Search

Purpose The increasing prevalence of pediatric cochlear implantation over the past 25 years has left little doubt that resulting improvements in hearing offer significant benefits to language development for many deaf children. Furthermore, given the documented importance of access to language from birth, there has been strong support for providing congenitally deaf children with implants as early as possible. Earliest implantation, in many ways, has become the “gold standard” in pediatric cochlear implantation, on the assumption that it is the key to language development similar to that of hearing children. Empirical evidence to support this assumption, however, appears more equivocal than generally is believed. This article reviews recent research aimed at assessing the impact of age at implantation on vocabulary and grammatical development among young implant users. Method Articles published between 2003 and 2018 that included age at implantation as a variable of interest and in which it was subjected to statistical analysis were considered. Effect sizes were calculated whenever possible; we conducted a multivariate meta-analysis to compare outcomes in different language domains. Results Taken together, findings from 49 studies suggest that age at implantation is just one of a host of variables that influence vocabulary and grammatical development, its impact varying with several factors including whether age at implantation is treated as a dichotomous or continuous variable. Results from a meta-analysis showed significant differences across language domains. Conclusion The pattern of results obtained indicates the importance of considering various child, family, and environmental characteristics in future research aimed at determining how early “early implantation” needs to be and the extent to which age at implantation, duration of implant use, and other factors influence language and language-related outcomes. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9789041

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) learners are known to have vocabulary knowledge and language outcomes more heterogeneous than their hearing peers, with a greater incidence of difficulties presumably related (both as cause and effect) to documented challenges in academic domains. In particular, there is increasing evidence that differences may exist in the ways that semantic networks are structured and accessed in DHH and hearing learners. Individuals' judgments of word typicality offers a window into their semantic networks, revealing internal relationships in the mental lexicon. In the present study, 90 DHH and hearing college-aged learners provided typicality ratings at two points in time for 120 words common words considered to be central, borderline, or non-members of six categories. DHH and hearing participants differed in terms of their word knowledge, rating consistency, and rating magnitudes. Relative to hearing peers, DHH participants reported not knowing more of the words, but rated all words as being more typical than did hearing participants and rated the typicality of items more consistently over time. Implications of these findings for understanding mental lexicon structure for DHH and hearing learners, interpreting previous research, and constructing stimuli for future research are discussed.

Purpose Age at cochlear implantation frequently is assumed to be a key predictor of pediatric implantation benefits, but outcomes related to learning and cognition appear inconsistent. This critical assessment examines relevant literature in an effort to evaluate the impact of age at implantation in those domains for individuals who received their devices as children. Method We examined 44 peer-reviewed articles from 2003 to 2018 considering age at implantation and conducted statistical analyses regarding its impact on several domains, including literacy, academic achievement, memory, and theory of mind. Results Across 167 assessments in various experiments and conditions, only 21% of the analyses related to age at implantation yielded evidence in favor of earlier implantation, providing greater benefits to academic achievement, learning, or cognition compared to implantation later in childhood. Among studies that considered cognitive processing (e.g., executive function, memory, visual–spatial functioning), over twice as many analyses indicated significant benefits of earlier implantation when it was considered as a discrete rather than a continuous variable. Conclusion Findings raise methodological, practical, and theoretical questions concerning how “early” is defined in studies concerning early cochlear implantation, the impact of confounding factors, and the use of nonstandard outcome measures. The present results and convergent findings from other studies are discussed in terms of the larger range of variables that need to be considered in evaluating the benefits of cochlear implantation and question the utility of considering age at implantation as a “gold standard” with regard to evaluating long-term outcomes of the procedure as a medical treatment/intervention for hearing loss. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8323625

Studies have reported a higher level of unemployment among deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) adults compared to adults without hearing loss. However, little is known about factors explaining success in the labor market. This study presents the analysis of two data sets. The first was drawn from a survey of 804 DHH adults in Denmark. The second was a survey completed by 190 DHH adults with post-secondary qualification in the United States. In the Danish sample, among the spoken language users, higher ages, higher level of educational attainment, and no additional disabilities were associated with having a job. Among the sign language users, higher ages, higher level of educational attainment, earlier ages at hearing loss diagnosis, and not using cochlear implants were associated with having a job. In the US sample, male gender and better sign language skills were associated with having a job.

Background Studies investigating the impact of having a child with hearing loss on the lives of parents and families have shown divergent results. Where some studies have reported that childhood hearing loss is associated with parental mental health problems, such as depression and stress, other studies report no impact on parental mental health and/or wellbeing. Objective The aim of this study was to examine the association between child-related variables—degree of hearing loss, additional disabilities, sign language abilities, cochlear implants (CI), externalizing and internalizing emotional and behavioral difficulties measured by the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)—and parent-related variables—parents living together, parents' mental health, spouse activities without children, and parents’ experience of the child as being a burden for the family. Method Data of 257 parents of children with hearing loss from a national survey were included. Results Only 18% of the children with hearing loss did not live with both parents, a figure significantly lower than that of the general population. The child variables of degree of hearing loss, having a CI or not, and sign language ability were not significantly associated with any of the parent variables investigated. The child having a disability in addition to hearing loss was found to be significantly associated with the frequency of spouses engaging in activities without children and reports that the child was a burden for the family. Both higher externalizing and internalizing scores on the SDQ were significantly associated with parental mental health problems, frequency of spouse activities without children, and the degree to which the child's difficulties were experienced as a burden for the family. Conclusion Children's hearing loss, per se, was found not to be significantly related to several key parent and family variables. However, children having additional disabilities and behavioral and emotional difficulties were significant with parent and family variables. This study thus underlines the need for further studies concerning relationships among factors related to childhood hearing loss and various family factors in order to better understand their impact on child development and family life.

Intelligibility of spoken languages is a widely discussed construct; however, intelligibility, as it pertains to signed languages, has rarely been considered. This study provides an initial investigation of the construct of intelligibility in American Sign Language (ASL) and evaluates potential measures for self-report and expert ratings of sign intelligibility that examined the frequency of understanding, amount of understanding, and ease of understanding. Participants were 66 college students (42 Deaf, 24 hearing) who had self-rated ASL skills ranging from poor to excellent. Participants rated their own intelligibility in ASL and then provided a signed language sample through a picture description task. Language samples were reviewed by an expert rater and measures of intelligibility were completed. Results indicated that expert ratings of sign intelligibility across all measures were significantly and positively correlated. Understanding of the signer was predicted by the amount of understanding, frequency of understanding, and ASL production skills, while understanding the picture being described was predicted by ease of understanding and ASL grammar skills. Self- and expert ratings of sign intelligibility using the ASL version of the Intelligibility in Context Scale were not significantly different. Self-report of sign intelligibility for viewers of different familiarity using the ICS-ASL was found not to be feasible due to many participants not being in contact with ASL users in the relationships defined by the measure. In conclusion, this preliminary investigation suggests that sign intelligibility is a construct worthy of further investigation.

Various studies have examined psychosocial functioning and language abilities among deaf children with and without cochlear implants (CIs). Few, however, have explored how relations among those abilities might change with age and setting. Most relevant studies also have failed to consider that psychosocial functioning among both CI users and nonusers might be influenced by having language abilities in both signed and spoken language. The present investigation explored how these variables might influence each other, including the possibility that deaf individuals’ psychosocial functioning might be influenced differentially by perceived and actual signed and spoken language abilities. Changes in acculturation and quality of life were examined over their first year in college, together with changes in perceived and assessed language abilities. Students with and without CIs differed significantly in some aspects of psychosocial functioning and language ability, but not entirely in the directions expected based on studies involving school-aged deaf students. Participants’ cultural affiliations were related as much or more to perceived language abilities as to the reality of those abilities as indicated by formal assessments. These results emphasize the need to consider the heterogeneity of deaf learners if they are to receive the support services needed for personal and academic growth.

Many children with hearing loss (CHL) show a delay in mathematical achievement compared to children with normal hearing (CNH). This study examined whether there are differences in acuity of the approximate number system (ANS) between CHL and CNH, and whether ANS acuity is related to math achievement. Working memory (WM), short-term memory (STM), and inhibition were considered as mediators of any relationship between ANS acuity and math achievement. Seventy-five CHL were compared with 75 age- and gender-matched CNH. ANS acuity, mathematical reasoning, WM, and STM of CHL were significantly poorer compared to CNH. Group differences in math ability were no longer significant when ANS acuity, WM, or STM was controlled. For CNH, WM and STM fully mediated the relationship of ANS acuity to math ability; for CHL, WM and STM only partially mediated this relationship. ANS acuity, WM, and STM are significant contributors to hearing status differences in math achievement, and to individual differences within the group of CHL. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Children with hearing loss often perform poorly on measures of math achievement, although there have been few studies focusing on basic numerical cognition in these children. In typically developing children, the approximate number system predicts math skills concurrently and longitudinally, although there have been some contradictory findings. Recent studies suggest that domain-general skills, such as inhibition, may account for the relationship found between the approximate number system and math achievement. What does this study adds? This is the first robust examination of the approximate number system in children with hearing loss, and the findings suggest poorer acuity of the approximate number system in these children compared to hearing children. The study addresses recent issues regarding the contradictory findings of the relationship of the approximate number system to math ability by examining how this relationship varies across children with normal hearing and hearing loss, and by examining whether this relationship is mediated by domain-general skills (working memory, short-term memory, and inhibition).

Deaf learners are a highly heterogeneous group who demonstrate varied levels of academic achievement and attainment. Most prior research involving this population has focused on factors facilitating academic success in young deaf children, with less attention paid to older learners. Recent studies, however, have suggested that while factors such as early cochlear implantation and early sign language fluency are positively associated with academic achievement in younger deaf children, they no longer predict achievement once children reach high school age. This study, involving data from 980 college-bound high school students with hearing loss, examined relations between academic achievement, communication variables (audiological, language), and use of assistive technologies (e.g., cochlear implants [CIs], FM systems) and other support services (e.g., interpreting, real-time text) in the classroom. Spoken language skills were positively related to achievement in some domains, while better sign language skills were related to poorer achievement in others. Among these college-bound students, use of CIs and academic support services in high school accounted for little variability in their college entrance examination scores.

The notion of the Deaf community as a linguistic-cultural minority has been increasingly recognized and studied over the last two decades. However, significant differences of opinion and perspective within that population typically have been neglected in the literature. Social dominance orientation (SDO), a theoretical construct, typically focusing on intergroup perceptions and relations, is one aspect that has been left unexplored and might prove particularly enlightening. The present study investigated SDO among 119 deaf and 49 hearing young adults through a standardized SDO questionnaire. SDO was examined with regard to cultural identities (deaf, hearing, bicultural, and marginal), cochlear implant use, and language orientation (sign language or spoken language). The deaf participants were found to be more egalitarian than hearing individuals overall. Deaf individuals who held the strongest deaf identities, those who were sign language oriented, and not cochlear implant users, were the most egalitarian.

Pediatric cochlear implantation has successfully provided many congenitally deaf children the opportunity to learn to hear and speak. However, outcomes are mostly assessed through formal audiological testing or by gathering perspectives of parents and teachers rather than the children themselves. Sixty-five children with cochlear implants (CIs) aged 11-15 years were asked about their CI use and other factors related to communication, experiences of hearing loss, social participation and friendships, and psychological well-being. The findings revealed diverse experiences; e.g., 55.4% of the children reported feeling different from others their age, while 18.5% reported trying to hide their CIs often or all the time. The findings also suggested diversity in communication needs: 41.5% reported being interested in learning more sign language. The study highlights the importance of providing tailored, flexible support for a heterogeneous population of children with varied strengths and needs.

Theory of Mind-the understanding that people have thoughts, wants, and beliefs that influence their interpersonal behavior-is an aspect of social cognition that develops with consistent, increasing complexity across age groups, languages, and cultures. Observed delays in theory of mind development among deaf children and others has led to a conversational account of theory of mind development and its delays in terms of the nature and amount of social communication experienced by children directly (conversationally) and indirectly (via overhearing). The present study explored theory of mind in deaf young adults by evaluating their understanding of sarcasm and advanced false belief (second-order false belief and double bluff), as well as related cognitive abilities. Consistent with previous studies, deaf participants scored significantly below hearing peers on all three theory of mind tasks. Performance was unrelated to their having had early access to social communication via either sign language (from deaf parents) or spoken language (through cochlear implants), suggesting that deaf participants' performance was not solely a function of access to social communication in early childhood. The finding of different predictors of theory of mind performance for deaf and hearing groups is discussed in terms of its language, social, and cognitive foundations.

A variety of studies have examined ways in which cognitive and social-emotional factors may be linked to and affected by hearing loss, use of cochlear implants (CIs), and sign language. A related domain that largely has been overlooked, however, is personality. This paper reports a study of personality traits and self-efficacy among deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH; n = 223) college students, with and without CIs, as compared to hearing peers (n = 106). All participants completed (HEXACO) personality trait and self-efficacy inventories; DHH participants also completed a communication questionnaire. Hearing participants scored higher on the personality trait Conscientiousness than both DHH CI users and non-CI users, as well as higher on Openness to Experience compared to DHH CI users. Hearing participants also scored higher on self-efficacy compared to DHH non-CI users. Among DHH non-CI users, greater self-rated sign language skills were associated with higher Extraversion and Agreeableness scores. Among the DHH CI users, earlier sign language acquisition was associated with higher Openness to Experience scores, and earlier cochlear implantation was associated with greater Emotionality scores. Self-efficacy was associated with both better self-rated spoken language skills and a stronger preference for spoken language over sign language use among DHH CI users.

Research shows that deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students frequently enter college and the workplace relatively unprepared for success in math, science, and reading. Based on data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2), the present study focused on DHH students’ college and career readiness by investigating their opportunities in secondary school to acquire college and career skills. DHH students earned more credits overall than hearing peers; both groups earned a similar number of credits in academic courses. However, DHH students took more vocational and nonacademic courses and fewer courses in science, social science, and foreign languages. There was evidence that DHH students’ academic courses in math lacked the rigor of those taken by hearing peers, as DHH students earned more credits in basic math and fewer credits in midlevel math courses, and even fewer in advanced math courses, than hearing peers.

Research in discourse reveals numerous cognitive connections between reading and writing. Rather than one being the inverse of the other, there are parallels and interactions between them. To understand the variables and possible connections in the reading and writing of adult deaf students, we manipulated writing conditions and reading texts. First, to test the hypothesis that a fluent writing process leads to richer content and a higher degree of coherence in a written summary, we interrupted the writing process with verbal and nonverbal intervening tasks. The negligible effect of the interference indicated that the stimuli texts were not equivalent in terms of coherence and revealed a relationship between coherence of the stimuli texts, amount of content recalled, and coherence of the written summaries. To test for a possible effect of coherence on reading comprehension, we manipulated the coherence of the texts. We found that students understood the more coherent versions of the passages better than the less coherent versions and were able to accurately distinguish between them. However, they were not able to judge comprehensibility. Implications for further research and classroom application are discussed.

It is frequently assumed that deaf individuals have superior visual-spatial abilities relative to hearing peers and thus, in educational settings, they are often considered visual learners. There is some empirical evidence to support the former assumption, although it is inconsistent, and apparently none to support the latter. Three experiments examined visual-spatial and related cognitive abilities among deaf individuals who varied in their preferred language modality and use of cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing individuals who varied in their sign language skills. Sign language and spoken language assessments accompanied tasks involving visual-spatial processing, working memory, nonverbal logical reasoning, and executive function. Results were consistent with other recent studies indicating no generalized visual-spatial advantage for deaf individuals and suggested that their performance in that domain may be linked to the strength of their preferred language skills regardless of modality. Hearing individuals performed more strongly than deaf individuals on several visual-spatial and self-reported executive functioning measures, regardless of sign language skills or use of CIs. Findings are inconsistent with assumptions that deaf individuals are visual learners or are superior to hearing individuals across a broad range of visual-spatial tasks. Further, performance of deaf and hearing individuals on the same visual-spatial tasks was associated with differing cognitive abilities, suggesting that different cognitive processes may be involved in visual-spatial processing in these groups.

Objectively measured speech reception, speech production and expressive and receptive sign skills were compared with the self-assessment ratings of those skills in 96 college students with hearing loss. Participants with no aidable hearing used cochlear implants (CIs) or nothing. Participants with aidable hearing used either hearing aids (HAs) or nothing. Results revealed that individuals using CIs had speech reception and production skills that were as good as or better than students with more hearing who used HAs. Students using CIs or HAs had better speech reception and production skills than those without sensory aids. There was no difference in measured receptive sign skills across groups, despite differences in age of sign acquisition. Students typically provided accurate self-assessments of their communication skills with two notable exceptions: CI users overestimated their speech skills and nonusers overestimated their receptive sign skills. This study extends our knowledge regarding speech reception, production, sign skills and the ability to self-assess those skills in college students with hearing loss. Students who do not use sensory aids may be at academic risk with regard to receiving input via speech or sign.

The technological development of communication aids for people with hearing loss has progressed rapidly over the last decades. Quality has improved and the number of different types of aids has increased. However, few studies have examined the prevalence of technology use and interpreting services use among people with hearing loss as they relate to demographic characteristics of this population.This study reports from national surveys of children and adults with hearing loss. Use of hearing aids, cochlear implants, other aids and interpreting services were analysed with regard to gender, age, degree of hearing loss, mode of communication, having an additional disability, level of educational achievement among adults, and whether or not children lived together with both of their parents.269 children (0-15 years of age) and 839 adults (16-65 years of age).Differences in technology and service use were associated with age, degree of hearing loss, and mode of communication among children and adults, and gender and level of educational achievement among adults.Individual and social factors have an impact on technological hearing aid and interpreter use. More research about individual differences and clinical implications of support services is needed.

Deaf learners frequently demonstrate significantly less vocabulary knowledge than hearing age-mates. Studies involving other domains of knowledge, and perhaps deaf learners’ academic performance, indicate similar lags with regard to world knowledge. Such gaps often are attributed to limitations on deaf children’s incidental learning by virtue of not having access to the conversations of others. Cochlear implants (CIs) have been described as providing such access, and rapid growth in vocabularies following pediatric cochlear implantation has suggested that, over time, children with implants might close the gap relative to hearing peers. Two experiments evaluated this possibility through the assessment of word and world knowledge among deaf college students with and without CIs and a hearing comparison group. Results across essentially all tasks indicated hearing students to outperform deaf students both with and without CIs with no significant differences between the latter two groups. Separate analyses of a subset of implant users who received their implants at a young age did not reveal any long-term advantages, nor was age of implantation related to enhanced performance on any of the tasks. Results are discussed in terms of incidental learning and the accessibility of word and world knowledge to deaf learners with and without CIs.

To address the needs and abilities of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students in different educational settings, it is important to understand who is in which setting. A secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 database was conducted to examine differences in the characteristics of students who attended special schools, such as schools for the deaf, and those who attended regular schools serving a wide variety of students, such as neighborhood, alternative, and charter schools. The study included a nationally (U.S.) representative sample of about 870 DHH secondary school students. Findings from parent interviews and surveys revealed that students who attended only special secondary schools had greater levels of hearing loss, were more likely to use sign language, had more trouble speaking and conversing with others, and were more likely to have low functional mental scores than students who had attended only regular secondary schools. There were no differences in the presence of additional disabilities or cochlear implants between students in the different settings. In many ways, student characteristics did not vary by school type, suggesting that both types of secondary schools serve students with a wide range of needs and abilities.

Item does not contain fulltext Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the potential of using spoken language and signing together (simultaneous communication, SimCom, sign-supported speech) as a means of improving speech recognition, comprehension, and learning by cochlear implant (CI) users in noisy contexts.Methods: Forty eight college students who were active CI users, watched videos of three short presentations, the text versions of which were standardized at the 8th-grade reading level. One passage was presented in spoken language only, one was presented in spoken language with multi-talker babble background noise, and one was presented via simultaneous communication with the same background noise. Following each passage, participants responded to 10 (standardized) open-ended questions designed to assess comprehension. Indicators of participants' spoken language and sign language skills were obtained via self-reports and objective assessments.Results: When spoken materials were accompanied by signs, scores were significantly higher than when materials were spoken in noise without signs. Participants' receptive spoken language skills significantly predicted scores in all three conditions; neither their receptive sign skills nor age of implantation predicted performance.Discussion: Students who are CI users typically rely solely on spoken language in the classroom. The present results, however, suggest that there are potential benefits of simultaneous communication for such learners in noisy settings. For those CI users who know sign language, the redundancy of speech and signs potentially can offset the reduced fidelity of spoken language in noise.Conclusion: Accompanying spoken language with signs can benefit learners who are CI users in noisy situations such as classroom settings. Factors associated with such benefits, such as receptive skills in signed and spoken modalities, classroom acoustics, and material difficulty need to be empirically examined. 8 p.

Item does not contain fulltext For over 25 years in some countries and more recently in others, bilingual education involving sign language and the written/spoken vernacular has been considered an essential educational intervention for deaf children. With the recent growth in universal newborn hearing screening and technological advances such as digital hearing aids and cochlear implants, however, more deaf children than ever before have the potential for acquiring spoken language. As a result, the question arises as to the role of sign language and bilingual education for deaf children, particularly those who are very young. On the basis of recent research and fully recognizing the historical sensitivity of this issue, we suggest that language planning and language policy should be revisited in an effort to ensure that they are appropriate for the increasingly diverse population of deaf children. 15 p.

This study explored relations of print exposure, academic achievement, and reading habits among 100 deaf and 100 hearing college students. As in earlier studies, recognition tests for book titles and magazine titles were used as measures of print exposure, college entrance test scores were used as measures of academic achievement, and students provided self-reports of reading habits. Deaf students recognized fewer magazine titles and fewer book titles appropriate for reading levels from kindergarten through Grade 12 while reporting more weekly hours of reading. As in previous studies with hearing college students, the title recognition test proved a better predictor of deaf and hearing students' English achievement than how many hours they reported reading. The finding that the recognition tests were relatively more potent predictors of achievement for deaf students than hearing students may reflect the fact that deaf students often obtain less information through incidental learning and classroom presentations.

Four experiments, each building on the results of the previous ones, explored the effects of several manipulations on learning and the accuracy of metacognitive judgments among deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students. Experiment 1 examined learning and metacognitive accuracy from classroom lectures with or without prior scaffolding in the form of a description of main points and concepts. Experiment 2 compared the benefits of scaffolding when material was read versus when it was presented as a lecture signed for DHH students and spoken for hearing students. Experiment 3 compared scaffolding provided in the form of main points versus vocabulary, and Experiment 4 examined effects of material familiarity and a delay between study and test. Results indicated that although all students had a tendency to overestimate their performance, hearing students learned more and were more accurate in their metacognitive judgments than DHH students. Content familiarity improved the accuracy of metacognitive judgments by both DHH and hearing students, but the delay manipulation was effective only for hearing students. Consistent with other recent findings, DHH students learned as much from reading as they did from signed instruction. Differences between DHH and hearing students may indicate the need for explicit instruction for DHH students in academically relevant skills acquired incidentally by hearing students.

In order to better understand academic achievement among deaf and hard-of-hearing students in different educational placements, an exploratory study examined the experiences of postsecondary students enrolled in mainstream programs (with hearing students) versus separate programs (without hearing students) at the same institution. The Course Experience Questionnaire, the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory, and the Classroom Participation Questionnaire were utilized to obtain information concerning their perceptions, participation, and access to information in the classroom. Both groups were concerned with good teaching and the acquisition of generic skills. Both were motivated by the demands of their assessments and by a fear of failure while being alert to both positive and negative affect in their classroom interactions. Overall, students in separate classes were more positive about workload expectations, instructor feedback, and the choices they had in coursework. Students in mainstream classes were more positive about their acquisition of analytic skills (rather than rote memorization) and about their instructors' interest in them, including flexibility in methods of assessment.

Sign language interpreters suffer from high levels of upper extremity disorders and burnout due to the physical and cognitive demands of interpreting. The objective of this research was to quantify the wrist kinematics of interpreting and to assess how speaker pace and psychosocial stress influence wrist kinematics. Professional interpreters interpreted a pre-recorded lecture, while the speaking pace of the lecture varied. One group of subjects was exposed to environmental conditions intended to induce stress. Several wrist kinematic variables of interpreting exceeded previously established high risk benchmarks for development of upper extremity disorders in industrial tasks. Wrist velocity and acceleration increased significantly with pace, with increases ranging from 10.7-18.6%. Increased psychosocial stress resulted in significant increase of left hand (non-dominant) wrist velocity and acceleration, with increases ranging from 14.8-19.5%. These results provide an objective assessment of the biomechanical demands of interpreting and support earlier research into different types of work, which found deleterious effects of psychosocial stress on the biomechanical responses of the lower back.

Alexander Graham Bell is often portrayed as either hero or villain of deaf individuals and the Deaf community. His writings, however, indicate that he was neither, and was not as clearly definite in his beliefs about language as is often supposed. The following two articles, reprinted from The Educator (1898), Vol. V, pp. 3-4 and pp. 38-44, capture Bell's thinking about sign language and its use in the classroom. Contrary to frequent claims, Bell does not demand "oral" training for all deaf children--even if he thinks it is the superior alternative--but does advocate for it for "the semi-deaf" and "the semi-mute." "In regard to the others," he writes, "I am not so sure." Although he clearly voices his support for oral methods and fingerspelling (the Rochester method) over sign language, Bell acknowledges the use and utility of signing in a carefully-crafted discussion that includes both linguistics and educational philosophy. In separating the language used at home from that in school and on the playground, Bell reveals a far more complex view of language learning by deaf children than he is often granted. (M. Marschark).

Two experiments explored the taxonomic organization of mental lexicons in deaf and hearing college students. Experiment 1 used a single-word association task to examine relations between categories and their members. Results indicated that both groups' lexical knowledge is similar in terms of overall organization, with associations between category names and exemplars stronger for hearing students; only the deaf students showed asymmetrical exemplar-category relations. Experiment 2 used verbal analogies to explore the application of taxonomic knowledge in an academically relevant task. Significant differences between deaf and hearing students were obtained for six types of analogies, although deaf students who were better readers displayed response patterns more like hearing students'. Hearing students' responses reflected their lexical organization; deaf students' did not. These findings implicate the interaction of word knowledge, world knowledge, and literacy skills, emphasizing the need to adapt instructional methods to student knowledge in educational contexts.

Deaf individuals have been found to score lower than hearing individuals across a variety of memory tasks involving both verbal and nonverbal stimuli, particularly those requiring retention of serial order. Deaf individuals who are native signers, meanwhile, have been found to score higher on visual-spatial memory tasks than on verbal-sequential tasks and higher on some visual-spatial tasks than hearing nonsigners. However, hearing status and preferred language modality (signed or spoken) frequently are confounded in such studies. That situation is resolved in the present study by including deaf students who use spoken language and sign language interpreting students (hearing signers) as well as deaf signers and hearing nonsigners. Three complex memory span tasks revealed overall advantages for hearing signers and nonsigners over both deaf signers and deaf nonsigners on 2 tasks involving memory for verbal stimuli (letters). There were no differences among the groups on the task involving visual-spatial stimuli. The results are consistent with and extend recent findings concerning the effects of hearing status and language on memory and are discussed in terms of language modality, hearing status, and cognitive abilities among deaf and hearing individuals.

Research on theory of mind began in the context of determining whether chimpanzees are aware that individuals experience cognitive and emotional states. More recently, this research has involved various groups of children and various tasks, including the false belief task. Based almost exclusively on that paradigm, investigators have concluded that although "normal" hearing children develop theory of mind by age 5, children who are autistic or deaf do not do so until much later, perhaps not until their teenage years. The present study explored theory of mind by examining stories told by children who are deaf and hearing (age 9-15 years) for statements ascribing behaviour-relevant states of mind to themselves and others. Both groups produced such attributions, although there were reliable differences between them. Results are discussed in terms of the cognitive abilities assumed to underlie false belief and narrative paradigms and the implications of attributing theory of mind solely on the basis of performance on the false belief task.

Cognitive psychologists have known for a long time that language and memory are intimately related in people who can hear. Why should the situation be any different for deaf children and deaf adults? This article considers the results of previous studies and some new findings in examining the possible impact of spoken language and sign language fluencies/preferences on the structure and process of memory in deaf individuals. Current evidence suggests that there are some differences in the organization of long-term memory in deaf as compared to hearing people, but no one has yet demonstrated such differences to be so large that they qualitatively or quantitatively affect learning in any real sense. In contrast, there is now abundant evidence to suggest that variation in spoken language abilities have a direct impact on memory span and perhaps on working memory more generally. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Contains fulltext : 125129.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Generally, deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) children have fewer friends than hearing peers and their friendships are of a lower quality. The research hypothesis was that using the computer to communicate with new online friends through social network sites or playing games with offline friends is associated with D/HH friendship qualities, because it removes certain communication barriers D/HH face in offline communication settings. With online questionnaires the relation between computer use and online, mixed (offline friend who you also speak in online settings), and offline friendship quality of D/HH and hearing students (18–25 years) was compared in both the Netherlands (n = 100) and the United States (n = 122). In addition, the study examined whether the different friendship qualities were related to the participants' well-being. Results showed that, in general, D/HH students' friendship qualities and levels of well-being were similar to their hearing peers. The quality of the mixed friendships was positively related to well-being. Furthermore, the frequency of pc use with both online and offline friends was positively related to friendships qualities in both hearing and D/HH students. A combination of the online and offline friendship seems to be the most important friendship type for both hearing and D/HH students and it is worthwhile to encourage this friendship type. 10 p.

Parent-child communication plays a central role in social growth, as it does in other domains of development. Over 90 % of deaf children, however, have hearing parents who frequently do not have a fully effective means of communicating with them. This paper examines the role of effective parent-child communication in the social and emotional development of deaf children. Evidence concerning relations between early communication and social-emotional development of deaf children is reviewed, and superficial differences in the ways that parents interact with deaf versus hearing children are distinguished from differences that may have more significant and enduring effects. Hearing parents and their deaf children are found to develop alternative, often nonverbal, interaction strategies. Of primary interest is the extent to which those strategies have impact comparable to the strategies of hearing parents with hearing children or deaf parents with deaf children.

The study examined attitudes toward teaching reported by university instructors who normally teach hearing students (with the occasional deaf or hard of hearing student) and by instructors who normally teach deaf and hard of hearing students at the same institution. Overall, a view of instruction as information transmission was associated with a teacher-focused approach to instruction, whereas viewing instruction as a means of promoting conceptual change was associated with a student-focused approach. Instructors in mainstream classrooms were more oriented toward information transmission than conceptual change, whereas instructors experienced in separate classrooms for deaf and hard of hearing students reported seeking to promote conceptual change in students and adopting more student-focused approaches to teaching. These results are consistent with previous findings concerning instructors' approaches to teaching and deaf and hard of hearing students' approaches to learning, and may help explain recent findings regarding student outcomes in separate versus mainstream secondary classrooms.

In previous studies, evidence concerning the extent of automatic word recognition in deaf children and the influence of language fluency on word and sign recognition (as indexed by the Stroop task) has been contradictory. This study examined the effects of English and sign language fluency in the automatic word and sign recognition of deaf and hearing adults. Results indicated that responding in sign took longer and created more Stroop interference than responding orally. Two groups of certified interpreters revealed this finding to be independent of hearing status. Most important, deaf subjects showed greater automaticity in recognizing signs than words, whereas hearing subjects showed greater automaticity in recognizing words than signs. This pattern was unaffected by language fluency. The findings clarify the results of previous studies both theoretically and methodologically.

A photograph taken in 1893 at the Horace Mann School for the Deaf in Boston, MA, shows pupils taking part in a literacy lesson. Ten girls and boys are sitting in a semicircle with their teacher, while another pupil stands by the blackboard on which a passage of text is written in elegant copperplate. The picture is a reminder that, right from the earliest days of deaf education providing pupils with access to literacy, has been seen as a core objective. The importance of literacy is reflected in the United Nations Development Programs’ Human Development Index (HDI). This includes all the things you might expect such as measures of health, longevity, and standard of living in a particular country, but it also includes the literacy level. In many of the countries that appear at the bottom of the HDI rankings, the literacy level among the adult population is less than 50%, whereas it exceeds 95% in developed countries. The definition of literacy used for the purpose of the HDI is an ability to read a short, simple passage relating to everyday life. This is a modest requirement since, in order to read and write at the levels demanded in secondary education in developed countries, it is essential to be able to deal with abstract concepts and to integrate ideas across complex text. As had often been reported within the pages of the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, many children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) find literacy an enormous challenge, and many leave formal education without having achieved a level of literacy that prepares them for the demands of a literate society. What is by no means clear is why many children who are DHH experience such difficulties.

Welcome to Volume 15 and the 15th year of the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. Throughout this volume, the two of us will be co-editing a special section on Deaf Studies, to appear in each issue. A bit of history will be instructive. In 1985, the field of Deaf Studies was in its infancy. Studies of and by deaf people were about their languages, their behaviors, their community histories, and only occasionally about their cultures. In that year, the First International Deaf Researchers Workshop was held at Bristol University. It was limited to deaf participants only and attended by interested scholars and teachers from all over the world. One of the co-editors of the Deaf Studies section (Tom) spoke at this conference on distinguishing deaf people from Deaf people, a convention that had been used before, but not widely, and became known as ‘‘small d’’ and ‘‘big D.’’ The ways that ‘‘deaf ’’ interact with ‘‘Deaf ’’ turned out to be very complex, indeed, perhaps more than we imagined at the time. Discussion for the duration of the conference and for several years after reflected both our determination to understand how to think about categorization and segmentation of people who are deaf and the sometimes problematic ambiguity when we use the sign ‘‘DEAF.’’ So went Deaf Studies, an emerging field marked by ambiguity. Ten years later, in 1995, a group of investigators interested in sign language, the development of deaf children, cognition and learning among deaf individuals, and related areas came together and created the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. Finding a publisher was not as difficult as expected, but among the other early tasks was naming the new journal. Input was solicited from a broad audience and suggestions varied widely. It was clear that the word ‘‘deafness’’ was to be avoided, and some people were averse to using ‘‘deaf ’’ as an adjective. One (hearing) observer, for example, emphatically argued that terms like ‘‘deaf education’’ do not make sense, even if they are commonly used. Others argued against phrases like ‘‘deaf children’’ in favor of options like ‘‘children who are deaf and hard of hearing.’’ Attempts to resolve all the contradictory advice yielded either titles too long to fit on the spine of the journal or ones that failed to capture the diverse content that we hoped to publish. At one point, the name quest was taken to Gallaudet University, where a large number of researchers had gathered for a conference on education. Mutually exclusive suggestions continued to overwhelm the editorial group until it was suggested that one of them (the other co-editor of the Deaf Studies section,Marc) ask a prominent member of the Deaf community attending the conference for advice. The situation was explained to her and she responded ‘‘It doesn’t matter which name you choose. You are hearing, whatever you choose will be [seen by others as] wrong. If you were deaf, whatever you choose would be right.’’ Armed with that wisdom, the group sought out the broadest possible title and settled on the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. No conflicts of interest were reported. Correspondence should be sent to Marc Marschark, Center for Education Research Partnerships, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, 52 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 (e-mail: marc.marschark@ rit.edu).

For both practical and theoretical reasons, educators and educational researchers seek to determine predictors of academic success for students at different levels and from different populations. Studies involving hearing students at the postsecondary level have documented significant predictors of success relating to various demographic factors, school experience, and prior academic attainment. Studies involving deaf and hard-of-hearing students have focused primarily on younger students and variables such as degree of hearing loss, use of cochlear implants, educational placement, and communication factors-although these typically are considered only one or two at a time. The present investigation utilizes data from 10 previous experiments, all using the same paradigm, in an attempt to discern significant predictors of readiness for college (utilizing college entrance examination scores) and classroom learning at the college level (utilizing scores from tests in simulated classrooms). Academic preparation was a clear and consistent predictor in both domains, but the audiological and communication variables examined were not. Communication variables that were significant reflected benefits of language flexibility over skills in either spoken language or American Sign Language.

Four experiments investigated classroom learning by deaf college students receiving lectures from instructors signing for themselves or using interpreters. Deaf students' prior content knowledge, scores on postlecture assessments of content learning, and gain scores were compared to those of hearing classmates. Consistent with prior research, deaf students, on average, came into and left the classroom with less content knowledge than hearing peers, and use of simultaneous communication (sign and speech together) and American Sign Language (ASL) apparently were equally effective for deaf students' learning of the material. Students' self-rated sign language skills were not significantly related to performance. Two new findings were of particular importance. First, direct and mediated instruction (via interpreting) were equally effective for deaf college students under the several conditions employed here. Second, despite coming into the classroom with the disadvantage of having less content knowledge, deaf students' gain scores generally did not differ from those of their hearing peers. Possible explanations for these findings are considered.

Classroom communication between deaf students was modeled using a question-and-answer game. Participants consisted of student pairs that relied on spoken language, pairs that relied on American Sign Language (ASL), and mixed pairs in which one student used spoken language and one signed. Although the task encouraged students to request clarification of messages they did not understand, such requests were rare, and did not vary across groups. Face-to-face communication was relatively poor in all groups. Students in the ASL group understood questions more readily than students who relied on oral communication. Although comprehension was low for all groups, those using oral communication provided more correct free responses, although the numbers were low; no significant differences existed for multiple-choice responses. Results are discussed in terms of the possibility that many deaf students have developed lower criteria for comprehension, and related challenges for classroom communication access.

Research in education and the social and behavioral sciences, like research in medicine and the natural sciences, eventually makes its way into our day-today lives. Of course, the timescales involved are not always the same, either within or across domains. Indeed, some studies being conducted in chemistry, social psychology, neuroscience, and learning may not affect us at all but may be helpful to our children. In our efforts to understand who we are and how the universe works, the speed with which empirical findings change our lives is not necessarily a metric of their inherent worth. At the same time, understanding such research—and what it tells us—is worthwhile in its own right, both as a means of broadening our own horizons and creating greater accountability among those in whom the public has invested its trust and its money. In domains such as education, child development, and psychology, we have the potential to significantly affect how we live and behave without requiring a middleman who will manufacture or actualize a particular finding. In these areas, connecting research and practice offers at least the opportunity for synergism as communication between the two can lead to a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The usual question is ‘‘how do we go about it?’’ In an effort to foster both communication and progress related to the scope of the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and to education in particular, a new partnership of JDSDE and the Deaf Education Web site (www.deafed.net) is being created with the support of Oxford University Press, the College of Education at Michigan State University, and the Center for Education Research partnerships at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. The Research to Practice Network (RPN) will provide for open discussions between JDSDE authors and an increasingly diverse community of teachers and learners. Taking advantage of current technologies and professional networks already in place, authors will share summaries and key findings from their research and engage with their audiences concerning implications of their work for practice. Practitioners, parents, and other readers, in turn, will have the opportunity to provide feedback on ideas, report on attempts at implementation, and become part of a larger community of learners that seeks to optimize educational and personal success for learners who are deaf/hard of hearing (DHH). Recognizing that initiatives of this sort are still somewhat novel and may not be for everyone, the RPN will begin modestly, with volunteer authors helping to pioneer its initial stages. The Network will utilize a wiki system that can be accessed via links from both the JDSDE Web site (www.jdsde. oxfordjournals.org) at Oxford University Press and the Deaf Education Web site (www.deafed.net) at Michigan State University. Articles that are part of the DHH RPN already can be found in electronic form at the JDSDE site, with links to the Michigan State University site, and discussions for expansion are underway as we prepare this editorial. Perhaps a bit more explanation will be helpful. Correspondence to: Marc Marschark, Ph. D., Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 96 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 (e-mail: memrtl@ntid.rit.edu).

Four experiments examined the utility of real-time text in supporting deaf students' learning from lectures in postsecondary (Experiments 1 and 2) and secondary classrooms (Experiments 3 and 4). Experiment 1 compared the effects on learning of sign language interpreting, real-time text (C-Print), and both. Real-time text alone led to significantly higher performance by deaf students than the other two conditions, but performance by deaf students in all conditions was significantly below that of hearing peers who saw lectures without any support services. Experiment 2 compared interpreting and two forms of real-time text, C-Print and Communication Access Real-Time Translation, at immediate testing and after a 1-week delay (with study notes). No significant differences among support services were obtained at either testing. Experiment 3 also failed to reveal significant effects at immediate or delayed testing in a comparison of real-time text, direct (signed) instruction, and both. Experiment 4 found no significant differences between interpreting and interpreting plus real-time text on the learning of either new words or the content of television programs. Alternative accounts of the observed pattern of results are considered, but it is concluded that neither sign language interpreting nor real-time text have any inherent, generalized advantage over the other in supporting deaf students in secondary or postsecondary settings. Providing deaf students with both services simultaneously does not appear to provide any generalized benefit, at least for the kinds of materials utilized here.

Despite the importance of sign language interpreting for many deaf students, there is surprisingly little research concerning its effectiveness in the classroom. The limited research in this area is reviewed, and a new study is presented that included 23 interpreters, 105 deaf students, and 22 hearing students. Students saw two interpreted university-level lectures, each preceded by a test of prior content knowledge and followed by a post-lecture assessment of learning. A variety of demographic and qualitative data also were collected. Variables of primary interest included the effects of a match or mismatch between student interpreting preferences (interpreting vs. transliteration) and the actual mode of interpreting, student-interpreter familiarity, and interpreter experience. Results clarify previous contradictory findings concerning the importance of student interpreting preferences and extend earlier studies indicating that deaf students acquire less than hearing peers from interpreted college-level lectures. Issues relating to access and success in integrated academic settings are discussed as they relate to relations among student characteristics, interpreter characteristics, and educational settings.

Objective: To investigate whether college students with a history of mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in childhood or adolescence show residual deficits in intellectual functioning, approaches to studying, or emotional stability. Design: Participants with a history of mild TBI and two control groups. Setting: Volunteers were recruited from students taking an introductory psychology course. Participants: 79 students with a history of mild TBI, 75 students with a history of general anesthesia, and 93 students with no history of either TBI or general anesthesia. Main Outcome Measures: Participants carried out tests of verbal memory, nonverbal memory, verbal fluency, and nonverbal fluency; in addition, they completed a short form of the Approaches to Studying Inventory and the Symptom Checklist-90 - Revised (SCL-90-R). Results: In comparison with the two control groups, the students with a history of mild TBI produced similar scores on the cognitive tests and similar orientations to studying. However, they showed a significantly higher level of emotional distress on the SCL-90-R. Conclusion: College students with a history of mild TBI in childhood or adolescence are intellectually unimpaired and approach their studying in a similar manner to their uninjured classmates. Nevertheless, they report more severe distress in terms of their general personal and emotional functioning.

It is the end of a long day at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Washington, DC. The occasion has been a meeting of journal editors who work with Oxford University Press and discussion of new opportunities (and challenges) in journal publishing. As several new electronic features were discussed, I asked one of the OUP staff ‘‘How can we get these on the JDSDE homepage!’’ To my chagrin, she pointed out that they are already there. It seems that ‘‘behind the scenes,’’ OUP has been upgrading Web pages and offering new services that benefit readers, authors, and reviewers—and I never took/ had the time to notice. So, let me share some of the changes at Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (JDSDE), changes that you really do want to know about. For authors and reviewers, I am delighted to announce that beginning in September, JDSDE moved to an online submission and reviewing system known as Manuscript Central. Found at http:// mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jdsde, Manuscript Central will make manuscript processing more efficient for authors, reviewers, and editors. Most importantly, it should make the editorial process smoother and faster. JDSDE already has the best turnaround in our field, as the time from submission to editorial decision averages 7–8 weeks. If the system—and its users—work as planned, this should be reduced to 5–6 weeks, a real advantage for contributors and also for readers, who will be reading articles when they are still ‘‘hot’’ and timely. As someone who has been waiting 10 months for a review of an article from another journal, I believe that this change can only be good for the field. For everyone who has ever accessed the JDSDE either in print or electronically, our new and evolving Web page (www.jdsde.oxfordjournals.org; Figure 1) offers some exciting new features. The expanded capabilities of the site include six that I will outline here—hopefully enough to encourage readers to visit the site and explore the others.

A variety of studies has documented lags in deaf children′s development of literacy-related skills relative to hearing age-mates. Among the reported differences is the finding that deaf children typically do not appear to make use of discourse rules in structuring their writing. In the present study, we compared signed and written productions by deaf 7- to 15-year-olds to oral and written productions of hearing age-mates. Two studies demonstrated that signed and oral productions had similar discourse structures as indicated by the patterns of causal goal-action-outcome episodes (Trabasso, van den Broek, & Suh, 1989). Written productions in Experiment 2 also revealed comparable discourse organization for the two samples, but the grammatical and lexical character of deaf children′s writing lagged behind that of the hearing children. The results indicate that deaf children make use of discourse rules in narrative production, but that these may be obscured by disfluencies in writing.

Four experiments explored on-line encoding strategies and memory for high imagery and low imagery texts. Results consistently indicated that concreteness effects in memory for text depend on how materials are presented in several different respects. Most importantly, the experiments clarified apparently contradictory results of previous studies by indicating that concreteness effects generally do not occur in memory for prose when imageability is manipulated between-subjects, and that their occurrence when imageability is manipulated within-subjects depends on the order occurrence when imageability is manipulated within-subjects depends on the order of presentation. In addition, moving window analyses of text processing strategies indicated that differential strategies observed in previous studies when subjects listened to high vs low imagery text do not generalize to reading of the same materials. Potential explanations for the pattern of results are evaluated, and implications for theories of mental imagery and memory are considered.

In two experiments, we examined deaf and hard of hearing adolescents' memory for prose as compared to that of hearing students. The study focused on the possibility that deaf and hard of hearing readers might make relatively less use of relational information in textual materials. Text structure and material concreteness were manipulated, and memory for relational and distinctive information was assessed. Results indicated that deaf and hard of hearing students remembered the abstract materials as well as they did the concrete materials. They were less likely than hearing students to remember idea units (concrete or abstract) holistically within passages, but they showed relatively better memory for individual words. This difference disappeared when the same sentences were presented without global paragraph coherence. The findings suggest that deaf and hard of hearing readers may be less likely than hearing readers to integrate text information across idea units, although they may retain as much information from within units.

In closing a keynote presentation at a recent international conference on deaf education, the speaker noted that ‘‘There has never been a better time to be a deaf child . or a parent or educator of one.’’ That suggestion is consistent with our intuitions and reflects significant strides that have been made recently in a variety of domains relevant to the development and education of deaf children. Investigations into language acquisition, the foundations of literacy, new educational methods, familyand child-oriented support services, and the cognitive underpinnings of learning are all helping to increase the opportunities and achievements of students who have significant hearing losses. There also have been major technological developments including newborn hearing screening and diagnostics, digital hearing aids and cochlear implants, and instructional technologies. Two recent international conferences have examined ways in which this progress is influencing our understanding of deaf learners and how it will change the face of deaf education in the coming years. ‘‘Language and Deaf Education: Into the 21st Century’’ was held in Dunblane, Scotland, in celebration of the life and work of Mary Brennan, who died in 2005 (see Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education [JDSDE], Volume 11, No. 1). That meeting explored interventions that can maximize language and communication development (both signed and spoken) as well as educational success for deaf children. The ‘‘Cochlear Implants: Educational Implications Conference,’’ held in Nottingham, England, focused on the broad implications of cochlear implants for school-aged children. Volume 12, Nos. 2–4, of the JDSDE contain papers written by presenters at these conferences and other authors, charting some of the future directions made possible by recent discoveries and innovations. The meetings sought to evaluate the current state of knowledge in these areas and allied fields with the hope of bridging research and practice and optimizing future achievement in the lifelong learning of children with significant hearing losses. More generally, investigations of the sort presented in these three issues offer exciting new insights into the strengths and needs of deaf children while developing tools and methods for ensuring that they have full access to academic, social, and employment opportunities. As coeditors of this series, we hope that these collected articles will help to engender new discussions and perspectives that further advance the frontiers of learning and academic success for all deaf children. In order to facilitate broad participation of the various stakeholders and deaf education, Oxford University Press also will create two electronic special issues of the JDSDE to be available at http:// www.jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/. One of the issues will be on cochlear implants in the development and education of deaf children; the other will describe recent progress in understanding and enhancing the links among language, literacy, and education, an area of investigation that owes much to the pioneering work of Mary Brennan. We hope that these collections will extend the impact of the research described here and by other investigators to explore the applied potential of basic research and develop research methods to validate and extend current educational practices.

An expectancy interpretation of semantic congruity effects suggests that in symbolic comparisons involving the typical comparative-then-stimuli paradigm, the comparative acts as a cue in priming memory for related stimuli. A recent study by Holyoak and Mah (1981) presented evidence purported to disconfirm this hypothesis insofar as a congruity effect also was obtained when the stimuli preceded the comparative. The present study showed the stimulicomparative effect to be a consequence of the pairing of stimuli with particularly salient comparatives such that the former could serve the cuing function. This finding is consistent with the expectancy hypothesis in emphasizing the role of a flexible encoding process but inconsistent with the view that only comparatives can create expectancies in symbolic comparisons.