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.

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.

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.