Approaches to Teaching in Mainstream and Separate Postsecondary Classrooms
In: American annals of the deaf: AAD, Band 155, Heft 4, S. 481-487
ISSN: 1543-0375
3 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: American annals of the deaf: AAD, Band 155, Heft 4, S. 481-487
ISSN: 1543-0375
In: American annals of the deaf: AAD, Band 154, Heft 4, S. 357-370
ISSN: 1543-0375
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.
In: American annals of the deaf: AAD, Band 152, Heft 4, S. 415-424
ISSN: 1543-0375
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.