Psycholinguistic and Educational Implications of Deafness

Bonvillian, John D.; Charrow, Veda R.; Nelson, Keith E.

doi:10.1159/000271286

Cited by 45 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…that of the control group. Given the nature of the profound auditory impairment, the emphasis of the educational method for the deaf group on total communication and the often reported finding that the deaf perform well below their IQ and chronological age on experimental tasks involving English language (Bonvillian et al, 1973;Hoemann & Ullman, 1976), this finding is not surprising. Although the poor performance of the deaf group relative to the control group on Expt 4 has educational implications, it does not provide strong support for the interpretation that the task was too difficult to reveal underlying visual field asymmetries.…”

Section: Faraneh Vargha-khademmentioning

confidence: 95%

Visual field asymmetries in congenitally deaf and hearing children

Vargha‐Khadem¹

1983

British J of Dev Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five experiments involving American Sign Language (ASL) signs, English words and faces were carried out to investigate visual field asymmetries in congenitally deaf and hearing children. Hearing subjects demonstrated a significant right visual field superiority for the perception of moving (ASL) sign sequences and English words and a significant left visual field advantage for the processing of static (ASL) signs and faces. In contrast, deaf subjects showed a significant right visual field superiority on the face task. No significant visual field asymmetries were indicated by the deaf group on tasks involving (ASL) signs or English words. Subject performance, however, was consistent and reliable across different language tasks. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for underlying patterns of cerebral lateralization in the deaf.

show abstract

Section: Faraneh Vargha-khademmentioning

confidence: 95%

Visual field asymmetries in congenitally deaf and hearing children

Vargha‐Khadem¹

1983

British J of Dev Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deaf children often score lower than hearing children in language and school achievement (Bonvillian, Charrow, & Nelson, 1973;Lane, 1976;Levine, 1981;Meadow, 1980;Tomlinson-Keasey 8c Kelly, 1978). Several investigators have reported similar differences on traditional intelligence tests (Anderson 8c Sisco, 1977;Quigley 8c Kretschmer, 1982;Ray, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Modifiability and Cognitive Performance of Deaf and Hearing Preschool Children

Tzuriel

Caspi

1992

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to (a) assess the cognitive modifiability of preschool deaf and hearing children using dynamic and static-conventional instruments, and (b) compare the factorial pattern of the cognitive measures in both groups. The sample was composed of 26 deaf and 26 pair-matched hearing preschool children from 4·1 to 6·3 years of age. All of the children were given, individually, Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM), Children's Analogical Thinking Modifiability (CATM), the Picture Analogy Test (PAT), and the Analogies subtest from the Snijders-Oomen Nonverbal Intelligence Test (SON), and were initially matched on a motor integration scale. No significant differences were found between the two groups on RCPM, Analogies (SON), or PAT. On the CATM, a dynamic assessment instrument, the deaf children scored lower than the hearing children at pretest but improved their scores more than the hearing children when taught; both groups scored similarly after teaching. Results are interpreted according to the Structural Cognitive Modifiability and Mediated Learning Experience theory (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979) and the unique communication barriers of deaf children.

show abstract

“…In considering the information actually available to the deaf child's 'language acquisition machinery', it is apparent that there are at least two ways in which the normal process could be disrupted (Bonvillian et al, 1973). In the first place the actual spoken linguistic input is distorted and incomplete, and there is also a much reduced population of utterances available in the form of everyday conversations.…”

Section: Psycholinguistics and Deafnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language and the Deaf: an interactive microcomputer‐based approach

Sewell

Clark²,

Phillips

et al. 1980

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews some of the language problems faced by deaf children in the light of psycholinguistic research, and considers several requirements for the provision of a meaningful language learning environment for the deaf. The utility of computer-aided instruction (CAI) in the education of the deaf is discussed, and a language manipulation program (entitled JUMBLE), designed to meet the specified requirements, is described. Preliminary findings using this program are presented, and implications for the future development of the approach advocated are discussed. Linguistic problems of deaf childrenMeadow (1 975) pointed out that the basic deprivation of early profound deafness is the deprivation of language and not that of sound. In recent years, the consequences of this have been well-documented with an increasing number of articles describing the language problems faced by the profoundly deaf. Cooper and Rosenstein (1966) indicated that the majority of investigations carried out in the area contained nonpsycholinguistic analyses of data collected either by 'formal' or 'informal' means.Almost without exception what these studies demonstrated was the poor linguistic competence of many profoundly deaf children and adolescents in comparison with their hearing peers. Thus, not only are sentences produced by the deaf shorter and less complex than sentences produced by the hearing (Heider and Heider, 1940) but they also show a restricted vocabulary. Confirmation of just how restricted the vocabulary skills can be has been illustrated by Conrad's recent survey of the reading ability of deaf school-leavers (aged 15-16.5) in England and Wales (1977). His survey indicated a mean reading age of 9 years at 8 6 9 5 dB loss-ie, a retardation of 6-7 years in comparison with the average hearing child. This figure of an average 6-7-year lag is also supported by Myklebust (1974) who refers to a 7-8-year retardation at the age of 15 years.Although Conrad's study used a test which was concerned with prose comprehension, it could be argued that a limited vocabulary would not necessarily be irreversibly damaging provided that the user of that vocabulary understood how the words known were used and put together in sentences-ie, understood syntax. Many children's texts present complex concepts and detailed information by using vocabulary designed to be understood by 7-8-year-old children, and a number of deaf schools do make use of texts aimed at 'remedial' readers, in which the content and interests are commensurate with age, but the vocabulary is designed for poorer reading skills. In other words, there does appear to be a possible assumption that the problems of a limited vocabulary can be overcome by use of material written with that vocabulary in mind. However, the validity of that argument has been questioned by Quigley's recent extensive analyses of the syntactical skills of deaf children (1978). Working from a transformational grammar approach, Quigley and his associates have shown that, although the ordering of

show abstract

Psycholinguistic and Educational Implications of Deafness

Cited by 45 publications

References 11 publications

Visual field asymmetries in congenitally deaf and hearing children

Visual field asymmetries in congenitally deaf and hearing children

Cognitive Modifiability and Cognitive Performance of Deaf and Hearing Preschool Children

Language and the Deaf: an interactive microcomputer‐based approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About