Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Young Deaf Children and The Prediction of Reading and Mathematics
www.cemcentre.org
2
Background
Deafness is not a learning disability and
there is no reason why deaf children should
achieve any less than their hearing peers of
similar cognitive abilities (National Deaf
Children’s Society, 2007)
3
• Conrad (1979) found the mean reading age of deaf pupils at age 15 was substantially lower than that of hearing pupils.– Sample size = 469– Mean reading age = 9 years– Since then, only small-scale studies that showed
similar results (review by Powers, 1988)
Reading Attainment
4
• Difference between groups for mathematics was not so striking e.g. Wood et al. (1986)– Sample size = 1,000 pupils including 540 deaf
pupils– Mean age of deaf pupils = 12.3 years compared
with 15.5 years for hearing pupils
Maths Attainment
5
• DfES (2007)– 32.9% of deaf children achieved five or more
GCSEs at grades A* to C– National average was 57.1%
GCSE
6
Beginning to Read
Children need different types of knowledge:
• Global and cultural awareness
• Vocabulary and basic understanding of language
• Conventions of print
• Phonological awareness
7
Understanding Mathematics
Also requires language acquisition
8
Early Interventions
• Early Years Foundation Stage and increased pre-school provision
• Early identification of deaf children (Newborn Hearing Screening Programme fully implemented since 2006)– At age 3 years, average vocabulary for hearing
children is 700 words– For deaf children of same age with undetected
hearing loss, average vocabulary is 25 words (NDCS, 2008)
9
Early Interventions
• Digital hearing aids on NHS started with 20 sites in 2000/2001
• Cochlear Implants
10
Research Questions
• Is there a difference in the early reading and maths development of deaf and hearing children at the start of school?
• Have trends changed over time?
• What is the rate of progress of deaf children compared with their hearing peers in the first year of school?
11
The Centre for Evaluation & Monitoring (CEM)
• Systems to monitor the progress of children aged 3 – 18 years
• Assess over 1 million pupils per year
12
Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS)
• Baseline Assessment on entry to school
• Pupils re-assessed at the end of the first year
• Text and Computer-delivered version of assessment
• Schools administer assessment and return data to CEM for analysis and feedback
13
Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS)
• Collected data from several thousand pupils from 1999/00 academic year up to 2007/08
• Assessment items have remained the same over time
14
Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS)
• Early Reading
• Early Maths
• Modifications to administration
• Demonstration of computer-delivered version
15
Sample for investigation of changes over time
• Limitation– Ideally would use sample of same schools– But that would reduce an already small sample of
pupils with hearing loss
• Concentrating on computer-delivered version of PIPS Baseline
16
Results
17
Decline in maths scores of deaf group is statistically significant
18
Measuring Progress in Reception
Tymms, P., Brien, D., Merrell, C., Collins, J. and Jones, P. (2003) Young deaf children and the prediction of reading and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 1(2), 197 – 212.
19
Measuring Progress in Reception
• For value-added, baseline assessment at the start of Reception needs to correlate with the assessment at the end of the year
• PIPS Baseline at start of Reception
• PIPS Baseline repeated at end of year
20
Correlation = 0
21
Correlation = 1
22
Correlation = 0.7
23
Sample
Started school in 1998/99 academic year
Hearing Loss Count
None 2000Mild 650Moderate 204Severe 79Profound 29
24
• Early Reading– Writing, Ideas about Reading, Letter
Identification
• Early Maths– Ideas about Maths, Counting, Sums (without
symbols), Digit Identification
25
Correlations
Hearing Loss Reading Maths
None .71 .71
Mild .75 .77
Moderate .72 .68
Severe .69 .74
Profound .29 .40
26
• Good correlations except for group of children with Profound hearing loss
• Overall, PIPS Baseline was appropriate and progress of groups could be compared
• All except the Profound group made similar progress in Reception
• Why was the Profound group different?
• Current ongoing research
