Search

In order to better understand academic achievement among deaf and hard-of-hearing students in different educational placements, an exploratory study examined the experiences of postsecondary students enrolled in mainstream programs (with hearing students) versus separate programs (without hearing students) at the same institution. The Course Experience Questionnaire, the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory, and the Classroom Participation Questionnaire were utilized to obtain information concerning their perceptions, participation, and access to information in the classroom. Both groups were concerned with good teaching and the acquisition of generic skills. Both were motivated by the demands of their assessments and by a fear of failure while being alert to both positive and negative affect in their classroom interactions. Overall, students in separate classes were more positive about workload expectations, instructor feedback, and the choices they had in coursework. Students in mainstream classes were more positive about their acquisition of analytic skills (rather than rote memorization) and about their instructors' interest in them, including flexibility in methods of assessment.

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.

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.

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.

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.