Research: Science and Education
Deaf Students, Teachers, and Interpreters in the Chemistry Lab
Brenda C. Seal
Communication Sciences and Disorders, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807
Dorothy Wynne
Model Secondary School for the Deaf, Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University,
Washington, DC 20002
Gina MacDonald*
Department Chemistry, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; macdongx@jmu.edu
Introduction
Many scientists value the cultural diversity of our peers from
around the world. We realize the solution to many scientific
problems is often found in collaborations between cultures,
nationalities, and disciplines. Although we embrace and have
come to expect cultural and gender diversity in our laboratories
and classrooms, we have been slow to expand these opportu-
nities to students with disabilities. Many outreach efforts today
focus on expanding the number of women and minorities in
the sciences. Efforts to include and encourage students with
disabilities to consider chemistry as a viable career choice are far
less common. This report describes a summer research program
at James Madison University (JMU) in Harrisonburg, Vir-
ginia, where deaf and hard-of-hearing students and teachers
participate with hearing students and teachers in chemistry
research. The principles and procedures discussed in this re-
port should have application to other undergraduate pro-
grams and to students with other disabilities.
Assuming an active role in offering opportunities and
removing communication barriers that might otherwise prevent
students from reaching their full potential as scientists is
possibly more important today than it has been in previous
generations. Indeed, the historic contributions of Deaf 1 sci-
entists are extensive. Numerous contributors are highlighted
in Deaf Persons in the Arts and Sciences and include Sir John
Warcup Cornforth (Nobel Laureate in Chemistry), Anders
Gustaf Ekeberg (chemist), Gideon Moore (chemist) and Charles
Henri Nicolle (Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine) (1).
Today’s shortage of science educators and researchers inten-
sifies the need to encourage all students to consider a career
in the sciences and to provide qualified science teachers who
are skilled in teaching the deaf.
At least 65,000 students enrolled in kindergarten
through the 12th grade in the United States have significant
hearing loss (2). Deaf and hard-of hearing students are edu-
cated in a number of settings, including schools for the deaf.
Eighty-one percent of deaf and hard-of-hearing students,
though, are educated in their local schools where accommo-
dations may include special teaching, amplification, speech–
language therapy, and educational interpreting (2). Students
who use sign language may find that their access to the
instructional activities of chemistry or other laboratory sciences
is challenged, unless they have educational interpreters. Even
then, the interpreters may be limited in their experiences with
the technical language of the sciences and, as a result, may
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 2 February 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
fail to make that language “visible” or comprehensible. Heavy
fingerspelling and word-by-word transliteration is unlikely
to portray the meaning behind the words.
In other cases, instructors may fail to make accommo-
dations for students who have interpreters. Instructors who
are used to talking during a demonstration or experiment may
find it difficult to separate their lecture and demonstration.
They may be reluctant to make the necessary pauses that allow
the deaf student to observe the demonstration or experiment
and then watch the interpreter for the accompanying language.
An even worse-case scenario may exist when advisors and
administrators in local schools and colleges counsel deaf
students away from laboratory sciences. They may fear that
the students could be in danger. They may have difficulty
finding talented interpreters knowledgeable of and comfort-
able with the language. They may also experience difficulty
in orienting teachers to accommodate their instructional styles
for a unisensory learner and his or her interpreter.
The 20% of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in schools
for the deaf are likely to have an easier time in accessing the
language of a laboratory science. But the shortage of science
teachers in deaf schools is even more serious than the shortage
of science teachers in hearing schools, so that advanced sciences
are often not offered in deaf schools. Imagine the domino
effect that may have begun in a secondary program with a
deaf student who is discouraged from sciences. Reductions
in the numbers of college majors is cyclically reflected in
reduced numbers of candidates to fill the teaching slots, even
in the deaf school, where a deaf college graduate is more likely
to apply for a teaching position.
Inclusion and immersion are both addressed in the pro-
gram described here. Inclusion is defined as “collaborative
efforts among teachers and special service providers that are
important to make curricular content accessible” (3). Immer-
sion refers to intense learning experiences in a discipline or
language. Immersion in languages (spoken and signed) pro-
motes comprehensive acquisition of a language’s mechanics,
pragmatics, and culture through intense experiences with the
language. Numerous examples of immersion and inquiry-
based learning in chemistry are viewed in the literature; for
some examples see cited references (4–8). Many science faculty
believe that intensive research experiences may be the single
most influential factor in encouraging young scientists to
consider research careers and graduate education (9). In fact,
almost “all contemporary educational reform documents” call
for the teaching of science to be inquiry based so that students
239
 Research: Science and Education
“acquire the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind that will
enable them to come to deep understanding of the big ideas
in science” (10, p 241).
In the program described here, deaf undergraduates from
Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, and deaf science
teachers from the Virginia School for the Deaf in Staunton,
Virginia, and the Model Secondary School for the Deaf
(MSSD) at Gallaudet University joined hearing secondary
and postsecondary students for an intense learning experi-
ence in biochemistry. Integral to this experience were under-
graduates from the JMU’s Department of Communication
Sciences and Disorders (CSD) who were also immersed in
the summer of American Sign Language as interpreters-in-
training.2 The program was designed to meet three impor-
tant goals: (i) to encourage deaf and hard-of-hearing students
to continue in the sciences; (ii) to expand research opportu-
nities for secondary school teachers that would allow them
the opportunity to update and share their scientific skills with
high school students and undergraduates; and (iii) to famil-
iarize the next generation of interpreters and educators with
special considerations associated with interpreting in the
chemistry laboratory.
The Program’s Evolution
The program at James Madison University evolved and
expanded over three summers. All of the participants were
recruited from schools for the deaf and Gallaudet University.
During the first year, a single teacher from the Virginia School
for the Deaf worked in the laboratory with a part-time pro-
fessional interpreter. During the second summer, the same
teacher and an additional teacher from the Model Secondary
School for the Deaf were joined by a high school student
from the Lexington School for the Deaf in New York. Their
participation in research activities was again supported with
the assistance of a part-time professional interpreter. The third
summer expanded to include a new high school teacher and
a returning teacher, and three Deaf undergraduates from
Gallaudet University. The third summer also saw the addition
of two student interpreters. Because many interpreters view the
laboratory as foreign (11), we included interpreting students
in the laboratory to address the shortage of interpreters who
are familiar with technical terms and settings. The variety of
secondary students, undergraduates, and secondary teachers
from different school systems has offered a variety of educa-
tional backgrounds, communication styles, and needs, to the
end that the program’s growth continues to be dynamic.
Procedures
All participants were involved in research for no less than
five weeks. They worked on developing new biochemistry
laboratories that include protein purification techniques,
enzyme assays, and spectroscopic techniques frequently used
to characterize their protein products. The labs were to be
modeled after project-oriented laboratories such as our existing
integrated organic/inorganic laboratory (4 ) and laboratories
such as those developed by Bylkas and Anderson and by Craig
that include protein purification and characterization (8, 12).
The instructional goals of the biochemistry laboratories and
summer research projects were to familiarize the students and
240 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 2 February 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
teachers with general biochemical laboratory techniques, to
strengthen their ability to interpret biochemical and spectro-
scopic data, and to renew their enthusiasm for the scientific
process. To this end, the deaf students and teachers partici-
pated with hearing students and teachers in intensive research
experiences.
JMU’s Office of Disability Services provided professional
interpreters to aid in the interaction between the professor,
teachers, and students. The logistics of the day-to-day interactions
included meeting all of the participants and interpreters each
morning for lectures and discussions of the duties to be
performed that day. On some days, the lecture was extended to
review biochemical concepts. The interpreter was present when
most of these fundamental concepts, overall research plans, and
specific goals were addressed. In addition to the voice-to-sign
interpretation provided each morning, the interpreter aided in
voicing communication from the deaf teachers and students to
the hearing teachers and students. The contributions and
questions from deaf and hard-of-hearing learners were addressed
and many stimulating discussions ensued.
Several logistical lessons were taught in other interpreting
experiences during the day’s activities. The speakers learned
to provide sufficient pauses during demonstrations so the deaf
students could watch the interpreter and the demonstration
simultaneously. The hearing instructors learned to provide
sufficient pauses when demonstrating techniques that involved
the use of a computer or other instrumentation (for example,
the infrared spectrometer), again so the deaf students and
teachers could observe the software demonstrations and then
watch the interpreter for the accompanying language. This
small provision assures that no information is lost during the
demonstration. Finally, the speakers learned to maneuver in
the laboratory, sharing the physical space with another pro-
fessional to ensure visual access to the learning environment
and its language.
Communication between and among the deaf and
hearing students and teachers also occurred during the
absence of the professional interpreter. But unlike the sum-
mers of 1998 and 1999, which involved limited signing, lip-
reading, and writing in order to answer questions and keep
the communication on track after the interpreter had left,
the interpreting students added in the summer of 2000 served
to aid numerous interactions between the hearing and deaf
participants. Many informal interactions throughout the day
allowed the student interpreters to develop their sign and
voice interpreting skills. Their observations of the professional
interpreter’s work earlier in the morning were put to practice
throughout the day. They also served as models to the other
hearing members of the laboratory that communication
exchanges could occur even with errors and that these errors
could be fixed. The student interpreters, in demonstrating their
growing skills, actually served to encourage others to venture a
sign and grow as communicators with their deaf colleagues.
The interpreting students were also held to the rigors of
scientific inquiry in their language learning and interpreting.
They were required to record their observations of the skills
modeled by the professional interpreter daily in their journal
entries. Their interpreting experiences were analyzed through
videotaped records and routine formal evaluations. The students
also analyzed their own interpreting skills and developed goals
for improving those skills across voice-to-sign, sign-to-voice,

interactive, and team interpreting of formal presentations.
The students demonstrated empirical evidence in meeting
their goals through a summative portfolio that included
videotape evidence of improvement, self-evaluation ratings,
and ratings of interpreting skills by the deaf consumers.
Finally, the interpreting students were required to reflect on
their experiences and required readings of the interpreting
literature with a list of research questions that had not, to
date, been asked or answered.
The summer research experience culminated in presen-
tations for the entire group of research participants in the
chemistry department (approximately 40 students and
teachers). All students and teachers, including the deaf, were
required to attend and to present their summer research
results. Although the professional interpreter provided most
of the voice-to-sign interpretation, the interpreting students
also interpreted selected presentations that were videotaped
for final analysis of growth. The deaf students and teachers
prepared in advance with the professional interpreter to
ensure that their presentations were fluid and the sign-to-
voice interpretation was accurate. Several hearing students and
teachers rehearsed with the interpreters, often explaining what
certain language meant so the interpreters could represent it
accurately. This additional preparation with the interpreters
was absolutely essential and added to the professional caliber of
the final presentations. One professor commented that the
transition between the hearing and deaf presenters was
seamless.
Transferring Knowledge
Several benefits of the summer program were reported
in the subsequent academic year. The deaf teachers returned
to their schools, where they incorporated research techniques
into their curricula. Many of the experiments conducted
during the summer weeks were integrated into the secondary
chemistry courses. The benefits that research and constant
learning bring to college faculty have been well documented
(9). We may assume that research experiences will also benefit
K–12 teachers (and therefore their students) by renewing
interest in the field and disseminating new information. The
Gallaudet University undergraduates followed up by presenting
their summer research findings to the high school chemistry
students at MSSD. These same students reported at the end
of their summer project that they would return to Gallaudet
with renewed enthusiasm for their majors. The Gallaudet
students left with increased understanding of biochemistry,
protein purification, and infrared spectroscopy as evidenced
by their final papers, presentations, and informal conversations
and questions throughout the experience. They also discussed
continuing their degree programs beyond the bachelor’s level.
At least two of the three college students went on to research
projects at other institutions during the summer of 2001.
The participating hearing students and teachers who had
no previous educational experiences with deaf students or
teachers or with educational interpreters left the experience
better prepared to teach in K–12 and postsecondary settings
where interpreters and deaf students are likely to be found.
One of the graduating seniors, a lab assistant in the project,
entered a middle school program where she teaches math and
science. One of her students was a hard-of-hearing student. The
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 2 February 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
Research: Science and Education
new teacher reported that many of the skills she learned in
the summer research program enabled her to communicate
more effectively with the variety of students she encountered
in her first year as a teacher. The two interpreting students
also showed a transfer of knowledge and skills in the year
following the summer’s experience. One entered a graduate
program in education at Gallaudet University. The other
entered an early childhood special education master’s program
at James Madison University and took on a part-time educa-
tional interpreting role in a local middle school.
Finally, the didactic and experiential knowledge gained
over the first three years has led to the successful incorporation
of these techniques into a newly funded NSF-REU grant.
This will allow us to provide similar learning opportunities
for a larger number of deaf and hearing researchers and their
interpreters. However, despite our success over the past three
years and our anticipated success and extension of this program
over the next three, we are not without concerns. Expansion
of the program will involve more students, teachers, and pro-
fessors. Therefore, we may encounter some new problems and
idiosyncrasies during the extension of this program as we try
to provide adequate mentoring and interpreting to a larger
number of deaf researchers.
Replication Concerns
Concerns about replicating a program such as this are
likely to center around time, finances, and the recruitment of
participants. Professional interpreters can be very expensive,
particularly if paid an hourly salary commensurate with that
earned in the medical and legal community. However, each
college or university should have an Office of Disability
Services that will aid in the recruiting and funding of qualified
interpreters for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Engaging
professional interpreters for a limited period at the beginning
of each day, rather than for the entire day, sets up an ex-
pectation that important information is offered at the open-
ing of each day. The professional interpreter’s model was also
important for the student interpreters in that they were able
to videotape and study her choice of signs, use of space, and
day-to-day interpreting skill level as they practiced the art
and science of interpreting during her absence. The daily con-
tact that occurred among the hearing and deaf professors, teach-
ers, and students enabled learning of several “survival” signs that
allowed communication when the interpreters were not im-
mediately available. Because colleges and universities are re-
quired to provide qualified interpreters (13) and because the cost
of professional interpreters might appear prohibitive for
such an intense learning experience, we recommend that the
experiences we had with and without the interpreters should
encourage any professor or program to extend research op-
portunities to deaf students and teachers.
Once interpreters are available, concerns about their
comfort level in the language of (bio)chemistry should be
addressed. A recently updated handbook, Teaching Chemistry to
Students with Disabilities, offers numerous resources and tips
that will provide both faculty and students with useful infor-
mation on teaching students with a variety of disabilities. This
manual can be obtained from the American Chemical Society
in booklet format or online. Another recently updated book,
Signs for Science and Mathematics: A Resource Book for Teachers
241
 Research: Science and Education
and Students, should aid interpreters, teachers, and students
in utilizing a common set of scientific signs (14 ). As previ-
ously stated, all our participants were recruited from schools
and universities for the Deaf. Gallaudet University’s Web page
contains links to information on the names and locations of
universities, colleges, community colleges, and K–12 schools
for the Deaf and hard-of-hearing. This information should
provide a valuable starting point for any primary investigator
interested in helping to increase the number of deaf and hard-
of-hearing science majors and extend research opportunities
to interested teachers.
In considering time and financial replication concerns,
we also encourage interested faculty to consider the benefits
to hearing students and the extended consequences of this
program. It is probable that the hearing students immersed
in the ongoing summer research program (around 40 total,
including all JMU faculty) will be more likely to consider
and include deaf and other disabled students in their future
laboratories and classrooms. Working with deaf students and
teachers helped to diminish any misconceptions we may have
had previously. More importantly, hearing students who them-
selves become teachers who include and increase the number of
deaf and hard-of-hearing students in their laboratories and
workplaces will create a ripple effect that should result in
increased diversity in the sciences. The future teachers who have
been involved in this program will also be better prepared to
interact with hearing and deaf or hard-of-hearing students.
Improved teaching can be expected particularly if we accept
that both hearing and deaf students generally value similar
characteristics in teachers—including content knowledge, use
of visual materials, providing clear explanations, and teaching
at an appropriate pace (15, 16 ). Deaf students who have
“dependent” learning styles, much like many hearing students,
will need organization and structure during participation in
classroom activities and laboratories. Thus, during discourse,
teachers who make a special effort to connect lecture and
laboratory experiences and relate what is being learned to
experiences in students’ lives should communicate more
effectively with deaf and hearing students with “dependent”
learning styles (17).
Summary
James Madison University, formally a teachers college,
has a strong history of preparing K–12 teachers in their
respective disciplines, involving science educators in research,
and providing numerous outreach efforts to local schools. In
addition, the chemistry department has always integrated
undergraduate research into its curriculum and departmental
duties. These characteristics provide an environment that
allowed the facile incorporation of deaf students, teachers,
and interpreters into the biochemistry laboratory. Educational
goals of this project to design new projects for the biochem-
istry laboratory and allow deaf science teachers and students
to extend their biochemical experience were met. New labo-
ratories were incorporated into the biochemistry course and
the teachers and students left with the acquisition of basic bio-
chemistry skills. Many of the students had their first expo-
sure to concepts associated with experimental biochemistry while
reviewing concepts acquired in general chemistry. The hear-
242 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 2 February 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
ing undergraduate(s) interested in education gained valuable
research experience and had the opportunity to interact
with science teachers and learn from their “real world” expe-
riences. As McIntosh et al. have suggested, more methods of
training for deaf teachers actually benefit both the teachers
and the students (18). Informal conversations have led us to
believe that the teachers and students involved in the project
gained new knowledge that was then disseminated at their
home institutions.
The interpreting students gained extensive knowledge
in their field and became familiar with the environment, in-
cluding the language, of a chemistry laboratory. They learned
technical signs and grew in their ability to conceptualize
scientific procedures. Their increased understanding of the
process of scientific research was matched with their require-
ments to document their own observations and gains. The
students involved in this project grew in both their skills and
their knowledge of educational interpreting as applied in the
laboratory, as assessed by the methods described. The con-
tinuation and expansion of this program within JMU and at
other universities should improve the future pool of scien-
tifically literate interpreters who will work with deaf scientists.
The inclusion of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in
science classrooms and laboratories has never been more likely
than it is today. Educational reform across the United States and
many progressive countries calls for eliminating restrictions
that previously isolated deaf students from opportunities
outside their own deaf schools. Programs such as the one
described here simply extend opportunities to deaf students
and teachers and provide a more diverse and enhanced academic
atmosphere.
Notes
1. Both deaf and Deaf are used in referring to individuals
whose hearing loss precludes the development or functional use of
spoken language. The upper-case Deaf identifies members of the
Deaf culture who use American Sign Language to communicate.
2. American Sign Language is indigenous to more than half
a million deaf individuals in the United States. Deaf students who
communicate with American Sign Language may rely on educa-
tional interpreters who make the spoken language of the classroom
or educational setting accessible to the deaf students and the sign
language of the deaf students accessible to the hearing teachers and
students. In addition to deaf students are many hard-of-hearing stu-
dents who also rely on sign language interpreters to bridge gaps that
occur in their spoken communication with hearing individuals.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge support from National
Science Foundation to G.M. (MCB-9733566). We
acknowledge the National Science Foundation for the RET
supplement to Daniel M. Downey and G.M. that provided
D.W.’s summer 2000 salary and funding for one of the
undergraduate interpreters (NSF 97-31912). We are grateful
to James Madison University for matching support for B.S.’s
summer salary and to the Office of Disability Services for
funding the professional interpreter and the other interpreter
trainee.

Special appreciation is extended to all who participated
in this project. The professional interpreter, Christine Colbert,
was an exemplary role model for the interpreting students
and a valuable support for the deaf participants and their
hearing colleagues and professors.
G.M. would like to acknowledge all of the participants
associated with the workshop to rewrite the Teaching Chemistry
to Students with Disabilities handbook—especially Harry Lang
and Michael Moore, for numerous helpful discussions.
Literature Cited
1. Lang, H. G.; Meath-Lang, B. Deaf Persons in the Arts and
Sciences: A Biographical Dictionary; Greenwood Press:
Westport, CT, 1995.
2. U.S. Department of Education. To Assure the Free and Appropri-
ate Public Education of all Children with Disabilities; Eighteenth
Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 618; U.S.
Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1996.
3. Brinton, B.; Fujiki, M.; Montague, E. C.; Hanton, J. L. Lan-
guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 2000, 31, 252–
264.
4. Amenta, D. S.; Mosbo, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 661–
664.
5. Deal, S. T.; Hurst, M. O. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 241–242.
6. Kharas, G. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 829–831.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 2 February 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
Research: Science and Education
7. Kimbrough, D. R.; Magoun, M. A.; Langfur, M. J. Chem.
Educ. 1997, 74, 210–212.
8. Craig, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1130–1135.
9. Doyle, M. Academic Excellence—The Role of Research in the Physical
Sciences at Undergraduate Institutions; Research Corporation:
Tucson, AZ, 2000.
10. Palinscar, A. S.; Collins, K. M.; Marano, N. L.; Magnusson, S. J.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 2000, 31,
240–251.
11. Seal, B. C. Best Practices in Educational Interpreting; Allyn &
Bacon: Needham Heights, MA, 1998.
12. Bylkas, S. A.; Anderson, L. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 426–429.
13. Kincaid, J. M. Legal Issues Specific to Serving Students Who Are
Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Institutions of Higher Education;
AHEAD Publications: Columbus, OH, 1995.
14. Caccamise, F.; Lang, H. Signs for Science and Mathematics:
A Resource Book for Teachers and Students, 2nd ed.; National
Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Tech-
nology: Rochester, NY, 2000.
15. Lang, H. G.; McKee, B. G.; Conner, K. N. Am. Ann. Deaf
1993, 138, 252–259.
16. Lang, H. G.; Dowaliby, F. J.; Anderson, H. Am. Ann. Deaf
1994, 139, 119–127.
17. Lang, H. G.; Stinson, M. S.; Basile, M.; Kavanagh, F.; Liu, Y.
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 1998, 4, 16–27.
18. McIntosh, R. A.; Sulzen, L.; Reeder, K.; Kidd, D. H. Am. Ann.
Deaf 1994, 139, 480–484.
243