University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2019 Exploring the Attitudes and Beliefs of Audiology Students About People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Nancy Grosz Sager University of the Pacific, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Sager, Nancy Grosz. (2019). Exploring the Attitudes and Beliefs of Audiology Students About People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. University of the Pacific, Dissertation. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/3563 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 EXPLORING THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS OF AUDIOLOGY STUDENTS TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING by Nancy Grosz Sager A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Benerd School of Education Educational and Organizational Leadership University of the Pacific Stockton, CA 2019 2 EXPLORING THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS OF AUDIOLOGY STUDENTS TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING by Nancy Grosz Sager APPROVED BY: Dissertation Advisor: Rod P. Githens, Ph.D. Committee Member: Laura Hallberg, Ed.D. Committee Member: Nancy Delich, Ed.D. Committee Member: Stephen Roberts, Ph.D. Interim Department Chair: Rod P. Githens, Ph.D. Dean of Graduate School: Thomas H. Naehr, Ph.D. 3 EXPLORING THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS OF AUDIOLOGY STUDENTS TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING Copyright 2019 By Nancy Grosz Sager 4 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated in the memory of my first sign language teacher, Bill White. 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks go to my committee, Rod Githens, Laura Hallberg, Stephen Roberts, and Nancy Delich, as well as to former committee members, Christina Rusk and Sharla Berry. I am really indebted to my co-coders, Julie Rems-Smario and Michelle Barry, who ensured that my personal belief system did not color my research. Thanks to my whole cohort of peers for reading and providing feedback on parts of my research, and for encouraging me through tough times. Thanks also go to friends, including Cindy Farnham, Alice Dunbar, Nan Barker, Sheri Farinha, and Laura Petersen, who allowed me to bounce ideas off them. My undying gratitude goes to my cheerleaders – my daughters, Jeannette and Michelle, and my twin sister, Sandi. Thanks to my partner, Ken, who supported me this whole time. From afar, I thank my dad, Bob Grosz, who always encouraged me to do this, and my late husband, Victor, who I feel would be proud. 6 Exploring the Attitudes and Beliefs of Audiology Students Towards People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Abstract By Nancy Grosz Sager University of the Pacific 2019 This study was undertaken to explore and understand the attitudes and beliefs of audiology students about Deaf and Hard of Hearing people. The problem of practice was that some audiologists continue to advise parents not to sign with their Deaf or Hard of Hearing children. This problem was studied using the conceptual framework of General Systems Theory, looking at the problem through the lens of Critical Disability Theory, to determine if audiology students view Deaf and Hard of Hearing people from a medical model or from a social/cultural model. Using a qualitative case study methodology, I interviewed six first-year doctor of audiology (AuD) students at a university on the west coast of the United States to delve deeply into their attitudes and beliefs about Deaf and Hard of Hearing people. This study found that these audiology students had overall social/cultural attitudes about Deaf people on the Attitudes to Deafness Scale. Yet, in case-study interviews, which provided a more in-depth look at the views of the students, the terminology the students used demonstrated some institutionalized audist attitudes and beliefs. Every student showed a mixture of medical and social/cultural beliefs. The students made a distinction between the words “Deaf” and “Hard of Hearing.” All the students believed that parents of Deaf children should be offered “communication options” – (signed or spoken language). The four students who had studied 7 American Sign Language (ASL) and Deaf culture were more open to the use of ASL. The two students who had the lowest scores on the Attitudes to Deafness Scale had no experience or background in ASL and demonstrated a preference for amplification technology and spoken language. The students believed that Hard of Hearing children should be raised with spoken language only. The students had a positive attitude about ASL but demonstrated a preference for spoken language. The audiology students understood their role in the medical system, but did not yet understand their part in the Deaf education system. They believed that parent-to-parent support is important but did not understand how audiologists might collaborate with the Deaf community and with teachers of the Deaf as families journey through the process of raising Deaf and Hard of Hearing children. 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 11 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 13 Background ..................................................................................................... 14 Research Problem ............................................................................................ 15 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................ 17 Research Question ........................................................................................... 17 The Significance of This Research .................................................................. 18 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 19 Description of the Study .................................................................................. 24 Delimitations ................................................................................................... 24 Summary ......................................................................................................... 25 Definition of Terms ......................................................................................... 27 2. Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 29 A History of Deaf Education in the United States .......................................... 31 The Risks and Benefits of Sign Language ...................................................... 40 Attitudes About People Who Are Deaf ........................................................... 45 Measuring Attitudes Towards Deaf People ..................................................... 61 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 64 3. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 66 9 Research Design .............................................................................................. 66 Reliability and Validity ................................................................................... 81 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................... 82 Threats to Validity ........................................................................................... 83 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 84 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................... 84 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 85 4. Findings ................................................................................................................. 87 Attitudes to Deafness Scale ............................................................................. 88 Interviews ........................................................................................................ 91 Analysis ........................................................................................................... 95 Artifacts ......................................................................................................... 129 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................ 134 Summary ....................................................................................................... 134 5. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................................................. 137 Summary ....................................................................................................... 137 Conclusions ..................................................................................................