We examined communication between hearing mothers and their deaf or hearing children longitudinally at child-ages 22 months and 3 years. Specifically, we analyzed both the effects of child deafness and developmental change on pragmatic and dialogic characteristics of communication. From 22 months to 3 years, deaf and hearing children's communicative skills improved similarly along some dimensions: as they grew older, both deaf and hearing children increased the amount they communicated, became increasingly responsive to their mothers' attentional focus, and were responsible for initiating a higher proportion of the dyads' conversations. On the other hand, deaf children were less skilled at maintaining topics, and the pragmatic function of their communication was more likely to be unclear compared to hearing children. Deaf children were also more likely to direct their mothers and less likely to ask questions than hearing children. Communication by hearing mothers was primarily examined to determine the degree to which they controlled the interactions. Overall, mothers of deaf children were only more controlling along one dimension. Mothers of deaf children used more response controls than mothers of hearing children. However, the majority of measures suggested they did not exert more topic or turn-taking controls than did mothers of hearing children. In addition, mothers of deaf and hearing children seemed equally sensitive to their children's communication abilities. Communication by mothers of both deaf and hearing children changed in similar ways as their children developed. Most of the differences in communication by mothers of deaf and hearing children seemed attributable to the deaf children's linguistic delays. The results suggest that intervention efforts should be focused on fostering linguistic development and not general communication skills or changing maternal conversational control.

Two experiments examined the problem‐solving strategies of deaf and hearing students from seven years to college age in the context of the ‘Twenty Questions’ game. Overall, deaf children were significantly less likely than hearing peers to ‘win’ the game within Twenty Questions, and problem‐solving appeared less efficient and less cognitively sophisticated among deaf than hearing students at all ages. Deaf and hearing children who had played the game before were equally likely to use winning strategies. However, inexperienced hearing children typically discovered the ‘correct’ strategy, whereas inexperienced deaf peers did not. Reflectivity–impulsivity, as measured by the Porteus Mazes Test (Experiment 1), was unrelated to problem‐solving performance in children and revealed no effects of hearing status. Possible causes and implications of the observed effects are discussed as they relate to early experiences of deaf children and their lack of early, effective access to language. Copyright © 1999 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

In the present longitudinal study, 20 deaf and 20 hearing children were observed during free play with their hearing mothers when the children were 22 months and 3 years of age. Compared to hearing children, deaf children were severely language delayed, with deaf 3-year-olds using less language (speech or sign) than hearing 22-month-olds. Deaf children communicated primarily through nonlinguistic vocalizations, with increasing use of gesture from 22 months to 3 years of age. Although mothers of deaf children used more visual communication than mothers of hearing children, they still primarily communicated through speech. In addition, deaf children did not visually attend to much of their mothers' communication. Therefore, deaf children received much less communication than hearing children. These results suggest that intervention efforts should be focused on increasing the quantity of perceived linguistic input by the child.

C-Print is a real-time speech-to-text transcription system used as a support service with deaf students in mainstreamed classes. Questionnaires were administered to 36 college students in 32 courses in which the C-Print system was used in addition to interpreting and note taking. Twenty-two of these students were also interviewed. Questionnaire items included student ratings of lecture comprehension. Student ratings indicated good comprehension with C-Print, and the mean rating was significantly higher than that for understanding of the interpreter. Students also rated the hard copy printout provided by C-Print as helpful, and they reported that they used these notes more frequently than the handwritten notes from a paid student note taker. Interview results were consistent with those for the questionnaire. Questionnaire and interview responses regarding use of C-Print as the only support service indicated that this arrangement would be acceptable to many students, but not to others. Communication characteristics were related to responses to the questionnaire. Students who were relatively proficient in reading and writing English, and in speech-reading, responded more favorably to C-Print.

No abstract