Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Brian Trager Raja Kushalnagar

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Brian Trager Raja Kushalnagar"— Presentation transcript:

1 Brian Trager Raja Kushalnagar
FITL 2011 FITL 2011 FITL 2011 FITL 2011 FITL 2011 Rochester Institute of Technology C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn C2Learn Efficacy of a Direct Learning Tool for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Direct Learning Brian Trager Raja Kushalnagar 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 Deaf National Technical Institute for the Deaf RIT 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 Styles Three different learning styles auditory, visual, kinesthetic Deaf students – Inherently visual learners due to sensory compensation Visual learners – Want to see the process of how things are done. “Can I see that again?” Presentation should show clear demonstrations Concrete examples, graphs, charts, visual representations of abstract concepts Auditory – 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 Learn Solely rely on vision to gather information Adequate time needed to gather all information Several visual sources of information: Visual presentation (PowerPoint, Whiteboard, video without CC) Interpreter/ C-Print Instructor Visual dispersion

5 Interpreter

6 Projection Screen

7 Instructor

8 Whiteboard

9 Monitor

10 Direct vs. Mediated Instruction
Rochester Institute of Technology Direct vs. Mediated Instruction Direct instruction Information from an instructional source is presented directly to the audience Mediated instruction Information is presented through an interpreter Usually in mainstream environment Study 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 Technology Direct vs. Mediated Instruction Comprehension test of lecture content (Marschark & Sapere, 2004) Highly qualified interpreter provided Deaf students consistently scored lower than hearing peers Access services are not at fault Direct instruction cannot be replicated with mediated instruction even under optimal conditions

12 Relational vs Item-specific processing
Relational processing Ability to relate distinctive concepts/ideas Item-specific Individual ideas/concepts Deaf individuals appear to be item-specific (Marschark, 2002) Programming concepts such as objects and classes require relational processing Deaf and hearing score equally when recalling individual items Deaf lag behind hearing peers when recalling ideas in relationship to each other

13 Instructional Tool Study
Rochester Institute of Technology Instructional Tool Study Study conducted by Dowaliby and Lang (1999) Various multimedia strategies examined 11 lessons on the human eye 144 deaf participants Split 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 Technology Instructional Tool Study Text Only – deaf participants scored 6.9 Adjunct 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 full Low reading skills scored higher with full adjunct aids than high skilled readers with text only Instructional tool proven to be effective with increase of scores between pretest and posttest Adjunct questions most effective for low to moderate skilled readers Sign movies most effective for highly skilled readers

15 Rochester Institute of Technology
C2Learn Application User-driven application Four lessons: focuses on decisions and advanced decisions in Java Average of 12 “slides” for each lessons 50+ minutes of video 30+ adjunct questions 10+ animated examples

16 Rochester Institute of Technology
Methodology Research study undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of the C2Learn software 41 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 participants Learning Tool – Participants were informed to start with if statement module Test #2 – Administered when participants completed all modules in C2Learn software Learning Tool Survey – Inquire thoughts and gather feedback

18 Rochester Institute of Technology
Test Results Each test has 14 questions One point is given for each question that is answered correctly A combination of multiple-choice questions and fill-in-the-blanks

19 Rochester Institute of Technology
Comparison of average test scores (percentage) among participants The average without student #5 would be 78% for post test scores.

20 Rochester Institute of Technology
Gain Scores Gain Scores Hearing Instructor CP* Mean Std. Error ASL SimCom Oral Cohen’s d = -0.61 Deaf Instructor ASL SimCom Oral *- Communication Preference

21 Rochester Institute of Technology
Further Analysis Split two groups based on scores Low scoring group High scoring group High scoring group showed medium size effect Cohen’s d = Low scoring group indicated a high size effect Cohen’s d =

22 Test Results Conclusion
Rochester Institute of Technology Test Results Conclusion Low performing learns benefit most from C2Learn Communication preferences has no effect on results This approach may be applicable to ESL students and visual learners in general

23 Rochester Institute of Technology
References Dowaliby, 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/

24 Questions???


Download ppt "Brian Trager Raja Kushalnagar"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google