Carol Convertino

Are Deaf Students' Reading Challenges Really About Reading?

Reading achievement among deaf students typically lags significantly behind hearing peers, a situation that has changed little despite decades of research. This lack of progress and recent findings indicating that deaf students face many of the same challenges in comprehending sign language as they do in comprehending text suggest that difficulties frequently observed in their learning from text may involve more than just reading. Two experiments examined college students’ learning of material from science texts. Passages were presented to deaf (signing) students in print or American Sign Language and to hearing students in print or auditorially. Several measures of learning indicated that the deaf students learned as much or more from print as they did from sign language, but less than hearing students in both cases. These and other results suggest that challenges to deaf students’ reading comprehension may be more complex than is generally assumed.

Predicting Academic Success Among Deaf College Students

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.

Comprehension of Sign Language Interpreting: Deciphering a Complex Task Situation

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.

Classroom Interpreting and Visual Information Processing in Mainstream Education for Deaf Students: Live or Memorex®?

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

Enhancing deaf students' learning from sign language and text: metacognition, modality, and the effectiveness of content scaffolding.

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.

Understanding Communication Among Deaf Students Who Sign and Speak: A Trivial Pursuit?

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.

Deaf students’ metacognitive awareness during language comprehension

This study explored deaf and hearing university students’ metacognitive awareness with regard to comprehension difficulties during reading and classroom instruction. Utilising the Reading Awareness Inventory (Milholic, V. 1994. An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Reading 38: 84–6), parallel inventories were created to tap metacognitive awareness during comprehension of sign language (deaf students) and spoken language (hearing students). Overall, both deaf and hearing students appeared to have greater metacognitive awareness of ongoing comprehension and repair strategies during reading than during instruction in the classroom, but deaf students scored lower than hearing students in both modalities. Deaf students were no more likely than hearing students to report adopting inappropriate strategies, but both groups indicated they were more likely to do so in classroom contexts than during reading.

Don’t Assume Deaf Students are Visual Learners

In the education of deaf learners, from primary school to postsecondary settings, it frequently is suggested that deaf students are visual learners. That assumption appears to be based on the visual nature of signed languages—used by some but not all deaf individuals—and the fact that with greater hearing losses, deaf students will rely relatively more on vision than audition. However, the questions of whether individuals with hearing loss are more likely to be visual learners than verbal learners or more likely than hearing peers to be visual learners have not been empirically explored. Several recent studies, in fact, have indicated that hearing learners typically perform as well or better than deaf learners on a variety of visual-spatial tasks. The present study used two standardized instruments to examine learning styles among college deaf students who primarily rely on sign language or spoken language and their hearing peers. The visual-verbal dimension was of particular interest. Consistent with recent indirect findings, results indicated that deaf students are no more likely than hearing students to be visual learners and are no stronger in their visual skills and habits than their verbal skills and habits, nor are deaf students’ visual orientations associated with sign language skills. The results clearly have specific implications for the educating of deaf learners.

Social Maturity and Executive Function Among Deaf Learners

Two experiments examined relations among social maturity, executive function, language, and cochlear implant (CI) use among deaf high school and college students. Experiment 1 revealed no differences between deaf CI users, deaf nonusers, and hearing college students in measures of social maturity. However, deaf students (both CI users and nonusers) reported significantly greater executive function (EF) difficulties in several domains, and EF was related to social maturity. Experiment 2 found that deaf CI users and nonusers in high school did not differ from each other in social maturity or EF, but individuals who relied on sign language reported significantly more immature behaviors than deaf peers who used spoken language. EF difficulties again were associated with social maturity. The present results indicate that EF and social maturity are interrelated, but those relations vary in different deaf subpopulations. As with academic achievement, CI use appears to have little long-term impact on EF or social maturity. Results are discussed in terms of their convergence with findings related to incidental learning and functioning in several domains.

Language and Psychosocial Functioning among Deaf Learners with and without Cochlear Implants

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 variablesmight influence each other, including the possibility that deaf individuals’ psychosocial functioningmight 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 asmuch 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. The present study examined psychosocial functioning among deaf college students as it might be affected by their sign language and spoken language abilities and use of cochlear implants (CIs). The study had two specific foci. One focus was how cultural identity and quality of life among deaf students (with and without CIs) might change over a first year of college when immersed in a Deaf community. The second focus was the previously unexplored possibility that deaf students’ perceived and actual language abilities might be related differentially to their cultural identities and quality of life. Previous studies have explored relations of CI use and quality of life among deaf children, language modality (signed vs. spoken language) and cultural identity among deaf adolescents, and language modality and quality of life among deaf adults. However, CI use, quality of life, cultural identity, and language modality have not been considered previously in a single study. Of particular interest here were possible interactions among those factors, as well as the influence of perceived versus actual language abilities, during the first year of college, when deaf and hearing youth go through significant social-emotional transitions. As young people transition from secondary to postsecondary educational settings, they are assumed also to transition from adolescence to young adulthood. Arnett and Taber (1994) described this period as the overlapping shift from adolescence, at ages 11–19 years, to emerging adulthood, 18–25 years. Arnett (2000) emphasized the latter as a period of identity exploration and frequent risk-taking behavior as individuals come to gain self-sufficiency and independence. As difficult as such changes are for some individuals, entering college or some other postsecondary setting can be particularly challenging for students with hearing loss, who will need greater levels of self-advocacy to navigate communication barriers, access issues, and support Linda J. Spencer is now at the Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions. Received June 30, 2017; revisions received August 3, 2017; editorial decision August 5, 2017; accepted August 7, 2017