EPSE 521: Critical Review

Rabinsky, R. J. (2013). Itinerant deaf educator and general educator perceptions of the
D/HH push-in model. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(1), 50-62.
Topic
In Rebecca J. Rabinskys article, Itinerant Deaf Educator and General Educator
Perceptions of the D/HH Push-in Model, she has chosen to explore the often unheard
voice and perceptions of deaf educators and general educators regarding push-in
services (2013, p. 51). Rabinsky mentioned that the studies on itinerant deaf education
have been intermittent over the last few decades (2013, p. 51), therefore further research
needs to be conducted to explore the outcomes from inclusive models of service. More
specifically, the model of push-in services is explored where itinerant deaf educators
work with Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (D/HH) students in their general education
classroom settings. Rabinskys research sought to identify how itinerant deaf educators
and general educators perceive the D/HH push-in model of service delivery (2013, p.
51).
This article has a very strong educational perspective that speaks to the advantages and
disadvantages of the push-in model of inclusive education. It is very informative and
would be of benefit to any reader who is exploring the merits of different modes of
service for D/HH students. Parents, teachers, principles, and policy developers would all
gain insight into the advantages and challenges of the push-in model.
Authors Theoretical Stance
Rabinskys research did not aim to prove that one method of service for D/HH students
was better than another. She sought only to gain the perspectives of the teachers involved
in delivering the push-in model of education for D/HH students. With that said however,
Rabinsky seemed to believe in inclusive education for D/HH students as she mentioned
on a couple of occasions that D/HH students of present were better prepared for public
school and general education classrooms (2013, p. 51). Moreover, her position as an
itinerant teacher of the D/HH would suggest that she believes in the model of inclusive
education and more specifically, the push-in model of service that her district, the same as
which her research is done in, has adopted. It is also clear though that Rabinsky is not
trying to suggest the push-in model is the overall solution to working with D/HH
students. She honestly presents the views of her and case study participants belief that the
push-in model can be a advantageous service depending on the student, and that each
student may require a different approach to meet their individual needs.
The review of literature Rabinsky presents is a diverse array of research done by noted
researchers such as Spencer, Marschark, Reed, Antia, Easterbrooks, and more. Rabinsky
does well in noting the debate that persists over the shift in educational placement for
students who are deaf or hard of hearing (2013, p. 51). She presents research that
supports both schools of thought between inclusive education in general classrooms
versus special schools for D/HH students. Rabinsky fails to properly evaluate the
literature that she has presented, merely referencing her sources to validate her

statements. However, much of the literature she presents does not strictly relate to the
purpose of her paper which is to present the perceptions of teachers of D/HH students on
the push-in model. This may be because of the scarcity of research she mentioned in the
field of itinerant education (Rabinsky, 2013, p. 51). Rabinsky decides to focus her
research on the known, that D/HH students must learn in environments rich in
communication and language, as well as the need for itinerant teachers to support D/HH
students in general education environments (2013, p. 51).
Methodological Approach
Rabinskys findings were based off of her qualitative research done through personal
observations of in-class experiences, personal interviews with the teachers, and a group
interview/focus group with all of the teachers together. These methods of research were
performed with a small group of six educators, three general classroom teachers, each
with a D/HH student in their class and their respective itinerant teachers. All of the
teachers were from the same school district and therefore were engaged in the same
district wide model of push-in.
Rabinsky fails to include D/HH teachers opinions from other models of service as well
as other districts. Furthermore, between the partnerships of the general education teacher
with an itinerant teacher, Rabinskys research is drawing experiences from only three
separate cases. The diversity of D/HH students is not represented fully in this research,
nor is there any contributions from students on their point of views towards the push-in
model. Moreover, the observation and interview data were collected over a span of 6
weeks (Rabinsky, 2013, p. 52), hardly a significant amount of time to truly observe the
development of D/HH students in their education. Rabinsky also mentions that a panel
of experts was not contacted for field testing nor was a pilot study conducted (2013, p.
53). She did manage to seek expert feedback though through consultation with the head
of the hearing and vision department at the research site (Rabinsky, 2013, p. 53). Overall,
I think that this method is an effective model for gaining the perceptions of the teachers
working with D/HH students. Having their direct input provides a clear understanding of
their opinions on the push-in model.
Discussion
The discussion Rabinsky provides does an appropriate job of linking the findings to the
conclusions. Not only does Rabinsky summarize the findings in support of her
conclusions, she also cautions the reader from ignoring the literature that may suggest
opposing theories to some of the findings her research has produced. For example, when
Rabinsky discussed the advantages of general education settings for D/HH students, some
of the teachers she interviewed discussed the sense of community, [and] the feeling of
being a peer (Rabinsky, 2013, p. 54) D/HH students could benefit from being in an
inclusive classroom. Rabinsky provides literature that does support this thinking, but she
also cautions it by suggesting some research has shown the general education
environment to be potentially isolating due to the students immature social and delayed
language skills (2013, p. 57). Throughout the discussion in Ribinskis article, she
manages to support her findings though literature on both sides of the issue of push-in
service. The fact that Ribinskis research explored the general perception, advantages,

disadvantages, and effectiveness of the push-in model of D/HH education, and avoids a
biased slant, leaves her research to be used towards eliminating the scarcity of literature
concerning general educator perceptions of inclusive deaf education and the D/HH
push-in model (Rabinski, 2013, p. 56).