The Roles and Responsibilities of itinerant specialist teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students were examined. Data were collected through surveys of practicing teachers, interviews, and school observations. Questions focused on tasks itinerant teachers perform most often in their jobs, where they learned these tasks, and whether they would be interested in continuing education for a particular task. Tasks most frequently listed by respondents involved direct work with deaf and hard of hearing students followed by consultation with regular education teachers, developing individualized education plans, coordinating meetings and support services, providing information to parents, and managing equipment such as hearing aids and FM systems. Only 17% of the respondents said they learned these skills through teacher preparation programs, compared with 65% who learned on the job, and many expressed interest in taking workshops or courses in specific skill areas.

Names are both personal and political, as they relate to identity. Woodward's 1975 etic article first mentioned a naming convention for D/deaf and prominent scholars have debated the issue since. To evaluate current preferences, the research team used an online questionnaire to gather emic insights and opinions from the community, as well as a more etic perspective from hearing individuals for work with these issues. Data from these three self-identified groups of participants, Deaf, deaf, and hearing, were analyzed.Results found high variability among responses related to the terms, D/deaf, and whether or not certain terms should remain in the lexicon. Results are discussed and presented both to contribute and to further research in the field. It is recommended that the usage of existing term(s) be adhered to and that an individual's preferred naming conventions be respected and utilized whenever possible.

Despite advances in hearing technology, a growing body of research, as well as early intervention protocols, deaf children largely fail to meet age-based language milestones. This gap in language acquisition points to the inconsistencies that exist between research and practice. Current research suggests that bimodal bilingual early interventions at deaf identification provide children language foundations that can lead to more effective outcomes. Recommendations that support implementing bimodal bilingualism at deaf identification include early intervention protocols, language foundations, and the development of appropriate bimodal bilingual environments. All recommendations serve as multifaceted tools in a deaf child's repertoire as language and modality preferences develop and solidify. This versatile approach allows for children to determine their own language and communication preferences. Keywords Language acquisition • Deaf children • Early intervention • Bimodal bilingual • American Sign Language/ASL Significance Statement Professionals working in the field of Deaf 1 education 2 remain stymied by persistent delays in language acquisition persisting across decades despite advances in assistive hearing technology, newborn screenings, early intervention services, research, and knowledge. It would seem that current systematic practices are not adequately addressing persistent language delay issues in the Deaf education field. Therefore, bimodal bilingual interventions are recommended.

No abstract