A Blended Classroom Program

Age Range of Intended Audience: 18+

Product Goals/Objectives: To gather information about reverse mainstream classrooms at oral schools for the deaf and develop a model program for the preschool level.

Abstract

This paper discusses the results of a survey sent to OPTION schools with blended classrooms after a literature review that examines the integration of children without disabilities into classrooms with children with disabilities. The responses of these surveys were used to develop a model program that could be used at the preschool level at a school for the deaf. First, the results of each question on the survey are displayed and the discussion of those results follows. The discussion includes characteristics of a model program. A schedule for a full-day preschool reverse mainstreaming program is included after the discussion.

Introduction

There is a new trend arising in education - integrating children without disabilities into

special education classrooms and schools. Whereas mainstreaming involves incorporating

children with special needs into regular school classes, reverse mainstreaming or blended

classrooms integrates children without special needs into special education classes. In these

classrooms, learning usually occurs with individualized education and smaller class sizes.

Overall, reverse mainstreaming has many valuable benefits for all those involved. Some of these

include children gaining a greater sense of self and understanding diversity.

Although reverse mainstreaming can involve children with any disability, this project will

focus on ways develop a model program that will incorporate children with typical hearing into a

classroom with hearing-impaired children at the preschool level. The make up of the classroom,

benefits and challenges of including hearing children with hearing-impaired children, and ways

to begin the program will be examined in this paper. First, however, a literature review will help

Johnson

create an understanding of the best practices in integrating children in a reverse mainstream

classroom.

Literature Review

Because there are few resources on the inclusion of hearing students in a hearing-

impaired classroom, this review will examine the integration of children without disabilities into

any special education classroom. In this review, classroom characteristics, social issues, and a

center-based approach to blended classrooms will be discussed.

2

Johnson

Classroom Characteristics

The number of students in the classroom and the ratio of students to teachers are

important characteristics to consider when developing a reverse mainstream program. According

to many researchers, a smaller class size with a better student to teacher ratio is essential for

creating a positive learning environment. Wasley (2002) believes that teachers should be

responsible for a smaller number of students so that they can get to know each student’s learning

preferences and style. It takes time and concentration to individualize each child’s learning

experience. In a classroom with a large number of students, such time and attention isn’t an

option. With a smaller number of students in each class, teachers are able to get to know every

student. Greenspan (1998) furthers this view by saying that teachers can get to know every

student by “interactively working with the children at all times” in small group settings so that

“all children receive individual or small group attention” (p. 415). Specifically, Greenspan’s

ideal classroom should contain two to three special needs children and seven to eight children

without special needs. An aide should be available for every one to two children with special

needs to facilitate interactions and learning.

Social Issues

Although teachers provide great social models for children, children are more likely to

learn from peer models that are similar to themselves. Therefore other children are often

potential teachers of social behaviors (Schum and Gfeller as cited in Bandura, 1986). Children

learn all types of behaviors from other children, both positive and negative. The teacher has an

important role to stop improper social behaviors between children. However, there are positive

behaviors that only can be learned from other children. In a school for the deaf, children may

have limited opportunities for social interaction with peers who are positive role models. This

3

Johnson

may be due to hearing impaired children not always having the appropriate pragmatic skills (i.e.

conversation initiation, eye contact, turn taking, acknowledgement of speaker, and seeking

clarification) of language for successful social interaction. Having different models (teachers

and peers) in the classroom can help facilitate social interaction, allow for more effective

communication, and allow for varied situations in which to communicate (Schum & Gfeller as

cited in Bandura, 1986).

There are many positive social benefits for children with disabilities who are educated

among typical developing peers. These include increased social initiations, an increase in the

development and generalization of communication skills, play skills, and social skills, and higher

parental expectations for their child’s future when their child has the opportunity to interact with

typically developing peers (Staub 1998). In a study conducted to assess the conversational skills

of children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing in an integrated setting, Duncan

found that there were no significant differences in the conversational skills used by the children

with hearing loss and the children with normal hearing (1999). Being involved in the integrated

setting helps keep the conversational skills up to par with their hearing peers.

There are also other social benefits for children with and without disabilities. Grenot-

Scheyer, Fisher, and Staub (2000) found that when children with and without disabilities have

repeated opportunities to interact with and are in close physical proximity to each other for the

majority of the school day, the likelihood of their developing sustainable relationships over time

is increased greatly. These relationships may begin at school and continue outside of school, and

can last many years. Positive outcomes that can be seen after opportunities for interaction are

increased self-esteem, increased tolerance for individual differences, and growth in social

cognition (2000).

4

Johnson

Center-Based Approach to Learning

Most preschool and kindergarten level classrooms have centers for learning. Centers in

the classroom create a less structured environment where children can learn through exploration

and from peers. However, the number and type of centers vary. Some centers are set up where

the student learns on their own in a contrived situation to enhance a particular skill. Other

centers promote creativity and require other student’s thoughts and ideas. According to

Greenspan, an ideal center-based classroom allows the teacher and a small group of children to

work together so that the teacher can promote interaction by joining in the activity and following

the children’s leads (1998). In his classroom environment, centers should contain a range of toys

and learning materials that children and teachers can explore together, at a variety of levels, to

practice developmental, cognitive, social, language, and motor skills. This type of environment

allows for an increase in the opportunities for language, provides more experiences, and invites

curiosity and exploration (1998). This environment is beneficial for all children, but especially

for hearing-impaired children who will have increased opportunities for interaction with hearing

peers and opportunities for language.

Methods

Nine OPTION schools that had reverse mainstreaming programs were sent surveys

regarding their programs. The person most knowledgeable about the programs completed the

surveys. These people included principals, directors, teachers of the deaf, and speech and

language pathologists. Out of the nine schools to which the surveys were sent, six schools

responded.

Figure 1A shows the age/grade range of children in the classroom. The majority of

schools (66%) have a preschool reverse mainstream program. Seventeen percent (one school)

5

Johnson

continued the program through first grade. Another 17% (one school) only had a reverse

mainstream program from kindergarten to sixth grade.

Figure 1A: The Age/Grade Range in the Reverse Mainstream Classroom divided into preschool (age 3-5), elementary (K-6) and preschool and elementary (all ages).

The average class size was six to ten students. To see the class size in more detail, please see

Figure 1B. Every school but one had more hearing-impaired children than hearing children in

the class. The low number of hearing students compared to hearing-impaired students helps with

any challenges that may arise in the classroom. For specific challenges, see question 11.

Figure 1B: The average class size in a reverse mainstream classroom.

6

Johnson

Results

Results are broken down by survey question. Because some surveys were not answered

clearly or fully, the results are not an accurate reflection of all surveys. In addition, some

respondents answered the questions for a number of classrooms in their program; therefore,

information from the same respondent may appear more than once to accommodate information

from all classrooms that have a blended classroom.

Question 1: How many listening devices are used in the classroom? Figure 1 shows the total

number of listening devices from all the blended classrooms. Overall, there are more hearing aid

users than cochlear implant users or children who wear bone conduction aids. The number of

hearing aid users and FM systems used is about equal.

Figure 1: This graph shows the total number of listening devices from all blended classrooms.

Question 2: How many professionals are involved in the classroom? Figure 2 shows the

number of professionals involved in the classrooms. Teachers of the deaf were included in every

classroom. Speech Language Pathologists were involved in every school but two (Vancouver

Oral Centre and ECHO Center). These schools did not specify who taught specific speech and

language goals in their curriculum. Only one school specified a regular education teacher in

7

Johnson

addition to a teacher for the deaf (ECHO). Every school but one (Hearing Language Enrichment

Program) had teacher aids to help the classroom teacher with daily activities and lessons.

Figure 2: The number of professionals involved in the classroom by school.

Question 3: What is the student-teacher ratio? The responses to this question vary based

on the number of children in the class. Please see Figure 3 for responses by school.

Student-Teacher Ratios

Vancouver Oral Centre 3-5 children: 1 adultCCHAT-San Diego 3 children: 1 adultECHO 18-20 children: 1 adult

4 children: 1 teacher of the deaf (resource)Hearing Language Enrichment Program 2 children: 1 adultListen and Talk 4 children: 1 adultSunshine Cottage 4 children: 1 adult

Figure 3: Student-Teacher ratios per school.

Question 4: How much team collaboration among professionals is necessary? Responses

to this question varied. Every school met weekly to plan lessons. Most schools met in an

8

Johnson

informal way daily or emailed the professional to discuss anything that arose during the school

day that needed to be addressed. Staff development days were incorporated into the schedule to

discuss theory, plan/discuss curriculum, and/or talk about reports. See Figure 4 to see how often

each school met.

Collaboration Among Professionals

Daily Weekly Monthly Semester Staff Dev.

Vancouver X X X

CCHAT X X

ECHO X X

HEL X X

Listen and Talk

X X

Sunshine X X X X

Figure 4: How often team collaboration among professionals was needed in each school.

Question 5: How is the program set up? Pull-out, resource room, and centers were the

most common types of responses. Pull-out would be defined as one student leaving the

classroom environment or singled out for one-on-one instruction in the classroom. Resource

room is where a group of children leave the classroom environment for clarification or additional

instruction. Centers are where the room is divided into areas where learning can occur with the

teacher and/or other students. Most respondents answered this question through an explanation

of their daily schedule; however, a table summarizing the types of programs is provided in

Figure 5. It seemed as though most classrooms pulled the hearing impaired students out either as

a group or individually for specific speech and language instruction. It was also noted that

9

Johnson

students were not necessarily taken into another area for instruction, but lessons were carried out

within the same classroom. Some schools used a combination of programs to fit their classroom

needs. To see the schedules provided by each school, please see Appendix A.

How Blended Classrooms are Set Up

Resource Pull-Out CentersVancouver X XCCHAT XECHO XHEL XListen and Talk XSunshine X X

Figure 5: The classroom arrangement to accommodate hearing and hearing impaired students in a blended classroom for each school.

Question 6: What is the number of hearing and hearing-impaired children in the

classroom with other disabilities? Most of the classes did not have any hearing children with

other disabilities. In fact, there was only a total of one (25%) hearing student with a disability

(SMI). There were three hearing impaired students (75%) with disabilities other than hearing

impairments in all the schools surveyed.

Figure 6: Total number of hearing and hearing-impaired children with other disabilities.

10

Johnson

Question 7: How are parents involved in the reverse mainstreaming program? All

schools reported some involvement of all parents (see Figure 7). In these schools, parents

volunteered in the classroom or participated in school-wide activities such as field trips,

classroom parties, or helping with various projects. However, some schools specifically reported

how parents of hearing-impaired children were involved in the classroom. Vancouver Oral

Centre, ECHO, Listen and Talk, and Sunshine Cottage reported that parents of hearing-impaired

children meet weekly with the classroom teacher to discuss speech and language objectives.

CCHAT and Hearing Enrichment Language Program did not specifically mention how parents of

hearing-impaired children were involved.

How All Parents are Involved in the Reverse Mainstreaming Program

Volunteer/Participate in School Activities

Parent Meetings/Conferences

Observe in Class

Vancouver XCCHAT X X XECHO XHELP XListen & Talk X XSunshine Cottage X X

Figure 7: The involvement of all parents in the reverse mainstreaming program in each school.

Question 8: How did your school promote a reverse mainstreaming classroom to parents

of hearing children? Schools used a variety of ways to attract parents of hearing children. Echo

Center has a reverse mainstreaming program as part of their school mission, so this question was

not applicable to them. In response to the question, some schools explained how they get parents

to consider the reverse mainstreaming program. The total responses of these four schools

(Vancouver, CCHAT, Sunshine Cottage, Listen and Talk) are shown in Figures 8. All the

different ways of making the program known to parents of hearing children were used equally

and did not cost much to implement. Vancouver and Sunshine Cottage used advertisements in

11

Johnson

newspapers or magazines or fliers on community bulletin boards to attract parents to take a look

at their schools and program. However, Sunshine Cottage no longer uses advertisements or fliers

because word of mouth now keeps parents interested in looking at the program. Other

preschools and churches in the neighboring community also recommend the reverse mainstream

program to parents on their waiting list. Schools that have a program set up in this way include

Sunshine Cottage and Vancouver. Sunshine Cottage and CCHAT obtain students from children

of school staff, and Sunshine Cottage, Listen and Talk, and Vancouver gain students through

word of mouth from parents or school staff. To see a table of the responses by school, see

Figure 9.

Other schools described how they continue to attract parents of hearing children by

explaining the advantages for their children to be a part of their program (Hearing Enrichment

Language Program and Listen and Talk). HELP shows parents how their program can provide

an opportunity for children to become acquainted with the preschool routine through a language-

rich environment and learning to listen. Listen and Talk emphasizes the low student-teacher

ratio and language-enriched activities.

Figure 8: The number of ways schools used to attract parents of hearing children through advertisements and fliers, recommendations by churches and preschools, attendance of children of school staff, and recommendations by word of mouth.

12

Johnson

How Schools Attract Parents of Hearing Children

Advertisements/Fliers Recommendations from Preschools/

Churches

School Staff Word of Mouth

Vancouver X X X

CCHAT X

Sunshine X X X

Listen and Talk X

Figure 9: Ways to attract parents of hearing children by school.

Question 9: What is the cost for normal hearing and hearing-impaired children to attend

school in the reverse mainstreaming classroom? The schools answered this question in a variety

of ways (some replied with daily costs, some with monthly costs, and some with yearly costs), so

a range of the cost will not be computed and analyzed. The aim of this question was trying to

determine if the cost is higher for a hearing or for a hearing-impaired child to attend the program.

One school charged the same amount for hearing children. Another school did not charge

anything for the hearing children to attend. But in all cases, it cost the same as or more to

educate a hearing-impaired child than a hearing child.

Question 10: What are some of the benefits of having hearing-impaired children in the

reverse mainstreaming classroom? One outstanding benefit every school mentioned is having

peer models for language and behavior. Schools reported that hearing children gave the hearing-

impaired children models for every aspect of language, including pragmatics (i.e. conversation

initiation, eye contact, turn taking, acknowledgement of speaker, and seeking clarification).

They also provided a behavior model for hearing-impaired children. A few of the schools named

13

Johnson

have models for parents to know what appropriate behavior is for their hearing-impaired child.

One school cited higher teacher expectations for all children in the class as a benefit, and two

schools reported legal issues, such as having a least restrictive environment for hearing-impaired

children as an advantage. Figure 10 shows all the benefits of a reverse mainstream program.

Benefits of a Reverse Mainstream Program

Peer Models for children

Models for parents

Higher Teacher Expectations

Legal Issues

Vancouver X X X

CCHAT X X

ECHO X

HELP X

Listen and Talk X X X

Sunshine Cottage

X X

Figure 10: Each schools benefits of having hearing and hearing-impaired children in the same class.

Question 11: What are some of the challenges of having a reverse mainstream

classroom? Most schools reported challenges with the hearing students’ language or social skills

or challenges among teachers’ expectations or experiences. Challenges with students included

not having English as a first language, talking above the hearing-impaired children’s language

level or controlling the lesson so much that hearing-impaired children do not have a chance to

participate. Many schools reported social concerns as children grew up and interactions were

based on verbal exchanges instead of playing. Schools that cited challenges with teachers’

expectation or experiences felt that teachers should continue to have high expectations for all

14

Johnson

students. They should also have experience with early childhood education so that the

curriculum could be developmentally appropriate. To view the types of challenges in greater

detail, see Figure 11.

Figure 11: Percentages of schools with inadequate language skills of hearing children, inadequate social skills of hearing children, and low or inadequate teacher expectations or experience that were cited as challenges in the reverse mainstream class.

Question 12: Does your school use standardized evaluation tool/tests to measure the

children’s language, speech, and reading progress? If yes, in what areas have these results

changed due to reverse mainstreaming classrooms? For this question, some schools answered

yes, but did not answer further. The percentage of schools that reported using standardized tests

is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: The percentage of schools that used standardized evaluations/tools to measure speech, language, and reading abilities in the reverse mainstream classroom.

15

Johnson

Discussion

Question 1 deals with the number of listening devices in the classroom. The results

indicated more hearing aid users than any other device. Children with hearing impairments

ranging from mild to severe usually wear hearing aids while children with a profound loss

usually wear cochlear implants. In addition, children who wear cochlear implants may also wear

a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear which may account for the higher number of hearing aid

users. Another possibility is that children who wear hearing aids and have more residual hearing

adjust easily in blended classrooms. The number of hearing aid users and FM systems used is

about equal probably because most classrooms use personal FM systems in addition to sound

field systems, which are easily compatible with hearing aids.

The low number of bone conduction aids may suggest that children who need these aids

are not prevalent or are in different schools. To have a bone conduction aid, the child must have

a conductive loss that prohibits sound from entering through the outer or middle ear due to

microtia, atresia, etc. These types of conditions are rare and when they do occur, the hearing is

restored to a normal to mild loss where special schooling may not be required.

A model blended classroom should include children with various types of devices and

hearing levels as long as the child’s language would improve from interactions with hearing

peers. The children should have good auditory skills and self-advocacy skills with their devices.

Question 2 asks about the involvement of professionals in the classroom. Speech

Language Pathologists were involved in the majority of the classrooms. In some cases, the

teacher of the deaf may have been involved with teaching speech and language in some schools

with and without the involvement of Speech and Language Pathologists. All classrooms had a

16

Johnson

teacher of the deaf. This is important since these oral deaf schools and hearing-impaired children

need instruction from a teacher of the deaf. Teacher aids were often involved in helping with the

daily activities and lessons. What was most surprising from the results is the low number of

regular education teachers involved in the classroom. From the answers to other survey

questions, it became apparent that some teachers of the deaf were also qualified to teach regular

education. So although there was not a separate teacher certified to teach regular education, the

teacher of the deaf had either an undergraduate or master’s degree in regular education in

addition to their certification for teaching deaf children. This is important since a teacher should

know how to teach both hearing and hearing-impaired children in blended classrooms.

In a model blended classroom, the classroom teacher should have knowledge about

teaching hearing and hearing impaired children. A master’s degree for educating the deaf is

necessary since the teacher needs to be knowledgeable in using appropriate language techniques

and understanding other difficulties hearing impaired children have learning. Knowledge about

how hearing children learn is also important so that the hearing children get the best education in

the classroom. Therefore, certification in deaf education and regular education should be a must

in a model blended classroom.

Question 3 asks about the student-teacher ratio. This number will vary based on the type

of program the school has (resource or pull-out, center-based, team teaching). As the literature

on class size suggests, a smaller number of students for every teacher is beneficial for promoting

learning and social interactions. Most of the schools surveyed have one to four students for

every adult, which coincides with the current literature. Therefore, a model blended classroom

should have about four students for every teacher or teacher aid.

17

Johnson

Question 4 deals with team collaboration among professionals. Professionals from most

schools met formally once a week and daily as needed. It should be noted that professionals

could collaborate more often than is noted in the responses to this survey. They met to plan

lessons, discuss objectives and interventions, evaluate and review theory, and discuss and

exchange individual’s goals. This suggests that collaboration is essential to providing a valuable

education to all students in the blended classroom. However, collaboration is essential in any

school whether or not a blended classroom is present. In a model blended classroom,

professionals should have formal meetings once a week to plan lessons and discuss individual

students and informally as needed.

Question 5 asks about how the classrooms are set up to give information about how the

curriculum is carried out. Programs that are more center-based may have more social

interactions between hearing and hearing-impaired students than more structured settings with

pull out or resource, for example. Since the social interaction between hearing and hearing

impaired children in the same setting is one of the major advantages to having a blended

classroom, a program that can capitalize on those interactions is the most beneficial for every

student in the classroom. Therefore, a center-based classroom is the most beneficial for a

blended classroom. Pull out is necessary for speech and language instruction, but all students

could be pulled out for some speech and language work so that every child feels apart of the

classroom. This pull out could be done in any center time throughout the day. For a model

program schedule with centers, please see the schedule following the conclusion of this paper.

Question 6 involves the number of hearing and hearing-impaired children with other

disabilities in the classroom. Hearing children should have age appropriate language skills so

that they can be good language models for the hearing-impaired children. As long as the hearing

18

Johnson

children’s language is appropriate, including the pragmatic aspect of language, then having

hearing children with other disabilities may not hinder the goal of a blended classroom. In fact,

these children may benefit from the specialized instruction necessary for hearing-impaired

children. Hearing impaired children should not have any other disabilities that would require

support that would keep them out of the classroom for much of the day or from interacting

appropriately with hearing children. This should be determined by a case-by-case basis. To help

determine who will succeed for the reverse mainstream classroom, please see the Educational

Placement Recommendation Guide from Sunshine Cottage School for Deaf Children in

Appendix B. To use this guide, a teacher highlights the block in each factor category in which

the student’s factors are best described. Placement can be recommended in the column which

the child has the most characteristics.

Question 7 asks about parent involvement. It is necessary for parents of hearing-impaired

children to be more involved in the program because the parents need to supplement the speech

and language goals progress at home in addition to what is done at school. It is possible that the

schools are unable to spend enough time developing the children’s speech and language enough

throughout the day, and the parents are needed to supplement at home to keep the children

progressing. However, it is also possible that these parents are involved to keep informed of

what the child is accomplishing and needs additional work on in school. It is essential that all

parents are involved in the classroom or school in some way. Parents of hearing and hearing-

impaired children need to feel as an equal part of the school, and being involved is one way to

accomplish this.

Question 8 asks about ways to attract parents of hearing children to a school for the deaf.

Getting the first parents interested in a reverse mainstream program would be the most

19

Johnson

challenging task. With an appropriate program, continuing to attract parents of hearing children

will become easier. The school that will implement blended classrooms should first look at its

staff to find appropriate peers for the reverse mainstream class. If more students are needed, the

school should look at the neighborhood surrounding the school. If there is a preschool nearby

that has a waiting list, the school could offer to take those students. The school could also put up

fliers or advertise in the surrounding community if necessary. A reverse mainstream class could

attract many students with little or no cost to the school if the aforementioned points are taken

into consideration.

Once normal hearing candidates are looking at the reverse mainstream class as an option,

the school should focus on selling the idea of why this type of classroom is more beneficial to

hearing children than in a typical preschool. As this will be mentioned in greater detail with the

discussion of the following questions, the greatest benefits to hearing children is gaining an

understanding of the diversity of learning and having the opportunity to interact in a language-

rich environment with a small class and individualized instruction. In addition, using teachers’

outstanding qualifications is an added bonus many other schools may not have since CID has

many teachers with a master’s degree in the education field.

Question 9 focuses on the cost to attend school in the reverse mainstream class. One way

to attract parents of hearing children is to make the cost affordable while giving a quality

education. However, a school does need to consider the expenses of educating the children and

incorporate that money into the parents’ costs. When figuring the cost for hearing and hearing-

impaired children, schools should set up a separate scholarship fund that allocates money in a

variety of ways. The funds should be allocated to all children regardless of having a disability or

not, or only to children with normal hearing as they give to children with hearing impairments so

20

Johnson

that every child and family feels like an equal partner in the school. In addition, the school

should look at other preschool programs to offer competitive costs for hearing children. This is

an additional way to gain monies for the continuation of the program as well as a way to attract

parents to the program. Overall, a model program should consider the expenses of a child’s

education, be competitive with other area preschools, and be fair when offering financial

assistance when charging parents for their children’s education in the reverse mainstream

program.

Question 10 asks about the benefits of having hearing and hearing-impaired children in

the same class. All schools reported that peer language models in the classroom as being

beneficial to hearing-impaired children. Having appropriate peer language models in the

classroom can help boost the progress of language development of hearing-impaired children.

They can also give examples of appropriate pragmatic skills and typical behavior models. These

peers also let parents know what typical behavior is so that if something arises with their child,

parents know that the problem is a typical developmental behavior instead of a communication

problem. Another benefit discussed was higher teacher expectations. Having hearing children in

the classroom let teachers know what a typical child can do which may increase their expectation

for hearing-impaired children. The last benefit mentioned was legal issues. When schools have

hearing children participate in the classroom, all children benefit from seeing the hearing

children in school, thus, providing a least restrictive environment for the hearing impaired

children. When districts want to place children inappropriately because they are not in the least

restrictive environment due to lack of social peers, a reverse mainstream class helps negate that

argument.

21

Johnson

A model program will incorporate all children for some part of the day into the reverse

mainstream classroom so that the least restrictive environment can be accomplished. This can be

done during circle time, center time, outside play, snack, and lunch. Experience with hearing

peers can also provide great social, language, and behavior skills for children not in the reverse

mainstream class.

Question 11 asks about the challenges that are brought by having a reverse mainstream

classroom. None of these challenges were surprising. As long as hearing children are screened

to ensure a good fit in the classroom and teachers are trained appropriately, then these challenges

can be less of a problem.

Question 12 involves the use of standardized evaluations and tools to measure language,

speech, and reading and attributing the results to the reverse mainstreaming program. Although

standardized tests may be used, the results cannot be attributed only to the reverse mainstreaming

class. Many other factors could contribute to the increase or decrease of the results. However, in

a model blended classroom program, standardized tests normed on hearing children should be

used so that hearing–impaired children’s abilities could be compared to that of normally hearing

children.

Question 13 dealt with additional information to help gain knowledge about the

curriculum and the program. These comments were used to gain a better understanding of how

the school’s program was implemented and helped develop the model program discussed in this

paper. Therefore, the comments were not used in determining results.

Conclusion

Through the responses on the survey and the literature review, a model program for the

preschool level can be created. In this model program, hearing-impaired children should have

22

Johnson

language at a level that will allow them to communicate and interact with hearing peers. Hearing

children should be able to provide good social and language models for the hearing-impaired

children. Classes should be small to help individualize the education and encourage interaction

among all students. Small class sizes is especially important when free play or center based

instruction is occurring throughout the day when interaction and communication is the most

important social aspect.

It is important to remember that parents of hearing children and the children should feel a

part of the program and school in order for the program to be successful. All parents should be

involved in some way whether it is continuing speech and language at home or volunteering in

the classroom. It is also important to remember that a variety of model programs can be

successful. Each school has its own mission with its own standards and unique children.

Schools should tailor the program to meet the needs of all the students. If the children in the

class need structured lessons in a particular area, then schools should do what is necessary to

ensure the children continue to progress in all areas. Furthermore, the model program provided

in this paper can be used as a guide to getting a reverse mainstream program started.

Future research should concentrate on the social aspects of the interaction between

hearing and hearing-impaired children in the classroom to gain a better understanding of the

progress in all aspects of language of the hearing-impaired children. Studies should examine the

conversational skills of hearing-impaired children and how those skills are related to initiating

and maintaining social interactions. In addition, studies should address how hearing children

respond to hearing-impaired children in the blended classroom by examining how they repair

conversation when breakdowns occur.

23

Johnson

Model Blended Classroom Schedule8:30-8:45 Device Check

8:45-9:15 Circle Time to focus on language and routinesMusic and movement, calendar, weather, jobs

9:15-10:00 CentersActivities to reinforce theme using vocabulary, language, cognition, motor, and social objectives

10:00-10:30 SnackFacilitate sharing, table manners, asking and answering questions, turn-taking, requesting, etc.

10:30-11:00 Expressive LanguageLanguage enrichment and expansion according to language assessment goals

11:00-11:30 Pre-AcademicsPhonics, phonemic awareness, math, etc. for beginning kindergarten skills

11:30-12:00 Lunch

12:00-1:30 Nap/Outside Play

1:30-2:00 StoryEmergent Literacy with one book for week and book-related activities

2:00-2:30 ArtTheme-related activities to facilitate language and advance gross and fine motor skills

2:30-3:00 Circle Time/DismissalFinger plays, short language activity (surprise box/bag), recap of day by reviewing key concepts and vocabulary, etc. to facilitate language and reinforce concepts throughout the day.

24

Johnson

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Duncan, J. (1999). Conversational skills of children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing in an integrated setting. The Volta Review, 101 (4), 193-212.

Greenspan, S. I. & Wieder, S. (1998). The Child with Special Needs: Encouraging Intellectual and Emotional Growth. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Grenot-Scheyer, M. (2000). “A framework for understanding inclusive education.” In M. Grenot-Scheyer, M. Fisher, & D. Staub (Eds.), At the end of the day: Lessons learned in inclusive education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Staub, D. (1998). Delicate Threads: Friendships Between Children With and Without Special Needs in Inclusive Settings. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.

Wasley, P.A. (2002). Small Classes, small schools: the time is now. Educational Leadership, 59 (5). 6-10.

25

Johnson

Appendices

26

Johnson

Appendix A

Hearing Enrichment Language Program Preschool Blended Classroom Schedule

I. Meet & Greet (9:30am)This is the first part of the day where we play with selected manipulatives until all our friends arrive, check the hearing aids or implants to see if we are all up and running, do the Ling 6 sounds (/a/, /u/, /i/, /m/, /s/, / /) to check for hearing sensitivity, and finally it is the perfect opportunity for some “individual time.”

II. Morning Meeting (Opening 9:45am)These is where we all come together as a group and read our morning message, have an activity that helps to introduce the morning’s theme, and do the calendar.

III. Language ExperienceThis is a structured activity in which we manipulate into a language enrichment/expansion and a learning to listen time.

IV. Transition/FillerThis is the time where we go back to the “circle” for –songs, finger plays, selected activities, etc… This gives us a chance for everyone to meet back together and allow some quick clean up time.

V. Outside (10:30am)Not only is this a time for the kids to let out their jiggles, but again it is a time we can follow their lead and always be thinking about language enrichment/expansion and learning to listen.

VI. SnackThis time is designed for more than fuel and a rest! Again we are always thinking about language enrichment/expansion and learning to listen. We try to target specific pragmatic skills such as turn taking, requesting, and responding to requests during this time.

VII. Transition/Filler (11:00am)See above.

VIII. Language Experience #2See above.

IX. Transition/FillerSee above.

27

Johnson

X. Sensory TableThis is a fun and sometimes messy time that allows the children to integrate all five of their senses for exploring and again a perfect opportunity for language enrichment/expansion and learning to listen.

XI. Transition/FillerSee above.

XII.Closing (11:30am)This is where we recap our day by reviewing key concepts and vocabulary, reading a story, and singing our “Happy Day” song!

CCHAT Center-San Diego Preschool Blended Classroom Schedule

9:00-9:20 Music

9:20-9:40 Amplification Check and Fine Motor Activities

9:40-10:00 Circle (song, listening, language activity)

10:00-10:20 Gross Motor or Art

10:20-10:45 Snack

10:45-11:05 Recess

11:05-11:15 Sustained silent reading and individual speech

11:15-11:40 Pre-Academics(share items from letter can, listening, Slingerland)

11:40-12:00 Cognition

12:00-12:20 Lunch

12:20-12:40 Sharing or structured free play

12:40-12:55 Story

12:55-1:00 Closing songs: the Alphabet and “Hope You Have a Happy Day”

28

Johnson

Vancouver Oral Centre Four-Year-Old Blended Classroom Schedule

9:00-10:30 Opening songs, calendar, weather, math/language arts (small groups) play centers with Early Childhood Education teacher or teaching assistant and teacher of the deaf pulls-out for tutoring.

10:30-11:00 Snack/Bathrooms/Recess

11:00-12:00 Story time, large group circle time, music and movement

12:00-1:00 Lunch/recess

1:00-1:30 Story time, rest time with quiet music

1:30-2:30 Play centers (teacher of the deaf tutors and sometimes includes a hearing child with a hearing-impaired child to play language games)

2:30-3:00 Clean up, story time, singing, dismissal

Listen and Talk Preschool Blended Classroom Schedule

12:30 Greetings and Circle TimeSongs, sharing, weather, surprise box

12:55 Small GroupFocused listening/language/cognitive objective practice

1:30 Motor GroupIntegration of gross motor skills with communication

1:45 Story TimeOpportunity to interact as a group with books. The books are chosen to reinforce targeted vocabulary and language objectives.

1:55 SnackOpportunity to facilitate sharing, asking questions among children, answering questions among children

2:10 Free ChoiceChildren choose activities provided in open centers around the room. The activities are carefully chosen to reinforce targeted language, cognitive, motor, and social objectives. Adults facilitate these targets as the children play.

2:40-2:45 Clean Up and Ending Circle

29

Johnson

Sunshine Cottage Three-Year-Old Blended Classroom Schedule

8:15-9:00 Centers/Audiology/Speech (5 min/ch)

9:00-9:30 Circle Time

9:30-9:55 Recess (M,W), Gym (T, Th), Music (F)

9:55-10:10 Snack

10:10-10:30 Emergent Literacy & Story time in Library (F)

10:30-11:15 Speech for Hearing-impaired children, Centers for Hearing children

11:15-12:00 Language/Fine Motor in small groups

12:00-12:25 Lunch and Calendar

12:30-2:00 Nap

2:00-2:15 Snack

2:15-2:30 Outdoor play

30

Johnson

31

Appendix B

Educational Placement Recommendations Guide for___________________________________ Date___________________

Recommended PlacementFACTORS Referral to

Other Programs

Provisional Speech Instruction – Intense Intervention

Speech Emphasis: Self-contained

Mainstream Placement for PE, Electives, &/or Strong Subject

Mainstream –Except for English & Reading

Full Mainstream w/ Support

Minimum Support

Non-Verbal Intelligence

<70 71-84 85-100 101-115 >115

Residual Hearing

no pattern perception despite intervention

no pattern perception-but no intervention

pattern perception

some word recognition; stereotypic words/phrases

consistent word recognition

continues to advance in aud. abilities

listens for new information independently

Speech Communication Attitude/Oral Initiative

non-verbal despite intervention or limited comm. intention

vocalizes to convey message; emerging communicative intentions

rich communicative intention; needs help to ask/answer ?s; oral in structured settings

makes self understood; enjoys talking with peers; follows directions

initiates; asks & answers ?s willingly; states when doesn’t understand

participates in discussions, has a positive rapport with teachers

initiates w/ peers solutions to difficult communication situations (e.g., P.A.)

Vocabulary Acquisition Attitude

fewer than 10 spoken words despite intervention

may be/is able to acquire words with consistent, frequent repetition & reinforcement

acquires vocabulary when instruction is carefully structured

shows emerging ability to acquire words in context

acquires many words through running speech and play w/ peers (incidental learning

aggressively seeks labels for new concepts/actions/things; learns 20 new words/week

uses media resources (not adults) for vocab. acquisition; learns new words from reading

Language %ile Rank

0-10 despite intervention

10 – 20 %ile (H.I. Norms)

21-50%ile (H.I. Norms)

51-99%ile (H.I. Norms); <6 on hearing norms

6 – 16 (Hearing Norms); learns new syntax on the run

>16 (Hearing Norms)

*speech intelligibility is an issue

Educational Background/ Academic Characteristics

* sign language in the home *not meeting IEP objectives; not learning

no previous schooling or limited language growth

responding adequately to oral education – reaches IEP goals annually

*on age/grade level except for language & reading *solves word problems *writes full sentences

*on age/grade level in all subjects, or within one year *takes written tests

previous successful mainstream experience

Motivation little/no motivation

attentive eager to learn; participates

accepts challenges; assumes responsibility

seeks information, asks for help, functions independently, especially with equipment; uses conversational repair strategies w/o reminder

Behavior & Work Habits

*inappropriate in most situations *inadequate work habits

*responds to correction *inadequate but no training

*appropriate in structure *needs help to work alone

*appropriate in transitions and unstructured settings *always completes homework *works independently

*appropriate in almost all settings *works well in groups *organized

Family Support

*little support despite inter-vention *non-English speaking despite requests *non-use of aud. equipment

*no support, but no intervention *learning Eng.; learning to understand hearing loss

Provides oral language input: *actively seeks appropriate additional services as needed; *monitors child’s progress; *requests conferences

*w/direction, not always appropriate; *expects speech for communication

*appropriately*has appropriately high expectations

*reads to child; * attends meetings; *reads notes & assists w/homework; *can teach child * consistently uses aud. equipment

JohnsonNeurological Soft Signs

diagnosed impairment(s) obstructive to oral language acquisition

oral-motor impairment affecting expressive language

diagnosed learning disabilities

no other apparent impairments except delayed lang/reading

no impairments

Auditory Memory for Language

unable to immediately recall list or items (AGE-1) or match # of syllables in simple imitations despite intervention

unable to immediately recall list of items (AGE-1) or match # of syllables in simple imitations, but no training

is learning to chunk auditory information in order to remember more

follows three-step directions with context clues

attends to series of oral directions; comprehends oral instruction in a grp. Setting

completes language tasks (analysis, questions, fill-in-blank) auditorily; remembers details from auditorily presented story/topic

Is hearing loss the major handicap? (This guide is based on hearing loss as the primary handicap.) 5/9830

33