skip to main content skip to footer

A Job Analysis of the Knowledge and Skills Important for Newly Licensed (Certified) Teachers of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

Author(s):
Ehringhaus, Michael E.; Mounty, Judith L.; Rosenfeld, Michael
Publication Year:
1995
Report Number:
RR-95-09
Source:
ETS Research Report
Document Type:
Report
Page Count:
150
Subject/Key Words:
Beginning Teachers, Hearing Impairments, Job Analysis, Praxis, Teacher Qualifications, Teaching Skills, Assessing People with Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the content domain to be considered in the licensure examination for teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students and to support the content validity of the examination. A job analysis of the knowledge and skills judged to be important for newly licensed (beginning) teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students was conducted. This report provides the rationale for conducting the job analysis, presents the methods used to define job- related knowledge, describes the types of statistical analyses conducted, reports the results of these analyses, and discusses the implications of the results for developing test specifications. A draft domain of knowledge and skill statements was developed by ETS, reviewed and revised by an external Advisory Committee, then subjected to verification/refutation by a national survey of educational professional involved in the field of teaching deaf and hard of hearing students. A cut point of 2.5 (midpoint between moderately important and important) was established for consideration in the development of test specifications. Mean ratings were computed for five groups of educational professionals (teachers, supervising teachers, principals, superintendents, and teacher educators) as well as for deaf, hard of hearing and hearing respondents. Conclusions include: 1) there appears to be little difference in ratings due to race/ethnicity, sex, geographic region, or years of teaching deaf or hard of hearing students; 2) there were some differences by type of program in which respondents taught; and 3) most differences in perception were based on whether or not respondents were deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing, and their self-rated level of signing skill. (JGL) (150pp.)

Read More