Continuation of Ethnography, Research Paper Example

Part I: Excellent Resource- But Lacking Flow and Execution

In “National survey of reading instruction for deaf or hard-of-hearing students in the U.S.”, presents a specific survey within the larger context of American media and previous research. It makes for a very comprehensive look at Deaf Education from both the perspectives of the student and the teacher. However, this comprehensive look is disjointed at times and lacks a skeptic’s discernment of appropriate methodology and application of the research.

The first problem with the survey was an error of methodology. Although the organizations which were chosen for the survey were mindfully selected, the questionnaire was sent with a note requesting that it be distributed to the most knowledgeable Deaf Education reading experts available to answer it. Realistically, the first available person might not have even operated in the area of reading and answered the survey anyway. Although the choice of such large and prestigious organizations was admirable, a simpler approach would have been better. This survey could have identified and contacted individuals (via telephone and e-mail) throughout the nation who typify the reading initiative within the Deaf community and asked them to participate in the study. Regardless of receiving a reply, these individuals would recognize the study when it came in the mail and be less likely to discard it without serious consideration. Furthermore, selecting individuals who work in the field and work more on a more intimate basis with deaf and hard-of-hearing students ensures that a personal view is established (LaSasso, C. & Mobley, R. 1997).

There were also some easily-fixed errors in execution and application. It was stated that only “22% of the programs rated teachers’ knowledge of reading theory as up-to-date, and 15% rated teachers’ knowledge of reading theory as minimal” (LaSasso et al., 1997,5); this fact could have been strengthened by previous research. An example of an excellent resource is “Examining Educators of the Deaf as ‘Highly Qualified’ Teachers: Roles and Responsibilities Under IDEA and NCLB”. This critical essay examines the current overall state, educators, and certifications of Deaf Education in America (Luft 2008).

However, overall the survey made a noble attempt at being as accurate and complete as possible. The data was compared to data from 1987, was subdivided between age groups, different educational establishments, and satisfaction and usefulness levels. The particular emphasis on basal readers and the success (or failure) of instructional strategies has relevancy for every reading teacher who comes into contact with Deaf or hard-of-hearing students. Perhaps even more impressively, the study included the appropriate use of popular magazines and other mass media to educate. As was consistent with earlier research, this study also found that Educators of deaf/hard-of-hearing students considered the three most reliable methods of evaluating progress to be informal reading inventories, standardized tests, and teachers’ intuitive judgment. (However, what exactly “informal reading inventories” implies is not explicitly stated.)

As we have shown, even exemplary models of survey scope can be undermined by significant errors in the execution, style, and pragmatic considerations of methodology. The establishment of order and the flow of ideas is essential to the credibility of any such study. Clarity and brevity are both highly valued in the Deaf community being studied as well.

References

LaSasso, C., & Mobley, R. (1997). National survey of reading instruction for deaf or hard-of-   hearing students in the U.S. Volta Review, 99(1), 31. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Luft, P. (2008). Examining Educators Of The Deaf As “Highly Qualified” Teachers: Roles And Responsibilities Under Idea And Nclb. (cover story). American Annals of the Deaf, 152(5), 429-440. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.