Developing deaf pedagogy: Teachers of the Deaf perspectives on missed incidental learning

Kathryn Holbrook

BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Childhood and Youth

Abstract

It has been identified that children and young people who are deaf and hard of hearing (CYPDHH) have poor vocabulary outcomes, however the causation of this is multifaceted. Previous research has recognised that CYPDHH have missed opportunities for incidental learning, which has impacted upon their word and world knowledge, fast-mapping, foundational knowledge, novel-words, vocabulary, function -words, and language, however, these terms are non-specific, uncategorised and open to interpretation. This study was able to highlight that all CYP are unique, and language development depends upon each individual’s life experiences and exposures. Nevertheless, this research project was also able to document previous findings and expand upon these terms, through Teachers of the Deaf (TOD) within the current field, to identify language deficit commonalities in CYPDHH.

The thematic approach regarding the analysis of the qualitative questionnaire responses identified four common missed incidentally learnt language themes and a variety of methods used to support vocabulary retention for CYPDHH. Furthermore, a recommendation following this research project includes a Tripartite 3C – Model of Best Practice, whereby educationalists/professionals, guardians/parents, and individuals within the immediate societal community, all collaborate to synchronise interventions. In addition, the study also called for further research regarding the development of incidental learning skills for CYPDHH, to support in the reduction of their own language deficits, not just in education, but throughout their lifetime.

Introduction

England’s current educational system has 8,890,357 CYP on role (National Statistics, 2021), and of those 37,340 are CYPDHH (CRIDE, 2020). Despite the 0.42% of CYPDHH attending a variety of educational settings, their academic attainment levels across all subjects are on average 11.3 marks, 24%, or a full grade below CYP without special educational needs and disabilities (Department for Education (DfE), 2020), however ascertaining the causation of this can be perplexing (Mathews, 2017). Lund and Douglas (2016, p. 26) suggest a contributing factor among CYPDHH is low vocabulary levels, to which Dalton (2013) believes is due to the impact hearing loss has on communication development.

Convertino et al. (2014, p. 472) state that research tends to focus on vocabulary understanding and language progression of CYPDHH, rather than their knowledge and comprehension of the world. An aspect of developing and acquiring both vocabulary and world knowledge is through incidental learning (Convertino et al., 2014). Raeve (2015) and Stelmachowicz et al. (2004) state that CYP standardly learn full or partial meanings to new words incidentally through natural exposures to language without formal instructions or delivery. There are subtle differences between, word and world knowledge (Lund & Douglas, 2016), fast-mapping (Heibeck & Markman, 1987), novel-words (Stelmachowicz et al., 2004), and incidental learning (Raeve, 2015), 23

nevertheless the terms suggest a concept of learning, which supports CYP to acquire full or partial meanings for new vocabulary through natural everyday exposures (Dorn, 2019). In spite of this, Brackenbury et al. (2005) and Dorn (2019) highlight research gaps regarding incidental learning for CYPDHH, due to the challenges of identifying and ascertaining how and when new words were gained. Nonetheless, ethically there is a responsibility for TOD to challenge practice and develop new ways of working to address any inequalities (Equality Act, 2010). In addition, the research community also has a role in progressing knowledge regarding CYPDHH, as Edwards (2018) and Salter et al. (2017) state there are currently gaps within the literature regarding teachers’ perceptions of CYPDHH, therefore this literature review has had to rely on some less contemporary data. Nevertheless, this research project explored current perceptions from TOD, regarding their views on missed incidental learning opportunities and the interventions used for CYPDHH.

Literature Review

Incidental learning

Luckner et al. (2012) and Wrigley (2016) state that we live in a sound-orientated world, whereby language is shared intentionally or incidentally throughout an individual’s life. Social researchers (Hartman, 2020; Raeve, 2015; Reimer, 2019; Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2013) suggest that CYP continue to learn new vocabulary incidentally through indirect and unplanned everyday experiences, for example by unavoidably overhearing conversations or through informal interactions with others. In addition, Meek (2020, p. 1685) states that CYP may also develop world knowledge and language through the transmission of local to international media, which is shared through televisions, radios, and the internet.

Rogers (2014, p. 9) estimates that CYP’s informal interactions and experiences may contribute to 70-90% of their learning. To gain incidental learning data, studies tend to focus on fast-mapping, which refers to the psychological process whereby CYP pair new spoken language regarding an item, object, or concept through minimal indirect exposures (Carey & Bartlett, 1987) thus acquiring, applying, and retaining incidentally learnt words to build upon their vocabulary (Brackenbury et al., 2005, p. 77). Through the immersion of language, incidental learning experiences may support CYP’s social and communication skills, as well as their development and acquisition of new world knowledge and vocabulary (Convertino et al., 2014; Freeman King, 2017; Golinkoff et al., 1992; Hartman, 2020; Hopper, 2011; Luckner et al., 2012; Reimer, 2019).

CYPDHH within a hearing society (Freeman King, 2017) do not have the same opportunities to access incidentally learnt vocabulary (Hindley, 2003; Shirin & Christina, 2021), as they do not gain the same amount of spoken dialogue as other individuals with normal hearing (Meek, 2020). Additionally, Meek (2020, p. 1690) also states that CYP within normal hearing levels, tend to incidentally learn, understand, and grasp the concepts of well-known terms, phrases, and vocabulary, however this is not always the case for CYPDHH. Dorn (2019, p. 240) states that CYPDHH find unstructured/informal situations problematic, due to the lack of access to direct or indirect language. Researchers (Dorn, 2019; Hartman, 2020; Shirin & Christina, 2021) suggest that during these informal situations, most CYP experience natural interactions with others. However, even with amplification equipment, CYPDHH may not overhear or access communication through daily conversations or the media (Luckner et al., 2012; Meek, 2020; Stith & Drasgow, 2005). The lack of access to incidental learning is a regular occurrence for CYPDHH (Hauser et al., 2010), to which Hopper (2011, p. vi) states that CYPDHH do not realise the importance of incidental learning until much later in their life. Despite this, it is important to acknowledge that each individual is unique, within their own ecological system, which influences their social environment and development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Therefore, research regarding incidental learning and the development of function words (small words that give meaning to a sentence but have little meaning on their own) within natural informal situations are lacking, as it is challenging to ascertain and distinguish what language CYPDHH have gained and when this may have occurred (Alegria et al., 2020; Brackenbury et al., 2005).

The impact of missed incidental learning

To enable individuals to communicate effectively relies upon knowing and using vocabulary (Hermans & Spencer, 2015). Consequently, some educational settings may assume that CYP transition to each stage with the required competence (Wrigley, 2016), however this may not be the case for CYPDHH, as they tend to have gaps and delays within their language throughout their life (Convertino et al., 2014; Reimer, 2019). Brackenbury et al. (2005); Convertino et al. (2014); Easterbrooks and Baker (2001); Luckner and Muir (2002); Meek (2020); Pittman (2011); Reimer (2019); Trussell and Easterbrooks (2013) state that CYPDHH may have limited expressive and receptive vocabulary acquisition and multi-meaning word comprehension, due to reduced access to incidental learning. Hart and Risley (1995) suggest that if CYP are immersed within qualitative and quantitative incidental learning experiences it may increase their vocabulary. However, Meek (2020, p. 1677) states that missing parts of conversations may limit the possibility of incidental learning, to which Coyne et al. (2004), Lund and Douglas (2016) and Reimer (2019) suggest further impacts upon CYPDHH limited vocabulary, as they are less likely to gain and develop their language further through incidental exposures.

As a result of limited vocabulary and world knowledge for CYPDHH, their learning and academic performance tends to lag behind their hearing peers in a variety of areas (Bull, 2013; Calderon & Greenberg, 2011; Convertino et al., 2014; Dalton, 2013; Freeman King, 2017). For example, CYPDHH literacy and reading development tends to be significantly impacted upon, due to world knowledge and vocabulary deficits (Berndsen & Luckner, 2012; Convertino et al., 2014; Hopper, 2019; Jozwiak, 2019; Luckner et al., 2012; Marschark & Knoors, 2012; Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2013; Wauters et al., 2006). Incidental learning also contributes to social and emotional language acquisition and development (Meek, 2020). Therefore, CYPDHH tend to be delayed in their social and emotional development, as they struggle to grasp and/or understand some conversations, due to the pace and complexity of language (Bull, 2013; Calderon & Greenberg, 2011; Dalton, 2013; Luckner et al., 2012; Stith & Drasgow, 2005). This may also lead to CYPDHH struggling to control their own and/or understand others’ behaviours and emotions (Dorn, 2019), therefore impacting upon their mental health (Dammeyer & Chapman, 2017; Fellinger et al., 2012).

Many researchers (Brackenbury et al., 2005; Covertino et al., 2014; Luckner & Muir, 2002; Meek, 2020; Pittman, 2011; Reimer, 2019; Shirin & Christina, 2021) acknowledge that missed incidental learning is a contributing factor for vocabulary deficits in CYPDHH, which in turn may impact upon their development. CYPDHH gaps (Education Wales, 2019), in word and world knowledge (Convertino et al., 2014), novel-words (Stelmacowicz et al., 2004), foundational knowledge (McLachlan & Elks, 2012), vocabulary (Shirin & Christina, 2021) function-words (Alegria et al., 2020), language (Dorn, 2019), are not specified or categorised, therefore the terms are nonspecific, ambiguous and open to interpretation. The undefined nature of incidental learning and its varied terminology makes planning interventions challenging; therefore, the key aspects of incidental learning are difficult to specify and target. As a result, further research is required to possibly discover and ascertain any specific common topics and/or vocabulary deficits for CYPDHH.

Retention of language

The causations behind vocabulary gaps of CYPDHH are multi-faceted. Hopper (2011, p. vii) suggests that CYPDHH tend to observe others, rather than interact, as many educational settings do not provide adequate support or provisions for informal incidental learning, which may further hinder CYPDHH. Berndsen and Luckner (2012) and Trussell and Easterbrooks (2013) suggest that support and interventions should be tailored to meet CYPDHH individual needs when identifying missed incidental foundational vocabulary. As a consequence, Education Wales (2019) identified that missed incidental learning impacts upon vocabulary for CYPDHH, and therefore distributed a report to educational settings, suggesting varying optional support and interventions for CYPDHH to improve their academic achievements.

When supporting CYPDHH during intervention sessions, informal situations, or incidental learning opportunities, the question arises as to what strategies professionals can use to support in the retention of new vocabulary, which may have previously been missed. Convertino et al. (2014, p. 481) suggests that improved hearing equipment and increased incidental learning are not linked. In contrast, Berndsen and Luckner (2012) and Oticon (2020) suggest that the improvement of quality and quantity of sound through technology may provide better access to vocabulary for CYPDHH. This is further supported by Stith and Drasgow (2005, p. 6) who suggest professionals should use a normal level of voice to prevent any speech distortion, while also considering and using an acoustic-friendly environment.

Once professionals have ensured the ideal access to sound through equipment and the best possible listening environment for CYPDHH, researchers (Berndsen & Luckner, 2012; Brackenbury et al., 2005; Convertino et al, 2014; Easterbrooks & Baker, 2001) suggest pre-teaching key vocabulary and world knowledge. Pre-teaching of keyword vocabulary prior to the subject lesson may allow CYPDHH to clearly hear and gain new vocabulary, which may prepare them for future events thus enabling CYPDHH to focus on the detailed information, which may accompany the new language and assist with further participation (Stith & Drasgow, 2005). In addition, regular short pre-teaching sessions, (Lund & Douglas, 2016) combined with actions, visuals, routines, and gaining the attention of CYPDHH before speaking may support in the retention of vocabulary (Stith & Drasgow, 2005; Watson & Parsons, 1998).

Furthermore, Lund and Douglas (2016, p. 35) state that explicit and direct instructions with multiple contextual and definitional exposures to information may increase word knowledge and retention by an additional 5.02 new words. Coyne et al. (2004; 2007) also state that direct and focused teaching of words during literacy activities may increase vocabulary development.Lund and Douglas (2016, p. 29) suggest that direct and focused teaching requires additional time and effort in order to increase incidental exposure. Meek (2020) and Reimer (2019) therefore suggest that observing conversations and modelling new vocabulary may improve language retention for CYP. In addition, it may be possible to improve vocabulary for CYPDHH by increasing the quantity of words they are likely to hear each day (Leffel & Suskind, 2013; Stelmacowicz et al., 2004) as well as providing alternative word options with the same meaning (Stith & Drasgow, 2005). As a consequence, all these interventions require repetition of any targeted words or incidental learning vocabulary, which is key for language retention (Bobzien et al., 2015; Lund & Douglas, 2016)

Research Method

The sources within the literature review acknowledge the language gaps and delays for CYPDHH and the impact this may have on their future development. It also identifies the possible resources and interventions which may support CYPDHH with the retention of new vocabulary. As a result of the literature findings, further questions arise regarding missed incidental learning for CYPDHH, with the aim of developing deaf pedagogies through the perspectives of current practising TOD.

Participants

To ascertain the perspectives of TOD, regarding CYPDHH and the possible missed incidental learning vocabulary, a nonprobability sample group was selected, therefore as a consequence, this does not allow all individuals to partake in this research project (Dornyei, 2007; Etikan et al, 2015). In addition, due to the COVID-19 international pandemic (WHO, 2020), the recruitment of the convenience and expert sample group, were easily accessible via email (Etikan et al, 2015) and consisted of 10 qualified TOD. To gain a broader sampling spectrum (Etikan et al., 2015) the participants were from three different counties, this included a deaf school and two counties providing peripatetic support for CYPDHH. Despite the participants having a range of experience of working with CYPDHH and the nature of their employment (peripatetic or within a specialist educational setting), the convenience sample group may increase the chance of biased results (Mackey & Gass, 2015) and cannot fully represent the whole professional population (Etikan et al., 2015; Wellington, 2015). Despite this limitation, research exploring the perspectives of TOD provides important insight and is crucial for developing deaf pedagogy and gaining a deeper understanding of professional practice when supporting CYPDHH (Bernard, 2002).

Research tools and procedures

Smith (2010, p. 160) suggests a range of techniques should be used within any research, however due to the scale of this research project and the current COVID-19 pandemic (WHO, 2020) causing limited social contact, focus groups and interviews were disregarded and a single qualitative questionnaire method was used (Wellington, 2015). Nonetheless, further research, possibly through quantitatively controlled randomised trials (Goldacre, 2013), may be required, in order to ascertain confirmation of the gaps within CYPDHH language suggested by the TOD.

Questionnaires are traditionally known for gaining quantitative responses, however researchers (Goldacre, 2013; Saldana, 2015) state that textual qualitative questionnaires are also advantageous in gaining information on a specific social experience or pattern, which enables different perspectives to be considered. In addition, qualitative research also tends to look at approaches and methods used within the social world (Saldana, 2015; Wellington, 2015), by considering either individuals’ visual and/or textual experiences and processes. Therefore, a qualitative questionnaire was appropriate for hearing the TOD perceptions within the current field, to establish and gain professional’s perspectives on any commonalities in missed incidentally learnt vocabulary for CYPDHH. Salmons (2016, p. 3) states that for most individuals online activities have become a normal reoccurring experience within everyday life, which is also a time and cost-effective process for collecting data (Selwyn & Robson, 1998), therefore a qualitative questionnaire was developed through the BGU’s approved generic online surveying website. As a consequence, of the research method regarding TOD’s perceptions on incidental learning, approval and consent was sought through the Bishop Grosseteste University’s (BGU) Research Ethics Clearance Form, which is in-line with the BGU’s Research Ethics Policy (2019).

In addition, BERA (2018, p. 9) states that voluntary consent from the participants must also be gained before any research can take place. As a consequence, the participants themselves and a gatekeeper – who was used to cascade information to other participants (Shenuka & Douglas, 2016) – were emailed the information sheet, which explained this research project and their right to withdraw. This was then followed by a link to the online questionnaire, which also included a confirmation question ensuring the participants’ voluntary consent. The online qualitative questionnaire consisted of six clear and accessible (BERA, 2018) open-ended questions, which were to be completed within two weeks. The questionnaire was designed to produce non-statistical and multiple open responses, which incorporated the participants’ opinions, experiences, and feelings (Denzin, 2001). Van Maanen (1979, p. 520) states that analysis of qualitative research responses can lead to an amalgamation of data, thus providing an overarching perspective and interpretation. Anonymity is a key practice within research (BERA, 2018), therefore during the completion of the online questionnaire itself and within the findings of this research report, pseudonyms were provided for the TOD and were referred to as participant 1 to 10, which was then further abbreviated to P1, P2 and so on. The anonymity of some of the participants through a gatekeeper is key to reducing biased responses, as the Hawthorne effect (McCambridge et al., 2014) may cause known participants to respond with what they feel is socially acceptable, and/or social desirability reporting (Nederhof, 1985) may elucidate responses that maintain the participants’ professional status.

Once all 10 participants had completed the questionnaire and the time frame deadline had been met, the responses were downloaded and stored on a password protected One Drive and the originals were deleted. These One Drive responses will also be permanently destroyed upon the BGU’s final grading, thus reducing any further protentional risks of a data breach (Data Protection Act, 2018). Furthermore, to ensure all the research planning and procedures were ethically sound, BGU’s (2019, pp. 4-5) Research Ethics Policy was followed, in-line with the key principles – integrity, rigour, truthful, respect, and quality. Therefore, all participants’ responses were analysed, explored, and reflected upon, while acknowledging any personal bias and removing any judgement (BERA, 2018; Saldana, 2015). Wellington (2015, pp. 41-43) states that any social world research cannot gain total reliability and validity, as the participants and/or researcher may have varying daily factors, which could impact upon the responses and findings at the time of completion. The research method used within this project can lay some validity claims, as it followed standardised documentation guidance (BERA, 2018; BGU, 2019; The National Youth Agency, 2004) to support in the implementation, planning, and analysis of this research.

Throughout a research project, theorists (Etikan, 2016; Rahman, 2016; Smith, 2010) state that the professional researcher plays a significant role in qualitative research. Christians et al., (2002, p. 229) states the researcher requires an epistemological position in order to use personal professional knowledge and experiences of CYPDHH, to understand, organise, and filter the participants’ responses in-depth (Saldana, 2011) through a thematic analysis approach (Guest et al., 2012) to identify any specific themes or patterns (Salmons, 2016). In addition, Salmons (2016, p. 112) states that the researcher needs to continually reflect upon the responses to develop a more impartial stance is maintained throughout the data analysis. The aim of the data analysis is to identify and improve deaf pedagogy by gaining professional TOD knowledge, opinions, and experiences within different localities and fields. As a result, the findings could potentially align, enhance, develop and/or improve professional practice regarding incidental learning vocabulary for CYPDHH (Etikan et al., 2015; Noffke, 2013; Salmons, 2016; Snape & Spencer, 2014). Therefore, the next section of this study offers concluding points and makes recommendations for the future.

Research Outcomes

This research project set out to gain professionals’ perceptions on incidental learning for CYPDHH and as a consequence quotes verbatim will be presented in italics, to strengthen the voice of participants. As a result, 100% of the TOD from the three localities completed the online qualitative questionnaire regarding their knowledge, opinions, and experiences of missed incidental learning for CYPDHH and the possible ways to support in the retention of new vocabulary. The response data was analysed using a standardised comparison method – immersion, reflecting, analysing data, and recombing/synthesizing data (Wellington, 2015, pp. 261-262). Consequently, a table has been used to capture the key, but descriptive data evident within the response analysis (Table A).

Incidental learning

Through detailed analysis of the participant’s responses, commonalities were evident with Hindley (2003), Meek (2020), and Shirin and Christina (2021) regarding reduced access to incidentally learnt vocabulary for CYPDHH. Researchers (Hartman, 2020; Luckner et al., 2012; Raeve, 2015; Reimer, 2019; Rogers, 2014; Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2013) suggest the key concepts of incidental learning are unplanned, undirected, informal experiences, which is in-line with all 10 participants who also state that incidental learning occurs by overhearing and listening to others. P2 suggests that CYPDHH need to have their ‘ears and eyes alert to all that is going on and spoken about’ within informal situations, to gain knowledge and vocabulary which is ‘caught not taught’. In addition, similarly to Meek (2020), P3, P4, and P9 also considered the advantages of media, through the radio or television, which may support in the attainment and development of world knowledge and vocabulary. These minimal exposures to incidental words may support CYPDHH to be able to build on their vocabulary (Brackenbury et al., 2005; Carey & Bartlett, 1987), as they ‘absorb learning’ (P2) and then apply this knowledge on ‘recall’ (P1) when required. Contrastingly, Luckner et al. (2012), Meek, (2020), and Stith and Drasgow (2005) suggest that CYPDHH are unable to access world knowledge, for example on the news through media platforms, in the same way that CYP with normal hearing may do, therefore CYPDHH ‘knowledge and understanding of the world can suffer’ (P2). Furthermore, Dorn (2019, p. 240) states that CYPDHH may find informal and unstructured environments challenging, which is further expanded by Luckner et al. (2012), Meek (2020), and Stith and Drasgow (2005) who state that CYPDHH may not overhear or access direct or indirect language through conversations or the media. In addition, all 10 participants, along with evidence in the literature (Hauser et al., 2010; Hindley, 2003; Meek, 2020; Shirin & Christina, 2021), stated that CYPDHH do not have the same opportunities to access incidental learning, therefore may not have the same language levels as their hearing peers.

Impact of missed incidental learning

Meek (2020, p. 1690) states that some CYP who have normal hearing may incidentally learn and understand well-known terms, phrases, and vocabulary, which seem to link to their past experiences. However, in-line with Convertino et al. (2014), Meek (2020) and Reimer (2019), the analysis of all 10 participants suggest that CYPDHH have gaps and delays within their vocabulary and knowledge, which Reimer (2019) expresses may also continue throughout their lifetime. In addition, researchers (Brackenbury et al., 2005; Convertino et al., 2014; Luckner & Muir, 2020; Meek, 2020; Pittman, 2011; Reimer, 2019; Shirin & Christina, 2021) acknowledge that missed incidental learning is a contributing factor of vocabulary deficits for CYPDHH, which in turn may impact upon their development as ‘they do not have sufficient language to access the curriculum’ (P5). Similarly, Bull (2013), Calderon and Greenberg (2011), Convertino et al. (2014), Dalton (2013), King (2017), and P1, P2, P3, P5, P7, P8, and P10 state that CYPDHH tend to have lower attainment levels, as their ‘vocabulary deficits significantly affects academic outcomes’ (P5). For example, it is harder for CYPDHH to decode words unbeknown to them in spoken language (P1), which in turn may impact upon their literacy and reading development (Berndsen & Luckner, 2012; Convertino et al., 2014; Hopper, 2019; Jozwiak, 2019; Luckner et al., 2012; Marschark & Knoors, 2012; Wauters et al., 2006).

In addition, CYPDHH may also ‘struggle to access written text’ (P5) and ‘will skip over an unfamiliar word rather than ask what it means’ (P1), which is consistent with previously mentioned researchers (Brackenbury et al., 2005; Convertino et al., 2014; Easterbrooks & Baker, 2001; Luckner & Muir, 2020; Meek, 2020; Pittman, 2011; Reimer, 2019; Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2013) who believe that CYPDHH may have limited expressive and receptive vocabulary acquisition, and can find multi-meaning words and comprehension challenging. As a consequence of language deficits, CYPDHH tend to be ‘less curious and inquisitive’ (P3) and have gaps in areas of less interest (P4). Therefore, as a result CYPDHH are often ‘taught and less self-motivated to find their own solutions to problems’ (P3) to which Hopper (2011) states that CYPDHH do not realise the importance of incidental learning until much later in life.

The literature (Bull, 2013; Calderon & Greenberg, 2011; Dalton, 2013; Luckner et al., 2012; Stith & Drasgow, 2005) also suggests that CYPDHH struggle to grasp and/or understand some conversations with their peers, due to the pace and complexity of language. This is also evident within the current professional field as P3, P5, P7 and P10 acknowledged the impact this has on the social and emotional development of CYPDHH, to which P8 identifies some primary key challenging concepts during peer relationships, that can lead to secondary effects ‘not knowing what’s trending, being as streetwise, aware of what’s happened between peers has a knock-on effect on popularity in the primary years which in time erodes self-confidence and self-esteem’. This is comparable with Dorn (2019) who suggests that CYPDHH struggle to control their own and/or understand others’ behaviours and emotions, which further impacts upon their social development and mental health (Dammeyer & Chapman, 2017; Fellinger et al., 2012).

All the participants identified that there are gaps and delays in vocabulary for CYPDHH, which aligns with the literature (Alegria et al., 2020; Brackenbury et al., 2005; Bull, 2013; Calderon & Greenberg, 2011; Convertino et al., 2014; Coyne et al., 2004; Dorn, 2019; Freeman King, 2017; Herman et al, 2019; Jozwiak, 2019; Luckner & Muir, 2002; Lund & Douglas, 2016; Marschark & Knoors, 2012; McLachlan & Elks, 2012; Pitman, 2011; QI & Mitchell, 2012; Reimer, 2019; Shirin & Christina, 2021; Stelmacowicz et al., 2004; Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2013).

These identified vocabulary gaps and delays are not specified or categorised, and therefore are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Furthermore, Alegria et al. (2020) and Brackenbury et al. (2005) state that it is challenging to distinguish and ascertain what vocabulary CYPDHH gain and when this occurs, especially when research suggests they are less likely to gain and develop their language further through increased opportunities to incidental exposures (Coyne et al., 2004; Lund & Douglas, 2016; Reimer, 2019). Therefore, questions arise regarding any possible patterns or similarities within CYPDHH vocabulary deficits, and what can be done to support the development of language.

Through the qualitative questionnaire, participants were asked if any topic areas or keywords were commonly identified to be missing within vocabulary for CYPDHH. Firstly, however, it is key to highlight and acknowledge that upon analysis of the response data, the term ‘topic’ used in question three, may have channelled some participants to respond with specific curriculum subjects rather than everyday incidental learning, as some participants may have associated that term ‘topic’ with education. In spite of this, the topic vocabulary suggested (For example – he, she, above, below, huge, enormous, add, subtract, seasons) are still relevant to everyday incidental learning, therefore the term ‘topic’ could have been unclear and may or may not have impacted upon some responses. Any future research may benefit from a pilot scheme first, which would identify any ambiguous questions. Furthermore, it is also noteworthy to state that every child is unique and ‘it is based on their individual life experiences’ and ‘what they have been exposed to’ (P6) as it ‘differs from child to child’ (P3), to which P7 and P9 did not think it was possible to list any specific keywords. Nevertheless, from the participants who responded to questions three and four, a thematic analysis approach was used to identify any patterns or themes, regarding commonly unknown topic areas and/or keywords (Guest et al., 2012).

Table A highlights common themes, which may have been missed within language development for CYPDHH, due to reduced incidental learning. As a result, this research project was able to expand upon the body of current literature language terms to identify potentially specific themes and keywords (see Table A), which may potentially be commonly missed incidentally learnt vocabulary for CYPDHH. Therefore, further questions arise as to how professionals may be able to support in the retention of any newly exposed words for CYPDHH.

Retention of language

When gaps and delays in language are identified for CYPDHH, P1, P4, P5, P6, and P10 corrolate with previously mentioned literature (Berndsen & Luckner, 2012; Brackenbury et al., 2005; Convertino et al, 2014; Easterbrooks & Baker, 2001) by suggesting that pre-tutoring of vocabulary and word knowledge may support in the retention of any new language. Pre-tutoring of keywords may provide CYPDHH with the foundational knowledge, to support them in fully accessing and understanding curriculum information (Stith & Drasgow, 2005). Similarly, P1, P4, and P10 also suggested that post-tutoring should be considered, as this enables CYPDHH to revisit vocabulary to ‘ensure the learning is embedded’ (P10). This correlates with Bobzien et al., (2015); Leffel and Suskind (2013); Lund and Douglas (2016) Stelmacowicz et al., (2004) and Stith and Drasgow, (2005), who suggest repetition is an important aspect of retention, as this can target incidental learning vocabulary by increasing the quantity of words CYPDHH hear each day. Therefore, the ‘overuse of everyday vocabulary in conversations and pulling in alternative words that have a similar meaning’ (P3) may support CYPDHH in ‘over learning’ (P1) key vocabulary, thus aiding language retention.

Lund and Douglas (2016, p. 35) and Coyne et al. (2004; 2007) state that explicit and direct instructions with multiple contextual and definitional exposures to information may increase word knowledge and retention by an additional 5.02 new words. This is reinforced within current practice, whereby P4, P5, and P7 state that they explicitly teach words through a range of contexts, rather than in isolation, while also linking learning to other experiences (P2). P1, P2, and P7 also support Reimer’s (2019) concept of improving vocabulary retention for CYPDHH by professionals elaborating word meaning, extending language, and modelling new vocabulary during any meaningful conversations. In addition, Watson and Parsons (1998, pp. 135-142) suggest actions and visuals may also support in the retention of language for CYPDHH, which is further supported by P4, P5, P7, P8, and P10 who suggest a variety of activities – reading, vocabulary books, picture dictionaries, visual thesaurus, picture books, Osborne 100/1000 Word books, vocabulary games, drawings, word maps, films, and visual cues – to aid in the retention of new vocabulary.

To reinforce and provide these activities and interventions throughout CYPDHH everyday lives to prevent or reduce any gaps and delays within incidentally learnt vocabulary a consistent, continuous, and collaborative approach is required.

Tripartite 3C – Model of Best Practice

Similar to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the Tripartite 3C – Model of Best Practice, has the child/young person at the centre of the intervention, as it is their unique journey. However, the ‘Tripartite 3C’ individuals (educationalists/professionals, guardians/parents, and people within the immediate societal community – for example sports clubs and neighbours) who surround the CYPDHH, are within their everyday spectrum and even though the intensity of input from these individuals may vary, CYPDHH will still be able to access some forms of incidental learning, therefore adding to their mains source of language. The Tripartite 3C individuals all need to be consistent, continuous, and collaborate together to synchronise any interventions, thus enabling CYPDHH to access as much vocabulary as possible, which may support and aid in their language retention. In spite of this, there are some limitations surrounding the Tripartite 3C model, as some individuals surrounding CYPDHH may not acknowledge and/or prioritise incidental learning, until vocabulary gaps have been identified much later in their lives. As a consequence, to encourage best practice, a possible suggestion would be for TOD to deliver training, provide leaflets or annotated PowerPoints to the whole spectrum, to encourage and promote incidental learning throughout CYPDHH development.

In addition, this research project has highlighted an area lacking within the literature, which is the concept of supporting CYPDHH to develop their own listening skills with regards to identifying and overhearing conversations within an incidental learning environment. P2 suggests professionals should ‘Encourage them to question what they see and hear’ during incidental experiences as this is not a natural occurrence for CYPDHH (Hartman, 2020; Raeve, 2015; Reimer, 2019; Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2013). P2 also states that professionals should not ‘take for granted that they know things happen e.g., Halloween and, Easter’. Therefore, professionals should encourage CYPDHH to ask questions and be more inquisitive, to gain and develop upon their own listening and overhearing skills and thereby independently build on their incidental learning.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Despite living in a sound orientated world (Luckner et al., 2012) this research project has identified that the primary impact of missed incidental learning for CYPDHH is limited access to vocabulary and world knowledge, which can then lead to secondary effects regarding their academic performance (Bull, 2013; Calderon & Greenberg, 2011; Convertino et al., 2014; Dalton, 2013; Freeman King, 2017) and social and emotional development (Bull, 2013; Calderon & Greenberg, 2011; Dalton, 2013; Luckner et al., 2012; Stith & Drasgow, 2005). It is important to acknowledge that every child is unique and ‘it is based on their individual life experiences’ and ‘what they have been exposed to’ (P6) as environmental factors ‘differ from child to child’ (P3). Nevertheless, this research project has begun to address and expand upon ambiguous terms, to identify some potentially common themes and keywords (see Table A), which may be missed during incidental learning experiences.

There are limitations associated with this study, primarily related to the qualitative nature of the design, the generalisation which is based on a small number of respondents and the fact that every individual and their context is unique. This research study has identified some commonalities regarding themes of missed incidental learnt vocabulary for CYPDHH. As a consequence, further research projects would benefit from a pilot study to reduce possible ambiguity of questions and an additional quantitatively controlled randomised trial (Goldacre, 2013), may help to ascertain confirmation of the gaps within CYPDHH language.

This research project does, however, highlight possible commonalities within missed incidental learning for CYPDHH. Therefore, this study may provide professionals with areas of particular focus, not only by preventing gaps from developing within the early years for CYPDHH, but also to support with future targeted retention interventions. The interventions – pre-tutoring (Berndsen & Luckner, 2012; Brackenbury et al., 2005; Convertino et al, 2014; Easterbrooks & Baker, 2001; P1, P4, P5, P6, and P10), post-tutoring (P1, P4, & P10), repetition (Bobzien et al., 2015; Leffel & Suskind, 2013; Lund & Douglas, 2016; P1; Stelmacowicz et al., 2004), modelling language and using alternative words with similar meanings (P3, Stith & Drasgow, 2005), explicit and direct instructions (Lund & Douglas, 2016; Coyne et al., 2004, 2007; P4, P5 & P7), linking language to experiences (P2) – may aid with the retention of new vocabulary. Nonetheless, further resources and research is required regarding intervention for specific themes and keywords identified within this research project (see Table A).

In addition, to enable a consistent, continuous, and collaborative approach, TOD may want to raise awareness of missed incidental learning for CYPDHH by delivering training, providing leaflets and/or an annotated PowerPoint, to enable knowledge to be cascaded throughout the everyday spectrum, as demonstrated within the Tripartite 3C model. The personally developed Tripartite 3C – Model of Best Practice may highlight the main sources of incidentally learnt vocabulary, that is ‘caught not taught’ (P2), which can then be combined with a variety of interventions and support, thus meeting some of the ethical obligations to address inequalities (Equality Act, 2010). Furthermore, the findings also suggest that professionals should encourage CYPDHH to be ‘curious, interested, self-motivated and inquisitive’ as keeping their ‘ears and eyes alert to all that is going on and spoken about’ (P2, P3 & P4). This in turn may support in the development of self-awareness and overhearing skills for CYPDHH, thus emphasising the importance of incidental learning (Hopper, 2011), so they are able to take control of their own destiny and independently reduce any incidental learning deficits throughout their lifetime.

References

Alegria, J., Carrillo, M. S., Rueda, M. I., & Dominguez, A. B. (2020). Reading sentences in Spanish: Some similarities and differences between children with dyslexia and those with deafness. Annals of Psychology, 36(2), 295-303.

BERA. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research. British Educational Research Association.

Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Alta Mira Press.

Berndsen, M., & Luckner, J. (2012). Supporting students who are deaf or hard of hearing in general education classrooms: A Washington state case study. Hammill Institute on Disabilities: Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33(2), 111-118.

Bishop Grosseteste University. (2019). Research ethics policy. Bishop Grosseteste University. https://www.bishopg.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Research-Ethics-Policy-2019-1.pdf

Bobzien, J. L., Richels, C., Schwartz, K., Raver, S. A., Hester, P., & Morin, L. (2015). Using repeated reading and explicit instruction to teach vocabulary to preschoolers with hearing loss. Infants and Young Children, 3(1), 262-280.

Brackenbury, T., Ryan, T., & Messenheimer, T. (2005). Incidental word learning in hearing child of deaf adults. Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(1), 76-93. https://doi:10.1093/deafed/enj018

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

Bull, R. (2013). Deafness, numerical cognition, and mathematics. In D. A. Moore, & P. Hauser (Eds.), Assessing literacy of deaf individuals (pp. 21-36). Springer.

Calderon, R., & Greenberg, M. (2011). Social and emotional development of deaf children: Family, school, and program effects. In M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (2nd ed.), (pp. 188-199). Oxford University Press.

Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15(1), 17-29.

Christians, C., Collins, P. H., & Downing, D. B. (2002). Assessing the text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The qualitative inquiry reader (pp. 229-233). SAGE.

Convertino, C., Borgna, G., Marschark, M., & Durkin, A. (2014). Word and world knowledge among deaf learners with and without cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(4), 471-483.

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 74-88.

Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12(1), 145-162.

CRIDE. (2020). Consortium for research in deaf education: 202 report for England. NDCS. https://www.ndcs.org.uk/media/6604/cride-2020-england-report-final.pdf

Dalton, C. J. (2013). Lessons for inclusion: Classroom experiences of students with mild and moderate hearing loss. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 125-152.

Dammeyer, J., & Chapman, M. (2017). Prevalence and characteristics of self-reported physical and mental disorders amoung adults with hearing loss in Denmark. A national survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(7), 807-813.

Data Protection Act. (2018). HMSO.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. SAGE.

Department for Education. (2020). Revised statistics on the achievements of pupils at the end of key stage 4 in schools, including pupils characteristics. Gov.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/key-stage-4-performance-2019-revised

Dorn, B. (2019). The changing role of teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing: Consultation as an increasing part of the job. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29(2), 237-254.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Easterbrooks, S., & Baker, S. (2001). Language learning in children who are deaf and hard of hearing Multiple Pathways. Pearson.

Education Wales. (2019). Support for children and young people with hearing impairment in educational settings. Welsh Government.

Edwards, E. (2018). Mainstream teacher perceptions of working with deaf children in primary school. Mary Hare & University of Hertford.

Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2015). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Equality Act. (2010). HMSO.

Fellinger, J., Holzinger, D., & Pollard, R. (2012). Mental health of deaf people. The Lancet, 379(9820), 1037-1044. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.523905

Freeman King, J. (2017). Incidental learning & the deaf child. Eparent. https://www.eparent.com/features-3/incidental-learning-deaf-child/

Goldacre, B. (2013). Building evidence into education. Bad science. 1-20. https://doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.5101.8967

Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bailey, L., & Wenger, N. (1992). Young children and adults use lexical principles to learn new nouns. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 99-108. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.28.1.99

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful difference in everyday experiences of young American children. Brookes Publishing Co.

Hartman, L. (2020). Thesis: Incidental exposure. [Scholar works, Rochester Institute of Technology]. Rochester Institute of Technology Repository.

Hauser, P. C., O’Hearn, A., McKee, M., Steider, A., & Thew, D. (2010). Deaf epistemology: Deafhood and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 486-492.

Heibeck, T. H., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Word learning in children: An examination of fast mapping. Child Development, 58(4), 1021-1034.

Herman, R., Kyle, F., & Roy, P. (2019). Literacy and phonological skills in oral deaf children and hearing children with a history of dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 553-575.

Hermans, M., & Spencer, P. E. (2015). The Oxford handbook of deaf studies in language. Oxford University Press.

Hindley, P. (2003). Promoting social and emotional development in deaf children: linking theory and practice. In C. Gallaway, & A. Young (Eds.), Deafness and Education in the UK: Research Perspectives (pp. 136-152). Whurr Publishers.

Hopper, M. J. (2011). Positioned as bystander: Deaf students’ experiences and perceptions of informal learning phenomena. Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Jozwiak, G. (2019). Government ‘failing deaf children’ as grades fall behind hearing classmates. Children & Young People Now. https://www.cypnow.co.uk/News/article/ government-failing-deaf-children-as-grades-fall-behind-hearing-classmates

Leffel, K., & Suskind, D. (2013). Parent-directed approaches to enrich the early language environments of children living in poverty. Seminars in Speech and Language, 34(4), 267-278.

Luckner, J. L., & Muir, S. (2002). Suggestions for helping students who are deaf succeed in general education settings. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 24(1), 23-30.

Luckner, J. L., Slike, S. B., & Johnson, H. (2012). Helping students who are deaf or hard of hearing succeed. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 58-67.

Lund, E., & Douglas, W. (2016). Teaching vocabulary to preschool children with hearing loss. Exceptional Children, 83(1), 26-41.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.

Marschark, M., & Knoors, H. (2012). Educating deaf children: Language, cognition, and learning. Deafness & Education International, 14(3), 136-160.

Mathews, E. (2017). Language, power, and resistance: Mainstreaming deaf education. Gallaudet University Press.

McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. (2014). Systematic review of the hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(3), 267-277.

McLachlan, H., & Elks, L. (2012). Language builders: Advice and activities to encourage children’s communication skills. Elklan.

Meek, D. R. (2020). Dinner table syndrome: A phenomenological study of deaf individuals’ experiences with inaccessible communication. The Qualitative Report, 6(15), 1676-1694.

National Statistics. (2021). Schools, pupils and their characteristics. Gov.uk. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics

Nederhof, A. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(1), 263-280.

Noffke, S. E. (2013). Revisiting the professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In S. Noffke, & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 6-23). SAGE Publication.

Oticon. (2020). Why children’s hearing is important. Oticon. https://www.oticon.co.uk /hearing-aid-users/hearing-loss/children-with-hearing-loss/why-childrens-hearing-is-important

Pittman, A. (2011). Age-related benefits of digital noise reduction for short-term word learning in children with hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Language and Hearing Research, 54(1), 1448-1463.

Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2012). Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: Past present, and future. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 1-18.

Raeve, L. D. (2015). Classroom adaptations for effective learning by deaf students. In Knoors, & Marschark (Eds.), Educating deaf learners: Creating a global evidence base (pp. 547-572). Oxford University Press.

Rahman, S. (2016). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102-112.

Reimer, C. K. (2019). The effect of retrieval practice on vocabulary learning for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Washington University.

Rogers, A. (2014). The base of the iceberg: Informal learning and its impact on formal and non-formal learning. Barbara Budrich Publishers.

Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.

Saldana, J. (2015). Thinking qualitatively: Methods of mind. SAGE.

Salmons, J. (2016). Doing Qualitative research online. SAGE.

Salter, J. M., Swanwick, R., & Pearson, S. E. (2017). Collaborative working practices in inclusive mainstream deaf education settings: Teaching assistant perspectives. Deafness & Education International, 19(1), 40-49.

Selwyn, N., & Robson, K. (1998). Using e-mail as a research tool. Social Research Update, 21(Summer ), 1-5.

Shenuka, S., & Douglas, W. (2016). Contextualising the role of the gatekeeper in social science research. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 9(1), 42-46.

Shirin, D., & Christina, R. (2021). Vocabulary acquisition and literacy in deaf and hard-of-hearing learners. In S. Easterbrooks, & H. M. Dostal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies in literacy (pp. 95-111). Oxford University Press.

Smith, C. (2010). Research with children, young people and families. In G. Brotherton, H. Davies, & G. McGillivray (Eds.), Working with Children, Young People and Families (pp. 149-163). SAGE.

Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2014). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 1-26). SAGE.

Stelmachowicz, P., Pittman, A., Hoover, B., & Lewis, D. (2004). Novel-word learning in children with normal hearing and hearing loss. Ear & Hearing, 25(1), 47-56.

Stith, J., & Drasgow, E. (2005). Including children with cochlear implants in general education elementary classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 2(1), 1-13.

The National Youth Agency. (2004). Ethical conduct in youth work: A statement of values and principles from the national youth agency. NYA. https://www.nya. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ethical_conduct_in_Youth-Work.pdf

Trussell, J., & Easterbrooks, S. (2013). The effect of enhanced storybook interaction on signing deaf children’s vocabulary. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(3), 319-332.

Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526.

Watson, L., & Parsons, J. (1998). Supporting deaf pupils in mainstream settings. In S. Gregory, P. Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers, & L. Watson (Eds.), Issues In DEAF EDUCATION (pp. 135-142). David Fulton Publishers.

Wauters, L., Van Bon, W., & Tellings, A. (2006). Reading comprehension of Dutch deaf children. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 49-76.

Wellington, J. (2015). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. Bloomsbury.

WHO. (2020). Coronavirus. World Health Organisation. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1

Wrigley, T. (2016). Opening up pedagogies: Making a space for children. Forum, 58(3), 331-338.