No abstract

The study examined the invented spelling abilities demonstrated by kindergarten and first-grade deaf and hard of hearing students. The study included two parts: In Part 1, the researcher compared three groups (deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing) using posttesting only on the Early Reading Screening Inventory, or ERSI (Morris, 1998), and in part 2 collected and analyzed samples of the spelling of deaf students in a Total Communication program. Analysis showed that the deaf group performed significantly differently in three areas: concept of word, word recognition, and phoneme awareness ("invented spelling"; Read, 1971). The deaf group outperformed the hearing and hard of hearing groups in concept of word and word recognition. But in phoneme awareness, the deaf group performed significantly less well than the hearing group. Therefore, the deaf group's spelling was followed for 1 year. Deaf students' spelling patterns were not the same as those of hearing and hard of hearing students. Deaf students' spelling miscues were directly related to the cueing systems of lipreading, signing, and fingerspelling.

No abstract

This study and discussion center upon the use of YouTube's automatic captioning feature with college-age adult readers. The study required 75 participants with college experience to view brief middle school science videos with automatic captioning on YouTube and answer comprehension questions based on material presented auditorily and/or through the automatic captions. Participants were divided into groups and presented with the captioned videos with or without sound. The videos, which all focused on the solar system, contained low and high instances of errors within the captions. The research found that comprehension of the automatic caption text varied significantly based on how the participants viewed the videos, with significantly more errors in comprehension for the group that viewed the high error video with automatic captioning only.

The purpose of this article is to support members of a student's multidisciplinary team to identify complex factors involved in providing valid classroom-based assessment data, including issues surrounding technology-based assessment for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH).The diversity of this population creates unique challenges in creating guidelines for assessment. An overview of the diversity of DHH students is used to provide a framework for examining current assessment practices, including both effective and ineffective practices. Cognitive and linguistic learning differences and diverse language learning experiences in the population are discussed as they relate to assessment protocols. Paralleling technology-based learning experiences with comparable technology-based assessment experiences is also presented. Recommendations for planning for accessible and meaningful assessment include the use of innovative technologies to align instruction and assessment.accessibility, assessment, computerized assessment, deaf 1 | INTRODUCTION Students who are deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) are a diverse, linguistic minority (Holcomb, 2013). They are not simply hearing students who cannot hear (Marschark, 2006). Members of Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) teams for students who are DHH must carefully consider a wide-range of issues when determining how to best match assessments to the unique characteristics of the students, especially when the results of these assessments will have direct impact on the academic placement of and services offered to the student. Primary language proficiency of the student, the purpose of the assessment, the delivery of the assessment content, and whether the assessment should be administered online are just a few of the considerations that must be addressed when assessing students who are DHH. This article is a call to action for the IEP teams of students who are DHH to mitigate complex issues involved in collecting and reporting on valid classroom-based assessment data, including issues with technology-based assessment.The authors acknowledge that a significant portion of this discussion centers on issues related to English-based assessments used in schools. This is not an advocacy or preference for English-based assessments, simply the recognition that there are few tests administered for students who sign, and much of what today's students who are DHH encounter in school is the presentation of content or criteria in English print. Assessments which can be presented using sign-based approaches in a modality that is accessible to the student without impacting the validity or reliability of the assessment should be considered (Higgins et al., 2016). Discussions of the best-practices for use with sign-based assessments should be limited to those professionals with backgrounds in the linguistic elements of American Sign. Language (ASL) and English-based sign systems (Mann & Prinz, 2006; Mann, Peña, & Morgan, 2014). Professionals without such backgrounds should seek consultation f...