Presentation on theme: "Brian Trager Raja Kushalnagar"— Presentation transcript:
1 Brian Trager Raja Kushalnagar FITL 2011 FITL 2011 FITL 2011 FITL 2011 FITL 2011Rochester Institute of TechnologyC2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2LearnEfficacy of a Direct Learning Tool for Deaf and Hard of Hearing StudentsDirect Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct LearningBrian TragerRaja KushalnagarNational Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf National Technical Institute for the DeafRIT FITL May 25, 2011
2 Rochester Institute of Technology “Pictures, beside the pleasure they give, act as definers of the text, and convey far more correct ideas than could be gained from words alone.” – James H. Logan (1870)
3 Rochester Institute of Technology Learning StylesThree different learning stylesauditory, visual, kinestheticDeaf students –Inherently visual learners due to sensory compensationVisual learners –Want to see the process of how things are done. “Can I see that again?”Presentation should show clear demonstrationsConcrete examples, graphs, charts, visual representations of abstract conceptsAuditory – learn from what they hear.Kinesthetic – “Hands On”, learn from doing. 10% are kinesthetic learners.60% of all people are visual learners.Sensory compensation - Increased ability in one sensory modality to compensate for the lack of another sense. A blind person may learn to use their sense of touch and hearing more effectively due to the loss of vision. Senses are not more sensitive, but they are more dependant than they were if sense of vision was never lost.
4 Rochester Institute of Technology See To LearnSolely rely on vision to gather informationAdequate time needed to gather all informationSeveral visual sources of information:Visual presentation (PowerPoint, Whiteboard, video without CC)Interpreter/ C-PrintInstructorVisual dispersion
10 Direct vs. Mediated Instruction Rochester Institute of TechnologyDirect vs. Mediated InstructionDirect instructionInformation from an instructional source is presented directly to the audienceMediated instructionInformation is presented through an interpreterUsually in mainstream environmentStudy was conducted in a K-12 environment, but it can be applicable to a classroom environment here at RIT which also incorporates a mainstream environment.
11 Direct vs. Mediated Instruction Rochester Institute of TechnologyDirect vs. Mediated InstructionComprehension test of lecture content (Marschark & Sapere, 2004)Highly qualified interpreter providedDeaf students consistently scored lower than hearing peersAccess services are not at faultDirect instruction cannot be replicated with mediated instruction even under optimal conditions
12 Relational vs Item-specific processing Relational processingAbility to relate distinctive concepts/ideasItem-specificIndividual ideas/conceptsDeaf individuals appear to be item-specific (Marschark, 2002)Programming concepts such as objects and classes require relational processingDeaf and hearing score equally when recalling individual itemsDeaf lag behind hearing peers when recalling ideas in relationship to each other
13 Instructional Tool Study Rochester Institute of TechnologyInstructional Tool StudyStudy conducted by Dowaliby and Lang (1999)Various multimedia strategies examined11 lessons on the human eye144 deaf participantsSplit into three categories based on their reading skills (low, middle, high)8 percent of all deaf college students enroll with at least an 8th grade or higher reading level. T.E. Allen (1986) Patterns among academic achievement among hearing-impaired students.Unfortunately, that hasn’t changed much recently. 30 percent of deaf students leave school functionally illiterate while hearing peers are only at 1 percent. Marschark (1993). Psychological development of deaf children.
14 Instructional Tool Study Rochester Institute of TechnologyInstructional Tool StudyText Only – deaf participants scored 6.9Adjunct questions proved to be the most effective tool of all the conditions (2.8 points increase)An increase of 3.7 from text only to fullLow reading skills scored higher with full adjunct aids than high skilled readers with text onlyInstructional tool proven to be effective with increase of scores between pretest and posttestAdjunct questions most effective for low to moderate skilled readersSign movies most effective for highly skilled readers
15 Rochester Institute of Technology C2Learn ApplicationUser-driven applicationFour lessons: focuses on decisions and advanced decisions in JavaAverage of 12 “slides” for each lessons50+ minutes of video30+ adjunct questions10+ animated examples
16 Rochester Institute of Technology MethodologyResearch study undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of the C2Learn software41 Participants – Deaf and hard-of- hearing students registered in either introductory programming courses or similar bridge course
17 Rochester Institute of Technology Methodology – Cont’d.Test #1 – Administered before C2Learn software was given to participantsLearning Tool – Participants were informed to start with if statement moduleTest #2 – Administered when participants completed all modules in C2Learn softwareLearning Tool Survey – Inquire thoughts and gather feedback
18 Rochester Institute of Technology Test ResultsEach test has 14 questionsOne point is given for each question that is answered correctlyA combination of multiple-choice questions and fill-in-the-blanks
19 Rochester Institute of Technology Comparison of average test scores (percentage) among participantsThe average without student #5 would be 78% for post test scores.
20 Rochester Institute of Technology Gain ScoresGain ScoresHearing InstructorCP* Mean Std. ErrorASLSimComOralCohen’s d = -0.61Deaf InstructorASLSimComOral*- Communication Preference
21 Rochester Institute of Technology Further AnalysisSplit two groups based on scoresLow scoring groupHigh scoring groupHigh scoring group showed medium size effectCohen’s d =Low scoring group indicated a high size effectCohen’s d =
22 Test Results Conclusion Rochester Institute of TechnologyTest Results ConclusionLow performing learns benefit most from C2LearnCommunication preferences has no effect on resultsThis approach may be applicable to ESL students and visual learners in general
23 Rochester Institute of Technology ReferencesDowaliby, F., & Lang, H. (1999). Adjunct aids in instructional prose: a multimedia study with deaf college students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 4(4), doi: /deafed/Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students: research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 7(4), doi: /deafed/Marschark, M., Pelz, J. B., Convertino, C., Sapere, P., Arndt, M. E., & Seewagen, R. (2005). Classroom Interpreting and Visual Information Processing in Mainstream Education for Deaf Students: Live or Memorex(R)?. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), doi: /Marschark, Marc, Leigh, G., Sapere, Patricia, Burnham, D., Convertino, Carol, Stinson, M., et al. (2006). Benefits of sign language interpreting and text alternatives for deaf students’ classroom learning. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 11(4), doi: /deafed/enl013.Marschark, Marc, Sapere, Patricia, Convertino, Carol, & Pelz, J. (2008). Learning via direct and mediated instruction by deaf students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 13(4), doi: /deafed/enn014.McKinney, D., & Denton, L. (2004). Houston, we have a problem: there’s a leak in the CS1 affective oxygen tank. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp ). doi:Paul, P. V., & O’Rourke, J. P. (1988). Multimeaning Words and Reading Comprehension: Implications for Special Education Students. Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), doi: /Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., Woodbury, J., & Jarman, E. (2002). Learning styles and performance in the introductory programming sequence. Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (Vol. 34, p. 33–37). ACM. doi: /Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National Norming and Performance Standards for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 5(4), doi: /deafed/