It is frequently assumed that deaf individuals have superior visual-spatial abilities relative to hearing peers and thus, in educational settings, they are often considered visual learners. There is some empirical evidence to support the former assumption, although it is inconsistent, and apparently none to support the latter. Three experiments examined visual-spatial and related cognitive abilities among deaf individuals who varied in their preferred language modality and use of cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing individuals who varied in their sign language skills. Sign language and spoken language assessments accompanied tasks involving visual-spatial processing, working memory, nonverbal logical reasoning, and executive function. Results were consistent with other recent studies indicating no generalized visual-spatial advantage for deaf individuals and suggested that their performance in that domain may be linked to the strength of their preferred language skills regardless of modality. Hearing individuals performed more strongly than deaf individuals on several visual-spatial and self-reported executive functioning measures, regardless of sign language skills or use of CIs. Findings are inconsistent with assumptions that deaf individuals are visual learners or are superior to hearing individuals across a broad range of visual-spatial tasks. Further, performance of deaf and hearing individuals on the same visual-spatial tasks was associated with differing cognitive abilities, suggesting that different cognitive processes may be involved in visual-spatial processing in these groups.

Deaf learners frequently demonstrate significantly less vocabulary knowledge than hearing age-mates. Studies involving other domains of knowledge, and perhaps deaf learners' academic performance, indicate similar lags with regard to world knowledge. Such gaps often are attributed to limitations on deaf children's incidental learning by virtue of not having access to the conversations of others. Cochlear implants (CIs) have been described as providing such access, and rapid growth in vocabularies following pediatric cochlear implantation has suggested that, over time, children with implants might close the gap relative to hearing peers. Two experiments evaluated this possibility through the assessment of word and world knowledge among deaf college students with and without CIs and a hearing comparison group. Results across essentially all tasks indicated hearing students to outperform deaf students both with and without CIs with no significant differences between the latter two groups. Separate analyses of a subset of implant users who received their implants at a young age did not reveal any long-term advantages, nor was age of implantation related to enhanced performance on any of the tasks. Results are discussed in terms of incidental learning and the accessibility of word and world knowledge to deaf learners with and without CIs.

It is frequently assumed that by virtue of their hearing losses, deaf students are visual learners. Deaf individuals have some visual-spatial advantages relative to hearing individuals, but most have been are linked to use of sign language rather than auditory deprivation. How such cognitive differences might affect academic performance has been investigated only rarely. This study examined relations among deaf college students’ language and visual-spatial abilities, mathematics problem solving, and hearing thresholds. Results extended some previous findings and clarified others. Contrary to what might be expected, hearing students exhibited visual-spatial skills equal to or better than deaf students. Scores on a Spatial Relations task were associated with better mathematics problem solving. Relations among the several variables, however, suggested that deaf students are no more likely to be visual learners than hearing students and that their visual-spatial skill may be related more to their hearing than to sign language skills.

Four experiments, each building on the results of the previous ones, explored the effects of several manipulations on learning and the accuracy of metacognitive judgments among deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students. Experiment 1 examined learning and metacognitive accuracy from classroom lectures with or without prior scaffolding in the form of a description of main points and concepts. Experiment 2 compared the benefits of scaffolding when material was read versus when it was presented as a lecture signed for DHH students and spoken for hearing students. Experiment 3 compared scaffolding provided in the form of main points versus vocabulary, and Experiment 4 examined effects of material familiarity and a delay between study and test. Results indicated that although all students had a tendency to overestimate their performance, hearing students learned more and were more accurate in their metacognitive judgments than DHH students. Content familiarity improved the accuracy of metacognitive judgments by both DHH and hearing students, but the delay manipulation was effective only for hearing students. Consistent with other recent findings, DHH students learned as much from reading as they did from signed instruction. Differences between DHH and hearing students may indicate the need for explicit instruction for DHH students in academically relevant skills acquired incidentally by hearing students.

In the education of deaf learners, from primary school to postsecondary settings, it frequently is suggested that deaf students are visual learners. That assumption appears to be based on the visual nature of signed languages—used by some but not all deaf individuals—and the fact that with greater hearing losses, deaf students will rely relatively more on vision than audition. However, the questions of whether individuals with hearing loss are more likely to be visual learners than verbal learners or more likely than hearing peers to be visual learners have not been empirically explored. Several recent studies, in fact, have indicated that hearing learners typically perform as well or better than deaf learners on a variety of visual-spatial tasks. The present study used two standardized instruments to examine learning styles among college deaf students who primarily rely on sign language or spoken language and their hearing peers. The visual-verbal dimension was of particular interest. Consistent with recent indirect findings, results indicated that deaf students are no more likely than hearing students to be visual learners and are no stronger in their visual skills and habits than their verbal skills and habits, nor are deaf students’ visual orientations associated with sign language skills. The results clearly have specific implications for the educating of deaf learners.