Cognitive Underpinnings of Learning by Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students

Abstract

In recent years, the intersection of cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and special populations has received increasing attention from a variety of academic and educational audiences (e.g., Baron-Cohen, Tager-Flusberg, & Cohen, 2000; Florian, 2007; Marschark & Spencer, 2003). Both research and pedagogy associated with this nexus have been motivated by the awareness of large individual differences as well as international differences in educational attainment. Among the latter (presumably cultural) differences, the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS, 2003), indicated (a) wide variability in mathematics and science performance, (b) student performance in the United States rated as "below profi cient" on a variety of standardized assessments (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2005), and (c) that an Offi ce for Standards in Education report (OFSTED, 2005) in the United Kingdom surmised that children with below-average abilities in particular were not receiving suffi cient support to be able to overcome academic challenges. In efforts to improve academic opportunities and attainment of children with special needs, legislation in several countries and international efforts by the United Nations and other agencies have sought to proscribe requirements for their inclusion in various educational settings. In the United States, such efforts began with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112) and the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142). These laws combined to assure free and appropriate public 3070-104-001.indd 3 3070-104-001.indd 3

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

“…Using similar data from a 30-year period, Qi and Mitchell (2007) reported that median mathematics achievement scores had not changed significantly over that time. The primary reasons that have been proposed to account for these results are a relative lack of early experiences with quantitative concepts (Bull 2008), delays in language development (Gregory 1998), insufficient teaching qualifications and practices in the area of mathematics (Kelly, Lang, and Pagliaro 2003), and sensory-and language-based differences in the ways that children with and without hearing loss process information (Marschark and Hauser 2008). Again, these are the knowledge, cognitive, and teaching issues identified by Spencer and Marschark (2010).…”

Digital technologies and the challenge of constructing an inclusive school mathematics

“…This suggests that, in general, deaf students lag behind their hearing peers in relation to performance on mathematical tasks (see, e.g., Kelly, 2008). It is important to stress that there is a great heterogeneity amongst deaf learners, related to factors such as degree of hearing loss, use of devices such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, access (or not) at an early age to sign language (Marschark and Hauser, 2008). This makes generalisation difficult and the need to take into account the particularities of the students involved in any particular intervention paramount.…”

“…And it necessitates the development of new classroom cultures. Marschark and Hauser (2008) remind us of the Chinese proverb which tells us that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. The steps we are taking are very small, but we have started to walk.…”

Évaluer les compétences linguistiques des enfants en langue des signes française

“…L'âge d'exposition à la LSF : les enfants nés de parents Sourds (enfants signeurs natifs) devraient obtenir de meilleures performances que les enfants nés de parents entendants non-signeurs (enfants soit signeurs tardifs, soit oralistes, cf. Schick 2006, Marschark & Hauser 2008. Notons cependant qu'en pratique de nombreuses régions en France n'offrent tout simplement pas la possibilité aux familles d'enfants sourds de suivre une scolarité en langue des signes et les contraignent à placer leur enfant en école oralisante 10 (ou à déménager).…”

“…Notons que d'autres variables peuvent intervenir dans le développement du langage et le développement cognitif, en relation avec le type d'établissement scolaire, à savoir la scolarisation en internat ou externat, même si les recherches récentes ne montrent pas d'effet, à long terme, du type d'établissement sur ce dé-veloppement (voir Marschark & Hauser 2008). 13 On citera ici Bernard Mottez (1990 ;2006 : 171-172) qui a très clairement présenté la situation :…”