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.

Relations of Social Maturity, Executive Function, and Self-Efficacy Among Deaf University Students.

This study explored possible associations of social maturity, executive function (EF), self-efficacy, and communication variables among deaf university students, both cochlear implant (CI) users and nonusers. Previous studies have demonstrated differences between deaf and hearing children and young adults in EF and EF-related social and cognitive functioning. EF differences also have been demonstrated between hearing children and deaf children who use CIs. Long-term influences of cochlear implantation in the social domain largely have not been explored, but were examined in the present study in terms of social maturity, as it might be related to EF and communication variables. Replicating and extending recent findings, social maturity was found to be related to somewhat different aspects of EF in CI users, deaf nonusers, and hearing students, but unrelated to hearing status, CI use, or deaf students' use of sign language versus spoken language. Self-efficacy proved a predictor of self-reported socially mature and immature behaviours for all groups. Individuals' beliefs about their parents' views of such behaviours was a potent predictor of behaviours for deaf CI users and those deaf students who reported sign language as their best form of communication.

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.