Categorization Behavior and Achievement in Deaf and Hearing Children

1967 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-250
Author(s):  
Toby Roslyn Silverman

The Triple Mode Test of Categorization, developed to measure three major modes of categorization postulated by Vygotsky, and the Stanford Reading Achievement Test, were administered to 313 hearing children, 225 typically deaf children, and 21 special class deaf children. Modes of categorization were studied at different age and achievement levels. For the deaf children, superordinate and associate responding decreased with increasing age, while functional responding increased. For hearing children, increasing age was accompanied by increased superordinate responding, decreased associative responding, and stable functional responding. Other results are also discussed. The conclusions suggest that deficiencies in categorization behavior may contribute to deficient language performance in the deaf child.

Author(s):  
Nina Jakhelln Laugen

In some respects, hard-of-hearing children experience the same difficulties as deaf children, whereas other challenges might be easier or more difficult to handle for the hard-of-hearing child than it would be for the deaf child. Research has revealed great variability in the language, academic, and psychosocial outcomes of hard-of-hearing children. Universal newborn hearing screening enables early identification and intervention for this group, which traditionally has been diagnosed rather late; however, best practices regarding the scope and content of early intervention have not yet been sufficiently described for hard-of-hearing children. This chapter summarizes the current knowledge concerning psychosocial development in hard-of-hearing children. Risk and protective factors, and their implications for early intervention, are discussed with a special emphasis on preschoolers.


1982 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura S. McKirdy ◽  
Marion Blank

The language interactions of pairs of preschool-age deaf and preschool-age hearing children were recorded in play sessions and analyzed according to a system for assessing dialogue that has been developed by the second author, In the system, each person over the course of a dialogue is seen its playing two roles: one as speaker-initiator (who puts forth ideas) the other as speaker-responder (who responds to the ideas that have been put forth by the partner in the dialogue). The results indicated that both roles were used by the deaf and the hearing dyads, but their pattern of performance was different. As speaker-initiators, the deaf children displayed it narrower range of complexity in their utterances. As speaker-responders, they were less likely to respond to utterances of their partners, particularly those utterances in the form of comments, and they more readily showed difficulties in responding appropriately its their partner's initiations increased in complexity. The discussion focuses on the implications of viewing language performance within a communication framework.


Author(s):  
Stéphanie Caët ◽  
Fanny Limousin ◽  
Aliyah Morgenstern

Abstract Based on her observation of two deaf children acquiring American Sign Language (ASL) who stopped pointing to persons at around 12 months and then produced reversal errors, Petitto (1987) argued that the discontinuous development of gestures and signs gives support to the hypothesis that language does not arise from general cognitive processes. However, since then, a large amount of studies on hearing children have suggested that early pointing was strongly related to later language abilities. In this paper, we follow up on these socio-cognitive approaches, with a dataset comparable to Petitto’s. We study the development of pointing and self-reference in a deaf child acquiring French Sign Language (LSF). We focus on self-reference rather than self-points, and suggest that, despite the apparent discontinuity in the production of self-points, there is continuity in the establishment of self-reference. In our data, the child produces self-points early on. She then uses predicates without overt subject before entering more complex syntax by combining predicates and self-points. The deaf signing child constructs self-reference similarly to speaking children and uses specific forms provided by her linguistic environment according to her cognitive, social and linguistic development.


Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini

In the interests of equality, sensitivity, and political correctness, it is often claimed that deaf and hearing individuals are exactly the same, except for their hearing losses. To some extent, this attitude may reflect an understandable swing of the pendulum after years of society’s treating deaf individuals as though they are deficient. At the same time, we believe that there is now considerable evidence to indicate that the experiences, knowledge, and strategies of deaf individuals often differ in some ways from those of hearing individuals, and that such differences are likely to influence learning. At one level, the question of differences between deaf and hearing learners is a statistical, descriptive one. This chapter provides some basic information in that regard, including demographics, types and causes of hearing loss, and issues relating to educational placement. We discuss populations and their characteristics. At another level, however, the question of differences between deaf and hearing learners is about individuals. There, the relevant issues are more empirical than descriptive, and an interdisciplinary perspective becomes important. If deaf and hearing students were the same except for their hearing losses, then we would not have to worry about special educational methods, issues of social integration, or whether a local public school or special school program would be better for a deaf child. If deaf and hearing children were the same except for their hearing losses, we could put them in the same classrooms and assume the same background knowledge, social skills, and educational futures. The problem is that life is rarely so simple. By virtue of their hearing losses, many deaf children (and particularly those with hearing parents) have somewhat different early environments than hearing children. Frequently, those children do not have access to the language of their families, and their parents are not fully prepared for handling the special needs of a child who cannot hear. With differences in communication, early social interactions, and ways of acquiring new information, it seems likely that deaf children will have some characteristics that distinguish them from hearing children.


2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 175-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Sessa ◽  
Hilary Sutherland

SummaryRates of developmental delay, autism and mental illness in deaf children are higher than in hearing children. Early language acquisition (signed or spoken) is a protective factor against mental disorder. Deaf children and their families are often given conflicting messages and advice about their upbringing and many are unable to access generic child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). We describe the National Deaf CAMHS, a service that has been set up to answer the needs of this group of patients. It uses specialist intervention which incorporates some aspects of Deaf awareness to empower deaf children and reduce the burden of mental health problems that are likely to accompany them into and throughout their adulthood.


1985 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Newton

Teachers' communication with deaf and hearing children was compared to identify differences in the teachers' use of two types of nonliteral language: idiomatic language and indirect requests. Two groups of teachers of the deaf were observed, one using oral language only and the other using Total Communication. A third group consisted of teachers of normally hearing children. No differences were found in teachers' use of nonliteral language when talking to hearing children as compared to teachers talking to oral deaf children. Reduced use of idiomatic language occurred, in both the oral and signed portions of communication, only when Total Communication was used. No differences were observed in the oral portion of the three groups' use of indirect requests. However, only 55% of these requests were encoded nonliterally in the signed portion of utterances.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Nur Haliza ◽  
Eko Kuntarto ◽  
Ade Kusmana

Children with hearing impairment are children with hearing loss who are classified into deaf and hard of hearing. The direct impact of disability is the obstruction of verbal / verbal communication, both speaking (expressive) and understanding the conversations of others (receptive). Obtaining the first language of a deaf child can be done with total communication. Total communication is the most effective communication system because in addition to using a form of communication orally or called oral, the activity of reading, writing, reading utterances, is also equipped with a form of cues. The purpose of this study was to determine the acquisition of language of children with special needs (deaf) in understanding language. Subjects in this study are children with special needs who experience speech impairment (hearing impairment) while the object of this study is focused on only one child, Mila Erdita, a 15-year-old child. This research refers to case studies with descriptive research type. Data collection techniques in this study will be done in three ways, namely; observation techniques, interview techniques, and documentation techniques. In this research, data processing that will be done is to describe the speech data of deaf children to see the acquisition of children's vocabulary. The results of this study indicate that deaf children can obtain a language of total communication using a form of communication orally or called oral, with the activities of reading, writing, reading utterances, also equipped with signs


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document