Efficacy of a Direct Learning Tool for Deaf and Hard of Hearing StudentsBrian TragerRaja 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 StudyStudy 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 20102030405060708090

100

50%60%

Average Percentage

Test

Test

Sco

re (

Perc

enta

ge)

Comparison of average test scores (percentage) among participantsRochester Institute of

Technology

Gain Scores Gain Scores

Hearing InstructorCP* Mean Std. Error

ASL 2.000 0.672SimCom 3.000 1.778Oral 4.000 1.778

Cohen’s d = -0.61 Deaf Instructor

CP* Mean Std. ErrorASL 1.267 0.459SimCom 0.833 0.513Oral 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???