Making a Case for Classroom Listening Assessment

ABSTRACT

Emphasis on classroom listening has gained importance for all children and especially for those with hearing loss and special listening needs. The rationale can be supported from reports on educational placements, the Response to Intervention initiative, student performance and accountability, the role of audition in reading, and improvement in hearing technologies. As a result, the audiologist must take a primary role in advocating for the accommodations that are necessary for effective listening for these children in school. To identify individual listening needs and make relevant recommendations for accommodations, a classroom listening assessment is suggested. Components of the classroom listening assessment include observation, behavioral assessment, self-assessment, and classroom acoustics measurements. Together with a strong rationale, the results can be used to implement a plan that results in effective classroom listening for these children.

Classroom listening - IDEA - response to intervention - functional assessment - hearing assistance technology - communication plan

REFERENCES

• 1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, DANS .Table 2–2f. Students ages 6–21 with hearing impairments, Educational Environment. IDEA Data Accountability Center. [Online] July 15, 2007. http://Available at: www.ideadata.org Accessed Sept. 15, 2009
• 2 National Association of State Directors of Special Education .Response to Intervention. Alexandria, VA; National Association of State Directors of Special Education 2005
• 3 U.S. Department of Education . No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC.  Fed Regist. 2002;  (January) 8
• 4 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development .Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidenced-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction, NIH Publication No. 00–4769. Washington, DC; U.S. Government Printing Office 2000
• 5 Stelmachowicz P. Pediatric amplification: past, present, and future. In: Seewald R, Bamford J A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification 2004. Proceedings of the Third International Conference. Phonak AG; 2005: 27-40
• 6 Lauer S. Wireless Solutions—The State of the Art and Future of FM Technology for the Hearing Impaired Consumer. In: Fabry D, DeConde Johnson C, eds. ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions 2003. Proceedings of the First International Conference Phonak AG; 2004: 31-37
• 7 Zwolan T. Cochlear implants. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkhard R, Hood L Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Baltimore, MD; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2009: 912-933
• 8 Crandell C, Smaldino J. Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2000;  31 362-370
• 9 Davis J M, Elfenbein J, Schum R, Bentler R A. Effects of mild and moderate hearing impairments on language, educational, and psychosocial behavior of children.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1986;  51 53-62
• 10 Nelson P, Kohnert K, Sabur S, Shaw D. Classroom noise and children learning through a second language: double jeopardy?.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2005;  36 219-229
• 11 Houtgast T. The effect of ambient noise on speech intelligibility in classrooms.  Appl Acoust. 1981;  14 15-25
• 12 Iglehart F. Combined effects of classroom reverberation and noise on speech perception by students with typical and impaired hearing. Presented at: Inter-noise 2009, Innovations in Practical Noise Control August 23–26, 2009 Ottawa, Canada;
• 13 U.S. Department of Education . Rules and regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. Washington DC.  Fed Regist. 2006;  156 46540-46845
• 14 Colorado Department of Education .Response to Intervention: A Practitioner's Guide to Implementation. Denver, CO; Colorado Department of Education 2008
• 15 Iglehart F. Speech perception by students with cochlear implants using sound-field systems in classrooms.  Am J Audiol. 2004;  13 62-72
• 16 Anderson K L, Goldstein H. Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2004;  35 169-184
• 17 Boothroyd A. The FM wireless link: an invisible microphone cable. In Ross M FM Auditory Training Systems. Timonium, MD; York Press 1992
• 18 Schafer E, Thibodeau L. Speech recognition performance of children using cochlear implants and FM systems.  Journal of Educational Audiology. 2003;  11 15-26
• 19 Trezek B J, Malmgren K W. The efficacy of utilizing a phonics treatment package with middle school deaf and hard-of-hearing students.  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2005;  10 256-271
• 20 Waddy-Smith B, Wilson V. See that sound! Visual phonics helps deaf and hard of hearing students develop reading skills.  Odyssey. 2003;  5 14-17
• 21 American Academy of Audiology .Pediatric amplification guideline. http://Available at: www.audiology.org
• 22 Scollie S. Prescriptive procedures for infants and children. In: Seewald R, Bamford J A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification 2004. Proceedings of the Third International Conference Phonak AG; 2005
• 23 Stelmachowicz P, Hoover B. Hearing instrument fitting and verification for children. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkhard R, Hood L Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Baltimore, MD; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2009: 817-845
• 24 Pittman A L, Lewis D E, Hoover B M, Stelmachowicz P G. Recognition performance for four combinations of FM system and hearing aid microphone signals in adverse listening conditions.  Ear Hear. 1999;  20 279-289
• 25 Lewis D, Eiten L. Assessment of advanced hearing instrument and FM technology. In: Fabry D, DeConde Johnson C ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions 2003. Proceedings of the First International FM Conference Phonak AG; 2005: 167-174
• 26 Anderson K, Goldstein H, Colodzin L, Iglehart F. Benefit of S/N enhancing devices to speech perception of children listening in a typical classroom with hearing aids or a cochlear implant.  Journal of Educational Audiology. 2005;  12 14-28
• 27 Lewis D. Assistive devices for classroom listening: FM systems.  Am J Audiol. 1994;  3 70-83
• 28 Smaldino J, Crandell C, Kreisman B, John  A, Kreisman N. Room acoustics and auditory rehabilitation technology. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkhard R, Hood L Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Baltimore, MD; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2009: 745-775
• 29 Gabbard S. The use of FM technology for infants and young children. In: Seewald R, Bamford J A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification 2004. Proceedings of the Third International Conference Phonak AG; 2005: 155-161
• 30 American Academy of Audiology .Clinical practice guidelines: remote microphone hearing assistance technologies for children and youth from birth to 21 years. http://Available at: www.audiology.org
• 31 Smoski W, Brunt M, Tannahill C. Children's auditory performance scale. Educational Audiology Association. http://Available at: www.edaud.org
• 32 Johnson DeConde C, Benson P, Seaton J. Educational Audiology Handbook. San Diego, CA; Singular Publishing Group 1997: 336-339
• 33 Ling D. Speech and the Hearing Impaired Child: Theory and Practice. Washington, DC; AGBell Association for the Deaf 1976
• 34 Etymotic Research Inc .2005 BKB-SIN. [CD]. 
• 35 Anderson K, Smaldino J. Listening Inventory for Education (L.I.F.E.) http://Available at: www.karenandersonconsulting.com
• 36 Antia S D, Sabers D L, Stinson M S. Validity and reliability of the classroom participation questionnaire with deaf and hard of hearing students in public schools.  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2007;  12 158-171
• 37 Elkayam J, English K. Counseling adolescents with hearing loss with the use of self-assessment/significant other questionnaires.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;  14 485-499
• 38 American National Standards Institute .Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools. New York, NY; Acoustical Society of America 2002