Benefits of Sign Language Interpreting and Text Alternatives for Deaf Students' Classroom Learning

Abstract

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.

Evidence‐based practice in educating deaf and hard‐of‐hearing children: teaching to their cognitive strengths and needs

“…In many cases, as in the case of Geers et al (2008, S27) explaining decreases in reading achievement over time among children with cochlear implants, they are simply met with resignation: '[reading ability] was expected to decrease over time, since it has been frequently documented that students with profound deafness experience a gap in reading achievement relative to typical, hearing children that increases as they get older'. Recent findings, however, indicate that DHH students encounter the same difficulties and do no better in learning from sign language (or spoken language) as they do from text (Borgna et al, 2011;Marschark, Leigh et al 2006;Marschark et al 2009). Such findings point to three interrelated factors emerging from Spencer and Marschark's (2010) review, which apply across the curriculum:…”

Technology for supporting web information search and learning in Sign Language

“…In addition, as Richards et al (2005) highlight, having to pay attention to different sources would create literacy barriers due to the continuous switching between their language of choice and a second language. The redundancy issue could be even more relevant for deaf learners because they commonly exhibit difficulties integrating information coming from two differences sources (Marschark et al, 2006). This redundancy problem would affect both embedded and separate videos, but it could be mitigated by enhancing the text-sign synchronisation.…”

“…Paradoxically, SL-only approaches might not be as effective in facilitating the comprehension of academic information by deaf students (e.g. Marschark et al, 2006;Rodriguez-Ortiz, 2007) as oral languages are for hearing students. That is, the level of comprehension obtained by hearing students exposed to spoken lectures is higher than the level of comprehension of deaf students exposed to signed or interpreted lessons.…”

“…For instance, Marschark et al (2006) compared the effect on the comprehension of two academic lectures (one on soil mechanics and one on visual perception) by deaf signer students using realtime text transcriptions, SL interpreting and both (Experiment 1). They found that real-time text alone significantly improved the performance of deaf students compared to the other two conditions.…”

“…Actually, although Marschark et al (2006) used introductory-level lectures, the topics were highly specific (soil mechanics and visual perception). The topics used by Rodriguez-Ortiz (2007) possibly involve a more common vocabulary (domestic violence and apartment searching for university students) but with no information about the word frequency or the validity of the SL terminology used in these experiments, this hypothesis is not falsifiable.…”