Donald F. Moores

The Effects of Integration on the Mathematics Achievement of Hearing Impaired Adolescents

In a study of three metropolitan high school programs for the deaf, a matched groups design was used to assess the relative effects of placement in an integrated class on the mathematics achievement of hearing impaired adolescents. The mathematics achievement of a group of 36 students in mainstreamed mathematics classes was compared with a group of 44 students in self-contained classes matched on the variables of mathematics ability, reading ability, degree of hearing loss, and social adjustment. An analysis of covariance controlling for prior achievement, sex, ethnicity, and degree of hearing loss showed that the integrated students performed significantly better than the students in the self-contained classes. A ‘post-hoc’ model of the differences in the instructional process is proposed to account for the differences which includes (a) higher expectations, (b) exposure to greater quantities of demanding material, (c) availability of individual support, and (d) training in academic content for regular mathematics teachers. The authors propose that differences are attributable to alterable factors in placements.

Mathematics Achievement of Hearing Impaired Adolescents in Different Placements

This study, involving 215 students and 63 teachers, addressed three concerns related to mainstreaming for hearing impaired students: the selection process, the difference between a mainstream placement with an interpreter and a self-contained placement, and the quality of the educational experience. Almost half of the variance in achievement between the two settings is described. Three conclusions can be drawn. First, student background factors are a primary determinant of achievement. Second, mainstreaming with an interpreter has no specific effect on achievement for hearing impaired students. Third, the quality of instruction is the prime determinant of achievement, regardless of placement.

Cochlear implants: an update.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I have expressed strong reservations about the practice of implanting very young children. I continue to believe that introducing a foreign object into the head of a child with todays life expectancy of around 80 years is fraught with uncertainty, especially when there is no clear evidence that the procedure is more effective than the present generation of powerful hearing aids. I have also believed that much of the research reported must be taken with a grain of salt to the extent that results have been reported by scientists directly involved with implants themselves, raising the possibility that, either consciously or unconsciously, the results have been influenced by expectations. On the other hand, it is clear that, with miniaturization and improved technology, the procedure will become less intrusive and more effective. This publication marks the third straight issue in which an article on cochlear implants has appeared, testifying to the importance attached to the procedure in our field today. Of course, the interest did not develop overnight. For example, Kluwin and Stewart (2001) reported on the process and outcomes of parental decision making regarding implants andjohnston (2004) identified implants as one possible factor in the apparent decline in the Australian Deaf signing population, estimating that perhaps 45% of young Australian children with severe and profound hearing losses have cochlear implants. Taken together, the three articles printed in 2005 issues of the Annals to date provide some unique insight because of their geographic diversity and their research foci. Reflecting the internationalization of the Annals, Preisler, Tvingstedt, and Ahlstrom (2005) interviewed Swedish deaf children about their experiences using cochlear implants; Burger, Spahn, Richter, Eisele, Lohle, and Bengel (2005), in a German study, reported on parental distress related to their childrens cochlear implant fitting; and Ben-Itzhak, Most, and Weisel (2005) studied the knowledge and expectations of Israeli teachers of the deaf, audiologists, and speech therapists regarding cochlear implants. Taken as a whole, information is provided on children, parents, and professionals serving deaf children, thereby addressing the three populations most concerned with implants. The three countries themselves represent very different philosophies concerning educational placement and the role of signs in instruction. They share a widespread and growing incidence of cochlear implants among the young deaf population, a phenomenon that apparently is global in nature. Preisler et al. studied the real consumers of cochlear implants themselves, 11 deaf children, ranging in age from 8.5 to 10.5 years of age, who had from 5 to 7.5 years of experience with implants. Six of the children attended special schools in which Swedish Sign Language was the language of instruction and 5 were enrolled in regular classes with hearing children with spoken Swedish the language of instruction, although there was some access to sign language. Unlike some research reported in other countries to the effect that parents choose cochlear implants for their children in the hope that they would function as hearing children, Swedish parents hoped that their children would become bilingual in spoken Swedish and Swedish Sign Language. This may reflect the Swedish philosophy that parents should utilize all possible means of communication to establish communication with their children. For children in both educational settings, sign was the basis for family communication in the first stages of the study, but later much of home communication was in spoken language. On balance, the childrens responses were positive; 10 of the children used their implants regularly and considered them natural parts of their lives. Those in regular classes were able to participate in one-to-one conversations, but reported problems in following teachers and class discussions. …

An Investigation of the Psycholinguistic Functioning of Deaf Adolescents

The ability of “cloze” procedures to assess morphologico-syntactic and semantic differences between deaf and hearing groups matched on reading achievement scores was investigated. The experimental group consisted of 37 students, average age 16–10, mean grade reading score 4.77 on the Stanford Achievement Test, attending a residential school for the deaf. The control group, 37 fourth and fifth grade hearing children, had a mean reading score of 4.84 and an average age of 9–10. Passages of 250 words were developed from fourth, sixth, and eighth grade textbooks. The performance of the hearing subjects was superior on all measures for each passage, supporting the thesis that standardized tests spuriously raise estimates of reading ability of the deaf and that the relative inferiority of the deaf can be traced to both grammatical and semantic inadequacies. The sensitivity of “cloze” procedures to these factors was established and future applications of the technique discussed.

Receptive Abilities of Deaf Children Across Five Modes of Communication

74 children in 7 preschool programs for the deaf were assessed in a measure of receptive communication. Subjects ranged from 48 to 72 months with a mean chronological age of 61.96 months. Hearing losses ranged from 71 to 100 decibels with a mean loss of 95.49 decibels. Subjects were tested across five modes of communication: (a) sound alone, (b) sound plus speechreading, (c) sound and speechreading plus fingerspelling, (d) sound and speechreading plus signs, and (e) the printed word. Four levels of difficulty were assessed for each mode: (a) number concepts, (b) adjective-noun phrases, (c) noun-conjunction-noun phrases, and (d) noun-verb-prepositional phrase constructions. Results suggest that the most efficient means of receptive communication was simultaneous use of sound and speechreading plus signs. Children using this system receive information at least as efficiently as other deaf children when manual components are removed. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Introduction: Toward an Understanding of Epistemology and Deafness

The major concept of epistemology—or epistemologies—is discussed, as well as related terms such as paradigm and science. Also covered are two broad paradigms, the clinical and the cultural, that seem to drive theorizing, research, and practice regarding individuals who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. The two paradigms emanate from different epistemologies and might account for much of the tension in research and practice. Finally, the authors present their view on the nature of scholarly inquiries—namely, that theory, research, and practice should adhere to the principles of a multiparadigmatic science.

Families with Deaf Members: American Annals of the Deaf, 1996 to 2000

The authors provide an overview of 21 articles from several countries focusing on families with deaf members published in the literary issues of the American Annals of the Deaf from 1996 to 2000. Four categories were identified: Interaction and Involvement, Support Services, Stress and Coping, and Decision Making. The articles represent a commendable expansion of focus from the mother-child dyad to increased attention to fathers, siblings, extended family members, and significant nonfamily members such as deaf adults. The heterogeneity of families was a striking factor, even within those studies dealing with relatively homogeneous populations. Services appeared to be most effective within middle-class, educated family units, illustrating the need for more comprehensive services sensitive to the needs of families from less affluent backgrounds and with lower levels of education. In general, services to families with deaf children may be characterized as better than in the past but still in need of significant sensitivity and improvement. The presence of a deaf child in a family with hearing parents may cause stress, but parents have the flexibility to respond in a positive and beneficial way, especially when provided adequate information and support. The idea that hearing parents go through a grieving process involving the identification of deafness in their child seems to be an overstatement.

Epistemologies, Deafness, Learning, and Teaching

The study of Deaf epistemologies is in a nascent stage relative to, e.g., the study of feminist or African American epistemologies. It has only recently begun attracting the widespread attention it deserves. The present article addresses Deaf epistemologies as they relate to the sometimes conflicting trends in American society and education. In a relatively short period, the education of deaf students has gone from an independent enterprise under the aegis of special education to heavy influence by No Child Left Behind legislation that applies to virtually all American students. American education at one and the same time embraces and celebrates diversity, imposes uniform, rigid learning standards for all children, and mandates that all children be tested in the same way. An oxymoron exists of individualized educational planning and one-size-fits-all curricula and assessment of academic achievement. Implications for teaching and learning of deaf students are explored.

The No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts: The Uneven Impact of Partially Funded Federal Mandates on Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is having a major impact on the education of deaf and hard of hearing children, and in many ways has taken on an importance far in excess of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which has been evolving since 1975. Congress has appropriated less money for both laws than their authorizations have called for. NCLB has 10 titles, none of which address the education of disabled children, of whom almost 7 million are identified as attending public school. Three components of NCLB have major implications for all children, including deaf and hard of hearing students: assessment; demonstrated annual yearly progress; and the mandate for highly qualified teachers. The implications for deaf and hard of hearing children, many of whom will not be identified in the present statewide assessment system, are mixed but, on balance, negative.

Neo-Oralism and the Education of the Deaf in the Soviet Union

An overview of education of the deaf in the Soviet Union is presented with emphasis on the system known as neo-oralism. Educational services available to children at the preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels are described. Changes from the traditional pure oral method to neo-oralism are outlined. Components include active participation of the child, use of fingerspelling with very young children, and the concentric speech method. Implications for education of the deaf in the United States are discussed.