This field experience report examines a residential school for the deaf through classroom observations, interviews, and document review. The study investigates what classroom accommodations support deaf learners, how teachers provide access to the curriculum, and what physical and instructional factors either promote or hinder a deafcentric environment. Two teachers were observed — one conducting a math lesson and another a social studies lesson — both employing American Sign Language (ASL) consistently and using active learning strategies suited to deaf learners. The report critiques the school's aging physical infrastructure, analyzes classroom layout issues, and offers recommendations for improving deaf space design, interpreter positioning, and teacher selection to better support the linguistic, social, and cultural development of deaf students.
In the United States, residential institutions of learning have had a long relationship with the deaf community. They are the centers where linguistic and cultural transmission takes place. Residential educational institutions for deaf people serve learners at K–12 levels and provide dormitories for students who come from distant geographical areas. Usually, each state has built at least one residential education program for the deaf (Romano, 2013). It has also been noted that large communities of deaf people tend to settle near residential schools.
A good number of states offer education programs that provide language services and training for the deaf, including a rich cultural environment where American Sign Language (ASL) and English bilingual instruction are taught to American deaf learners. Such settings are also referred to as deafcentric. Learners are enabled to interact with teachers, administrators, classmates, and other school staff in their native language. These schools also offer extracurricular activities with mentors who are themselves deaf — an important means of nurturing and transmitting deaf culture.
The research questions guiding this study are:
These research questions are designed to identify the factors that influence a school's ability to offer a deafcentric environment that succeeds in promoting the wellbeing of deaf learners.
Studies indicate that deaf students have shown improved learning engagement in residential schools for the deaf. This development is attributed to the improved communication context within these institutions, which is an aspect of providing a deafcentric environment. According to Staten (2011), the following should be made possible in deaf learning environments: free communication and a comfortable sign language environment, heightened social and personal interaction among deaf individuals, development of a cultural identity model, and a perceived readiness for life following graduation (p. 3). Another study reveals that deaf learners who attend school alongside hearing peers show reduced levels of social wellbeing and self-esteem compared to those who attend specialized schools (van Gent et al., 2012).
The success of schools has been gauged using a range of criteria developed specifically for residential schools for the deaf. Some measures relating to socialization and linguistic settings would need to be reviewed and modified if applied to non-deaf learners or integrated deaf instructional programs. Available research suggests that three critical areas should be examined: (1) educational outcomes, (2) educational programs, and (3) socialization and linguistic experiences. The only federally mandated institution for measuring student progress is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which measures academic progress across mathematics, reading, geography, writing, history, and the arts (Hombo, 2003; Malik et al., 2018).
Social development within deaf education occurs through extracurricular activities, dormitory life, and athletic programs. The socialization and linguistic environment is a critical aspect of deaf education. Residential schools for the deaf should provide these environments through both dormitory and classroom settings, as they are essential for the transmission of culture and language. They offer culturally and linguistically meaningful interactions that contribute significantly to the overall development of deaf learners.
The school is situated in an older structure that, while in reasonable condition, appears run-down due to inadequate maintenance. The illumination in the classrooms is not appropriate, and the furniture is uncomfortable. The air conditioning is noisy while the windows remain closed. The classroom is arranged in a semicircular shape. At times there is visual obstruction — a student may not be able to see when another is consulting the teacher, due to poor lighting. Reading and viewing the screen is also difficult. There is no effective mechanism to summon all students' attention at once.
When the teacher conducting the session is deaf and explains content through sign language, the class covers more material compared to when an interpreter is used. Learners face a challenge when trying to get the teacher's attention while he is in discourse with another learner or looking toward the screen.
The study used a descriptive qualitative research approach that included interviews, document review, and classroom observations to analyze the residential school for the deaf. The goal was to identify the factors that determine the school's ability to offer deafcentric education. Deafcentric education enhances self-advocacy qualities, including leadership skills among deaf learners, thereby contributing to improved academic performance.
Two teachers were involved in the classroom observations. Although their approaches differed, both provided a deafcentric learning environment for deaf students. Both made effective use of eye contact and exploited ASL fully. Teacher A was conducting a math lesson, while Teacher B was running a social studies lesson for a grade 6 class of seven students.
The desks in the classroom were arranged in a C-formation, which works well for deaf learners by allowing greater interaction. Classwork and homework were clearly outlined on the board. A television in the middle of the room announced the commencement of each lesson. A smartboard placed next to the TV was switched on. The walls of the classroom were filled with science topic charts and posters, and lab equipment was arranged at the back of the room. A sign reading "BEWARE!" was posted outside the classroom.
To encourage group engagement, Teacher A developed a matching problem to be worked on in pairs. Teacher B, by contrast, created an imaginary battlefield for a simulated army encounter between opposing student teams. Teacher A used a classic classroom approach to disseminate content via PowerPoint, pausing consistently to check for comprehension and to respond to questions. Teacher B employed active learning before moving into reading discussions about the war topic. Students were given a simulated war experience through the imaginary battlefield first — throwing crumpled paper at each other, drinking stained fluid as mock soup, and other activities that replicated war scenes. Afterward, they watched instructional videos related to their assigned reading.
Contemporary teaching methods encourage active learning techniques. The group involvement fostered a deafcentric culture by placing an emphasis on collaborative work and relying on the visual acquisition of content.
Both classes consistently used ASL, which inspired and kept learners motivated throughout the lesson. The particular focus on socialization and interaction also appeared to support class collaboration. Both approaches can be viewed as deafcentric because they managed to cultivate a collective identity. Both teachers used their respective techniques to achieve a notable level of socialization while learning was simultaneously taking place. Teacher A paired the loudest and quietest learners together for lab work, while Teacher B arranged students into balanced teams to achieve the same equilibrium.
Both teachers shared an impressive sense of humor, which drew learners into the lesson. While humor is welcome in any classroom, it appears to yield even greater dividends in deaf culture settings for maintaining learner interest. Both teachers concluded their lessons by sharing outside experiences and school-related news. Sharing current events not only keeps learners informed but also encourages collective involvement — an element that is central to deafcentric education.
Considering the observations and interviews conducted at the selected school, it can be argued that a deafcentric environment can be stimulating to learners without being visually distracting. Nevertheless, the physical characteristics of this school are in themselves sources of distraction. Between classrooms, the school has artificial cubicle walls. This setup makes it difficult for the teacher to control lighting because one set of lights spreads across several classrooms. Furthermore, most of the classrooms are small, and the posters and teaching aids on the walls make each class feel congested even when it is empty.
In an interview with Teacher B, he provided a detailed account of the physical environment of the school since the 1950s. He noted that the environment does not serve the needs of deaf learners well — it reflects what architects in the 1950s considered an open classroom, a concept that has since changed substantially. He stated that attempts were made to alter the setup using the artificial walls, but the problems described above persist.
"Structural and lighting problems hinder deafcentric learning"
"Layout, deaf space design, and interpreter positioning advice"
Romano, A. M. (2013). Observing a residential school for the deaf: Identifying factors in creating a deafcentric environment. The Honors Program.
Staten, F. D. (2011). Examining the influence of the residential school for the deaf experience on deaf identity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa).
van Gent, T., Goedhart, A. W., Knoors, H. E., Westenberg, P. M., & Treffers, P. D. (2012). Self-concept and ego development in deaf adolescents: A comparative study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(3), 333–351.
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.