Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access originally published online on August 23, 2006
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2006 11(4):421-437; doi:10.1093/deafed/enl013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Benefits of Sign Language Interpreting and Text Alternatives for Deaf Students' Classroom Learning
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, University of Aberdeen
Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children/University of Newcastle
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
University of Western Sydney
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
Radboud University Nijmegen Viataal, Institute for the Deaf
Radboud University Nijmegen
University of New England
Four experiments examined the utility of real-time text in supporting deaf students' learning from lectures in postsecondary (Experiments 1 and 2) and secondary classrooms (Experiments 3 and 4). Experiment 1 compared the effects on learning of sign language interpreting, real-time text (C-Print), and both. Real-time text alone led to significantly higher performance by deaf students than the other two conditions, but performance by deaf students in all conditions was significantly below that of hearing peers who saw lectures without any support services. Experiment 2 compared interpreting and two forms of real-time text, C-Print and Communication Access Real-Time Translation, at immediate testing and after a 1-week delay (with study notes). No significant differences among support services were obtained at either testing. Experiment 3 also failed to reveal significant effects at immediate or delayed testing in a comparison of real-time text, direct (signed) instruction, and both. Experiment 4 found no significant differences between interpreting and interpreting plus real-time text on the learning of either new words or the content of television programs. Alternative accounts of the observed pattern of results are considered, but it is concluded that neither sign language interpreting nor real-time text have any inherent, generalized advantage over the other in supporting deaf students in secondary or postsecondary settings. Providing deaf students with both services simultaneously does not appear to provide any generalized benefit, at least for the kinds of materials utilized here.
Correspondence should be sent to Marc Marschark, Center for Education Research Partnerships, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, 96 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 (e-mail: marc.marschark{at}rit.edu).
Received April 28, 2006; revised July 1, 2006; accepted July 6, 2006
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Marschark, P. Sapere, C. Convertino, and J. Pelz Learning via Direct and Mediated Instruction by Deaf Students J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., October 1, 2008; 13(4): 546 - 561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. R. Rodriguez Ortiz Sign Language Comprehension: The Case of Spanish Sign Language J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., July 1, 2008; 13(3): 378 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|