Stephanie W. Cawthon

Receptive language skills of adolescents and young adults with down or fragile X syndrome.

We investigated the receptive language of adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome (n = 25) or fragile X syndrome (n = 19). We were interested in syndrome differences and gender differences within fragile X. Comparison of the syndromes and MA-matched typically developing children (n = 24) revealed that individuals with the syndromes differed in relative achievements across the domains of receptive vocabulary, receptive syntax, and nonverbal cognition as well as in the organization of their linguistic knowledge. Comparison of males and females with fragile X revealed that each displayed synchronous development across the three domains, despite the fact that the receptive language levels of females surpassed that of males.

Collaboration in referential communication : Comparison of youth with down syndrome or fragile X syndrome

Referential communication was examined in youth with Down syndrome or fragile X syndrome in comparison to each other and to MA-matched typically developing children. A non-face-to-face task was used in which the participant repeatedly described novel shapes to listeners. Several dimensions of referential communication were especially challenging for the syndrome groups (i.e., they displayed below-MA performance), although there were differences in the dimensions that each syndrome group found to be most challenging. Independently assessed expressive language ability contributed to variations in referential performance, especially for participants with Down syndrome.

Schools for the Deaf and the No Child Left Behind Act.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) emphasizes educational accountability for all students. Twenty-eight states have policies to aggregate student participation and proficiency data for schools for the deaf in NCLB reports. The remaining states account for these students in other ways: referring student data to sending schools and aggregating data to the district or state level are most prominent. In reports of student assessment results for academic year 2002-2003, three schools for the deaf made Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB: These schools demonstrated at least a 95% participation rate in assessments, and at least 95% of their students met or surpassed state proficiency benchmarks in reading and mathematics. Proficiency levels for other schools varied by report, but were often comparable to those of students with disabilities. Challenges and strategies for capturing the impact of NCLB accountability policies on deaf students are discussed.

Making Decisions About Assessment Practices for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Students who are deaf or hard of hearing are a low-incidence population with diverse linguistic characteristics and levels of academic achievement. This article presents findings on teacher recommendations of assessment practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. A total of 372 educational professionals responded to a set of three study vignettes that asked for recommendations for accommodations or alternate assessments appropriate for the scenarios. Participants also provided open-ended responses that justified their recommendations. Four randomly assigned conditions controlled for test subject (math or reading), student skill level (two or five grades below grade level in math and/or reading), and communication mode used in instruction (American Sign Language or a combination of sign and speech). Participant recommendations for accommodations or alternate assessments varied by test subject (math or reading) and student skill level but not by communication mode. Justifications for recommendations painted a complex picture of reasons behind proposed assessment practices. This article discusses the implications of these findings for accommodations policy as well as possible evidence toward a theory of decision making in assessment practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Pebbles in the Mainstream: How Do We Find Them?

Significant numbers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing are educated in regular education settings, often outside the structure of established programs. Locating participants for research on deaf education has therefore become increasingly difficult. This article describes two approaches used to recruit participants in the recent online study, the National Survey of Assessment and Accommodations for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. The first approach is to collaborate with the professional and social networks of those who work with deaf and hard of hearing students. This involves both direct and indirect communication with organizations and individuals who can refer potential participants. Second, potential participants may also be reached via a random sample of schools nationwide. Both of these approaches are taken within the context of action research within a professional community. The article will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these methods and make recommendations for future use in nationwide online research. Finally, the importance of sustained, active participation by deaf education practitioners is discussed in light of survey techniques and goals.

Test Item Linguistic Complexity and Assessments for Deaf Students.

Linguistic complexity of test items is one test format element that has been studied in the context of struggling readers and their participation in paper-and-pencil tests. The present article presents findings from an exploratory study on the potential relationship between linguistic complexity and test performance for deaf readers. A total of 64 students completed 52 multiple-choice items, 32 in mathematics and 20 in reading. These items were coded for linguistic complexity components of vocabulary, syntax, and discourse. Mathematics items had higher linguistic complexity ratings than reading items, but there were no significant relationships between item linguistic complexity scores and student performance on the test items. The discussion addresses issues related to the subject area, student proficiency levels in the test content, factors to look for in determining a linguistic complexity effect, and areas for further research in test item development and deaf students.

Early Elementary Curricular Alignment and Teacher Perspectives on Standards-Based Reform.

The author investigated the alignment of reading instruction to Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for Reading, grades 1–4 (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1998a). Teachers in 18 hearing-only, 10 mixed (hearing and deaf students), and 8 deaf-only classrooms were study participants. Teacher groups demonstrated equal alignment to the standards. The study also measured teachers views on standards. Teachers in hearing-only and deaf-only classrooms scored higher on a scale measuring receptivity toward standards than teachers in mixed classrooms. Teachers in hearing-only classrooms considered the standards good guidelines though perhaps too prescriptive. Teachers in deaf-only and mixed classrooms viewed standards as tools to ensure equity for students but also focused on challenges like the emphasis on phonetics and their need to include sign in deaf students instruction. Limitations include the challenge of generalizing standards-based analysis, the small number of participants, and use of self-report measures of classroom instruction.

Of Dog Ears and Hyperlinks

Of Dog Ears and Hyperlinks Cawthon, S. W (2013). Of dog ears and hyperlinks [Review of the book Literacy instruction for students who are deaf and hard of hearing]. American Annals of the Deaf , 158(4), 472-474. Literacy Instruction for Students Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Susan R. Easterbrooks and Jennifer Beal-Alvarez. Oxford Univ. Press, 2013. 288 pp.

The linguistic and cognitive profile of Down syndrome: evidence from a comparison with fragile X syndrome.

42.50 (paperback).How do you prefer to read academic books? With a tablet and online access? Or do you prefer to unplug from technol- ogy, and read with a paper or hardback copy in your hand? When I read my paperback copy of Literacy Instruction for Students Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing, I found myself needing two versions, one digital and one paper, to fully process this book at the level it deserved. I dog-eared at least half of the first 50 pages because they had something interesting that I wanted to come back to. Yet the authors also include many web-based citations of resources and places to go to online for more information. My paperback didnt respond well to the point-and-click motion my finger instinctively wanted to make to follow the hyperlinks. In this case, it seems that technology has expanded our options in the content of what we read but also in how we read. Luckily for this reader, both an e-book and a paperback version of Literacy Instruction are available.Regardless of how you read, and what you want to read for, I strongly encourage you to consider reading Literacy Instruction. The content of this volume appropriately addresses the complexity of learning to read, and by exten- sion, of teaching students how to read. The authors largely leave open the discussion of whether the teaching and learning process is unique for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, and instead focus specifically on the evidence base for a wide variety of approaches, curricula, and practices. Literacy Instruction covers a lot of ground in less than 300 pages, for which the authors are to be commended. Even if you might be tempted to skip to one section, such as chapter 6, Grammar and Text Comprehension, I would advise you to at least skim the entire text once before carefully attending to a smaller piece. The chapters are not com- pletely independent from one another, and I found myself appreciating the value of the volume as a whole.The remainder of this review offers points for the reader to consider and to reflect upon when thinking about literacy instruction as it is discussed in this book. I cover three main themes: (a) evidence-based practice as the entry point for the book; (b) perspectives of experts versus novice readers; and (c) the role of visual illustrations.Evidence-Based Practice as Entry PointThere are many different ways to begin a book, and the choices that are made reflect the goals of the volume and the tone the authors choose to convey. Easterbrooks and BealAlvarez begin Literacy Instruction with a substantive discussion of evidence, its types, sources, and degrees of rigor. Yet for literacy instruction for students who are deaf and hard of hearing (the terminology here reflects that used in Literacy Instruction), there are many cases in which causality cannot be drawn from the existing research base. The authors offer five Causal Factors that may provide indirect evidence of effectiveness in its stead.The reader is offered two mnemonics to keep track of the Causal Factors: HOTS and CoVES. HOTS refers to Higher- Order Thinking Skills, such as thinking critically, drawing inferences, and making predictions. If a curriculum or program has been shown to promote HOTS, even if not specifi- cally with students who are deaf and hard of hearing, the authors would note that as a potential Causal Factor to consider when evaluating the evidence for that program. The CoVES set of Causal Factors is actually four distinct factors: Communication, Visualization, Explicit Instruction, and Scaffolding and Mediation. …