Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

Living Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Assisting People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Through Technology

  • Michael StinsonEmail author
  • Magda Nikolaraizi
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_143-1



Technologies assist individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) with access to spoken information in classrooms, at work, and in primarily social situations; technologies also help individuals who are DHH share information with hearing individuals. These technologies make it possible for individuals who are DHH to participate effectively in activities, when it would not otherwise be possible, such as by providing captions so that individuals who are DHH can follow television programs. Some of these technologies provide information visually, and others enhance auditory information (Gallaudet 2014). Technologies that assist individuals who are DHH may have a feature, such as captions, which is specially designed for them, or may be intended for a wide range of individuals and also meet the needs of individuals who are DHH in...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Ambrose S, VanDam M, Moeller M (2014) Linguistic input, electronic media, and communication outcomes of toddlers with hearing loss. Ear and hear 35(2):139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aussie Deaf Kids (2015) Assistive listening devices. Retrieved from http://www.aussiedeafkids.org.au/assistive-listening-devices-2.html
  3. Braverman BB, Hertzog M (1980) The effects of caption rate and language level on comprehension of a captioned video presentation. Am Ann Deaf 125:943–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnham D, Leigh G, Noble W, Jones C, Tyler M, Grebennikov L, Varley A (2008) Parameters in television captioning for deaf and hard-of-hearing adults: effects of caption rate versus text reduction on comprehension. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn003. http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CAT (Center on Access Technology) (2015) Deaf and hard of hearing virtual academic community procedures manual. National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester. https://www.rit.edu/ntid/dhhvac/manualGoogle Scholar
  6. Cawthon S, Leppo R, the pepnet2 Research and Evidence Synthesis Team (2013) Accommodations quality for students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. Am Ann Deaf 158:438–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cienkowski K, Pimentel V (2001) The hearing aid ‘effect’ revisited in young adults. British J Audiol 35:289–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen EG (2002) Cooperative learning and the equitable classroom in a multicultural society. Plenary paper presented at the IASCE conference in Manchester, England. http://www.iasce.net/publications/manchester-keynote.shtml
  9. Compton-Conley C (n.d.) Hearing enhancement technology: The 30.000 foot view. Retrieved from http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/HearingLossAging/2-1%20Compton-Conley%20pdf.pdf
  10. De Raeve L (2015) Classroom adaptations for effective learning by deaf students. In: Knoors H, Marshark M (eds) Educating deaf learners: creating a global evidence base. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 547–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillon H (2012) Hearing aid systems. Thieme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliot LB, Rubin B, DeCaro JJ, Clymer EW, Earp K, Fish MD (2013) Creating a virtual academic community for STEM students. J Appl Res High Educ 5:173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esmonde I (2009) Ideas and identities: supporting equity in cooperative mathematics learning. Rev Educ Res 79:1008–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Federal Communications Commission (2017) Video relay services, Washington, DC. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/video-relay-services
  15. Gallaudet University (2014) Assistive technologies for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Washington, DC. http://www3.gallaudet.edu/clerc-center/info-to-go/assistive-technology/assistive-technologies.htmlGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray T (2008) Trends and challenges in 2008. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs Project Directors Meeting, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray T, Siver-Pacuilla H, Brann A, Overton C, Reynold R (2011) Converging trends in educational and assistive technology. In: Gray T, Silver-Pacuilla H (eds) Breakthrough teaching and learning: how educational and assistive technologies are driving innovation. Springer, New York, pp 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harkins J, Bakke M (2011) Technologies for communication: Status and trends. In Marschark M, Spencer P (eds.) Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education. Vol 1. (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press, New York, pp 425–438Google Scholar
  19. Hinman R, Lupton E, Leeb S, Al-Thaddeus A, Gimore R, Paul D, Peterson N (2003) Using talking lights illuminated-based communication networks to enhance word comprehension by people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Am J Audiol 12:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inglehart F (2002) Speech perception by students with cochlear implants using sound-field systems in classrooms. Am J Audiol 13:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly R, Quagliata A, DeMartino R, Perotti V (2016) 21st century deaf workers: going beyond “just employed” to career growth and entrepreneurship. In: Marschark M, Lampropoulou V, Skordilis E (eds) Diversity in deaf education. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 441–471Google Scholar
  22. Kim J, Kim C (2014) A review of assistive listening device and digital wireless technology for hearing instruments. Korean J Audiol 18:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knoors H, Hermans D (2010) Effective instruction for deaf and hard-of-hearing students: teaching strategies, school settings, and student characteristics. In: Marschark M, Spencer P (eds) The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, vol 2. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 57–71Google Scholar
  24. Kochkin S (2013, March) The importance of captioned telephone service in meeting the needs of people with hearing loss. The Hearing Review. Retrieved from www.hearingreview.com
  25. Lewis MSJ, Jackson DW (2001) Television literacy: comprehension of program content using closed captions for the deaf. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 6:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liss MB, Price D (1981) What, when & why deaf children watch television. Am Ann Deaf 126:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lissaman R, Pomerai SD, Tripconey S (2009) Using live, online tutoring to inspire post 16 students to engage with higher level mathematics. Teach Math Its Appl 28:216–221Google Scholar
  28. Lunetta VN, Hofstein A, Clough MP (2007) Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice. In: Abel S, Lederman G (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 393–441Google Scholar
  29. Marschark M, Leigh G, Sapere P, Burnham D, Convertino C, Stinson M, Knoors H, Vervloed MPJ, Noble W (2006) Benefits of sign language interpreting and text alternatives for deaf students’ classroom learning. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 11:421–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MITRE (2016) Better telecom technology helps an underserved community reach out. MITRE Corporation, MacLean. https://www.mitre.org/publications/project-stories/better-telecom-technology-helps-an-underserved-community-reach-out
  31. National Captioning Institute (1983) Hearing impaired children’s comprehension of closed captioned television programs. Research report 85–3. National Captioning Institute, Falls ChurchGoogle Scholar
  32. National Deaf Children’s Society (2017) How technology can help. NDCS, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Nikolaraizi M, Vekiri I, Easterbrooks S (2013) Investigating deaf students’ use of visual multimedia resources in reading comprehension. Am Ann Deaf 157:458–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Office of Educational Technology (2010) Transforming American education: learning powered by technology. Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Payton G, McLachlan J, Weiss B, Rahman M (2017) Telephony speech-to-text: an adequate analog to internet protocol caption telephone services. MITRE Corporation, MacLeanGoogle Scholar
  36. Pintrich PR, Marx RW, Boyle RA (1993) Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Rev Educ Res 63:167–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Power MR, Power D, Horstmanshof L (2007) Deaf people communicating via SMS, TTY, relay service, and computers in Australia. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 12:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Qi S, Mitchell RE (2012) Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: past, present, and future. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 17:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rekkedal A (2011) Assistive hearing technologies among students with hearing impairment: factors that promote satisfaction. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 17:499–517.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richardson JTE (2009) Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education. Arts Human High Educ 8:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruan S, Wobbrock J, Liou K, Ng A, Landay J (2016) Speech is 3x faster than typing for English and Mandarin text entry on mobile devices. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1608.07323Google Scholar
  42. Schuell T (1996) Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In: Brophy J, Gage N (eds) Handbook of educational psychology. Random House, Chicago, pp 726–764Google Scholar
  43. Steinberg A, Barnett S, Meador H, Wiggins E, Zazove P (2006) Health care system accessibility: experiences and perceptions of deaf people. J Gen Intern Med 21:260–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stinson MS (2010) Current and future technologies in the education of deaf students. In: Marschark M, Spencer P (eds) The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, vol 2. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 93–110Google Scholar
  45. Stinson MS, Kluwin TN (2011) Educational consequences of alternative school placements. In: Marschark M, Spencer P (eds) Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, vol 1, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 47–52Google Scholar
  46. Stinson M, Elliot L, Francis P (2008) The C-print system: using captions to support classroom communication access and learning by deaf and hard of hearing students. In: Schlenker-Schulte C, Weber A (eds) Barrieren überwinden – Teilhabe ist möglich! Neckar-Verlag, Villingen-Schwenningen, pp 102–122Google Scholar
  47. Stinson MS, Elliot LB, Kelly RR, Liu Y (2009) Deaf and hard-of-hearing students’ memory of lectures with speech-to-text and interpreting/note taking services. J Spec Educ 43:52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stinson MS, Elliot LB, Easton D (2014a) Deaf/hard of hearing and other postsecondary learners’ retention of STEM content with tablet computer-based notes. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 19:251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stinson M, Leannah C, MacDonald J, Powers C (2014b, June) Using technology to improve communication in small groups with deaf and hearing students. Paper presented at the Effective Access Technology conference, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  50. Stinson M, Ahmed S, Elliot L, Easton D (2017a) Using automatic speech recognition to facilitate communication between an individual who is hearing and one who is deaf or hard of hearing. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual international conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS17). ACM, New York, pp 407–408.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3134797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stinson MS, Elliot LB, Kelly RR (2017b) Deaf and hard-of-hearing high school and college students’ perceptions of speech-to-text and interpreting/note taking services and motivation. J Dev Phys Disord 29:131–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9534-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Varzhel V, Gadlu K, Ali R, Kabza E (2017) Fire alarm for deaf/hearing impaired people. University of Oslo, OsloGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E, Mills E, Mulder H, Goldbeck F, Marquis F, John A, Hudson M, Peters R, Lianos L (2013) Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients Using a personal digital adaptive radio frequency system. J Am Ac Audiol 24:139–147Google Scholar
  54. Zanin J, Rance G (2016) Functional hearing in the classroom: assistive listening devices for students with hearing impairment in a mainstream school setting. Int J Audiol 55:723–729.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1225991CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA
  2. 2.University of ThessalyThessalyGreece

Section editors and affiliations

  • Vassilis Argyropoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept of Special EducationDepartment of Special Education, University of ThessalyVolosGreece