Search

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).

Cochlear implants (CIs) are able to provide many deaf children with greater access to sound than ever before.

Deaf and hard‐of‐hearing (DHH) children typically lag behind hearing age‐mates in academic achievement. This paper describes recent findings indicating language and cognitive differences between DHH and hearing students that appear to explain some of their classroom challenges. There is currently only limited evidence with regard to the effectiveness of particular interventions, and thus relatively few are offered here. However, recognition of the language and cognitive differences both between DHH and hearing students and within a population of DHH students suggests opportunities for modification of instructional materials and methods in ways to accommodate DHH students' needs and build on their strengths.

This paper examines research findings concerning the loci of the pervasive academic underachievement among deaf and hard‐of‐hearing (DHH) children and issues associated with interventions and instructional methods that could help to reduce or eliminate it. Investigators have hypothesised that at least 50% of the variability in DHH students' achievement may be because of instructional factors, and several studies have indicated that when taught by experienced teachers of the deaf in mixed classrooms, DHH students may gain just as much as their hearing peers. Only recently, however, have findings begun to emerge concerning related language and cognitive differences between DHH and hearing students as well as instructional differences between teachers with and without experience in teaching DHH students. Building on convergent evidence from such studies offers the prospect of a significant improvement in academic outcomes for those children in the future.

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.

This study examined visual information processing and learning in classrooms including both deaf and hearing students. Of particular interest were the effects on deaf students’ learning of live (three-dimensional) versus video-recorded (two-dimensional) sign language interpreting and the visual attention strategies of more and less experienced deaf signers exposed to simultaneous, multiple sources of visual information. Results from three experiments consistently indicated no differences in learning between three-dimensional and two-dimensional presentations among hearing or deaf students. Analyses of students’ allocation of visual attention and the influence of various demographic and experimental variables suggested considerable flexibility in deaf students’ receptive communication skills. Nevertheless, the findings also revealed a robust advantage in learning in favor of hearing students

Remarkably few studies have examined the outcomes of sign language interpreting. Three experiments reported here examine deaf students’ comprehension of interpreting in American Sign Language and English-based signing (transliteration) as a function of their sign language skills and preferences. In Experiments 1 and 2, groups of deaf students varying in their sign language skills viewed either an ASL or English-based interpretation of a nontechnical lecture, followed by either a written comprehension test (Experiment 1) or a signed comprehension test (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 involved a more technical (physics) lecture, separate testing of students with greater ASL or English-based sign skills and preferences, and control of students’ prior content knowledge. Results consistently demonstrate that regardless of the deaf students’ reported sign language skills and preferences, they were equally competent in comprehending ASL interpreting and English transliteration, but they gained less knowledge from lectures than hearing peers in comparison groups. The results raise questions about how much deaf students actually learn in interpreted classrooms and the link between their communication preferences and learning.

Deaf children generally are found to have smaller English vocabularies than hearing peers, although studies involving children with cochlear implants have suggested that the gap may decrease or disappear with age. Less is known about the vocabularies of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) postsecondary students or how their vocabulary knowledge relates to other aspects of academic achievement. This study used the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test to examine the vocabulary knowledge of DHH and hearing postsecondary students as well as their awareness (predictions) of that knowledge. Relationships between vocabulary knowledge and print exposure, communication backgrounds, and reading and verbal abilities also were examined. Consistent with studies of children, hearing college students demonstrated significantly larger vocabularies than DHH students both with and without cochlear implants. DHH students were more likely to overestimate their vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary scores were positively related to reading and verbal abilities but negatively related to sign language abilities. Among DHH students they also were positively related to measures of spoken language ability. Results are discussed in terms of related cognitive abilities, language fluency, and academic achievement of DHH students and implications for postsecondary education.

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.

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.

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.