Child Modifiability as a Predictor of Language Abilities in Deaf Children Who Use American Sign Language

Mann, Wolfgang; Peña, Elizabeth D.; Morgan, Gary

doi:10.1044/2015_ajslp-14-0072

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These include studies of learner characteristics, as well as studies examining instructional approaches for ASL development. For example, there is some evidence that child-level characteristics, such as flexibility in the use of cognitive and affective strategies for learning, is associated with greater improvement in ASL proficiency following intervention [39]. However, this is the only study that examines this type of characteristic for language learning in ASL, and both replication of this finding and exploration of other child-level factors that may be relevant for ASL learning among d/hh children are necessary.…”

Section: American Sign Language Development and Instructionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Language Development and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

Scott

Dostal

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the available research literature on language development and language interventions among deaf and hard of hearing (d/hh) children. This literature is divided into two broad categories: Research on natural languages (specifically American Sign Language and spoken English) and research on communication systems (specifically iterations of signed English and cued speech). These bodies of literature are summarized, with special attention paid to intervention research and research exploring the impacts of language skills on literacy development. Findings indicate that there is generally a stronger research base on natural languages as compared to communication systems, though more studies in both categories are necessary. Additionally, there are very few intervention studies and even fewer that aim to intervene upon language with the explicit goal of impacting literacy; therefore, there is little known about whether and how interventions that aim to support language development may have direct or indirect impacts on literacy within this population. Further research on this topic, as well as replication studies and research with larger sample sizes, is strongly recommended.

show abstract

Section: American Sign Language Development and Instructionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Language Development and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

Scott

Dostal

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We extended our work in a follow up study (Mann et al, 2015) with a larger, more diverse sample, using the same DA procedures targeting knowledge of semantic categorization. Two groups of deaf children identified as either stronger (N=25) or weaker (N=12) language learners based on teacher/speech language pathologist feedback received two scripted MLE sessions targeting their ability to classify objects, pictures and words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Deaf Learners’ Language Progress in School

Mann¹

2018

Evidence-Based Practices in Deaf Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The needs of increasingly diverse deaf learners in special schools and mainstream programs pose a challenge to researchers and practitioners, especially when it comes to assessment. There has been progress in developing standardized psychometric tests that are more appropriate for deaf children, for example in the form of sign language assessments. However, these tests continue to have certain limitations: they provide information about a child’s learning outcome but not the learning process, and children have a limited opportunity to contribute to the assessment process. This chapter highlights the potential of using dynamic assessment (DA), an interactive approach to psychological assessment that embeds intervention within the assessment procedure, with deaf learners. After providing background on language assessment of deaf learners and an introduction to the concept behind DA, the author discusses the relevant research and examines ways for teachers to make DA meaningful in the classroom.

show abstract

“…Por exemplo, o MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory , uma lista de verificação dos pais para monitorar o desenvolvimento da linguagem em inglês, de crianças com idade entre 8 e 36 meses, que foi adaptada para diversos idiomas, incluindo a Língua de Sinais Americana (ASL: Anderson & Reilly, 2002) e a Língua de Sinais Britânica (BSL: Woolfe, Herman, Roy, & Woll, 2010). O trabalho de Mann, et al (2015) contribui para esta pesquisa e delineia o processo de adaptação de uma nova medida de conhecimento de vocabulário das crianças surdas em Língua de Sinais Britânica (BSL), o webbased BSL Vocabulary Test (BSL-VT: Mann & Marshall, 2012), para a Língua de Sinais Americana (ASL) como parte de um estudo maior, que investigou a aquisição lexical em ASL e Inglês por crianças surdas entre 6 e 10 anos de idade (Mann, Peña, Morgan, 2015). Atualmente, não há avaliações padronizadas disponíveis para qualquer ASL ou BSL que medem conhecimento de vocabulário, da mesma forma detalhada como a BSL-VT e o ASL-VT.…”

Section: (13) Correlação Das Medidas De Linguagem Infantil Com O Nívunclassified

Validação e normatização de instrumentos para avaliar vocabulários receptivo e expressivo em crianças de 18 meses a 6 anos de idade

Damazio¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Child Modifiability as a Predictor of Language Abilities in Deaf Children Who Use American Sign Language

Cited by 8 publications

References 61 publications

Language Development and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

Language Development and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

Measuring Deaf Learners’ Language Progress in School

Validação e normatização de instrumentos para avaliar vocabulários receptivo e expressivo em crianças de 18 meses a 6 anos de idade

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About