Supporting Deaf College Students:
Perspectives From Disability Services Professionals (2023–2024)
Authors: Jeffrey Levi Palmer, Tia-Nikki Ivanko, Lore Kinast, Kate Lewandowski, and Carrie Lou Bloom
Currently, more than 200,000 deaf students are enrolled in college (Bloom & Palmer, 2023), and over the past 10 years, more deaf people have obtained a bachelor’s degree than ever before (Garberoglio et al., 2021). Deaf students are racially and ethnically diverse, frequently have additional disabilities, and are often veterans or first-generation college students (Bloom & Palmer, 2023). Additionally, they identify and communicate in myriad ways. Though some students attend postsecondary programs that are designed for deaf students, the vast majority are enrolled at colleges alongside their hearing peers.
Despite efforts to improve accessibility, many deaf students still face significant challenges and barriers during postsecondary education. A previous report provided a comprehensive overview of deaf student experiences and perceptions (Palmer et al., 2023). Overall, students indicated that constantly advocating for accommodations and feeling socially isolated was exhausting. One student shared, “The office of admissions, advising office, and disability services need to work together to make sure deaf/disabled students are moved through the system quickly to ensure accommodations are being arranged in time.”
Whom Completed This Survey?
- Roughly 50% of directors or coordinators of disability services stated that their institution had 10 or fewer deaf students.
- 41.4% represented community colleges, 3.4% represented technical schools, and the remaining 55.2% came from universities and colleges.
- Participants were predominantly white (77.8%), female (86.1%), and heterosexual (70.6%), which may reflect the lack of diversity in disability services, as noted in the literature (Scott & Marchetti, 2021).
- A majority of respondents (62.9%) identified as having a disability. More than 17% of respondents were deaf, and 20% identified as having a learning disability. The remaining disabilities included visual, mobility, mental health, medical conditions, and others not listed in the survey.
- Respondents’ ages ranged from 25 to 64, and 52.8% had earned a master’s degree or higher.
Access is More Than Accommodations
Though disability services professionals are not solely responsible for creating a welcoming campus climate or implementing campus-wide policies and practices, they often play an important role in facilitating access for deaf and disabled students. Their perspectives can enrich the understanding of barriers on campus that deaf students may experience and help identify areas of needed improvement.
Accommodations
Assistive Listening Systems
With the advent of cochlear implants and the popularity of smaller hearing aids, deaf students are arriving on campus with more diverse technologies. In addition to keeping up with new technologies, institutions are struggling with collaborating on campus and engaging with faculty.
Most respondents shared that they collaborated with deaf students (83.9%) and assistive technology specialists (67.7%), but many fewer collaborated with audiologists (29.0%). Respondents shared that their greatest challenges were issues with logistics and operations, such as microphone placement, compatibility, and collaboration with students and faculty.
Captioned Media
Most institutions (53.5%) felt that it was unlikely that captioning policies were being consistently applied across campus. Only 41.9% of institutions stated that faculty were very or extremely likely to receive training on the institution’s captioned media policy and procedures. Last-minute requests (i.e., less than 24 hours) and general timing of requests (i.e., 5 business days) were seen to be a challenge, as well.
Notetaking
Data from this survey show that 78.5% of deaf students receive notetaking services. Paid student workers are provided by 56.1% of institutions, and 43.9% rely on student volunteers. However, only 37.8% of institutions provide training for their note-takers.
Technological solutions generally involve using artificial intelligence to summarize course lectures—65.9% of institutions use those technologies to provide note-taking services. To date, scant research has been done on the effectiveness of these solutions for deaf college students. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that the greatest challenges with note-taking services are finding volunteers and the quality of notes.
Sign Language Interpreting
Most of the responding campuses employ a combination of staff, hourly employees, and agencies to address their interpreting needs. Only a small percentage of colleges (24.8%) have staff interpreters—most institutions use contractors or hourly employees.
72.8% of institutions said they were rarely or never unable to fill a request. Post-pandemic, most colleges are still providing remote interpreting services; 87.5% have at least one course that is being interpreted remotely. Respondents shared that the costs of interpreting services, the scarce availability of interpreters, and the difficulty covering last-minute assignments were the greatest challenges they faced over the last year.
Speech-to-Text Services
22.6% of institutions acknowledged that speech-to-text requests sometimes or often went unfilled. On average, 41% of speech-to-text services are provided in person. One-third of institutions only offer remote services. Respondents shared that their greatest challenges included filling last-minute requests, dealing with technical issues, and the overall cost of providing services.
Testing Accommodations
Institutions shared that providing ASL translation was common especially for international deaf students. The primary challenges for testing accommodations were described as faculty resistance to allowing accommodations as well as general scheduling and timing issues.
Campus Access for Deaf Students
Staff Resources for Deaf Students
Orientation Processes
Cultural Relevance
For more information and additional charts and graphs, please view the full report below
Key Takeaways & Recommendations
Consider strategies to increase institutional capacity to provide dedicated support services for deaf students and consistently meet requests.
a. Identify the need for services at the institution. Collect data and document gaps in services.
b. Expand the pool of providers. Contract with multiple vendors, both agencies and independent contractors, and explore part-time or full-time access provider roles.
c. Ensure that the institution is offering competitive pay. Conduct a market analysis of access service providers in your area, including exploring pay rates.
d. Identify opportunities to incentivize employment at the institution. Leverage existing business practices and identify sustainable perks.
e. Consider hiring dedicated staff. Establish positions for full-time or part-time access coordinators or consultants to ensure service consistency and reliability.
f. Expand your network. Seek opportunities to develop partnerships with other institutions, community organizations, or local agencies to find new providers.
Pursue continuing education and professional development opportunities to raise awareness, boost knowledge, and maintain current and effective implementation practices.
a. Seek credentialing learning opportunities. NDC offers a self-paced 35-hour professional certificate program to strengthen individual and organizational capacity to serve deaf students.
b. Find an experienced mentor. Find a deaf mentor or a mentor with experience providing accommodations for deaf students.
c. Host campuswide training and learning opportunities. Training faculty can help improve classroom climate, but it is important to also train staff in admissions, student life, health services, and other departments.
Bolster institutional infrastructure to ensure effective delivery of remote services, including technical support and direct support to students and faculty.
a. Collaborate with information technology services. Allocate adequate bandwidth for high-quality video for on-campus remote services.
b. Partner with teaching and learning centers. Consider integrating troubleshooting training into faculty training.
c. Upgrade equipment. Purchase equipment to enhance the quality of Wi-Fi access for remote services, on and off campus, including Wi-Fi boosters or hotspots.
Use AI cautiously and only as a supplement to appropriate accommodations. Integrate multiple checks and balances by getting student feedback and assessing the quality of end products.
a. Meet with students to discuss using AI tools as an accommodation. Consider the setting, context, and communication demands of the circumstance.
b. Schedule regular check-ins to monitor the quality and effectiveness of AI tools. Periodically review transcripts for accuracy.
Implement iterative opportunities to collect student input and data to gain a holistic view of their accommodation and access experiences on campus.
a. Collect and monitor student input. Identify patterns and shared experiences to shape decisions about accommodations. Collect input at the beginning of the semester to monitor the effectiveness of accommodations, during the semester as progress monitoring, and at the end of the semester to inform future accommodations.
b. Diversify collection efforts. Use a variety of formats and leverage various opportunities to collect student feedback. Use QR codes for brief surveys, share links to forms in your email taglines, and have brief paper surveys available in the office, allowing for multiple response formats.
Foster a culture of belonging across campus where deaf students feel seen and welcomed.
a. Host training. Provide awareness training to frontline and customer service staff to promote positive interactions with deaf people.
b. Establish partnerships. Partner with clubs and community organizations to host campuswide events that reflect the intersectional and multifaceted experiences of deaf people.
c. Update policies. Establish campuswide captioning policies to ensure accessible student engagement and opportunities across campus.
References
3Play Media. (2023). The 2023 state of automatic speech recognition [Annual report]. https://go.3playmedia.com/rs-2023-asr
Aldalur, A., Hall, W. C., & DeAndrea-Lazarus, I. A. (2022). No taxation without representation: Addressing the “deaf tax” in academic medicine. Academic Medicine, 97(8), 1123–1127. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004685
Bloom, C. L., & Palmer, J. L. (2023). Undergraduate enrollment of deaf students in the United States (2019–2020). National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes, The University of Texas at Austin. https://nationaldeafcenter.org/2023
Burke, T. B. (2017). Choosing accommodations: Signed language interpreting and the absence of choice. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 27(2), 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2017.0018
Cawthon, S. W., Leppo, R., Ge, J. J., & Bond, M. (2015). Accommodations use patterns in high school and postsecondary settings for students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2015.0012
Cawthon, S. W., Leppo, R., & Pepnet 2 Research and Evidence Synthesis Team. (2013). Accommodations quality for students who are D/deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(4), 438–452. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1353/aad.2013.0031
Garberoglio, C. L., Johnson, P. M., Sales, A., & Cawthon, S. W. (2021). Change over time in educational attainment for deaf individuals from 2008–2018. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 34(3), 253–272.
Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students: Research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/7.4.267
Palmer, J. L., Bloom, C. L., Kinast, L., & Ivanko, T.-N. (2023). Access, belonging, and affirmation: Deaf Postsecondary Access and Inclusion Scale, 2022–2023. National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes, The University of Texas at Austin. https://nationaldeafcenter.org/DPAIS23
Palmer, J. L., Cawthon, S. W., Garberoglio, C. L., & Ivanko, T. (2020). ACCESS is more than accommodations: 2018–2019 deaf college student national accessibility report. National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes, The University of Texas at Austin. https://nationaldeafcenter.org/podreport
Scott, S., & Marchetti, C. (2021). A review of the biennial AHEAD surveys: Trends and changes in the demographics and work of disability resource professionals. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 34(2), 107–126.
