Los Padres: Spoken English for Their Deaf Children

by

Jane Freutel

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Educational Leadership

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

MAY, 2011
 UMI Number: 3480393

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3480393
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© 2011 by JANE L. FREUTEL
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the lived

experiences of 20 Spanish-speaking parents regarding their perceptions of developing

spoken English with their preschool deaf children. The study supplies a description of

the experiences from the parents’ own words. Semi-structured interview questions

generated data. Data were analyzed using phenomenological methodology. Three

themes surfaced from the data. Theme 1 concerned the search for information reported

by the parents. Theme 2 concerned parents’ emotional responses to their experiences.

Theme 3 concerned the choices Spanish-speaking parents make regarding which

language to use in their homes, Spanish or English, and why. Conclusions drawn from

the study findings indicate Spanish-speaking parents who have chosen to develop spoken

English with their young deaf children need informational, emotional, and linguistic

support from educators. Parents described their commitment to creating a foundation in

the home language for their young deaf children but offered differing views of what a

language rich foundation means. Based on the information in this study, educational

leaders should create innovative programs that support the parents’ needs.
 iv

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband Lee and to our sons, John Andrew and Eliot,

to the memory of my parents and my sister Patty, and to the parents of deaf children who

have taught me so much throughout my career.

 v

Acknowledgments

I must acknowledge Dr. Jaclyn Fowler for her continuing guidance and support. She

gave generously of her time and talent to help reach this goal. Also I need to

acknowledge the critique and guidance of Dr. Lee Burnham and Dr. Lorne Ranstrom

throughout the dissertation process. Your words helped me look at my work in new

ways. Dr. Kris Wheeler served as a colleague and mentor throughout the years of study.

Mary McGinnis, a friend, a mentor, and a comrade in learning, guided me, encouraged

me, challenged me, and told me that I could and would complete this dissertation. I

could not have produced this scholarly work without the skills of the interpreters and

transcribers, Ada Monterrosa, Alba Castro, and Vivian Castillo. The administration and

staff of the John Tracy Clinic supported my efforts from beginning to end. My dear

family, especially my husband Lee, coddled and challenged me. The parents I worked

with were wise and kind. Thank you all. I will pay it forward.
 vi

Table of Contents

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. x

List of Figures ........................................................................................................... xi

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Background of the Problem ................................................................................. 6

Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................... 7

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................ 9

Significance of the Problem ............................................................................... 10

Nature of the Study ............................................................................................ 13

Research Questions ............................................................................................ 16

Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................... 17

Definition of Terms............................................................................................ 25

Assumptions....................................................................................................... 28

Scope and Limitations........................................................................................ 29

Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 30

Summary ............................................................................................................ 30

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature......................................................................... 34

Literature Review Search Topics and Terms ..................................................... 35

Research on Language Learning in Young Children ......................................... 37

Research on Parent Roles in Spoken Language Development .......................... 41

Research on Parents as Language Facilitators ................................................... 43

Research on Parents’ Perception of the Importance of Language

Development ................................................................................................ 44
 vii

Research on Parents’ Perceptions of their Roles in Language Development .... 45

Research on Parents of Deaf Children ............................................................... 47

Research on Spoken Language Development in Young Deaf Children ............ 52

Research on Role of Parents in the Spoken Language Development of Young

Deaf Children ............................................................................................... 64

Research on Second Language Acquisition ....................................................... 66

Research on Deaf Children and Second Language Acquisition ........................ 72

Research on the Perceptions of Parents Who Speak Languages Other Than

Spanish ......................................................................................................... 74

Research on Perceptions of Parents Who Speak Languages Other Than

Spanish and Have Children With Disabilities ............................................. 75

Research on Perceptions of Parents Who Speak Spanish .................................. 78

Research on Perceptions of Spanish-Speaking Parents of Children With

Disabilities ................................................................................................... 80

Research on Perceptions of Spanish-Speaking Parents of Deaf Children ......... 84

Context of the Study .......................................................................................... 86

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 92

Summary ............................................................................................................ 93

Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................... 96

Research Method and Design Appropriateness ................................................. 96

Qualitative Method ............................................................................................ 97

Phenomenological Design ............................................................................... 100

Reflexivity........................................................................................................ 105
 viii

Population, Sampling, Data Collection Procedures, and Rationale ................. 106

Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 114

Summary .......................................................................................................... 114

Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................. 117

Epoché.............................................................................................................. 119

Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................... 120

Body Language and Observations of Parent–Child Conversations ................. 121

Pilot Study........................................................................................................ 122

Sample Size...................................................................................................... 123

Demographic Background of the Participants ................................................. 124

Research Questions .......................................................................................... 127

Interview Questions ......................................................................................... 127

Findings............................................................................................................ 128

Summary .......................................................................................................... 144

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................... 146

Reflexive Journal ............................................................................................. 147

Reflexive Journal Entry Sample ...................................................................... 148

Responding to the Problem .............................................................................. 149

Contextual Considerations ............................................................................... 150

Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 151

Limitations ....................................................................................................... 154

Implications...................................................................................................... 154

Recommendations ............................................................................................ 155

 ix

Significance of Study to Leadership ................................................................ 157

Future Research ............................................................................................... 158

Summary .......................................................................................................... 158

References .............................................................................................................. 160

Appendix A: Permission to use Premises .............................................................. 191

Appendix B: Informed Consent Forms 18 Years Old and Older........................... 193

Appendix C: Opening Script for Interviews .......................................................... 196

Appendix D: Interview Questions ......................................................................... 199

Appendix E: Confidentiality Agreement for Interpreters ...................................... 202

 x

List of Tables

Table 1 Research Database Search Results............................................................. 36

Table 2 Total Births by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2006 ....................................... 87

Table 3 Demographic Background of the Participants ......................................... 125

Table 4 Original Codes Found in Transcripts....................................................... 129

Table 5 Sample Coding Process ............................................................................ 131

Table 6 Theme 1: Spanish-Speaking Parents of Young Deaf Children Search for

Information That Will Help Them Support Spoken Language Development ........ 134

Table 7 Theme 2: Spanish-Speaking Parents of Young Deaf Children Experience

Emotions That Impact The Decisions They Make Regarding Spoken Language

for Their Children .................................................................................................. 136

Table 8 Theme 3: Spanish-Speaking Parents of Young Deaf Children Make

Choices Based on Their Understandings About Using English or Spanish With

Their Children........................................................................................................ 139

 xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. An illustration of a cochlear implant....................................................... 53

Figure 2. An illustration of a digital hearing aid. ................................................... 54

 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Low incidence disabilities receive low interest from the research community

(Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003). One such low incidence group is children who are deaf. A

smaller but steadily growing subgroup is deaf children who have Spanish-speaking

parents (U.S. Census, 2007, 2011). According to the U.S. Census, by 2050, Hispanic or

Latino citizens, many of whom speak only Spanish, will be the majority ethnic group in

the United States with 24.4% of the population. The subsequent increase in the number

of children who come from homes in which Spanish is the first language impacts the

educational system. The educational system in California uses an English language

approach to teaching all children, which can present challenges to Spanish-speaking

parents.

When a child is born with a hearing loss, the challenges multiply for Spanish-

speaking parents in an English-speaking educational system. In California, over 250

babies with hearing losses are born to Spanish-speaking parents every year (California

Department of Public Health, 2008). Educators and Spanish-speaking parents share an

interest in the current technology options, expectations, and possibilities for young deaf

children (McConkey-Robbins, 2007).

Effective educators need to consider the challenges, the culture, the values, and

the perceptions of the growing population of Spanish-speaking parents of children who

have hearing losses. Professionals who work with families of young children are most

effective when they understand the views of families with unique needs (Brown & Abu

Bakar, 2006). The information gathered in the study will inform early childhood

practitioners, school administrators, and educational leaders.

 2

Parents who speak Spanish and have a baby with a hearing loss have life-altering

decisions to make and turn to professionals for advice. The professionals who

collaborate with these families need to be knowledgeable about the issues facing Spanish-

speaking parents of young deaf children (Brown & Abu Bakar, 2006). The focus of the

quantitative phenomenological study was the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents

regarding their role in developing the spoken English language skills of their young deaf

children.

Theoretical supports for the study include family systems theory

(Bronfrenbrenner, 1979), child development theory (Link, 2008), and language

development theory (G. Clark, 2009; Vygotsky, 1997). Bronfrenbrenner (1979)

described the family as a system functioning within a web of relationships. The

relationships between family members and between family members and outside

individuals and influences affect how life proceeds and how a child develops

(Bronfrenbrenner, 1979).

G. Clark (2009) and Vygotsky (1997) championed the role of parents in nurturing

language development in their children. Language development depends on the social

and emotional ties of children and the adults in their lives (G. Clark, 2009). A discussion

of the background theories relevant to the study follows in the Theoretical Framework

section of this chapter.

The incidence of hearing loss is low in the U.S. population, but for the families

affected the impact can be devastating (Cole & Flexer, 2008). Two out of every thousand

babies born in California are born with a hearing loss (National Center for Hearing

Assessment and Management [NCHAM], 2008). Based on California’s reported 531,800

 3

births a year, over 1,000 babies a year are born with a hearing loss (Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, 2008, n.d.). Hearing loss is the most common congenital

disability in the United States (Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, 2009)

and the effects of hearing loss on an individual’s life are significant (Luckner, 2002).

Deafness is a lifelong disability that impacts the decisions faced by an individual

(Harris, 2000). Deafness strongly influences the ability to communicate efficiently.

Gardner (1999, 2007) wrote about the challenges of the workplace in the future and

commented that “to be attractive to employers, individuals must be highly literate,

communicate well with others, be flexible” (Gardner, 1999, p. ix), and be able to identify

and solve problems.

The impact of deafness on an individual’s development might start with

communication but extends into academic, social, and emotional realms, as well as

access to services (Luckner, 2002). According to Trezak and Wang (2006), the average

score for students with hearing losses who are recent high school graduates is the fourth-

grade reading level. Individuals with hearing loss earned an average of 30% less in

wages each year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009).

Hearing loss impacts an individual’s ability to communicate efficiently within a

family (Cole & Flexer, 2008). Gallaudet Research Institute (2008) reported 95% of

children who are deaf have two hearing parents. Hearing parents use spoken language to

communicate. Infants who have normal hearing develop auditory and verbal skills in

response to auditory events (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008). Infants who are born

with a hearing loss might not have access to the sounds of the world around them.
 4

According to the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (2009),

“Because most babies learn language by hearing it long before they can talk, a baby’s

first months and years are critical for learning language and communication skills” (para.

6). Recent advances in technology make access to the sounds of speech available to

children born with hearing losses. Early identification of hearing loss and quality early

intervention services provide a child with access to the sounds of the specific spoken

language of the family (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008).

Since 1999, the federally mandated national newborn hearing screening used to

identify hearing loss at birth has resulted in improved outcomes by age 3 (Early Hearing

Detection and Intervention [EHDI], 2007; Korver et al., 2010; NCHAM, 2008; White,

2003). The screening process has resulted in an increase in the number of children who

are deaf entering the educational system before preschool (EHDI, 2007). Research

indicates experience in quality preschool programs is beneficial for all children,

especially children with disabilities (Lynch & Hansen, 1999; National Center for

Educational Research, 2008).

Best practice for intervention with infants and young children as defined by the

National Association of Educators of Young Children (n.d.), the Infant Development

Association of California (n.d.), and the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department

of Education (n.d.) includes strong parent involvement programs. Quality intervention

programs require the participation of parents because parents are the primary teachers of

language for their children (Anderson & Marinac, 2007; Crain, 2004; Dowd, Withers,

Hackwood, & Shuter, 2007; Vygotsky, 1973, 1997; Windsor, Glaze, & Koga, 2007;

Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003). When parents know their infant has a hearing loss at birth, they
 5

search for information about deafness, the consequences of deafness, and the service

options available to their child (NCHAM, 2008; Schwartz, 1996).

Before 1999, routine screening for a hearing loss did not exist in most states.

Commonly, when spoken language failed to develop around age 2, worried parents

pursued a diagnosis (Northern & Downs, 1991). Currently, the auditory input necessary

for spoken language to develop is available to children who are deaf through modern

technology such as digital hearing aids and cochlear implants (M. Clark, 2007; Cole &

Flexer, 2008; Ling, 2003). Unprecedented possibilities exist for children born with a

hearing loss and identified at birth (Cole & Flexer, 2008; Korver et al., 2010; Lichert &

Loncke, 2006). Information about hearing loss, early identification, and outcomes for

families is presented in the Background section.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2007), Spanish is the most common

language spoken in the United States after English. The EHDI program reported

screening 3.3 million newborns for a hearing loss in 2006. In California, 35% of

newborns screened are Hispanic (NCHAM, 2008).

Of the 531,800 babies born in California in 2008, over 1,000 were born with a

hearing loss and of those babies, 372 were from homes where Spanish is spoken

(NCHAM, 2008). Spanish-speaking parents of children who are deaf and hard of hearing

have unique perceptions of their role in developing spoken language, yet little

information exists that describes these perceptions. Information about the unique

characteristics and needs of Spanish-speaking families of deaf children appears in the

Theoretical Framework section.

 6

Background of the Problem

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 report identified an increase in the Spanish-

speaking population in the United States. Forty-five million people in the 300 million

population of the United States identified themselves as being of Hispanic origins,

making this group the largest minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau,

2011). Out of the 34 million people who live in California, 14 million speak Spanish in

their homes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

The EHDI programs across the country expect to identify a hearing loss in one to

three out of every 1,000 infants each year (White, 2003, 2011). California’s EHDI

program reported two to three out of every 1,000 newborns fail the screening for a

hearing loss. Of the half million babies born in California in 2007, approximately

175,000 or 35% were born to Spanish-speaking parents (Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 2008). Over 350 families of children who are deaf and hard of hearing are

served by the California EHDI and Early Start programs and are Spanish-speaking

(NCHAM, 2008).

Social concerns. The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) is an association

of organizations representing audiologists, speech pathologists, teachers, university

faculty, pediatricians, surgeons, nurses, and members of the deaf community. The JCIH

issued a position statement in 2007 that supports early identification of hearing loss and

early intervention for families with children who have hearing losses with the goal of

developing the linguistic and communicative competence of children who are deaf and

hard of hearing. The position statement also supported the rights of parents to receive

information in their native language and to work with professionals who are sensitive to
 7

their linguistic and cultural needs (JCIH, 2007). In December 2010, the U.S. Congress

passed the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2010, which maintains and

extends funding for national programs to screen infants for hearing loss at birth.

Best practice in early intervention suggests interacting with families of babies

who are deaf and hard of hearing using a parent-focused approach (M. Clark, 2007; Cole

& Flexer, 2008; JCIH, 2007; Most & Zaidman-Zait, 2003; Nance & Dodson, 2007).

Simser (1999) recognized “parents as the first and best teachers of their children” (p. 55).

The JCIH (2007) recommended that professionals create a system that is family-centered,

provides easy access to information, and “recognizes and builds on traditions and cultural

beliefs” (p. 2) of the families. Information about the history of early intervention with

families of children with hearing loss appears in the literature review in Chapter 2.

Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed in this qualitative phenomenological study is that

professionals who work with Spanish-speaking families of young deaf children need

information about the views of the parents. Spanish-speaking families with young

children who are deaf are entering the educational system of the United States in

increasing numbers (NCHAM, 2008; I. Sanchez & Narr, 2011). Professionals providing

services to families need information that comes directly from Spanish-speaking parents

of deaf children (Eggers-Piérola, 2005; Tabors, 2008). The study explored the Spanish-

speaking parents’ perceptions of their role in the process of spoken language

development for their deaf children. Informed educators seek to understand the reasons

parents of children with hearing loss choose spoken language (Patterson, Webb, &

Krudwig, 2009; Ratcliff & Hunt, 2009).

 8

Parents’ perception of their role in developing spoken English language skills

needs attention for three reasons. First, professionals knowledgeable about early

intervention for families with children who are deaf and hard of hearing recognize that

parents play a central role in developing spoken communication skills in their children

(M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008). Second, a strong anchor language in the home

supports future linguistic fluency and academic success (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer,

2008; Gleason, 2009; Rhoades, 2006; Rhoades, Perusse, Douglas, & Zarate, 2008,

Tabors, 2008). Third, little is known about Spanish-speaking parents’ perceptions of

their role in developing spoken English for their young deaf children. According to

Steinberg, Bain, Yuelin, Delgado, and Ruperto (2003), parents in the Hispanic

community report a significant need for information about hearing loss.

The phenomenon shared by a specific population of Spanish-speaking parents of

young deaf children problem was researched in this qualitative phenomenological study.

Individual interviews allowed the parents to express their perceptions of the experience of

choosing spoken language for their children. The qualitative phenomenological study

explored the perceptions of parents who are Spanish-speaking, have children who have

hearing losses (American Annals of the Deaf, 2007), have chosen to develop spoken

English language skills with their children, and live in the greater Los Angeles,

California, area. A qualitative phenomenological study was appropriate for the study

because the method and design of a qualitative phenomenological study allow researchers

to collect, analyze, and interpret for meaning the words participants used to describe a

shared experience.
 9

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the qualitative phenomenological research study was to explore

the perceptions of 20 Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in developing spoken

English skills in their young deaf children (DesJardin & Hodapp, 2006; Nicholas &

Geers, 2007; Simser, 1999). A qualitative design was appropriate to the study because

the meaning behind the shared experiences of the parents was explored through

individual interviews. A quantitative study would have involved testing a hypothesis and

collecting numerical data. A qualitative design was appropriate for the study because the

information gathered in personal interviews explained the parents’ point of view on the

topics raised (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). A phenomenological design was appropriate to

the study because the information gathered led to an exploration of the perceptions of the

parents to find meaning behind their shared experiences as themes and patterns emerged

from the descriptions for the data analysis (Creswell, 2007). A phenomenological design

was also appropriate because the most efficient avenue to understanding what “something

is like’ (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 139) is to explore the experience in the participants’

own words.

According to Moustakas (1994), the challenge of phenomenological research “is

to explicate the phenomenon in terms of its constituents and possible meanings, thus

discerning the features of consciousness and arriving at an understanding of the essence

of the experience” (p. 49). The study reflects the challenges of phenomenological

research. The participating parents were offered an opportunity to describe their

experiences and the meaning they derive from those experiences. The parents’

descriptions were analyzed for themes, patterns, and an understanding of the essence of
 10

the parents’ words. Parents were observed in interactions with their children to identify

the language used in spontaneous situations as a means to triangulate the results of the

study. A pilot study with five parents who did not meet the criteria for the participants in

the main study tested the effectiveness of the semi-structured questions used for the

parent interviews.

The research study resulted in a collection of individual interviews with 20

Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children who participated in a spoken English

educational program at the John Tracy Clinic in Los Angeles, California. As parents

shared their perceptions of their roles in developing spoken English language skills, the

values placed on the English and Spanish languages, how the parents interpreted

professional advice, and issues and concerns Spanish-speaking families have about the

outcomes for their young deaf children were uncovered. The information gathered in the

study will be used to make suggestions for professionals providing services to families.

Significance of the Problem

The significance of the study is that it adds to the knowledge of how parents who

speak Spanish view their role in the development of spoken English skills in their young

children who are deaf. Spanish-speaking parents are part of a unique population with

specific cultural roles and values (Eggers-Piérola, 2005). In California and across the

United States, the population of Spanish-speaking parents is increasing and educators in

the field of education of children who are deaf do not have sufficient information about

how these unique parents see their own role in developing spoken language (Rhoades,

2006; Sanchez & Narr, 2011).

 11

General importance. Understanding the unique perspectives of Spanish-

speaking parents adds to the literature, directs future studies, and enhances the practice of

education. Eggers-Piérola (2005) wrote about the unique values of the Spanish-speaking

population but missing from the discussion was a mention of children with special needs.

DesJardin (2003, 2005, 2007) wrote about Spanish-speaking parents’ of children with

hearing losses and their perceptions of self-efficacy and empowerment but missing from

the study was an in-depth discussion of language development. The most efficient way

to understand specific roles and values was to ask the parents using direct and respectful

questions to share the information (Gay, 2000; Tabors, 2008). The results of the study

included insights for professionals and might improve the communication between

professionals and Spanish-speaking families of children who are deaf.

Significance to leadership. Hessel and Holloway (2002) charged educational

leaders with promoting the success of all students regardless of cultures or abilities.

Developments such as population changes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, 2011) and the

early identification of children with hearing loss (White, 2007, 2011) add unique qualities

to the educational population for which school leaders are responsible. Trezak and Wang

(2006) wrote that children who are deaf and hard of hearing continue to struggle in

reading. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2007, 2011) and other researchers,

children from Spanish-speaking homes dominated the ranks of English language learners

in the United States (E. E. Garcia, Jensen, & Scribner, 2009; Kominski & Shin, 2008;

Ramos, 2007). Significant growth in the Spanish-speaking population is occurring (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2007, 2011), and the numbers of deaf children from Spanish-speaking

homes receiving services from educational programs is increasing because hearing

 12

screening programs are identifying hearing loss in infants at birth (Morrow & Sherwood,

2011; White, 2007, 2011).

Educational success in U.S. schools relies on English language proficiency

(Martindale, 2007; Rhoades et al., 2008; Robertson, 2000). Ling (1989) described the

communication skills of deaf children as essential to their future academic functioning.

Martindale (2007) identified one of the three domains “essential for later success in

reading [as] oral language proficiency” (p. 74). The phenomenon of Spanish-speaking

parents who have children who are deaf and hard of hearing impacts the nation, the

community, and the schools. School leaders might use the information gathered in the

study to make decisions and direct professionals serving this unique population.

Educational leaders seek information to help them develop, adapt, and transform

educational programs (M. Clark, 2007; Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2003) to meet the needs

of all students and their families. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium

(Hessel & Holloway, 2002) designed a framework of standards that charge school leaders

to ensure “the academic success of all students” (p. 1). Educational leaders are

responsible for recognizing trends and patterns in population and culture that require

additional training for educators, adaptations in programs, and support for families

(Geers, 2002; Hessel & Holloway, 2002). The information gathered in the study might

support educational leaders’ response to the challenge of responding to the unique needs

of Spanish-speaking parents of deaf children and add to leadership knowledge.

Researchers studying school improvement models identified the processes

involved in meeting the unique needs of a particular program (Graczewski, Ruffin,

Shambaugh, & Therriault, 2007). Educational leaders shared their experiences in

 13

evaluating and implementing school improvements driven by specific changes in school

demographics and community needs. Baxter (2008) created a framework for “school

leaders with a communitarian” (p. 18) emphasis on stakeholders’ rights, pedagogy, and

community needs.

May (2007) conducted a qualitative study on the role of educational leadership

and assumed the role of a participant-observer to experience the same reality as the other

participants in the study. May found school leaders responded to families, continuously

offered professional development to staff members, and “recognized the need to make

changes to more readily meet the need” (p. 33) of the school community. The

information gathered in the current study will be used to offer Spanish-speaking parents

of deaf children an opportunity to share their experiences and indicates needed

development of and adaptations to programs for children with hearing loss.

Nature of the Study

The qualitative phenomenological research study (Salkind, 2006) involved

exploring the perceptions of 20 Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in the

development of spoken English language skills by their young deaf. A pilot study

evaluated the effectiveness of the interview questions with parents of similar but not

identical characteristics to the participants in the main study. A qualitative research

method was appropriate for the study because the shared experiences of the subjects were

explored through the use of videotaped individual semi-structured interviews. The

transcripts of the final interviews were analyzed to identify themes common to the

subjects’ words.
 14

The qualitative research method supported uncovering rich descriptions of

experiences and thorough interpretations of the descriptions by the researcher (Leedy &

Ormrod, 2005). The subjects answered open-ended questions in their own words and

described interactions with their children who have hearing losses. The goal of the study

was to gather the parents’ description of their understanding of a shared experience, an

experience about which educators have too little information.

A quantitative approach to the study was not appropriate because the focus of the

study was the words parents used to describe their beliefs. A quantitative study offers

participants items on a survey that would have been presented in the researcher’s words,

not the participants’ words. A quantitative researcher would have looked for

relationships and used numerical data, neither of which was appropriate for the study.

A phenomenological approach using one-on-one interviews with semi-structured

questions yielded parent responses and insights into the unique experiences of Spanish-

speaking parents of children who have hearing losses. The questions used in the study

focused on the specific knowledge and experience of the parents about language

development. The study included a pilot study to validate the accuracy of the questions.

The questions used in the study were translated by a native Spanish speaker and checked

by another native Spanish speaker who was familiar with the parents who were part of

the subject population. A native Spanish-speaking interpreter participated in the

interviews.

A phenomenological approach was most appropriate for the study because it

focused on the essence of the shared phenomenon under study (Creswell, 2007). A case

study design, although still a qualitative method of research, would involve exploring “a
 15

bounded system and involve multiple sources of information” (Creswell, 2007, p. 73).

Creswell (2007) wrote that phenomenological research affords a philosophical approach

to the understanding of an experience. A phenomenological design was appropriate for

the study because the goal of the study was to identify “people’s perceptions,

perspectives, and understandings of a particular situation” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p.

139).

Creswell (2007) wrote, “The basic purpose of phenomenology is to reduce

individual experiences within a phenomenon to a description of the universal essences”

(p. 58) of the experiences. Moustakas (1994) characterized phenomenology as the

distillation of an experience through a repeatedly reflective process. The subjects had

unique experiences to describe and offered insights into perceptions that are not available

to non-Spanish-speaking individuals. Professionals providing services to Spanish-

speaking families of young deaf children might gain access to parents’ perceptions from

the results and use the new knowledge to inform their services to the families.

The unique experiences of the participants in the study are described in their own

words through individual interviews. The words the participants used were analyzed to

uncover themes and patterns. According to Bloomberg and Volpe (2008), a researcher

engaged in a qualitative study must carefully describe the process by which data were

analyzed. The interview transcripts were studied thoroughly to identify codes that

converted data into themes for analysis.

Bias was controlled by using reflexivity (Creswell, 2005, 2007) throughout the

study. Moustakas (1994) described the reflective process as essential for the

phenomenological method because to understand the evidence collected, a researcher

 16

must be able to know “himself within the experience being investigated” (p. 47).

Reflexivity allows a researcher to “acknowledge the impact [of the research] on the

researcher, the participants, and on the reader” (Creswell, 2007, p. 179).

Creswell (2007) further defined reflexivity as an open acknowledgment by the

researcher of how personal experiences and culture shaped thinking. A journal was

maintained to chronicle the study. The journal contained problems that arose during the

research, successful engagements during the research, and the researcher’s thoughts about

the research process.

Research Questions

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the

perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in developing spoken

English language skills in their young deaf children. The answers to the research

questions provided information that was useful in filling the gap in the literature

regarding the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children and might

result in improving program design and implementation of effective strategies that

support the development of spoken language in young children who are deaf. The

majority of teachers of young children who are deaf are English speakers (Kominski &

Shin, 2008) and do not have access to the parents’ perceptions.

Spanish-speaking parents might have cultural as well as language-based

differences in their perceptions of their roles in helping their children learn spoken

English (Eggers-Piérola, 2005; Rhoades, 2006). Educators need to understand the

perceptions of parents to provide effective services to families (DesJardin, 2003, 2005,

2007; I. Sanchez & Narr, 2011). Therefore, two research questions were proposed.
 17

RQ1: How do Spanish-speaking parents view and describe their experiences in

developing spoken English language skills in their young deaf children?

RQ2: What advice would Spanish-speaking parents offer educators and other

parents about the process of developing age-appropriate spoken English language skills

in their young deaf children?

Theoretical Framework

The study involved exploring the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents about

their role in developing spoken language skills. Theories of spoken language

development present concepts such as conditioning and maturation to account for the

phenomenon of a child learning to communicate (Gleason, 2009). Chomsky (as cited in

Gleason, 2009) proposed that humans are endowed with a language acquisition device

that stimulates the development of language. Environmental factors also foster language

development (Gleason, 2009).

In the culture of the United States, learning how to communicate begins in

infancy with the family surrounding a baby (Crain, 2004; Dowd et al., 2007; Lemelin,

Tarasbulsy, & Provost, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978, 1997). When exposed to the sounds of

spoken language in the home, infants will imitate the models provided for them. An

infant’s attempt to reproduce the sounds he or she hears results in a response from people

in the environment, reinforcing the communication loop (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer,

2008). Modern technology provides access to the auditory information necessary for

children with hearing losses to develop spoken language (M. Clark, 2007).

The focus of the study was on the perceptions of parents who speak Spanish, have

young children who are deaf, and wish to support their child’s acquisition of spoken
 18

English. The growing numbers of families in this situation made the study timely

(DesJardin, 2003, 2005, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, 2011; White, 2007).

Grounding the research in theory created a framework that includes general systems

theory, family systems theory, and many aspects of child development theory (Creswell,

2005, 2007). Child development theoretical supports include attachment theory,

cognitive development, theory of mind, and second language acquisition theory.

General systems theory. General systems theory (Wren, 2005) explains the

interconnectedness of people and events. Von Bertalanffy (1967) noted the effect of

environment on all systems. General systems theory offers a general view of the problem

of how “complex elements [affect] interaction” (Von Bertalanffy, 1967, p. 125). General

systems theory served as a support for the study because the participants were asked to

describe the complex elements they recognize as affecting their educational choices for

their children.

Family systems theory. Bronfenbrenner (1979) presented three concentric

circles of evolving interaction within the human experience and coined the concept of

family systems theory (Seligman & Darling, 2007). First, the child exists as a unique

human being with potentials waiting for discovery and nurturing in the core relationships

in the home. Bronfenbrenner named this circle the mesosytem (p. 209).

Second, the circle widens to encompass environments that the child has no

personal knowledge of such as a parent’s employment or world events. Bronfenbrenner

(1979) named this circle the exosystem (p. 237). Third, the circle of culture influences

choices made throughout all the inner circles. Bronfenbrenner named this circle the

macrosystem (p. 258).

 19

The study rested on the concern that a child with a hearing loss born to Spanish-

speaking parents develops within the parameters of family systems and might be at risk

of becoming stuck in the mesosystem because without efficient communication between

parent and child, core relationships might not be robust. Effective and efficient

communication between family members forms a foundation for further growth as the

circle widens to include other influences. Professionals providing services to such

families must be knowledgeable about the impact of a hearing loss and of a language

other than English on the experiences of individual members of the family (M. Clark,

2007).

Child development theory. Concepts in child development theory that support

the study include attachment theory, cognitive development theory, theory of mind,

language and communication development theory, and second language acquisition

theory. Attachment theory refers to the powerful bonds that develop between an infant

and parents immediately after birth (Hendrick & Weissman, 2009). Prior to universal

newborn hearing screening programs implementation, parents, unaware of the hearing

loss, usually had uninterrupted early months or even years to attach to their children

(Calderon & Naidu, 2000). With the implementation of the newborn hearing screening

programs, families often know before the mother and child leave the hospital that the

child has a hearing loss (White, 2007). Research in attachment theory (Pressman, Pipp-

Siegel, Yoshinaga-Itano, Kubicek, & Emde, 2000; Suess, Grossman, & Sroufe, 1992)

documented the role of parents in language development. The concept that parents know

how to support language development in their children was central to the study.
 20

Cognitive development theory. The premier child development theorists, Piaget

(Brickhard, 1997; Piaget, 2001) and Vygotsky (1997), considered the role of the parents

in language and cognitive development to be crucial. A typically developing infant gains

skills in social, emotional, physical, cognitive, and communicative domains rapidly

during the first few months of life (Cole, 1992). The domains interact to support,

enhance, and direct continuing development.

Cognitive development theory (Brickhard, 1997; Lemelin et al., 2006) recognizes

the powerful impact parents’ interaction styles have on infants’ communication skills. A

child’s cognitive and communicative development depends on the connection between

the child and the parent (Cole, 1992). The study involved collecting information about

how Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children perceive their role in language

development.

Theory of mind. In the study, parents described their perceptions of the process

of developing language with their young deaf children. Research on the theory of mind

supports the central role of parent–child interaction in the development of spoken

language (C. A. Miller, 2006). Bruner (1966) described theory of mind as a process by

which an individual makes sense of information, applies past knowledge to new input,

and recognizes that other people exist in the environment. Research supported the role of

parents in modeling the concept of theory of mind for their children (Bergeson, Miller, &

McCune, 2006; DesJardin & Eisenberg, 2007).

Language development theory. The study involved collecting information

about the language development of children who have hearing losses and come from

Spanish-speaking homes. Children with typical hearing hear the language used in their
 21

homes and develop language (Gleason, 2009). Because modern technology offers access

to the sounds of speech, parents of children with hearing losses have the same

expectations for their children (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008; Ling, 2003).

Parents of children who are deaf and parents who are Spanish-speaking in an English-

speaking community are mindful of the fundamental power language fluency offers their

children (Eggers-Piérola, 2005; Simser, 1999).

Second language acquisition theory. While a complete discussion of second

language acquisition theory was beyond the scope of the study, some basic concepts

regarding second language learning were noted. According to Tabors (2008) and

Takeuchi (2006), the maintenance of the home language is essential. The rich foundation

of language and interaction provided by the home language supports the future

development of English as a second language as well as a strong self-identity and self-

esteem (Park & Sarkar, 2007; Peterson & Heywood, 2007; Seligman & Darling, 2007).

Parents often choose to abandon the home language and use English even if their

own facility with English is restricted, a situation that can result in a limited, not a rich,

language environment for the child (Tabors, 2008). Professionals need to engage parents

in a discussion of language goals (King & Fogle, 2006b). In the study, parents were

asked to share their intentions and knowledge regarding the language development of

their young deaf children. The theoretical framework that supported the study provided a

scaffold of thinking to place the study within the systems of interaction, the principles of

child development, and second language acquisition.

Technological supports. Technology exists to provide children who are deaf

with access to the sounds of spoken language. Children who have hearing losses have
 22

access to and can acquire spoken English language skills (Geers, Moog, Tobey, &

Brenner, 2007; Ling, 2003; Nicholas & Geers, 2007; Sharma et al., 2004; Yoshinaga-

Itano, 1998). Spoken language educational programs in the United States for deaf

children are English-based (American Annals of the Deaf, 2007). English language

proficiency is the key to educational success in the United States (Flexer, 2005; Krashen,

2004; Robertson, 2000).

Technology in the form of digital hearing aids and cochlear implants provides

access to the sounds of spoken language for deaf children (Geers, Nicholas, & Sedey,

2003; Ling, 1989). The earlier a hearing loss is identified, the earlier intervention can

occur. Federal law mandates that each state uses a referral system and a service delivery

system to provide parents of newborns identified as deaf or hard of hearing consultation,

advice, and support as early as possible (White, 2007, 2011).

When parents choose a spoken language communication approach, research

indicates “early detection of childhood hearing impairment was associated with higher

scores for language” (Kennedy et al., 2006, para. 4). Ninety-five percent of parents of

children who are deaf have normal hearing themselves (American Annals of the Deaf,

2007; Gallaudet Research Institute, 2008). Many parents have chosen to take advantage

of technological advances in amplification to give their children the option of developing

spoken language through audition (G. Clark, 2009).

Digital hearing aids offer individuals with hearing loss improved access to using

the telephone through adaptations of wireless technology. Digital hearing aids provide

improved speed of processing sound that supports improved recognition of speech in

background noise, and improved microphone technology for more signal fidelity
 23

(Kerckhoff, Listenburger, & Valente, 2008). Cochlear implants are surgically implanted

devices for individuals with hearing loss so profound that hearing aid technology is

insufficient for accurate speech recognition (G. Clark, 2009).

Cochlear implants consist of external speech processors similar to mini-computers

that process sound into an electrical signal and internal surgically implanted electrodes

(G. Clark, 2009). The internal electrode is implanted in an individual’s cochlea and

receives the electrical signal through the skin from the speech processor (Zwolan, 2008).

The electrical signal stimulates the cochlea and the signal travels to the auditory

processing center of the brain and is recognized as sound. The external and internal

components are aligned by a set of magnets so that the external device stays on the

individual’s head behind the ear and transmits to the internal electrode. The acoustic

information transmitted across the child’s skin to the internal electrode offers the range of

speech sounds necessary for a deaf child to hear and develop spoken language (Ling,

1989).

Cochlear implant technology offers new options for children who are born

profoundly deaf. Archbold (2008) reported on a questionnaire completed by 101 parents

of deaf children who wear cochlear implants. The parents used a Likert-type scale to rate

their satisfaction with the cochlear implant. The parents perceived that their “children

had developed more confidence, are more independent, that use of spoken language has

developed greatly, and that communication within the family has improved” (Archbold,

2008, p. 139).

Thomas, El-Kashlan, and Zwolen (2008) investigated the effect of exposure to a

second language on the ability of a child with a cochlear implant to learn spoken English.
 24

The parents reported satisfaction with the results of the cochlear implant. The results of

the study supported the view that the parents of deaf children with cochlear implants “do

not need to avoid using a minority language” (Thomas et al., 2008, para. 1). Digital

hearing aids and cochlear implants offer children with hearing losses new options to

support spoken language development (Geers et al., 2007; Kerckhoff et al., 2008). The

parents recruited for the study had knowledge of the technology available to their

children.

Gap filled by this study. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature regarding

the theoretical support for the study. The literature review documents the gap in the

literature regarding the specific group of Spanish-speaking parents of children with

hearing losses. Research studies contain information on the perceptions of Spanish-

speaking parents of their role in the acquisition of English language skills in their

children (Abell, 2007; Howes, Wishard-Guerra, & Zucker, 2007) but no mention is made

in the studies about any of the children having hearing losses. Researchers studied the

perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of their role in the education of their special

needs child (Bailey, Skinner, Rodriquez, Gut, & Correa, 1999; DesJardin & Hodapp,

2006), but none of the studies offered any information on children with hearing losses.

Research in the acquisition of spoken English language skills by children with

hearing losses supported the view that outcomes are improving because of the access to

sound provided by hearing technology (DesJardin, 2005; Geers, 2003; Nicholas & Geers;

2007; Rhoades, 2006; Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003, Yoshinaga-Itano, Nelson, & Cardon,

2007). Rhoades and Yoshinaga-Itano (2003) offered information about children with

hearing losses from non-English-speaking homes but Rhoades presented anecdotal

 25

information, not a research study and Yoshinaga-Itano (2003) presented information on

the children rather than the parents. The perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of

young deaf children regarding their own role in developing the spoken English language

skills of their children has not been studied (Delgado, 1984). The study fills a gap in the

literature by bringing together the issues related to the perceptions of Spanish-speaking

parents of their role in the development of spoken English language skills in their young

children who have hearing losses.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions of terms will allow the reader to proceed with a clear

understanding of terms as they are “used in relation to the study” (Leedy & Ormrod,

2005, p. 56). The following definitions clarify how the terms are used in the study. The

Definition of Terms section is designed to remove ambiguity or confusion from the

discussion (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).

Cochlear implant: A child with a severe to profound hearing loss may be a

candidate for a cochlear implant if hearing aids do not provide sufficient access to the

sounds of speech. Currently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved

devices are available to children at age 12 months (Cochlear Americas, 2009). Some of

the participants in the study had children who wear cochlear implants.

Digital hearing aids: Digital technology allows hearing aids to be more

responsive to the specifics of an individual’s hearing loss. Digital hearing aids allow for

a more custom fit of the responses, which typically results in increased accuracy of the

perception of sound (Kerckhoff et al., 2008). Some of the participants in the study had

children who wear digital hearing aids.

 26

Early intervention services: School systems in the United States are required to

provide services to children with disabilities, ages 0-3, before the children qualify for

preschool programs (California Department of Education, 2008). The participants in the

study experienced early intervention services for their children who are deaf.

Hearing loss: Hearing loss can be described as conductive or sensorineural; mild,

moderate, severe, or profound. A conductive hearing loss is a disruption of the

transmission of sound through the tympanic membrane (eardrum) through the middle ear

to the inner ear. A sensorineural hearing loss is a disruption of the transmission of sound

from the inner ear to the neural pathways to the auditory centers of the brain (Alexander

Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, 2005; Rapin, 1993).

A mild hearing loss means sounds must reach 20-40 dB before a child can hear

them. A moderate hearing loss means sounds must reach 40-60 dB before a child can

hear them. A severe hearing loss means sounds must reach 60-90 dB before a child can

hear them. Children with severe hearing losses cannot hear speech without hearing aids

(Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, 2009). A profound hearing loss

means sounds must reach 90 dB or louder for a child to hear them. Children with

profound hearing losses cannot hear speech without hearing aids or cochlear implants

(Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, 2009). According to Cole and Flexer

(2008), no hearing loss is too great or too slight not to benefit from intervention. Hearing

loss can also be progressive, which means over time a child can lose hearing. Children

with profound hearing loss do not develop speech and spoken language without

consistent and appropriate use of hearing aids or cochlear implants (Alexander Graham
 27

Bell Association for the Deaf, 2009). The parents who participated in the study have

children with severe to profound hearing losses.

Newborn Hearing Screening: Since 2000, the U.S. Federal Government has

supported a national newborn hearing screening program. In the hospital, staff members

screen newborn babies for hearing loss before they leave the hospital and, if needed,

recommend a center for follow-up services. Not all babies are born in hospitals and not

all babies screened in hospitals receive follow-up screenings as needed (Morrow &

Sherwood, 2011; White, 2003). Inevitably, some babies do not receive screenings for

hearing loss. The participants of the study experienced the newborn hearing screening

process.

Professional: In the study, professional referred to a range of individuals who

provide direct and indirect services to families of children with hearing losses. Included

in this list are early intervention specialists who work with infants and toddlers ages 0-3

years and their families, early childhood specialists who work with the preschool age

population and their families, speech pathologists, audiologists, occupational therapists,

physical therapists, teachers of children with hearing loss, special education

administrators, and counselors.

Spanish-speaking: In the study, the term Spanish-speaking referred to the

language status of the parents interviewed. The parents who participated in the study

considered themselves to be fluent in their first language, Spanish, but not fluent in

spoken English.

Young child: In the study, a young child will refer to a child between the ages of 2

years 6 months and 5 years 11 months.

 28

Assumptions

According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005), assumptions made by a researcher have

consequences for the research and provide essential information for readers to evaluate

the outcomes of the research. The first assumption of the study was that educators

recognize the need for information about the Spanish-speaking population in the United

States. In several states, the demographics of the school population demonstrate the need

for professionals with insights into the Spanish-speaking culture (Ramos, 2007).

The second assumption was that the participants felt comfortable enough to share

their experiences candidly. Toward this goal, a comfortable, familiar and as stress-free

an environment as possible was provided for the interviews. In the study, the subjects

were assured that the study results would be reported without compromising their

privacy. The steps taken to maintain the subjects’ anonymity were explained to the

participants. A third assumption was that educators accept the importance of the role of

parents in the development of spoken language skills in young children with hearing

losses (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008; Simser, 1999).

A fourth assumption of the study was that the interview questions stimulated the

perceptions of the subjects. Native Spanish speakers translated the questions asked in the

interview. The language used in the interview questions was clear but polite by the

standards of the Spanish-speaking community from which the participants were recruited

(Ramos, 2007). A final assumption was that the participants offered their perceptions

based on their experiences as Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children. The

parents invited to participate in the study demonstrated their interest in teaching their deaf

child to master spoken language (DesJardin, 2007).

 29

Scope and Limitations

The scope of the study was limited to the experiences of a group of Spanish-

speaking parents who have young children with hearing losses and have chosen to

develop spoken English skills in their children. Individual interviews with participants

were videotaped. Questions about the participants’ experiences were presented in

English and translated into Spanish by an interpreter familiar to the parents. The

information gathered in the study adds to the knowledge of educators working with

Spanish-speaking families and children who have hearing losses.

Creswell (2005) described the limitations of a study as “weaknesses or problems

identified by the researcher” (p. 198). The limitations of the study included the small

sample of subjects interviewed and the unique characteristics of the subjects. The

subjects lived in the greater Los Angeles area and were Spanish-speaking parents of

young children who are deaf. The parents interviewed chose to develop spoken language

with their children and were involved in an English-only preschool. Generalizing the

results of this study to any other population would not be feasible. Parents of children

with hearing losses who live in different areas of the nation might have different

experiences of the choices and services offered to their families. Spanish-speaking

parents in other areas of the nation might have different experiences of the choices and

services offered to their families. English-speaking parents might have different

experiences of the choices and services offered to their families. While the

generalizability of the study is limited, the results of the study will direct further research

that reaches beyond the small sample.

 30

Another limitation of the study is the knowledge and perceptions of readers of the

issues surrounding the focus of the study. Although most educators are aware of the

increase in Spanish-speaking children in the educational system of the United States, few

are aware of the possibilities available for children who are born with hearing losses to

develop spoken language (Nance & Dodson, 2007; Nevins & Chute, 2006). Fewer still

are cognizant of the complicated situation Spanish-speaking families of deaf children

face (DesJardin, 2007; McConkey-Robbins, 2007; Morrow & Sherwood, 2011;

Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 2007). The experiences of parents who are English speakers or

bilingual were beyond the scope of the study. The experiences of parents who have

chosen to develop visual language skills or sign language skills with their children were

also beyond the scope of the study.

Delimitations

Delimitations of the study included the uniqueness of the parents who

participated. No attempts were made to recruit parents who have children older than 5

years 11 months with hearing losses. No attempts were made to define the value of

spoken language or signed language development for young deaf children. No attempts

were made to uncover issues related to bilingual education. No attempts were made to

identify parenting skills. No attempts were made to measure parents’ fluency in English.

The focus of the study was to uncover perceptions shared by Spanish-speaking parents of

how they help their young deaf children learn to speak English.

Summary

The problem addressed in the study was that insufficient information exists in the

literature regarding the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in

 31

developing the spoken English language skills of their young deaf children. The

participants of the study represent a small but steadily growing group of parents because

the Spanish-speaking population in the United States is increasing rapidly (U.S. Census,

2007) and hearing loss is identified at birth for increasing numbers of deaf children

(EHDI, 2007). Increasing numbers of parents, including Spanish-speaking parents,

choose for their children who have hearing losses to use digital hearing aids or cochlear

implants to access the sounds of spoken language (McConkey-Robbins, 2007;

Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 2007). Increasing numbers of children with hearing losses from

Spanish-speaking families receive services in spoken English language intervention and

educational programs (DesJardin, 2007; Kominski & Shin, 2008). Information about the

role of parents, including parents of children with hearing losses, in developing spoken

language and the issues surrounding Spanish-speaking parents is presented in the

literature review in Chapter 2.

The qualitative phenomenological study involved the use of individual interviews

with 20 Spanish-speaking parents of young children who are deaf. A qualitative method

was appropriate for the study because the perceptions of the parents were collected in

their own words and analyzed to uncover a rich description of the shared experiences of

the parents (Salkind, 2006). A phenomenological design was appropriate for the study

because the transcripts of the interviews were analyzed for themes and patterns that

emerged from the parents’ own words and that described their shared experience

(Creswell, 2007). The information gathered in the proposed qualitative

phenomenological study described the Spanish-speaking parents’ perceptions and might

 32

inform professionals regarding how best to serve the population of Spanish-speaking

families of young children with hearing losses.

The conceptual framework that supported the study began with general systems

theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1967) and family systems theory (Bronnfrenbrenner, 1979) that

explained how groups and individuals interact. The child development theories of Piaget

(2001) and Vygotsky (1973) offered insight into the stages and development of children,

especially language development which is central to the study. Language development

theory (Gleason, 2009) and second language acquisition theory (Krashen, 2003) offered

further support for studying the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of children with

hearing losses.

Research exists on the role of parents in developing language skills with their

children (Gleason, 2009). Research exists on the role of parents of children with hearing

losses in developing spoken language (Brown & Abu Bakar, 2006; Yoshinaga-Itano,

1998, 2003). Research exists on second language acquisition (Abell, 2007; Howes et al.,

2007). Research exists on children with hearing losses and spoken language acquisition

(DesJardin & Eisenberg, 2007; Geers, 2002; Geers et al., 2007).

Some research exists on children with hearing losses and second language

acquisition (McConkey-Robbins, 2007; Rhoades, 2006, Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 2007).

One study exists on Spanish-speaking parents of children with hearing losses

(Yoshinaga-Itano et al.) but did not include the parents’ perceptions of their role in

spoken language. A gap exists in the literature about the perceptions of Spanish-speaking

parents who have children with hearing losses and want their children to develop spoken

language. Chapter 2 contains a review of the seminal and current literature available on
 33

the topics surrounding the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of young children

with hearing losses. Topics reviewed in the literature for Chapter 2 include general

systems theory, family systems theory, child development theory, second language

acquisition theory, and spoken language development in children with hearing losses.
 34

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Chapter 2 includes an analysis of the historical and current literature available for

review regarding the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of their role in developing

spoken English language skills in their young children who have hearing losses. The

literature reviewed for the study contains information on parents’ perceptions of their

roles in developing spoken language in young children. Information about parents who

speak languages other than English is included. Chapter 1 included the theoretical

framework for the study. The literature available on systems theory, including family

systems theory (Bronfrenbrenner, 1979), child development theory (Piaget, 2001;

Vygotsky, 1973), and second language acquisition theory (Krashen 2003) provided a

setting for the study.

Professionals who work with the families of young deaf children and hope to

support spoken language development are more effective if they “incorporate goals that

enhance caregivers’ involvement, self-efficacy, and linguistic input” (DesJardin, 2007,

para. 4). In a study involving parental reflections on experiences with newborn screening

for hearing loss and subsequent management, McCracken, Young, and Tattersall (2008)

found “there has been little exploration of parents’ views” (p. 61). In a study involving

Pakistani parents of children with disabilities, Masood, Turner, and Baxter (2007) came

to the conclusion that awareness of and sensitivity to cultural differences are necessary

skills for professionals interested in creating effective relationships with parents. Stoner

and Angell (2006) used a qualitative case study to understand the parent perceptions of

their roles in their children’s educations and to offer professional insight into how to

engage with parents.

 35

Harry (2008) studied the reported definitions of successful collaboration with

professionals as offered by culturally and linguistically diverse parents. The parents in

Harry’s study described their need for genuine involvement, respect from professionals,

and increased awareness of cultural strengths by professionals providing services.

Cabrera, Shannon, West, and Brooks-Gunn (2006) searched a nationally representative

sample of 2,193 Latino families to study the differences that the country of origin and the

English proficiency levels of the parents made to parental interactions with infants.

Cabrera et al. (2006) noted it was important to understand the parents’ point of view to

gain an understanding of parenting behaviors within the context of a dominant culture.

Literature Review Search Topics and Terms

The following list of research topics serves to clarify the sections of the literature

review: language learning in young children, parent roles in spoken language

development, parent roles as language facilitators, parents’ perceptions of the importance

of language development, parents’ perceptions of their roles in language development,

parents of deaf children, spoken language development in young deaf children, role of

parents in the spoken language development of young deaf children, second language

acquisition, deaf children and second language acquisition, perceptions of parents who

speak languages other than Spanish, perceptions of parents who speak languages other

than Spanish and have children with disabilities, perceptions of parents who speak

Spanish, perceptions of parents who speak Spanish and have children with disabilities,

perceptions of parents who speak Spanish and have deaf children. Included in the

literature review are studies about parental perceptions of language development and the

perception of parents regarding their role in the spoken language development of young
 36

children across several cultures and young children with special needs. The literature

review includes studies concerned with the perception of parents regarding their role in

the spoken language development of young children who have hearing losses, the

perceptions of parents regarding their role in the spoken language development of young

children with hearing losses in several languages, and the perceptions of Spanish-

speaking parents regarding their role in the language development of English language

skills in their young children who have hearing losses. Table 1 shows the results of the

search of the peer-reviewed literature. In addition to the electronic databases that

provided access to peer-reviewed journal articles and other electronic sources, books

considered seminal to the field and current titles were searched.

Table 1

Research Database Search Results

Database Number of relevant references found

EBSCOhost database 87 articles

ERIC Publications database 2 articles

ProQuest database 17 articles

ProQuest Digital Dissertations database 7 dissertations

Ovid Full-text database 3 articles

Sage Publications database 5 articles

Government, organizations, proceedings and 31 references

technology websites

The U.S. economy supports a $24 billion industry based on baby products

(Consumer Products Safety Commission, 2007; Lino & Carlson, 2009). Parents play
 37

with their children, share moments of closeness, and serve as a guide to the children’s

exploration of the world (Simmons-Martin, 1979). Parents provide interactions “during

routine, everyday play and caregiving activities” (Cole, 1992, p. 16). Vygotsky (1997)

viewed parent interaction as central to a young child’s development of communication

skills. Vygotsky (1973) wrote that the first function of language “is communication,

social contact” (p. 19) and the first communication partners for a child are usually the

parents.

Research on Language Learning in Young Children

The first few years of life serve as a critical language learning time for children,

and their parents are crucial communication partners. Acredolo and Goodwyn (1988)

studied 16 children aged 11 months and found a strong relationship between parent–child

interactions and the child’s ability to attach names to objects and use the names in

communicative interactions. If a parent is at ease in the language used to name objects, it

follows that the child will have a better chance of connecting and remembering the

words. If a parent is struggling to recall the names of objects in a language he or she is

just learning, it follows that the child is at risk for having fewer opportunities to hear

essential vocabulary (Rhoades, 2006). Researchers also focus on the differences between

the interaction of parents with typically developing children and parents of children who

have special needs.

Anderson and Marinac (2007) expected to find differences in the language models

of mothers of children with delayed language and found the opposite. Thirty-six children

aged 11 months were identified as delayed, typical, and advanced in their language

development, yet the mothers of all 36 children used strikingly similar language input.
 38

Anderson and Marinac speculated that although the delayed children’s expressive

language differed from normal development, receptive language was similar to normal

development and the mothers responded to that facet of the children’s language

development by offering age appropriate language models. Rather than lowering their

expectations for their children’s understanding, the mothers offered challenging models

to the children. Anderson and Marinac recognized the ways mothers of 11-month-old

children demonstrated similarities rather than differences during their interactions with

their children who had different developmental levels. Parents and children seem to

develop communication skills early in the child’s life.

Infants start to develop the foundations for communication skills early

(Tammemäe, 2009; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986; Winsler, Feder, Way, & Manfra, 2006).

The auditory input received from caregivers plays an important role in infants learning

the complex but natural system of spoken language (Cole, 1992; Northern & Downs,

1991). Northern and Downs (1991) noted the complementary relationship between the

frequencies needed for human speech to be intelligible and the sensitivity range of the

human ear.

The human infant is born with “specialized neural structures in the brain that

await auditory experience with language to trigger them into functioning” (Northern &

Downs, 1991, p. 1). According to Cole (1992), “Language develops in the course of

interactions between parent and child during routine, every day activities” (p. 16) and

“spoken language is acoustically based” (p. 102). Auditory events such as a mother’s

urgent voice or a familiar lullaby warn a child away from danger or comfort babies.

Back and forth vocal exchanges between parent and child, even when filled with only
 39

nonsense sounds, set up a pattern of turn taking, which is one of the foundations of

human communication (Jamieson & Pederson, 1993). Joint attention, temperament, and

social competence also play strong roles in the development of language skills (Gleason,

2009).

In a study that focused on infant joint attention, temperament, and social

competence, Van Hecke et al. (2007) noted a lack of information on the role caregivers

assume in the acquisition of joint attention skills and subsequent language abilities. Van

Hecke et al. followed 52 infants starting at 12 months of age and evaluated behaviors at

intervals to 30 months. Results support the conclusion that prediction of individual

differences in social abilities can be drawn from language skills, cognitive abilities, and

infant joint attention.

The infants relied on the adult caregivers around them to provide stimulation

tailored for the individual infant (Van Hecke et al., 2007). The caregivers demonstrated

conscious or unconscious skills in gaining the children’s attention and in responding

appropriately to the children’s interests. Responding appropriately might be difficult for

a parent who feels he or she must choose between two languages (Tabors, 2008).

Rowe (2008) studied 47 parents and children and compared the mother’s

knowledge of child development and verbal abilities to the vocabulary development of

their young children. The researchers found a strong relationship to exist between the

quantity and quality of verbal communication that parents use with children and the

children’s vocabulary development. Parents who are not fluent in the language chosen

might offer less quantity and poorer quality of language models (Tabors, 2008).
 40

C. A. Miller (2006) explored the literature concerning the relationships between

theory of mind, joint attention, language exposure, and general language development in

infants, toddlers, and young children. According to C. A. Miller, a reciprocal relationship

exists between language development, language experiences, and theory of mind

development as children “listen to and participate in conversations in which people

predict and explain behavior in terms of desires, beliefs, and feelings” (p. 144). Using

language to predict and explain behavior requires a certain level of fluency in a language

(Gleason, 2009).

Hart and Risley (1995) described the relationship between the number of words a

child is exposed to in the home and future language ability. The study involved children

from upper middle class, middle class, and lower socioeconomic status families.

According to Hart and Risley, “By the time the children were 3 years old, trends in

amount of talk, vocabulary growth, and style of interaction were well established” (para.

14).

Researchers measured the expressive verbal language of the mothers by counting

the number of words a child heard in a typical day (Hart & Risley, 1995). Extrapolating

from the numbers tallied over the early years of a child’s life, the researchers (Hart &

Risley, 1995) came to the conclusion that a child in an upper middle class family

experiences 46 million vocabulary items before entering preschool at age 4. Children

from poorer families experienced less than one third of that number or 30 million fewer

words by the time they entered preschool (Hart & Risley, 1995). Hart and Risley (1995)

found that temporary gains might occur in a child’s vocabulary scores when intense

intervention is provided but that the gains are not sustainable. Educators use Hart and
 41

Risley’s (1995) study to account for the poorer academic performance of children from

lower socioeconomic status families and to support the need for intervention services that

stimulate language development for young children (Robertson, 2000). Intervention

services for young children often include the parents (Cole & Flexer, 2008; Dowd et al.,

2007). The studies mentioned in the preceding section support the important role parents

play in language development.

Research on Parent Roles in Spoken Language Development

Experts in child development recognize the importance of how parents interact

with their children in enhancing language development (Bernstein & Tiegerman-Farber,

2009; Chomsky, 2007; M. Clark, 2007; Gleason, 2009). Piaget’s studies in child

development highlighted the need for quality parent–child interactions and genuine

acceptance of the child’s ideas to foster emotional and cognitive development (Brickhard,

1997; Labinowicz, 1980). Piaget wrote about his beliefs that the parents he had observed

with their children tended to impose corrections, expectations, and adult models of

understanding on the emerging minds of the children.

According to Labinowicz (1980), Piaget encouraged parents to allow children to

explore the world at their own pace. Piaget believed adults best serve children by posing

questions and accepting the reasoning of the children as valid based on the child’s

knowledge, not the adult’s explanation, of how the world works. Parent skills valued by

Piaget include adapting to the child’s interests, following his or her lead, and offering the

language to support exploration. Vygotsky (1997) put more emphasis than Piaget on the

role of social interaction and communication on the development of children. Works by

Simmons-Martin (1979), Northcott, (1994), Simser (1999), M. Clark (2007), and Cole
 42

and Flexer (2008) connected the views of Piaget and Vygotsky to language development

for children with hearing losses.

Sandberg and Liliedahl (2008) studied the patterns in communication styles in

parent–child dyads by videotaping six dyads of parents and children with a

developmental age of 18 months. Half of the children had severe communication

problems. The other half had no signs of any delays in development. The quantitative

measures used to compare the dyads showed no significant differences in how the parents

interacted with the children.

The qualitative measures found significant differences in how the parents

interacted (Sandberg & Liliedahl, 2008). Parents of children with communication

problems were more directive, and parents asked questions without waiting for verbal

answers that would never come. Parents of children with normal communication skills

narrated events but did not direct the child extensively. One conclusion reached in this

study was “parents need support to detect, interpret, and respond to the children’s weak

signals to interaction” (Sandberg & Liliedahl, 2008, p. 26) rather than missing

opportunities for communication practice. Parents of children with hearing losses often

receive similar advice to support their children’s language development.

In another study focused on parent–child interactions, Landry, Smith, and Swank

(2006) videotaped weekly visits to 264 mother–infant pairs and analyzed the mothers’

responsiveness to the infants’ needs. A facilitator guided the mothers through a review of

the experiences of the past week, the goals for interactions, the observations of mother–

infant behaviors, and the enhancements used for responsiveness. The results of the study

indicated interventions can heighten mothers’ responsiveness to babies’ needs, which in

 43

turn results in “increased infant competence in social, communicative, and affective

skills” (Landry et al., 2006, p. 639).

Research on Parents as Language Facilitators

Responsive parents provide the most important influence on the development of

communication skills in their children (Bernstein & Tiegerman-Farber, 2009; Brickhard,

1997; E. Clark, 1980; M. Clark, 2007; Hotelling, 2004; Tabors, 2008; Vygotsky, 1997).

Bernstein and Tiegerman-Farber (2009) wrote about the development of language skills

in children and the role parents play in stimulating communication. Brickhard (1997)

described the views of Piaget regarding the cognitive base for communication. E. Clark

(1980) wrote about the many influences on a child’s development of language, especially

the role of parents. M. Clark (2007) wrote a guide for parents of children with hearing

losses that supports the role of the parent in language development as primary. Tabors

(2008) wrote about the different ways children respond to interactions with parents and

teachers. A child who is shy and quiet with teachers may be chatty and gregarious when

a parent is nearby (Tabors, 2008). The studies above focused on the role of parents as

language facilitators.

Vygotsky (1997) wrote about the strong association of social interactions,

cognition, and language, by which, when applied within the context of the concept of the

zone of proximal development, adults help a child move from one level of development

to the next. Vygotsky (1997) identified how adults offer children concepts and language

forms that are understood, that lie within the children’s zone of development. Growth

occurs when adults connect new concepts and language in a manner that promotes the

child’s development.
 44

Adults are responsible for scaffolding the child’s learning from one level to the

next (Mooney, 2000, p. 84). Scaffolding requires that an adult be a good observer of the

child and have options available to offer the child on the way to the next level of learning.

The adult must have access to rich communication supports, such as vocabulary

alternatives, flexibility in sentence structure, and pragmatic language skills, during adult–

child interactions to make scaffolding successful (M. Clark, 2007). Adults possess the

mature language facility to move with skill from the unknown language down to a level

comprehensible to the child and then back up to the original language that is now

available to the child. This complex process requires fluency in the language used by the

communication partners (Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1999; Rhoades, 2006, Simmons-

Martin, 1979).

Research on Parents’ Perception of the Importance of Language Development

Heich (2006) reported on the value mothers placed on effective English

communication skills in children. Heich studied two sets of children and mothers whose

first language was Mandarin Chinese. Twenty-six children, ages 4 to 6 years, attended

preschool in a setting that used a half-day immersion in English language instruction.

Twenty-nine children, ages 4 to 6 years, attended preschool in a setting that used only 1

hour a day of English language instruction.

Three mothers from each program volunteered for the study (Heich, 2006). Heich

(2006) observed the children and parents over a 3-month period and followed up with

personal interviews. Both sets of parents voiced their anxieties over their children’s need

to learn English. English fluency, to these parents, represented “better opportunities to

create a fruitful life with wealth and prosperity” (Heich, 2006, p. 252). Heich (2006) also
 45

concluded the parents wanted and received current information on best practices in early

childhood instruction as well as what their individual children needed.

In a study of parents from a variety of cultures, Mushi (2002) discussed attitudes

toward the acquisition of spoken English and the maintenance of the home languages in

their children. Twelve different languages were represented in the homes of the 42

children studied, but half of the families spoke Spanish. Mushi reported that exposure to

language use was an important issue and that children often chose to use one language

with one parent and the other language with the other parent. The parents in Mushi’s

study “perceive[d] the English language as a tool for upward mobility in society” (p. 526)

and wanted their children to be fluent in English.

Parents of children with special needs as well as parents of typically developing

children value language skills. J. F. Miller and Sedey (1995) studied the views of parents

of 20 children with Down syndrome. The parents were asked to rate the vocabulary of

their young children with Down syndrome. The parents’ accuracy in rating was

compared to the accuracy of parents of 23 children for whom the standardized

assessments had already proven valid. Miller and Sedey recognized the value placed on

communication by the parents and the parents’ ability to evaluate their children’s

language development accurately. Parents who value language development might

recognize their own role in language development for their children (Gleason, 2009;

Landry et al., 2006).

Research on Parents’ Perceptions of their Roles in Language Development

Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna (2006) studied parents who spoke Spanish and their

views regarding their roles in developing spoken English language skills by their
 46

children. The parents were 14 immigrant mothers from Mexico and their young children.

Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna used parent interviews gathered over 12 months regarding

three issues: the parents’ knowledge of language development, their specific child’s

language development, and activities that the mothers found useful in developing

language in the home. The conclusion was that parents possess a range of information

about language development, and the professionals working with the families should

engage the parents in ongoing discussions of strategies that work to develop language,

real-life assessment tools, and the cause and solutions to communication problems

specific to their children.

Parents of children with special needs might also benefit from a strong partnership

with professionals who help the parents focus on language development with their

children. Parents of children with severe learning disabilities shared their thoughts on the

parents’ roles in their children’s language development (Nind & Hewett, 2005). The

parents expressed unqualified support for treating the disabled person as an equal partner

in all interactions despite the lack of obvious communications skills. Landa (2007)

recognized the roles of mothers in developing language with children with autism

spectrum disorder. Warren and Brady (2007) studied the role of language in the

development of children with cognitive disabilities. The parents described using high

expectations for verbal communication as a means to socializing their children.

Landa (2007) targeted the impact of autism on the early communication skills

needed to support social development, language development, and play. According to

Landa, professionals working with parents of children with special needs in

communication ought to be knowledgeable and skilled in the delivery of information to

 47

the parents. Stoner and Angell (2006) studied the perspectives of parents of children with

autism spectrum disorder. Eight parents participated in interviews that explored the roles

the parents played in the children’s development. Stoner and Angell offered two

conclusions from their study.

The first conclusion was parental engagement in a child’s development results in

positive effects for both the parents and the child. The second conclusion was parents

will choose engagement at varied levels. One goal of the study was to inform the

professionals working with the parents who participated in the interviews about the

parents’ perceptions. Professionals might not share the perceptions of parents in all

circumstances (Naseef, 2001).

Research on Parents of Deaf Children

Over 95% of parents of children who are deaf are not deaf themselves (American

Annals of the Deaf, 2007); therefore, spoken language as the communication used in the

home is a natural choice for parents who are hearing. Parents speak their own language,

whatever that language might be, with their children. Professionals supporting families

with children who have hearing losses respond to the families’ needs by offering parents

techniques and strategies to enhance spoken language development (DesJardin, 2003,

2007).

Cole (1992) focused on the quality of interactions between parents and their

young deaf children. One effective response parents use to elicit a continuing exchange

with the child is to respond to the child’s expressed intentions or interests. Parents can

imitate a child’s vocalizations to reinforce communicative attempts. Parents also offer

words, phrases, and sentences that attach language to the child’s intentions.
 48

Ling (1989), a pioneer in providing children with hearing losses access to the

sounds of spoken language, provided a discussion of key issues in developing spoken

communication with young deaf children. Ling encouraged a parent to follow a child’s

interest, to use normal conversational rate and volume, and to use routine activities as a

source of language. Ling also reminded parents that intonation conveys “information

about a speaker’s emotional state” (p. 400) and that meaningful language develops a

communication base for the child.

Schumann (2007) reminded parents that “the most colorful blocks or adorable

stuffed animal is only as valuable as the input and interaction a parent has with his or her

child” (p. 23). Schumann described how parents can identify animal noises; change the

pitch, duration, and intensity of the adult’s voice; and exploit daily experiences as

“opportunities to highlight auditory information” (p. 24). Schumann suggested parents

actively engage in developing language with young children who have hearing losses.

Robertson (2000) encouraged parents to use descriptive language, verbs specific

to the action, abstract language, open-ended questions, and natural conversational style

when communicating with their young children with hearing losses. According to

Robertson, a child learns new words as the words become necessary to efficient

communication (p. 44). Robertson urged parents toward the twin goals of spoken

language fluency and the broad world knowledge as the foundation for future literacy

skills.

Many parents use the techniques described in the studies mentioned above

(Heinemann-Gosschalk & Webster, 2003). Many parents of deaf children also use these
 49

techniques, but some might need professional guidance to develop their own appropriate

repertoire of language enhancing strategies.

In 1942, Mrs. Louise Tracy founded the John Tracy Clinic (JTC) in Los Angeles,

California. JTC has long championed the central role of parents in the development of

spoken language for young children with hearing losses (Shanahan, 1965). The mission

of JTC is “to offer hope, guidance, and encouragement to families of infants and

preschool children with hearing losses” (JTC, 2009, para. 1).

JTC provides services without cost to families of deaf children through weekly

parent–infant therapy sessions for infants and toddlers, preschool classes with extensive

parent involvement, bimonthly parent education and parent support meetings, and a

worldwide correspondence course for families. An increasing number of the families

seeking services from JTC speak a language other than English in their homes (California

Department of Education, 2009; California Department of Public Health, 2008). Almost

one third of the families served by JTC in their parent–infant Demonstration Home

Program speak a language other than English in their homes (J. Muhs, personal

communication, April 8, 2008).

Another pioneer in the field of the development of spoken language for children

who have hearing losses, Simmons-Martin (1979) wrote a series of chats. Simmons-

Martin designed the chats to help parents learn specific techniques to support spoken

language development. Simmons-Martin described how a parent can focus on rich

language input for the deaf child, the child’s attempts to imitate or initiate a response, and

new language a parent might use in a natural way to move the child into a new level.
 50

Simmons-Martin (1979) designed the chats around the routines of a child’s day

from waking to bedtime and included language suggestions for meals, playtime, outings,

and experiences such as a check-up at the doctor’s office or shopping. Simmons-Martin

suggested parents reward a child’s vocalizations to emphasize to the child the value of

speech. Simmons-Martin wrote at a time when best practice in the education of young

children recommended replacing the non-English home language with English as soon as

possible (Tabors, 2008).

Northcott (1994) also provided ample evidence that parents of children with

hearing losses are the first and best teachers for their children. Northcott originally

published her book in 1972 just at the time that hearing aid technology started to reflect

the technological advances made in the electronics industry. Northcott encouraged

“parents and professionals to coordinate their efforts in an atmosphere that is open and

trusting” (p. 4) with the goal being a child who is open and curious and uses auditory

functioning to develop spoken language.

The language development of young deaf children is in the hands of their parents

(Cole, 1992; Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1999; Ling, 1989). Kretschmer and Kretschmer

(1999) presented a review of the studies that provide evidence of the impact of parents’

interactions with their young children with hearing losses and how these interactions

enhance or hinder optimal spoken language development. Cole (1992) created a

caregiver checklist to assist professionals in guiding parents toward rich interactions with

their deaf infants and toddlers. Cole offered the observation that language development

theory has evolved from the naturist view of Chomsky (1968) opposing the behaviorist

position of Skinner from the 1950s to the current view of interactionists who see
 51

language development as the result of the coordination of innate and environmental

processes.

According to Most and Zaidman-Zait (2003), parents of children who are

candidates for or users of a cochlear implant benefit from a collaborative approach to

providing services. In the study, 35 mothers of cochlear implant candidates or users were

asked to participate in a survey that explored the needs of parents. Most and Zaidman-

Zait investigated what parents knew about how to use the cochlear implant, how to

support their children’s success in learning language and speech, how to interact with

other parents in similar situations, and how to work collaboratively with professionals.

Most and Zaidman-Zait asked parents to rate topics such as which professional they

preferred to work with, whether they preferred to have information delivered to them

before or after surgery, and what kind of emotional and educational support they

preferred for their child, their families, and themselves.

The responses from the mothers reflected high stress levels during the

preoperative, decision-making period when they “wanted to know as much as possible

right from the start” (Most & Zaidman-Zait, 2003, p. 106). Thirty-six percent of the

mothers reported they did not receive the emotional support they believed they needed

during the preoperative period. Most and Zaidman-Zait (2003) highlighted this response

as a call for professionals to consider the range of needs within a family as a child is

identified as a candidate for a cochlear implant and continues through the process of

developing spoken language.

 52

Research on Spoken Language Development in Young Deaf Children

Spoken language development for children with hearing losses is a viable option

because technology provides access to the sounds of speech (M. Clark, 2007; Cole &

Flexer, 2008; Maddell & Flexer, 2008; Svirsky, Chin, & Jester, 2007). Until the

development of the cochlear implant and recent advancements in hearing aid technology,

access to the full range of speech sounds necessary for profoundly deaf children to

develop spoken language was uncertain (G. Clark, 2009; U.S. Department of Education,

2006). Technology such as digital hearing aids and cochlear implants support the

viability of a spoken language communication option based in the availability of auditory

information (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008; Ling, 2003). The availability of

auditory access to the sounds of speech for children with hearing losses has greatly

improved since the last decade of the 2oth century (Estabrooks, 2006; Ling, 2003; Roush

& Kamo, 2008).

The cochlear implant is an electronic device that consists of internal surgically

implanted components and external components worn at or near the ear. Figure 1

provides a generalized illustration of the parts of a cochlear implant. The electrode

provides direct stimulation to the structures of the ear that send the signal to the auditory

center of the brain. The speech processor provides a signal that is sent across the skin to

stimulate the electrode. The speech processor provides access to the sounds of spoken

language through an individually designed computer program.

 53

Figure 1. An illustration of a cochlear implant.

A cochlear implant includes a surgically implanted electrode, a microphone,

external and internal coils and magnets, and a speech processing unit. The microphone

gathers sound and transmits sound to the speech processor. The speech processor

electronically encodes and transmits a signal to the external coil, across the skin to the

internal receiving coil and then to the electrode. The electrode stimulates the nerve fibers

of the cochlea and a signal is sent to the auditory centers of the brain. The external and

internal magnets provide a means of securing the transmitting to the receiving coil. A

child with a severe to profound hearing loss may be a candidate for a cochlear implant if

hearing aids do not provide sufficient access to the sounds of speech. The FDA-approved

devices are available to children at age 12 months (Zwolan, 2008).

Children who are hard of hearing might (Kerckhoff et al., 2008; Maddell &

Flexer, 2008; Rapin, 1993) benefit from digital hearing aids. Modern hearing aids
 54

amplify sound using digital technology and can be programmed to offer individuals a

custom fit for the specific contours of the hearing loss. Modern digital technology allows

hearing aids to be more responsive to the specifics of an individual’s hearing loss.

Before digital technology was available, hearing aids provided several sets of

responses for amplifying sound but preset response curves determined the fitting of the

hearing aids. Digital hearing aids allow for a more custom fit of the responses which

typically results in increased accuracy of the perception of sound (Kerckhoff et al., 2008).

When expertly fitted, digital hearing aids and cochlear implants amplify the sounds of

spoken language for individuals with hearing losses (Kerckhoff et al., 2008; Ling, 1989).

Figure 2 provides a generalized illustration of a digital hearing aid.

Figure 2. An illustration of a digital hearing aid.

Nicholas and Geers (2006) studied deaf children who had successfully used

cochlear implants from an early age and concluded that along with early identification of

hearing loss, and quality intervention services, the cochlear implant significantly

promoted spoken language development. A case study on a young cochlear implant user

described the benefits offered to deaf children (Warner-Czyz, Davis, & Morrison, 2005).

Phonetic transcriptions of videotapes documented “speech production patterns that

paralleled the vocal output of infants with the same auditory experiences” (Warner-Czyz

et al., 2005, p. 167) through normally developing hearing. Ertmer, Young, and Nathani
 55

(2007) found similar results when they studied the vocal development of children with

cochlear implants.

Korver et al. (2010) compared the developmental outcomes for children identified

with hearing losses early and late. The study was designed to compare the overall

development, spoken communication skills, and quality of life (Korver et al., 2010) for a

large number of children born in the Netherlands with hearing losses. The analysis of the

data from the study indicated early identification paired with quality early intervention

results in better development outcomes for the children by 3 years of age.

Children identified at birth with hearing losses can receive hearing aids within the

first month of life. Implant centers across the United States adhere to a strict protocol of

eligibility for a child to receive a cochlear implant at any age. FDA standards allow

children as young as 12 months to receive cochlear implants (Bradham, Snell, & Haynes,

2009).

Parents tend to interact and communicate with their young deaf children in

patterns identical to those of parents of normally hearing infants (M. Clark, 2007; Cole &

Flexer, 2008; Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003). Young children wearing digital hearing aids or

cochlear implants can listen to their parents’ voices and the sounds of family life.

Canadian parents reported to Fitzpatrick, Graham, Durieux-Smith, Angus, and Coyle

(2007) that early identification allowed time for the parents to gather the information and

resources they needed to make decisions for their children. The parents reported that

early identification provided their children with improved communication skills.

Korver et al. (2010), Robertson (2000), and Sharma, Dorman, and Kral (2003)

noted research offers evidence that the earlier a deaf child receives auditory stimulation
 56

through hearing aids or a cochlear implant, the earlier and more efficiently the auditory

centers of the brain develop or organize to receive and interpret spoken language and the

better the developmental outcomes for the children. Robertson summarized the current

research into brain plasticity, auditory cortex development, and function and marked the

potential that exists for deaf children to learn spoken language. According to Robertson,

“The auditory neural network of a child is not as developed as that of an adult because

the higher cortical areas of the brain are not fully mature until a child is about 15 years

old” (p. 17). Robertson pointed out that in the past, deaf children did not have easy

access to the necessary range of auditory information needed for spoken language

development.

A well-trained professional can fit most deaf children with digital hearing aids

and cochlear implants that offer abundant auditory information (Maddell & Flexer,

2008). According to Cole and Flexer (2008), the purpose of accessing, stimulating, and

growing auditory neural connections in the brain is to provide the foundation for spoken

language, reading, and academic learning. Providing the acoustic center of the brain with

sound “stimulates neural connections throughout the brain as the foundation for spoken

language, reading and academics” (Cole & Flexer, 2008, p. 5). Sharma et al. (2004)

studied auditory development in the brain and how the babble of infants provides some of

the stimulation needed for the brain to organize for spoken language and found support

for a critical period for developing brain connections in early development.

Ertmer et al. (2007) studied seven young children who received cochlear implants

over 2 years. Over 5,700 utterances were analyzed for vocal development. Although six

of the children met the vocal development milestones as expected for a child with a
 57

similar length of normally developing hearing experience, one child who received the

cochlear implant before 12 months of age met the milestones earlier than expected.

Digital hearing aids and cochlear implants provide the means for a child with a hearing

loss to find access to the sound of language (Ling, 2003; Maddell & Flexer, 2008).

Rhoades, Price, and Perigoe (2004) examined the changes in the demographics of

children with hearing losses in the United States. The purpose behind the article was to

“suggest ways that auditory-based therapists can respect and respond to diversity for the

improvement of services to minority groups” (p. 285). Professionals must be aware of

how parents from different cultures express their understanding of the needs of their deaf

children and of how parents from various cultures communicate with their children and

with professionals (Rhoades et al., 2004; Sanchez & Narr, 2011).

Rhoades et al. (2004) wrote parents might view the therapist as an unassailable

expert and find collaboration with a professional to be uncomfortable. Parents and

professionals might disagree on the style of discipline used in the home. Parents might

be uncomfortable discussing family dynamics and stress issues with an outsider.

Along with recommendations for adaptations within the educational system to

accommodate children from diverse language groups, Rhoades et al. (2004) also

supported the goal of mastery of more than one spoken language in children with hearing

losses. According to Rhoades et al., appropriately fitted hearing aids and cochlear

implants that offer access to spoken language combined with exposure to other

languages, particularly the speech patterns and phrasing of the languages, make

bilingualism attainable for children who have hearing losses.

 58

McConkey-Robbins (2007) described the outcomes of three groups of deaf

children with cochlear implants and a second language present in their families. The

parents of the first group provided fluent, “complex and natural” (McConkey-Robbins,

2007, p. 3) language models in both languages for the children. The 13 children scored

similar to their peers with normal hearing on spoken English language assessments. The

deaf children also showed “impressive though varied” (McConkey-Robbins, 2007, p. 3)

achievement levels in the second language.

McConkey-Robbins (2007) reported the second group of children with cochlear

implants came from homes where parents primarily spoke a language other than English.

These families described challenges they face from a medical and educational system that

offers little support for a child or family with limited spoken English skills. The issues

identified for these families included finding professionals to help the non-English

speaking parents become skilled at strategies to develop spoken language skills in their

children. The professionals in this study wanted to ensure the language of the home was

supported as the child’s first language so the parents could offer rich, natural, and

intelligible spoken language models.

McConkey-Robbins (2007) reported that for the third group of children a second

language represented ties with extended family members and the cultural heritage of the

family. Family members used the second language with their deaf children as they would

have with a child with normal hearing. The children met familial expectations that they

would acquire as much or as little of the second language as their hearing peers did.

Parents increasingly choose to help their young children with hearing losses

access spoken English through modern technology (G. Clark, 2009). This choice might
 59

cause challenges in the nature of the family’s communication style. One concern is

parents who are not fluent in English will choose to see “the simplest route to fulfill the

promise” (Tabors, 2008, p. 131) of their child learning English is to use only English in

the home. This approach might result in abandonment of the home language and

incomplete communication between parents and children (Tabors, 2008).

If the parents are not fluent in English but choose English as the language of

choice for the home, the child’s environment will not provide the robust language models

needed for efficient communication to develop (Tabors, 2008). If parents cannot provide

the vocabulary, concepts, and discourse models in English and the home language is not

used, the child, and especially a young child with a hearing loss, is at risk for significant

delays in developing a viable spoken language system (M. Clark, 2007; Guiberson, 2005;

Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1999).

Two choices stand out in terms of communication options for children who have

hearing losses (Schwartz, 1996). Some families choose American Sign Language, a

concept-based visual system of communicating that does not include speech, as the best

fit for their child. Other families choose spoken language as the best fit for their child

because the parents believe “if adequate auditory and linguistic experience is provided to

most hearing-impaired children, then cognitive functioning and organization can be

expected to follow the normal course of development” (Cole, 1992, p. 13).

Professionals who work with families of children who are deaf and hard of

hearing strive to offer parents who choose spoken language guidance and support as the

parents learn techniques to provide ongoing auditory and linguistic experiences (M.

Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008; Rhoades, 2006). “Everyone knows that the mother of
 60

a hearing baby talks to him even though he may not understand and long before he is able

to respond to her in words” (Shanahan, 1965, p. 18). Professionals encourage parents of

children who are deaf or hard of hearing to use the same interaction techniques.

According to Cole (1992), early in a child’s life the mother will respond to the

baby as if “every burp, sneeze, yawn, cough, cry, smile, gaze” (p. 33) and any

vocalizations are attempts to communicate. The purpose behind these responses is to

establish communication with the baby. Gradually the mother refines her expectations as

the baby’s control over vocalizations grows.

Bergeson et al. (2006) studied the speech mothers used to interact with their

hearing and deaf babies. Nine infants in the study were deaf and wore cochlear implants.

Eighteen infants had normal hearing. The researchers measured the acoustic properties

of the mothers’ speech and found there were more similarities than differences in how the

mothers used their speech.

Bergeson et al. (2006) concluded the mothers based their interaction styles on the

children’s “hearing experience rather than chronological age” (p. 221). The mothers of

deaf babies in this study were aware that the cochlear implants offered the babies access

to the sounds of speech. Consequently, the mothers offered the babies speech models

that were more similar to, rather than more different from, the speech of mothers of

babies with typical hearing. Bergeson et al.’s study offered evidence that mothers adapt

their input to their deaf infants based on the mothers’ understanding that the child has

reliable access to speech information.

Zaidman-Zait and Dromi (2007) studied 28 toddlers who had hearing losses and

92 toddlers who had normal hearing to compare language abilities before the huge leap
 61

into phrases and simple sentences occurs in a child’s language. Parents completed a

questionnaire on the communication skills of their young children observed in six

different home contexts. The prelinguistic communication properties observed in

children with and without hearing loss indicated virtually indistinguishable patterns.

Zaidman-Zait and Dromi (2007) used the results of their study to “support the

feasibility of adopting goals and principles known to hold true in typical development for

fostering communication in toddlers with hearing loss” (p. 1177). Flexer (2005)

described this as “working within the design of the system” of human physiology (p. 43).

According to Flexer, children are prewired to receive linguistic information.

Early intervention programs exist to help parents preserve the natural

communication style between parent and child and when parents are functioning as

partners in their children’s early intervention programs (JTC, 2009; Sager, 2005).

DesJardin and Eisenberg (2007) reported better outcomes for communication and family

dynamics when parent–professional partnerships are strong. DesJardin and Eisenberg

studied 32 mothers and their young deaf children. By analyzing videotaped interactions

between the mothers and their children, DesJardin and Eisenberg found the performance

of the children on language assessments varied in relation to the mothers’ sense of

involvement and the ways in which they interacted with their children (p. 456).

Many families find their way to early intervention services through the

nationwide EHDI services available throughout the United States (EHDI, 2007; White,

2007, 2011). The EHDI programs in place across the United States identify hearing loss

in infants at birth. Professionals routinely encourage parents of infants with hearing

losses to avail themselves of services provided in their communities (Morrow &

 62

Sherwood, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2006; White, 2003). Because of modern

technology, the auditory input that is essential for efficient learning of spoken language is

available to children who have hearing losses. Modern hearing aids and cochlear

implants offer children who are deaf and hard of hearing auditory input with access to

information within the speech range (Calderon & Naidu, 2000; DesJardin & Eisenberg,

2007; Ling, 2003; Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003).

Weisel, Most, and Michael (2007) examined the link between stress levels and

expectations in mothers of children with profound hearing losses who wore cochlear

implants. Three sets of mothers returned questionnaires that focused on the mothers’

expectations for the children’s communication skills, self-image, social skills, academics,

rehabilitation, and climate in the home. The length of time the family had been involved

with the process of a cochlear implant differed for the three sets of mothers. Across the

three groups, one constant was that parents with realistic expectations for the cochlear

implant were able to maintain those expectations and stress levels did not overwhelm

them. Professionals communicated realistic expectations to the parents throughout the

process (Weisel et al., 2007).

Calderon and Naidu (2000) examined the benefits of early identification and

intervention for 80 children with hearing losses. Children demonstrated significantly

better language skills by the time they graduated from the intervention program at age 3

when they were identified and received intervention services before age 2. Parents of the

children identified early reported less stress in their lives than the parents of children

identified later. Calderon and Naidu speculated that the difference in the stress levels in
 63

the parents might be due to the parents of the early identified children feeling their

children did not miss out on valuable learning time.

Yoshinaga-Itano (2003) summarized a series of studies that focused on early

identification and intervention with children with hearing losses. A major finding in the

studies was that children identified earlier in life consistently demonstrated better

outcomes in language development. Evidence collected included the importance of

maternal sensitivity, “reciprocity of interaction” (Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003, p. 22), and the

enjoyment mother and child took from interactions to language development.

Yoshinaga-Itano also described the first 6 months of life as a “particularly sensitive time

in terms of early language development. Access to language during this period provides

an opportunity for children with hearing loss to develop language skills within the normal

developmental continuum” (p. 14).

DesJardin and Eisenberg (2007) reported on parents of young deaf children who

turned to the option of spoken language as a viable choice for the communication needs

of their children. According to DesJardin and Eisenberg, “Families of young children

who are deaf and who choose spoken language as their primary means of communication

have better opportunities today than in previous years to develop their children’s oral

language skills” (p. 456). Early identification of hearing loss and the proven benefits of

the cochlear implant in providing access to sound are factors that support the choices

parents make (DeJardin & Eisenberg, 2007).

Other sources of support for families who pursue spoken language

communication for young children with hearing losses include the commitments from

federal, state, and local educational agencies to provide a free and appropriate education
 64

to children with special needs. A national commitment to supporting diversity in all

aspects of education also supports the choices parents make (U.S. Department of

Education, 2006). Professionals working with young children with hearing losses and

their parents, both English-speaking and non-English-speaking, acknowledge the need for

enhancing parent involvement and linguistic input (DesJardin & Eisenberg, 2007).

DesJardin and Eisenberg (2007) found that parents of young children with hearing

losses used language development techniques geared to the needs of their children.

Thirty-two mothers were sent questionnaires, interviewed, and videotaped during

interactions with their children. The mothers’ responses to the questionnaires and

interviews were evaluated for the mothers’ knowledge of their children’s hearing loss,

use of amplification devices, and language and speech skills. Mothers who reported

strong self-efficacy also demonstrated strong language facilitating skills for their young

children with hearing losses, and the children demonstrated improved receptive language

skills.

Research on Role of Parents in the Spoken Language Development of Young Deaf

Children

The role of parents as the central force in a child’s development has long been a

focus of deaf education (Ling, 2003; Northcott, 1994; Quittner et al., 2007; Shanahan,

1965; Simmons-Martin, 1979). As described in Chapter 1, families with children who

have hearing losses have received more attention and resources since the implementation

of national EHDI programs (EHDI, 2007).

Ling (2003) wrote extensively and trained professionals to teach speech and

language through the auditory channel to children with hearing losses. According to Ling
 65

(1989), “Knowledgeable parents are the best possible providers of spoken language for

young children” (p. 5). Ling’s approach to the development of communication skills in

deaf children relies on the parents as the first and most important teachers for the child

and encourages professionals to create a collaborative partnership with the parents.

Fitzpatrick et al. (2007) studied the impact of a hearing loss in a newborn child on

families in Ontario, Canada. The parents expressed a range of satisfaction in finding

support services and in knowing about the children’s hearing losses early. Fitzpatrick et

al. concluded identifying a hearing loss in a child impacts the family in a myriad of ways

and effective professionals strive to be aware of families’ needs.

Nicholas and Geers (2006) studied the role of parental language models in the

development of spoken language for young deaf children. The study involved comparing

the spoken language development of deaf children who received a cochlear implant

before the age of 18 months to the language gains of children implanted after age 2 years.

The outcomes were better for the children implanted at the younger age.

Simser’s (1999) writing emphasized the value of the parents’ role in the language

development of young deaf children. Simser’s extensive experience as a parent and

professional working with the families of children who are deaf and hard of hearing has

taught her to view the parents’ role as the primary teachers for their young deaf children.

According to Simser,

In an early intervention program the main client is the parent! Parents are with

their young child most waking hours. This enables them to create listening and

language opportunities during their daily interactions. Parents will be the one

constant in their child’s future. The family is one of the most influential forces in
 66

human life. How we educate, nurture, guide, and support parents of children with

hearing impairment will significantly impact on the development of that child. (p.

56)

Professionals need to understand the parents’ point of view regarding language

development and expectations for their children (Luterman, 2004, 2008). According to

Luterman (2008), informed and skilled professionals will collaborate with parents to

provide appropriate services. Yoshinaga-Itano (2003) presented evidence of the

importance of parents’ involvement and support in an article that reviewed studies from

the past 20 years on the outcomes for young deaf children who receive cochlear implants.

The above studies and others reviewed later in this chapter reported on the value

of parental involvement and attitudes toward language development across ethnic groups

and for families who have children with special needs. What is missing in the literature

is an examination of how hearing loss, access to spoken language, parents’ roles in

language development, and first and second languages intersect. All four of these issues

are present in society and impact the lives of families of young children and their families

(Rhoades, 2006; Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 2007).

Research on Second Language Acquisition

Rhoades (2006) wrote that “the single most important predictor of success in L2

[second language] is the child’s level of proficiency in his anchor language” (p. 19). For

children born into Spanish-speaking homes, Spanish is the anchor language. Rhoades

made a case for the necessity of providing “the richness of the anchor language” of the

home as a way to avoid the negative effects of language subtraction. Mushi (2002)

supported more research into how the first language rules assist a child in learning a
 67

second language and identifying strategies that support second language learning in

children.

In a review of studies in second language acquisition, Hulstijn (2007) noted

current studies do not offer any understanding of how the first language functions as an

anchor for the acquisition of a second language. When the language of the home is not

English and the parents decide the child should learn English from the parents’ limited

models, loss of the first language abundance and the rich language environment that

fosters efficient language development can be an issue (Hulstijn, 2007). The families of

children who have hearing loss face the same issue of providing a rich spoken-language

environment to nurture the development of language (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer,

2008). Hulstijn identified strategies that enhanced language development and facilitated

the desired outcome of spoken language. Rowe (2008) looked at the quantity and quality

of mothers who spoke languages other than English and their verbal interactions with

their young children. The results of Rowe’s study indicated if a mother was not fluent in

the language she used with her child, she made fewer attempts to engage the child

verbally and her language models were of poorer quality.

Fennel, Byers-Heinlein, and Werker (2007) compared the word-learning abilities

of hearing infants speaking English, English-Chinese, and English-French. Fennel et al.

wanted to discover the impact the second language might have on an infant learning two

languages. The conclusion was the bilingual infants not only mastered two sets of

phonetic knowledge but they also demonstrated no delay in language acquisition.

Tabors (2008) noted, “Different parents will place different emphasis on the

acquisition of English” (p. 129) and some parents “might see that speaking English in the
 68

home is the best way to support the children’s” (p. 129) English language acquisition.

Parents might believe this is the best support they can offer despite their own limited

English proficiency (Tabors, 2008). An incomplete language model in the home might

not offer a child enough language to develop communicative competence (Krashen,

2004; Rhoades, 2006).

Ramos (2007) investigated the views of parents of school-aged children regarding

a bilingual program. The parents reported their involvement was beneficial to their

children and to the school community. Ramos found dedicated and active parents who

valued the reciprocal relationships with the professionals involved in their children’s

bilingual program. The key to success for children who speak languages other than

English in the home is the parents’ understanding of how to support language learning (F.

Ramos, personal communication, October 5, 2009).

Without a complete language system to draw from, a child is at risk for becoming

semilingual, a term that denotes lack of fluency in even one language by the time the

child enters school (Block, 2007, p. 72). Block (2007) reviewed the literature in search

of evidence related to assumptions about bilingualism. One assumption that Block

looked at was the level of sophistication a child demonstrated in the home language and

that the school expected.

Block (2007) made the point that students can arrive at kindergarten with or

without a solid foundation in their home language. Block argued for the need to assess

the bilingual abilities of individuals, not groups. Block wrote that a foundation in a home

language acts as a bridge to further second language acquisition for a semilingual

individual.
 69

Semilingual individuals might use several aspects of several languages efficiently

but none of the languages completely. According to Block (2007), “Bilingual resources

are not explored or exploited sufficiently. The children who do have access to a language

other than English very often become monolinguals when they engage with a new

language in a formal setting” (p. 79). Parents who speak a language other than English

might intend for their child to learn both English and the home language simultaneously

or sequentially. But, according to Block, successful outcomes require consistent attention

to the language models children receive.

Language carries the cultural heritage and nurtures the development of the social,

emotional, and cognitive domains of a child (Kohnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, & Duran, 2005).

Kohnert et al. (2005) addressed questions relating to the development and maintenance of

home languages. Conclusions included recommending that a child shares the language of

his or her parents so that parents communicate “all the complexities inherent in parent-

child relationships across the lifespan” (Kohnert et al., 2005, p. 253). Parent training

programs helped parents work with their specific child and provide activities that

stimulated language development.

Kohnert et al. (2005) reviewed studies that focused on home languages and found

evidence that young children require intimacy and abundance of home language

communication with family members to develop appropriate emotional, social, and

cognitive skills. The parents wanted home language fluency to support English language

acquisition. Kohnert et al. corroborated the power of shared language competence

between parents and children.

 70

A study conducted in Ireland by Óhlfearnáin (2007) looked at home language in a

small area where Irish is the traditional language. The government encouraged families

to use Irish in the home and “while there is little evidence that the Gaeltacht people want

to learn English at the expense of their Irish, there is no doubt that parents there want

their children to be highly skilled, literate bilinguals” (Óhlfearnáin, 2007, p. 510).

Óhlfearnáin studied 239 people who identified themselves as Irish speakers.

Almost 58% of the participants stated Irish should be spoken in the home

exclusively, but only 32% stated they applied their beliefs to their daily lives

(Óhlfearnáin, 2007). A range of 65% to 12% of the participants reported speaking Irish

every day. According to the researcher, participants recognized that Irish is not in

widespread use and that the schools rarely offer quality instruction in Irish. The people in

the Gaeltacht reported that English is a necessary language for their children to know. A

majority of the participants, 59%, reported they wished they had used more Irish in their

homes to give their children a true bilingual opportunity (Óhlfearnáin, 2007).

Morris and Jones (2007) described a similar experience in a study focusing on

families in Wales. Morris and Jones reported a mismatch between the parents’ desire for

their children to retain Welsh as the children learned English in the schools and the

reality of English as the dominant language of the homes. According to Morris and

Jones, “The survival or demise of minority languages crucially depends upon the extent

to which the language is passed on from one generation to the next within the family

context” (p. 484).

The social realities of the Gaeltacht situation and the Welsh study provided a

contrast to the situation of homes in the southwestern United States in which Spanish is
 71

the first language and where Spanish is used commonly in the community alongside

English. A child from a Spanish-speaking home in Southern California finds ample

opportunity to use Spanish in the community. Children who have hearing losses and

wear well-fitted digital hearing aids and cochlear implants have access to the sounds of

spoken language, whether the language of their homes and communities is English or

Spanish (Nevins & Garber, 2007). As parents narrate activities and routines with these

children in the language of the homes, language development occurs.

Mushi (2002) studied how 32 families in Chicago who spoke little or no English

were able to maintain their home languages and encourage their children to learn to speak

English. The parents reported strong expectations for their children to learn both the

home language (90%) and English (95%). The families used 12 different languages and

a variety of home activities to further language acquisition.

Mushi (2002) wrote that the use of the home language to negotiate, direct, play,

problem solve, and relate emotionally between parents and children was a vital part of the

family dynamics. The parents maintained the viability of the home language and

encouraged the children to learn English at school. Mushi recommended further research

to analyze how non-English-speaking parents support their children in learning English

and in changing parent roles in the child’s acquisition of a second language.

Park and Sarkar (2007) studied nine Korean-Canadian parents’ perceptions of

maintaining their heritage language in their children while supporting educational success

in the host nation language. The positive attitudes in the home toward the heritage

language supported the maintenance of the heritage language in the children. Park and
 72

Sarkar recognized a need for further exploration of means to assist families in

maintaining a heritage language in the home.

Research on Deaf Children and Second Language Acquisition

Information from several research studies supported the view that home language

fluency is a precursor to eventual English language fluency (G. N. Garcia, McCardle, &

Nixon, 2007; Pacini-Ketchabaw & Armstong de Almeida 2006; Rhoades et al., 2008).

The amount and type of spoken language stimulation used to create fluency in any

spoken language for young children who have hearing losses is extensive (DesJardin &

Eisenberg, 2007). A child benefits from exposure to language throughout the day and

overhearing much of what people around him or her are saying.

According to McConkey-Robbins (2007), an experienced researcher in language

development with children who wear cochlear implants, “children learn in meaningful

contexts” (p. 2) and “access to incidental language is critical if a child is to learn more

than one spoken language via a cochlear implant” (p. 2). In an article about the clinical

management of bilingual families and children, McConkey-Robbins described the

greatest challenge to children with cochlear implants from families in which the parents

speak limited English is the lack of support for strategies to stimulate language

development in the language of the home.

In 2001, Levi, Boyette-Solano, Nicholson, and Eisenberg responded to the

growing numbers of children with significant hearing losses from Spanish-speaking

families. The researchers compared 14 deaf children with cochlear implants whose

parents had chosen the spoken language option to 15 children with normal hearing and

explored the possibilities of deaf children becoming successful in more than one spoken
 73

language. The results of the study indicated “the simultaneous language acquisition

process and development of audition in oral multilingual cochlear implant users is similar

to that of normally hearing multilingual children” (Levi et al., 2001, para. 28).

Rhoades et al. (2004) wrote, “Early exposure to spoken language in the mother

tongue is especially important for the development of speech perception in children who

are deaf or hard of hearing” (p. 294). With appropriate technology, Rhoades et al. noted

“children with hearing loss from other language groups are capable of achieving

bilingualism” (p. 294) when the foundation has been laid in the home language.

Rhoades et al. (2008) pointed out the importance of collaboration between parents

of children who have hearing losses and professionals in all aspects of the children’s

education. Of particular concern are access to the sounds of spoken language, consistent

expectation for listening skills, and the total immersion in spoken language throughout a

child’s day. According to Rhoades et al., the role of professionals is to support the

parents in identifying opportunities to enhance spoken language development.

Nevins and Garber (2007) and Waltzman, Robbins, Green, and Cohen (2003)

supported the expectation that children who are deaf and have access to the sounds of

spoken language by using digital hearing aids and cochlear implants are able to develop

their home language through the daily routines of the household as narrated by their

involved parents. In the school environment, meaningful contexts provide access to

spoken English. Both sets of researchers supported the importance of professionals

building reciprocal relationships with parents based on common goals for the children.

Even people who dispute the value of spoken language for deaf children

recognize the need for English language proficiency to support literacy (Andrews &
 74

Rusher, 2010; Bailes, Erting, Erting, & Thuman-Prezioso, 2009). English literacy is a

foundational skill for success in school and the workplace. Parents who speak languages

other than English and have young children who have hearing losses often express the

hope that their children will learn to speak, read, and write English (K. Ambrosi, personal

communication, March 4, 2008; Mushi, 2002; Watson & Swanwick, 2008).

Parents’ hopes focus on success in school and future careers (Mushi, 2002;

Watson & Swanwick, 2008). Technology exists that makes sounds of language available

to deaf children (Martindale, 2007). Helping parents realize the promise of spoken

language for their young deaf children requires insight into the attitudes and skills parents

bring to the challenge (Rhoades et al., 2008; Schumann, 2007).

Research on the Perceptions of Parents Who Speak Languages Other Than Spanish

Liu (2007) studied the child-rearing goals and parenting strategies of Chinese

families living in Massachusetts. Videotaped observations of the parent–child

interactions as well as interviews and questionnaires provided the data used in the

qualitative study. Parents rated attributes to describe their ideal outcomes for their

children and themes emerged to describe the strategies parents used to foster the

attributes in their children. Parents reported placing a high value on learning and cited

detailed strategies that they found useful to develop the habit of learning in their children.

Similar to the themes that emerged in the Kohnert et al. (2005) study and the

Mushi (2002) study, Liu (2007) reported that fluency in the home language fulfilled the

need for emotional closeness within families, the value of moral character and self-

reliance, and the need to integrate into the host culture while maintaining the culture of
 75

the home. Parents in the Liu study demonstrated strategies they believed helped their

children be successful in the culture outside of the home.

Pacini-Ketchabaw and Armstrong de Almeida (2006) studied 54 Canadian

families who spoke languages other than English in their homes. The results of

interviews with the parents and educators working with the families described a concern

for balance between the opposing realities of English as the desired language of the

school and parents hoping to preserve the language of the home for the children.

Educators taking part in this study reported supporting parents in the goal of fluency in

both home and school languages.

Research on Perceptions of Parents Who Speak Languages Other Than Spanish and

Have Children With Disabilities

Masood et al. (2007) compared the attitudes toward disabilities expressed in

interviews with a random sample of parents in Pakistan and the United States. Masood et

al. matched 60 Pakistani parents to 37 parents in the United States. The families received

services from educators and all expressed a concern that professionals be more “aware of

and sensitive to cultural differences as a prerequisite for effective communication” with

parents (Masood et al., 2007, p. 485), a comment that related to the current study.

A study by Kasahara and Turnbull (2005) with 28 parents of children with

disabilities from three school sites in Japan yielded data regarding the parents’

perceptions of their needs in developing relationships with professionals providing

services to the families. Four themes emerged from the focus groups and personal

interviews: respect between professionals, children, and parents; quality of professional

services; equality in parent–professional relationships; and a strong desire for

 76

empowerment. Parents emphasized a need to be knowledgeable advocates for their

children, collaborators with the professionals serving their children, and able to make

informed decisions in the best interests of their children.

Quirk et al. (1986) studied the attitudes of 243 mothers from Japan, 58 from

Puerto Rico, and 86 from the United States toward children with and without handicaps.

The mothers ranked 12 items they valued for their children. Health, affection, activity,

sociableness, and self-confidence ranked in the top five values. No major differences

showed up in the values mothers reported for their children with handicaps and without

handicaps.

Culture determined the major differences that emerged in the mothers’ values

(Quirk et al., 1986). Japanese mothers valued personal discipline and loyalty. Puerto

Rican mothers valued respect for oneself and for others. American mothers valued

creativity and self-confidence.

Quirk et al. (1986) speculated that the mothers’ values translated into an interest

in enhancing culture-specific skills. American mothers encouraged pragmatics,

autonomy, and competition. Japanese mothers encouraged group affiliation, loyalty, and

self-discipline. Puerto Rican mothers encouraged responsibility and personal dignity

(Quirk et al., 1986).

Shin (2006) studied four Korean immigrant students who were deaf and three of

their parents. Participants filled out a survey presented in both English and Korean. The

parents spoke Korean as a first language. Parental skills in English ranged from poor to

good. The parents prepared their children for moving to the United States by having

them take private English language lessons. The parents described an initially positive
 77

response to the United States’ educational system, followed by some disappointments,

and then a return to general satisfaction with the education offered their children.

One parent voiced concern that the schools did not initiate Korean language

translations for documents such as her child’s IEP (Shin, 2006). Other parents voiced

confidence that the school system would meet their needs and their children’s needs. A

recurring comment was the need for a school-sponsored gathering of parents who shared

similar concerns about their immigrant children with disabilities. Another shared

problem was the management of hearing aids when all the information was in English.

The children in this study used a spoken language, auditory-oral method of

communication in Korea but all four switched to using American Sign Language in the

United States. The Korean parents reported difficulty in managing hearings aids with

English instructions (Shin, 2006).

In a study focused on French–English bilingual children with specific language

impairment, Paradis, Crago, Genesee, and Rice (2003) found the children did not

experience significantly more problems in language learning than their monolingual

peers. Paradis et al. compared the patterns of use of tense markers in their spontaneous

language between three groups of children with specific language impairment. One

group spoke only English, one group spoke only French, and the third group spoke

French and English.

Paradis et al. (2003) concluded the bilingual children with specific language

impairment demonstrated “they had the ability to learn two languages despite their

impairment” (para. 55). Professionals typically advised parents of children with

disabilities to choose one language for their child despite the parents’ interest in
 78

maintaining a dual heritage. Parents expressed their need for accurate information on

which to make informed choices for their children’s educational and home language.

Simmons and Johnston (2007) studied the differences in how Euro-Canadian and

Indian mothers viewed language development issues. Survey results from 98 parents

allowed Simmons and Johnson to find that cultural differences exist in how parents see

language learning. The Indian mothers preferred an adult-centered, direct approach to

teach language to their children. The Euro-Canadian mothers preferred a more child-

directed, indirect facilitation of language development. The central finding of the study

was that professionals need to view the cultural background of a family as a guide for

adapting services (Simmons & Johnston, 2007).

Research on Perceptions of Parents Who Speak Spanish

Central to the culture of Spanish-speaking families is the “value placed on ‘la

familia’ as the heart and soul that ensures that each member is nurtured and supported by

a strong network of kin related by blood and by affection” (Eggers-Piérola, 2005).

Understanding the bonds of Spanish-speaking families and the sources of their child-

rearing beliefs helps professionals understand the parents’ participation in children’s

education and educational decisions. According to Eggers-Piérola (2005), Spanish-

speaking families might perceive their role as preparing the children for school, teaching

the children to function successfully in a group, and providing for their families.

Spanish-speaking parents might leave the educational decisions, including decisions

about language usage, for the children in the expert hands of the teachers.

King and Fogle (2006a, 2006b) explored how parents make decisions about

adding the English language to their Spanish-speaking home. Twenty-four families

 79

living in the Washington, DC, area, mostly represented by the mothers, took part in

interviews. The family situations in terms of language varied. Some parents spoke only

Spanish to their children at home and expected the children to learn English at school.

Some parents were not native Spanish speakers but used fluent Spanish in a one-person-

one-language style of interaction.

The parents in the study “saw bilingualism as an advantage and discussed its

benefits ranging from maintenance of cultural ties to increased economic opportunities”

(King & Fogle, 2006b, p. 700). The parents also reported three sources for the

information driving their decisions: expert advice, bilingual families including their own

extended family, and their personal knowledge. King and Fogle offered quotes from the

parent interviews that demonstrated the extensive thought parents put into the decisions

surrounding second language acquisition for their children.

Hammer, Rodriguez, Lawrence, and Miccio (2007) concluded that professionals

must search out knowledge about family beliefs, parents’ education, and home literacy

practices if they hope to be effective working with families who speak languages other

than English. Eighty-one Puerto Rican mothers completed questionnaires about their

home language beliefs. The researchers described the children as using home English

communication or school English communication depending on their experience with

English before they attended Pennsylvania Head Start programs at age 3.

Although the mothers did not differ in the value they placed on reading (Hammer

et al., 2007), the home English communication mothers read to their children more often

and involved the children in preliteracy activities more often than the school English

communication mothers. Hammer et al. (2007) speculated that the school English
 80

communication parents did not feel comfortable reading to their children in English and

did not want to interfere with English language learning by reading to the children in the

home language. Furthermore, the mothers expressed traditional respect for the teachers

as the experts in the children’s education. The researchers made a strong case for the

problems faced by families and professionals when the families’ culture is not seen as the

“overarching framework that guides the families’ beliefs and actions” (Hammer et al.,

2007, p. 222).

Takahashi-Breines (2006) wrote a doctoral dissertation using data from a dual

language immersion program in New Mexico that supported both English and Spanish.

One lesson learned was that “transmission of heritage language is not at all automatic, but

needs extra effort from both parents and children” (Takahashi-Breines, 2006, p. 5). The

data in Takahashi-Breines’s study came from classroom observations, interviews, and

related documents such as journals and parent information booklets published by the

program. For the three students who served as the foci of the study, becoming bilingual

served to connect them to their families, especially their grandparents who spoke only

Spanish, and their community where both languages coexisted.

Research on Perceptions of Spanish-Speaking Parents of Children With Disabilities

Arcia et al. (2000) studied 250 Mexican and Puerto Rican parents to “reconstruct”

(p. 333) the values held by the parents and to identify the impact that having a child

diagnosed with a disability might have on those values. The data supported the view that

cultural values are the overriding factors in the parents’ values and that these values are

“created primarily within the context of the family” (Arcia et al., 2000, p. 348) rather

than evolving from contact with the dominant culture.

 81

Spanish-speaking parents of children diagnosed with autism shared their views

with L. L. Sanchez (2005). In a series of interviews, several themes emerged as

important to the parents. Thirty-one Spanish-speaking parents responded to questions

about their needs and the needs of their children and barriers that existed in fulfilling

those needs. Parents expressed a need to find additional income to pay for private

services for their children. Eighty to 96% of the families reported a need for more

information from professionals on autism, on availability of services, on how they might

work with their child at home, and on future possibilities for their children (L. L.

Sanchez, 2005). Parents also reported that the professionals who provided services

demonstrated a lack of information about Spanish-speaking families.

Kummerer-Dunn (2005) reported that Mexican mothers who believed that

parental errors caused the children’s communication disorders did not seek support from

the educational system. Mothers who placed the cause of the disability on medical issues

did search for help from educators. Interviews with 14 Mexican mothers produced

information on the mothers’ knowledge of language development and their beliefs about

intervention services.

Kummerer-Dunn (2005) found evidence that supported a link between parental

follow-throughs at home with speech and language therapy activities and materials that

were familiar and available in the homes. The mothers in the Kummerer-Dunn study

could not explain the purposes behind their guided interactions with their children.

Kummerer-Dunn invited professionals to remedy this situation by involving parents from

diverse cultures in dialogues about the role of play therapy, their own understanding of
 82

the value of play for children’s learning, and adaptations of play therapy styles to reflect

the parents’ perceptions.

Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna (2006) interviewed 14 Mexican immigrant mothers

who had young children with communication disabilities. The interviews produced data

about the mothers’ understanding of early language development and activities to support

language learning in the home and their own child’s abilities. The mothers described

their own role in language development as that of interaction and playing with the

children.

Themes that surfaced in the interviews included the belief in an innate drive

toward language development, the helpful role of siblings as language models, and the

mothers’ belief in a broader range of normal language development parameters

(Kummerer & Lopez-Reyna, 2006). Mothers expressed confusion regarding the

development and assessment of receptive language as opposed to expressive language

skills. Recommendations for professionals working with Mexican immigrant mothers

included gathering knowledge about the parents’ understanding of language development

and focusing on explaining and demonstrating receptive language development skills.

The mothers in Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna’s (2006) study reported they were

unaware of the value to be found in routine activities for language development for their

children. The researchers encouraged professionals to explore the possibilities for

language activities in the home with parents to help “clarify the relationship between

children’s communication goals and the clinician’s play-based therapy” (Kummerer &

Lopez-Reyna, 2006, p. 89). The mothers and the professionals in this study created

relationships that allowed the mothers to ask for more information on a variety of
 83

subjects related to their children’s therapy and future success in education. Of particular

interest were the responses of Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna to the mothers’ concerns

about whether or not to maintain Spanish as the language of the home (Kummerer &

Lopez-Reyna, 2006). Citing several sources, Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna concluded

that it is essential for the children to have the opportunity to acquire their home language

as the foundation for any second language acquisition.

According to S. B. Garcia, Perez, and Ortiz (2000), parental beliefs and

expectations about children’s development tend to “reflect cultural perspectives of their

community” (p. 90). S. B. Garcia et al. suggested professionals consider the needs and

existing resources of culturally and linguistically diverse families within the sociocultural

context, thereby shifting from a deficit model to an appreciation of context model. Seven

Spanish-speaking mothers participated in interviews that focused on their “knowledge

and beliefs about dual language acquisition among infants and toddlers, and about their

perceptions of how their children’s communication disorders might affect the acquisition

of Spanish and English” (S. B. Garcia et al., 2000, p. 92).

Professionals followed seven children who were referred for early childhood

intervention services and eventually diagnosed with language disorders (S. B. Garcia et

al., 2000). The mothers did not consider their children to have language disorders but

rather considered the children delayed in learning language because of age, ear infections,

teething, or personality. The mothers involved in the study considered their role to be

that of nurturer, not teacher. The researchers presented the view that, when seen within

the sociocultural context of the families, the mothers expressed an alternative

interpretation of their children’s language development, an alternative that suited their

 84

culture. S. B. Garcia et al. (2000) concluded the lack of understanding of the

sociocultural context of the families by professionals responsible for providing services

to these families precluded an effective partnership developing between family and

service providers (S. B. Garcia et al.. 2000). The mothers expressed their beliefs that the

children would become bilingual and reported that Spanish was the language of their

families and that English was the language of the schools (S. B. Garcia et al., 2000).

Research on Perceptions of Spanish-Speaking Parents of Deaf Children

Few studies have recorded the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of young

children with hearing losses. Colorado has a high Spanish-speaking population and was

one of the first states in the nation to put newborn hearing screening into place at all

hospitals (White, 2007). The Colorado health and education systems consequently have

processes in place to help researchers identify young deaf children from Spanish-

speaking homes. Yoshinaga-Itano et al. (2007) collected data from interviews with 38

Spanish-speaking parents, consisting of 18 fathers and 20 mothers.

The researchers identified trends in this population and tracked the development

of the children. The results of the study identified language delays in the children

(Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 2007). Yoshinaga-Itano et al. (2007) speculated that cultural

views of child-rearing and disabilities played a role in the children’s development.

Recommendations for further research included a review of service provisions and

cultural and bilingual issues for the professionals providing services to the families.

Yoshinaga-Itano et al. (2007) concluded more research is needed with the population.

Among the issues recommended for study were language development and intervention

with families.
 85

Lakins (2005) described the choices made by four families who wanted their

young deaf children to become bilingual speakers of Spanish, Nigerian, and German.

According to Lakins, “Two generations ago, bilingual American families often

committed to teaching their children English as a first language to help them develop the

language skills they would need to succeed at school” (p. 38). The parents in the study

expressed confidence that their children would learn to speak the language of the home as

well as English even if both languages were somewhat delayed. The parents recognized

the differences in speech sounds and grammar systems for the languages but emphasized

that the value of fluency in both languages to the family and the child made their extra

commitments worthwhile.

Guiberson (2005) presented a case study of a deaf child with a cochlear implant

from a Spanish-speaking home. Professionals encouraged the parents to speak English

with the child as well as maintain their use of sign language in the home. As the child

developed more spoken language skills, the parents stopped using sign language with her

and the child developed spoken Spanish language skills. The child developed spoken

English language skills in her educational environment. Guiberson offered the

information of the case study as evidence that professionals need to support bilingual

families of deaf children in using their home language as well as English.

Steinberg et al. (2003) explored how language and culture affected decisions

made by Hispanic parents of deaf children. The results indicated that parents who speak

Spanish and have children who are deaf find it difficult to access the information they

need to make decisions. The cultural supports of the families influenced the emotional
 86

responses parents had to the diagnosis of deafness, and many of the parents described

their expectations for their deaf children to develop fluency in both English and Spanish.

Research into the outcomes for children from non-English-speaking homes is

increasing. However, little research has focused on the parents’ perceptions of their roles

in the process of their children learning English (Polanco & Guillermo, 2007). Even less

information is available regarding the perceptions of parents who speak Spanish, have

children who are deaf, and hope for the children to master spoken English (Guiberson,

2005).

Context of the Study

The current qualitative phenomenological research study involved exploring the

perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in the development of

spoken English language skills by their young deaf children. A phenomenological

approach using one-on-one interviews and semi-structured questions yielded parent

responses (Salkind, 2006). The context for a research study provides the background

information on the environments in which participants are situated. The participants

lived in Southern California in the wider Los Angeles metropolitan area, had young

children identified as deaf at birth or soon after, and spoke only Spanish when their

children were identified as having hearing losses. At some point, the parents received

services for their families from the John Tracy Clinic in downtown Los Angeles.

National context. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2007, 2011), the

Hispanic and Latino population is the fastest growing minority group in the nation at

3.3% annually. By 2050, the Hispanic and Latino population will account for 24% of the

nation’s population. In 2010, these statistics translated into 45 million people who traced
 87

their families back to Mexico. An additional 16 million people identify their families as

coming from a variety of Latin American countries (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

Of these many millions, 22% are children under age 5 (U.S. Census Bureau,

2007), which translates into 13.5 million children. According to a survey conducted in

2007, over 12% of preschool age children lived in homes where a language other than

English was the primary language. Table 2 shows the total birth information for the

United States in 2006. Of the more than 4 million babies born that year, 24% or

1,039,051 were born to families in the Hispanic category.

In 2000, NCHAM initiated a federal program identified as the EHDI. NCHAM

created EHDI to support the newborn hearing screening programs at the state level across

the nation (White, 2007). The screening programs identify approximately three babies

with hearing loss per thousand births in the United States (NCHAM, 2008).

Table 2

Total Births by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2006

Race and Hispanic origin of mother Number of births

All races and origins 4,265.996

Non-Hispanic White 2,309,833

Non-Hispanic Black 617,220

American Indian or Alaskan Native 47,494

Asian or Pacific Islander 239,829

Hispanic 1,039,051

Note. Information obtained from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008).
 88

According to NCHAM (2008), the screening programs identify approximately

12,000 babies each year with a hearing loss. Approximately 3,000 children of those

identified each year with a hearing loss are born to Spanish-speaking families (NCHAM,

2008). Research shows that children identified with a hearing loss before age 6 months

who receive appropriate services average 1 to 2 years of academic achievement in first

grade beyond their later-identified peers with hearing loss (Geers, 2003; Tomblin, Barker,

Spencer, Zhang, & Gantz, 2005; Tomblin, Peng, Spencer, & Lu, 2008).

State context. Thirty-six million people live in California, and California has the

highest percentage of Spanish-speaking people in the United States, with between 10 and

14 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, 2011). Of the 4 million babies born in the

United States each year, 500,000 are born in California, making California’s birth rate the

highest in the nation (California Department of Public Health, 2008; NCHAM, 2008).

California policy makers are aware of the impact the growing diversity of the

population has made on state services. According to the California Joint Legislative

Budget Committee (2006) report from 2006-2007, the “increasing ethnic diversity of the

state’s population will also mean that public institutions, especially the schools, will serve

a population that speaks a multitude of languages and has a wide range of cultural

backgrounds” (p. 14). The websites for the California Department of Public Health

(2008) and the California Department of Education (2008, 2009) both offer links to

information in Spanish for the public.

The newborn hearing screening program in California has identified

approximately 800-1,000 babies a year with hearing loss (California Department of

Public Health, 2008; Morrow & Sanchez, 2011). Approximately 20-30% of these babies,
 89

or 200-300 babies, are from Spanish-speaking families. By federal and state law, the

families of these children are eligible to receive services in the language of their home.

Professionals working with the families recognize the importance of understanding the

cultures and languages of the home (Eggers-Piérola, 2005; Moore, Prath, & Arrieta,

2007; Tabors, 2008).

Local context. Los Angeles County is home to 10 million people, of whom 47%,

or 4.5 million, are of Hispanic origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, 2011). According to

the 2000 census, 54% of the homes in Los Angeles County reported speaking a language

other than English. Los Angeles County reports over 500,000 children who are English

language learners in kindergarten through 12th grade (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Four

hundred and forty-seven thousand of these students speak Spanish (Los Angeles County

Office of Education, 2008).

Of the 150,000 babies born in Los Angeles County in 2004 (California

Department of Public Health, 2008), 105,000 were from Spanish-speaking families.

Every year, newborn hearing screening programs identify hearing loss in over 200 babies

from Spanish-speaking families in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles Unified School

District’s Parent-Infant Program serves almost 300 infants, toddlers, and preschool

children, and surrounding counties serve another 300-400 infants and toddlers who are

deaf or hard of hearing (California Department of Education, 2008, 2009). Over 50% of

these children come from homes where Spanish is the primary language (J. Jimenez,

personal communication, September 11, 2008).

The JTC in Los Angeles offers free services to families of children with hearing

loss (JTC, 2009). The average enrollment in the parent-infant Demonstration Home is 35
 90

families. In the years since the establishment of the newborn hearing screening

programs, JTC has seen a 25% increase in the numbers of Spanish-speaking families with

babies who have hearing losses (J. Muhs, personal communication, April 17, 2007).

Over half the families seen by the professionals at JTC are Spanish-speaking.

Population and sample. The population for a research study includes people

who share certain characteristics (Creswell, 2005). The population for the current

qualitative study was a group of parents who shared four characteristics: they were

Spanish-speaking, they had children who are deaf, they planned for their children to learn

to speak English fluently, and at some point they received services from the JTC in Los

Angeles, California. The sample was a purposeful sample because of the need for a

shared experience in the participants (Creswell, 2007).

Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna (2006) chose to study a purposeful sample when

they invited 14 Mexican mothers to participate in interviews regarding their beliefs about

their involvement in their children’s speech therapy program. All the mothers were

participating in therapy services at the clinic where Kummerer worked.

Takahashi-Breines (2006) used a purposeful sample to study the issues

surrounding Spanish as a heritage language in a school in New Mexico. The rationale

was she was familiar with the children she studied and they were old enough (fifth grade)

to assist her in the gathering of data. Takahashi-Breines interviewed participants and

transcribed the videotapes of the interviews.

Mushi (2002) looked at multiple languages and the relationship between the home

and the school. Mushi described the subjects as a convenience sample. Interviews as

well as questionnaires and observation provided data.

 91

Environment. According to Cooper and Schindler (2003), the environment of a

research study can occur under either field conditions or laboratory conditions (p. 150).

For the purposes of obtaining parent perceptions in personal interviews, the current study

was conducted in an environment considered field conditions. The setting was

comfortable, supportive, and family friendly.

Parents were invited to share their reflections, ideas, advice, memories, and

understandings of their role in the process of their young deaf child learning to use

spoken English efficiently. Each participant was asked a prepared set of open-ended

questions “designed to reveal what is important to understand” (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, &

Sorensen, 2006, p. 480). The researcher explored other content as it arose in the parents’

comments.

Setting. According to Creswell (2005), the setting of a study includes

“multilayered, interrelated factors” (p. 447) such as family history, experiences, and

familiarity with the environment and the researcher. The parents participated in

individual interviews videotaped in a comfortable waiting room or a demonstration home

apartment in which the parents have spent time over the years they have received services

for their children. Care was taken to make the videotaping equipment as unobtrusive as

possible.

Scope of the literature. The literature review presents information on language

development in children (Kominski & Shin, 2008), on parents’ perceptions of their roles

(Anderson & Marinac, 2007), on parents who are Spanish-speaking (Tabors, 2008), on

parents who do not speak English and their special needs children (Kummerer & Lopez-

Reyna, 2006; Óhlfearnáin, 2007), on the needs of Spanish-speaking parents who have
 92

children who are deaf (McConkey-Robbins, 2007; Rhoades, 2006), on parents of deaf

children who plan for their children to be fluent in spoken language (Nicholas & Geers,

2006), and on the viability of spoken language for young children who have hearing

losses (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008). No information directly addressed the

issue of the Spanish-speaking parents’ perceptions of their role in developing the spoken

English language skills of their young deaf children. The study fills a gap in the

literature.

Conclusion

The focus of the study was the perceptions of a unique group of parents. The

literature review demonstrated a gap in knowledge about Spanish-speaking parents of

children with hearing losses and their perceptions of their role in spoken language

development. The literature review offered information about the roles and perceptions

of parents regarding language development, about parents who speak languages other

than English, and about parents who have children with special needs. Information is

available from research regarding how parents value language development (Anderson &

Marinac, 2007; Gleason, 2009). Information is available from research regarding

successful outcomes for deaf children learning spoken language (Cole & Flexer, 2008;

Simmons-Martin, 1979). Information is available from research regarding second

language acquisition for children with disabilities (Paradis et al., 2003; Simmons &

Johnston, 2007). One study offered information on outcomes for children with hearing

losses and whose parents speak Spanish (Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 2007). However,

Yoshinaga-Itano et al. did not focus on the parents’ perceptions of their role in

developing spoken language with their deaf children. The focus of the current study was
 93

the parents’ perceptions. Chapter 3 contains an explanation of the research approach and

the design of the study. Chapter 3 also includes a review of the research questions,

population and sample, data collection, data analysis, validity, and reliability for the

study.

Summary

The literature review included the results of a search of several databases, books,

articles, journals, dissertations, research studies, and electronic media. The theories that

provide the theoretical support for the study included general systems theory and family

systems theory, child development theory including language development, and second

language acquisition theory. The literature review presented information from the

seminal and current literature surrounding language development, the role of parents in

facilitating language development, and the perceptions of parents, including Spanish-

speaking parents, of their role in language development (Gleason, 2009; Tabors, 2008;

Tammemae, 2009).

Northern and Downs (1991), Tomasello and Farrar (1986), and Van Hecke et al

(2007) studied infant communication skills. The studies supported the importance of

child–parent interactions as the foundation of language development. None of the studies

focused on families of children who have hearing losses.

Research studies that looked at parents from Japan, Puerto Rico, and the United

States (Quirk et al., 1986), the United Kingdom (Morris & Jones, 2007; Newton et al.,

2007), Korea (Shin, 2006), Ireland (Óhlfearnáin, 2007), and Canada (Paradis et al., 2003)

were described. Several studies offered evidence that a healthy first language in the

home will provide the foundation for further language learning (Hulstijn, 2007; Krashen,
 94

2003; Mushi, 2002; Rhoades, 2006). Hammer et al. (2007) concluded that effective

professionals working with families who speak a language other than English must

demonstrate knowledge of and respect for the family’s culture. These studies offered

more evidence that parents from specific cultures stay true to their cultural values despite

any disabilities affecting their child. None of these studies focused on the parents of

children with hearing losses.

Researchers reported on several studies of parents of children with special needs

other than hearing loss and offered information that supported the emphasis parents place

on communication skills (Nind & Hewett, 2005; Stoner & Angell, 2006). Research exists

on mothers of children with Down syndrome, autism, and severe communication

problems (Landa, 2007; J. F. Miller & Sedey, 1995; Sandberg & Liliedahl, 2008). These

studies presented data that support the belief that parents of children with special needs

value language development. None of these studies included families of children with

hearing losses. Nicholas and Geers (2006), Simser (1999), and Yoshinaga-Itano (2003)

studied the parents of young children with hearing losses but the focus of the studies was

not on Spanish-speaking families or on parent perceptions.

Research with Spanish-speaking parents of children with special needs provided

evidence that family values are central to the choices parents make (Arcia et al., 2000;

Eggers-Piérola, 2005; S. B. Garcia et al., 2000; King & Fogle, 2006b; Kummerer-Dunn,

2005; Kummerer & Lopez-Reyna, 2006; L. L. Sanchez, 2005). These studies provided

information on the importance of language development to Spanish-speaking parents of

children with special needs but none of the families studied had children with hearing

losses.
 95

The EHDI programs in the United States (White, 2003, 2011) identify children

with hearing losses at birth. Research supported the positive spoken language outcomes

for children who have hearing losses and receive appropriate early intervention services

(Ertmer et al., 2007, Korver et al., 2003). DesJardin and Eisenberg (2007), Rhoades et al.

(2004), McConkey-Robbins (2007), and Lakins (2005) provided information on

demographics, and outcomes for families of deaf children but did not focus on the

parents’ perceptions and the families in these studies were not all Spanish-speaking.

The context of the study was the twin phenomena of the increasing numbers of

Spanish-speaking families in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, 2011) and the

rising numbers of babies identified at birth as having a hearing loss (NCHAM, 2008).

The population for the study was Spanish-speaking parents who had young deaf children.

The parents wanted their children to become fluent in English. They had received

services from the JTC in Los Angeles, California.

The study involved a qualitative approach and a phenomenological design to

explore the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children. The

researcher asked a series of open-ended questions that encouraged the parents to describe

their views of their role in the spoken language development of their children. Chapter 3

contains a description of the specifics of the research methods used.

 96

Chapter 3: Method

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the

perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in developing spoken

English language skills in their young deaf children. The study involved exploring the

perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in developing the spoken

English language skills of their young deaf children. Twenty Spanish-speaking parents

were recruited as participants. A phenomenological study design was used (Ary et al.,

2006). Individual interviews with the participants were videotaped and transcribed, and

the text of each interview was analyzed for themes and patterns. The participants were

the parents of young deaf children enrolled in the spoken English language program at

the JTC in Los Angeles, California.

Chapter 3 contains the proposed method and design of the research study with a

discussion of the appropriateness of each. The population for the sample is described.

The chapter includes the data collection procedures and rationale. Also included are the

data analysis techniques and the appropriateness to the researcher’s design. A chapter

summary includes key points.

Research Method and Design Appropriateness

Chapter 3 contains the method and design of the study. A qualitative

phenomenological study was appropriate for exploring the perceptions of 20 Spanish-

speaking parents regarding their role in helping to develop the spoken English language

skills of their young deaf children. A qualitative research method was most appropriate

for the study because the parents’ descriptions of their role were captured in their own

words (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008; Neuman, 2003). The research evoked the meaning
 97

behind the parents’ description of their shared experience as the Spanish-speaking parents

of young deaf children. Individual interviews with the participants captured the words of

the parents and the patterns and themes that described the parents’ perceptions emerged

while analyzing the interviews (Creswell, 2007).

Research regarding the development of auditory, speech, and language skills in

young deaf children of Spanish-speaking parents indicates that more information is

needed regarding parent choices and child outcomes (McConkey-Robbins, 2007;

Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 2007). Professionals need to know more about the perceptions of

Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in developing spoken English language

skills with their young children with hearing losses (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer,

2008). The information gathered through the study adds to the literature by looking at

how Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children see their role. A second addition to

the literature is the unique opportunity offered to professionals who provide services to

Spanish-speaking families with young deaf children to learn more about how to apply

new knowledge to this population.

Qualitative Method

Qualitative research offers a complementary approach to learning about the world

when contrasted with the quantitative approach. The quantitative research method results

in quantified information and cause and effect data whereas a qualitative research study

results in an understanding of the essential nature of the participants’ experience

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). Participants in the study were videotaped during individual

interviews. The interviews were transcribed, and transcripts were analyzed for themes

and patterns that emerged from the participants’ words. The qualitative study focused on
 98

the subjects in a familiar site “in meaningful dialogue on their own, indigenous,

contextually determined needs” (Lincoln & Tierney, 2004, p. 228). The subjects

recruited for the study were videotaped in a familiar place called the parent lounge where

they are accustomed to discussing family and child needs and where each individual is

accustomed to receiving ongoing support by professionals.

Salkind (2006) described the interview tool as a way to “obtain firsthand

knowledge of people’s feelings and perceptions” (p. 187). Questions used in an

interview should be open-ended enough to allow the participant room for personal

interpretation, yet focused enough to allow the researcher to gather data on specific

issues. The researcher created a series of follow-up questions to use as probes when the

response to the initial question needed expanding. The interview questions for the study

are in Appendix D.

The population for the study was drawn from Spanish-speaking parents of young

deaf children who have chosen to help their children develop spoken English language

skills. The participants lived in the greater Los Angeles, California, area and were

enrolled at the JTC for services for their deaf child. A random sample of a larger

population would not have offered the specific information available through this group

of subjects because the experiences and services offered to the families of the members of

the larger group would be diverse and unpredictable. Creswell (2007) recommended “the

participants in the study need to be carefully chosen individuals who have all experienced

the same phenomenon in question, so that the researcher can forge a common

understanding” (p. 62). The parents in the study were the ultimate experts on their

unique situations (Naseef, 2001).

 99

Randomized clinical trials as used in medical research do not suit an exploration

of the perceptions of individuals living through a shared phenomenon (Bloomberg &

Volpe, 2008; Moustakas, 1994). According to Bloomberg and Volpe (2008), “Random

sampling procedures characterize quantitative research which is based on statistical

probability theory” (p. 69). A qualitative research study describes an experience in depth

in the expectation that other individuals might find the information useful for a different

but similar situation (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008).

Transferability in qualitative research is the result of the depth of the description

of the processes studied and how well that information might transfer to a similar setting

or population (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). As described in the Limitations section in

Chapter 1, the transferability of the results of the study is limited. Transferability rests on

“the richness of the descriptions that give an element of vicarious experience and the

detailed context” (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008, p. 78) for the study provided by the

researcher. The information gained from the subjects of the study serves as a platform

for discussion to inform professionals and improve services for families in similar

situations.

A quantitative research method produces data that represent relationships based

on statistical probabilities (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). The words of the participants in

the study were analyzed for themes and patterns, not statistical probabilities. The

parents’ experiences, described through the parents’ responses to questions, served as the

data for the study. Bloomberg and Volpe (2008) described qualitative research as “suited

to promoting a deep understanding of a social setting viewed from the perspective of the

research participants” (p. 7). A qualitative research study offers the possibility of a
 100

“complex, detailed understanding of the issue” (Creswell, 2007, p. 40) under study. The

qualitative study resulted in a collection of the subjective assessments of individuals in

the words of the parents themselves. The study did not include a formal hypothesis,

which is an essential part of a quantitative study (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). A

hypothesis in the form of recommendations emerged from the data collected in the one-

on-one interviews conducted for the study.

Phenomenological Design

A list of qualitative research methods includes many different designs, each of

which matches specific circumstances and purposes of research. When using an

ethnographic design, researchers immerse themselves into the group under study for a

considerable amount of time (Ary et al., 2006). The study focused on the perceptions of

Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children. The study is the work of a non-

Spanish-speaking educator. Immersion in that social group for a considerable length of

time was impossible for the researcher.

A historical research design requires that the researcher looks at trends over time.

Leedy and Ormrod (2005) defined historical research as an “attempt to solve certain

problems arising out of a historical context” (p. 108). Historical research looks at events

and works toward producing a conclusion that makes sense of the events. The study

allowed the participants to describe the meaning of the events through their responses to

interview questions.

A grounded theory research design allows a researcher to recognize a theory as it

surfaces as an explanation of the phenomenon described in the study. In a grounded

theory research study, several sources provide data to construct a theoretical model
 101

(Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). “A grounded theory study is a systematic, qualitative

procedure used to generate a theory that explains a process, an action, or an interaction

about a substantive topic” (Creswell, 2005, p. 396). The phenomenological study

revealed patterns and themes in the words of parents as they described their perceptions.

The intention of the study was not to develop a theory based on “changing experiences

over time and multiple stages of data collection” (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008, p. 11).

Grounded theory research has a greater interest in description than in comparisons

(Grounded Theory Institute, n.d.). Through the phenomenological study, a rich

description of the participants’ experiences was collected. Theories of family systems

and child development made up a scaffold that supported the study but the development

of a theory was not a goal of the phenomenological study.

Another form of qualitative research is the case study, which focuses on one

person or event and studies the situation for some time (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). A case

study shares an interest with phenomenological research in unique and unexamined

situations (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Generalizations derived from a case study are

usually tentative until supported by other sources of research because of the limited focus

of the study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The data from the study did not support broad

generalizations from the participants’ comments. The focus of the study was on 20

parents in similar situations, a phenomenon from the perspectives of the people involved,

and shared experiences (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).

A phenomenological design was appropriate for the study because the parents

used their own words to express the meaning behind their shared experiences. Themes

and patterns found in the parents’ words emerged from the data analysis. Moustakas
 102

(1994) provided a thorough discussion of the philosophical foundations of

phenomenological studies. Moustakas shared with Husserl (1981) a passion for

exploring the essential knowledge of human beings. The study involved exploring the

essential knowledge of a group of Spanish-speaking parents of deaf children.

Husserl (1970) found in phenomenology a way to free the researcher from the

influences of personal experience while studying the experiences of others. Husserl

(1970) described the “difficulties of pure phenomenological analysis” and the importance

of reflection by the investigator to uncover the truth (p. 253). Husserl (1964) directed

researchers to become aware of the particular lens through which researchers view the

world and to become sensitive to the lens by which others view the world. Investigators

who use phenomenological designs in their research can use a reflexive journal

(Moustakas, 1994) to sort out the personal lens through which they view the world and to

add clarity to the views of the participants in research studies. Further discussion of a

reflexive journal is in the Reflexivity section of this chapter.

Husserl (1981) described phenomenology as being free from suppositions.

Husserl intended that a phenomenological approach demand a consciousness of one’s

own perspective of an experience as well as the recognition of the perspective of the

people under study (Luft, 2004). Husserl used the term intentionality to refer to the

consciousness of experience (Moustakas, 1994, p. 28).

One of Husserl’s assistants, Heidegger, continued to study the foundation of

phenomenology (Moran & Mooney, 2002). Heidegger described an even more profound

reason to pursue an awareness of self and other (Cerbone, 2008). Heidegger dwelled on

the state of being that an individual experiences in life, followed by a state of mind. A
 103

final step into awareness of another entity allows the first person to perceive a second

person’s experience. The shared experiences of the participants in the study were

documented through videotaped interviews and analyzed for common perceptions.

Following Heidegger’s direction, other philosophers added to the description of

phenomenology. Sartre (1970) called for a transcendence of the self, a loss of the ego,

and a focus on the many facets of an experience. Sartre, in discussing Husserl’s uses of

intentionality and consciousness, wrote that although it exists outside of a conscious

mind, the mind perceives and defines the world. Sartre supported the view of Husserl

that every experience requires a reflection on the nature of the experience. Reflecting on

an experience calls upon the intuition of the perceiver (Sarte, 1970). The reflexive

journal used as part of the documentation of the study served as a means to reach the

objectivity and intentionality described by Sarte.

As far back in the philosophical record as Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) and Rene

Descartes (1596-1650), a contrast existed between a linguistic approach or a

mathematical approach to describe the reality of the world. In the study, language, in the

form of open-ended questions, was the medium through which the perspectives of the

participants were captured. Husserl wrote about the Cartesian point of view as being

objective and scientific while focusing his investigations inward in a reflective style that

pays “attention to consciousness” (Luft, 2004, p. 214). Cerbone (2008) described

Husserl’s attitude as “a rejection of the idea that the natural sciences can provide a

complete or exhaustive account of reality” (p. 14).

Science searches for truths (Ary et al., 2006). The scientific method uncovers

truths through a process that includes identifying a problem, collecting data using
 104

observation and experiment, and testing hypotheses (Neuman, 2003). According to

Neuman (2003), qualitative research “constructs a social reality” (p. 16). A

phenomenological study allows the researcher to probe for, collect, and organize data that

emerge from the words of the subjects. According to Moustakas (1994), phenomenology

recognizes how personal experiences shape personal knowledge. The personal

experiences of the subjects in the study offered professionals insight into phenomena that

would be impossible to obtain from observation.

Moustakas (1994) described three processes that allow a researcher to gain

knowledge about the world through phenomenological research. The first is epoché. The

second is transcendental-phenomenological reduction. The third is imaginative variation.

Through epoché, researchers disarm the power of their own life experiences to

color the descriptions of the participants’ experience by acknowledging the scope of the

researchers’ prejudices. In epoché, researchers let go of preconceived notions of reality

and look at the phenomenon under study with fresh eyes. Moustakas (1994) described a

rigorous process of self-reflection and meditation that clears the mind of interferences

until reaching a state of readiness. In the study, journals recorded and monitored the

entire process. Time was set aside before each interview to reflect and prepare to focus

on another person’s experience.

In the transcendental-phenomenological reduction process, researchers look at the

focus of a study in its entirety, within a context, and with extensive consideration of the

subjects’ stated nuances. Bringing the open mind of the epoché process to the reduction

process allows researchers to see the information impartially and completely. In the

imaginative variation process, researchers look for patterns and by induction find the
 105

meanings behind the words of the subjects. In this process, “a structural description of

the essences of the experience” emerges (Moustakas, 1994, p. 35). Researchers travel

through these three processes and arrive at a point where synthesis allows the context and

the surface of the subjects’ experiences to become clear.

Reflexivity

The concept of reflexivity allows researchers to “acknowledge the impact [of the

research] on the researcher, the participants, and on the reader” (Creswell, 2007, p. 179).

Creswell (2007) defined reflexivity as the open acknowledgment by researchers of how

their own experiences and culture has shaped their thinking. Effective phenomenological

research depends on the ability of researchers to recognize the personal experiences

through which they view the world. Recognition of one’s own phenomenology ensures

those experiences do not interfere with a true understanding of the many facets of the

experiences of other people.

Moustakas (1994) described the reflective process as essential for the

phenomenological method because to understand the evidence collected, researchers

must be able to know themselves “within the experience being investigated” (p. 47). A

reflexive journal adds to the effectiveness of a phenomenological study (Moustakas,

1994). In phenomenology, a statement of the researcher’s potential biases and

experiences is necessary to guarantee the integrity of the study. As Moustakas suggested,

entries from the reflexive journal are presented in Chapter 5 of the completed study to

relate the findings of the study to the thoughts of the researcher. For the current

phenomenological study, the reflexive journal provided documentation of the subjective

to objective process.
 106

Population, Sampling, Data Collection Procedures, and Rationale

The population for a research study includes people who share certain

characteristics (Creswell, 2005). The population for the qualitative study was a group of

parents who share four characteristics. They were Spanish-speaking, they had children

who are deaf, they planned for their children to learn to speak English fluently, and they

had received services from the JTC in Los Angeles, California. The sample was a

purposeful sample because of the need for a shared experience in the participants

(Creswell, 2007).

Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna (2006) chose to study a purposeful sample when

they invited 14 Mexican mothers to participate in interviews regarding their beliefs about

their involvement in their children’s speech therapy program. All the mothers were

participating in therapy services at the clinic where Kummerer worked.

Takahashi-Breines (2006) used a purposeful sample to study the issues

surrounding Spanish as a heritage language in a school in New Mexico. Takahashi-

Breines’s rationale was her familiarity with the children she studied and that they were

old enough (fifth grade) to assist her in the gathering of data. The researcher interviewed

participants and transcribed the videotapes of the interviews.

Mushi (2002) looked at multiple languages and the relationship between the home

and the school. Mushi described the subjects as a convenience sample. Interviews as

well as questionnaires and observations provided data.

The population for the current study was drawn from lower middle class to

middle class Spanish-speaking parents, both mothers and fathers, of young deaf children

who have chosen to help their children develop spoken English language skills and who
 107

lived in the greater Los Angeles, California, area. The parents ranged between 27 and 48

years of age. The educational levels of the parents ranged from grammar school to 4

years of postsecondary education or training.

Sample. The parents approached to volunteer for the study represented a

purposive or purposeful criterion sample chosen because of their unique shared

experience (Ary et al., 2006; Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). Parents who fell into the

demographic categories of the study were asked individually to consider participation.

Purposive sampling allowed the researcher to focus on “information-rich cases, with the

objective of yielding insight and understanding of the phenomenon under investigation”

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008, p. 69). The sample participants for the study were 20

parents who spoke Spanish and had enrolled their young children who have hearing

losses in a spoken English preschool educational program in Los Angeles, California.

The parents chose a spoken language approach for their children’s education and

provided hearing aids or cochlear implants for their children. The parents were native

speakers of Spanish who are not fluent in English. One parent was born in Guatemala

and the other parents were born in Mexico.

Data collection. The JTC granted permission for the researcher to use the

premises for the study (see Appendix A). The researcher contacted the Spanish-speaking

parents of young deaf children personally. The participants were informed of the

purposes of the study using a Spanish interpreter. Consent forms in Spanish were

available for the signatures of those who volunteered to participate (see Appendix B).

Participants received a copy of the informed consent. Procedures for confidentiality were

followed. Names of the participants do not appear in the study. During the transcription
 108

process, the names of parents, children, or professionals included in the interviews were

encoded using random assignment of subject numbers 1 to 20 to the participants’

videotapes and transcripts to protect confidentiality.

Individual interviews with the subjects captured the essence of the experience

under study in the participants’ own words (Moustakas, 1994). Open-ended questions

allowed the researcher to ask parents to elaborate on their statements as needed for

clarification and enrichment (see Appendices C and D). The researcher did not use a

written questionnaire or survey because the literacy levels of the parents were unknown.

Environment. According to Cooper and Schindler (2003), the environment of a

research study can occur either under field conditions or laboratory conditions (p. 150).

For the purposes of obtaining parent perceptions in personal interviews, the study was

conducted in an environment considered field conditions. The environment was familiar,

pleasant, and as stress free as possible for the duration of the interviews. A room known

as the parents’ lounge was the location for the interview appointments.

The nonverbal aspects of the subject’s responses were noted. Body language,

including facial expressions, offered clues to the stress levels of subjects (Ekman, 1965).

Nonverbal responses that indicated intensity, comfort levels, or comprehension were

noted. Ekman (1965) had judges rate 186 photographs of five different people for varied

states of arousal/sleepiness and discomfort/comfort. The results indicated the movement

of the hands and face offer information about the quality, but not the intensity, of the

experience. Conversely, the movements of the head and body offered information about

the intensity of the experience but not the quality.

 109

A native Spanish-speaking interpreter was necessary to capture the nuances of the

parents’ perceptions. The interpreters used in the study were familiar to the parents, were

a native Spanish speaker, and had completed training by professional interpreters

certified by the state of California. Each interpreter signed a confidentiality agreement

prior to the start of the interviews (see Appendix E). Kirkman-Liff and Mondragon

(1991) reported on the results of a study that focused on language issues for 209 Spanish-

speaking participants in interviews. The study results indicated using the subject’s native

language “refined translingual and transcultural methodologies” (Kirkman-Liff &

Mondragon, 1991, p. 1402). The first language an individual uses carries the culture, the

values, and the truths of one’s understanding of life (Krashen, 2003).

Data came from one-on-one interviews with an interpreter known to both the

parents and the interviewer. The choice of using interviews to gather data allowed the

participants to offer information in depth and in their own words (Bloomberg & Volpe,

2008). The interview process allowed for follow-up questions and opportunities to probe

for more information from the participants.

The interviews were videotaped with the participants as disclosed in the informed

consent form (see Appendix B). A small video camera was set up on a tripod in the

interview room and the tape was allowed to run without interruption for the entire length

of each interview. The interpreter working with the researcher and the parent transcribed

the videotape into a Spanish transcript and then translated the transcript into English. A

second interpreter/translator who also signed a confidentiality agreement (see Appendix

E) checked the Spanish transcript and the English translation for accuracy.
 110

Parents were invited to share their reflections, ideas, advice, memories, and

understandings of their role in the process of their young deaf child learning to use

spoken English efficiently. The researcher asked a prepared set of open-ended questions,

“designed to reveal what is important to understand” (Ary et al., 2006, p. 480), of each

participant. The interview questions were aligned to the research questions in the study

(Leedy & Ormrod, 2005. The researcher explored other content as it arose in the parents’

comments.

Moustakas (1994) described an effective interview experience as being informal,

interactive, social, focused, honest, and thorough. The researcher prepared a series of

open-ended questions with supporting questions that could be used depending on the

response of the participant. Gadamer wrote about the hermeneutic experience of

interpreting text or writings and described how “the essence of the question is to open up

possibilities” (as cited in Moran & Mooney, 2002).

Exploring the parents’ perspectives in depth offered data that might inform

professionals providing services to families. Interviewing participants individually

allowed direct interaction with the participants. Initially the parents were engaged in a

brief exchange intended to thank each parent for participating, describe the research

project, and focus both parties on the topic of the interview.

Parents responded to semi-structured questions that asked them to describe their

understanding of their role in developing spoken English language skills with their

children. The questions used in the study are in Appendix D. Responses to the questions

generated narratives that were analyzed for themes and patterns in contrast to the finite

data generated in a quantitative study (Ary et al., 2006).

 111

The questions used in the interview were modeled on sets of questions used

successfully by researchers who interviewed Chinese-American families (Liu, 2007),

Spanish-speaking families (Takahashi-Breines, 2006), parents of children with severe

disabilities (Stephenson & Dowrick, 2005), parents of children who are deaf or hard of

hearing (Freeman, Dieterich, & Rak, 2002), and university students with disabilities (Orr,

2008). The interview questions followed the guidelines for interview questions provided

by Creswell (2005) and Westby, Burda, and Mehta (2003). The semi-structured nature of

the questions used during the interviews allowed parents to use their own words to

describe their perceptions.

A pilot study took place with parents who were not participants of the main study

to validate the questions asked in the main study (Ary et al., 2006). The questions were

evaluated for effectiveness in gathering data to respond to the focus of the study. The

confidentiality of the participants of the pilot study was protected in the same manner as

in the main study. The pilot study was completed in time for any adjustments to be made

for the main study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The pilot study reinforced the feasibility

and appropriateness of the questions asked in the interviews (Ary et al., 2006). Effective

questions elicited responses from the participants and provided robust themes and

patterns.

Validity and reliability. Creswell (2007) wrote that validity in a

phenomenological study depends on the support for the themes found within the data.

Leedy and Ormrod (2005) wrote that internal validity in qualitative research requires an

exhaustive reduction of the data into codes and themes to the point that all alternative

interpretations have been explored. A triangulation of the data using observations of the
 112

subjects and feedback from colleagues familiar with the subjects and the purpose of the

study supported the internal validity of the study (Neuman, 2003).

Leedy and Ormrod (2005) characterized qualitative research as descriptive,

interpretive, and verified “within real-world contexts” (p. 135) as opposed to a

quantitative approach that would look for causes. The triangulation used in a qualitative

study explores the same information that emerges from several modes of data collection.

The triangulation in the study involved an exploration of the parents’ perspectives of their

roles in their own words and self-reports of parent–child interactions as a demonstration

of that understanding.

The external validity of a qualitative phenomenological study refers to the

transferability of the results (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The study is transferable to

parents who speak Spanish and have young deaf children who are enrolled in a preschool

program that supports spoken English in the greater Los Angeles area. Seeking to

transfer the results of the study to any other group would not be justified because of the

unique characteristics of the participants.

DesJardin and Eisenberg (2007) and DesJardin and Hodapp (2006) gathered data

on Spanish-speaking parents of children who are deaf and hard of hearing and live in

California. The research took the form of questionnaires and surveys rather than the

parents’ own descriptions of their experiences. An exhaustive search of the literature on

the topic addressed in the study indicated a need for direct information about the parents’

perceptions.

Neuman (2003) described reliability in research as a characteristic of a study that

would yield consistent results if repeated in the same situation. A pilot study, feedback
 113

from colleagues, and the consistent application of the concept of reflexivity supported the

reliability of the study. Journals for coding and methodology documented the process

involved in the study (Saldana, 2010). The journals provided a vehicle for a “decision

trail” (Koch, 2006, p. 91) so that readers of the study will understand the process of data

analysis.

The interview questions were structured to capture the parents’ true perceptions.

Essential to the validity of the study is the accuracy of the translations of the parents’

comments. The study used a native Spanish-speaking interpreter for the translation in the

interviews and the same speaker translated the interviews into English.

A second native Spanish-speaking interpreter reviewed the videotaped interviews

and the transcriptions for accuracy. The core processes of phenomenology as described

by Moustakas (1994) were maintained. The processes reinforced the opportunity for

discovery amid the data. Conclusions are found in data (Creswell, 2007). A pilot study

served to validate the questions asked of the participants and the phenomenological

design of the study.

Five parents who did not meet the criteria for participating in the main study

because their children were older than 5 years 11 months or who were fluent in English

were recruited for a pilot study that tested the appropriateness of the questions for the

interviews. The pilot study allowed the researcher to evaluate the interview questions

before the main study interviews (Ary et al., 2006). The anonymity of the parents

participating in the pilot study was protected by assigning a numerical code for each

participant.
 114

Data Analysis

The interpreter participating in the interviews translated the information on the

videotapes into English transcripts. A second native Spanish-speaking interpreter

checked the translations for accuracy. According to Bloomberg and Volpe (2008), a

researcher engaged in a qualitative study must carefully describe the process by which

the data were analyzed. The interview transcripts were searched thoroughly to identify

codes to “convert the raw data into themes for analysis” (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008, p.

76).

Throughout the study, two journals assisted in data analysis. A coding journal

followed changes to the coding and monitored the development of the themes. A

methodological journal documented all problems or questions as they arose in the data.

The analysis of the data involved pulling information out of the words in the

interview transcripts as the researcher searched the text for specific words or phrases.

The data were re-sorted by themes into charts that allowed synthesis of the meaning from

the information. Connections between the perceptions of the parents were identified, as

well as specific details of individual parents. As demanded by phenomenology, any

interpretation of the data was identified throughout the synthesis portion of the study.

Summary

Researchers discover the perceptions of subjects in qualitative phenomenological

studies (Groenewald, 2004). The answers to the research questions of the current study

required an acceptance of the challenges of phenomenology. Phenomenology as a form

of qualitative research deals with the nature and description of an experience rather than

the causes underlying it.

 115

The information presented in Chapter 3 restated the purpose of the study;

supported the choice of a qualitative phenomenological study as appropriate to the

purpose of the study; and elaborated on the population, data collection, validity, and data

analysis for the study. The purpose of the research study (Ary et al, 2006; Creswell,

2007) was to explore the perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in

developing spoken English skills in their young deaf children. A qualitative method was

appropriate because the focus of the study was to explore the experience of the

participants in their own words (Creswell, 2007).

A phenomenological design was appropriate for the study because the purpose of

the study was to seek knowledge of the shared and unique experiences of the participants

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008) and to identify patterns and themes in the words used to

describe the experiences (Ary et al., 2006). The population for the study and the

purposive criterion sample of participants were described. Spanish-speaking parents of

young deaf children had information to share with professionals regarding their

perceptions of their role in developing spoken English language skills with their children.

The data collection procedures, the instruments, and the mechanics of data

analysis were described. One-on-one interviews using a native Spanish-speaking

interpreter allowed the parents to share their experiences. Interviews were transcribed,

translated, and checked for accuracy by a second native Spanish speaker. Data were

analyzed using processes designed for use in qualitative research.

Validity for the study was achieved by triangulation of the interview data,

journals, Spanish-speaking translators, observations of the subjects, and feedback from

professionals familiar with the subjects (Creswell, 2007; Newman, 2003). Throughout
 116

the study, a methodological journal and a coding journal supported the reflexivity and

validity of the findings of the study (Moustakas, 1994). Data were collected and

analyzed, and the findings of the research presented in Chapter 4 (Bloomberg & Volpe,

2008).

The findings of the study might inform the practice of professionals who are

working with the growing population of Spanish-speaking parents who have chosen to

develop spoken language skills with their young deaf children (California Department of

Education, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Chapter 4 contains the data collected from

interviews with the Spanish-speaking parents, analysis of the data, and the themes and

patterns that emerged from the analysis of the transcripts.

 117

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the

perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in developing spoken

English language skills in their young deaf children. The participants of the study were

20 parents who speak Spanish, live in the Los Angeles area in Southern California, and

have young deaf children. The unique participants for the study had shared experiences

and formed a purposeful sample as described by Creswell (2007).

The participants who volunteered for the study answered open-ended interview

questions designed to elicit their experiences surrounding the goal of spoken English for

their children. Twenty parents, 15 mothers and five fathers, provided information. A

native Spanish-speaking interpreter offered support for accurate communication during

the interviews. A second native Spanish-speaking translator viewed the videotaped

interviews, created transcripts, and served as a secondary check on the accuracy of the

interpretation.

The parents’ words provided information about the particular phenomenon under

study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The meaning behind the parents’ description of shared

experiences emerged as themes and patterns from the descriptions in the data analysis

(Creswell, 2007). According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005), the most efficient avenue to

understanding what something is like is to explore the experience in the participants’ own

words.

Despite the increasing numbers of families who speak Spanish and have children

entering the educational system in the United States, little is known about Spanish-

speaking parents’ perceptions of their role in developing spoken English for their young
 118

deaf children. Professionals knowledgeable about early intervention for families with

children who are deaf and hard of hearing recognize that parents play a central role in

developing spoken communication skills in their children (M. Clark, 2007; Cole &

Flexer, 2008; Szagun & Rüter, 2009) and need to understand the reasons that parents of

children with hearing loss choose spoken language (Patterson et al., 2009; Ratcliff &

Hunt, 2009).

Chapter 4 is organized around the themes that surfaced in the analysis of the

interview transcripts. The first step in the data analysis involved identifying language

used by the participants and assigned descriptive codes (Saldana, 2010). Saldana (2010)

recommended descriptive coding to summarize data in language form that originate in

interviews. Descriptive coding organizes “data at a basic level to provide the researcher

an organizational grasp of the study” (Saldana, 2010, p. 3). An example of the

descriptive codes assigned to data is actions that parents take to support spoken language

development.

The second step of data analysis involved organizing the codes into categories

that refined the information. Saldana (2010) recommended focused coding, which is

similar to axial coding and supports the development of categories of salient information.

In this way, the data produced categories that focused the analysis. An example of a

category that refined the original codes is the set of strategies that parents use to support

spoken language development.

Finally, in the last step of the data analysis, themes emerged from the categories.

Saldana (2010) described this process as the result of careful reflection on the explicit

categories and a recognition of the themes. Chapter 4 contains a discussion of the

 119

research questions, the pilot study results, the interview transcripts, a selection of

quotations from the transcripts, the presentation of the codes, the categories and the

themes that emerged from the transcripts, and a summary of the chapter.

Epoché

The first step in a phenomenological study is that of epoché, the process by which

the researcher “sets aside all preconceived experiences to best understand the experiences

of the participants in the study” (Creswell, 2007, p. 235; see also Moustakas, 1994). Self-

reflection helped to clear the mind before and after each interview, and the use of journals

helped to record and monitor the entire process. The purpose of the epoché process is to

“achieve an analytic description of the phenomena not affected by prior assumptions”

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2006, p. 98).

Journaling allowed the researcher to apply critical thinking skills to the study.

Saldana (2010) recommended that a researcher involved in a qualitative study write

memos or journal entries to help focus attention on the choices and assumptions being

made, on coding choices, on interactions with participants, and on problems that arise in

the course of the study. Self-reflection, journaling, and critical thinking skills served as

safety measures throughout the study to support the researcher in seeking impartiality

toward the data, suspending judgment, and looking at the data as a whole. As the data

collection proceeded, the researcher continuously sought to recognize her own

phenomenology as well as the codes, categories, and themes that emerged from the

participants.
 120

Data Collection Procedure

The data collection process occurred over 7 months. The participants in the study

were Spanish-speaking parents of deaf children and had chosen for their deaf child to

learn to speak English. The interviewer approached parents who met the criteria for the

study, described the study briefly, and made arrangements to meet with each parent to

cover the study in depth. Through an interpreter, the researcher explained the details of

the study and went over the informed consent document, which was then signed.

The interviews took place in a comfortable setting that was familiar to the

participants. Signs on the doors of the interview space requested no interruptions and

quiet hallways. The interviewer began each interview with an expression of gratitude to

the parents for taking the time to share their experiences. After the interviewer posed

each question to the parent, the interpreter offered the question in Spanish to the parent.

The parent responded to the question in Spanish and the interpreter translated the

answer into English for the interviewer. The entire interview was captured on videotape.

The interviewer focused on listening to the interpretation of the parents’ answers. The

interviewer occasionally asked follow-up questions as needed to encourage a rich

response from the parent.

During the interviews, the interpreter would occasionally ask for clarification

from the interviewer or need extra time to translate the English question into Spanish or

the Spanish answer into English. The interpreter concentrated on preserving the intention

of the original question. On some occasions, the interpreter would signal the interviewer

by a glance or a comment that extra time was needed for the interpretation. Occasionally

a parent would need clarification of his or her understanding of the question. The small
 121

unobtrusive camera allowed the participants, the interpreter, and the interviewer to

maintain eye contact and a conversational style during the interviews.

A second Spanish-speaking interpreter viewed the videotaped interviews, typed

both the Spanish and the English sides of the interview verbatim, and served as a quality

control agent for the accuracy of the translation given during the interview. The use of

the videotape allowed the transcriber to rewind and review the comments as many times

as needed for an accurate translation. The transcriber used headphones to eliminate

distractions and to focus on the information on the videotape.

When a parent’s response to a question was short, the interviewer would say,

“Would you tell me more about that?” to encourage a richer response. When a parent’s

response seemed incomplete, the interviewer would ask a follow-up question such as

“Why do think that?” or “How did you feel about that situation?” to encourage more

information. The interviewer encouraged the participants to take as much time as they

needed to answer the questions.

Body Language and Observations of Parent–Child Conversations

A qualitative phenomenological study is descriptive and offers interpretations of

data verified “within real world contexts” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 135).

Triangulation of the data in the current study included observations of participants’

interactions with their children. Within the school environment, the participants

functioned as primary sources of spoken language for their children. Teachers provided

English language models that the participants repeated with their children as a first

comment. Participants appeared to be comfortable asking for clarification of the English

model. After using the English model several times, participants used Spanish language
 122

models to confirm the children’s understanding. The number of English or Spanish

repetitions varied for each participant. This dual language use is consistent with the

participants’ stated objectives of fluency in both languages for their children.

During the data collection process, the researcher paid attention to the principles

of how body language and nonverbal behaviors demonstrate the intensity of the

experience under study with the participants (Ekman, 1965). Prabhu (2010) described

many characteristics of nonverbal communication including posture, positioning of

shoulders, eye contact, and voice loudness. Immediately after each interview, the

researcher followed Prabhu’s suggestions and noted aspects of the participant’s nonverbal

behavior. Reviewing the videotape of the interview at a later time provided a second

evaluation of the nonverbal aspects of each participant’s communication. The

participants indicated the intensity of the experiences under study by sitting in a calm and

controlled position in their chairs, by maintaining eye contact, and by using a consistent

voice loudness (Ekman, 1965).

Pilot Study

The interviewer prepared for the main study by vetting the questions with

Spanish-speaking parents in the pilot study. Spanish-speaking parents who had older

deaf children volunteered to participated in the pilot study and answered the 10 open-

ended questions (see Appendix D). The subjects in the pilot study included three

Spanish-speaking mothers who were interviewed individually and a married couple who

asked to be interviewed together.

The parents in the pilot study had young deaf children but their children did not

fall into the age range specified for subjects in the main study. An interpreter participated
 123

in the interviews for the pilot study. Following the main study protocol, each interview

of the pilot study was videotaped. A second native speaker of Spanish created transcripts

from the interview tapes. Transcripts were analyzed for codes, categories, and themes in

the words the parents used to describe their experiences. The results of the pilot study

confirmed the effectiveness of the open-ended questions in soliciting the desired

information from the subjects.

Sample Size

The small sample of participants in the study formed a purposeful sample

(Creswell, 2007). Kummerer and Lopez-Reyna (2006) conducted a small study on

Mexican mothers and their beliefs concerning their involvement in their child’s speech

therapy program and used a purposeful sample from the clinic where one of the authors

of the study worked. A study that involved fifth-grade students in New Mexico and

Spanish as a heritage language had a purposeful sample because the researcher wanted

participants with shared experiences (Takahashi-Breines, 2006). Takahashi-Breines

interviewed participants and transcribed and translated the interviews. When studying

multiple languages and the relationship between the home and the school, Mushi (2002)

described the subjects as a convenience sample and collected data through interviews and

questionnaires.

Parents were approached individually and asked to consider participation in the

study. The goals of the study were presented initially in a conversational manner and

then a second time in a formal style when the participants arrived for their interview and

the information on the informed consent document was discussed before signing. The

participants included 20 Spanish-speaking mothers and fathers of children who are deaf
 124

and of preschool age. The 15 mothers and five fathers met privately with the researcher

and an interpreter for less than an hour and answered the questions described in the

Interview Questions section of Chapter 4 and listed in Appendix D.

Because of the small sample size, replacing participants was difficult but essential

to the study plan. One parent who volunteered for the study cancelled the meeting for the

interview. A second meeting time was also cancelled. During a follow-up telephone

call, the parent declined to participate. A replacement was approached and agreed to

participate. The nineteen other participants met all appointments. Though the sample

size of the study was small, the depth of the participants’ descriptions of their experiences

provided significant information for analysis.

Demographic Background of the Participants

The participants’ ages ranged from 27 years to 48 years. Schooling completed

ranged from 6 years of elementary education to 4 years of university. The majority of the

parents were natives of Mexico. One was from Guatemala. The number of years each

parent had lived in the United States varied from 2 to 22 years. Ten of the mothers were

homemakers, although before they had children nine of them worked in occupations such

as office work, restaurant work, child care, or the travel industry. The employment of the

fathers included the grocery industry, house painting, machine operator, factory worker,

and self-employed in sales. Each parent signed an informed consent document after the

study was described and any questions were answered (see Appendix B).

Both native Spanish-speaking interpreters used for the interviews were known to

the parents and had experience acting as interpreters. The parents appeared comfortable

discussing the interview questions with them. Two translators transcribed the interview
 125

videotapes into Word documents and acted as a second check on the accuracy of the

interpretation. The interpreters and the transcribers signed confidentiality agreements

(see Appendix E).

Table 3 shows the ages, birthplaces, years of schooling, years in the United States,

and occupations of the participants. As the table indicates, all but one of the participants

were born in Mexico. Several participants noted that the search for services for their

child who is deaf was the reason they came to the United States.

One mother said, “There was nothing for her in Mexico. Nothing for me to help

her. No school.” Another parent said, “My mother has the other children in Mexico. We

are deciding. Are they coming here? Are we going home?” A father described his

understanding of his child’s future: “In Mexico, he was nothing, no one. Here he goes to

school.”

Table 3

Demographic Background of the Participants

Tape Age Language Birthplace Education Years in U.S. Profession Relationship

1 29 SSE Mexico 12th grade 10 Homemaker Mother

2 44 SSE Mexico 2 yr 22 Grocery Father

university manager

3 43 SLE Mexico 12th grade 20 Homemaker Mother

4 31 SLE Mexico 6th grade 11 Homemaker Mother

5 35 SLE Mexico 11th grade 14 Homemaker Mother

6 32 SSE Mexico 12th grade 15+ Sales Father

 126

Table 3 (continued)

Tape Age Language Birthplace Education Years in U.S. Profession Relationship

7 29 SLE Mexico 12th grade 6 Child care Mother

8 40 SLE Mexico 4 yr 2 Travel Mother

university industry

9 48 SSE Mexico 12th grade 17 Office Mother

worker

10 40 SSE Mexico 6th grade 18 Homemaker Mother

11 29 SSE Mexico 12th grade 9 Homemaker Mother

12 35 SLE Mexico 9th grade 10 Machinery Mother

operator

13 33 Spanish Mexico 12th grade 15 Restaurant Mother

server

14 27 SSE Guatemala 7th grade 8 Factory Mother

15 28 SSE Mexico 12th grade 8 Painter Father

16 29 SLE Mexico 6th grade 9 Fast food Mother

restaurant

17 42 SLE Mexico 9th grade 23 Homemaker Mother

18 27 SLE Mexico 6th grade 12 Factory Mother

19 41 SLE Mexico 1 yr 19 Warehouse Father

college shipping

20 30 SLE Mexico 10th grade 15 Janitor Father

Note. SSE = Spanish, some English. SLE = Spanish, little English.

 127

Research Questions

The phenomenon of Spanish-speaking parents who have children who are deaf

and hard of hearing affects the nation, the community, and the schools. School leaders

might use the information gathered in the proposed study to make decisions and direct

professionals serving this unique population. The following two open-ended research

questions provided the focus of the study:

RQ1: How do Spanish-speaking parents view and describe their experiences in

developing spoken English language skills in their young deaf children?

RQ2: What advice would Spanish-speaking parents offer educators and other

parents about the process of developing age-appropriate spoken English language skills

in their young deaf children?

Interview Questions

The open-ended interview questions asked of the participants provided

opportunities for the parents to add more specific examples of their experiences when

prompted by the researcher. The study involved “broad, general questions” (Creswell,

2007, p. 61) that “focus attention on gathering data and ultimately provide an

understanding of the common experiences of the participants” (Creswell, 2007, p. 61).

The interview questions were as follows:

1. How do you think children learn to talk?

2. How do you think children with hearing loss learn to talk?

3. How do you feel when you think about your child learning to talk?

4. Has John Tracy Clinic been helpful for your family

5. How did the teachers at John Tracy Clinic help you teach your child to talk?
 128

6. How do your friends and family help you teach your child to talk?

7. Who does your child talk to now?

8. Who do you think your child will talk to in the future?

9. What language do you speak at home?

10. What language do you speak at school?

11. Outside of school, where else does your child hear English?

12. What would you tell other parents about how to teach their child to talk?

13. What do you want professionals to know about Hispanic families who have

children with hearing losses?

Not every question needed to be asked in every interview because some parents

spontaneously offered the information sought. In addition to the questions asked, parents

were encouraged to elaborate on their responses with simple prompts such as, “Please tell

me more about that idea.”

Findings

Saldana (2010) recommended that small studies be analyzed on printed out

transcripts and manipulated by hand. According to Saldana, “Manipulating qualitative

data on paper and writing codes in pencil give more control over and ownership of the

work” (p. 22). The researcher coded the transcripts, revisited the data to identify

categories, and defined themes that emerged from the analysis (Saldana, 2010).

Ten codes emerged from the data collected in interviews with 20 parents. The

parents offered comments centered on the extensive amount of information the parents

and children needed to learn; the array of emotions the parents experienced because their

children are deaf; the support or barriers presented by friends, family, and community;
 129

the importance of understanding the amplification technology that the children wear

(hearing aids and cochlear implants); the importance of parents knowing early that their

children are deaf; the role of professionals; strategies the parents use to support spoken

language development; the lack of time for themselves and for their children to develop

spoken language; the never-ending demand for vocabulary and language to support their

children’s learning; and the awareness of language development as a process. Table 4

contains the first step in the analysis process: the identification of the original codes.

Table 4

Original Codes Found in Transcripts

Number of times

Original codes mentioned in transcripts

Language advice, situations, actions, and choices 25

Emotions felt by parents attributed to the knowledge that their 27

children are deaf

Family, friends, and community 30

Amplifications devices (hearing aids and cochlear implants), 28

technology

Early identification of hearing loss 17

Professionals, searching for help 26

Strategies to support spoken language development 67

Lack of time to devote to everything a parent wanted to do 3

Children’s needs 39

Process 5
 130

The next step in the data analysis was identifying categories that connected

several codes. According to Saldana (2010), “qualitative inquiry demands meticulous

attention to language and deep reflection on the emergent patterns and meanings of

human experience” (p. 10). During a second cycle of coding, reflection on the words

used by the participants allowed a set of categories to emerge. The first category that

emerged is information that parents needed and strategies used for encouraging spoken

language. Participants mentioned the learning process that led to understanding the

amplification technology that their children wear, hearing aids, and cochlear implants 28

times. Three participants highlighted the process that they experienced in learning how

language develops with a child. Participants mentioned 67 times that they used specific

strategies to support their children developing spoken language. This category of data

was labeled information and strategies. Participants mentioned the need to interact with

professionals (26 items).

The second category that emerged centered on the emotions participants

experienced and continue to experience (27 items). Participants described the

motivations behind searches for support. Participants described their emotional ties to

their children. Participants discussed the roles played by family, friends, and community

members in the development of spoken English for their deaf children. The data merged

into a category labeled emotional responses to the participants’ experiences.

Participants described advice they were given on whether to speak English or

Spanish with their children and specified the language used in the home and in other

settings (25 items). Participants described the division of roles within the family. This

category of data was presented as the orientation of language choices within the family.
 131

Three comprehensive themes emerged from the categories of the third cycle of

coding: information-based data, affective-based data, and the decisions made regarding

language in the home. According to Saldana (2010), themes are best presented in a

phrase or sentence. Table 5 shows a sample of the sequence of data analysis from

original codes to a second tier of categories to the final themes that emerged from the

data.

Table 5

Sample Coding Process

Parent’s words Initial codes Categories Themes

When we go, for example, Parentactions Strategies for Spanish-speaking parents

and she wants me to buy language of young deaf children

her something, when we go development search for information that

to pay, she has to talk, she will help them support

has to say something. I pay spoken language

and she has to say thank development.

you.

After a year that they were Technology Information Spanish-speaking parents

implanted, they started of young deaf children

using their voices and they search for information that

wouldn’t stop talking. will help them support

spoken language

development.
 132

Table 5 (continued)

Parent’s words Initial codes Categories Themes

Sometimes it’s frustrating, Description Emotional Spanish-speaking parents

difficult, tiring of emotions responses of young deaf children

We also didn’t know what to experience emotions that

do, where to go, or who to Searching Working impact the decisions they

go to, to obtain information. with profess. make regarding spoken

It was depressing. language for their children.

I mostly use, how do I say it, Language English/Spanish Spanish-speaking parents

better yet I speak more to situations issues of young deaf children

her in English. make choices based on

They would always tell us Language their understandings about

that it was a good choice to advice and using English or Spanish

teach both languages. choices with their children.

Mom will read a book to Language English/Spanish Spanish-speaking parents

them in Spanish one night choices issues of young deaf children

and I will read a book to make choices based on

them in English the other their understandings about

night and L. has noticed the using English or Spanish

difference. So she sees the with their children.

word “airplane” and she

says, “Oh it’s avión in

Spanish.”
 133

Theme 1: Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children search for

information that will help them support spoken language development. Table 6

presents the categories that support the theme of information-based items from the

interview transcripts. Subtle but important distinctions are made within the codes to

highlight the meaning of the participants’ words. Each category denoted specific features

for the participants. For example, conversational skills, strategies for encouraging

expressive language, language and vocabulary learning, the parent role in modeling

spoken language, and expectations for spoken language are aspects of the concept of

spoken language development. The participants emphasized conversation as both a

strategy and a goal for their children. Encouraging expressive language and expectations

for spoken language were offered as separate items.

One participant explained that she always encourages and offers her child

examples to use spoken language and, in some situations, she believes her child

understands that spoken language is expected even without the mother’s examples.

Seven of the parents recommended learning the lyrics to songs as a strategy to develop

spoken language. A father described his understanding of how deaf children learn

spoken language: “There’s a lot of things you know they’ve got to learn. It’s like a

process. They have to listen first. They have to learn the vocabulary. A hearing loss

needs to be detected at an early age.”

One mother described her experience regarding the amplification device worn by

her daughter: “The implant is working, it’s working good and I’m so happy for that.” In

response to a question about the changes in his family that he mentioned, another parent

said, “Well, the biggest, biggest one is like, Ah, I know how to help my daughter. And I
 134

know how to teach my kids to help her. And I think we are doing pretty good.” Another

parent said that “wearing the implants was important” for the child to learn to speak.

Table 6

Theme 1: Spanish-Speaking Parents of Young Deaf Children Search for Information That

Will Help Them Support Spoken Language Development

Categories n %

Early detection of hearing loss 17 85

Hearing aids and Cochlear implants 20 100

Strategies for encouraging expressive language 20 100

Never-ending process of learning for parents and children 15 75

Language and vocabulary learning for children 19 95

Strategies for using auditory learning through the

amplification devices 18 90

Working with professionals 20 100

Parent role in modeling spoken language 17 85

Expectations for spoken language 17 85

Knowing the words to songs 7 35

Conversation skills 16 80

Strategies for interacting with family, friends, community 17 85

One participant shared her belief in the central role played by parents: “The first

thing that they need to learn to talk is to listen, and more than anything, it depends on us

the parents, even more that the teacher.” A second parent made a similar statement: “But

a child that cannot hear, first we need to show him how to hear, and then give him much
 135

language. Give him more attention than a normal hearing child.” One father described

his understanding of spoken language development for his deaf child as “a process. They

have to listen first. They have to learn the vocabulary. He has to hear people talking. He

has to hear music and then he will begin to speak.”

According to one mother, “Every single day we learn different things.” The

parents offered their understandings of language learning as a never-ending process that

involves adults, children, and the environment. The parents shared their experiences with

professionals as child development partners. In speaking about her interactions with a

profession, one mother said, “She listened to all our plans that we had about our

language.”

The parents recognized the importance of their own understanding of the

technology used by their children with hearing aids and cochlear implants. The parents

described themselves and their children as having a lot to learn about how to

communicate. As one mother said, “A child who has hearing loss, first they have to learn

to listen and then you have to help them learn to talk.” The parents shared specific

strategies they use to support spoken language learning in their children. One parent said,

It makes a big difference because with normal children they are playing or they’re

sitting down and they’re listening to the people who they are talking to and they

are learning while they are doing a lot of things at the same time, but when a child

who has hearing loss, you have to be on top of them, you have to be with them.

The participants also emphasized that maintaining the amplification devices worn

by the children was fundamental to their success. Participants explained how they

constantly modeled language for their deaf children within conversations. According to
 136

the parents, taking part in conversations prepared the children to initiate conversations

with family, with friends, and in the community.

Theme 2: Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children experience

emotions that impact the decisions they make regarding spoken language for their

children. Table 7 contains the categories that support the theme of affective-based items

from the interview transcripts. Participants described the emotions that they felt, and

continue to feel, that reflect the experience of raising a child with a hearing loss. Family,

friends, and the community can offer support or provide barriers and impact the resources

and resilience of a family.

Table 7

Theme 2: Spanish-Speaking Parents of Young Deaf Children Experience Emotions That

Impact The Decisions They Make Regarding Spoken Language for Their Children

Categories n %

Sadness, devastation, confusion, frustration 19 95

Exhaustion, no time 15 75

Determination, confidence, happiness, hope 17 85

General anxieties and fear of the future 18 90

Family, friends, community barriers 20 100

Family, friends, community support 18 90

Accepting the lifestyle, a way of life 18 90

The comments supporting Theme 2 focused on the sadness, devastation,

confusion, exhaustion, and anxiety that the parents felt upon learning about their

children’s deafness. Many of the parents continue to experience these emotions even
 137

though their children are several years post-diagnosis. One parent said, “We also didn’t

know what to do, where to go, or who to go to to obtain information. It was depressing.”

Parents reported fears of what the future holds for their children in terms of education,

careers, and personal relationships.

One parent said, “I still get that feeling. I still feel that I’m afraid. But I have a

lot of hope.” A mother said, “I used to think that he would never talk. Yes, and so I used

to cry a lot.” A father described how he did not allow himself to cry because he knew his

wife needed him to be strong: “I have to stay strong. I feel so sad but my wife, she

needed me to be strong for her. She cried and I did not.”

Parents described barriers they faced as they looked for support from family,

friends, and their communities. A father described his wife “knocking on different

doctors’ doors to get different opinions. I think she had a sixth sense of being in a mom

that something was not right.” One mother described her experience with extended

family members who were surprised that the deaf child could speak: “I don’t blame them

because at some point I also thought that a child with a hearing loss would never listen

and talk. I don’t blame them because sometimes it’s just ignorance that makes us react

that way.” A father said, “To be honest, I haven’t had much support in this. I have tried

to teach them. They have learned, probably not to the level I would have liked it.”

Parents mentioned how difficult it is for them to find the time they need to focus

on their deaf child’s language needs,

With the children, because we have things to do at home, we are thinking of the

things that we need, all these things. You know, there is no time for the kids. For

us the difficult thing is the time that we need to spend.

 138

The parents described the determination and confidence they have gained in their

choices and skills. One mother described her reaction to her daughter’s growing

vocabulary by saying, “When she is saying words that I never thought she was going to

say, that’s when it gives me more, you know, hope. That’s when I feel more confident.”

One father described his experience as follows: “Yes, yes, it cost me tears, with

everything, but we did it. It’s a huge progress let me tell you, a huge progress.”

Parents also reported unconditional acceptance and resources in the families who

live near or far, in friends, and in their communities at large. The support found in her

community encouraged one mother to say,

They talk to her like any other child. And I know that she maybe don’t

understand everything, but I don’t, I don’t have the um . . . I’m not brave enough

to explain to them, like you know you have to repeat two or three times, so

whatever, I just leave it there. She talks with anybody. She’s not a shy girl.

In describing the constant verbal interactions with his child, one parent said, “It’s

like a normal lifestyle because I feel that I’m prepared.” Another parent advised parents

of newly diagnosed deaf children to “make it the way you live.” Sharing her point of

view on how her child learns, a mother said, “I feel anxious. It’s been hard but I’ve

learned that her, well not just her, but each child has a different way to learn.” Speaking

of her daughter’s spoken language skills, a mother said, “I’m very happy because I see

she’s trying to interact more now.”

Theme 3: Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children make choices

based on their understandings about using English or Spanish with their children.

Table 8 shows the categories that support the theme of spoken language items from the
 139

interview transcripts. The parents’ perceptions of how to orient themselves and their

families as they raise their deaf child in a Spanish-speaking home while the child attends

an English-speaking preschool emerged. The responses within Theme 3 focused on the

difficulties the participants face because they speak Spanish in the English-only context

of the educational program, and the choices they have made or plan to make.

Table 8

Theme 3: Spanish-Speaking Parents of Young Deaf Children Make Choices Based on

Their Understandings About Using English or Spanish With Their Children

Categories n %

Prefer to use English (despite limitations) when possible 4 20

Parents do not speak English fluently 20 100

Speak mainly Spanish in the home 16 80

Speak both languages at times 18 90

Have thought about a language plan 15 75

English spoken at school 20 100

Spoken language as a goal, English or Spanish 20 100

Evidence of spoken language skills in child 20 100

Concern that child may be confused 12 60

Evidence that child understands English and Spanish are different languages 10 50

Followed professional advice 17 85

Participants reported that the decision to speak English or Spanish was central to

their role as Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children. Surrounding this issue,

participants characterized the advice offered by professionals as confusing:

 140

I was very confused because one person would tell me, “You have to teach them

in English” and another person would tell me, “No, you can’t speak in English

because you don’t know how. You have to speak to her in Spanish.”

One mother described her experiences as follows:

Because, you know, in the beginning they wanted me learn English in just a little

time. And then, I felt so frustrated, I didn’t feel comfortable, I have to learn and it

was not . . . I couldn’t. The most important thing for me was for my daughter to

talk. I also had my fears. But now I see that it has worked very well. Since she is

deaf, first before thinking of her education, we had to think of how to develop her

language so that she could first learn to educate herself for the future. But first we

had to develop her language, Spanish then English.

Several mothers reported that the fathers worked long hours and interacted with

the children into evenings, mornings, or days off. A representative comment was as

follows:

But when he’s at home, she spends more time with him than with me. He has a

little bit of English so the little bit that he knows, he talks to her. And the words

that he doesn’t know, he’ll talk to her in Spanish.

A mother described how she and her husband focus on both English and Spanish:

Well, I’m the one who speaks Spanish the whole day and he speaks English back

to me between each other. My husband, huh, it’s kind of confusing. I think he

sometimes speaks Spanish and sometimes speaks English. Depends who’s

talking. I am always speaking Spanish because I don’t want anybody to just

forget what I say. You know, so it just no matter what, I just speak Spanish.
 141

Parents described their decisions about which language to use with their deaf

children. Four of the parents said that despite their own lack of fluency in English, they

felt they had to use English as much as possible with their children. Parents described

using English vocabulary they had learned alongside their children at school. Parents

described directing other family members to use English with the children as well.

Between family members, however, Spanish was the main language. One parent said,

“He hears English at school. He hears Spanish at home but we talk to him at home in

English mostly.” When asked if she thought the child understood more English or

Spanish, this mother said, “He understands both the same.” One mother said,

Because English is at school. They do it at school. So we just speak with her

English [what she knows in English]. Even when I tried to say something to her, I

just say it in English. But in the very last, I would say in the very last month, she

started using Spanish too.

One parent expressed her confidence that her child was learning both languages:

She’s learning English and Spanish. In Spanish we don’t have any problems.

With the English, the problem that I have is that I do not know English well. I

can only help her here repeating what she learned here in the school. She’s

learning quickly. Her therapy was in Spanish and then once she had developed

her language in Spanish, then we switched over to English. The therapist said,

“We are going to begin in Spanish. The language is not important. The important

thing is for her to develop her language.”

Because I’m seeing that here she is grasping English very well, and she

likes it. Maybe they are speaking easier, I don’t know, but I don’t want her to
 142

also lose her Spanish. And at home, we continue in Spanish. And since I speak

Spanish, she [the therapist] began to speak to her in Spanish, and it’s like between

both of us, and it was how I was able to completely give her all of my language,

what I knew. And I was able to help her the entire time. I would speak to her all

day, every waking moment. I would speak and speak in Spanish. If it would

have been in English, I wouldn’t have been able to. Even the audiologist, you

know that in the beginning she didn’t want me to talk in Spanish, now she is

saying that that’s the base that she has now to talk in English.

A parent described her plans for the future language development of her child and

what she would tell parents who face the same choices that she faced:

I know that her studies outside will totally all be English, English, but in the home

we want to continue with the Spanish. Well now I would recommend that they

speak 100% in Spanish just like I did because for me it was easier. I was able to

help 100%. Now it’s what she knows, a way to be able to learn a second

language. We need to reinforce, like repeat in English, reinforce what they

learned during the day. And I do this on our drive back home because I have

more than one hour drive and I’m constantly talking to her about what she learned

here in English. But at home, we arrive at home and I continue with my Spanish.

To me it’s very difficult to do, to talk to her in English, because it’s not my

language. I’m not an expert on that so it’s very hard for me to talk to her in

English. But you know when some parents they know English, for them it’s kind

of easy. They [professionals] need to let the child learn what the parent can offer

him.
 143

Parents described the role that expectations play in the decisions they make. One

mother described her hopes for her deaf child’s future: “That she can hear very well.

That she go to school. That it’s not difficult for her to understand. That she go to the

university. That she has a normal life.” A father described his belief in the potential of

his child: “First of all, children have the capability. The children have the capability to

easily learn two languages.”

One parent voiced her concern that her deaf child would find two languages

difficult to manage:

Well, I know, um . . . sometimes I believe so, that it’s easier for him to learn one

language. Because I think that if, um, he spoke only English, and we all spoke

English, the child um, . . . I feel he would have a higher language capacity.

The participant above also said that she and her husband speak Spanish almost

exclusively, and that they believed that hearing English at school every day would be

sufficient for her deaf child to learn English: “In the school, and for us to help him at

home as well.” When asked how the child would learn Spanish, the parent said, “We

could be talking to him for a while, like for instance when we’re playing, we will speak

in Spanish for a while telling him, ‘Oh, we learned this at school’ and then to speak to

him in English.” One participant expressed her dilemma:

The other moms speak English and I don’t and I had to be her teacher in English.

I thought that I had to use my English to help her learn to talk but my English is

like a little child. She wasn’t talking much at all. Now I talk to her in Spanish all

the time. Sometimes we use some English. I learn it with her but I see that she
 144

understands in Spanish and a lot in English. I see her talking more and more and

it doesn’t matter English or Spanish.

Summary

Chapter 4 contained the purpose of the qualitative phenomenological study, a

review of the two research questions, a discussion of the pilot study, and a rationale for

the sample size. Chapter 4 also included demographic information about the participants

and a description of the data collection procedure. The results of the study came from the

analysis of the transcripts of the individual interviews. The parents own words described

their experiences (Moustakas, 1994). Coding the responses and finding categories for the

codes allowed the patterns in the responses to emerge (Saldana, 2010).

The participants offered information about their experiences as the Spanish-

speaking parents of young deaf children and the issues they face having chosen a spoken

English approach to language development for their children. Two research questions

provided the focus for the study: How do Spanish-speaking parents view and describe

their experiences in developing spoken English language skills in their young deaf

children? What advice would Spanish-speaking parents offer educators and other parents

about the process of developing age-appropriate spoken English language skills in their

young deaf children?

The answers to the interview questions included information about how a parent

values knowing as soon as possible after birth that their child is deaf; how much

knowledge a parent must have to be effective in supporting spoken language for a deaf

child; the conflicts and questions a parent has when Spanish is the language used in the

home and English is the language of the school; how family, friends, community, and
 145

professionals all impact a parent’s decisions for a deaf child; how there is never enough

time for a parent to do all he or she wants to do for his or her child; specific strategies that

a parent uses to support spoken English development; and the understanding that

language development is a process. The emotions that a parent faces when a child is

diagnosed as deaf claimed a significant place in how the participants described their

experiences.

Seventy-five to 100% of the participants described their search for information.

Seventy-five to 100% of the participants described the emotional aspects of their

situation. Eighty percent of the participants stated Spanish is the language of their homes

because they believe they can communicate most effectively in their native language,

although 20% of the participants also described confusion over what strategies they will

use to develop both English and Spanish with their deaf children. Steinberg et al. (2003)

described similar issues with Hispanic families with older deaf children. In Steinberg et

al.’s study, parents stated they wanted their deaf children to learn sign language, spoken

English, and spoken Spanish but did not offer any plan for how this would occur.

Chapter 5 presents the interpretation of and conclusions drawn from the

information in the study. Included in the chapter are significant ideas that emerged from

the study. The chapter closes with suggestions for future research.
 146

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the

perceptions of Spanish-speaking parents regarding their role in developing spoken

English language skills in their young deaf children. Chapter 4 presented the data from

the individual interviews and an analysis of the information. The participants offered

information about their experiences as the Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf

children and the issues they face having chosen a spoken English approach to language

development for their children.

Participants stated that parents need specific information about how language

develops, how they can facilitate spoken language development for their young deaf

children, and about the technology their children wear. Participants explained the

decisions they have made regarding spoken language and which language they use in

their homes. The participants described the emotions that they experienced when

informed of their child’s deafness and as they faced the challenges and decisions that

surround parenting a deaf child. The problem identified for the study required that parents

be asked directly about their knowledge and experiences a feature missing from other

studies.

Chapter 5 contains a sampling of the reflexive journals kept by the researcher

during the data collection and analysis, the conclusions reached from the analysis of the

data, recommendations for professionals based on the data, suggested future research

topics, and a summary of the chapter. Educational research recognizes the importance of

parents in a child’s development (Gleason, 2009; Vygotsky, 1973). The results of this
 147

study indicated educational leaders need to understand and support the growing

population of Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children.

Reflexive Journal

The researcher used a reflexive journal to focus her thoughts prior to each

interview, immediately after each interview, and to document the process (Moustakas,

1994). Ten minutes prior to each interview, the researcher isolated herself from

distractions and wrote about what she knew about the parent she was about to interview

with particular emphasis on the language the parent used during interactions with his or

her young deaf child. Questions regarding the specific parent often surfaced during this

time. The researcher brought the specific questions to the interview as follow-up

questions.

Following each interview, the researcher took whatever time was necessary to

process the verbal and nonverbal information gathered in the interview (Creswell, 2007).

During this reflective time, the connections between planned interview questions and the

research questions for the study became clear. Follow-up questions for specific parents

offered them an opportunity to add to the data or simply give vent to frustrations and

anxiety in a safe confidential setting.

The researcher revisited the reflexive journal when the data collection was

complete and the initial coding strategies produced a second tier of categories. Notes in

the journal prompted the second look at the data and supported the recognition of themes.

The journal entries also prompted choices of the participants’ words to be used in

representative quotes for the documentation of the study.

 148

Reflexive Journal Entry Sample

The following is an excerpt from the reflexive journal for Interview 16.

Pre-Interview Thoughts. How does mother encourage spoken language

between siblings? Who in the household uses fluent English or Spanish? Are any

other children fluent in both languages? What is the role of the grandparents who

live with the family in the spoken language development of the deaf child? Does

the mother consider English vs. Spanish issues important to her deaf child’s

development?

Post Interview Impressions. Other children in the family who are not deaf

are older than the deaf child and use English at school and Spanish at home.

Mother reports that all of the children do well in school. Siblings speak to young

deaf child in English. Grandparents speak to everyone in Spanish. Mother has

been looking at public school programs for her deaf child for next year (K level)

and is discouraged by the options: not enough emphasis on spoken language,

adults took care of everything for the children, teacher does not speak Spanish.

Mother said she is worried about how she (mother) will help her child.

Revisit to interview: An example of how a parent reacts to the challenges

of a deaf child in a large family, with two languages, and how placement issues

can cause stress. Use quote in chart. Mother describes her emotions as “I am

strong. I will do what I have to.” But my impression is that she is weary. Her

facial expression is flat. Her shoulders sag. Her eyes fill with tears but she doesn’t

let herself cry.

 149

Responding to the Problem

The problem addressed in this study was that little is known about the experiences

of Spanish-speaking parents who have chosen to develop spoken English with their

young deaf children. The Spanish-speaking population of the United States is increasing

and the infants born to this population group who are deaf are identified at birth

(NCHAM, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011; White, 2007). Spanish-speaking parents

interact with the English-speaking educational system when the infants are a few months

old.

Spanish-speaking parents of deaf children provide needed information about their

experiences to the professionals serving the families (Eggers-Piérola, 2005; Tabors,

2008). Professionals are eager to add to their knowledge of the needs and experiences of

the Spanish-speaking parents of deaf children (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008;

Patterson et al., 2009; Ratcliff & Hunt, 2009; Rhoades & Duncan, 2010). Future

linguistic fluency and academic success depend on the fluency of the language in the

home (M. Clark, 2007; Cole & Flexer, 2008; Gleason, 2009; Rhoades, 2006; Rhoades et

al., 2008). Spanish-speaking parents who have chosen to develop spoken English with

their young deaf children face a unique set of challenges. The results of the study “give

parents a voice” (L. Ranstrom, personal communication, May 9, 2011). The results of

the qualitative phenomenological study present the choices that Spanish-speaking parents

of young deaf children have made, insight into the emotional landscape of their lives, and

the ongoing support that educational leaders and service providers can offer.
 150

Contextual Considerations

The context of the study included the general systems theory of Von Bertalanffy

(1967) and the family systems theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979). These two theories

support the impact of an individual’s experiences on the rest of the group or family.

Attachment theory explains the central role of parents in language development

(Pressman et al., 2000; Suess et al., 1992).

Central to the study was the concept that parents, regardless of the language

spoken in the home, need to know how to support language development with their

children. Piaget and Vygotsky esteemed the role of parents in language and cognitive

development (Brickhard, 1997; Mooney, 2000; Vygotsky, 1997). The data gathered in

the interviews for the current study endorsed the importance of support for the parent

role, parent knowledge, and recognition of the emotional responses that parents

experience. The study is unique in that parents were asked directly to share their

experiences.

Theory of mind research contributed support for the role of parents in helping

their children learn to communicate efficiently (Bergeson et al., 2006; DesJardin &

Eisenberg, 2007). Gleason (2009) presented the theories of language development based

on the language heard in the home and M. Clark (2007), Cole and Flexer (2008), and

Ling (2003) described the benefits of modern technology in offering access to the sounds

of speech for children with hearing losses and making spoken language a viable option

for deaf children.

Second language acquisition theory maintains a rich home language is essential to

the acquisition of a second language (Park & Sarkar, 2007; Peterson & Heywood, 2007;
 151

Seligman & Darling, 2007; Tabors, 2008; Takeuchi, 2006). The home language of the

participants in the study was Spanish. The participants’ children are deaf and the

educational system uses English. Data gathered from the interviews indicated

participants have made considered choices and feel successful in developing spoken

Spanish and English with their deaf children.

Some of the participants appeared to be still struggling with the decision to speak

Spanish or English in the home. These participants said they are not English speakers

and they use the little English they have to speak to their deaf children in support of the

school experiences. They also speak Spanish in the home and expect their child to

become fluent in both languages.

Theoretical supports such as systems theory, family systems theory, attachment

theory, child development theory, language development theory, and second language

acquisition theory place the study in the educational landscape. Educational leaders

might use the information to inform best practice with Spanish-speaking families with

deaf children.

Conclusions

A growing population of parents who are Spanish-speaking and have young deaf

children faces challenges and choices specific to language development. When spoken

language is the choice made for a deaf child and technological supports are in place, the

parents still have to consider how to develop English when Spanish is their language of

fluency (Rhoades, 2006; Tabors, 2008). Based in the data, conclusions surfaced

regarding the three themes identified in Chapter 4.

 152

Conclusions for Theme 1: Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children

search for information that will help them support spoken language development.

The first conclusion reached was Spanish-speaking parents benefit from and value easy

access to the information they feel they need to make informed decisions for their deaf

children. All participants (100%) mentioned language development strategies,

technology information, and how professionals figured into their lives. Participants

assigned value to related topics such as early detection of hearing loss, parent roles in

language development, and expectations for language. Vocabulary development (95%)

and even knowing the lyrics to songs (35%) received mention in the transcripts. The

range of information brought to the discussion by the parents indicates a need for

educators to look closely at how efficiently and thoroughly information is provided.

Conclusions for Theme 2: Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children

experience powerful emotions that impact the decisions they make regarding spoken

language for their children. In the data from the interviews, 75-100% of the

participants described the emotions they experienced from the moment their child was

identified as deaf. While the consistent mention of emotions points to the powerful

impact felt by the participants, the relationships between specific emotions and parent

decisions might not be clear. The emotional footing of the parents is an important aspect

of their experiences not to be overlooked (Moses, 2009; Seligman & Darling, 2007).

The range of emotions described by the participants included joy and hope,

depression and devastation, fear and anxiety, and confidence and acceptance. The range

of the emotions denoted the passion and, according to a psychologist who works with this

population, “a deep and abiding love for their children” (A. Oliphant, private
 153

communication, February 11, 2006). Although parents in general experience the

emotions listed above, parents of children with special needs often report a heightened,

feeling-focused experience of parenting (Seligman & Darling, 2007). Professionals who

provide educational services to families must be prepared to support the emotional needs

of the families as well.

Conclusions for Theme 3: Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children

make choices based on their understandings about using English or Spanish with

their children. Despite the lack of English fluency, all the participants (100%) of the

study perceived spoken English and Spanish fluency as a viable goal for their deaf

children. All the participants (100%) reported evidence of spoken language skills in their

deaf child. The children all attended an educational program conducted in English

though the participants reported in their home the parents speak either Spanish (80%) or

both English and Spanish at times (90%).

Twenty percent of the participants preferred to use English in the home despite

their own lack of fluency in the language, which raised a question of whether

professional advice has been helpful to the parents (85%). The information gathered in

Theme 3 looped back to Theme 1. Parents should understand the principals of effective

language development and second language acquisition as they make informed choices

for the young deaf children. Participants were nearly equally divided on reporting

whether the children are confused by two languages (60%) or aware that English and

Spanish are two different languages (50%). A language plan for the family figured in

75% of the participants’ decision making.

 154

Limitations

The most obvious limitation of the study was the small, unique population

studied. Despite the dramatic changes in possibilities and outcomes for children born

with hearing loss, the option of a spoken language approach is not commonly known or

even available. The participants in the study lived in an urban area with education

options available, had contact with other parents to share information, and were able to

educate themselves on the issues they faced.

Qualitative phenomenological studies present difficulties with transferability yet

offer valid data and conclusions within the rigor of the method and design (Creswell,

2007; Moustakas, 1994). Bloomberg and Volpe (2008) recognized that “although

qualitative researchers do not expect their findings to be generalizable to other settings, it

is likely that the lessons learned in one setting might be useful to others” (p. 78). In place

of the concept of transferability, Moustakas (1994) noted “no scientific inquiry is ever

complete. No experience is ever finished or exhausted. New and fresh meanings are

forever in the world and in us” (p. 65).

Implications

The data from the qualitative phenomenological research study indicated Spanish-

speaking parents of young deaf children take a great interest in the implications of

deafness. The participants were aware of their own emotional responses and the impact

their emotional life has on their choices for their children. The issues of spoken language

development and the choices of Spanish or English for their deaf children are challenging

to this unique population. The participants of the study indicated an awareness of the

complexity of their situation.

 155

Recommendations

Three recommendations originated from the data. The recommendations are

educational systems offering services to Spanish-speaking families of young deaf

children respond to the quest for information described by the participants, emotional

experiences described by the participants be recognized, and special attention be paid to

the parents’ understanding of how the language of the home influences optimal language

development. All three recommendations support best practice in education and call for

innovative leadership by educational organizations.

Responding to the request for information. The participants in the study

described an ongoing need for information about technology (hearing aids and cochlear

implants), about educational issues, and about strategies for developing spoken language.

Parents who choose to develop spoken language with their young deaf children need to

understand the technology that provides access to the sounds of speech. Parents need

multiple exposures to the workings and maintenance of the devices. Educators who

provide services to families are uniquely placed to provide assistance for parents as they

learn about amplification devices.

Educational programs that serve Spanish-speaking families with young deaf

children should establish regularly scheduled parent education classes as an integral part

of the program with full administrative support and innovative encouragement for parent

attendance. The educational classes should provide information to parents on all aspects

of parenting as well as specific information for the needs of deaf children. A

commitment should be made for interpreters to provide support.

 156

Responding to the emotional needs of the participants. Moses (2009) and

Luterman (2009) are clear in their recommendations to recognize the emotional

experiences of parents of children with special needs. Educational programs that serve

Spanish-speaking families with young deaf children should offer continuing support from

mental health professionals trained in listening to, nurturing, and strengthening families.

A parent support program can be provided as part of an educational meeting schedule.

Responding to the need for the home language. The majority of the

participants in the study said their young deaf children will learn English in school but

they will continue with Spanish at home. Krashen (2003) and Cummins (2001)

supported the need for a rich home language to provide a child with a language

foundation. The second language, whether learned alongside the home language or later,

rests on a viable home language foundation.

A child who is deaf faces spoken language development challenges that are

achievable but complicated by a language other than English in the home (Lakins, 2005;

Nevins & Garber, 2007; McConkey-Robbins, 2007; Rhoades, 2006; Rhoades et al.,

2008). Educational programs that provide services to deaf children should stress the

importance of the home language in developing foundational skills. Four participants in

the study said they do not speak fluent English but they use English with their child

because they want the child to learn to speak English. The language model they offer to

their children is a limited English model rather than a rich Spanish model. The outcomes

predicted for a deaf child who receives an impoverished spoken language model is an

impoverished receptive and expressive language canon. Educational leaders should reach
 157

out to this population to increase understanding of the value of a fluent Spanish model as

the means to learning fluent English.

The results of the study may inform the practice of professionals in several ways.

Professionals may use the study results as research-based evidence for advocating for

support programs for families. Instructors in teacher-training higher education programs

may use the results to offer teacher candidates insight into the views of parents.

Administrators of educational programs, public and private, may use the results to inform

the decisions made on services offered and strategies used with families.

Significance of Study to Leadership

Leaders in education serve the families of the nation with an awareness of trends

and changing demographics. The Spanish-speaking population in the United States is the

fastest growing group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Within the Spanish-speaking

population, parents who have young deaf children describe unique experiences that lead

toward specific needs for educational services. The results of the study may shape school

culture and provide support for stronger collaboration between schools and parents.

Leaders can best understand and respond to the needs of specific populations

when information comes directly from those who have experienced the phenomenon

under study. Educational leaders can create innovative and effective programs to serve

the needs of Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children when information is

available to support change. Modern technology provides access to speech for young

deaf children who use spoken language. Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf

children seek the technology and describe expectations for spoken language success.
 158

Educational leaders are charged with searching out and responding to the changing

landscape of educational expectations.

Future Research

The qualitative phenomenological study involved exploring the perceptions of

Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children who have chosen to develop spoken

English with their children. The data gathered in the study could focus attention on

topics for future research. The complex dynamics of families who have children with

special needs and speak a language other than English in the home, the possibility of

gender-specific responses of mothers or fathers to spoken language development,

outcomes for young deaf children who learned Spanish as a first language and English in

school, and effective strategies to support Spanish-speaking parents in maintaining their

home language are four possible directions for future research.

Summary

This final chapter contained the conclusions of the qualitative phenomenological

study. Conclusions were supported by the analysis of information gathered in interviews

with Spanish-speaking parents of young deaf children. The participants responded to

questions asking for information about the parents’ perceptions of issues surrounding the

choice of spoken language development for their children.

The lived experiences of the participants provided unique information and

therefore might have little transferability to other populations. However, the study fits

within the borders of the existing research record and adds specific information to the

literature regarding parents who are not fluent in English and have children with hearing

losses and have chosen to develop spoken English with their children. Limitations of the
 159

study, implications, and recommendations were included in the chapter. The results of

the study might offer significant information to inform educational leaders and might

offer new directions for research.

 160

References

Abell, S. (2007, September). Bilingual child. Clinical Pediatrics, 47, 658-659.

doi:10.1177/0009922806290825

Acredolo, S., & Goodwyn, L. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child

Development, 59, 450-466. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep8589377

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. (2005). What can you hear? Retrieved

January 12, 2010, from

http://www.agbell.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?p=Hearing_Loss_Chart

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. (2009). Catching childhood hearing

loss early can lead to new opportunities. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from

http://www.agbell.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?p=Facts_About_Hearing_Loss

Anderson, C. E., & Marinac, J. V. (2007). Using an observational framework to

investigate adult language input to young children in a naturalistic environment.

Child Language, Teaching, and Therapy, 23, 307-324.

doi:10.1177/0265659007080684

Andrews, J. F., & Rusher, M. (2010, Fall). Codeswitching techniques: evidence-based

instructional practices for the asl/English bilingual classroom. American Annals of

the Deaf, 155(4), 407-424. Retrieved from http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/

Archbold, S. (2008). Outcomes from cochlear implantation for child and family: Parental

perspectives. Deafness and Education International, 10(3), 120-142.

doi:10.1002/dei.243
 161

Arcia, E., Reyes-Blanes, M. E., & Vazquez-Montilla, E. (2000). Constructions and

reconstructions: Latino parents’ values for children. Journal of Child and Family

Studies, 9, 333-350. doi:1062-1024/00/0900-0333

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in

education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.

Bailes, C. N., Erting, C. J., Erting, L. C., & Thuman_Prezioso, C. (2009, Summer).

Language and literacy acquisition through parental mediation in American Sign

Language. Sign Language Studies, 9(4), 417-456. doi:10.1353/sls.0.0022

Bailey, D. B., Skinner, D., Rodriquez, P., Gut, D., & Correa, V. (1999). Awareness, use

and satisfaction with services for Latino parents of young children with

disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 367-381. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications2/ExceptionalChil

dren/default.htm

Baxter, V. (2008). A communitarian framework for planning educational leadership

preparation programs. Educational Planning, 17, 18-26. Retrieved from

http://www.isep.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid

=31

Bergeson, T. R., Miller, R. J., & McCune, K. (2006). Mothers’ speech to hearing-

impaired infants and children with cochlear implants. Infancy, 10, 221-240.

http://www.publishersglobal.com/directory/publisher.asp?publisherid=4825

Bernstein, D. K., & Tiegerman-Farber, E. (2009). Language and communication

disorders in children (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

 162

Block, D. (2007). Bilingualism: Four assumptions and four responses. Innovation in

Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 66-82. doi:10.2167/illt043.0

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation. Los

Angeles, CA: Sage.

Bradham, T. S., Snell, G., Haynes, D. (2009). Current practices in pediatric cochlear

implantation. Perspectives on Hearing and Hearing Disorders in Children. 19(1).

Retrieved form: http://journals.asha.org/perspectives

Brickhard, M. H. (1997). Piaget and active cognition. Human Development, 40(4), 238-

244. Retrieved from http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB

/produkte.asp?Aktion=JournalHome&ProduktNr=224249

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature

and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, M., & Abu Bakar, Z. (2006). Family functioning, early intervention support, and

spoken language and placement outcomes for children with profound hearing

loss. Deafness and Educational International, 8(4), 207-226. doi:10.1021/dei

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., West, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Parental interactions

with Latino infants: Variation by country of origin and English proficiency. Child

Development, 77, 1190-1207. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00928.x

Calderon, R., & Naidu, S. (2000). Further support for the benefits of early identification

and intervention for children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(5), 53-84.
 163

California Department of Education. (2008). Fact book 2008. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov

California Department of Education. (2009). Special education enrollment by age,

disability and ethnicity. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from

http://www.data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SEEnrEthDis2.asp?cChoice

California Department of Public Health. (2008). Births in California by race and

disability. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.dhp.ca.gov

California Joint Legislative Budget Committee. (2006). Report on master plan for

education in California, 2006. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cajointlegiscom_annualreport_2006

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). National Center for Health

Statistics. Tables of live births. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_10.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). EHDI and CDC overview: Summary

of estimated 2006 national EHDI data. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi

Cerbone, D. R. (2008). Understanding phenomenology. Stocksfield Hall, UK: Acumen.

Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Chomsky, N. (2007). Biolinguistic exploration: Design, development, evolution. The

International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 15, 1-21.

doi:10.1080/09672550601143078
 164

Clark, E. (1980, March). Convention and innovation in acquiring the lexicon. Paper

presented at Child Language Research Forum, Palo Alto, CA.

doi:10.1017/S0305000900013842

Clark, G. (2009). The multi-channel cochlear implant: Past, present, and future

perspectives. Cochlear Implants International: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10,

2-13. . doi:10.1002/cii.378

Clark, M. (2007). A practical guide to quality interaction with children who have a

hearing loss. San Diego, CA: Plural.

Cochlear Americas. (2009). Hearing with a cochlear implant. Retrieved June 10, 2009,

from http://products.cochlearamericas.com/cochlear-implants/introduction-to-

cochlear-implants/hearing-cochlear-implants

Cole, E. B. (1992). Listening and talking: A guide to promoting spoken language in

young hearing-impaired children. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell

Association for the Deaf.

Cole, E. B., & Flexer, C. (2008). Children with hearing loss: Developing listening and

talking. San Diego, CA: Plural.

Consumer Products Safety Commission. (2007). Spending patterns 2005-2006. Retrieved

July 18, 2009, from http://www.cpsc.gov/

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston,

MA: McGraw-Hill.

Crain, W. (2004). Words, words, words. Encounter, 17, 2-4. Retrieved from https://great-

ideas.org/enc.htm
 165

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cummins, J, (2001). Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the

Crossfire. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2003). Educational leadership: A problem-based

approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Delgado, G. L. (1984). The Hispanic deaf: Issues and challenges for bilingual special

education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press.

DesJardin, J. L. (2003). Assessing parental perceptions of self-efficacy and involvement

in families of young children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 103, 391-409.

DesJardin, J. L. (2005). Maternal perceptions of self-efficacy and involvement in the

auditory development of young children with prelingual deafness. Journal of

Early Intervention, 27, 193-209. doi:10.1177/105381510502700306

DesJardin, J. L. (2007). Family empowerment: Supporting language development in

young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 106, 275-297.

DesJardin, J. L., & Eisenberg, L. S. (2007, August). Maternal contributions: Supporting

language development in young children with cochlear implants. Ear & Hearing,

28(4), 256-269. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31806dc1ab

DesJardin, J. L., & Hodapp, R. M. (2006). Sound beginnings: Supporting families of

young deaf children with cochlear implants. Infants & Young Children, 19(3),

179-189. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/iycjournal/toc/2006/07000

 166

Dowd, T., Withers, E., Hackwood, J., & Shuter, P. (2007). An Australian pilot study of a

parent-child interaction program-"You make the difference." Neonatal,

Paediatric, & Child Nursing, 10, 13-22. Retrieved from

http://www.cambridgemedia.com.au

Early Hearing Detection and Intervention. (2007). Information by state. Retrieved

January 26, 2008, from http://www.2a.cdc.gov/ncbddd/EHDI/sp/

Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2010. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.infanthearing.org/legislation/federal.html

Eggers-Piérola, C. (2005). Connections and commitments: Reflecting Latino values in

early childhood programs. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ekman, P. (1965). Differential communication by head and body cues. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 726-735. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/

Ertmer, D. J., Young, N. M., & Nathani, S. (2007). Profiles of vocal development in

young cochlear implant recipients. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing

Research, 50, 393-407. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/028)

Estabrooks, W. (2006). Auditory-verbal therapy and practice. Washington, DC:

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

Fennel, C. T., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2007). Using speech sounds to guide

word learning: The case of bilingual infants. Child Development, 78, 1510-1525.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01080.x

Fitzpatrick, E., Graham, I. D., Durieux-Smith, A., Angus, D., & Coyle, D. (2007).

Parents’ perspectives on the impact of the early diagnosis of childhood hearing

 167

loss. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 97-106.

doi:10.1081/14992020600977770

Flexer, C. (2005). Literacy, classroom amplification, and the brain. Washington, DC:

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

Freeman, B., Dieterich, C. A., & Rak, C. (2002). The struggle for language: Perspectives

and practices of urban parents with children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

American Annals of the Deaf, 147(5), 37-44. Retrieved from

http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/annals/02volume.htm

Gallaudet Research Institute. (2008, November). Regional and national statistics.

Retrieved from

http://www.gri.gallaudet.edu/Demographics/2008_National_Summary.pdf

Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B. T., & Scribner, K. P. (2009). The demographic imperative.

Educational Leadership, 66(7), 8-13. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership/apr09/vol66/num07/toc.aspx

Garcia, G. N., McCardle, P., & Nixon, S. N. (2007), July). Development of English

literacy in Spanish-speaking children: Transforming Research into practice.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 38, 213-215. doi:0161-

1461/07/3803-0213

Garcia, S. B., Perez, A. M., & Ortiz, A. A. (2000). Mexican mothers’ beliefs about

disabilities: Implications for early childhood intervention. Remedial and Special

Education, 21(2), 90-100. Retrieved from http://rse.sagepub.com/

 168

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and standardized tests, the K-12

education that every child deserves. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds of the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Geers, A. E. (2002). Factors effecting the development of speech, language, and literacy

in children with early cochlear implantation. Language, Speech, and Hearing

Services in the Schools, 33, 172-183. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2002/015)

Geers, A. E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early

cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 Supp.), 59-68. Retrieved from

http://journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/toc/2003/02001

Geers, A. E., Moog, J. S., Tobey, E. A., & Brenner, C. A. (2007, April). Long term

benefits of cochlear implantation in preschool. Poster session, 11th Annual

Conference on Cochlear Implants in Children, Charlotte, NC.

Geers, A. E., Nicholas, J. G., & Sedey, A. L. (2003). Language skills of children with

early cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 Supp.), 46-58. Retrieved from

http://journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/toc/2003/02001

Gleason, J. B. (2009). The development of language (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Graczewski, C., Ruffin, M., Shambaugh, L., & Therriault, S. B. (2007). Selecting and

implementing whole school improvement models: A district and school

administrator perspective. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 75-90.

doi:10.1080/10824660701247283
 169

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3, Article 4. Retrieved from

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf

Grounded Theory Institute. (n.d.). What is grounded theory? Retrieved June 8, 2009,

from http://www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-gt.aspx

Guiberson, M. M. (2005). Children with cochlear implants from bilingual families:

Considerations for intervention and a case study. Volta Review, 105, 29-39.

Hammer, C. S., Rodriguez, B. L., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2007). Puerto Rican

mothers’ beliefs and home literacy practices. Language, Speech, and Hearing

Services in the Schools, 38, 216-224. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/023)

Harris, M. (2000). Social interaction and early language development in deaf children.

Deafness and Education International, 2, 1-11. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291557-069X

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal

versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74, 372-388. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/content/NavigationMenu/Publications2/exceptionalchild

ren

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young

American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Heich, M. (2006). “My mom makes me learn English:” Power, system, instruction, and

quality of early childhood English language education in Taiwan (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.

(Publication No. AAT 3232577)

 170

Heinemann-Gosschalk, R., & Webster, A. (2003). Literacy and the role of parents of deaf

children. Deafness and Education International, 5, 20-38.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291557-069X

Hendrick, J., & Weissman, P. (2009). The whole child (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2002). A framework for school leaders: Linking the ISLLC

standards to practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Hotelling, B. A. (2004). Newborn capabilities: Parent teaching is a necessity. Journal of

Perinatal Education, 13(4), 43-49. doi:10.1624/105812404X6225

Howes, C., Wishard-Guerra, A., & Zucker, E. (2007). Cultural communities and

parenting in Mexican heritage families. Parenting: Science & Practice, 7, 235-

270. Retrieved from http://www.lights.ca/publisher/db/3/1953.html

Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition.

EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 191-203. Retrieved from http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-

bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=eurosla

Husserl, E. (1964). The phenomenology of internal time consciousness. In D. Moran &

T. Mooney (Eds.), The phenomenology reader (pp. 109-123). London, England:

Routledge.

Husserl, E. (1970). Introduction to the logical investigations. In D, Moran & T. Mooney

(Eds.), The phenomenology reader (pp. 65-77). London, England: Routledge.

Husserl, E. (1981). Pure phenomenology, its method, and its field of investigation. In D.

Moran & T. Mooney (Eds.). The phenomenology reader (pp. 124-133). London,

England: Routledge.
 171

Infant Development Association of California. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved June

30, 2009, from http://idaofca.org/doc.asp?id+75

Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Building evidence-

based education. Retrieved from

http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/ncser_brochure.pdf

Jamieson, J. R., & Pederson, E. D. (1993). Deafness and mother-child interaction:

Scaffolded instruction and the learning of problem solving skills. Early

Development and Parenting, 2(4), 229-242. . Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291522-7219/issues

John Tracy Clinic. (2009). Mission and vision. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from

http://www.jtc.org

Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007). Position statement: Principles and guidelines

for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Retrieved March 8, 2009,

from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi/ddscreen.htm

Kasahara, M., & Turnbull, A. P. (2005). Meaning of family-professional partnerships:

Japanese mothers’ perspectives. Exceptional Children, 71, 249-265.

Kennedy, C. R., McCann, D. C., Campbell, M. J., Law, C. M., Mullee, M., & Petrou, S.,

et al. (2006, May 18). Language ability after early detection of permanent

childhood hearing impairment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 2131-

2142. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/

Kerckhoff, J., Listenberger, J., & Valente, M. (2008). Advances in hearing aid

technology. Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences and Disorders, 35,

102-112. Retrieved from http://www.nsslha.org/publications/cicsd/default/

 172

King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006a, April). Raising bilingual children: Common parental

concerns and current research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Retrieved January 31, 2009, from http://www.cal.org

King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006b). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents

perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. The

International Journal on Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 695-712.

doi:10.2167/beb362.0

Kirkman-Liff, B., & Mondragon, D. (1991). Language of interview: Relevance for

research of Southwest Hispanics. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 1399-

1404. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/258/

Koch, T. (2006). Establishing rigor in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 53, 91-100. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03681.x

Kohnert, K., Yim, D., Nett, K., Kan, P. H., & Duran, L. (2005, July). Intervention with

linguistically diverse preschool children: A focus on developing home language.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 36, 251-163.

doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/025)

Kominski, R. A., & Shin, H. B. (2008, April 16). Language needs of school age children.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America,

New Orleans, LA. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from

http://www.popassoc.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1

Korver, A. M. H., Kinings, S., Dekker, F. W., Beers, M., Wever, C. C., Frijins, J., . . .

Oudesluys-Murphy, A. M. (2010). Newborn hearing screening vs later hearing

screening and developmental outcomes in children with permanent hearing

 173

impairment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 304, 1701-1708.

Retrieved from http://www.jama.com

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. (2004, March). False claims about literacy development. Educational

Leadership, 61(6), 18-21.

Kretschmer, L., & Kretschmer, R. (1999). Communication and language development.

Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 5, 17-26.

Kummerer, S. E., & Lopez-Reyna, N. A. (2006). The role of Mexican mothers’ beliefs on

parental involvement in speech-language therapy. Communications Disorders

Quarterly, 27(2), 83-94. Retrieved from http://cdq.sagepub.com/

Kummerer-Dunn, S. (2005). Mexican mothers’ beliefs: Language and literacy

development in children with communication disabilities (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT

3174193)

Labinowicz, E. (1980). The Piaget primer: Thinking, learning, teaching. Menlo Park,

CA: Addison-Wesley.

Lakins, L. (2005). Bilingualism and children with hearing loss. Volta Voices, 12(5), 38-

40.

Landa, R. (2007). Early communication development and intervention for children with

autism. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews,

13, 16-25. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20134

 174

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006, July). Responsive parenting:

Establishing early foundations for social, communicative, and independent

problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42, 627-642.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Lemelin, J. P., Tarasbulsy, G. M., & Provost, M. A. (2006, October). Predicting

preschool cognitive development from infant temperament, maternal sensitivity,

and psychosocial risk. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 779-806. Retrieved from

http://www.merrillpalmerquarterly.com/

Levi, A. V., Boyette-Solano, J., Nicholson, B., & Eisenberg, L. S. (2001,

February/March). Multilingualism and children with cochlear implants. Paper

presented at the Eighth Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children, Los

Angeles, CA.

Lichert, G. F., & Loncke, F. T. (2006). The development of proto-performative utterances

in deaf toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 486-

499. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/037)

Lincoln, J. S., & Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review

boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 219-234.

Ling, D. (1989). Foundations of spoken language for hearing-impaired children.

Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

Ling, D. (2003). Speech and the hearing-impaired child (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

 175

Link, S. (2008). Socio-emotional development. EBSCO Research Starters. Retrieved

from http://www.ebscohost.com/public/research-starters

Lino, M., & Carlson, A. (2009, July). Expenditures on children by families, 2008.

Retrieved from http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2008.pdf

Liu, F. (2007). Child rearing goals and parent-child interaction in immigrant Chinese

families (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations

database. (Publication No. 3289281)

Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2008). Student Demographics-2007. Retrieved

from http://www.lacoe.ca.gov

Luckner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating transition for students who are deaf or hard of

hearing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Luft, S. (2004). Husserl’s theory of phenomenological reductions: Between life-world

and Cartesianism. Research in Phenomenology, 34, 198-235. .

doi:10.1163/1569164042404518

Luterman, D. (2004). Counseling families of children with hearing loss and special needs.

Volta Review, 105(4), 215-220.

Luterman, D. (2009). Counseling persons with communication disabilities and their

families (5th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (1999). Developing cross-cultural competence (2nd ed.).

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Maddell, J., & Flexer, C. (2008). Pediatric audiology: Diagnosis, technology, and

management. New York, NY: Thieme Medical.

 176

Martindale, M. (2007). Children with significant hearing loss: Learning to listen, talk,

and read-evidence–based best practices. Communication Disorders Quarterly,

28(2), 73-76.

Masood, A. F., Turner, L. A., & Baxter, A. (2007, Summer). Causal attributions and

parental attitudes toward disabilities in the United States and Pakistan.

Exceptional Children, 73, 475-487. http://www.cec.sped.org/content

/NavigationMenu/Publications2/exceptionalchildren/

May, J. J. (2007). The market-driven age of education: Challenges of urban school

leadership. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(4), 28-34. . Retrieved from

http://www.mwera.org/

McConkey-Robbins, A. (2007). Clinical management of bilingual families and children

with cochlear implants. Loud & Clear, 1, 1-12.

McCracken, W., Young, A., & Tattersall, H. (2008, January). Universal newborn hearing

screening: Parental reflections on very early audiological management. Ear and

Hearing, 29, 54-64. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31815ed8d0

Miller, C. A. (2006). Developmental relationships between language and theory of mind.

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 142-154.

doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2006/014)

Miller, J. F., & Sedey, A. L. (1995, October). Validity of parent report measures of

vocabulary development for children with Down’s syndrome. Journal of Speech

and Hearing Research, 38, 1037-1044. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8558873?dopt=Abstract
 177

Mooney, C. G. (2000). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori,

Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Moore, J. A., Prath, S., & Arrieta, A. (2007). Early Spanish speech acquisition following

cochlear implantation. Volta Review, 106, 321-341.

Moran, D., & Mooney, T. (Eds.). (2002). The phenomenology reader. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Morris, D., & Jones, K. (2007). Minority language socialization within the family:

Investigating the early Welsh language socialization of babies and young children

in mixed language families in Wales. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 28, 484-501. doi:10.2167/jmmd542.0

Morrow, H., & Sherwood, J. (2011, February). Strategies for reducing loss to follow-up

in EHDI programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the Early Hearing Detection

and Intervention, Atlanta, GA.

Moses, K. (2009, February). Engaging parents of children with special needs. Paper

presented at the Children with Hearing Loss Workshop 2009, Laramie, WY.

Most, T., & Zaidman-Zait, A. (2003). The needs of parents of children with cochlear

implants. Volta Review, 103(2), 99-112.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mushi, S. L. P. (2002). Acquisition of multiple languages among the children of

immigrant families: Parents’ role in the home-school pendulum. Early Child

Development and Care, 172, 517-530. doi:10.1080/0300443022000035022

Nance, W., & Dodson, L. (2007, May/June). Clinical and ethical implications of deafness

research. Volta Review, 14(3), 16-19.

 178

Naseef, R. A. (2001). Special children, challenged parents (Rev. ed.). Baltimore, MD:

Paul H. Brookes.

National Association of Educators of Young Children. (n.d.). Early years are learning

years. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://naeyc.org/families/early_years

National Center for Education Research. (2008, July). The effect of preschool programs

on school readiness. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from

http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncer/pubs/20082009/index.asp

National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management. (2008). EHDI programs.

Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.ncham.org

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Nevins, M. E., & Chute, P. M. (2006). School professionals working with children with

cochlear implants. San Diego, CA: Plural.

Nevins, M. E., & Garber, A. (2007, July). Children from homes with spoken languages

other than English. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from

http://www.cochlear.com/HOPE

Newton, C., Clarke, M., Donlan, C., Wright, J. A., Lister, C., & Cherguit, J. (2007).

Parents’ expectations and perceptions concerning the provision of communication

aids by the Communication Aids Project. Child Language Teaching and Therapy,

23, 47-65. . doi:10.1177/0265659007072144

Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2006). Effects of early auditory experience on the spoken

language of deaf children at 3 years of age. Ear & Hearing, 27, 286-298.

doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000215973.76912.c6
 179

Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2007). Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear

implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to

profound hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 5,

1048-1062. doi:10.1044 /1092-4388(2007/ 073)

Nind, M., & Hewett, D. (2005). Access to communication: Developing the basics of

communication with people with severe learning disabilities through intensive

interaction. London, England: David Fulton.

Northcott, W. (1994). Curriculum guide for the hearing-impaired child: Birth to three.

Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

Northern, J. L., & Downs, M. (1991). Hearing in children (4th ed.). Baltimore, MA:

Williams and Wilkins.

Óhlfearnáin, T. (2007). Raising children to be bilingual in the Gaeltacht: Language

preference and practice. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 10, 510-528. doi:10.2167/beb457.0

Orr, A. (2008). Using qualitative methodology to explore disability: A response to

Christ’s “Management and Leadership Strategies.” The Journal of Ethnographic

and Qualitative Research, 2, 264-268. Retrieved from

http://www.cedarville.edu/event/eqrc/journal/instructions.htm

Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., & Armstrong de Almeida, A. (2006). Language discourses and

ideologies at the heart of early childhood education. International Journal of

Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 9, 310-341. Retrieved from

http://www.multilingual-matters.com/
 180

Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-English bilingual children

with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech,

Language, and Hearing, 46, 113-128. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2003/009)

Park, S. M., & Sarkar, M. (2007). Parents’ attitudes toward heritage language

maintenance for their children and their efforts to help their children maintain the

heritage language: A case study of Korean-Canadian immigrants. Language,

Culture, and Curriculum, 20, 223-235. doi:10.2167/lcc337.0

Patterson, K. B., Webb, K. W., & Krudwig, K. M. (2009). Family as faculty parents:

Influences on teachers’ beliefs about family partnerships. Preventing School

Failure, 54, 41-50. Retrieved from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t914957660~tab=

summary

Peterson, S. S., & Heywood, D. (2007). Contributions of families’ linguistic, social, and

cultural capital to minority-language children’s literacy. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 63, 517-538. Retrieved from

http://www.utpjournals.com/cmlr/cmlr.html

Piaget, J. (2001). The psychology of intelligence. New York, NY: Routledge Classics.

Polanco, R., & Guillermo, I. (2007). Cultural attitudes toward hearing loss: An inside

perspective. Volta Voices, 14(4), 32-35.

Prabhu, T. (2010). Proxemics: Some challenges and strategies in nonverbal

communication. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 4(3), 7-14. Retrieved from

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706568
 181

Pressman, L. J., Pipp-Siegel, S., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Kubicek, L., & Emde, R. N.

(2000). A comparison of the links between emotional availability and language

gain in young children with and without hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(5), 251-

277.

Quirk, M., Ciottone, R., Minami, H., Wapner, S., Yamamoto, T., Ishii, S., . . . Pacheco,

A. (1986). Values mothers hold for handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool

children in Japan, Puerto Rico, and the United States Mainland. International

Journal of Psychology, 21, 463-485.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659663 database.

Quittner, A. L., Cruz, I., Baker, D. H., Botteri, M., Eisenberg, L. S., & Toby, E. A., . . .

Niparko, J. (2007, May). Maternal sensitivity as a predictor of growth in

language in deaf and hard of hearing preschoolers. Poster presented at Cochlear

Implants Symposium, Charlotte, NC.

Ramos, F. (2007). What do parents think of two-way bilingual education? An analysis of

responses. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6, 139-150.

doi:10.1080/15348430701304807

Rapin, I. (1993). Hearing disorders. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from

http://www.pedsinreview.aapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/43

Ratcliff, N., & Hunt, G. (2009, Spring). Building teacher-family partnerships: The role of

teacher education programs. Education, 129, 494-505. Retrieved from

http://www.projectinnovation.biz/education_2006.html
 182

Rhoades, E. (2006, November 28). Auditory-based therapy when the home language is

not English (Online workshop). Retrieved November 28, 2006, from

http://www.audiologyonline.com

Rhoades, E., & Duncan, J. (2010). Auditory-Verbal Practice: Toward a Family-centered

Approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Rhoades, E., Perusse, M., Douglas, W. M., & Zarate, C. (2008). Auditory-based bilingual

children in North America: Differences and choices. Volta Voices, 15(5), 20-22.

Rhoades, E., Price, F., & Perigoe, C. (2004). The changing American family & ethnically

diverse children with hearing loss and multiple needs. Volta Review, 104(4), 285-

303.

Robertson, L. (2000). Literacy learning for childen who are deaf and heard of hearing.

Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

Roush, J., & Kamo, G. (2008). Counseling and collaboration with parents of children

with hearing loss. In J. R. Madell & C. Flexer (Eds.), Pediatric Audiology:

Diagnosis, Technology, and Management (pp. 269-277). New York, NY: Thieme.

Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge

of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35,

185-205. doi:10.1017/S0305000907008343

Sager, N. (2005). Best practices for Early Start for infants and toddlers who are deaf or

hard of hearing. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.

Saldana, J. (2010). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA:

Sage Publications Ltd.

Salkind, N. J, (2006). Exploring research (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
 183

Sanchez, I., & Narr, R. F. (2011, February). Entendiendo. Understanding

Hispanic/Latino families with deaf or hard of hearing children. Paper presented at

the meeting of the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention, Atlanta GA.

Sanchez, L. L. (2005). Barriers to diagnosis and treatment services faced by Latino

parents of children with autism: Understanding the needs of Latino families

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations

database. (Publication No. AAT 3215598)

Sandberg, A. D., & Liliedahl, M. (2008). Patterns in early interactions between young

school children with severe speech and physical impairments and their parents,

Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24, 9-30. Retrieved from

http://clt.sagepub.com/

Sartre, J. P. (1970). Intentionality: A fundamental idea of Husserl’s phenomenology.

Journal of the British Society of Phenomenology, 1(2), 4-5. Retrieved from

http://britishphenomenology.co.uk/journal/

Schumann, N. V. (2007). Toys and voices: 18 months of language learning. Volta Voices,

14(3), 20-24.

Schwartz, S. (1996). Choices in deafness: A parents’ guide to communication options.

Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.

Seligman, M., & Darling, R. B. (2007). Ordinary families, special children (3rd ed.).

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Shanahan, L. (1965). The John Tracy Clinic: Opportunities for deaf children. Volta

Review, 13(3), 17-27.

 184

Sharma, A., Dorman, M. F., & Kral, A. (2003). The influence of a sensitive period on

central auditory development in children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear

implants. Hearing Research, 203, 134-143. Retrieved from

ttp://www.sciencedirect.com

Sharma, A., Tobey, E., Dorman, M., Bharadwaj, S., Martin, Giley, P., . . . Kunkel, F.

(2004, May). Central auditory maturation and babbling development in infants

with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head, and Neck Surgery,

130, 511-516. Retrieved from http://archotol.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/130/5/511

Shin, H. J. (2006). Perceptions of Korean immigrant students who are deaf and hard of

hearing and their parents on U.S. public education (Master’s thesis). Retrieved

from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. 1432852)

Simmons, N., & Johnston, J. (2007). Cross-cultural differences in beliefs and practices

that affect the language spoken to children: Mothers with Indian and Western

heritage. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42,

445-465. doi:10.1080/13682820600988926

Simmons-Martin, A. (1979). Chats with Johnny’s parents. Washington, DC: The

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

Simser, J. A. (1999). Parents: The essential partner in the habilitation of children with

hearing impairment. Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 5, 55-62.

Steinberg, A., Bain, L.; Yuelin, L.; Delgado, G.; Ruperto, V. (2003) Decisions Hispanic

families make after the identification of deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Education, 8, 291-314. doi:10.1093/deafed/eng016

 185

Stephenson, J., & Dowrick, M. (2005). Parents’ perspectives on the communication skills

of their children with severe disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and

Developmental Disability, 30(2), 75-85. doi:10.1080/136682505000125031

Stoner, J. B., & Angell, M. E. (2006). Parent perspectives on role engagement: An

investigation of parents of children with ASD and their self-reported roles with

education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,

21(3), 177-189. Retrieved from

http://www.proedinc.com/customer/content.aspx?redid=19

Suess, G. J., Grossman, K. E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992, November). Effects of infant

attachment to mother and father on quality of adaptation to preschool: From

dyadic to individual organization of the self. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 15, 43-65. Retrieved from http://intl-jbd.sagepub.com

Svirsky, M. A., Chin, S. B., & Jester, A. (2007). The effects of cochlear implantation on

speech intelligibility in pediatric cochlear implant users: Clinical outcomes and

sensitive periods. Audiological Medicine, 5(4), 293-306.

doi:10.1081/16513860701727847

Szagun, G., & Ruter, M. (2009). The influence of parents’ speech on the development of

spoken language in German-speaking children with cochlear implants. Revista de

Logopedia, Foniatria y Audiologica, 29(3), 165-173. Retrieved from

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3095175

Tabors, P. (2008). One child, two languages (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Takahashi-Breines, H. (2006). Meaning making: Learning Spanish as a heritage

language in a dual language immersion program (Doctoral dissertation).

 186

Retrieved from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No.

3220917)

Takeuchi, M. (2006). The Japanese language development of children through the ‘One

parent-one language’ approach in Melbourne. Journal of Multilingual &

Multicultural Development, 27, 319-331. Retrieved from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g907107114

Tammemäe, T. (2009). The development of speech of Estonian children aged 2-3 years

and its’ relations with the factors of the home environment. Problems of

Education in the 21st Century, 10, 92-99. Retrieved from

http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/Problems_of_Education.htm

Thomas, E., El-Kashlan, H., & Zwolen, T. A. (2008). Children with cochlear implants

who live in monolingual and bilingual homes. Otology & Neurotology, 29, 230-

234. doi:10.1097/mao.Obo13e31815f668b

Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child

Development, 57, 1454-1463. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep7252234

Tomblin, J. B., Barker, B. A., Spencer, L. J., Zhang, X., & Gantz, B. J. (2005). The effect

of age of cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in

infants and toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48,

853-867. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/059)

Tomblin, J. B., Peng, S. C., Spencer, L. J., & Lu, N. (2008). Long-term trajectories of the

development of speech sound production in pediatric cochlear implant recipients.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1353-1368.

doi:10.1092-4388/08/1505-1353
 187

Trezak, B. J., & Wang, Y. (2006, Spring). Implications of utilizing a phonics-based

reading curriculum with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf

Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 202-213. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj031

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009, November). Labor force statistics from the

current population study. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007, March). Prediction of language use. Retrieved November 2,

2007, from http://www.census.gov/1pc/wwwusinterimprg>

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Population by race, ethnicity 2011. Retrieved from

http://www.factfinder2.census/gov

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Opening doors: Technology and communication

options for children with hearing loss. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from

http://edpubs.ed.gov/Productscvatalogue.aspx

U.S. programs and services chart. (2007, November). American Annals of the Deaf,

Reference Issue, 151, 173-207.

Van Hecke, A. V., Mundy, P., Acra, C, F., Block, J. J., Delgado, E. F., Parlade, M. V., . .

. Pomares, Y. B. (2007). Infant joint attention, temperament, and social

competence in preschool children. Child Development, 78, 53-69.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00985.x

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1967). General theory of systems: Application to Psychology. Social

Science Information, 6, 125-136. doi:10.1177/053901846700600610

Vygotsky, L. (1973). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.).

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

 188

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Waltzman, S. B., Robbins, A. M., Green, J. E., & Cohen, N. L. (2003). Second oral

language capabilities in children with cochlear implants. Otology &

Neurototology, 25, 757-763. Retrieved from

http://www.lww.com/product/Otology-Neurotology/?1531-7129

Warner-Czyz, A. D., Davis, B. L., & Morrison, H. M. (2005). Production accuracy in a

young cochlear implant recipient. Volta Review, 105, 151-173.

Warren, S. F., & Brady, N. C. (2007). The role of maternal responsivity in the

development of children with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation and

Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 330-338.

doi:10.1002/mrdd.20177

Watson, L., & Swanwick, R. (2008). Parents’ and teachers’ views on deaf children’s

literacy at home: Do they agree? Deafness and Education International, 9(9).

doi:10.1002/dei.235

Weisel, A., Most, T., & Michael, R. (2007). Mothers’ stress and expectations as a

function of time since child’s cochlear implantation. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Deaf Education, 12, 55-64. doi:10.1093/deafed/enl020

Westby, C., Burda, A., & Mehta, Z. (2003, April). Asking the right questions in the right

ways. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from

http://www.asha.org/leaderissue.aspx?.id=2003-04-29&year=2003
 189

White, K. R. (2003). The current status of EDHI programs in the United States. Mental

Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9, 79-88.

doi:10.1002/mrdd.10063

White, K. R. (2007). Early intervention for children with permanent hearing loss:

Finishing the revolution. Volta Review Monograph, 106, 237-258.

White, K. (2011, February). The status of early hearing detection and intervention in the

United States. Paper presented at the meeting of the Early Hearing Detection and

Intervention, Atlanta, GA.

Windsor, J., Glaze, L. E., & Koga, S. F. (2007). Language acquisition with limited input:

Romanian Institution and foster care. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing

Research, 50, 1365-1381. doi:10.1044 /1092-4388(2007/ 095)

Winsler, A., Feder, M., Way, E. L., & Manfra, L. (2006). Maternal beliefs concerning

young children’s private speech. Infant and Child Development, 15, 403-420.

doi:10.1002/icd.467

Wren, D. A. (2005) The history of management thought (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1998). Development of audition and speech: Implications for early

intervention with infants who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100, 213-

235.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). From screening to early intervention: Discovering predictors

to successful outcomes for children with significant hearing loss. Journal of Deaf

Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 11-30.

 190

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Nelson, R., & Cardon, G. (2007, May). Deaf and hard of hearing

infants and toddlers from Spanish-speaking homes. Paper presented at the Ninth

Cochlear Implants in Children Symposium, Charlotte, NC.

Zaidman-Zait, A., & Dromi, E. (2007). Analogous and distinctive patterns of

prelinguistic communication in toddlers with and without hearing loss. Journal of

Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1166-1180.

Zwolan, T. A. (2008). Recent advances in cochlear implants. Contemporary Issues in

Communication Sciences and Disorders, 35, 113-121. Retrieved from

http://www.nsslha.org/uploadedFiles/NSSLHA/publications/
 191

Appendix A: Permission to use Premises

192
 193

Appendix B: Informed Consent Forms 18 Years Old and Older

 194

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

INFORMED CONSENT: PARTICIPANTS 18 YEARS OF AGE AND

OLDER

Dear ,
My name is __________and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a doctoral
degree. I am conducting a research study entitled Los Padres: Spoken English for their Deaf
Children. The purpose of the research study is to ask Spanish-speaking parents about their
understanding and knowledge of how to develop spoken English language skills with young deaf
children.
Your participation will involve an individual interview not more than an hour long. We will use
an interpreter to make sure our communication is accurate. I will videotape the interview and
study what you tell me about your experience. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you
choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty
or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but your identity
will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party.
In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you. Although there may be no direct benefit to
you, a possible benefit of your participation is adding to the knowledge of professionals who
work with Spanish-speaking families of young deaf children and influencing the outcomes for the
children.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at 213-748-5481 ext 253
or email me at: (_____________)
As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:

1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without
consequences.
2. Your identity will be kept confidential.
3. __________, the researcher, has thoroughly explained the parameters of the research
study and all of your questions and concerns have been addressed.
4. If the interviews are recorded, you must grant permission for the researcher,
___________, to digitally record the interview. You understand that the information
from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The researcher will structure a coding
process to assure that anonymity of your name is protected.
5. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a period of
three years, and then destroyed.
6. The research results will be used for publication.
“By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the study, the
potential risks to you as a participant, and the means by which your identity will be kept
confidential. Your signature on this form also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and that
you give your permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.”

Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________

Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________

 195

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

FORMA DE CONSENTIMIENTO: PARTICIPANTES MAYORES

DE 18 AÑOS
Estimada/o ,

Mi nombre es __________ y soy una estudiante de la Universidad de Phoenix trabajando en un

título de doctorado. Estoy conduciendo un estudio de investigación llamado “Los Padres: Englés
para sus Niños Sordos”. El propósito de mi investigación es preguntar a padres de habla hispana
acerca de su conocimiento, técnicas y consejos en cómo desarrollar habilidades de lenguaje
hablado en inglés con niños sordos de edad preescolar.
Su participación incluirá una entrevista individual de no más de una hora de duración que será
filmada. Su participación en este estudio es voluntaria. Si usted elige no participar o salirse del
estudio en cualquier momento, puede hacerlo sin ninguna penalidad o pérdida de beneficio para
usted. Los resultados del estudio de investigación podrían ser publicados pero su identidad
permanecerá confidencial y su nombre no será revelado a ninguna parte externa.
En esta investigación no hay ningún riesgo previsible para usted. Aunque pueda que no haya un
beneficio directo para usted, el beneficio posible de su participación es ampliar el conocimiento
de profesionales que trabajan con familias de habla hispana con niños sordos de edad preescolar.

Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca del estudio de investigación, por favor llámeme al 213-748-5481
ext. 253 (y envíeme un correo electrónico a ________________).
Como participante en este estudio, usted debe entender lo siguiente:

1. Usted puede negarse a participar o terminar su participación en cualquier momento sin

consecuencias.
2. Su identidad será mantenida confidencial.
3. ________________, la investigadora, ha explicado completamente los parámetros del
estudio de investigación y todas sus preguntas y preocupaciones han sido resueltas.
4. Si las entrevistas son grabadas, usted debe dar permiso a la investigadora, __________,
de grabar la entrevista digitalmente. Usted entiende que la información de las entrevistas
grabadas deben de ser transcritas. La investigadora estructurará un proceso de
codificación para asegurar que el anonimato de su nombre sea protegido.
5. La información será almacenada en un área segura y bajo llave. La información se
mantendrá por un período de tres años y luego se destruirá.
6. Los resultados de la investigación serán usados para publicación.

“Firmando esta forma usted reconoce que entiende la naturaleza del estudio, los riesgos
potenciales para usted como participante, y los medios por los cuales su identidad será mantenida
confidencial. Su firma en esta forma también indica que usted tiene 18 años de edad o más y que
da su permiso de servir voluntariamente como participante en el estudio descrito.

Firma del entrevistado/a _______________________________ Dia _____________

Firma de la investigadora ______________________________ Dia _____________

 196

Appendix C: Opening Script for Interviews

 197

English

Hello, _________________. My name is ______________.

I am the Assistant Director of the Teacher Education Program.

As we talked about when you signed the informed consent form, I am a doctoral student.

My research dissertation is about Spanish-speaking parents and their children who are

deaf.

My dissertation is will help teachers understand what Spanish-speaking parents of deaf

children think about how children learn language. I will ask you several questions. The

information you share with me will help teachers improve how we help parents.

I will ask the questions in English.

Andrea will translate the questions into Spanish.

Please ask me to explain anything that is confusing. I want you to take your time

answering the questions.

The interview will be videotaped. I will keep the videotapes in a safe place.

No names will be used when I write about the interviews.

I will share the information from all of the interviews with the university professors I am

working with and eventually with an audience at a conference for teachers.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you for helping me with this project.

Let’s begin.
 198

Spanish

¡Buenos Dias! Mi nombre es ________________.

Soy la Directora Asistente del Programa de Educación a Maestros.

Como habíamos hablado cuando usted firmó la forma de consentimiento, yo soy una

estudiante de doctorado.

La investigación de mi tesis es sobre padres de habla hispana y sus niños con pérdida

auditiva.

Mi tesis ayudará a maestras a entender qué piensan los padres de habla hispana que

tienen niños con pérdida auditiva acerca de aprender lenguaje. Le haré varias preguntas.

La información que usted comparta conmigo ayudará a las maestras a mejorar en cómo

ayudar a los padres. Le haré preguntas acerca de cómo los niños aprenden lenguaje, tanto

en español como en inglés.

Le haré las preguntas en inglés.

Andrea traducirá las preguntas al español.

Por favor pídame que le explique cualquier cosa que sea confusa. Podemos tomarnos

todo el tiempo que sea necesario.

La entrevista será filmada. Guardaré los videocasetes en un lugar seguro.

No se usará ningún nombre cuando yo escriba acerca de las entrevistas.

Compartiré la información de todas las entrevistas con los profesores de la universidad,

con los que estoy trabajando y eventualmente con una audiencia en una reunión para

maestros.

Gracias para su ayada.

 199

Appendix D: Interview Questions

 200

Interview Questions – English

1. How do you think children learn to talk?

2. How do you think children with hearing loss learn to talk?

3. How do you feel when you think about your child learning to talk?

4. Has John Tracy Clinic been helpful for your family?

5. How did the teachers at John Tracy Clinic help you teach your child to talk?

6. How do your friends and family help you teach your child to talk?

7. Who does your child talk to now?

8. Who do you think your child will talk to in the future?

9. What language do you speak at home?

10. What language do you speak at school?

11. Outside of school, where else does your child hear English?

12. What would you tell other parents about how to teach their child to talk?

13. What do you want professionals to know about Hispanic families who have
children with hearing losses?
 201

Interview Questions – Spanish

1. ¿Cómo piensa usted que los niños aprenden a hablar?

2. ¿Cómo piensa usted que los niños con pérdida auditiva aprenden a hablar?

3. ¿Cómo se siente cuando piensa en su niño/a aprendiendo a hablar?

4. ¿Ha sido la Clínica John Tracy de ayuda para su familia?

5. ¿Cómo la ayudaron las maestras de la Clínica John Tracy a que usted le enseñe a
su hijo/a a hablar?

6. ¿Cómo la ayudan su familia y amigos a enseñarle a su hijo/a a hablar?

7. ¿Con quién habla su hijo/a ahora?

8. ¿Con quién piensa que hablará su hijo/a en el futuro?

9. ¿Qué idioma habla usted en casa?

10. ¿Qué idioma habla usted en la escuela?

11. Afuera de la escuela, ¿en dónde mas escucha su hijo/a el inglés?

12. ¿Qué le diría a otros padres acerca de cómo enseñar a su hijo/a a hablar?

13. ¿Qué quisiera usted que los profesionales supieran acerca de las familias hispanas
que tienen niños con pérdida auditiva?
 202

Appendix E: Confidentiality Agreement for Interpreters

 203

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

1. This CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the

______ day of ______________________, 2010, by and between Jane Freutel,

doctoral student at University of Phoenix, and

______________________________________________.

2. _________________________________________ agrees to provide translation

and interpretation services for a research study directed by Jane Freutel.

3. In the course of providing translation and interpretation services for Spanish-

speaking parents and Jane Freutel, __________________________________ will

be given access to information that is confidential.

4. _____________________________________________ agrees that he or she will

not disclose any part of the confidential information made accessible during the

translation and interpretation services in the course of the research study.

SIGNED

_________________________________________________________(signature)

________________________________________________________(print name)