Upload
alayna-heatherington
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Efficacy of a Direct Learning Tool for Deaf and Hard of Hearing StudentsBrian Trager
Raja Kushalnagar
Rochester Institute of Technology
RIT FITL 2011 - May 25, 2011
C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn
Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf
“Pictures, beside the pleasure they give, act as definers of the text, and convey far more correct ideas than could be gained from words alone.”
– James H. Logan (1870)
Rochester Institute of Technology
Learning Styles
Three different learning styles auditory, visual, kinesthetic
Deaf students – Inherently visual learners due to sensory compensation
Visual learners – Want to see the process of how things are done.
“Can I see that again?”
Presentation should show clear demonstrations Concrete examples, graphs, charts, visual representations of abstract
concepts
Rochester Institute of Technology
See To Learn
Solely rely on vision to gather information
Adequate time needed to gather all information
Several visual sources of information: Visual presentation (PowerPoint, Whiteboard, video
without CC)
Interpreter/ C-Print
Instructor
Visual dispersion
Rochester Institute of Technology
Interpreter
Projection Screen
Instructor
Whiteboard
Monitor
Direct vs. Mediated Instruction
Direct instruction Information from an instructional source is
presented directly to the audience
Mediated instruction Information is presented through an interpreter
Usually in mainstream environment
Rochester Institute of Technology
Direct vs. Mediated InstructionComprehension test of lecture
content (Marschark & Sapere, 2004) Highly qualified interpreter provided
Deaf students consistently scored lower than hearing peers
Access services are not at fault Direct instruction cannot be replicated with
mediated instruction even under optimal conditions
Rochester Institute of Technology
Relational vs Item-specific processing Relational processing
Ability to relate distinctive concepts/ideas
Item-specific Individual ideas/concepts
Deaf individuals appear to be item-specific (Marschark, 2002)
Programming concepts such as objects and classes require relational processing
Deaf and hearing score equally when recalling individual items
Deaf lag behind hearing peers when recalling ideas in relationship to each other
Instructional Tool Study
Study conducted by Dowaliby and Lang (1999)
Various multimedia strategies examined
11 lessons on the human eye
144 deaf participants Split into three categories based on their reading
skills (low, middle, high)
Rochester Institute of Technology
Instructional Tool Study
Text Only – deaf participants scored 6.9
Adjunct questions proved to be the most effective tool of all the conditions (2.8 points increase)
An increase of 3.7 from text only to full
Low reading skills scored higher with full adjunct aids than high skilled readers with text only
Instructional tool proven to be effective with increase of scores between pretest and posttest
Adjunct questions most effective for low to moderate skilled readers
Sign movies most effective for highly skilled readers
Rochester Institute of Technology
C2Learn Application
User-driven application
Four lessons: focuses on decisions and advanced decisions in Java
Average of 12 “slides” for each lessons
50+ minutes of video
30+ adjunct questions
10+ animated examples
Rochester Institute of Technology
Methodology
Research study undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of the C2Learn software
41 Participants – Deaf and hard-of-hearing students registered in either introductory programming courses or similar bridge course
Rochester Institute of Technology
Methodology – Cont’d.
Test #1 – Administered before C2Learn software was given to participants
Learning Tool – Participants were informed to start with if statement module
Test #2 – Administered when participants completed all modules in C2Learn software
Learning Tool Survey – Inquire thoughts and gather feedback
Rochester Institute of Technology
Test Results
Each test has 14 questions
One point is given for each question that is answered correctly
A combination of multiple-choice questions and fill-in-the-blanks
Rochester Institute of Technology
1 20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50%
60%
Average Percentage
Test
Test
Score
(P
erc
en
tag
e)
Comparison of average test scores (percentage) among participants
Rochester Institute of Technology
Gain Scores Gain Scores
Hearing Instructor
CP* Mean Std. Error
ASL 2.000 0.672
SimCom 3.000 1.778
Oral 4.000 1.778
Cohen’s d = -0.61
Deaf Instructor
CP* Mean Std. Error
ASL 1.267 0.459
SimCom 0.833 0.513
Oral 2.000 0.759
*- Communication Preference
Rochester Institute of Technology
Further Analysis
Split two groups based on scores Low scoring group
High scoring group
High scoring group showed medium size effect Cohen’s d = 0.58618572
Low scoring group indicated a high size effect Cohen’s d = 0.86822513
Rochester Institute of Technology
Low Scorers High Scorers0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre-TestPost-Test
Test Results Conclusion
Low performing learns benefit most from C2Learn
Communication preferences has no effect on results
This approach may be applicable to ESL students and visual learners in general
Rochester Institute of Technology
References Dowaliby, F., & Lang, H. (1999). Adjunct aids in instructional prose: a multimedia study with
deaf college students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 4(4), 270-82. doi: 10.1093/deafed/4.4.270.
Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students: research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 7(4), 267-80. doi: 10.1093/deafed/7.4.267.
Marschark, M., Pelz, J. B., Convertino, C., Sapere, P., Arndt, M. E., & Seewagen, R. (2005). Classroom Interpreting and Visual Information Processing in Mainstream Education for Deaf Students: Live or Memorex(R)?. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 727-761. doi: 10.3102/00028312042004727.
Marschark, Marc, Leigh, G., Sapere, Patricia, Burnham, D., Convertino, Carol, Stinson, M., et al. (2006). Benefits of sign language interpreting and text alternatives for deaf students’ classroom learning. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 11(4), 421-37. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enl013.
Marschark, Marc, Sapere, Patricia, Convertino, Carol, & Pelz, J. (2008). Learning via direct and mediated instruction by deaf students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 13(4), 546-61. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enn014.
McKinney, D., & Denton, L. (2004). Houston, we have a problem: there’s a leak in the CS1 affective oxygen tank. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 236-239). doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/971300.971386.
Paul, P. V., & O’Rourke, J. P. (1988). Multimeaning Words and Reading Comprehension: Implications for Special Education Students. Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), 42-52. doi: 10.1177/074193258800900308.
Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., Woodbury, J., & Jarman, E. (2002). Learning styles and performance in the introductory programming sequence. Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (Vol. 34, p. 33–37). ACM. doi: 10.1145/563517.563352.
Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National Norming and Performance Standards for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 5(4), 337-48. doi: 10.1093/deafed/5.4.337.
Rochester Institute of Technology
Questions???