.95)
4.82 (0.95)
5.00 (1.12)
4.92 (1.04)
4.94 (1.18)
5.60 (0.60)
5.31 (0.95)
5.24 (0.90)
4.75 (1.37)
4.97 (1.19)
5.44 (0.73)
5.65 (0.59)
5.56 (0.65)
4.82 (0.81)
4.65 (1.46)
4.73 (1.19)
4.63 (1.15)
4.40 (1.57)
4.50 (1.38)
5.06 (0.75)
4.60 (1.31)
4.81 (1.10)
follows: ‘‘My tutor should decide what to cover during
my tutoring sessions.’’ A pilot study with six deaf
college students indicated the need for only a few
minor wording changes to the original instrument.
Results
Having almost no prior research for comparison, we
were limited to an examination of the face validity of
the questionnaire, defined by Anastasi (1988) as
a measure of whether it ‘‘looks valid’’ to the examinees.
The internal consistency (Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha) reliability estimate for the Outcomes/Emphases, Tutor Characteristics, and Responsibilities scales
on this questionnaire were 0.84, 0.83, and 0.75,
respectively. Mean scores and standard deviations for
the ratings of each item on the scales by the two groups
of students are provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5. The
mean scores are provided separately for the groups
having prior and no prior experience with tutoring.
Discussion of results from each scale on the
questionnaire begins with a description of the
characteristics that were found to be rated most highly
by each group, baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate.
Differences between the groups on items within each
scale are then evaluated using multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVA). The initial MANOVAs indicated significant differences in perceptions between
baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate for all three scales.
No main effects were found for prior experience with
196
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004
Table 4 Tutor characteristics scale: Item mean scores and standard deviations
Baccalaureate
Tutor and classroom teacher
should communicate with each
other
Tutor should know student’s
course material well
Tutor should understand the
research methods of student’s
subject area
Tutor should know theories of
how to teach
Tutor should be knowledgeable
about deafness and Deaf Culture
Tutor should be skilled in
different ways of
communicating with deaf
students
Tutor should care about
student’s progress
Tutor should know how to
motivate student
Tutor should have a fair tutoring
policy with rules about
scheduled appointments,
student coming prepared, etc.
Tutor should be flexible in
matching his/her schedule with
student’s schedule
Sub-baccalaureate
No prior
experience
n ¼ 20
Prior
experience
n ¼ 16
Combined
n ¼ 36
No prior
experience
n ¼ 20
Prior
experience
n ¼ 17
Combined
n ¼ 37
4.50 (1.10)
4.20 (1.44)
4.64 (1.38)
4.29 (1.40)
4.00 (0.59)
4.38 (1.36)
5.56 (0.73)
5.55 (0.76)
4.56 (0.74)
5.12 (1.11)
4.65 (1.73)
3.95 (1.27)
5.50 (0.82)
5.25 (0.2)
5.36 (0.76)
4.65 (1.32)
4.80 (1.28)
4.73 (1.28)
5.19 (0.91)
5.30 (1.08)
5.25 (0.97)
4.88 (0.93)
5.00 (1.56)
4.95 (1.29)
4.94 (1.24)
4.55 (1.40)
4.72 (1.32)
4.06 (1.64)
5.05 (1.23)
4.60 (1.50)
5.56 (0.63)
5.40 (1.05)
5.47 (0.88)
4.88 (0.99)
5.15 (1.18)
5.03 (1.09)
5.13 (0.96)
4.80 (1.20)
4.94 (1.36)
4.71 (1.26)
5.00 (1.45)
4.87 (1.36)
4.50 (1.55)
4.60 (1.27)
4.56 (1.38)
4.77 (1.20)
4.70 (1.63)
4.73 (1.43)
4.75 (1.24)
5.00 (1.12)
4.89 (1.17)
4.18 (1.33)
4.60 (1.31)
4.41 (1.32)
4.75 (1.13)
4.35 (1.31)
4.53 (1.23)
4.47 (1.42)
4.70 (1.34)
4.60 (1.36)
tutoring. The results of the MANOVAs for each scale
are provided in the sections below. Wilks’s Lambda
statistic was used to determine significance in all of the
multivariate comparisons in this study.
Outcomes/Emphases of Tutoring
For the Outcomes/Emphases scale, the highest mean
rating for all of the baccalaureate students in this study
(with and without prior tutoring) was found for
increased knowledge (M 5 5.56, SD 5 0.65). For
sub-baccalaureate students, the highest mean rating
was for becoming an independent learner (M 5 5.16,
SD 5 1.09). Thus the item accorded the greatest value
differed for the two groups.
To formally assess differences between the groups
on the Outcomes/Emphases scale, a 2 (baccalaureate/
sub-baccalaureate programs) 3 2 (prior experience
with tutoring) 3 9 (perceptual statements) MANOVA
was performed. A significant main effect was found for
degree program, Wilks’s Lambda F(9,61) 5 3.66,
p 5 .001. Subsequent univariate analyses to examine
individual effects revealed a striking difference in
perceptions between the two groups of students in
terms of the course content as a critical component of
tutoring. Specifically, significantly higher means for
the baccalaureate students were found for the item
‘‘Tutoring should increase student knowledge of the
subject of the course’’ as an outcome, F(1,69) 5 12.40,
p 5 .001, and for ‘‘Tutor should focus on content (the
Perceptions of Tutoring
197
Table 5 Responsibilities scale: Item mean scores and standard deviations
Baccalaureate
Tutor should actively involve
student
Tutor should be realistic about
how much student can do
Student should be prepared
before going for tutoring
Student should know when to ask
for tutoring
Student should go regularly for
tutoring
Student should give the tutor
enough time to prepare
Student should be realistic about
how much a tutor can do
Student should decide what to
cover during tutoring
Tutor should decide what to cover
during tutoring
Tutor should encourage student
to go for tutoring
Teacher should encourage
student to go for tutoring
Sub-baccalaureate
No prior
experience
n ¼ 20
Prior
experience
n ¼ 16
Combined
n ¼ 36
No prior
experience
n ¼ 20
Prior
experience
n ¼ 17
Combined
n ¼ 37
5.63 (0.50)
5.75 (0.44)
5.69 (0.47)
5.12 (0.70)
5.05 (1.19)
5.08 (0.98)
4.56 (1.32)
5.00 (1.17)
4.81 (1.23)
4.53 (0.87)
4.25 (1.41)
4.38 (1.19)
5.69 (0.48)
5.05 (1.32)
5.33 (1.07)
5.00 (0.87)
4.75 (1.25)
4.87 (1.08)
4.88 (1.26)
5.65 (0.59)
5.31 (1.01)
5.24 (1.09)
4.60 (1.43)
4.89 (1.31)
4.63 (1.36)
5.15 (1.31)
4.92 (1.34)
4.82 (0.88)
4.40 (1.57)
4.60 (1.30)
5.06 (0.85)
5.30 (0.73)
5.19 (0.79)
4.59 (1.12)
5.10 (1.41)
4.87 (1.29)
4.81 (1.33)
4.90 (0.91)
4.86 (1.10)
4.71 (0.85)
4.25 (1.62)
4.46 (1.33)
5.38 (0.89)
5.05 (1.00)
5.19 (0.95)
4.41 (1.12)
4.35 (1.35)
4.38 (1.23)
2.19 (1.33)
3.25 (1.74)
2.78 (1.64)
4.18 (1.43)
3.05 (1.54)
3.57 (1.57)
4.44 (1.09)
3.85 (1.42)
4.11 (1.30)
4.00 (1.41)
4.40 (1.47)
4.22 (1.44)
3.56 (1.09)
3.85 (1.57)
3.72 (1.52)
4.06 (1.52)
4.80 (1.47)
4.46 (1.52)
subject of the course),’’ F(1,69) 5 6.17, p 5.015. These
results provide evidence that when different emphases
are considered, learning content knowledge is a particularly compelling reason that baccalaureate students
seek tutoring in comparison to sub-baccalaureate
students.
Tutor Characteristics
For the Tutor Characteristics scale, the highest mean
rating for all of the baccalaureate students in this study
(with and without prior tutoring) was found for
communication skills (M 5 5.47, SD 5 0.88), and this
same characteristic had the highest mean rating for the
sub-baccalaureate students (M 5 5.03, SD 5 1.09).
This replicates earlier reports of the great importance
of shared communication skills between tutors and
deaf students.
Despite this similarity, group differences were
found on the Tutor Characteristics scale, based on a 2
(baccalaureate/sub-baccalaureate programs) 3 2 (prior
experience with tutoring) 310 (perceptual statements)
MANOVA, Wilks’s Lambda F(10, 60) 5 2.02, p 5.047.
Univariate analyses resulted in a similar finding as
noted with the Outcomes/Emphases scale. That is, the
baccalaureate students rated significantly higher than
sub-baccalaureate students their preference for tutors
to be knowledgeable about course content, F(1,69) 5
5.92, p 5 .018), and to know the research methods
associated with the course, F(1,69) 5 6.71, p 5 .012.
Thus, an emphasis on course content knowledge distinguishes the baccalaureate students from their subbaccalaureate peers with regard to tutor characteristics.
Responsibilities
The item asking about tutors actively involving
students in the tutoring sessions received the highest
mean ratings for both groups of students in this study.
For the baccalaureate students (with and without prior
198
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004
Third, even though both groups rated tutors actively
involving the students in the tutoring sessions most
favorably, baccalaureate students rated this dimension
of tutoring significantly higher than sub-baccalaureate
students, F(1,69) 5 10.77, p 5 .002.
Prior Experience with Tutoring
Figure 1 Who decides the focus of tutoring.
tutoring), the mean was M 5 5.69 (SD 5 0.47), and for
the sub-baccalaureate students, the mean was M 5
5.08, (SD 5 0.97).
Despite this agreement, group differences were
indicated by the 2 (baccalaureate/sub-baccalaureate
programs) 3 2 (prior experience with tutoring) 3 11
(perceptual statements) MANOVA, in which a significant main effect for degree programs was found,
Wilks’s Lambda F(11, 59) 5 2.91, p 5.004. Univariate
analyses indicated several differences in perception
between the two groups of students. First, the
baccalaureate students had a significantly lower mean
for the item measuring the importance of classroom
teachers encouraging them to seek tutoring, F(1,69) 5
6.17, p 5 .015. They were less likely than subbaccalaureate students to believe that external encouragement from teachers to go for tutoring is appropriate. Second, the analysis of who should decide the
focus of tutoring revealed differential perceptions
between the students at the two degree levels. For
the student deciding the focus of the tutoring, the
baccalaureate students had a significantly higher mean
than their sub-baccalaureate peers, F(1,69) 5 10.10,
p 5 .002. For the tutor deciding the focus, the subbaccalaureate students had a significantly higher mean
than their peers in the baccalaureate programs,
F(1,69) 5 6.17, p 5 .015). Figure 1 illustrates the difference in preferences of the two groups of students
for taking control of the focus of the tutoring session.
There were no significant main effects indicating
a difference in perception for the three scales among
students who had or did not have prior experience with
tutoring in high school. The only interaction effect in
this analysis was found for the Responsibilities scale,
Wilks’s Lambda F(11, 59) 5 2.81, p 5 .005. Baccalaureate students with prior experience rated higher than
their peers without such experience the item stating
that they should know when to ask for tutoring while
sub-baccalaureate students with prior tutoring experience rated this item lower than their peers with no prior
tutoring experience, F(1, 69) 5 7.03, p 5 .010.
Discussion and Recommendations
The fact that, on average, only one out of four deaf
students at both baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate
degree levels in postsecondary institutions throughout
the United States completes a program of study
indicates a need to more carefully examine tutoring and
other support services that may help address this
problem. All the participants in the present study were
receiving tutoring, and no effort was made to compare
their perceptions with those of their peers who do not
seek tutoring assistance. The perceptions of the latter
group may be especially important to examine in a
future study as they may provide additional insight into
understanding retention issues.
The two groups of deaf students in the present
study, baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate, appear to
have many similar perceptions about tutoring. The
most striking of these similarities was their emphasis on
tutors being able to communicate easily and fluently
with students. This characteristic was found to have the
highest mean ratings on the Tutor Characteristics scale
by both groups. Communication skills have been
similarly rated highly in studies of the characteristics
of effective classroom teachers (Lang et al., 1993; Lang
Perceptions of Tutoring
et al., 1994). Student motivation may be negatively
influenced by tutors, as well as by teachers, who
struggle to communicate clearly in the students’
preferred modes. Thus, tutors should be well prepared
in skills related to the varied modes deaf students use in
communicating. This includes signed, spoken, and
printed forms of communication in particular. For
teachers who use sign language with deaf students, the
relationship between sign proficiency and instructional
effectiveness appears to be interdependent. In an earlier
study of discourse in deaf classrooms, for example,
Kluwin (1983) concluded that teachers who were
relatively free of the problem of encoding English were
more able to focus on the content being taught and to
respond to the students themselves. An intricate
relationship between content instruction and ability
to communicate effectively may exist, and this
connection should be investigated in the context of
both tutoring and classroom teaching.
Students at both baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate levels also agreed in valuing tutors who actively
involve them in the tutoring sessions. There is
a growing body of knowledge derived from educational
research showing that active and interactive approaches
are beneficial to deaf students. Although baccalaureate
students rated this even higher than sub-baccalaureate
students, ‘‘active involvement’’ received the highest
mean ratings in the Responsibilities scale from both
groups of students. Thus, tutoring strategies focusing
on active involvement of the students should be further
explored.
Notable differences were found between groups for
several dimensions of tutoring, likely reflecting differences in students’ academic readiness for college work
and in their self-perceptions as learners. One striking
difference in perceptions between the baccalaureate
and sub-baccalaureate deaf students pertains to course
content. The significantly higher means for the
baccalaureate students for a focus on understanding
course content as an outcome provides evidence that
this is a compelling reason baccalaureate students seek
tutoring. Significantly higher mean ratings were also
found for the baccalaureate students with regard to two
related characteristics of tutors—content knowledge
and understanding the research methods associated
with the course. Similarly strong ratings by deaf college
199
students of content knowledge as a critical characteristics of ‘‘effective’’ classroom teachers have been
reported (Lang et al., 1993).
The findings in the present study are similar to
those reported in studies with hearing undergraduate
students. Schmidt and Moust (1995), for example,
analyzed data from 524 tutorial groups involving
hearing students in a four-year undergraduate university. Based on their results, they developed a causal
model of what makes a tutor effective. They conclude:
This theory of the effective tutor merges two different perspectives prevalent in the literature.
One perspective emphasizes the personal qualities of the tutor; his or her ability to communicate with students in an informal way, coupled
with an empathic attitude that enables them to
encourage student learning by creating an atmosphere in which open exchanges of ideas is facilitated. The other stresses the tutor’s subjectmatter knowledge as a determinant for learning.
The data presented in this article suggests that
what is needed, really, is a lot of both. (p. 12)
Our results regarding sub-baccalaureate students preferring that tutors make the decision about the content
to cover is consistent with findings from Lang et al.
(1998), who examined six different learning styles
using the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Styles
Scales with deaf sub-baccalaureate students. The
‘‘dependent’’ learning style had the highest mean score
as compared to the five other learning styles. As
mentioned earlier, Grasha (1996) characterized dependent learners as those who find it difficult to
develop skills of autonomy and self-direction. These
students need more structure and organization in their
learning experiences. The finding that deaf subbaccalaureate students rated the importance of tutors
actively involving them in the tutoring sessions lower
than did baccalaureate students further suggests that
these students may recognize that such involvement
would require additional studying on their part to be
ready for such an approach to learning—or perhaps
that they lack confidence in their abilities. However, it
should be remembered that the sub-baccalaureate
students rated the possibility of becoming an
independent learner higher than any other item on
200
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004
the Outcomes/Emphases scale. Thus, these students
expressed an interest in remediating their currently
more dependent learning style.
Another related difference in perception between
the baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students in the
present study relates to locus of control and acceptance
of responsibilities associated with tutoring as a support
service. The results pointing to a greater sense of selfcontrol for baccalaureate students were congruent with
findings reported in the literature. Deaf students in
four-year programs have a greater internality (sense of
control) than do deaf students in two-year programs
(Saur & Stinson,1986). These writers report that an
implication of this finding on locus of control is that
academic success may be influenced not only by ability
and degree of hearing loss, but also motivational
factors.
The interaction effect found in the univariate
analyses of the item ‘‘Student should know when to ask
for tutoring’’ is not easily explained. Perhaps it hints
that baccalaureate students experienced with tutoring
may develop greater self-awareness and confidence in
their abilities to make decisions about seeking tutoring, while sub-baccalaureate students with some prior
tutoring experience have less confidence than subbaccalaureate students without prior experience in
terms of knowing when to go for assistance. Follow-up
research may shed more light on the role experience
with support services may play in both self-efficacy and
academic achievement.
Perceptions of deaf students about learning through
tutoring may very well be developed as a result of past
educational experiences. The values, emphases, and
approaches demonstrated in high school programs, in
particular, may affect student perceptions about, as well
as expectations for, tutoring at the postsecondary level.
How deaf students in secondary programs perceive
dimensions of tutoring bears further investigation.
It is important to note that little research has been
conducted with deaf learners on these issues and that
the perceptions reported here should be taken as
suggestions. Additional research is required to define
effective tutoring practices. However, we believe that
the current findings permit several recommendations
for those involved in the practice of providing tutoring
for deaf students.
Both sub-baccalaureate and baccalaureate deaf
college students value tutors who can communicate
effectively with students who have different preferences (ASL, Signed English, etc.). Thus, it is important
that prospective tutors have training to communicate
fluently in a range of communication methods or that
efforts are made to match the communication methods
and skills of tutor and student.
Related to a more active involvement on the part of
the student, deaf sub-baccalaureate students indicated
that they hoped to become more independent learners.
At the same time, they expressed a preference for more
structured tutorials and for tutor selection of content.
This suggests that one focus of tutoring for subbaccalaureate students is to increase their confidence
and encourage their participation in the sessions—
while providing sufficient structure to assist their
learning. This encouragement help the student develop
greater sense of control over his/her own learning.
Subject-matter knowledge has been consistently found
to be an important characteristic of tutors in research
studies with hearing students. Although the present
study has shown that deaf baccalaureate students prefer
an emphasis on content while sub-baccalaureate
students prefer an emphasis on general study skills,
tutors at both levels need to be knowledgeable of the
content in order to effectively enhance both skills and
knowledge related to the topics being learned.
Although general principles related to tutoring of
deaf students have been summarized above, it should
be remembered that there were several important
differences between the baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students who participated in the current study.
The overall findings from the present study suggest
that, for some critical aspects of tutoring, the expectations and preferences students bring to tutoring do
indeed vary according to whether they are enrolled in
baccalaureate or sub-baccalaureate degree programs.
Differences between the student and tutor in expectations about the focus or outcomes of tutoring may
influence student motivation to seek a tutor’s assistance
and may also influence tutor and student perceptions
regarding the success of tutoring. A discussion of these
factors both prior to and during the tutoring sessions
may increase all students’ satisfaction, self-esteem,
and, ultimately, academic success.
Perceptions of Tutoring
References
ACT (1998, April 1). New low for college graduation rate, but
dropout picture brighter [News release]. Retrieved February
6, 2004, from http://www.act.org/news/releases/1998/
04–01–98.html
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1982). Educational
outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American
Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.
Derry, S. J., & Potts, M. K. (1998). How tutors model students:
A study of personal constructs in adaptive tutoring.
American Educational Research Journal, 35, 65–99.
Ellson, D. G. (1975). Tutoring. In N. Gage (Ed.), The psychology
of teaching methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to
enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning
styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers.
Jacobs, L. (1977). The efficiency of interpreting input for
processing lecture information by deaf college students.
Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 11, 235–247.
Kluwin, T. N. (1983). Discourse in deaf classrooms: The
structure of teaching episodes. Discourse Processes, 6,
275–293.
Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students:
Research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 267–280.
Lang, H. G., Dowaliby, F. J., & Anderson, H. (1994). Critical
teaching incidents: Recollections of deaf college students.
American Annals of the Deaf, 139, 119–127.
Lang, H. G., McKee, B. G., & Conner, K. N. (1993).
Characteristics of effective teachers: A descriptive study of
perceptions of faculty and deaf college students. American
Annals of the Deaf, 138, 252–259.
Lang, H. G., Stinson, M. S., Basile, M., Kavanagh, F., & Liu, Y.
(1998). Learning styles of deaf college students and teaching
behaviors of their instructors. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 4, 16–27.
Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating
deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford
University Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1993). Postsecondary
Education Quick Information System, Survey on Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Students in Postsecondary Education, US
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Integrated
postsecondary education data system, Fall Enrollment Data
File, Fall 1997. http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/ef9798/
Orlando, R., Gramly, M. E., & Hoke, J. (1997). Tutoring deaf and
hard of hearing students: A report of the National Task Force on
Quality of Services in the Postsecondary Education of Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Students. Rochester, NY: Northeast
201
Technical Assistance Center, Rochester Institute of Technology.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1969). The effects of tutoring upon
pupil achievement: A research review. Washington, DC: Office
of Education.
Saur, R. E. (1992). Resources for deaf students in the
mainstreamed classroom. In S. B. Foster and G. G. Walter
(Eds.), Deaf students in postsecondary education (pp. 96–107).
New York: Routledge.
Saur, R. E., & Stinson, M. S. (1986). Characteristics of
successful mainstreamed hearing-impaired students: A
review of selected research. Journal of Rehabilitation of the
Deaf, 20, 15–21.
Scherer, M. J., & Binder, G. E. (1989). The Department of Science
and Engineering Support (DSES): A Phase 2 report on student
perceptions. National Technical Institute for the Deaf.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (1995, April). What makes
a tutor effective? A structured equations modelling approach to
learning in problem-based curricula. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Stinson, M. S. (1987). Perceptions of tutoring services by
mainstreamed hearing-impaired college students. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 5, 18–26.
Stinson, M. S., Saur, R., & Panara, J. (1982, June). Opinions of
deaf college students about tutoring services: An example
of evaluation of a support service. In M. Stinson (Chair),
Support services that facilitate learning in mainstreamed
classes by deaf college students. Symposium conducted at the
Alexander Graham Bell Association convention, Toronto,
Canada.
Stinson, M. S., & Stuckless, E. R. (1998). Recent developments
in speech-to-print transcription systems for deaf students.
In A. Weisel (Ed.), Issues unresolved: New perspectives on
language and deaf education (pp. 126–132). Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Stinson, M., & Walter, G. (1997). Improving retention for deaf
and hard of hearing students: What the research tells us.
Journal of American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association,
30, 14–23.
Walter, G., Foster, S., & Elliot, L. (1987, July). Attrition and
accommodation of hearing-impaired college students in the U.S.
Paper presented at the Tenth National Conference of the
Association on Handicapped Student Service Programs in
Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC.
Wilhite, S. (1990). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment
of memory ability and study activities as predictors of
college course achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 696–700.
Received February 12, 2002; revisions received June 24, 2003;
accepted July 12, 2003.