Exploring Language and Literacy Instruction for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students with Disabilities: Practices, Considerations, and Suggestions from Educational Professionals

Abstract

Students who are deaf or hard of hearing with disabilities (DWD) represent a diverse population whose language and communication development is shaped by access to language, learner characteristics, and educational contexts. Despite the importance of language and communication as foundations for literacy learning, little is known about how educational professionals implement and adapt instructional strategies to support DWD in school settings. This mixed-methods study explored current practices, considerations, and suggestions related to language and literacy instruction for DWD from the perspectives of educational professionals in British Columbia, Canada. Data were collected through an online survey completed by 123 educational professionals and six focus groups involving 15 participants, including teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing, classroom teachers, special education teachers, district specialists, and administrators. Findings indicated that educators employed a range of instructional strategies primarily focused on developing learners’ language and literacy skills, with comparatively less emphasis on strengthening communication partners’ capacity and adapting educational environments. Approximately one-third of respondents perceived that DWD’s needs were adequately met in each of the language and communication, social–behavioral, and literacy domains. Participants identified concerns related to language and communication access, shortages of trained personnel and professional learning opportunities, and insufficient collaboration. The findings highlight the need for strengths-based, student-centered approaches that promote learners’ active participation, build the capacity of communication partners (e.g., teachers, educational assistants, peers, family members), and enhance the accessibility of learning environments, alongside system-level supports that promote equitable and sustainable language and communication access for DWD.

1. Introduction

Like all learners, students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) bring a wide range of learning characteristics to their development of language and literacy, highly influenced by hearing levels, age of onset of hearing loss, use of amplification, first and/or home language(s), and other factors. This diversity is further influenced by the presence of co-occurring disabilities, such as autism, global developmental delays, physical disabilities, and low vision or blindness, which uniquely contribute to their ways of communicating and learning. In this study, deafness is conceptualized as a hearing difference (Higgins & Lieberman, 2016; Leigh et al., 2022). Accordingly, the term students who are deaf or hard of hearing with disabilities (DWD) is used to acknowledge the coexistence of hearing differences and disabilities, without positioning deafness itself as a disability.

Supporting DWD’s language and literacy development begins with recognizing intersecting factors that shape individual language, communication, and learning pathways, as well as understanding each learner’s current abilities and strengths. Educators working with DWD often require targeted resources and training to meet their students’ needs in developing language and literacy skills. Ongoing opportunities to strengthen their knowledge and instructional practices in supporting language for communication and academic participation are essential (Guardino, 2015; Musyoka et al., 2017). Despite these demands, educators frequently report uncertainty about how to effectively support learners in developing language and literacy skills, particularly in inclusive school settings. Building on this context, the study explores educators’ perspectives on their practices, considerations, and suggestions when teaching DWD, with particular attention to the implementation of instructional strategies for language and literacy development.

1.1. Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing with Disabilities (DWD)

Estimates suggest that approximately 40% to 50% of DHH students have one or more co-occurring disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, learning disabilities, visual impairments, physical disabilities, and other exceptionalities (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2013; Guardino & Cannon, 2022). DWD are heterogeneous, and their educational experiences are shaped by unique combinations of hearing differences, communication characteristics, learning profiles, cultural backgrounds, and disabilities. As a result, DWD often receive support from multiple professionals, including Teachers of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (TDHHs).

Rather than viewing deafness and disability as separate or additive conditions, researchers emphasize that these characteristics interact in complex, individualized ways that influence communication, language development, learning, social participation, and educational experiences (Bruce et al., 2008; Nelson & Bruce, 2019). From this perspective, DWD should not be understood through a deficit-oriented lens. Instead, they may be viewed as learners with diverse strengths, needs, and learning pathways who require individualized educational approaches that recognize and respond to their individual characteristics.

The inclusive education movement in Canada has expanded opportunities for DWD to attend neighborhood schools alongside their peers (Norman, 2016). However, physical inclusion alone does not guarantee equitable access to communication, language, literacy, or learning. For meaningful participation across their language environments, including one-to-one interactions, small-group activities, classroom instruction, and broader school communities, research consistently highlights the need for individualized planning and collaborative service delivery, with instructional practices and environmental supports tailored to each learner’s unique needs (Guardino & Cannon, 2022; Nelson & Bruce, 2019).

1.2. Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This study is grounded broadly in sociocultural theory and social interactionist perspectives, with the tri-focus framework serving as the primary applied framework for examining language and literacy instruction for DWD. Sociocultural theory conceptualizes learning as socially mediated and situated within social and cultural contexts, while social interactionist perspectives emphasize the role of reciprocal communication and interaction in language development. Building on these theoretical perspectives, the tri-focus framework provides an applied lens for examining three interconnected dimensions of educational planning and intervention: the learner, communication partners, and the environment.

1.2.1. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) conceptualizes learning and development as processes that occur through interaction with others and participation in meaningful cultural activities. Learning develops through relationships with more knowledgeable others within a learner’s social and cultural contexts.

Sociocultural theory also offers an important lens for understanding DWD because it shifts attention from disability as an individual characteristic to the interactions and contexts that support learning. Rather than focusing on what a learner cannot do independently, sociocultural theory encourages educators to consider how communication partners, instructional supports, and learning environments can facilitate participation and development (Vygotsky, 1978). This perspective aligns closely with strengths-based approaches that emphasize learner potential, responsive instruction, and meaningful engagement.

1.2.2. Social Interactionism

Extending the sociocultural understanding of learning as a socially mediated process, social interactionist perspectives emphasize the role of communication and social interaction in language acquisition (Paul, 2009). From this perspective, language develops through reciprocal exchanges between children and their social environments. Communication partners support language learning by responding to learners, modelling language, and creating meaningful opportunities for interaction.

For DHH children, access to communication and interaction is particularly important because language development is influenced not only by hearing status but also by opportunities to engage in shared communicative experiences (Levesque et al., 2023). Through joint attention, reciprocal exchanges, and participation in everyday interactions, children develop language that supports communication, social relationships, and learning. This perspective is particularly relevant for DWD, whose language development may be influenced by multiple factors, including access to language models, the quality of interactions with communication partners, sensory access, cultural and linguistic experiences, and learning environments (Bruce & Borders, 2015; Nelson & Bruce, 2019). Social interactionist perspectives, therefore, highlight the importance of communication-rich environments that promote active participation and meaningful engagement in language learning (Bruce & Borders, 2015; Paul, 2009).

1.2.3. The Tri-Focus Framework

Building on the broader principles of sociocultural theory and social interactionist perspectives, the tri-focus framework (Siegel-Causey & Bashinski, 1997) provides an applied framework for understanding communication and language development among learners with complex communication needs by directing attention to three interconnected elements: the learner, the communication partners, and the environment. Rather than focusing solely on learner characteristics, it emphasizes how communication and learning are shaped through interactions among these three components.

This framework is particularly relevant for DWD because it acknowledges the complex and diverse factors that influence language and literacy development. Bruce and Bashinski (2017) argue that educational planning should extend beyond learner-focused intervention models and consider the knowledge, skills, and responsiveness of communication partners as well as environmental supports and barriers. Similarly, Kwon et al. (2024) applied the tri-focus framework to examine the language and communication factors of a deaf learner with autism from an immigrant Korean family, demonstrating how learner characteristics, communication partners, and environmental contexts collectively influenced language development and educational experiences. Their findings underscore the importance of developing comprehensive language and communication profiles that extend beyond disability labels and account for factors such as communication access, family and educator partnerships, culturally and linguistically responsive practices, and the accessibility of learning environments.

From this tri-focus perspective, successful language and literacy development depends not only on instructional strategies that engage and support learners in developing their knowledge and skills but also on the extent to which communication partners and educational environments facilitate meaningful participation. Considerations related to the learner may include language and communication profiles, strengths, interests, and learning characteristics. Communication partner considerations encompass the knowledge, skills, responsiveness, and collaborative practices of educators, family members, peers, and related service providers. Environmental considerations include communication accessibility, visual access, classroom organization, instructional materials, peer interactions, and opportunities for engagement and participation (Bruce & Bashinski, 2017; Guardino & Cannon, 2022; Kwon et al., 2023, 2024). Accordingly, the tri-focus framework provides a practical lens for examining educational professionals’ practices and interpreting their considerations and suggestions related to language and literacy instruction for DWD.

1.3. Language and Communication Access as Foundations for Literacy Learning

Language development is widely recognized as foundational to literacy development and academic participation. For DHH learners, language development is influenced not by hearing status alone but by consistent access to rich language environments and meaningful interactions with communication partners (Hall et al., 2019; Levesque et al., 2023). Such access supports the development of vocabulary, conceptual knowledge, social communication, and literacy learning.

For DWD, language may develop through a variety of communication pathways. Some use signed or spoken language, while others communicate primarily through augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems, pictures, gestures, tactile communication, or multimodal combinations of these approaches. These systems may serve as tools that facilitate communication and provide access to language and literacy experiences (Bruce & Borders, 2015; Nelson & Bruce, 2019). Accordingly, decisions about communication modalities should be guided by individual strengths, preferences, family priorities, and educational goals, rather than by a single communication approach (Bruce & Borders, 2015; Nelson & Bruce, 2019).

Recognizing multiple pathways to language acquisition also requires moving beyond deficit-oriented perspectives of DHH learners (Levesque et al., 2023). For DWD, this shift redirects attention from perceived limitations toward educational environments that support diverse pathways for language development. This perspective emphasizes learner diversity, responsiveness, accessibility, and meaningful participation across educational settings. Because language is the primary means through which learners construct meaning, engage in social interactions, and participate in learning, equitable access to language and communication is fundamental to literacy learning for all DHH learners (Hall et al., 2019; Paul, 2009).

1.4. Literacy Development Among DHH Learners

Literacy development has long been a central area of inquiry in deaf education. Research has documented persistent gaps in literacy achievement between many DHH learners and their hearing peers, attributed primarily to reduced access to language and literacy experiences rather than hearing status itself (Hall et al., 2019; Paul, 2009). More recent perspectives challenge deficit-oriented interpretations by emphasizing that DHH learners can develop strong literacy skills when provided with accessible language environments, high-quality instruction, and meaningful opportunities to engage with print and text (Beal et al., 2024; Hall et al., 2019; Levesque et al., 2023).

Consistent with these perspectives, Mathews (2022) reports a growing consensus that DHH learners generally follow similar developmental pathways in reading as hearing learners, although they may require different instructional approaches and supports. Language proficiency is strongly associated with literacy achievement among DHH students, with vocabulary knowledge, morphology, comprehension strategies, and opportunities for meaningful language use contributing to literacy outcomes (Hall et al., 2019; Mathews, 2022). Recommended instructional practices include explicit instruction, visual supports, shared reading, repeated reading, and intentional vocabulary development (Cannon & Guardino, 2012). While evidence-informed interventions such as Visual Phonics and Foundations for Literacy have been developed for DHH learners (Lederberg et al., 2022; Mathews, 2022), the evidence base specifically addressing literacy development and instruction for DWD remains limited.

1.5. Literacy Development Among DWD

Given the limited evidence base, educational professionals may draw from both deaf education literature and disability-specific literacy literature when designing instruction and supports for DWD (Bruce & Borders, 2015; Nelson & Bruce, 2019). Like language development, literacy development among DWD should be conceptualized broadly to reflect the considerable diversity of this population. While some learners pursue conventional reading and writing outcomes aligned with grade-level curricula, others may engage in literacy through shared reading, environmental print, visual supports, experience books, journals, AAC-supported literacy activities, or functional literacy practices aligned with individualized educational goals (Berchin-Weiss et al., 2016; Bruce & Borders, 2015; Nelson & Bruce, 2019). These diverse pathways reflect literacy as communication, participation, self-expression, social interaction, and access to information, rather than solely as mastery of conventional reading and writing skills (Nelson & Bruce, 2019).

Accordingly, literacy instruction for DWD should be individualized and strength-based. Nelson and Bruce (2019) emphasize that literacy instruction should be responsive to learners’ communication systems, cognitive characteristics, interests, and educational contexts. Similarly, Berchin-Weiss et al. (2016) demonstrate that deaf students with intellectual disability may benefit from literacy instruction that integrates reading and writing workshops with mediated learning principles. Their findings suggest that meaningful literacy learning can occur when instruction builds upon learners’ strengths and provides appropriate scaffolding and opportunities for engagement. Guardino and Cannon (2022) suggest that Universal Design for Learning (UDL; CAST, 2024) offers a useful framework for planning instruction for DWD by promoting flexible and accessible instructional design that responds to diverse learner characteristics. Collectively, this literature suggests that literacy development for DWD involves providing ongoing opportunities for communication, participation, and engagement that are responsive to individual learner characteristics.

1.6. Instructional Strategies and Interventions for DWD

A range of instructional approaches developed for the language and literacy development of DHH learners may provide a foundation on which educators can build and adapt instruction to support DWD, although these approaches were not specifically developed for DWD. For example, explicit instruction in literacy can provide structure and clarity while allowing educators to adjust pacing, materials, and communication supports according to individual learner needs (Mathews, 2022). Visual supports, such as photographs, symbols, graphic organizers, environmental print, signed supports, and visual cues, may similarly enhance accessibility, comprehension, and independence for DWD (Bruce & Borders, 2015).

Bruce and Borders (2015) caution that practices developed for hearing students with disabilities or DHH students without disabilities should not be assumed to be directly applicable to DWD. Instead, instructional approaches often require thoughtful adaptation to address learners’ communication characteristics, language development, sensory access, visual learning needs, and disability-specific considerations. Similarly, Weber and Skyer (2022) caution that general accessibility frameworks such as UDL may not fully address the situated needs of DHH learners, emphasizing the importance of approaches that attend to visuality, multimodality, sign languages, and Deaf culture. Consequently, effective implementation involves not only knowledge of evidence-based practices but also the professional judgment needed to adapt practices in ways that are responsive to individual learners and educational contexts.

1.7. Communication Partners and Collaborative Practices

Educational professionals play a critical role in supporting access to language, literacy, communication, and participation for DWD. Educational teams may include TDHHs, classroom teachers, special educators, speech–language pathologists, educational assistants, behavior consultants, occupational and physical therapists, interpreters, administrators, and family members. Because these team members contribute expertise across different areas, implementing instructional strategies and interventions for DWD often requires collaborative practices.

The complexity and heterogeneity of DWD suggest that educational professionals frequently draw upon knowledge from multiple disciplines to inform instructional decision-making. Swanwick (2015) proposes an ecological perspective of deaf education in which learning is understood through interactions among learner characteristics, language experiences, social relationships, and educational environments. From this perspective, professionals’ roles may extend beyond delivering instruction to mediating opportunities for participation, supporting communication within and across contexts, and adapting learning environments in response to individual learners’ strengths, preferences, and experiences.

Research identifies collaboration as an important component of educational programming for DWD, although professionals may encounter practical challenges related to scheduling, role clarification, access to specialized expertise, and opportunities for ongoing professional learning (Guardino, 2015; Musyoka et al., 2017; Scott & Hansen, 2020). Professionals also report the need for continued professional learning related to complex disabilities, communication systems, behavior supports, and literacy instruction (Swanwick, 2015; Musyoka et al., 2017). Given the diverse communication, sensory, cognitive, and learning characteristics of DWD, interprofessional collaboration, consultation, and sustained professional learning can provide access to specialized expertise needed for effective educational programming (Bruce & Bashinski, 2017; Swanwick, 2015).

The literature also highlights the role of communication partners beyond teachers and specialists. Educational assistants may influence learners’ access to communication, classroom participation, literacy activities, and social engagement through their frequent interactions with students throughout the school day (Bruce & Borders, 2015; Bruce & Bashinski, 2017; Kwon et al., 2024). Consequently, professional learning opportunities should extend beyond certified educators to individuals who regularly support learners’ communication and engagement.

Similarly, peers can serve as valuable communication partners who facilitate meaningful participation and opportunities for language use across contexts. Kwon et al. (2023) examined a whole-class intervention in which social stories and American Sign Language (ASL) vocabulary were taught to DHH students with autism spectrum disorder and their peers in inclusive settings. Although intervention effects varied across participants, the study illustrates the potential value of involving peers and providing them with communication strategies and language resources to support social interaction and engagement. Consistent with the tri-focus framework (Siegel-Causey & Bashinski, 1997), this approach highlights the importance of attending not only to the learner but also to communication partners and environments that shape opportunities for interaction and participation.

Families likewise contribute important knowledge regarding learners’ communication preferences, cultural and linguistic experiences, interests, and priorities, as well as their home and community environments. Collaboration with families can therefore support language opportunities and inform educational planning and decisions about how strategies are implemented with DWD (Bruce & Borders, 2015; Nelson & Bruce, 2019).

Taken together, the literature suggests that effective language and literacy instruction for DWD involves not just using appropriate evidence-based practices but also considering how these practices are adapted and implemented within each learner’s educational context. Effective implementation appears to depend upon communication partners’ capacity to collaboratively understand learner characteristics, adapt instructional approaches, support communication access, and create environments that foster learners’ meaningful participation in language and literacy learning. Within this collaborative process, DWD themselves may actively contribute, where appropriate, by communicating their preferences, identifying effective supports, and participating in decisions about their communication and learning. These considerations are particularly relevant to the present study, which examines current practices and considerations related to implementing instructional strategies and interventions for DWD from the perspectives of educational professionals in Canada, particularly British Columbia (BC).

1.8. Research Gaps and Purpose of the Present Study

Despite increasing recognition of DWD, this population remains underrepresented in educational research. Bruce and Borders (2015) describe a limited evidence base regarding communication and language interventions for DWD. Similarly, Nelson and Bruce (2019) identify continuing gaps related to literacy development, instructional practices, assessment, and educational programming for these learners.

Existing studies have predominantly focused on learner characteristics and intervention outcomes, with comparatively less attention devoted to understanding how educational professionals select, adapt, and implement instructional strategies within everyday school contexts. Consequently, relatively little is known about the instructional decision-making processes, contextual considerations, and collaborative practices that influence the implementation of language and literacy supports for DWD.

In addition, there is limited information regarding the educational experiences, service delivery models, and instructional practices used with DWD within Canadian contexts, including BC. Given the increasing diversity of learners and the prevalence of inclusive educational settings, there is a need to better understand how educational professionals support language and literacy development for DWD within contemporary school environments.

In BC, DWD may receive multiple ministry designations or only a single designation, depending on school district practices, as provincial funding is determined by the primary designation and there is limited guidance regarding the assignment of secondary designations. Because a secondary DHH designation does not generate additional funding, some districts may not assign DHH as a secondary designation to DWD. Consequently, some DWD, even though their hearing differences substantially affect their educational functioning, may not receive direct TDHH services, potentially influencing access to specialized language and literacy supports.

The purpose of the present study is therefore to explore current practices, considerations, and suggestions related to language and literacy instruction for DWD from the perspectives of educational professionals in BC. The guiding research questions are: (a) What are the current practices related to language and literacy instruction for DWD in BC schools? (b) What considerations do educational professionals identify regarding language and literacy instruction for DWD? (c) What suggestions do educational professionals have for supporting DWD’s language and literacy development?

2. Methods

2.1. Recruitment and Participants

Purposeful sampling was used to recruit educational professionals who had worked with DWD in BC school settings within the past three years. Survey invitations were distributed through listservs of nine provincial organizations supporting DHH students. Invitations were also sent to directors and coordinators of Inclusive Education in all 60 public school districts and 273 independent schools for distribution to eligible staff. Recruitment information was also shared through social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter.

A total of 147 survey responses were received. Twenty-four cases were excluded because respondents did not provide sufficient information for inclusion in the analysis, including their professional role, resulting in a final sample of 123 educational professionals. Because organizations and school systems distributed the invitation to potentially eligible participants, the number of individuals who received it was unknown; therefore, a response rate could not be calculated.

Participants represented a range of professional roles, including 60 TDHHs, 21 special education teachers, 17 classroom teachers, 14 district specialists, and 11 administrators. Most worked in public schools located in urban or suburban areas, and approximately 70% primarily supported students in general education classrooms. Nearly half reported more than 10 years of experience in their current positions. Additional demographic characteristics of survey participants are presented in Table 1. For data management and reporting, each participant was assigned an identifier consisting of a two-letter professional-role code and a two-digit number (e.g., TD for TDHH, AM for administrator, CL for classroom teacher, SP for special education teacher, and DS for district specialist or other professionals).

Table 1. Demographic Information of Survey Participants.

Demographic Characteristic	Responses (n)	Percentage of Respondents (%)
Job title (123 respondents)	123	100
TDHH	60	48.8
Special education teacher	21	17.1
Classroom teacher	17	13.8
District specialist or others	14	11.4
School-based administrator	5	4.1
Director or coordinator of related school setting	3	2.4
District-level administrator	2	1.6
Provincial-level administrator	1	0.8
Living area (93 respondents) *	129
Urban	52	55.9
Suburban	51	54.8
Rural	26	28.0
School system (110 respondents) *	126
Public school	96	87.3
Independent school	19	17.3
Private school	11	10.0
Educational setting (121 respondents)	121
General education classroom with district specialists	85	70.2
Resource classroom for students with disabilities	16	13.2
School setting for DHH students	9	7.4
Others (e.g., a provincial program)	6	5.0
Resource classroom for DHH students	5	4.1
Years in the position (122 respondents)	122
Less than 2 years	18	14.8
3–5 years	34	27.9
6–10 years	16	13.1
10–20 years	32	26.2
More than 20 years	22	18

Note. n = 123. Denominators vary across characteristics due to item nonresponse, and percentages are based on the number of respondents to each item. * Participants could select multiple responses for living area and school system; therefore, the number of responses and percentages may exceed the number of respondents and 100%, respectively.

Nineteen survey participants indicated interest in participating in a follow-up focus group. Of these, three were unable to participate due to scheduling conflicts, and one did not respond to follow-up communication, resulting in 15 participants in the focus group phase: six TDHHs, five school-based special education teachers, three administrators, and one district speech–language pathologist (see Table 2). One participant (SP16) was unable to attend Session 3 as scheduled and instead provided written responses to the focus group questions by email. Session 6 was conducted with one participant due to last-minute cancellations by the other participants. Participants had an average of 10.7 years of experience in their current educational roles.

Table 2. Demographic Information of Focus Group Participants.

Focus Group Session	Identifier	Title	Years in the Position
1	TD22	Itinerant TDHH	10–20
1	TD24	Itinerant TDHH	3–5
1	TD54	Itinerant TDHH	>20
2	TD15	Itinerant TDHH	<2
2	TD36	Itinerant TDHH	10–20
2	SP04	Inclusive Team Teacher *	6–10
3	SP12	Special Education Teacher	3–5
3	DS06	District SLP	5–10
3	SP16	Special Education Teacher *	3–5
4	TD27	Itinerant TDHH	3–5
4	SP10	Resource Room Teacher *	3–5
4	SP19	Learning Support Teacher *	3–5
5	AM10	School-level administrator	>20
5	AM12	School-level administrator	10–20
6	AM03	District-level administrator	>20

Note. * Titles are used differently in school districts for school-based special education teachers.

2.2. Data Collection

A sequential mixed-methods approach was used, with quantitative and qualitative data collected to address complementary aspects of the research questions. Data collection occurred in two phases: participants first completed an online survey over four months, followed by focus groups conducted over a two-week period. Closed-ended survey questions provided descriptive quantitative data on current practices, while open-ended survey questions and subsequent focus groups provided qualitative data on educators’ reported practices, considerations, and suggestions.

2.2.1. Survey Questionnaire

A questionnaire was developed to examine educational professionals’ practices and perspectives on supporting DWD. Its development was informed by a review of literature examining educators’ perceptions and experiences of teaching DWD (e.g., Guardino, 2015; Luckner & Carter, 2001; Musyoka et al., 2017; Scott & Hansen, 2020) and findings from previous studies involving DWD in BC (Kwon et al., 2022, 2023, 2024).

The questionnaire consisted of 59 questions addressing participant demographics, identification and eligibility, educational placement, and language and literacy instruction. The present study focuses on responses to the 26 questions related to language and literacy instruction, along with the four demographic questions. Of the 26 questions, 17 were presented to all participating educators, while the remaining nine were presented to all professional groups except administrators, as these focused specifically on instructional practices. Twenty-two questions were closed-ended, using multiple-choice, ranking, and Likert-scale response formats, while four were open-ended. The open-ended questions asked participants to (a) identify instructional strategies or interventions they had used to support students’ academic skills, (b) describe assessment tools or methods used to evaluate and monitor students’ needs and progress, (c) describe considerations regarding language and literacy instruction for DWD and (d) offer suggestions for supporting DWD’s language and literacy development. Skip logic was used to present subsequent questions based on participants’ responses. The questionnaire was administered using Qualtrics and was designed to take approximately 20–25 min to complete.

Prior to data collection, the questionnaire was piloted with seven recently retired educators with experience working with DWD: two TDHHs, three administrators, one classroom teacher, and one district psychologist. Pilot participants completed the questionnaire and provided feedback on its content and format. Based on their feedback, the questionnaire was refined to improve clarity and relevance.

2.2.2. Focus Groups

Semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted following the survey to explore participants’ considerations and suggestions regarding language and literacy instruction for DWD in greater depth. Six guiding questions were developed for the focus groups, addressing identification and eligibility, educational placement, and instruction. The present study draws on responses to two questions: (a) “What considerations do you have regarding language and literacy instruction for DWD?” and (b) “What suggestions do you have for supporting DWD’s language and literacy instruction development?” These questions were designed to encourage discussion of participants’ professional experiences, concerns, and suggestions, including concrete examples. Each session lasted approximately 60 min and was conducted via Zoom.

2.3. Data Analysis

Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to address the three research questions. Closed-ended survey responses provided descriptive quantitative data on current practices, while responses to two open-ended survey questions provided additional descriptions of instructional strategies and assessment practices. Responses to the other two open-ended questions and focus-group data informed the thematic analysis of educators’ considerations and suggestions. The quantitative and qualitative findings were then brought together during interpretation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of language and literacy instruction for DWD.

2.3.1. Quantitative Data Analysis

Responses to the 22 closed-ended survey questions were summarized to describe current educational practices related to language and literacy instruction for DWD. Frequencies and percentages were generated using Qualtrics, with percentages calculated based on the number of respondents to each item. For ranking questions, respondents ranked factors from most to least important, and Qualtrics-generated weighted scores were used to identify the highest-ranked factors.

2.3.2. Qualitative Data Analysis

Responses to the two open-ended survey questions about instructional strategies and assessment practices were summarized to describe educators’ reported practices. Responses to the other two open-ended survey questions, which addressed educators’ considerations and suggestions, were analyzed together with focus-group data using semantic thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2023). The analysis focused on identifying recurring patterns in participants’ explicit accounts of considerations and suggestions regarding language and literacy instruction for DWD.

Three researchers with professional and research experience in deaf education participated in the qualitative analysis. All had worked as TDHHs for 9–18 years; two had worked in BC schools throughout their TDHH careers, while the second author had worked in the United States. Their professional and research experience provided relevant contextual knowledge but may also have influenced their interpretations. The researchers therefore collaboratively reviewed the analysis and repeatedly returned to the original data to ensure that interpretations remained grounded in participants’ accounts.

The first author, who designed the study, collected the data, and facilitated the focus groups, began the familiarization process by reviewing qualitative data from the two open-ended survey questions and focus groups concerning educators’ considerations and suggestions. After anonymizing the data and assigning participant identifiers, the first author shared the qualitative data with the other two researchers. Each researcher independently reviewed and coded the data, developing codes inductively from participants’ explicit accounts. Related codes were then examined to identify recurring patterns and develop preliminary themes related to participants’ considerations and suggestions. The three researchers then met to compare their analyses and collaboratively refine the themes. Differences in coding and interpretation were resolved through discussion, consensus, and re-examination of the original data. Themes were iteratively reviewed to ensure that they represented patterns across participants’ accounts, and only themes agreed upon by all three researchers were included in the findings.

The theoretical frameworks were not used to guide coding. Rather, the tri-focus framework informed the interpretation of the findings by providing an applied lens for examining learner, communication partner, and environmental considerations, while sociocultural theory and social interactionist perspectives informed the broader interpretation of language and literacy learning as socially mediated and interactional.

3. Results

Results are organized into three sections aligned with the research questions: (a) current practices in language and literacy instruction for DWD, based on closed-ended responses and two open-ended survey questions; (b) educators’ considerations regarding language and literacy instruction for DWD, based on an open-ended survey question and focus-group data; and (c) educators’ suggestions for supporting DWD’s language and literacy development, also based on an open-ended survey question and focus-group data. The considerations and suggestions sections present themes identified through qualitative analysis.

3.1. Current Practices in Language and Literacy Instruction for DWD

Current practices in language and literacy instruction reported in the survey include the following: (a) professional supports for language and literacy development, (b) educators’ perspective on meeting DWD’s needs, (c) frequently implemented instructional strategies, (d) challenges in implementing strategies, (e) assessment and progress monitoring, (f) collaboration, and (g) educator preparedness and available resources. Each will be presented with data from survey responses below.

3.1.1. Professional Supports for Language and Literacy Development

Participants reported that the nature and extent of direct teaching services provided by TDHHs varied across school districts and by students’ designation status (see Table 3). Approximately 62% of participating TDHHs indicated that they regularly provided direct teaching services to all students under the DHH designation in the special education funding model utilized by BC, regardless of whether it was assigned as a primary or secondary designation. In contrast, 22% reported providing direct services to any DHH student whose hearing differences substantially affected educational functioning, irrespective of designation status. Another 16% indicated that their direct teaching services were primarily limited to students with a primary DHH designation, while DWD generally received consultation services provided to members of their educational teams.

Table 3. Reported Provision of Direct Teaching Services by TDHHs.

Students Receiving Direct Services	Responses from TDHHs		Responses from Administrators
	n	%	n	%
Students with primary DHH designation	8	16	0	0
Students with DHH designation	31	62	3	37.5
Students with hearing loss	11	22	5	62.5

Responses from administrators differed somewhat from those of TDHHs. Approximately 63% reported that TDHH’s direct teaching services were available to all DHH students whose hearing differences affected educational functioning regardless of designation status, whereas the remaining administrators indicated that direct TDHH teaching services were provided to students with the DHH designation, whether primary or secondary. None reported that direct TDHH services were limited to students with a primary DHH designation.

Regarding the availability of other professionals supporting DWD, among the 91 respondents to this question, school-based special education teachers (89.0%) and speech–language pathologists (87.9%) were the most commonly available, followed by occupational therapists (62.6%), psychologists (54.9%), and physiotherapists (40.7%). Approximately one-third of respondents reported that ASL specialists or interpreters (36.3%) and multicultural workers or spoken-language interpreters (31.9%) were available in their district or schools, while approximately one-quarter reported the availability of behavior analysts (27.5%) and autism specialists or consultants (25.3%).

Overall, nearly two-thirds of respondents (63.8%) disagreed that there were sufficient professionals available in their district or school to support DWD, compared with 26.6% who agreed; 9.6% neither agreed nor disagreed (n = 94).

3.1.2. Educators’ Perspective on Meeting DWD’s Needs

The data in Table 4 present educators’ perceptions of whether DWD’s needs were being met in current educational settings across language and communication, social, and academic (mainly literacy) domains. Across each domain, similar factors were ranked as important contributors to successful outcomes and unmet student needs when absent, highlighting consistency in educators’ perceptions regarding the conditions necessary for student success.

Table 4. Educators’ Perspective on Meeting DWD’s Needs.

Questions	Respondents (n)	Percentage (%)
Needs being met in language and communication development	98
Strongly disagree	19	19.4
Somewhat disagree	33	33.7
Neither agree nor disagree	12	12.2
Somewhat agree	27	27.6
Strongly agree	7	7.1
Factors for language and communication development *	32
Full language access		20.2
Sufficient professional services from the district		18.5
Efficient collaboration between team members		15.6
Sufficient opportunities for engagement with peers		14.5
Well-written and implemented IEP		13.7
Strong connection between home and school		13.5
Others		3.9
Factors against language and communication development *	50
Insufficient professional services		20.8
Lack of language access		18.9
Inefficient collaboration between professionals		15.1
Insufficient opportunities for engagement with peers		14.6
Lack of connection between home and school		13.3
Poorly written and implemented IEP		11.8
Others		5.6
Needs being met in social skills development	97	100
Strongly disagree	16	16.5
Somewhat disagree	29	29.9
Neither agree nor disagree	17	17.5
Somewhat agree	29	29.9
Strongly agree	6	6.2
Factors for social skills development *	32
Sufficient opportunities for engagement with peers		19.9
Full language access overall		19.0
Sufficient professional services and school-wide support for social inclusion		16.3
Efficient collaboration with classroom teachers and EA		15.5
Strategies for social skills in the IEP well implemented		14.9
Strong connection between home and school		10.9
Others		3.6
Factors against social skills development *	45
Insufficient professional services and school-wide support for social inclusion		20.8
Lack of language access overall		18.0
Insufficient opportunities for engagement with peers		16.3
Strategies for social skills in the IEP not implemented		14.4
Insufficient collaboration between IEP team members		13.5
Lack of home support and/or connection with parents		12.1
Others		4.9
Needs being met in academic skills development	97
Strongly disagree	15	15.5
Somewhat disagree	23	23.7
Neither agree nor disagree	25	25.8
Somewhat agree	25	25.8
Strongly agree	9	9.3
Factors for academic skills development *	31
Full language access		20.6
Sufficient professional services from district and school		18.1
Well-written and implemented IEP		15.0
Skilled EAs		14.9
Efficient collaboration among the IEP team members		13.1
Strong academic support from home		10.8
Others		5.1
Factors against academic skills development *	36
Insufficient professional services from district/school		18.7
Lack of language access		18.0
Difficult to find a skilled EA		17.9
Strategies for academic skills not implemented		14.5
Insufficient collaboration between team members		13.7
Lack of home support and/or connection with parents		11.7
Others		5.7

Note. * Respondents ranked the factors from most to least important using a drag-and-drop format. The percentages shown for these items are weighted ranking percentages reflecting the relative importance assigned to each factor.

For language and communication development, respondents identified full language access, sufficient professional services, and efficient collaboration among team members as the most important factors for success. For social skills development, opportunities for peer engagement, language access, and school-wide support for social inclusion were emphasized, whereas sufficient professional services, language access, and skilled educational assistants were identified as key contributors to literacy and academic development. Across all three domains, educators identified insufficient professional services as the most important factor contributing to DWD’s unmet needs. Approximately 35% of educators reported that DWD’s needs were being adequately met in their current educational settings, indicating that the majority did not report that these needs were adequately met.

3.1.3. Frequently Implemented Instructional Strategies

Educators reported using a range of strategies to support DWD’s development of language and communication, social–behavioral, and academic skills. As shown in Table 5, visual supports, labeling with words or signs, and AAC devices were among the most frequently reported strategies for language and communication development, while social stories and peer modeling were most frequently reported for social–behavioral skill development. Given the broad range of possible academic and literacy strategies, educators other than administrators were asked to describe the strategies they used through an open-ended response rather than select from predetermined options. Across 56 responses, commonly reported strategies for developing academic skills included direct instruction, one-on-one educational assistant support and training, assistive technologies, and peer coaching. Other recurring responses included experiential learning opportunities, adapted instructional materials, and predictable instructional routines. Environmental modifications (e.g., seating arrangements, classroom acoustics) and curricular modifications were not identified among the strategies reported for language and communication, social–behavioral, or academic skills development.

Table 5. Instructional Strategies Frequently Implemented by Professionals.

Questions	Responses (n)	Percentage of Respondents (%)
Strategies for language and communication development *	83
Use of visual supports	78	94.0
Labeling with words/signs	63	75.9
Augmentative and alternative communication devices	53	63.9
Language experience activities	49	59.0
Peer modeling	49	59.0
Picture exchange communication system	44	53.0
Naturalistic teaching strategies	32	38.6
Video modeling	29	34.9
Repeated viewing of a text in ASL	21	25.3
Functional communication training	15	18.1
Environmental modifications	0	0
Curricular modifications	0	0
Others	4	4.8
Strategies used for social–behavioral skills *	79
Social stories	61	77.2
Peer modeling	53	67.1
Positive behavioral support	39	49.4
Coaching	38	48.1
Video modeling	24	30.4
Functional communication training	12	15.1
Milieu communication training	1	1.3
Small group interventions	0	0
Use of visual supports	0	0
Environmental modifications	0	0
Curricular modifications	0	0
Others (e.g., social games, adult mentoring)	6	7.6

Note. * Participants could select multiple responses. Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of respondents who selected each option by the total number of respondents to the corresponding question; therefore, percentages do not sum to 100%.

3.1.4. Challenges in Implementing Strategies

Among 90 respondents, the highest-ranked challenges to implementing instructional strategies and interventions for DWD were limited access to professional consultation, lack of appropriate assessment and evaluation tools, and insufficient instructional resources and teaching materials. Among the 64 respondents who ranked challenges related to communication and connections with families, the highest-ranked factors were language barriers, differing expectations regarding students’ progress, and cultural differences in parenting and relationships with professionals.

3.1.5. Assessment and Progress Monitoring

A total of 62 educators from professional groups other than administrators responded to an open-ended survey question about the methods they used to assess and monitor students’ language and literacy skills. Assessment practices primarily involved informal and collaborative approaches, including language samples, work samples, classroom observations, anecdotal notes, and team discussions. Participants indicated that assessment information was often gathered by multiple professionals, such as school psychologists, learning support teachers, speech–language pathologists, and TDHHs. They also reported adapting standardized assessments to reflect students’ communication and learning characteristics and using teacher-developed tools, including rubrics, checklists, and communication matrices. Student progress was generally reported to be monitored in relation to individualized education plan (IEP) goals and reviewed collaboratively by educational teams over time.

3.1.6. Collaboration

Among 94 respondents, 52.1% perceived collaboration among educational team members and/or outside professionals as somewhat or mostly efficient, while 43.6% considered it somewhat or mostly inefficient and 4.3% reported little or no collaboration. The highest-ranked factors facilitating collaboration were efficient communication among professionals, strong leadership from case managers or educational consultants, and sufficient time for collaboration. Conversely, insufficient time for collaboration, differing perspectives regarding students’ needs among the team, and limited understanding of students’ progress were the highest-ranked barriers to collaboration.

3.1.7. Educator Preparedness and Access to Instructional Resources

Educators reported varying levels of preparedness for supporting DWD (see Table 6). Among 94 respondents, approximately half perceived themselves as prepared to develop educational programming to provide appropriate language and literacy instruction. Although nearly two-thirds of respondents reported having adequate knowledge and skills to meet students’ needs, only about one-third perceived that they had sufficient instructional resources.

Table 6. Educator Preparedness and Access to Instructional Resources.

Questions	Responses (n)	Percentage of Respondents (%)
Development of educational programming	94
Strongly disagree	6	6.4
Somewhat disagree	24	25.5
Neither agree nor disagree	18	19.2
Somewhat agree	36	38.3
Strongly agree	10	10.6
Knowledge and skills to meet students’ needs *	84
Strongly agree	13	15.5
Somewhat agree	42	50.0
Neither agree nor disagree	10	11.9
Somewhat disagree	13	15.5
Strongly disagree	6	7.1
Resources to provide appropriate instruction *	84
Strongly agree	8	9.5
Somewhat agree	21	25
Neither agree nor disagree	18	21.4
Somewhat disagree	28	33.3
Strongly disagree	9	10.7

Note. * For these items, the display order of the Likert response options was inadvertently reversed relative to the other items on the survey questionnaire. Participants’ selected response labels were recorded correctly and analyzed as selected.

In addition, 74 respondents ranked their sources of resources and consultation. Colleagues within their districts and online resources were ranked highest, followed by colleagues or professionals outside their districts and materials from previous professional learning experiences.

3.2. Educators’ Considerations Regarding Language and Literacy Instructions for DWD

Through the analysis of responses to the open-ended survey question and focus-group data, three themes were identified regarding considerations and concerns about language and literacy instruction for DWD: (a) limited understanding of language development and communication access, (b) shortages of trained professionals and professional learning opportunities, and (c) insufficient collaboration and consultation.

3.2.1. Limited Understanding of Language Development and Communication Access

Participants expressed concerns that some educational professionals lacked sufficient understanding of language acquisition, language deprivation, and communication access for DWD. Several respondents indicated that misunderstandings regarding the language development of DWD could influence instructional decision-making and contribute to differing perspectives among team members. One TDHH commented that: “School staff will turn to interventions such as augmentative communication devices as a primary need over sign language, particularly in kids with additional disabilities… AAC is a communication tool, it’s not a language. If we have a language, then we know how to use the tool, but they don’t understand that.” (TD54).

An administrator similarly emphasized that AAC does not replace the need for access to a natural language, stating: “They need access to the language. It’s just like the kid with AAC has English. If hearing kids can hear English, why do they need AAC if they have English? It’s the same thing for me. If a [Deaf] child needs AAC, it’s not because they don’t need ASL. They need both.” (AM12). Participants also noted that educators directly supporting DWD may not always have adequate preparation to understand diverse language and communication profiles or effectively support language development.

3.2.2. Shortages of Trained Professionals and Professional Learning Opportunities

Participants from multiple professional roles expressed concerns regarding shortages of trained professionals and the limited availability of personnel with specialized expertise to support DWD. Educators also described feeling underprepared to address students’ complex communication and learning needs. One TDHH explained, “My concern about identifying service needs comes from my relative inexperience as a TDHH… needs can be complex and multifaceted or ill-defined due to communication problems associated with hearing loss” (TD55). Participants also noted challenges in recruiting and retaining educators with relevant expertise. As one special education teacher described, “We strive for inclusion, but that classroom [for DWD] had new teachers every year. Teachers come in, and they’re completely stressed out, feeling so unprepared to be in a classroom with students with such high needs, and then they leave after that year” (SP19).

Concerns were raised specifically regarding the preparation of school-based special education teachers, who often assume case management responsibilities, and educational assistants who provide much of the students’ day-to-day support. A special education teacher stated, “Our skill set and experience with those needs is quite low; We’re not as familiar with DHH kids. There’s little time for the teacher to successfully and consistently implement, monitor, evaluate and adjust strategies [for DWD] while doing the same for all the other students and needs in the class.” (SP16). One TDHH shared, “I see too often students not having the direct, effective instruction they need to develop communication skills because the staff [EA or teachers] working with them isn’t trained effectively to include their needs” (TD52).

Participants also reported a shortage of qualified educational assistants and frequent changes in support staff. A classroom teacher noted, “we do not have enough qualified Education Assistants to even take any specialized training to support my DHH student” (CL04), while another TDHH stated, “a lot of support staff are not adequately trained. I find that when I train people, especially the support staff, they get moved around frequently” (TD22). Several educators also perceived staffing decisions and EA allocation as being influenced by budgetary constraints rather than students’ individualized needs.

Participants described large caseloads as limiting opportunities for direct services, particularly for DWD. As one TDHH explained, “The biggest issue I see is a lack of staffing and over-the-top caseload numbers for the TDHH’s. We can’t see all of our students regularly as it is and the students with additional needs can lose out” (TD22). Educators also reported difficulty accessing personnel with specialized language and communication expertise, including educational assistants proficient in sign language, ASL interpreters, and deafblind interveners. Emphasizing language access for DWD, one administrator stated, “For example, when it comes to a deaf-blind child, my thing was, ‘Do they have access to that visual language? How are we going to provide that access?’” (AM12). These concerns were particularly noted by participants working in suburban and rural communities. Participants further reported a lack of qualified replacements when specialized personnel were absent, temporarily limiting students’ access to communication and instruction. In addition, educators described difficulties accessing specialists such as speech–language pathologists, autism specialists, and educational psychologists, particularly in rural communities where specialized personnel were described as difficult to recruit and retain.

Participants also reported limited professional development opportunities to expand their knowledge and acquire specialized skills for supporting DWD. As one special education teacher emphasized, “Teachers need training when it comes to having d/Dhh students in their classes as well as the other diverse needs in their classes. There is virtually NO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT for teachers when it comes to inclusion and support needs” (SP21). Collectively, these accounts reflected participants’ concerns about shortage and preparation of specialized personnel, as well as limited opportunities for professional learning, which they perceived as affecting their capacity to support DWD.

3.2.3. Insufficient Collaboration and Consultation

Another concern raised by participants was insufficient collaboration among educational team members, which was consistent with the quantitative findings. Participants emphasized that collaboration is particularly important for DWD, noting that no single professional may possess all of the knowledge and skills needed to meet their diverse needs. Multiple barriers to effective collaboration were identified, including itinerant service delivery models, large caseloads, and limited time for communication, joint planning, and collaboration with families. One participant explained that “itinerant TDHHs may miss day-to-day conversations and plans for students and may not get adequate space at the table to weigh in on their concerns, ideas, and specialized knowledge to support students” (TD52). Finding opportunities for educational teams and families to meet regularly was often challenging. As one special education teacher shared, “It would have been nice to have more time with the hearing resource teacher to collaborate. I think that’s what we’re really missing to complete the student’s program” (SP10). Participants perceived that limited collaboration affected the consistent implementation, monitoring, and adjustment of interventions. Respondents also reported difficulties coordinating with families, particularly when families faced linguistic or cultural barriers or had limited opportunities to engage with school personnel.

3.3. Educators’ Suggestions for Supporting DWD’s Language and Literacy Development

Analysis of responses to the open-ended survey question and the focus-group data identified three themes regarding educators’ suggestions for supporting DWD’s language and literacy development: (a) adopting a student-centered approach, (b) building communication partners’ capacity for language and literacy instruction, and (c) strengthening collaborative practices.

3.3.1. Adopting a Student-Centered Approach

Participants emphasized the importance of recognizing DWD as unique learners with diverse strengths, communication profiles, interests, and learning pathways. One TDHH remarked that “students with hearing loss and other disabilities are unique” and educators need “to do a lot of observation and recording and spend time in varied settings/situations in order to understand their needs and abilities, and how to help them grow” (TD55). Respondents advocated maintaining high expectations and ensuring equitable access to language, communication, and literacy opportunities. As one participant noted, educators should “always have the expectation that all students can learn” (TD11), while another emphasized the need to “have higher expectations for students, value the importance of varying forms of communication, and get the training or access [for the students] to be able to communicate independently where possible by graduation” (TD52). Participants further recommended (a) adapting instructional activities to students’ interests, (b) supporting self-advocacy skills, and (c) promoting meaningful peer interactions and social participation.

3.3.2. Building Communication Partners’ Capacity

Educators consistently recommended increasing the availability of trained professionals and supporting staff to provide manageable caseloads and adequate language and literacy supports. One participant simply stated, “Reduce caseload size!” (TD36), while another emphasized the need for “more staffing to lessen the LARGE caseloads and better support students” (TD57). Participants specifically highlighted the importance of recruiting and retaining personnel with expertise in deaf education, ASL, deafblindness, AAC, and language intervention. Participants also recommended targeted ministry funding and district-level incentives to recruit and train specialized personnel, including TDHHs, educational assistants with signing skills, ASL interpreters, and intervenors for deafblind students.

Participants also emphasized the importance of increasing understanding of language development, communication access, and the diverse learning characteristics of DWD among individuals within their educational environments. As one district specialist summarized, “I believe it starts with the education of everybody in the environment” (DS06). Respondents highlighted the need to educate school service providers, peers, families, and professionals involved in assessment and diagnosis. Participants also emphasized the importance of fostering supportive peer relationships, noting that DWD “want friends and fun, and to belong, but maybe they don’t know how” (TD30). One administrator further stressed that professionals involved in assessment and diagnosis need “education to understand that these kids have very specific needs as learners and that their language needs are quite varied” (AM10). Participants additionally recommended empowering families by providing information, resources, and guidance to help them advocate for their children’s communication, language, and literacy development.

In addition, respondents highlighted the need for expanded professional learning opportunities related to language acquisition, communication access, deaf education, ASL, and instructional strategies to support DWD’s language and literacy development. Suggestions included regular in-service training, online learning opportunities, and incentives for educators and supporting staff to pursue specialized training. One educator emphasized the need for “more training for teachers to understand different needs and support options” and highlighted the importance of “proactive rather than reactive support” (SP21). Another participant stressed the importance of training school personnel, noting that “if you don’t train the EAs or the teachers, then at the end of the year, the student will still be the same, he or she doesn’t progress anyway.” (DS06).

3.3.3. Strengthening Collaborative Practices

Efficient collaboration was regarded by respondents as a must-do solution for implementing language and literacy interventions for DWD. Participants recommended multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary team approaches involving classroom teachers, special education teachers, TDHHs, specialists, EAs, families, and community agencies to promote a shared understanding of students’ communication, language, and learning needs and to ensure consistency in instructional planning and communication supports. Participants emphasized the importance of consulting with the professionals who have expertise in students’ co-occurring disabilities to better understand how these characteristics may influence language and communication development.

Collaboration among TDHHs, classroom teachers, and school-based special education teachers was frequently recommended to facilitate co-planning of instructional strategies, accommodations, and language supports for language development. Participants also highlighted the critical role of TDHHs within the educational teams. As one special education teacher explained, “I rely heavily on the Teacher of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as the ‘expert’ in this field” (SP05). To support meaningful collaboration, respondents strongly recommended allocating dedicated time for regular consultation and joint planning, with administrative support to facilitate these opportunities.

4. Discussion

4.1. Beyond Learner-Directed Instruction: A Tri-Focus Approach to Language and Literacy

Participants in the current study emphasized the importance of individualized language and literacy instruction that responds to each learner’s strengths, interests, language and communication profiles, and support needs. Although participants described a wide range of instructional strategies, these strategies focused primarily on improving individual students’ language and literacy skills through direct instruction. A similar pattern was reported by Kwon et al. (2024) in their case study of a deaf child with autism spectrum disorder, while the present findings identified this pattern in reports from a larger group of educational professionals who work with DWD. In both studies, reported instructional strategies predominantly focused on developing learners’ language and literacy skills through direct instruction, while educators’ concerns and suggestions extended beyond the learner to the capacity of communication partners and conditions within educational environments. This pattern suggests that educators recognized the role of communication partners and educational environments in supporting DWD’s language and literacy development, despite these areas receiving comparatively less attention in their reported instructional practices.

Viewed through the tri-focus framework (Siegel-Causey & Bashinski, 1997; Bruce & Bashinski, 2017), this gap between educators’ reported instructional practices and their broader concerns and suggestions points toward extending language and literacy instruction for DWD beyond learner-directed intervention to address communication partners’ capacity and environmental accessibility. Drawing on the present findings and previous literature, three interconnected considerations emerge for practice: (a) enhancing students’ active involvement in learning, (b) strengthening the knowledge and skills of communication partners, and (c) reducing barriers within the learning environment.

First, participants highlighted the importance of learners being actively involved in their own learning. Opportunities for self-assessment, self-reflection, self-advocacy, and making choices about their communication and learning may promote greater learner involvement. Such practices align with research demonstrating that self-determination can promote learner engagement, participation, and educational outcomes (Burke et al., 2020; Wehmeyer, 2019; Wehmeyer & Zhao, 2020).

Second, participants consistently emphasized the importance of knowledgeable and skilled communication partners, including teachers, educational assistants, peers, families, and professionals involved in assessment and diagnosis. Strengthening the capacity of communication partners may therefore be an important component of language and literacy instruction for DWD. Research involving learners with complex communication needs has demonstrated benefits of communication partner instruction and family-centred intervention. (Kent-Walsh et al., 2015; Moeller et al., 2013; Shire & Jones, 2015). Similarly, research reviewed by Bruce and Bashinski (2017) indicates that communication partner training can improve partner responsiveness and increase communication opportunities, while Parker and Ivy’s (2014) synthesis of interventions involving children and youth with low vision and deafblindness identifies communication partner training as a major intervention focus. However, relatively little research has examined how communication partners can effectively support the language and literacy development of DWD, highlighting an important direction for future research.

Finally, extending instruction beyond the learner also requires attention to environmental barriers that may limit access to language, communication, and literacy experiences. Environmental modifications were rarely reported as instructional strategies in the current study. This finding should be interpreted cautiously, as participants may not have conceptualized environmental modifications as instructional strategies, and the present data cannot distinguish between limited implementation and differences in how such supports were conceptualized or reported. Nevertheless, the limited reporting is noteworthy given the potential importance of environmental accessibility in shaping opportunities to access communication, instructional materials, interactions, and participation. Environmental modifications, such as improving visual and auditory access and arranging classroom spaces, can facilitate communication and engagement for DHH learners (Guardino & Antia, 2012). More broadly, the tri-focus framework emphasizes attending to physical and social environmental factors that influence communication opportunities and participation (Bruce & Bashinski, 2017). An integrative review of interventions for children with deafblindness also identifies adaptation of the educational environment as a prominent intervention area (Sundqvist et al., 2023). Thus, the present findings raise an important question about the extent to which environmental accessibility is explicitly considered an integral component of language and literacy instruction.

Taken together, the findings suggest that language and literacy instruction for DWD may need to extend beyond learner-directed intervention to address three interconnected dimensions: learner participation, communication partners’ capacity, and accessibility within learning environments.

4.2. Building Professional Capacity for Language and Literacy Instruction

A second implication of the current study is the need to strengthen the capacity of educational professionals, as key communication partners, to support the language and literacy development of DWD. Across all three domains – language and communication, social skills, and academic skills development – educators ranked insufficient professional services as the most important factor contributing to DWD’s unmet needs. Related concerns included (a) limited preparation, (b) shortages of personnel with specialized expertise, and (c) scarce professional learning opportunities. These findings suggest that implementing effective language and literacy instruction depends not only on educators’ knowledge and skills but also on system-level capacity to support ongoing learning and collaboration.

Respondents particularly emphasized the need for continuous, targeted professional learning related to language development, communication access, deaf education, ASL, AAC, and instructional strategies for DWD. Similar needs have been reported in previous studies, in which educators identified professional preparation as a critical factor influencing confidence and instructional decision-making when supporting DWD (Guardino, 2015; Musyoka et al., 2017; Scott & Hansen, 2020). More broadly, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) argued that without coherent and sustained professional preparation, efforts to provide quality education for learners with disabilities are difficult to achieve.

Professional learning opportunities may benefit if they also reflect the collaborative nature of educating DWD. Participants recommended learning opportunities that bring together educators, specialists, and related professionals to develop shared knowledge of language development, communication access, and evidence-based instructional practices. Partnerships among ministries of education, universities, provincial outreach programs, and school districts may provide sustainable avenues for developing such opportunities. Previous initiatives, including province- or state-wide webinars, interactive workshops, and university–school partnerships, demonstrate promising models for expanding educators’ knowledge while fostering collaboration across professional disciplines (Bruce et al., 2008; Guardino & Cannon, 2022).

Increasing professional learning opportunities alone, however, is unlikely to be sufficient. Respondents repeatedly emphasized that meaningful implementation also requires adequate staffing, manageable caseloads, and protected time for collaboration. Thus, strengthening professional capacity should be viewed as a systemic effort that combines professional learning with organizational supports that enable educators to translate knowledge into effective language and literacy instruction for DWD.

4.3. Advancing Collaborative Approaches to Language and Literacy Instruction

A third implication of the present findings is the importance of strengthening collaborative practices to support DWD. Although respondents consistently identified collaboration as essential for implementing instructional strategies, they also described considerable challenges in achieving meaningful collaboration related to itinerant service delivery models, large caseloads, limited time, and insufficient opportunities for joint planning. These findings suggest that collaboration should be viewed not simply as communication among professionals but as a shared process of planning, implementing, and evaluating language and literacy instruction that incorporates learners’ perspectives and participation.

This interpretation is consistent with previous literature emphasizing interprofessional collaboration as a key component of educational programming for learners with complex communication and support needs (Bruce & Bashinski, 2017; Erickson, 2017; Nelson & Bruce, 2019). Rather than working independently within professional roles, effective educational teams draw upon complementary expertise to develop shared understandings of learners’ communication profiles, instructional priorities, and support needs (Feiler & Watson, 2010; Horn & Kang, 2012; Ogletree, 2017). For DWD, such collaboration may be particularly relevant given the multiple areas of expertise that may be involved, including deaf education, co-occurring disabilities, language development, AAC, and literacy instruction.

Respondents also highlighted the need for more collaborative instructional models. Participants envisioned TDHHs as active members of inclusive classroom teams rather than primarily as itinerant consultants. Building on these suggestions, co-teaching between TDHHs and classroom teachers may provide one avenue for integrating specialized expertise into everyday classroom instruction while increasing opportunities for communication, participation, and language learning for DWD (Luckner, 1999). Previous research further suggests that successful co-teaching requires protected planning time, strong professional relationships, and administrative support (Ploessl et al., 2010; Scruggs et al., 2007; Solis et al., 2012).

Participants also identified language barriers, cultural and linguistic differences, and differing expectations as challenges to home–school collaboration. These findings, considered alongside existing literature, point to the importance of culturally and linguistically responsive partnerships with families. Families of DWD may require coordinated support in navigating communication options, educational services, and intervention decisions, particularly when deafness co-occurs with a disability(ies) or families come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Gray & Courson, 2022; Kwon et al., 2022). Previous research suggests that qualified interpretation, accessible information, and opportunities to learn and implement communication strategies at home can strengthen family participation in educational decision-making and promote continuity of language and literacy supports across home and school (Bowen & Baker, 2022; Kwon et al., 2022). Parents may also benefit from connections with Deaf mentors, experienced families, and community networks that provide guidance, advocacy, and shared experiences throughout their educational journey (Gray & Courson, 2022).

Finally, respondents recommended collaboration beyond individual school teams. Partnerships among schools, provincial outreach programs, universities, and community organizations may provide additional expertise, consultation, and professional learning opportunities that may not be available within individual districts. Such cross-sector collaboration may be particularly valuable for supporting DWD, whose language and literacy development frequently requires expertise spanning multiple disciplines and service systems.

4.4. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, participants were recruited through purposive sampling using professional organizations, school districts, and social media. Because participation was voluntary, potential self-selection bias should be considered, as those who chose to participate may have differed from eligible professionals who did not participate. Consequently, the findings may not represent the perspectives of all educational professionals working with DWD in BC, and participation may have varied across school districts. Second, the survey did not collect participants’ hearing status; therefore, the hearing status of survey respondents is unknown. No DHH educators participated in the focus groups. Because open-ended survey responses and focus group data were analyzed collectively, the extent to which DHH educators’ perspectives are represented in the qualitative findings cannot be determined. Thirdly, the display order of the response options for the two preparedness items was inadvertently reversed relative to the other Likert-scale items. Although response labels were recorded correctly and did not require recoding, the inconsistent presentation may have influenced how participants interpreted or responded to these items. Finally, because DWD are highly heterogeneous and this study was conducted within the educational context of BC, the findings should be interpreted with caution when applied to different learner populations or educational systems.

4.5. Future Directions

Future research could replicate and expand the present study across Canada to explore practices and concerns related to language and literacy education for DWD across different provincial and territorial contexts. Such research could provide a broader understanding of educational practices and considerations for DWD beyond the BC Context.

Second, future research is needed to strengthen the evidence base for supporting the language and literacy development of DWD. There is a need to develop, implement, and evaluate evidence-based instructional strategies and interventions specifically designed for this population, as relatively little research has examined practices or intervention outcomes for DWD. Relatedly, future research could also examine educators’ understanding of language acquisition, language deprivation, and language access among DWD, including how this knowledge influences instructional decision-making and classroom practices.

Third, future studies should also explore the perspectives of DWD themselves, as well as additional stakeholders involved in the education of DWD who were not represented in the current study. Where accessible research approaches can facilitate participation, DWD may provide important insights into their communication and literacy experiences, preferences for support, and involvement in educational decision-making. Parents and caregivers could provide valuable insights into communication access, educational decision-making, continuity of learning across home and school, and the supports and resources needed to facilitate their children’s language and literacy development. The perspectives of educational assistants, who often provide direct day-to-day support, also warrant greater attention. Including multiple stakeholder perspectives may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of effective educational practices for DWD.

5. Conclusions

This study provides one of the first province-wide examinations of educational professionals’ perspectives on language and literacy instruction for DWD in Canada. By integrating survey and focus group findings, the study offers new insights into current instructional practices, educators’ considerations, and recommendations for supporting this diverse population in the BC context. Overall, the findings suggest that implementing language and literacy instruction for DWD requires more than individualized, learner-directed intervention. Strengths-based, student-centred approaches should also strengthen learner participation, build the capacity of communication partners, and create accessible learning environments. Achieving this broader approach will require ongoing professional learning, effective interprofessional collaboration, and organizational supports that promote equitable language and communication access and support DWD’s full participation in language and literacy learning.