Technology and Literacy in Deaf Education

Giving a Helping Hand

2005-04-17T11:44:00.000-07:00

Barnes, P. (2003). Giving a helping hand. Tech Live Washington. Available at: http://www.g4tv.com/freshgear/features/42559/Giving_a_Helping_Hand.html

The above link takes you to an article describing a future technology not yet in production. Rebollar, a researcher at George Washington University, is in the process of designing gloves that have built in sensors that "read" the gestures of American Sign Language. It translates the gestures into written or spoken English. However, at this point in time it is only one hundred percent accurate on simple words and phrases. The article mentioned that it is a work in progress and they hope eventually it will be a complete translation system for American Sign Language to English for anyone wearing the gloves.

Although the article was gearing the use of the gloves toward use in medical emergencies or other areas of more critical needs, I could see it as a beneficial tool in assisting deaf and hard of hearing students with developing literacy. Students using the gloves would be able to see real time translation of ASL to written English. This allows them to have meaningful experience with the English language and immediately see the differences between what they are signing and how it is written in English. The gloves provide a way to make translation visible. Other software I have discussed in previous posts makes meaningful written communication available through real time typing (i.e. ENFI and Tele-Web), but use of the gloves would allow students to visually see the translation of ASL to English, and it could provide teachers with a mode of pointing out to students grammatical differences between the languages. Although I am sure the manufacturing of the gloves would be extremely expensive, it would be a nice "dream" for such a technology to be available to schools in the future (if it worked accurately of course).

HiP Chat Pals

2005-04-14T12:44:00.000-07:00

Website/Project Review: HiP Chat Pals

Found at: http://www.hipworks.org/hipchatpals/index.html

The above website is produced by HiP Publishers, a nonprofit organization that develops print and electronic material for deaf and hard of hearing students. This particular website offers information on how to start a "Chat Pal" program between your classroom and another classroom of deaf and hard of hearing students. The site offers information on how to get started, specific information for teachers, and information on available chat programs. Although it is aimed at middle school aged children, I believe it could be used for upper elementary school children as well. However, if used with younger children the teacher would have to be more specific about what was required, expectations, and strictly monitor its use.

The idea behind this website is that students will partake in a thirteen week long "Chat Pal" program in which they communicate via Internet resources with other students across the country who are deaf and hard of hearing. Through interaction with other students of the same age and reading/writing level, students will be able to discuss specific topics (assigned by teachers most of the time) while enhancing their reading and writing skills in an authentic atmosphere. My personal experience with teaching deaf and hard of hearing students leads me to support the use of authentic reading and writing. Many times deaf and hard of hearing students are presented with literacy instruction that tries to drill into their heads the rules and mechanics of written English; deaf and hard of hearing students (for the most part) have very little authentic experience or meaningful interaction with language. Furthermore, using the "Chat Pals" can increase motivation to write well because students know that someone other than the teacher will be reading their responses and if they want their "Chat Pal" to understand their responses, students need to be very careful to make their writing clear. Printing out the chats also allows teachers to directly address individual needs in writing, because the printed chats can provide an ongoing record of student improvement--both strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, student vocabulary words can be chosen from the writing of their "Chat Pals" by using individual words from their partner's writing students did not know. This makes learning literacy, reading and writing, meaningful to both sets of deaf and hard of hearing students.

However, in order for an activity like this to occur safely and be meaningful, both teachers involved would have to have a high level of communication, high level of monitoring of student chats, and support from administration and parents. Furthermore, teachers would have to have set aside time in their day (at the same time if it is to be real-time chatting) for chats to occur, be covering similar topics to make discussion meaningful and educational, have the appropriate technology available (which the website lists), and have technical support for when things go wrong (they always do). Moreover, this activity is not necessarily an innovation in the making. This is an everyday use of technology for the mainstream being adapted to use with deaf and hard of hearing students. For further information on how to set such a program up or more detailed ideas on its integration one could visit the website above or probably other "keypal" type website on the Internet. This is an educational use of technology that is easily adaptable to use with deaf and hard of hearing students, but it is important to remember that it would require a great amount of time and dedication on the part of both teachers for it to work to its fullest potential.

Article: Effectiveness of Multimedia Reading Materials When Used With Children Who Are Deaf

2005-04-11T19:27:00.000-07:00

Gentry, M. M, Chinn, K. M, & Mouton, R. D. (2004/2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403.

Found at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_annals_of_the_deaf/v149/149.5gentry.html

This article began with a brief review of the influx of technology in education over the past few decades and provided definitions for five basic types of educational programs or software: drill and practice, tutorial, simulation, problem solving, and tool. After providing this basic information for various uses of technology in education, the authors presented brief summaries of the use of computers with hearing children and the use of computers with deaf children. After this, the article discussed the use of videodisc technology and CD-ROMs. The author's described videodisc technology as a system that provides "a multimedia environment that combines television and computer-based instruction." Furthermore, they mentioned the use of videodisc technology in the program HandsOn, which presents ASL video and English text simultaneously. The idea behind this program is that deaf students will be able to use their fluency in ASL to enhance their English literacy skills. As for CD-ROM multimedia, the authors mentioned the creation of a software, Rosie's Walk, which allows deaf students to choose to supplement print with Signed English, ASL, or both. Games within the software also address vocabulary and reading skills for deaf children. This was the first interactive software for deaf children in the area of literature and it was created in 1994 (is this a bit behind the times?!). Before addressing their study, the authors mentioned that multimedia is being increasingly used in developing literacy (and other skills) in deaf and hard of hearing students but that their is little empirical research to back up the claims that it has a positive influence. I was very pleased to read an article that confirmed my comments in previous posts that there is little, if any, reliable data regarding literacy technology for deaf and hard of hearing students.

As for their actually study, the authors conducted research of twenty five deaf and hard of hearing students from various schools and programs in Louisiana who read on a third to fourth grade reading level and used sign language as their primary form of communication. The study addressed the following two questions: "Compared to print-only presentation, how effective is multimedia in transferring linguistic information to deaf children? [and] If multimedia is an effective tool, what is the relative effectiveness of available presentation options? Specifically, what is the relative effectiveness of each of the following: print alone, print plus pictures, print and digital video of sign language, and print, pictures, and digital video of sign language." Students were presented with the previous four forms of presentation in a multimedia format and then retold the stories to three "judges" who scored their responses. (If you want to know the actual methods used to conduct the study you can read the article from the above link) After reading the results of the study, I was extremely shocked by the results. I would have assumed that the print and digital video of sign language combination would have yielded the best results, however this was not the case. In actuality, the print and pictures combination presented the strongest, most positive influence, on student comprehension. However, not surprisingly, the print only method yielded the least results and comprehension was at its lowest when this method was used. The articles explained that a possible reason for the results of the study could be that deaf children are accustomed to receiving print and pictures more than they are print, pictures and sign language simultaneously.

After thinking about the results of the study, I am still perplexed by the conclusions, however I do agree that it is probably due to a lack of familiarity on the part of deaf and hard of hearing students in seeing all three-print, pictures and sign language- at one time. However, I guess one could also make the assumption that perhaps all three modes is just to much for the deaf and hard of hearing student (or any student) to attend to at one time. One could relate the concept to good and bad design of websites in that anything that is too "busy" is too hard to attend to. However, I am still unsure at how this settles with me, because when students read storybooks they are interacting with print and pictures (just not in a multimedia fashion) and clearly this is not doing the job because many deaf and hard of hearing students read well below grade level. However, this is one of the only studies I have found that actually presents reliable data regarding literacy technology and deaf and hard of hearing students so it makes me somewhat question some of my previous posts regarding matching English print with sign language. Furthermore, it leads me to raise the question that if the multimedia combination of print and pictures showed improvement in comprehension, yet clearly our traditional storybooks do not, what is it about the technology presentation that makes the difference? I guess this a question for further research...

The Media Equation

2005-04-10T11:46:00.000-07:00

Reeves, Byron, and Clifford Nass. 1996. "Ch 1, The Media Equation," pp. 3-18 in The Media Equation. Cambridge University Press.

This post is slightly different from the other posts I have made to this blog. Chapter 1 of The Media Equation does not discuss literacy technology or deaf education, however it raises interesting points regarding the interaction of people (i.e. students) with media. In short, the article states that the "media equation" is that "media equals real life." The authors claim that people automatically react in social and natural ways to media in the same way they do when interacting with other people. In all honesty, at first I was somewhat skeptical of this claim, but the more I read and the more I thought about the implications the more I found it to be true.

As I read I began thinking about my own interactions with different types of media. Did I respond to media in the same way I respond to my friends or family? In essence, I believe I do. For example, when I watch movies I become extremely involved in the stories; I feel connected to the characters and if something sad occurs cry or if something happy occurs I laugh or smile. If I was completely disconnected from the media (i.e. movies) and did not "perceive" them as real, I would not react in such a manner. Furthermore, I began thinking about my friends and their reactions and interactions with media. One particular friend came to mind, because she would say on numerous occasions that "she and the computer did not get along." Can you "not get along" with an inanimate object? Apparently you can if you perceive it and your interactions with it to be "real" enough. This particular friend has true hatred toward computers and this leads me to believe that people do develop personal feelings and interactions with media.

Now, how can this be related to my topic of literacy technology and deaf education? I may be stretching this a bit, but I think it would be extremely important as a teacher (or designer) to consider how students will perceive technology and how students will interact with technology if we are to choose it and use it in appropriate, meaningful manners. If we automatically reaction to media in a social and natural way than these are factors that should be considered when choosing media for any students in any classroom, not just deaf and hard of hearing students. Furthermore, the media equation leads me to believe that when choosing literacy technology for deaf and hard of hearing students, teachers need to be extremely careful to choose media that students will easily and effectively interact with. Many deaf and hard of hearing students are already "turned off" literacy and teachers need to consider these social and natural (human like) reactions to media to promote effective interaction between students and the educational technology used.

Teachers' Voices: A Teacher Speaks Out About the Challenges of Deaf Literacy

2005-04-08T12:40:00.000-07:00

Milone, M. (2003, February). A teacher takes on the challenges of deaf literacy: An interview with Jennifer Herbold. Reading Online, 6(6). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=voices/herbold/index.html

This article presented the results of an interview conducted by the author with a deaf teacher at the New Mexico School for the Deaf. Jennifer Herbold, the interviewee, comes from a deaf family and is currently working on earning her doctorate. The interview consisted of several questions relating to her background, job as literacy specialist, and position on literacy challenges facing deaf and hard of hearing students. However, for the purpose of this post, I focused on the questions pertaining to literacy development and the use of technology. The author asked Herbold for information on some of the ways she (and other teachers) use technology with deaf students. Herbold's response included uses of technology that I was previously familiar with and technology, or ideas for using technology, that I had never considered.

She discussed the use of sharing emails with other students to increase writing skills and "social" English skills. Deaf and hard of hearing students live in culture that is completely different from the mainstream and it is important for them to learn what is "acceptable" in the mainstream environment if they are to succeed. I thought the idea of email pen pals was a wonderful concept in addressing the issue of writing and social skills. Furthermore, she discussed the use of connected notebook computers (E-mates) for the purposes of interactive communication. I found this to be similar to the idea of the ENFI program discussed in an early post. Both provide students with opportunities to write for a purpose in an authentic experience. If students feel they are writing for an audience they are likely to increase their motivation and effort in order to "impress" the reader. Other uses of technology she discussed that I am more familiar with (or at least have thought of and used before) concern the use of the SmartBoard and digital cameras. I was lucky enough to have access to a SmartBoard during my internship and I can say from experience it makes creating a visual literacy environment much easier. Also, in my experience it drastically increased student motivation and enhanced the desire for my students to come up to the front of the class and read/share their own stories. In regards digital cameras, the author suggests using them to allow students to take pictures and then use the pictures as writing prompts. I have thought about this many times but have never implemented it into the classroom. However, when the opportunity arises I believe I will try it because I think it can provide deaf and hard of hearing students with wonderful opportunities for taking ownership of their writing.

Although several other uses of technology were mentioned, I am only going to discuss one final one here. If you wish to see the others you may visit the website. I am currently involved in a practicum at a public elementary school (hearing students) and my students are in the process of completing a documentary. I have thoroughly enjoyed this project and believe my students have gained valuable leaps in their knowledge surrounding the topic. Herbold mentioned the use of digital videocameras and iMovie for deaf and hard of hearing students to make documentaries, and I know this is a wonderful learning experience from my current involvement in such a project. However, the added flare to her response regarding the documentaries that really pertains to literacy (besides the research involved in creating one) deals with the concept of captioning. Herbold mentioned that students create documentaries in American Sign Language, edit them in iMovie, and then write captions for the movie in English. What a great interdisciplinary idea! I thought this was a wonderful way for students to create innovative projects while at the same time making the assignment meaningful to their culture and allowing them to develop writing skills. Although this idea seems clear to me now, I am not sure I ever would have thought of it on my own.

I enjoyed reading this article because it provided a very personal account of the use of technology in literacy development by a teacher that actually uses it. Although there is no "research" (presented in the article) to back up the statements made by Herbold, I would venture to say that her experience as a deaf student and a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing provides her with a certain level of credentials to trust. The "hard" research I have located in other articles I have posted (as little as it may be) is useful, but I find a different level of usefulness in information that is presented by a teacher actually using the technology. Furthermore, the technology ideas Herbold presented use technology that is accessible to almost any teacher and show that although there is not a lot of software specifically designed for deaf and hard of hearing students, there is value in the everday technology that we use!

Crossover Technology for Deaf Learners

2005-04-06T16:50:00.000-07:00

Crossover Technology for Deaf Learners, orginially printed in the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf magazine

Found at: http://www.dyslexic.com/database/articles/print/crossoverdeaf.html?PHPSESSID=efbe5a2793d3df566a803ec1064f63d9

Although I could not find the author of the above article or the date that it was printed, I am assuming it is a fairly recent publication because the copyright of the website is 2005. Furthermore, I am finding that information is extremely limited on the topic of technology available to improve the literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing students. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find information that I have not arleady reviewed. However, this article discussed an interesting aspect of finding software available for these students by looking to technology created for use with students who are dislexic. I would never thought to look to technology for this population of students, but the article raised several valid points on the similarities between deaf and hard of hearing students and students with dislexia. For example, both populations of students have difficulties processing information orally and often rely heavily on visual cues/information. Software programs that are designed for dislexic students (at least those not completely dependent on auditory means -- which they should not be anyway) would provide a wonderfully visual environment for deaf and hard of hearing students to develop literacy skills. However, I will emphasize the word "skills" because with the exception of one program, Inspiration/Kidsperation, all of the software programs suggested by the article focus on drill and practice means of learning to read and write.

Although I do not agree with the use of only drill and practice software, I do believe there is a time and place for its use, and teaching deaf and hard of hearing students to recognize words or learn to punctuate sentences may be such an instace. Some of the programs mentioned in the article I believe fall under this category are GAMZ Player, Soapbox, Punctuate, and the Kaz Typing Tutor. In regards to the GAMZ Player, which is a program designed to improve visual memory through the use of pictures and words, is an excellent way for students to have repeated access to given vocabulary. Although some deaf and hard of hearing students develop a sense of internal (or external depending on hearing loss) phonemic awareness, many do not. Often deaf and hard of hearing students learn to read based on word recognition and this program would provide access to repeated experiences with words in a fun environment. Furthermore, the teacher is able to create their own games which allows them to individualize the words each student is having access to. I know that in my internship, each one of my students had a different set of spelling words each week, therefore it was difficult to design learning experiences that would assist students in reviewing their vocabulary/spelling words. However, the GAMZ software would be a wonderful way for teachers to address this issue. (if you want to know more about the other programs listed above visit the website)

Moving away from the more drill and practice type software, the article mentioned the use of Inspiration/Kidspiration for mind mapping, or concept mapping. I can attest to the use of this program on several counts of literacy, because I used it (along with the Smart board) many times throughout my internship. With a little imagination this program can be used to do more than map out writing, as the article suggests, but it can also be used to assist students in understanding key literacy concepts. For example, during my internship my students had an extremely difficult time grasping the concept of main idea. With the help of Inspiration and a "main idea" web they slowly began to pick it up. I created a template for my students to use when reading a story and as a class we would fill it in to determine the main idea. In order to assist students in understanding that the main idea was the overall, or general, point of the story (which is the part they were having difficulty grasping), I created a web with all of the outside nodes pointing toward the center node which stated "Main Idea." Students would write one phrase regarding what happened on each set of pages and then would determine after looking at the outside ring, what belonged in the middle...how did it all relate. This easy use of Inspiration made this concept visual to my students and I think that was the lacking factor prior to its introduction.

In regards to the information presented in this brief article, I am not sure I learned as much as I did from previous posts. However, it did stimulate my thinking into looking into programs designed for other special needs students with similar learning styles, such as dislexia. In addition, I came away with the name of a program to look into for word recognition and I was able to confirm my thoughts and support the article with my experience with Inspiration. However, as I have found with several other posts I have made, this article lacks substantial evidence in the effects of the named programs on the literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing students. Hopefully in the near future this "issue" will be rectified.

Storybook Weaver and Deaf Students

2005-04-02T17:24:00.000-08:00

Storybook Weaver and its use with deaf and hard of hearing students: Review found at: http://clerccenter2.gallaudet.edu/stg/STGTitle.asp?RecID=427

Although this was not an article, it did contain a review of the use of Storybook Weaver with deaf and hard of hearing students, as completed by a teacher of the deaf. I was interested in looking at this review, because I was wondering whether or not the teacher felt this program had strengths with deaf and hard of hearing students since it was designed for the mainstream. The reviewer mentioned that the program worked well for motivating students, was easy to use, could be adaptable to different levels, and allowed for scaffolding if needed. However, she mentioned that it would only be beneficial to primary age students or students working at a much lower level than your average "older" student. In specific reference to deaf and hard of hearing students, she stated that students often required assistance in the beginning on how to use the program, but I believe this would be true for any novice user.

One of the reasons I decided to focus on a review of software designed for the mainstream is that I wanted to "analyze" in terms of the characteristics presented in last weeks post. If one recalls, I posted an article that described characteristics of software designed for the mainstream. In order for a piece of software to be "worthwhile" it should be visual, interactive, engaging, motivating, challenging, intuitive, structured, and include an assessment feature. With the little experience I have with Storybook Weaver, I know that it is an extremely visual program, with little dependence on auditory learning. This is extremely beneficial for deaf and hard of hearing students. Furthermore, the reviewer stated from first hand experience that the program was motivating, which in my opinion also implies that it was engaging. Obviously, with students writing and illustrating their own stories, the program is interactive in nature and this is one of the key attributes of software for deaf and hard of hearing students. The reviewer also mentioned the ability to scaffold and individualize instruction which addresses the ability of the program to be challenging and structured. I believe assessment could be seen within the student's final product and through comparison of various projects completed throughout a year. Students would be able to see their progress throughout their "writing career" in the classroom.

Although I knew about Storybook Weaver before, and have seen it used in classrooms, it was not until the previous post that I had "valid" (I use that term loosely) judgment to decide whether or not it would work well with deaf and hard of hearing students. However, I now feel that it would provide students with a creative, interactive outlet to reading and writing in which they take ownership of their literacy, which can be nothing but positive with any student, especially those that are deaf and hard of hearing.

Mainstream Educational Software (It's Effective With Deaf Children, Too!)

2005-04-01T15:26:00.000-08:00

Paper of Conference Presentation: Mainstream Educational Software (It's Effective With Deaf Children, Too!) By: Rosemary Stifter & Nancey Topolosky

Link to rtf of paper can be found at: http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/iscs/conf.html

Although today's post is not regarding an "article" it is in reference to a paper written to accompany a presentation given at the Instructional Technology and Education of the Deaf - An International Symposium conference in 2003. The paper did not directly address technology related to assisting in the development of literacy and the deaf and hard of hearing, but it did discuss ways to determine whether or not software designed for the mainstream culture (i.e. hearing kids) will be beneficial to deaf and hard of hearing students. Therefore, I felt this paper would benefit my blog because it provides the reader with some "evaluation" tools in choosing literacy software to be used with deaf and hard of hearing students. The authors presented the results of a software evaluation workshop conducted at the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center in the summer of 2002. They presented eight characteristics to look for when determining whether software would be valuable to deaf and hard of hearing students. In order a piece of software to be "worthwhile" it should be visual, interactive, engaging, motivating, challenging, intuitive, structured, and include an assessment feature.

Software that is visual should provide students with visual cues rather than purely auditory ones. Feedback should be visual (i.e. a smiley face for something done right or a frowny face for something done wrong) and printed lables, answers and directions are also key. However, I was pleased that the authors did mention that too much visual stimulation (what they referred to as "visual noise") can be distracting to the student and counteract the intended learning. Furthermore, in order to maintain student interest and appeal, software should be interactive to the point that students can use the mouse, keyboard, etc to complete the tasks given. Also, it should be interactive in the sense that they are able to make certain decisions regarding what happens next. In the same sense, software that is engaging is colorful, contains graphics, and animations---this is somewhat related to visualness. Engaging software attracts children and draws them back for further use. The next attribute is somewhat related to the last two. Software should be motivating to students in such a way that it is so challenging they want to continually work to the end result for the purpose of completing it (although rewards are sometimes a factor). As you can see the challenging attribute is closely related to motivation. However, it should not be thought that software cannot be structured; as we all know anything in moderation is fine and drill and practice software that is extremely structured has a place in education as well. Finally, the last characteristic deals with assessment. Software that provides ongoing assessment of student progress and mastery of skills will be extremely valuable to the student and the teacher.

Although it seems obvious that all of the characteristics listed above are important, the interesting point of this paper that drew me in was the assumption that if software (i.e. literacy software in my case) contains these eight qualities it would be valuable to deaf and hard of hearing students regardless of whether it was specifically designed for them or not. Although I would love to believe this to be true, my own experience with software designed for the mainstream has been somewhat negative. However, if I look back on that software now, I would make the assertion that it did not contain all eight of the characteristics mentioned by the authors; for one, it was extremely auditory in nature---instructions, feedback, etc. It did, or I guess I should say does, have immediate and continuous feedback on students progress. However, students are not really learning anything from the software because the beginning levels are centered around the use of phonics. I guess this experience could go to support the assertions made by the authors, but I would still like to have more accurate "research" to support this belief.

The authors did present a list of software that was evaluated at the Clerc Center that summer that they said was valuable for use with deaf and hard of hearing students even though it was designed for the mainstream. However, the list was extremely difficult to read and understand (it was "clumped" together). It is a nice start to have the names of programs, but still, the more and more I research this topic the more and more I realize that there is little empirical data to support, or back up, the use of specific technology for increasing the literacy of deaf and hard of hearing students. Or, if it is out there I have not found it yet. I will continue my search, but I think that one of the problems I am seeing is that there just isn't enough quantitative (or true qualitative) research regarding the effectiveness of literacy technology with deaf and hard of hearing students.

Clerc Center Digital Video Project Web Site

2005-03-30T16:39:00.000-08:00

Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University

Digital Video Project Web Site Found at: http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/dv/

This web site contains digital video created by students from the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center and was developed through a project intended to assist the students in developing certain literacy skills. The project was broken into five part, with each part containing video signed by students in these areas of interest: digital dictionary, idiom digital dictionary, multiple meaning digital dictionary, math stories, and ASL poetry and stories. The digital video dictionary was created in 2000 by a group of third, fourth and fifth grade students who were taking a bilingual approach to literacy development. They created a Digital Video Dictionary that included pictures, English words, signs, fingerspelling, ASL sentences, and English sentences. In order to make the dictionary students used multimedia technology such as text, graphics, and video clips. Through the making of the digital dictionary students were able to improve their vocabulary, reading, and writing skills. Similar to the Digital Video Dictionary, another group of students created an Idiom Digital Dictionary. English idioms often produce confusion for deaf and hard of hearing students because these students are not native speakers of the language and ASL has its own forms of idioms. Therefore, the students explored this use of language by creating digital video sentences and stories that used idioms. The English sentence is seen on the screen with the idiom highlighted in red. Video is available of the students signing the ASL translation of the sentence and idiom. Option number three on this web site deals with multiple meanings of words, which is yet another difficult area for these students. Students created multiple meaning stories from various English words. The stories are written in English, the multiple meaning word is highlighted in red, and viewers have the option of clicking on the word for further explanation of its sign in ASL. Although on initial viewing, the fourth category, math stories, looks as though it has little to do with literacy, it actually presents a wonderful, innovative way at combining math and language arts. Students created math word problems, wrote them in English, and then signed them in ASL in the form of stories. This allowed the teacher to address language barriers many deaf and hard of hearing students have in solving math word problems while at the same time providing them with opportunities to write. Finally, the last section of the web site contains ASL stories and poems as written and signed by students. This is a great way to provide students with opportunities to enjoy literature, because they are expressing themselves in their native language. The benefits of this section seem to be similar to those found within the American Sign Language Literature: ASL Quest web site posted and discussed previously.

Overall, I see great benefits in not only the web site itself, but the ideas it presents. Technically speaking, the web site video is somewhat difficult to view and understand (it is somewhat fuzzy or "jerky"). However, the ideas presented within the activities completed by the students on this site would be easy to reproduce in one's own classroom. All you would really need is a digital video camera and access to web space (which any school should have). All five of the areas discussed produce great ways for deaf and hard of hearing students to develop literacy in meaningful and interactive ways. It is much more enjoyable for a student to write something they know will be videotaped and reproduced for others to see, besides the classroom teacher. My experience has led me to believe that many times deaf and hard of hearing students lack opportunities to deal with language in meaningful context. Many teachers use drill and practice methods to assist students in understanding and learning the grammar of English, but the ideas presented on this web site show that students can learn from authentic experiences with language as well. Furthermore, grammar could be addressed through out the development of the digital video projects through editting and writing conferences prior to filming. In a well organized and "community like" classroom this could also provide collaborative opportunities for students to learn to work in groups. Students could discuss what words to choose to add to the digital dictionary each week (I believe it should be an ongoing project all year, not just a one time deal), they could present their stories to their classmates prior to filming for constructive suggestions, and they could decide which idioms to focus on at given points in time. Deaf and hard of hearing students are often naturally expressive and social, therefore creating digital video projects like the one's discussed on this web site would allow students to access literacy skills through activities they deem interesting and important. Furthermore, if they are on the web they could be accessed by students at home for use with family and friends and the digital dictionary could be used as a nice source for teaching family members that do not know how to sign various words and their meanings.

Generally speaking I believe the web site listed above is extremely beneficial for students to view, but I feel it is even more beneficial for the potential it has with sparking ideas within the classroom. Any teacher, with a little time and effort, could recreate some form of the projects discussed on this web site, which would provide deaf and hard of hearing students with opportunities to work on literacy skills and translation skills (English to ASL and vice versa). However, before posting such video on the web I would look into how to make it so the picture is clearer for the viewer. The ones posted on this web site vary in their degree to be clearly seen and understood, and I feel this drastically decreases its effectiveness for the viewer (but not necessarily for the student who created the digital video). However, I feel the activities and projects discussed on this web site have the potential to allow teachers to address key issues in literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing students such as vocabulary development, understanding of multiple meaning words, use of figurative language in both languages (how it varies and how it is the same), and the use of authentic ASL literature.

Cornerstone: Website

2005-03-25T15:20:00.000-08:00

Cornerstones: Building Blocks to Literacy

Website: http://deafness.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=deafness&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fpbskids.org%2Flions%2Fcornerstones%2Findex.html

I was extremely excited when I came across this website, because it further explains and provides the materials for the Cornerstone curriculum I read about in a previous article (and post). It is a curriculum designed at repetition and meaning in language to assist deaf and hard of hearing students with developing literacy. The site provides background information for the project/curriculum, an introduction to the curriculum, the technical resources one would need to make it work, reproducible teacher and student resources, links to the online, interactive games that accompany a story, and comments from teachers who have used the units before. Also, it provides additional links to related websites for resources and information for deaf and hard of hearing students.

One of the aspects I like most about this website is that it allowed me to really conceptualize and understand the article I read before. As seen in the previous post, I found the information on the Cornerstone units to be extremely beneficial and believed they would drastically influence the literacy of any student, deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing. However, this website allowed me to truly understand what I was reading and view the materials, videos, games, and comments of other teachers. The website validated what the article said and what I had thought. I think the most valuable experience on the website, besides that it provides all the needed materials, is that I was able to try out the games and videos and review the lessons. I was thinking about my internship at the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind and was trying to picture my students completing the games or exercises. Although I think they would be able to complete the unit since it is focused on repetition and exposure, I had a somewhat skeptical view of certain aspects of the games. The games are geared toward comprehension and vocabulary and that is wonderful. However, they seemed to rely quite a bit on reading. I am assuming the creators are thinking that students who go through the unit will be able to complete the games and understand the writing, but when I think about my students who were reading on a preprimer to primer level, I just don't see them being able to complete the games alone...at least not at the point they were at, but perhaps the continual use of Cornerstones would assist them in getting to that point.

However, on a positive note, the expansion of vocabulary and meaning in the games was wonderful. The hypermedia text allowed students with access to further explanations on meanings of words through written English and accompanied pictures. I can see this as being an extension used in centers with the more whole class activities, such as reading the story and teaching of concepts, being done during language arts time. I think one comment I read said it best when it stated that Cornerstones provided teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students with great spring boards for further development of ideas. The key to teaching...take it and make it your own! My future interest in this program is rapidly expanding, because all materials are availabe to teachers online and are free! My hope now is that the Cornerstone producers will take the curriculum a step further in designing materials for students at a slightly older age group (the ones now are for primary elementary years). Overall, I think this would be a great addition to any classroom, and it could be used with other programs such as ENFI or the Sign Smith software (which could be used to possibly attach signs to the games that require more reading...hmm...something to look into) to focus further on reading and writing!

Article: Technology Enabled Scaffolding for Young Writers

2005-03-24T18:05:00.000-08:00

Englert, C., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers' composition. Journal of Special Education Technology. 19(1), 5-21.

Found at: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml;jsessionid=F15KVQPLYCFURQA3DILSFGGADUNGIIV0?_requestid=3350

Although this article was not specifically related to technology and deaf and hard of hearing students, it did have implications for ESOL students. Futhermore, the study conducted was not conducted with deaf and hard of hearing students in mind, but I feel it could be used as a beneficial tool in assisting the writing development of deaf and hard of hearing students. The purpose of this article was to summarize the results of a study conducted to discover the impact of a web-based software program on the writing of lower elementary students in a low socio-economic urban setting. Englert, Manaol, and Zhao attempted to answer three questions through this study: (1) does the use of certain scaffolds influence the writing performance of certain students, (2) what are the effects of the scaffolds on students that face particular challenges (i.e. ADHD, ESOL), and (3) how well are the scaffolds internalized over time. Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments on the Web (TELE-Web) was the program used throughout this study. This program allowed teachers to develop prompts to meet the needs of individual students that could be seen by clicking a button but disappeared when the student began writing again, directions for activities that could be simplified or expanded for specific audiences, and an “Information” box that allowed certain information to remain visible throughout the writing assignment. In addition, students could access online support, have their text read back to them using a text-to-speech function (this could be used with hard of hearing students with a very mild hearing loss), share their work with fellow students or the TELE-Web community, and could turn in the assignment through an online feature.

During the use of TELE-Web, students were prompted with text boxes that provided them with a direction in writing. The first box was for the topic sentence, and the remaining boxes were for detail sentences that answered the questions of who, what, when, where, and how. Students were allowed to collaborate with classmates throughout the writing process, and when they were finished writing their story, the computer program composed the text boxes into one comprehensive paragraph that followed narrative text conventions. Results of the study showed that when students used the mediational-technology they experienced an increase in the level of sophistication of their writing. Students' writing was longer, contained more detailed, more directly followed the rules of conventions, and followed the story-like nature of narrative text to a greater degree when using the TELE-Web. In addition, results indicated that the use of scaffolding in the program had long term effects and transferred into the students' paper and pencil writing.

Deaf and hard of hearing students often have a difficult time writing because most of the time English is not their first language (unless they are raised orally). Therefore, this study had direct implications with deaf and hard of hearing students. I believe one of the most valuable functions of this program was its ability to be individualized by the teacher and provide scaffolding for students in areas where they needed it. The teacher controls the scaffolding provided for the students and can determine where the student receives assistance. Furthermore, teachers can take assistance away as students develop the necessary skills on their own. The explicit reminders and visual representations of each portion of a complete paragraph would assist deaf and hard of hearing students in understanding the writing process. It almost seems as though TELE-Web is another, more advanced form, of a concept map. It extends the ideas of a concept map for a paragraph into separate text boxes, which are then combined to form a complete paragraph. In my experience with many deaf and hard of hearing students, understanding the "format" of a paragraph is just as difficult as understanding the correct "format" of a sentence. This program allows teachers to provide the necessary assistance. However, I do feel it is important to remember that such a program should never replace the teacher, rahter assist the teacher in further meeting the needs of students.

When I read this article I was pleased with its ability to individualize and provide visual cues, but I was slightly concerned about the ability of certain students to read the visual cues. Students that have a difficult time with writing often have a difficult time with reading and in this program the two seem extremely interdependent. However, I then thought of the prior post regarding the Sign Smith software. I remember that the information on this software stated the graphics could be used through hypermedia and web based programs. Would it not be wonderful if the Sign Smith software would allow a teacher of deaf and hard of hearing students using the TELE-Web program to provide visual cues for writing using the sign characters?! I believe the combination of both these programs, if they could be used in conjunction with one another, would allow a teacher to truly scaffold and make instruction and individualized assistance meaningful to the students. Furthermore, students often love writing on the computer (much more than paper and pencil) and these programs would provide students with additional practice in writing through forms of "personal tutors" in the signing characters and scaffolded assistance established by the teacher. The use of these two programs (or at least two similar ones) in conjuction with one another would provide a wonderful tool for developing the writing skills of deaf and hard of hearing students...this "partnership" is something to possibly look into further???

Authoring with Sign Smith Studio

2005-03-23T16:18:00.000-08:00

Vcom3D. (n.d.) Authoring with sign smith. Available: http://www.vcom3d.com/Studio.htm

Earlier in the blog I posted a write-up about a software program called "Reading Power" for deaf and hard of heairng students. The software I came across today is produced by the same company, Vcom3D. However, the "Reading Power" software focuses mainly on reading development while the software "Sign Smith Studio" can focus on reading or writing, depending on how the teacher, or student, wishes to use it. However, the initial drawback of the Sign Smith program is that it seems to require more knowledge of technology, and possibly more teacher training, than other programs I have reviewed or come across. However, I believe that if a teacher learned the software and was able to use it to its fullest potential it could be a great asset for any deaf and hard of hearing classroom.

Sign Smith allows the user, in this case the teacher or student, to add character animations that sign to any written English in the document. The character will sign whatever is written in the box for the viewer to see. Furthermore, the piece of work can be uploaded to the web for reading by students, with an option (not a must see) to view the signing when needed. In my opinion this provides a wonderful support system for deaf and hard of hearing students when learning to read and write. Students are presented with a support structure for reading words or sentences they do not understand and when using this a student's comprehension will not be impaired.

Some of the key features of the Sign Smith program I find appealing are one can write in English, choose to have it signed in Signed English (word for word) or American Sign Language (different sentence structure), and add facial expressions, body language, eye gaze, and other features key to understanding in ASL to the character doing the signing. A teacher could write stories in English, use the Sign Smith program to add accompanied sign, and have students view it online during centers or some other time throughout the day. This could be used as a reading comprehension activity, a scaffolding activity (because teachers can individualize stories and sign support), or a writing activity. In my mind I see this program being used as a writing activity through the teacher creating sentences in English, but hiding them so the students cannot see the English sentences. Students can view the sentence being signed in American Sign Language and have to write the sentence in English. This activity could then later be checked or discussed and this can assist teachers in identifying individual students' needs in developing writing skills. Furthermore, once the webpage is created teachers can have students complete the activities independently. Teachers could also use this to publish student work online for younger students to read with the supported sign language characters.

This is a program that allows teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing to create literacy experiences that connect English and American Sign Language in an interactive manner for students. Furthermore, it allows the ammount of support a teacher provides to be individualized and scaffolded, along with providing opportunities for students to publish work for others in the school and take ownership of their writing. This program is not free from difficulty or cost by any means, but if it could be afforded and learned, I believe it could provide students with an effective means of being engaged in the reading and writing process. In addition, it is very difficult to find interactive programs created specifically for deaf and hard of hearing students and this is a program that focuses on the meaningful structure of language, not the phonics-- a key aspect of learning to read and write for these students. For further explanation I suggest one view the website above and go through the demo on the site. It does a great job at showing the options availabe to the educator as far as what the program is capable of doing.

Reading and Deaf Children

2005-03-20T21:08:00.000-08:00

Loeterman, M., Paul, P., & Donahue, S. (2002, February). Reading and deaf children. Reading
Online. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/loeterman/

The authors of this article discussed the first phase of a technology enhanced approach to classroom literacy development called Cornerstones. One of the reasons I enjoyed this article so much was that it provided valuable evidence of the use of a literacy development program regarding its influence on deaf and hard of hearing students. Furthermore, it supported the ever popular technology integration concept of content first, technology second. Judi Harris advocates for the asking of two is it worth it questions when she discusses the use of technology: does it allow you to do something you couldn't do before, or does it allow you to do something you could do before but better. It is clear through this article that the Cornerstones project clearly displays this mindset by placing the content of delivery first and seeing the technology integration as a way to make the delivery of this content more effective.

At the content base of this program is teaching word meaning through multiple strategies such as concept maps, figurative language, and multiple meanings. Teachers introduce and cover a unit for six to eight days, two hours per day. Within these units, students are immersed in the language and ideas of given short stories. The units are pre-established by the designers of Cornerstones. However, technology is used to enhance the instruction and maintain motivation through the ability to present stories in various forms (i.e. english, ASL, print), the use of still pictures, story video, clip art, interactive games (that address word meaning), and video retellings. Through these forms of media, students are exposed and re-exposed to various forms of vocabulary and are able to develop a stronger sense of understanding regarding the meaning of given target words.

Results of this study showed an increase in student understanding of word meaning and ability to comprehend what was read. Through this technology enhanced project the reading level of deaf and hard of hearing students was beginning to increase. Due to the results of this study, new funding is being received by the United States Federal Government and a phase two of Cornerstones is going to be implemented. I will be interested to see the results of the more rigorous implementation of this program.

Furthermore, if I were to connect information from this article with information from others I have read, I would say that this program would work well with ENFI--the writing program posted earlier. ENFI could be used as a method of discussing stories and key vocabulary addressed throughout a Cornerstone unit. This would open students to not only the reading aspect of language, but would perhaps assist them in transferring this knowledge to writing. It appears to me that technology designed specifically for deaf and hard of hearing students seems to positively influence their literacy development. Furthermore, this program, Cornerstones, could be used to influence literacy development of hearing students. In my opinion, this is the sign of a well-rounded curriculum--one that can be individualized to meet the needs of any student.

Literacy, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Reading Power

2005-03-17T09:38:00.000-08:00

The "article" I read, and I use the word "article" loosely here because I found this write-up online, but it does not state the author or where it is located other than on the Internet, can be found in:

pdf format at http://www.vcom3d.com/RPdeafliteracy6-17_a3_cb.pdf

-or-

html format at http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8OVvizW84AQJ:www.vcom3d.com/RPdeafliteracy6-17_a3_cb.pdf+literacy+technology+in+deaf+education&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I was initially drawn to this article because it was mentioned in the abstract that a partner in the program for implementing the technology, Reading Power, was the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind. Having completed my internship there one year ago, I was interested to see what this article had to say about the use of this program. Furthermore, I am now curious as to which departments it was used in and believe I am going to inquire with my connections at the school to find out more detailed information regarding the programs use.

The article began by listing four reasons deaf and hard of hearing students have a difficult time learning to read. I have addressed some of these reasons in previous posts, but for a quick summary, the article states that these students often have a difficult time developing literacy because English is a second language they learn without access to the spoken aspects, ASL has a grammar very different from English, English is a phonetic language and most deaf and hard of hearing students do not have worthwhile access to this mode of learning, and the majority of deaf and hard of hearing students are born to hearing parents which often results in a significant language delay for these children. I have first hand experience with this last factor from my internship and interaction with deaf and hard of hearing students outside of school. It is sad to say that many of these students live in households where they have little to no communication with their hearing family members. They often experience isolation linquistically and socially and this creates enormous problems when it comes to learning to read and write (language is usually learned initially in a social atmosphere).

Furthermore, the article addressed the advantages of using computer-based learning in the education of deaf and hard of hearing students. Although I agree with most of their reasons, I would like to know where they gathered their information from and how they came about these conclusions. The other articles, website, and information on software I have read thus far agrees that their is a positive influence on students when they use given technologies, but only one article, the one pertaining to ENFI, even remotely presented valid evidence of where their data was collected. Nonetheless, the authors of this article (whoever they may be) stated that e-learning environments provide deaf and hard of hearing students with a repetitive and safe learning environment, individualized instruction, the opportunity to learn computer skills as a by product, and the opportunity to free teacher time for more one-on-one instruction. I would like to address these advantages by stating that I believe all of these factors have the potential to occur, but only if the software used is designed for deaf and hard of hearing children, or at least is modifiable. I have had previous experience with a program designed to improve literacy development of students, specifically hearing students (or at least students that read on grade level), and this program did not meet the needs of freeing up teacher time or allowing students to learn in a worthwhile manner. SuccessMaker is a wonderful program for students who can hear, or deaf and hard of hearing students who read on grade level, but not for those deaf and hard of hearing students who lack the primary skills necessary for learning to read. I have been in a classroom of deaf and hard of hearing students before where specific amounts of time on this program was required by the school, and although I saw it work in a classroom where students were reading on grade level, I also saw its disadvantages for those students who were not. For example, the beginning lessons within the program require the student to hear a computer voice asking them questions and explaining reading concepts to them (i.e. phonics); well, this is not beneficial for a student who cannot hear and it requires the teacher, or a volunteer, to interpret the program in order for the student to complete the lessons. Was there repetition? Yes, so much of it that the students would just memorize right answers without learning the concepts.

However, here is the difference between the program discussed in this article and the one I mentioned above. Vcom3D's Reading Power and Signing Avatar is specifically designed for use with deaf and hard of hearing students. Students are "matched" with computer graphic tutors that are able to sign. Each character has its own story to tell and the students can share information about themselves with the Signing Avatar tutor. Student engagement and attention span drastically increased when using the program, and students were provided with wonderful "role models" through the computer based tutors. The computer characters read stories to the children in sign language and worked on vocabulary and comprehension. It was reported that at the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind students' comprehension increased from 17% to 67% when changing from text-only to text accompanied by sign using the technology. On the outskirts, I think "wow!" this is great, but if it was this successfull when implemented why did I not know about it during my internship a year ago? This is something to look into...perhaps I will have further information on this in posts to come.

American Sign Language Literature: ASL Quest

2005-03-14T19:37:00.000-08:00

ASL Quest web address: http://www.aslquest.com/index.html

I found the above site while searching through http://wally.rit.edu/internet/subject/deafness.html, which provides subject-based resources for deaf and hard of hearing students.

Although this website does not actually discuss the use of technology in literacy development I feel its use with deaf and hard of hearing students has possible benefits in this area (with a little creativity). This website provides video of ASL literature in the form of poems and narratives. What is ASL literature you ask? Well, according to the site:

"ASL has a literature of its own that has passed down from one generation to the next by culturally Deaf people. Its is conveyed
in a visual spatial dimension. It shares similar elements and functions of any literature in any language. For Deaf childeren, it
is an important building block that presents them opportunities to learn language, knowledge, values, morals and experiences of
the world around them. It also provides them the bridge to English and other literature. ASL literature exists in two forms;
1)through the air and 2) on the videotapes. (Heather Gibson. May 2000)

My personal opinion of this site's influence on the literacy of deaf and hard of hearing students stems from the value of the motivation and ownership students can develop through this site. Often these students have little access to adult deaf and hard of hearing role models, and this site allows these students to view a piece of their culture in their native language. I feel as though this is an extremely important aspect of literacy development for deaf and hard of hearing students--the ability to take ownership of literacy that exists within their culture, not the "hearing" culture. An innovative teacher could use the presentation of the stories and poems on this site as the prompt to several writing and reading activities. Students could view a story or poem online and write a summary of the story they viewed in English, or the teacher could use the viewing of one of the stories or poems as a prompt to a writing/ASL literacy assignment in which the students have to develop their own piece of ASL literacy to be filmed. Furthermore, if one wanted to connect it's use with other posts made in this blog, the viewing of stories or poems on this site could be discussed using ENFI, which could lead to students' authentic writing in English about literature of their own culture. I veiw this site as a form of technology that would benefit the literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing students through increased motivation, ownership, and understanding of language.

FSDB to Fdlrs Webpage

2005-03-13T10:41:00.000-08:00

In today's blog I decided to post the web address to a section of the Fdlrs web site. I located this web site while browsing the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind's webpage. You can find the section I was focusing on at:

http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/rmc/multimedia/software.html#top

Although there was much more to be found on the website as a whole, this was the area I focused on for today's posting. This site provides teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing access to software they deem usable with students who are deaf and hard of hearing. The software is organized by subject area or overall theme, and this makes it easy to go directly to the area you are focusing on at that point in time. However, the site only provides the name of software, and I thought it might be even more beneficial if it would provide links to other sites that discuss each piece of software's use, advantages, and disadvantages. It does provide links to publishers, but this requires more searching on those sites to find the information you are looking for. Furthermore, from pure knowledge at hand I know that some of the resources listed were designed for hearing students and I feel as though their use might not be as beneficial as software designed specifically for deaf and hard of hearing students. However, at least a list provides teachers with a starting point.

Although I find this site to be extremely useful in providing me with information about software that is available, it does little to assist teachers in knowing how to use the software in the classroom or if it has worked before with students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Although entries in my blog are limited at this point, I would say the other two resources I provided were much more beneficial in answering my research question of what technology exists in increasing the literacy of deaf and hard of hearing students. I would further refine this to information about what exists and what is known to work, because today's web site provides general information but nothing specific regarding advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, I will now use this site to further explore the uses of some of the software listed for deaf and hard of hearing students for later postings.

In addition to this specific page, the entire site provides teachers with information on professional development, technology integration, tutorials and much more. The home page for the Fdlrs resources is http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/rmc/index.html.

Research Article: ENFI--An Approach to Teaching Writing Through Computers

2005-03-12T19:20:00.000-08:00

Marlatt, E. (1996). ENFI-An approach to teaching writing through computers. American Annals of the Deaf, 141, 240-244.

Found At: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtm.?nn+13

ENFI stands for Electronic Networks for Interaction, and it was a program established in 1985 by Gallaudet University. The purpose of ENFI is to provide deaf and hard of hearing students with real time, authentic uses of writing for communication. Using a computer and the program, students and teachers can actively participate in "online" dialogue with one another. The computers in the classroom are all networked together so that everyone is engaged in a literacy environment of reading what others wrote and responding with their comments through written English. (it works somewhat like an "IM" environment online)

Often deaf and hard of hearing students view writing in English as a chore, and ENFI allows these students to practice writing in English in an authentic manner without really feeling like they are being forced to write. It is being used for a more social purpose and students seem to respond to this use extremely well. Furthermore, instructions in phonics often do not benefit these students, and ENFI allows students to access written English in a whole language environment. The article mentions four popular activities teachers have used with the assistance of ENFI: open-ended discussion, discussion of a reading text, collaborative story writing, and creating and solving a hypothetical problem. Therefore, ENFI allows students to focus on writing in cross the curriculum activities that can be used with any subject area.

On a personal note, I believe the use of technology in the classroom always runs the advantage of increasing student motivation (at least in my experience), and ENFI provides students with a fun, less pressured way to practice written English. Students can be engaged in authentic writing experiences that can be saved and printed at the end of the day. I believe this is a valuable characteristic for both students and teachers. Students have the benefit of re-reading class discussions for studying purposes or literacy activities, and teachers can use the saved dialogue as informal assessments of students progress as well as a tool in individualizing writing instruction to the individual needs of students. One of the major concerns with deaf and hard of hearing students is that they are drilled with the grammatical aspects of a language they do not know, and ENFI allows these students to engage in real-life use of written English. Moreover, with ENFI being used to address the written aspects of language, teachers are able to address face-to-face communication with American Sign Language, a meaningful form of communication for deaf and hard of hearing students. This article did not present detailed information regarding the quantitative impact of the use of ENFI on these students, but I would be interested to find out more; my personal opinion is that the use of ENFI in a classroom would drastically improve the technical and motivational aspects of writing with deaf and hard of hearing students.

I can Read! ASL to English: A Software Program

2005-03-11T10:09:00.000-08:00

Initially, I found the name and a brief review of this software program at the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center website, located at http://clerccenter2.gallaudet.edu/stg/STGTitle.asp?RecID=431.

However, further research led me to more information regarding the software at this website: http://www.deafsoftware.com/cdroms.html.

I was extremely drawn to this piece of software from the get go, because last semester in my graduate course, Designing a Technology Rich Curriculum, at the University of Florida, I partook in a personal endeavor to create a similar concept using Mediator. I wrote a story, took pictures relating to the story, and then filmed my sister signing the story. I created an electronic storybook using Mediator that would allow deaf and hard of hearing students to independently read through the story, but if they came across a word they did not understand they could click on the word and a video would pop up of my sister signing that word for them. I was extremely pleased with the end product, but found limitations in that it cannot be uploaded to the web with the video components. Therefore, right now, it can only be read on a computer with Mediator (at least read to its full potential!).

With that in mind, my initial review of the software, I can Read! ASL to English, serves a highly similar function at a low cost, and with the software in hand the program can be run on a computer at home or in school! The current stories are definitely directed toward younger students, geared toward primary level children who are learning to read. However, the site does mention the possibility of software in the future directed at a slightly older crowd! Furthermore, in addition to allowing students to see a video of the sign of a word (or whole sentence) they do not know, it also provides interactive quizzes at the end of each story that emphasize key vocabulary found within the text. Students complete tasks such as matching the name of words to pictures (very low key and contains little pressure).

Although I have never actually seen this program, on the outskirts it appears to have very positive characteristics in assisting deaf and hard of hearing students in literacy development, while at the same time developing a sense of reading independently. Many times deaf and hard of hearing students lack decoding strategies many hearing students posses, and this leads to them needing assistance when they come across a word they do not know. This program takes that constant assistnace away and allows them to develop a self-confidence in being able to read independently. In addition, students can run the entire program independently at home or in the classroom. The program is self directed allowing studnets to choose the story and guide themselves through the storybook. If used at home, this program could be a great way to get parents involved. It is low in cost and seems to be high in ease of usability. Many deaf and hard of hearing children are born to hearing parents, many of whom do not sign. This program could be used as a great bridge to home and school because its interactiveness and ease of video accessibility could allow parents to read a storybook with their children and possibly learn a few signs at the same time! I am sure there are drawbacks to the program not seen in the reviews, but an overall look at the software, I can Read! ASL to English, it appears to be an extremely beneficial program....I might have to purchase a copy so I can check it out further and see for myself its true benefits!

Introduction

2005-03-08T22:31:00.000-08:00

Literacy development is a common struggle for deaf and hard of hearing students. A large portion of these students do not benefit from the phonics instruction many hearing students receive. This lack of phonemic awareness produces great difficulty for many deaf and hard of hearing students when learning to read and write. There are numerous technologies that exist to assist students in literacy development, and I have had experience with a small selection of these programs. However, the majority of these programs are designed for hearing students and often rely on the learner being able to hear a computer voice recorder. I am interested in researching and learning about technologies that have been, and are currently, successful in assisting deaf and hard of hearing students in literacy development. Does such technology exist, and if so, does it show significant gains in the literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing students?