Deaf Children’s Science Content Learning in Direct Instruction Versus Interpreted Instruction

Rochester Institute Of Technology ,Kim Kurz,Brenda Schick,Peter Hauser

doi:10.14448/jsesd.07.0003

Rochester Institute Of Technology , Kim Kurz + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.07.0003

Copy DOI

Abstract

This research study compared learning of 6-9th grade deaf students under two modes of educational delivery - interpreted vs. direct instruction using science lessons. Nineteen deaf students participated in the study in which they were taught six science lessons in American Sign Language. In one condition, the lessons were taught by a hearing teacher in English and were translated in ASL via a professional and certified interpreter. In the second condition, the lessons were taught to the students in ASL by a deaf teacher. All students saw three lessons delivered via an interpreter and three different lessons in direct ASL; the order of delivery of each presentation was counter balanced between the two groups of students. Following the instruction, each group was tested on the science lecture materials with six comprehension questions. Results indicated that deaf students who received direct instruction in ASL from the deaf teacher scored higher on content knowledge.

Highlights

IntroductionLane-Outlaw (2009) describes, “In American Sign Language (ASL)/ English bilingual secondary science classrooms, teachers use both languages to teach concepts and skills to students, but little is known about how this instruction is accomplished”
The research that has been conducted related to science education with deaf students in general has not looked at science instruction or language use, yet many of the recommendations for future research include investigating the use of sign language in science instruction (Molander, Pedersen & Norell, 2001; Roald, 2002; Roald & Mikalsen, 2000; Sunal & Burch, 1982)
Five native-signing participants who were raised by deaf and signing parents and seven nonnative signing participants who were born to hearing parents who learned sign language after they were born were from the direct communication environments, and four native signing participants and three nonnative signing participants were from the mainstreamed programs

Summary

Introduction

Lane-Outlaw (2009) describes, “In ASL/ English bilingual secondary science classrooms, teachers use both languages to teach concepts and skills to students, but little is known about how this instruction is accomplished” Erting (2001) explains that deaf students arrive at school without the same background knowledge and linguistic skills as their hearing peers. This often leads to an educational focus on language instruction. Lane-Outlaw (2009) explains that too often deaf education programs focus on teaching language other than science which is an important life skill in understanding how science works around us in this world. At least 14% of mainstreamed deaf and hard-of-hearing students had sign language interpreters in their classrooms (Gallaudet Research Institute)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion