Comprehensive Capstone in Education
Lynette Markey
Post University
EDU 690 Action Research Proposal Project
April 24, 2021
Table of Content
- Introduction …………………………………………………… 2
- Problem Statement ……………………………………………. 2
- Literature Review ……………………………………………… 3
- Benefits, Barriers and Failures ………………………… 4
- Information and Technology …………………………… 6
- Shortfall Alternatives …………………………………. 8
- Action Research Proposal ……………………………………. 10
- Research Questions ……………………………………10
- Setting …………………………………………………10
- Participants …………………………………………… 11
- Methods ………………………………………………. 11
- Timeframe ……………………………………………. 12
- Data Collection ………………………………………. 13
- Data Analysis ………………………………………… 13
- Summary ………………………………………………14
- Discussion and Reflection ……………………………………. 15
- Conclusion ……………………………………………………. 17
- References ……………………………………………………. 19
Introduction
The following study addresses how online students that are Deaf or Hard of Hearing may be lacking provisions needed within online courses to be successful. The study will focus on background information such as the benefits and barriers to students, which has already been collected through historical data, and also success and failure rates of past students. The main focus of the study will be on the technology available or lacking to assist students as well as the ability of instructors to be flexible in assignments. The information will be reviewed by way of collecting data, the analysis of percentages, comparisons, and the identity of problems with the quantitative measurable results to make a conclusion to the original problem statement. The study will conclude with shortfall suggestions, training suggestions and a look at other technical advances that could be introduced in the future.
Problem Statement
Even though all people have the right to equal access to education there is still a problem with progressive tools offered to students with Deaf and hearing impairments in the Online educational environment. Do learners with hearing disabilities have disadvantages when it comes to Online education verses student learners without a disability?
The problem has forced many hearing-impaired individuals to choose universities that only teach to deaf students and do not try to attend a university of their choice because technology may not be available to assist them on the educational journey. Without ADA compliance for the deaf it would hinder students from getting better grades. The problem leads to several questions such as, if technology is an issue, what are other challenges that are faced in distant learning as well as what are the benefits? Is there a higher dropout rate among hearing impaired students verses non impaired and was it due to the course design? Are educators trained to adapt assignments to accommodate?
A possible cause for the problems are the lack of data collection from incoming students to see the need of the population. High school data collection from deaf/hearing impaired students would help to see if the Online experience were being considered as well as the concerns when it comes to the educators. Technology could be a problem as well as lack of training to professionals. The top issue may be within course design itself, what are the alternative designs that can be put in place that stay in line with the Educational curriculum without isolating the student?
A study which investigates the benefits of online learning to Deaf/ hearing impaired students as well as what tools are needed to be successful is needed. Under the study, future trends needed in Educational technology, training for educators, universal designs for learning (UDL), and surveys and assessments are needed to help remove apprehensive feelings as well barriers that face students with hearing disabilities.
Literature Review
The literature related to the investigations for the study came from a variety of sources stemming out of the National Deaf Center, ADA compliance, peer reviewed articles and published dissertations on the subject. There have been studies to date addressing the questions of what happens to students once enrolled into an online course, surprisingly, the findings so far concluded that the technology is available for use in online or in person learning however not all institutions take advantage of it. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates equal access to postsecondary institutions for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Justice 2020, Feb.) but not all tools are not imbedded into online courses equally in all institutions. The purpose of the project would be to point out the need for Universal Standards in all institutions for online courses no matter if hearing or Deaf or Hard of Hearing student.
Benefits, Barriers, and Failures
Research has shown that Deaf or Hard of Hearing students give the impression of having lower GPA averages then hearing students, but this could not be farther from the truth. Deaf or Hard of Hearing students had an average GPA of 2.83 and the hearing students average was 2.94 (Garberoglio, Palmer, & Cawton, 2019) which shows that the issues present have been worked around for a student to succeed, but why is this even necessary? The fact is that there are many more deaf students that take online courses then one would expect among all students that are currently enrolled in college 1.3% are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. (Garberoglio, Palmer, & Cawton, 2019).
Students mention the reasons for online course are for the convenience of going at one’s own pace, the ability to print out the course information as well as not having to sit in a class with hopes the instructor will be in clear site. Deaf or Hard of Hearing college students have an average age of 31 years old, 53.5% men and 45.5% women with a large percentage of them being veterans. 45.7% have taken at least one online course and 17.1% have done their entire program online. (Garberoglio, Palmer, & Cawton, 2019). The graduation outcomes for the same age group shows that only 20% of Deaf or Hard of Hearing students will receive a bachelor’s degree verses 35% of hearing students. (National Deaf Center, n.d.). The numbers prove that the original statement of how does the types of provisions offered to hearing impaired students in a traditional online university effect success rates may need to be altered to read what different types of provisions can be added to online courses to increase the graduation rate.
The benefits for Deaf or Hard of Hearing students to enroll in the online course curriculum are just as important as the GPA rates achieved even with obstacles presented. When a Deaf or Hard of Hearing student attends an online institution there is an increase of not only interactions with professors but also peers. This helps with the communication needed to obtain higher grades as well as career choices in the future (National Deaf Center, n.d.). Another benefit would be that the classes are not live but viewed such as readings, discussion board posts, responses in writing to students for feedback which builds confidence to a Deaf or Hard of Hearing students and videos should have captions. Due to the issue that many Deaf or Hard of Hearing students may not have the same level of reading in instructional materials so there may be a hesitation to participate where writing skills are looked at by other peers. (Cawthon, Schoffstall, & Garberoglio, 2014). However, this is where the benefits end, and barriers appear which will make success more difficult.
Although there is a low risk of failure among Deaf or Hard of Hearing students, and they usually score better then hearing students (Wooten, 2014) there are some issues with higher education that is out of the control of the incoming student. In order for a student to receive any type of assistance from an institution it is necessary to be identified as a person with a disability even if there is a preference to not be labeled. Students K-12 are entitled to special services for education however adult learners must prove eligibility even though already identified as having a disability (Luft, 2016). When a Deaf or Hard of Hearing student comes across a situation such as the video presentations not having working closed captioning or even worse the captions appear over written documentation, which makes it difficult to take notes, the barrier to complete the course curriculum begins. In some cases, there is a delay problem when the closed captions appear too late in reference to the image on the screen (Carpenter, Meltzer, & Marquart, 2020). In many cases the disruption of simple tool such as closed captions may cause a Deaf or Hard of Hearing student to need to request extra time to complete assignments or ask the instructors for a printout of the words to go along with a presentation. In other cases, it forces a student to request special treatment such as opening up an online course information early so the work can be completed on time (Long, Marchetti, & Fasse, 2011). Another important barrier to mention is oral presentations for an assignment. Many Deaf or Hard of Hearing students either cannot control voice volume or are nonverbal which requires an interpreter or sign. A study was completed in reference to alternative methods of classroom communications and interactions within a graduate course in teacher education. By use of collaborate tools hearing and non-hearing were paired together to help each other with assignments. This proved to be very successful with the assistance of whiteboards (Schley & Stinson, 2016). In an online setting this does not help with an oral presentation. Technology needs to be utilized to make oral presentations successful but does the lack of available online technological tools effect deaf students with online learning assignments? If Deaf or Hard of Hearing students are to succeed, then technology needs to be available in all courses not just some.
Information and Technology
What tools are missing from online courses? Are translator applications available? Is it possible for all courses to have closed captions, or scripts available for presentations? The answer is yes but not all institutions use them.
An observation was made when it came to a video presentation. The first issue was the professor speaking was not facing front which meant reading lips was difficult at best. The second issue was posting video/media clips without appropriate captioning. The last issue was a delay problem with interpreters and captions (Carpenter, Meltzer, & Marquart, 2020). In this case technology was present but not being used properly. Some of the educational tools such as this make it difficult for Deaf or Hard of Hearing students to keep up with course work and the alternative would be to only select universities that have the necessary tools already in place. One such website, called Best Colleges (2021), will allow you to enter in specific information, including disabilities, and show what institutions will fit personal needs but a survey conducted showed that over half of the sample indicated that they needed some form of adaptive technology (Fichten, Ferraro, Asuncion, Chwojka, Barile, Nguyen, Klomp, & Wolforth, 2009). But not all so there is the freedom of choice for many Deaf or Hard of Hearing students.
The study completed also noted captioned complaints that the group mentioned such as poor course management systems (CMS) when it came to online lectures, videos, and audio chats, and PowerPoint and data projections. Technology is not always user friendly since the captions are either missing or over the presentation so Deaf or Hard of Hearing students cannot see what is underneath (Fichten, Ferraro, Asuncion, Chwojka, Barile, Nguyen, Klomp, & Wolforth, 2009). It is difficult for Deaf or Hard of Hearing students to take notes and listening, or read, at the same time but technology is available to have the captions move to a different location. The solution for this lack in technology is as simple as the use of Computer Aided Realtime Transcription or CART program (Carpenter, Meltzer, & Marquart, 2020). The CART program has been available since the early 1990’s and in an instant will translate the spoken word into English text using a stenotype machine, notebook computer and real-time software, which proves the technology is there and not being used.
In order to correct the shortfalls that occur to some Deaf or Hard of Hearing students some steps should be addressed by institutions so all students can have equal access to education. It may be necessary to have a compliance officer from the institution visit other schools to see how their programs may differ from their own.
Shortfall Alternatives for success
The way to close the educational gap for Deaf or Hard of Hearing students would be to focus on improving the graduation rate past the 20% starting with the study group of over 31 years of age mentioned earlier. It seems the best way to increase the rate is to update technology within institutions and if not accessible offer alternatives to the student. Changes to the syllabus such as being accessible early with larger print formats, closed captions with larger text and images, alternative oral presentations, and training of instructors for compliance is a place to start without involving the IT department. Over‐video captions are preferable by most Dear or Hard of Hearing students for nontechnical content, but full transcripts are preferable for technical content. This avoids the problems with visual demands such as Power Point presentations. (National Deaf Center, n.d.).
Training suggestions to instructors would help with Deaf or Hard of Hearing students as needed however may need to be done with caution. It is considered offensive to ask or say to a Deaf or Hard of Hearing student that there is an assumption to what is needed or not needed in a class or that someone does not look Deaf or Hard of Hearing (Carpenter, Meltzer, & Marquart, 2020). Institutions can instruct professors to check a course for compliance issues such as checking for closed captions and proper scripts to be available while seeing if all videos and links are functioning. There needs to be an end to the lack of awareness of ADA compliance and fair treatment for Deaf or Hard of Hearing students since many believe that teachers are lacking in knowledge and understanding of students with various disabilities needs as well as the laws in place to assist them. (Carpenter, Meltzer, & Marquart, 2020).
Technology can be readdressed to evaluate alternative links for larger images which can allow for larger captions and in some cases the ability to read lips of the presenter (Mcclive, Mousley, Marchetti, Simkis, Blatto-Vallee, Jackson, & Foster, 2020). The idea of an alternative for oral presentations during assignments seems to be lacking when it comes to technology but there a few new inventions on the market today. There currently is information for computer assisted real time transcription which allows a verbal person to transcribe words to type but it is unavailable to create within a Blackboard situation. There is also new technology for a person to sign and it will transcribe into words which is created by engineers from Michigan state University “Hard-of-hearing individuals who need to communicate with someone who doesn’t understand sign language can have a personalized, virtual interpreter at anytime, anywhere.” (Zhang, 2019, par 2). This new technology called Deep ASL developed by Leap Motion converts hand movements into words costs approximately $89.00 (Ultraleap, 2021). A phone application that only costs approximately $75.00 and is available today so if the technology is not available via the institution, then the secondary plan would be to purchase personally. Unfortunately, the only way to get an accurate cost for the communication Access Real-Time Translator or CART system is to request a quote for cost so the information will not be provided at this time. Each of the technologies listed above had been reviewed and studied and are shown to have an accuracy rate as high as 79.83% (Guardino, Chuan, & Regina, 2014).
In a sample study real time hand movement was captured from a PC camera and in this case the object was only to capture sign letters which would transcribe to words with a 98% accuracy rate (Kadhim & Khamees, 2020). This is the first study that only works with spelling out words instead of the whole hand symbols such as Deep ASL. The technology to assist any Deaf or Hard of Hearing student has arrived and now it needs to be implemented into the institutions for any oral presentations that may be required for the curriculum.
Plan of Action
A quantitative project should be conducted to help provide data from students who would participate in an eight-week online course. The purpose of the project would be to gather data from the students enrolled in reference to how user friendly the course material is too all students, as well as the adaptability of the professor running the course.
In order for the data to be assessed it would be necessary to collect data from three of the same courses but run at different times and include hearing and impaired students so there can be a fair comparison. Surveys and questionnaires would be given at the beginning, middle and end of the course focusing on technology available such as closed captions, options for lectures, options for oral presentations to name a few, and flexibility of instructors. The last piece of data would be the final grade from each student for comparison.
Research Questions
The following questions will be addressed in the research.
Q1: How does the types of provisions that are offered to Deaf and Hearing-impaired students in a traditional online course effect the success rate?
Q2: Do grades change between Hearing, Deaf and Hard of Hearing students?
Q3: What is the percentage of technology issues within the course?
Q4: How effective was the instructor to adjust course material at will?
Settings
The setting for the project is within a University environment of an eight-week online course of the same topic. The data collection would occur on three different eight-week courses, with each course having at least one oral presentation required and videos to view as well as at least two Deaf or Heard of Hearing students identified by the school within the course. Since hearing and Deaf or Heard of Hearing students process material differently than their hearing peers it would be important to have all groups represented.
Participants
The study group would include a variety of participants depending on who is enrolled within the courses; therefore, the gender, age, and level of grade will vary. The participants will not be pre-selected for the courses, but participation would need to be voluntary, and each person would need to be informed of the study prior to the beginning of the course in case someone does not wish to be part of the study. The Deaf and Hard of Hearing students would have needed to identify themselves to the institution as such with the proper documentation and been acknowledged by the school as having such disability.
Methods
The method to be used to collect information for the study will need to begin with the registrar’s office of the institution. It will be necessary to discuss what course runs consecutively, so the specific course is unknown at this time. Once the course is selected it will be necessary to interview students within the course to see if they would be willing to participate. Information obtained would need to include the student’s age, sex, hearing ability, and current GPA and the information would need to be gathered at the beginning of the eight-week course. It would also be necessary to notify the instructor of the course that a study will be conducted during the class. A specific email will need to be sent to students who have been identified by the institution as being hearing impaired to see if they are available to participate in the study. Ideally a minimum of two Dear or Hearing-impaired students in each course would be helpful to the study.
Once the course, students, and instructors are in place the first week will run as normal and then each student will receive an email including several questions from SurveyMonkey.com. The questions will include items in reference to technology within the course. Some sample questions may be on a scale of 0-10, how did the videos run, did videos have closed captions available, did captions sync with the lips on the screen, did the videos show the presenters lips clearly, just to name a few.
A second survey would appear during week six and again at the end of the course with similar questions to see if anything changes during the duration of the course. The last survey will not only include an overall score using the same 0-10 scale of overall technology provisions but also the ability of the instructor to alter course assignments if needed due to technology issues.
After course has ended the data will be summarized and await the next two courses to run using the same criteria as before. Once all three courses have been completed then a data analysis can be completed to either confirm or reject the original case study question.
Timeframe
The timeframe for the study will be longer than the traditional eight-week online course since there will be a review of three consecutive eight-week courses. To identify technological research prior to the beginning of the course, interviews with students and the running of the course that would need ten weeks then the data analysis would need at least two more weeks there for a total of thirty-six weeks to review all three courses or a minimum of nine months.
Data Collection
Data will be collected with three surveys to be conducted at different intervals through each of the eight-week courses. One in the beginning of week two, one in the sixth week and one at the end of the course. Survey questions will be asked in a quantitative form using a rating scale of 0 – 10 based on the Lippert Scale. The same survey questions will be asked in reference to instructor abilities to adjust course requirements to fit the specific personal needs.
In order to collect the data, it would be necessary to use Survey Monkey, or some other similar software program, since the course is prewritten and approved by the university helping to conduct the study and they cannot be altered to include additional surveys.
The final grade given at the end of the course would need to be retrieved from the instructor, or the registrar office, and at the same time discuss any provisions that needed to be made or changes to the course. The grade will be included within the quantitative data for analysis however the information obtained from the instructor will help with analysis of the data later.
Data Analysis
In order to transcribe the student experience, the data will be placed within a table:
| Name | Age | Sex | Course # | Hearing/Hard of Hearing/Deaf | Grade | Total % | Instructor flexibility |
The data will be collected and stored in an Excel Spreadsheet table. The data that is being collected will show if the original research questions had merit or not. Once the data table is complete the data will then be transferred to separate tables based on Hearing/Hard of Hearing/ Deaf determination. The analysis will be broken down into four different categories to value technology, as well as the overall total percentages that would be represented if the same technology effected the final grade. There will also be a percentage for the ability for the instructor to alter any assignment, if needed, within the course due to lack of technology available to complete the work.
The first analysis will look at the overall percentage scores from all students, The second from all Hearing students, third from Deaf and hard of hearing students. Once all of the numbers have been calculated then the data can be compared for validity between the three courses used in the study to the main question of technology barriers.
The lower the technology score pared with low grade then there is the proof that technology is lacking. If the grade remains high as well as the technology percentages then technology was not the issue. If the score of the grade remains high and the technology score remains low, then it will be obvious that students found ways to work around the barriers presented. It will be important to look for similarities and differences in the percentages to the hearing abilities noted within the study to compare the results to and from technology as well as the view from students in reference to the instructor’s ability to alter technology to make the course successful.
Summary
After the data has been collected and analyzed the action plan would be to bring the findings to the institution where the study had been conducted. Findings should be reviewed with colleagues to see if a SWOT analysis my need to be conducted. (Renault, 2016). By brainstorming results, it will be possible to bring barriers that have been found as well as what can be upgraded within the online course immediately without cost to the institution as well as what may need to be added to a budget request for processing later.
It would be necessary to not only include course instructors but also members from ADA compliance, Department heads, students affected, as well as the IT department to make sure all of the information can be reviewed by everyone equally for accurate priorities to be set if needed.
Discussion and Reflection
In the process of working on the case study to see if Deaf and Hearing-Impaired students are lacking the proper tools needed to succeed in an online course, I have learned that not only is the technology available for use but there is new technology available today. Through the collection of information from existing students enrolled in a running online course it will be possible to use the data to see if I was the only one experiencing difficulty or did it apply to all students within the same situation. The main concerns that technology is not being utilized fully forced instructors to come up with alternate ways for me to complete online course assignments which was concerning but did not affect my grade. Now a question comes to mind does student grade suffer if a student has to find alternative online learning objectives from other peers in the same online course? The study results will show data to answer this question. I believe that this pertains to the Program Outcome of Identify and critically evaluate research-based education strategies and practices.
In order to incorporate future trends in learning in an online education course this study would prove valuable by way of problem statement being addressed. This view was summed up best by a quote from Carpenter, Meltzer, & Marquart (2020) which states, “The future belongs to the institutions that offer online education while addressing the concerns raised by students who have gone through the system” (pg. 212). This statement is important since I am this person. I have gone through the system working with a disability of being hard of hearing, struggling through oral presentations, and working with instructors to be creative to finish the work. One problem shown via the study is that the struggles were not necessary. Trends in technology are changing every day one just needs to be able to know they work with the current LMS system to be able to use them appropriately. The Program Outcome of Analyze emerging technology trends and effectively integrate innovative technology to support learning is the one that is best associated here. The research proposal had me look at all of these items and also notice that many courses in this program are not using this technology.
While processing the case study there were several interesting facts that were noted in reference to Deaf and Hard of Hearing students such as there are many students who do not wish to be identified as having a disability and move through the courses without and additional support even though help was available if asked for. Again, this is an important issue since I personally never identified with the institution as Hard of Hearing because I did not want special treatment. I managed to work around technology issues and had instructors willing to help with alternative assignments to the courses. This area covers the establishment and evaluation of collaborative, inclusive and supportive groups needed within a specific diverse group of online learners. The question came to mind, how many others were just like me?
The process of steps used to complete the case study showed that the benefits of an online course to students being hearing, Deaf, or Hard of Hearing outweighed the barriers in each group. The use of technological tools to deliver the information can only enhance the experience and lessen the barriers present for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Conclusion
A possible cause for Deaf or Hard of Hearing student difficulties may not be technology that is lacking but rather the lack of information from incoming students within the online course curriculum. If questionnaires add a few questions to the application process when it comes to a Deaf or Hard of Hearing persons to specific needs required, the transition may be smoother to increase the success rate. In order for this to be successful in not pointing out a disabled person the questions could be asked to all students such as would larger closed captioning or having a syllabus available prior to the weeks course work be helpful. The next question to ask in reference to the survey is who should it be presented to? High school seniors selecting a university or currently enrolled students within a specific age group. Whether public or private higher educational institutions all need to meet the national standards for ADA compliance.
The technology for Deaf or Hard of Hearing students is already available but is not being used to its fullest capacity and the instructors are faced with making alternative assignments which can single out Deaf or Hard of Hearing students. The downfall is many Deaf or Hard of Hearing students do not want to identify themselves as having a disability to receive any special needs.
If an institution does not have ADA compliance position in place assigned to Deaf or Hard of Hearing students, then considerations should be addressed. The questionnaire or survey could be given for assessments of online course requirements to the IT department or current professors that teach the course which would address online courses needs to enhance or change technology. Within this area Universal Design for Learning (UDL) could be reviewed to ensure that all post education institutions follow the same course outline to ensure equal education for all.
The study proved that technology is available, and provisions are sometimes offered to Deaf or Hard of Hearing students within the online course structure however, it needs to be improved upon. Educators are lacking in understanding of Deaf or Hard of Hearing students as well as how to effectively teach without singling them out (Carpenter, Meltzer, & Marquart, 2020) and there is a great need to create a universal standard for all institutions according to the Americans with Disability ACT (ADA) for an equal education for all.
References
Alsadoon, E. & Turkestani, M. (2020). Virtual classrooms for hearing-impaired students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Romanian Journal for Multidimensional Education/ Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 12, 01-08. doi:10.18662/rrem/12.1sup2/240
Best Colleges (2021). College guide for deaf and hard of hearing students [website]. https://www.bestcolleges.com/resources/college-planning-for-deaf-and-hard-of-hearing-students/
Carpenter, E. A. C., Meltzer, A., & Marquart, M. (2020). Best practices for inclusivity of Deaf/deaf/Hard of Hearing students in the synchronous online classroom. World Journal of Education, 10(4), 26-33. doi:10.5430/wje.v10n4p26
DeMaine, S. D. (2014). From disability to usability in online instruction. Law Library Journal, 106(4), 531-561.
Ferris State University (2021). Teaching strategies for hearing impaired students. http://www.ferris.edu
Fichten, C.S., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J.V., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M.N., Klomp, R., & Wolforth, J. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241-256.
Garberoglio, C. L., Palmer, J. L., & Cawthon, S. (2019). Undergraduate enrollment of deaf students in the United States. National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes.
Guardino, C., Chuan, C-H, & Regina, E. (2014). American Sign Language Recognition Using Leap Motion Sensor. doi:10.1109/ICMLA.2014.110.
Kadhim, R. A., & Khamees, M. (2020). A real-time American sign language recognition system using Convolutional Neural Network for real datasets. TEM Journal, 9(3), 937-943. doi:10.18421/TEM93-14
Koteen, H.M. (2011). Ending the disconnect for the deaf community: How amendments to the federal regulations can realign the ADA with its purpose. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 29(2), 425-457.
Long, G., Marchetti, C., & Fasse, R. (2011). The importance of interaction for academic success in online courses with hearing, deaf and hard-of-hearing students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 1-19. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.1015
Luft, P. (2016). Promoting Positive Transition Outcomes: Effective Planning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Young Adults. Gallaudet University Press.
McClive, J., Mousley, K., Marchetti, C. E., Simkins, D., Blatto-Vallee, G., Jackson, J., & Foster, S. (2020). Supplemental Online Learning Tools (SOLTs) to support deaf and hard of hearing students in introductory statistics courses. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 23(1), 1-22.
Moorefield-Lang, H. (2019). Accessibility in online course design. Library Technology Reports, 55(4), 14-16.
National Deaf Center (n.d.). Online learning: Benefits and barriers. National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes.
Renault, V. (2016). SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Work Group for Community Health and Development, University of Kansas. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and-resources/swot-analysis/main
Schley, S. & Stinson, M.A. (2016). Collaborative writing in the postsecondary classroom: Online, in-person, and synchronous group work with deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing students. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 29(2), 151-164.
U.S. Department of Justice (2020, Feb). A guide to Disability Rights Laws, Civil Rights Division, Disability rights Section Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm
Ultraleap (2021). Leap Motion Controller. Retrieved from http://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/#overview
Wooten, P. M. (2014). A Phenomenological study of online learning for deaf students in postsecondary education: A deaf perspective [Doctoral Dissertation]. Liberty University.
Zhang, M. (2019, Feb 14). New technology breaks through sign language barriers [Blog] MSU Today. Retrieved from https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2019/new-technology-breaks-through-sign-language-barriers
Lynette's Educational Journey 