Problem A key ingredient to academic success is being able to read. Deaf individuals have historically failed to develop literacy skills comparable to those of their normal-hearing peers, but early identification and cochlear implants have improved prospects that these children can learn to read at the levels of their peers. The goal of this study was to examine early, or emergent, literacy in these children. Method 27 deaf children with cochlear implants (CIs) who had just completed kindergarten were tested on emergent literacy, as well as on cognitive and linguistic skills that support emergent literacy, specifically ones involving phonological awareness, executive functioning, and oral language. 17 kindergartners with normal hearing (NH) and 8 with hearing loss, but who used hearing aids (HAs) served as controls. Outcomes were compared for these three groups of children, regression analyses were performed to see if predictor variables for emergent literacy differed for children with NH and those with CIs, and factors related to the early treatment of hearing loss and prosthesis configuration were examined for children with CIs. Results Performance of children with CIs was roughly one or more standard deviations below the mean performance of children with NH on all tasks, except for syllable counting, reading fluency, and rapid serial naming. Oral language skills explained more variance in emergent literacy for children with CIs than for children with NH. Age of first implant explained moderate amounts of variance for several measures. Having one or two CIs had no effect, but children who had some amount of bimodal experience outperformed children who had none on several measures. Conclusions Even deaf children who have benefitted from early identification, intervention, and implantation are still at risk for problems with emergent literacy that could affect their academic success. This finding means that intensive language support needs to continue through at least the early elementary grades. Also a period of bimodal stimulation during the preschool years can help boost emergent literacy skills to some extent.

Purpose Common wisdom suggests that listening in noise poses disproportionately greater difficulty for listeners with cochlear implants (CIs) than for peers with normal hearing (NH). The purpose of this study was to examine phonological, language, and cognitive skills that might help explain speech-in-noise abilities for children with CIs. Method Three groups of kindergartners (NH, hearing aid wearers, and CI users) were tested on speech recognition in quiet and noise and on tasks thought to underlie the abilities that fit into the domains of phonological awareness, general language, and cognitive skills. These last measures were used as predictor variables in regression analyses with speech-in-noise scores as dependent variables. Results Compared to children with NH, children with CIs did not perform as well on speech recognition in noise or on most other measures, including recognition in quiet. Two surprising results were that (a) noise effects were consistent across groups and (b) scores on other measures did not explain any group differences in speech recognition. Conclusions Limitations of implant processing take their primary toll on recognition in quiet and account for poor speech recognition and language/phonological deficits in children with CIs. Implications are that teachers/clinicians need to teach language/phonology directly and maximize signal-to-noise levels in the classroom.

Objective To evaluate how well various language measures typically used with very young children after they receive cochlear implants predict language and literacy skills as they enter school. Methods Subjects were 50 children who had just completed kindergarten and were 6 or 7 years of age. All had previously participated in a longitudinal study from 12 to 48 months of age. 27 children had severe-to-profound hearing loss and wore cochlear implants, 8 had moderate hearing loss and wore hearing aids, and 15 had normal hearing. A latent variable of language/literacy skill was constructed from scores on six kinds of measures: (1) language comprehension; (2) expressive vocabulary; (3) phonological awareness; (4) literacy; (5) narrative skill; and (6) processing speed. Five kinds of language measures obtained at six-month intervals from 12 to 48 months of age were used as predictor variables in correlational analyses: (1) language comprehension; (2) expressive vocabulary; (3) syntactic structure of productive speech; (4) form and (5) function of language used in language samples. Results Outcomes quantified how much variance in kindergarten language/literacy performance was explained by each predictor variable, at each earlier age of testing. Comprehension measures consistently predicted roughly 25 to 50 percent of the variance in kindergarten language/literacy performance, and were the only effective predictors before 24 months of age. Vocabulary and syntactic complexity were strong predictors after roughly 36 months of age. Amount of speech produced in language samples and number of answers to parental queries explained moderate amounts of variance in performance after 24 months of age. Number of manual gestures and nonspeech vocalizations produced in language samples explained little to no variance before 24 months of age, and after that were negatively correlated with kindergarten performance. The number of imitations produced in language samples at 24 months of age explained about 10 percent of variance in kindergarten performance, but was otherwise not correlated or negatively correlated with kindergarten outcomes. Conclusions Before 24 months of age, the best predictor of later language success is language comprehension. In general, measures that index a child’s cognitive processing of language are the most sensitive predictors of school-age language abilities.

Assessment can be powerful when teachers are able to analyse, interpret and use information in ways that enhance their teaching and programmes, and students' learning. A qualitative approach was used to investigate how teachers of Years 4-8 students analyse, interpret and use information gained from administration of the Progressive Achievement Test: Mathematics (PAT: Mathematics) assessment tool. Six teachers from two schools in a rural district, south of Auckland, participated in the study. Teachers at one of the schools had access to the NZCER online marking and analysis service; teachers at the other school did not. Data were gathered through a series of semi-structured interviews and the collection of relevant documents. Both schools had a longstanding commitment to PAT: Mathematics. However, once teachers passed students' stanine scores to management they were free to further analyse and use the information, or not, as they saw fit. It was concluded that a systematic and planned approach to the analysis, interpretation, and use of data is needed if students, teachers, schools and other stakeholders are to get full value from the PAT: Mathematics tool. Assessment for teaching and learningAssessment for teaching and learning refers to the planned and deliberate collection of information by teachers with a view to using this information to plan and implement programmes of work and adjust teaching so students' curriculum-related learning needs are addressed. It highlights the mediating role of teachers and teaching in the learning process, through the gathering and use of assessment information to inform planning and teaching, which in turn supports and furthers student learning. As portrayed in Cowie and Bell's (1999) model of planned formative assessment, assessment for teaching and learning is underpinned by three processes: eliciting; interpreting; and taking action. Eliciting involves the teacher The Progressive Achievement Test: MathematicsSchools and teachers employ a range of tools to assess students' mathematics knowledge, understanding, and skills. In terms of externally produced tests and tasks, those used by New Zealand primary schools include IKAN, GloSS, e-asTTle, and PAT: M. Each tool is designed with a particular focus in mind, and as such has specific strengths and contributions to make to programme development, teaching and learning (Joyce, 2006).PAT: M is a standardised measure comprising fifteen tests that assess Years 4-10 students' mathematical knowledge, skills, and understandings How tEacHErs of yEars 4-8 studEnts analysE, intErprEt and usE information from tHE progrEssivE acHiEvEmEnt tEst: matHEmatics How tEacHErs of yEars 4-8 studEnts analysE, intErprEt and usE information from tHE progrEssivE acHiEvEmEnt tEst: matHEmatics use NZCER's Marking Service, including more detailed item reports, a class report, a year group progress report, and a school report. How tEacHErs of yEars 4-8 studEnts analysE, intErprEt and usE information from tHE progrEssivE acHiEvEmEnt tEst: matHEmatics

No abstract