Design of Signed Language Tests for Deaf L1 Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-40
Author(s):  
Rosalind Herman ◽  
Katherine Rowley
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Development Proceeds

Recent changes in the earlier diagnosis of deafness and improved amplification options have meant that deaf children increasingly have better opportunities to develop spoken language. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of children continue to use signed language as a first language (L1), including deaf and hearing children in deaf signing families and deaf children in hearing families where families use signed language in the home. For both groups, mastery of sign language as an L1 is important because it paves the way to communication and also because it provides the basis for development of spoken language, in either its oral or written form, as a second language (L2). It is crucial that signed language development proceeds in an age-appropriate manner, and assessments of signed language are therefore important to ensure that this is the case. However, the development of effective tests of signed language acquisition is not without challenges. This chapter presents these challenges and other issues and gives examples of how available tests seek to overcome them.

Discussion of Issues Related to Score Use and Interpretation of First Spoken and Signed Language Assessments

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-84
Author(s):  
Patrick Boudreault ◽  
Bernard Camilleri ◽  
Charlotte Enns
Keyword(s):  
Normative Data ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Standardized Assessments ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Target Populations ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Heterogenous Group ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
The Difference

A standardized assessment of spoken languages will collect data from native, monolingual speakers, thus establishing the range of receptive and/or expressive abilities of children across different ages. Similarly, normative data for standardized assessments of signed language are established by collecting data from native signing deaf children. Where the difference arises is the way in which the normative data relate to the target populations and the individuals within those populations who are being assessed. While standardized assessments of spoken language are normed on and predominantly intended for use with native speakers of that language, standardized assessments of signed language are intrinsically designed for use with a heterogenous group of children, of whom only a minority have the opportunity of learning signed language as their native language. In this chapter, key items related to score use and interpretation in first language (L1) assessment that were presented in Chapters 2.1 and 2.2 will be jointly discussed by the authors.

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment of Signed or Spoken Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-152
Author(s):  
Amy Kissel Frisbie ◽  
Aaron Shield ◽  
Deborah Mood ◽  
Nicole Salamy ◽  
Jonathan Henner
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Pragmatic Language Skills ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Hearing Children

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items presented in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 related to the assessment of deaf and hearing children on the autism spectrum . From these chapters it becomes apparent that a number of aspects associated with signed language assessment are relevant to spoken language assessment. For example, there are several precautions to bear in mind about language assessments obtained via an interpreter. Some of these precautions apply solely to D/HH children, while others are applicable to assessments with hearing children in multilingual contexts. Equally, there are some aspects of spoken language assessment that can be applied to signed language assessment. These include the importance of assessing pragmatic language skills, assessing multiple areas of language development, differentiating between ASD and other developmental disorders, and completing the language evaluation within a developmental framework. The authors conclude with suggestions for both spoken and signed language assessment.

Deaf and hearing children's plural noun spelling

2012 ◽  
Vol 65 (11) ◽  
pp. 2169-2192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen L. Breadmore ◽  
Andrew C. Olson ◽  
Andrea Krott
Keyword(s):  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Spelling Error ◽  
Plural Noun ◽  
Error Analyses ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
Limited Experience ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Phonological Mediation

The present study examines deaf and hearing children's spelling of plural nouns. Severe literacy impairments are well documented in the deaf, which are believed to be a consequence of phonological awareness limitations. Fifty deaf (mean chronological age 13;10 years, mean reading age 7;5 years) and 50 reading-age-matched hearing children produced spellings of regular, semiregular, and irregular plural nouns in Experiment 1 and nonword plurals in Experiment 2. Deaf children performed reading-age appropriately on rule-based (regular and semiregular) plurals but were significantly less accurate at spelling irregular plurals. Spelling of plural nonwords and spelling error analyses revealed clear evidence for use of morphology. Deaf children used morphological generalization to a greater degree than their reading-age-matched hearing counterparts. Also, hearing children combined use of phonology and morphology to guide spelling, whereas deaf children appeared to use morphology without phonological mediation. Therefore, use of morphology in spelling can be independent of phonology and is available to the deaf despite limited experience with spoken language. Indeed, deaf children appear to be learning about morphology from the orthography. Education on more complex morphological generalization and exceptions may be highly beneficial not only for the deaf but also for other populations with phonological awareness limitations.

Affixes and function words in the written language of deaf children

1988 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Traute Taeschner ◽  
Antonella Devescovi ◽  
Virginia Volterra
Keyword(s):  
Written Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Function Words ◽  
Developmental Patterns ◽  
Grammatical Aspect ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
And Function ◽  
Age Range

ABSTRACTThe goal of this article is to investigate whether the acquisition of some morpho-syntactic aspects in Italian deaf adolescents is simply delayed with respect to hearing children, or whether it follows significantly different developmental patterns. Twenty-five deaf students (age range: 11–15 years) and a group of 125 hearing controls (age range: 6–16 years) performed four tests, administered in written form, relative to different grammatical aspects: plurals, articles, and clitic pronouns. Results showed three different patterns of development depending on the grammatical aspect considered. Deaf children compared to hearing controls showed normal development in the pluralization task, delayed development in the pronoun task, and a qualitatively different pattern in the article task.

scholarly journals Adoption of the sign language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children

Bastina ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 513-535
Author(s):  
Tamara Kovačević ◽  
Ljubica Isaković
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
The Family ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Hearing Children

This study analyses the process of adopting of the sign language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children in the context of the result of linguistic and psycholinguistic research. The importance of the sign language is emphasized and its historical development is analyzed. It is pointed to the significance of the critical period for the adoption and the learning of the sign and spoken language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children. The sign language is natural and primary linguistic expression of deaf children. Deaf and hard of hearing children are exposed to the sign and spoken language, they have better understanding and linguistic production than the children who are only exposed to the spoken language. Bilingualism involves the knowledge and the regular use of the sign language, which is used by the deaf community, and of the spoken language, which is used by the hearing majority. Children at the preschool age should be enabled to continue to adopt the language they started to adopt within the family (the sign language or the spoken language). Children will adopt the best both linguistic modalities through the interaction with other fluent speakers (the adults and children).

Developing Sign Language Measurements for Research With Deaf Populations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Henner ◽  
Robert Hoffmeister ◽  
Jeanne Reis
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Hearing Children

Limited choices exist for assessing the signed language development of deaf and hard of hearing children. Over the past 30 years, the American Sign Language Assessment Instrument (ASLAI) has been one of the top choices for norm-referenced assessment of deaf and hard of hearing children who use American Sign Language. Signed language assessments can also be used to evaluate the effects of a phenomenon known as language deprivation, which tends to affect deaf children. They can also measure the effects of impoverished and idiosyncratic nonstandard signs and grammar used by educators of the deaf and professionals who serve the Deaf community. This chapter discusses what was learned while developing the ASLAI and provides guidelines for educators and researchers of the deaf who seek to develop their own signed language assessments.

Language Development and Deaf Children

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
University Center ◽  
Language Modality ◽  
Hearing Children

To understand the complex relations between language and learning, we have to look at both how children learn language and what it is that they learn that allows them to communicate with others. To accomplish this, we need to distinguish between apparent differences in language that are related to the modality of communication and actual differences in language fluencies observed among deaf children. It also will help to examine some relevant differences between deaf children and hearing children. We have already pointed out that the distinction between spoken language and sign language, while a theoretically important one for researchers, is an oversimplification for most practical purposes. It is rare that deaf children are exposed only to spoken language or sign language, even if that is the intention of their parents or teachers. According to 1999 data, approximately 55 percent of deaf children in the United States are formally educated in programs that report either using sign language exclusively (just over 5 percent) or signed and spoken language together (just over 49 percent) (Gallaudet University, Center for Applied Demographic Statistics). Because almost half of all deaf children in the United States are missed in such surveys, however, these numbers only should be taken as approximate. Comparisons of the language abilities of deaf children who primarily use sign language with those who primarily use spoken language represent one of the most popular and potentially informative areas in research relating to language development and academic success. Unfortunately, this area is also one of the most complex. Educational programs emphasizing spoken or sign language often have different educational philosophies and curricula as well as different communication philosophies. Programs may only admit children with particular histories of early intervention, and parents will be drawn to different programs for a variety of reasons. Differences observed between children from any two programs thus might be the result of a number of variables rather than, or in addition to, language modality per se. Even when deaf children are educated in spoken language environments, they often develop systems of gestural communication with their parents (Greenberg et al., 1984).

Early Identification and Cochlear Implantation: Critical Factors for Spoken Language Development

2002 ◽  
Vol 111 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 74-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne M. Hammes ◽  
Mary Willis ◽  
Michael A. Novak ◽  
Danielle M. Edmondson ◽  
Lee Ann Rotz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Additional Data ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Critical Factors ◽  
Communication Mode ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Data ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Spoken Language Skills

Documentation is lacking regarding the ability of congenitally deaf children to attain age-appropriate spoken language skills using a cochlear implant, and how early implantation must occur if such development is to be possible. Spoken language data are presented for infants who underwent implantation at 18 months of age or younger. Additional data are used to compare outcomes among children who differed in age at implantation. Data collected at Carle Clinic and Foundation Hospital were reviewed for 47 consecutively implanted children ranging in age from 9 to 48 months at implantation. These data were analyzed and compared by age-at-implantation groupings for speech perception skills, communication mode, and spoken language abilities. The groups differed dramatically in abilities. The best outcomes occurred in children who underwent implantation at or before 18 months of age. Several of these infants demonstrated age-appropriate spoken language skills. We conclude that early implantation is desirable. Children who undergo implantation as infants may develop language skills commensurate with those of their hearing peers.

scholarly journals Enduring Advantages of Early Cochlear Implantation for Spoken Language Development

2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 643-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann E. Geers ◽  
Johanna G. Nicholas
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal Study ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Added Benefit ◽  
Device Use ◽  
Spoken Language Skills ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal

Purpose In this article, the authors sought to determine whether the precise age of implantation (AOI) remains an important predictor of spoken language outcomes in later childhood for those who received a cochlear implant (CI) between 12 and 38 months of age. Relative advantages of receiving a bilateral CI after age 4.5 years, better pre-CI-aided hearing, and longer CI experience were also examined. Method Sixty children participated in a prospective longitudinal study of outcomes at 4.5 and 10.5 years of age. Twenty-nine children received a sequential second CI. Test scores were compared with normative samples of hearing age mates, and predictors of outcomes were identified. Results Standard scores on language tests at 10.5 years of age remained significantly correlated with age of first cochlear implantation. Scores were not associated with receipt of a second, sequentially acquired CI. Significantly higher scores were achieved for vocabulary as compared with overall language, a finding not evident when the children were tested at younger ages. Conclusion Age-appropriate spoken language skills continued to be more likely with younger AOI, even after an average of 8.6 years of additional CI use. Receipt of a second implant between ages 4 and 10 years and longer duration of device use did not provide significant added benefit.

scholarly journals Reading skills of D/deaf students – native signers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justyna Kotowicz
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Skilled Readers ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Native Signers ◽  
Hearing Children

Reading skills of D/deaf students fall behind their hearing peers. The difference in reading skills between D/deaf and hearing children has not decreased for over past three decades. Low level of reading skills in D/deaf students has been associated with their language delay, which is mainly observed in D/deaf children using spoken language that is not fully accessible to “D/deaf individuals” instead of “ppl with hearing impairment”. D/deaf children immersed in sign language since their birth usually do not encounter language problems and they have a potential to become highly-skilled readers. In the present studies we have investigated reading skills of D/deaf students who are native signers of Polish Sign Language. The results have indicated that D/deaf students showed lower level of reading skills than their hearing peers. The present studies call in question Polish education system dedicated to D/deaf students who are native signers. The obtained results suggest that reading classes are probably not adapted to the needs and abilities of highly competent signers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document