Communication skills of deaf and hard-of-hearing college students: Objective measures and self-assessment.

Objectively measured speech reception, speech production and expressive and receptive sign skills were compared with the self-assessment ratings of those skills in 96 college students with hearing loss. Participants with no aidable hearing used cochlear implants (CIs) or nothing. Participants with aidable hearing used either hearing aids (HAs) or nothing. Results revealed that individuals using CIs had speech reception and production skills that were as good as or better than students with more hearing who used HAs. Students using CIs or HAs had better speech reception and production skills than those without sensory aids. There was no difference in measured receptive sign skills across groups, despite differences in age of sign acquisition. Students typically provided accurate self-assessments of their communication skills with two notable exceptions: CI users overestimated their speech skills and nonusers overestimated their receptive sign skills. This study extends our knowledge regarding speech reception, production, sign skills and the ability to self-assess those skills in college students with hearing loss. Students who do not use sensory aids may be at academic risk with regard to receiving input via speech or sign.

Numerical and Real-World Estimation Abilities of Deaf and Hearing College Students.

Various studies have examined possible loci of deaf learners' documented challenges with regard to reading, usually focusing on language-related factors. Deaf students also frequently struggle in mathematics and science, but fewer studies have examined possible reasons for those difficulties. The present study examined numerical and non-numerical (real-world) estimation skills among deaf and hearing college students, together with several cognitive abilities likely to underlie mathematics performance. Drawing on claims in the literature and some limited evidence from research involving deaf children, the study also considered the possibility that the use of sign language and/or the use of cochlear implants and spoken language might facilitate deaf college students' estimation skills and mathematics achievement more broadly. Results indicated relatively little impact of cochlear implant use or language modality on either estimation skills or overall mathematics ability. Predictors of those abilities differed for deaf and hearing learners. Results suggest the need to guard against overgeneralisations either within the diverse population of deaf learners or between deaf and hearing learners. They further emphasise the need for evidence-based practice in mathematics instruction appropriate for older deaf learners, rather than making assumptions from studies involving younger or narrowly-selected samples.

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 variables might influence each other, including the possibility that deaf individuals' psychosocial functioning might 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 as much 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.

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.

Understanding Language, Hearing Status, and Visual-Spatial Skills.

It is frequently assumed that deaf individuals have superior visual-spatial abilities relative to hearing peers and thus, in educational settings, they are often considered visual learners. There is some empirical evidence to support the former assumption, although it is inconsistent, and apparently none to support the latter. Three experiments examined visual-spatial and related cognitive abilities among deaf individuals who varied in their preferred language modality and use of cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing individuals who varied in their sign language skills. Sign language and spoken language assessments accompanied tasks involving visual-spatial processing, working memory, nonverbal logical reasoning, and executive function. Results were consistent with other recent studies indicating no generalized visual-spatial advantage for deaf individuals and suggested that their performance in that domain may be linked to the strength of their preferred language skills regardless of modality. Hearing individuals performed more strongly than deaf individuals on several visual-spatial and self-reported executive functioning measures, regardless of sign language skills or use of CIs. Findings are inconsistent with assumptions that deaf individuals are visual learners or are superior to hearing individuals across a broad range of visual-spatial tasks. Further, performance of deaf and hearing individuals on the same visual-spatial tasks was associated with differing cognitive abilities, suggesting that different cognitive processes may be involved in visual-spatial processing in these groups.

Word and world knowledge among deaf learners with and without cochlear implants.

Deaf learners frequently demonstrate significantly less vocabulary knowledge than hearing age-mates. Studies involving other domains of knowledge, and perhaps deaf learners' academic performance, indicate similar lags with regard to world knowledge. Such gaps often are attributed to limitations on deaf children's incidental learning by virtue of not having access to the conversations of others. Cochlear implants (CIs) have been described as providing such access, and rapid growth in vocabularies following pediatric cochlear implantation has suggested that, over time, children with implants might close the gap relative to hearing peers. Two experiments evaluated this possibility through the assessment of word and world knowledge among deaf college students with and without CIs and a hearing comparison group. Results across essentially all tasks indicated hearing students to outperform deaf students both with and without CIs with no significant differences between the latter two groups. Separate analyses of a subset of implant users who received their implants at a young age did not reveal any long-term advantages, nor was age of implantation related to enhanced performance on any of the tasks. Results are discussed in terms of incidental learning and the accessibility of word and world knowledge to deaf learners with and without CIs.

Vocabulary Knowledge of Deaf and Hearing Postsecondary Students.

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.

Are Deaf Students Visual Learners?

It is frequently assumed that by virtue of their hearing losses, deaf students are visual learners. Deaf individuals have some visual-spatial advantages relative to hearing individuals, but most have been are linked to use of sign language rather than auditory deprivation. How such cognitive differences might affect academic performance has been investigated only rarely. This study examined relations among deaf college students' language and visual-spatial abilities, mathematics problem solving, and hearing thresholds. Results extended some previous findings and clarified others. Contrary to what might be expected, hearing students exhibited visual-spatial skills equal to or better than deaf students. Scores on a Spatial Relations task were associated with better mathematics problem solving. Relations among the several variables, however, suggested that deaf students are no more likely to be visual learners than hearing students and that their visual-spatial skill may be related more to their hearing than to sign language skills.

Print exposure, reading habits, and reading achievement among deaf and hearing college students.

This study explored relations of print exposure, academic achievement, and reading habits among 100 deaf and 100 hearing college students. As in earlier studies, recognition tests for book titles and magazine titles were used as measures of print exposure, college entrance test scores were used as measures of academic achievement, and students provided self-reports of reading habits. Deaf students recognized fewer magazine titles and fewer book titles appropriate for reading levels from kindergarten through Grade 12 while reporting more weekly hours of reading. As in previous studies with hearing college students, the title recognition test proved a better predictor of deaf and hearing students' English achievement than how many hours they reported reading. The finding that the recognition tests were relatively more potent predictors of achievement for deaf students than hearing students may reflect the fact that deaf students often obtain less information through incidental learning and classroom presentations.

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.

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.

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.

Learning via direct and mediated instruction by deaf students.

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.

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.

Benefits of sign language interpreting and text alternatives for deaf students' classroom learning.

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.

Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting.

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.

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.

Organization and use of the mental lexicon by deaf and hearing individuals.

Two experiments explored the taxonomic organization of mental lexicons in deaf and hearing college students. Experiment 1 used a single-word association task to examine relations between categories and their members. Results indicated that both groups' lexical knowledge is similar in terms of overall organization, with associations between category names and exemplars stronger for hearing students; only the deaf students showed asymmetrical exemplar-category relations. Experiment 2 used verbal analogies to explore the application of taxonomic knowledge in an academically relevant task. Significant differences between deaf and hearing students were obtained for six types of analogies, although deaf students who were better readers displayed response patterns more like hearing students'. Hearing students' responses reflected their lexical organization; deaf students' did not. These findings implicate the interaction of word knowledge, world knowledge, and literacy skills, emphasizing the need to adapt instructional methods to student knowledge in educational contexts.