1 / 47

Educational Success for Deaf Children: What We Know, What We Don't Know, and What We Just Think We Know

Educational Success for Deaf Children: What We Know, What We Don't Know, and What We Just Think We Know. Marc Marschark Center for Education Research Partnerships National Technical Institute for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology and Department of Psychology University of Aberdeen

capucine
Télécharger la présentation

Educational Success for Deaf Children: What We Know, What We Don't Know, and What We Just Think We Know

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Educational Success for Deaf Children:What We Know, What We Don't Know, and What We Just Think We Know Marc Marschark Center for Education Research Partnerships National Technical Institute for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology and Department of Psychology University of Aberdeen Aberdeen, Scotland

  2. Supported by

  3. Educational Success for Deaf Children:What We Know, What We Don't Know, and What We Just Think We Know About: • Foundations of learning and development • Language – signed and spoken • Literacy • Cochlear implants

  4. Educational Success for Deaf Children: Premise #1 • Well-meant beliefs and misunderstandings have gotten in the way of progress (and therefore) • We have been looking in the wrong place(s) (and, actually, we know more than we think we do)

  5. Educational Success for Deaf Children: Premise #2 Environment/Experience Thinking Learning Problem Solving Language (Marschark & Everhart, 1997)

  6. Educational Success for Deaf Children: Premise #3 “…lack of understanding of the cognitive skills underlying educational interventions is the fundamental problem in the development of special education.”(Detterman & Thompson, 1997)

  7. Educational Success for Deaf Children: Premise #4 “Deaf children are not hearing children who can’t hear.”

  8. Foundations of Learning and Development

  9. The foundations of learning and development lie in interactions of language, experience, and learning for deaf (and hearing) children

  10. Educational Success for Deaf Children: Premise #2 Environment/Experience Thinking Learning Problem Solving Language (Marschark & Everhart, 1997)

  11. The foundations of learning and development lie in interactions of language, experience, and learning for deaf (and hearing) childrenExample 1

  12. Predictors of Developmental Success forDeaf Children(and their families) • Early intervention • Quality of caregiver-child relationship • Sign language All of these entail interactions of language, experience, and learning for deaf children and their families

  13. Interactions of Language, Experience, and Learning for Deaf Children Example 2

  14. Deaf kids, deaf parents (Anderson. & Reilly, 2002)

  15. Bottom-up and Top-down Aspects of Reading

  16. Bottom-up and Top-down Aspects of Language

  17. Bottom-up and Top-down Aspects of Cognitive and Social Functioning “ “

  18. Foundations of Learning and Development:Research to Practice • Surround deaf children with language • Use visual attention/communication strategies • Play “word” games (especially with categories/relations) • Read with them • Let them “overhear” you • Point out relations, connections, and alternatives • Be a parent, not a teacher (if you’re a parent, that is…)

  19. On Sign Language and Spoken Language A. G. Bell

  20. “Spoken language and sign language are equally effective in development and education” (Marschark, 1997)

  21. “Spoken language and sign language are equally effective in development and education” (Marschark, 1997) • But, they are not the same…and may lead to differences that affect learning (Marschark, 2006)

  22. On Sign Language and Spoken Language • Advantages of sign language fluency • Children in sign-based intervention programs have better developmental success than those in oral programs (social, language, early academic) • Enhanced visual-spatial skills • Mental generation and manipulation • Sensitivity to change in peripheral vision • Ability to rapidly shift visual attention • How are these important? How can we them in the classroom?

  23. On Sign Language and Spoken Language • Advantages of spoken language fluency • Sequential/temporal processing and memory • Later academic achievement • Literacy? • Employment mobility

  24. On Sign Language and Spoken Language • But, only about 25% of deaf children develop speech skills sufficient for full educational access (Beattie, 2006; Cole & Paterson, 1984) • Language delays in oral settings are typical, even with intensive speech therapy (Geers, 2006) and CIs • There is much less evidence supporting oral methods than is generally assumed (Eriks-Brophy, 2004)

  25. On Sign Language and Spoken Language • And, the causal links are mostly unclear • Who gets the phonological codes used in reading? • Effects of residual hearing, age of hearing loss, parent involvement, etc. • Early expressive sign/speech skills predict later spoken/sign language skills • Early, effective access to fluent language, whatever its form, is the key for language development (and literacy, and academic achievement), not parental hearing status

  26. On Sign Language and Spoken Language: From Research to Practice • Surround deaf children with accessible language • Constantly seek to improve your sign skills • But don’t be surprised (or embarrassed) that children learn faster than you do • Follow the lead of your child’s strengths • Don’t believe the propaganda • Be involved!

  27. Literacy

  28. “Deaf children graduate from high school reading at a 3rd to 4th grade level.” - Teacher of deaf children in 2005 M.S. thesis citing a colleague who can remain nameless

  29. 50% of deaf and hard-of-hearing 18-year-olds in the U.S. read below the 4th grade level - Traxler (2000)

  30. “…children with one or two hearing-impaired parents have higher mean scores compared to the children with no hearing-impaired parents.” (Jensema & Trybus, 1978)

  31. Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Singleton, J.L., Supalla, S., Litchfield, S. & Schley, S. (1998). From sign to word: Considering modality constraints in ASL/English bilingual education. Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. Brasel, K. & Quigley, S.P. (1977). Influence of certain language and communicative environments in early childhood on the development of language in deaf individuals. Strong, M. & Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the relationship between American Sign Language and English literacy. Akamatsu, C.T., Musselman, C., & Zweibel, A. (2000). Nature versus nurture in the development of cognition. “Deaf children of deaf parents are better readers than deaf children of hearing parents.”

  32. Predictors of Reading Skill:What We Know and What We Don’t Know • ASL is correlated with reading and writing skills (Chamberlain, Morford, & Mayberry, 2000) • “Correlation does not imply causation”: language fluency • Spoken language is also correlated with reading and writing skills (de Villiers, Bibeau, Ramos & Gatty, 1993) • “Correlation does not imply causation”: residual hearing • It’s early language, not its modality that predicts reading skill

  33. ASL foundation + English-based signing? Accessible speech + sign? Family involvement (not just at school) Reading as is not just about words on a page Knowledge, problem solving, strategies, metacognition Cumulative effects of language and learning “Deaf children who grow up with parents who competently facilitate visual language interaction have higher reading achievement” (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003) and those whose parents expose them to both sign and print have the highest reading achievement (Marschark, 1993)

  34. Predictors of Reading Skill:What We Know and What We Don’t Know • Cued speech does not facilitate English literacy skills • Cued speech facilitates literacy skills in French (Leybaert, & Alegria, 2003; see Alegria & Lechat, 2005)

  35. Cumulative Effects of Language, Learning, and Literacy • We know: • The achievement gap is not just in literacy(e.g., Jensema & Trybus, 1978; Traxler, 2000) • Similar challenges are seen in problem solving tasks (e.g.,Furth, 1964;Marschark & Everhart, 1999) • Similar challenges are seen in learning via sign language – regardless of parental hearing status (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino & Seewagen, 2004, 2005a, b)

  36. Why? • We know that deaf children (on average): • Do not adopt relational strategies in comprehension and problem solving (Banks, Gray & Fyfe, 1990; Ottem, 1980) • Do not have strong connections in their concept knowledge (McEvoy, Marschark, & Nelson, 1999) • Do not automatically apply prior knowledge to comprehension and problem solving (Strassman, 1997) • Do not show strong metacomprehension skills (Marschark et al., 2006) (we know more than we think we do!)

  37. “Is it really reasonable for us to expect deaf children to be reading on grade level?” You bet it is!

  38. Literacy: Research to Practice • Literacy begins at home! • Surround deaf children with language • Be a parent, not a teacher • Have reading materials in the home • Let your child see that you value reading • Read with your child • Have high expectations

  39. Cochlear Implants

  40. What We Know About Cochlear Implants • They’re here to stay • Model/brand of CIs does not make any difference • CIs provide most deaf children with some benefit for hearing and language • CIs can be valuable even if they only provide access to environmental sounds • Children with CIs are more like hard-of-hearing children than hearing children (vs. “stars”)

  41. What We Know About Cochlear Implants • CIs require team efforts, time, and lots of energy • Signing does not reduce CI success/effectiveness* • Most children with CIs still have significant language delays and in speech and language • CIs do not leave deaf children “stuck between worlds” • CIs do not make a child part of the “hearing world” • CIs have no particular (positive or negative) psychological impact on children

  42. Cochlear Implants: Predictors of Success • Placement: closer to nerve endings • Shorter periods of profound hearing loss • Longer experience with implants • Age of implantation • Mode of communication in academic placement_____________________________________ • = about 50% of variability among children

  43. Cochlear Implants: Predictors of Success • Greater pre-operative residual hearing • Prelinguistic communication • Speechreading skill • Cognitive abilities/intelligence • Child temperament • Parental information-gathering

  44. What We Don’t Know About Cochlear Implants • How children with multiple challenges will fare • “Failure rate” vs. implant “stars” vs. discontinued use • How much exposure to spoken language is “enough”? • How to teach children with CIs • Value of alternative school placements, but… • Effects on literacy, but… • Academic impact, but…

  45. Cochlear Implants: Research to Practice • Surround deaf children with spoken and signed language • Maintain use of hearing aids (even if they don’t help) • Be informed • Don’t listen to the propaganda • Recognize that it’s a long haul • Accept that your child is still deaf

  46. What Does It All Mean? • Deaf children have different and more variable language, backgrounds, experiences, and academic preparation than hearing children • These differences affect academic progress because we do not understand them or “teach to them” • Parent involvement is essential to success • But parents should be parents, not teachers • There are few (if any) simple answers • We know more than we think we do • Together, we can do better

More Related