Deaf Students and Math

Factors Predicting Recall of Mathematics Terms by Deaf Students: Implications for Teaching

In this study of deaf high school students, imagery and familiarity were found to be the best predictors of geometry word recall, whereas neither concreteness nor signability of the terms was a significant predictor variable. Recall of high imagery terms was significantly better than for low imagery terms, and the same result was found for high- over low-familiarity and signability. Concrete terms were recalled significantly better than abstract terms. Geometry terms that could be represented with single signs were recalled significantly better than those that are usually fingerspelled or those represented by compound signs. Teachers with degrees and/or certification in mathematics had significantly higher self-ratings for the strongest predictor variables, imagery (visualization), and familiarity, as compared with those without such formal training. Based on these findings, implications for mathematics instruction, teacher education, and research are provided.
Click to expand...
 
The Performance of Young Deaf Children in Spatial and Temporal Number Tasks
Deaf children tend to fall behind in mathematics at school. This problem may be a direct result of particular experiences in the classroom; for example, deaf children may find it hard to follow teachers' presentations of basic, but nevertheless quite abstract, mathematical ideas. Another possibility is that the problem starts before school: They may either be worse than hearing children at early, nonlinguistic number representations, they may be behind in learning the culturally transmitted number string, or both. This may result in deaf children failing to develop informal problem-solving strategies, which prepare most children for the more formal learning of number and arithmetic that they will have to do at school. We compared 3- and 4-year-old deaf and hearing children's ability to remember and to reproduce the number of items in a set of objects. In one condition, we presented all the items together in a spatial array; in another, we presented them one at a time in a temporal sequence. Deaf children performed as well as the hearing children in the temporal tasks, but outperformed their hearing counterparts in the spatial task. These results suggest that preschool deaf children's number representation is at least as advanced as that of hearing children, and that they are actually better than hearing children at representing the number of objects in spatial arrays. We conclude that deaf children's difficulties with mathematical learning are not a consequence of a delay in number representation. We also conclude that deaf children should benefit from mathematical instruction that emphasizes spatial representation.
Click to expand...
 
Academic Status and Progress of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students in General Education Classrooms

The study participants were 197 deaf or hard-of-hearing students with mild to profound hearing loss who attended general education classes for 2 or more hours per day. We obtained scores on standardized achievement tests of math, reading, and language/writing, and standardized teacher's ratings of academic competence annually, for 5 years, together with other demographic and communication data. Results on standardized achievement tests indicated that, over the 5-year period, 63%–79% of students scored in the average or above-average range in math, 48%–68% in reading, and 55%–76% in language/writing. The standardized test scores for the group were, on average, half an SD below hearing norms. Average student progress in each subject area was consistent with or better than that made by the norm group of hearing students, and 79%–81% of students made one or more year's progress annually. Teachers rated 69%–81% of students as average or above average in academic competence over the 5 years. The teacher's ratings also indicated that 89% of students made average or above-average progress. Students’ expressive and receptive communication, classroom participation, communication mode, and parental participation in school were significantly, but moderately, related to academic outcomes.
Click to expand...
 
Story problems in the deaf education classroom: frequency and mode of presentation.

Over the past decade, curricular reform in mathematics education has emphasized the use of problem solving at all levels of instruction for all students, but adaptations for students with unique needs have not been specified. This study investigated the nature of problem solving in deaf education, focusing in particular on the use of story problems in the primary-level curriculum. Approximately 90% of the K-3 teachers from five schools for the deaf were asked with what frequency and in which communication mode they presented story problems to their students. Most teachers reported presenting story problems 1-3 times per week, and presentation method tended to reflect school communication philosophy. We found trends in story problem presentation in accordance with the mathematics grade level taught. We discuss implications for curricular reform and teacher education.
Click to expand...
 
Signing Math & Science

For Signing Math & Science, TERC and Vcom3D are using the SigningAvatar® assistive technology to develop illustrated, interactive 3D standards-based sign language dictionaries that offer students in grades K-8 and 9-12 who are deaf and hard of hearing increased access to the same learning opportunities that hearing students enjoy.
 
Multimedia Instruction for Students Who Are Deaf

Education access and achievement for the deaf and hard of hearing is gaining attention as more students attend neighborhood schools, and educators are becoming more familiar with options and opportunities to improve instructional delivery. Multimedia materials and environments can provide multiple representations of concepts that are more meaningful to students who are deaf or hard of hearing. When universally designed, such materials can also improve learning for students with a range of other needs and strengths, see Universal Design for Learning in a Digital Multimedia Environment. This Research in Brief article builds on Parton’s (2006) solid review of multimedia use across the curriculum for deaf students. Parton identified five ways that multimedia applications can promote learning for students who are deaf, including:

  • improving accessible instructional design,
  • creating communication bridges,
  • promoting skill development,
  • making distance education possible, and
  • creating discovery learning experiences.
 
Visual–Spatial Representation in Mathematical Problem Solving by Deaf and Hearing Students


This research examined the use of visual–spatial representation by deaf and hearing students while solving mathematical problems. The connection between spatial skills and success in mathematics performance has long been established in the literature. This study examined the distinction between visual–spatial “schematic” representations that encode the spatial relations described in a problem versus visual–spatial “pictorial” representations that encode only the visual appearance of the objects described in a problem. A total of 305 hearing (n = 156) and deaf (n = 149) participants from middle school, high school, and college participated in this study. At all educational levels, the hearing students performed significantly better in solving the mathematical problems compared to their deaf peers. Although the deaf baccalaureate students exhibited the highest performance of all the deaf participants, they only performed as well as the hearing middle school students who were the lowest scoring hearing group. Deaf students remained flat in their performance on the mathematical problem-solving task from middle school through the college associate degree level. The analysis of the students’ problem representations showed that the hearing participants utilized visual–spatial schematic representation to a greater extent than did the deaf participants. However, the use of visual–spatial schematic representations was a stronger positive predictor of mathematical problem-solving performance for the deaf students. When deaf students’ problem representation focused simply on the visual–spatial pictorial or iconic aspects of the mathematical problems, there was a negative predictive relationship with their problem-solving performance. On two measures of visual–spatial abilities, the hearing students in high school and college performed significantly better than their deaf peers.
Click to expand...
 
One of a Kind. Teaching mathematics to deaf children. (Book Review)

The disparity in mathematical performance between deaf and hearing students is well documented in educational literature. The 50th percentile deaf and hard-of-hearing high school graduates have computational skills comparable to 6th-grade hearing students and have problem-solving skills comparable to 5th-grade hearing students (Traxler, 2000). Deaf children lag mathematically behind hearing children by about 3 years, despite normal nonverbal IQs (Wood, Wood, & Howarth, 1983). Some contend that mathematical ability influences future employment and earnings to a greater extent than the influence of reading ability (Kelly, 2003).
Click to expand...
 
Bottesini said:
I need to Google?? :lol:

If you make a claim it's a rule that you support it with a link.
Click to expand...

I thought I had - it's not enough? How do you think most people like myself find out about this problem? I did research, I asked my doctors, I spoke with teachers, etc. If you're personally not affected from Rubella that way I was and am - and don't have anyone in your family struggling with learning disabilities, I can see why you'd dismiss it. I saw a lawyer, got tested with an LD Specialist, and referred to my doctors for assistance. Rubella/LD connection is one of the oldest documented conditions. Again, not everyone that's deaf is going to have LD - you don't have ear infections and become LD, or fall off a motorcycle, get into a car crash and have this problem. My mother was a nurse, came into contact with Rubella and it was down hill academically from there. Truth be told, she could have come into contact while food shopping. I'd be more frightened to work as a primary school teacher while pregnant. Parents send their kids to school sick all the time....
 
Family Mediation of Mathematically Based Concepts While Engaged in a Problem-Solving Activity With Their Young Deaf Children

This qualitative study examined the relationship between young deaf children's level of mathematics ability (“high” and “low,” as defined by test score on the Test of Early Mathematics Ability-3) and opportunities available for the construction of early mathematics knowledge during a problem-solving task implemented by their parents. Findings indicate that the manner in which the mathematically based concepts (number/counting, quantity, time/sequence, and categorization) were incorporated into the activity was more meaningful for children who demonstrated high levels of mathematical ability. In addition, children who demonstrated high levels of mathematical ability experienced a more purposeful use of mediation during activity implementation; however, overall use of mediated learning experience was limited for children from both ability groups.
Click to expand...
 
Barely Started and Already Left Behind: A Descriptive Analysis of the Mathematics Ability Demonstrated by Young Deaf Children

This study examined young deaf children's early informal/formal mathematical knowledge as measured by the Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3). Findings from this study suggest that prior to the onset of formal schooling, young deaf children might already demonstrate evidence of academic delays. Of these 28 participants (4–6 years of age), for whom data were analyzed, none received a score on the TEMA-3, indicating above-“average” ability according to normative ranking. More than half of participants received scores substantially below average with 11 participants receiving scores a year or more behind normative age-equivalent scores. Upon more focused analysis, specific areas of difficulty were found to include word/story problems, skip counting (i.e., counting by twos, threes, etc.), number comparisons, the reading/writing of two to three digit numbers, and addition/subtraction number facts. A qualitative analysis of the answers participants gave and the behaviors they demonstrated while answering the test items was conducted and revealed possible explanations for why specific test items may have been challenging. Implications of findings for parents, early interventionists, and teachers of young deaf children are discussed.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not an "educator" nor do I have personal experience with math learning disabilities. Just making a point of observation from years of interpreting mainstream math classes of various grade levels.

In my opinion, just putting a deaf student into a mainstream math class with an interpreter or transcriptionist is not sufficient. Different, specialized classroom techniques/styles need to be used. At the very least, one-on-one tutoring should be available. More visual aids, board work, and custom computerized self-instruction should be utilized. Pre-class evaluations for all students should be done, and then group them by math aptitudes (socially unacceptable, I'm sure.) A teacher standing up blah-blahing about math concepts isn't enough.

Just my opinion.
 
Reba said:
In my opinion, just putting a deaf student into a mainstream math class with an interpreter or transcriptionist is not sufficient. Different, specialized classroom techniques/styles need to be used. At the very least, one-on-one tutoring should be available. More visual aids, board work, and custom computerized self-instruction should be utilized.
...A teacher standing up blah-blahing about math concepts isn't enough.
Click to expand...

I agree with those kind of services, and unfortunately some of us students had to do all this on my own. Mainstream generally (in the past) didn't provide any kind of extra services and the deaf students have no clue.

I suspect there's similar students who were in mine or Badger's case, became statistically misrepresented as a poor math student with a 'learning disability' due to poor performance in class because of not being able to understand/hear the mode of teaching, which was aural in mainstream's case.
I knew myself in that I didn't have any kind of deafness-induced 'mental learning disability' when I had later passed Multivariable Calculus on my own.

Some courses are the same ones hearing students struggle on for different reasons, I recall there were some perfectly otherwise normal hearing students in my classes who would never be able to pass basic Algebra or Geometry and their hearing wasn't the cause of it.
 
naisho said:
Some courses are the same ones hearing students struggle on for different reasons, I recall there were some perfectly otherwise normal hearing students in my classes who would never be able to pass basic Algebra or Geometry and their hearing wasn't the cause of it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Poor educational school placement for the deaf and not providing adequate services will help them fail (or not master) ANY subject, not just math. Deafness in itself (and only in itself, meaning not including those who have other learning disabilities in addition to deafness) is not the cause of poor math skills.
 
CSign said:
Part of what I'm also looking for is information/evidence demonstrating that historically DHH students have a more difficult time with math in addition to language.
Click to expand...

Prejudge much? Glass half empty?
 
It's not pessimistic to examine and take action on the differences in how deaf kids learn.

Typically you have to prove a need for specialized services and show that there's a difference in how deaf children learn vs. hearing children to get the appropriate placement or educational resources and accommodations.

If deaf and hearing children were to access instruction in math and learn in the same way ... well, you wouldn't have much of a basis for arguing for the kind of resources and approach that Reba (and most of the researchers examining deaf children and math) recommend. No need for deaf ed.

If I had to guess -- knowing that Csign's kid is signing deaf and accesses instruction via ASL and SEE -- I'd think she's probably using such research to make a case for her son's resources and / or specialized deaf ed., either placement in a DHH program or itinerant TOD. That, and to provide appropriate instruction targeted at a brilliant little deaf learner in our home, as well as at home is why I happened to have that research on hand -- for the same purpose.
 
GrendelQ said:
It's not pessimistic to examine and take action on the differences in how deaf kids learn.
Click to expand...
It's not the pessimism. It's silliness to even think deafness may have played a role in it. just as silly as Tuskegee Study.

Is it learning disability? Does he simply suck in math like everybody else? Is math teacher crappy? Is he not getting adequate service or is his service subpar? Does he need extra help in math?
 
saywhatkid said:
Prejudge much? Glass half empty?
Click to expand...

No. I've read research in the past, and it's established that there are distinct differences in how deaf children learn compared to hearing children. There is also a relationship to the lower scores and challenges also being related to the language portion of math.

I'm interested in exploring the matter further in how deaf children most effectively learn math, and why the differences are there/best ways to address that. :)

I'm a glass half full type of gal :wave:
 
Grendel- thank you for posting those studies. I intend to explore them further when I have more time. :ty:
 
Back
Top