This study reports findings from a nationwide replication and the second randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI), a linguistically responsive framework for teaching writing to deaf students. A total of 50 teachers and their 294 students in grades 3-6 were randomly assigned to either SIWI or business-as-usual (BAU) instruction. Writing outcomes were assessed with trait-based rubrics and the Structured Analysis of Written Language (SAWL) in two genres (recount and information report), along with the Woodcock-Johnson IV broad written language composite and genre-specific motivation surveys administered at the beginning and end of the school year. Students receiving SIWI outperformed peers in the BAU group on writing traits across both genres, with effect sizes ranging from moderately large (d = 0.70) for informational reports to very large (d = 1.11) for recounts. On the SAWL, SIWI students demonstrated significantly greater gains in grammatical clarity on recount writing, as measured by the word efficiency ratio, with a moderate effect size (d = 0.64), although this effect was not observed for information reports. Students in the treatment group also reported significantly higher motivation for both genres. Unlike the prior RCT, no statistically significant differences emerged on the broad written language measure (d = 0.27). This may reflect spurious findings in the previous study or limitations in this study caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the effect size observed suggests some practical importance that warrants further investigation. Findings provide robust evidence that SIWI positively impacts deaf elementary students' writing development and motivation, particularly for recount genres, while underscoring the importance of replication for understanding the generalizability of intervention effects.
Students with disabilities face a variety of challenges including those related to stigma around disability, inaccessible tools and instruction, disability disclosure, and a lack of mentors. This BOF will bring together individuals who are interested in increasing the representation of students with disabilities in computing and improving their success. Participants will share strategies to help each other do a better job of including these students in our classes and research projects. Resources related to accessible tools and instruction, universal design of learning, opportunities for students, and more will be shared.
Deaf students face a persistent visual attention split between signer and instructional materials. Although virtual reality (VR) is often promoted as an educational solution, it typically reinforces hearing norms (e.g., caption overlays or interpreter boxes onto hearing classrooms). Our work foregrounds Deaf leadership and reclaims VR design authority: in a mixed-hearing team led by Deaf scholars, we designed and evaluated a VR classroom prototype featuring three signer-placement modes: corner, parallel, and transparent. Twelve Deaf participants explored the prototype during a 15-minute lecture and participated in qualitative semi-structured interviews. Participants reported reduced attention split and improved visibility, and suggested VR may support flexibility and comprehension in Deaf learning. From these reflections, we introduce a five-dimension conceptual framework—proximity, customizability, visual efficiency, cultural fit, and task flexibility—that organizes how Deaf signers evaluate signer placements. This work moves Deaf Tech theory into practice, opening pathways for future Deaf-centered, culturally grounded HCI.
We investigate intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) people who can use their voice in everyday communication. The inability of IPAs to understand diverse accents including deaf speech renders them largely inaccessible to non-signing and speaking DHH individuals. Using an Echo Show, we compared the usability of natural language input via two spoken English methods against that of a large language model (LLM)-assisted touch interface in a mixed-methods study. The two spoken English methods consisted of Alexa’s built-in automatic speech recognition and a Wizard-of-Oz setting with a trained facilitator re-speaking commands. The touch method was navigated through an LLM-powered ‘task prompter,’ which integrated the user’s history and smart environment to suggest contextually-appropriate commands. Quantitative results showed no significant differences across both spoken English conditions vs LLM-assisted touch. Qualitative results showed variability in opinions on the usability of each method. Ultimately, it will be necessary to have robust deaf-accented speech recognized natively by IPAs.
Early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) through screening improves survival and reduces mortality, yet adherence is shaped by education and communication barriers. Such systemic barriers are relevant for the deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing (DDBHH) population using American Sign Language (ASL). While educational attainment is closely linked to cancer screening, less is understood about whether an individual’s self-perceived ability to communicate in spoken language settings influences screening behavior. In this study, we examine ‘functional hearing ability,’ defined as a person’s self-perception of their ability to understand what someone says in a quiet room, and its relationship to CRC screening adherence. Using the National Cancer Institute’s Health Information National Trends Survey in ASL and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) CRC screening guidelines, we surveyed 600 ASL-using adults from July 2023 to June 2025. Multivariable logistic regression tested associations between self-perceived ability to understand spoken language in a quiet room (understand well vs. cannot understand well in a quiet room) and screening adherence, adjusting for age, education, their interaction, race, and marital status. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Functional hearing ability was not significantly associated with CRC screening [OR 0.86 (95
