Patricia Sapere

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

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.

Do You See What I See? School Perspectives of Deaf Children, Hearing Children and Their Parents.

Perspectives on academic and social aspects of children’s school experiences were obtained from deaf and hearing children and their (deaf or hearing) parents. Possible differences between (1) the views of children and their parents and (2) those of hearing children and their parents compared to deaf children and their parents were of particular interest. Overall, parents gave their children higher school friendship ratings than the children gave themselves, and hearing children and their parents were more positive about children’s friendships than were deaf children and their parents. Both children and parents also saw deaf children as less successful in reading than hearing children. However, deaf children having deaf parents, attending a school for the deaf and using sign language at home all were associated with more positive perceptions of social success. Use of cochlear implants was not associated with perceptions of greater academic or social success. These and related findings are discussed in the context of parent and child perspectives on social and academic functioning and particular challenges confronted by deaf children in regular school settings.

Approaches to teaching in mainstream and separate postsecondary classrooms.

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.

The approximate number system and domain‐general abilities as predictors of math ability in children with normal hearing and hearing loss

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).