Search results

Assessing learning outcomes for students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing presents ongoing challenges given the largely verbal nature of classrooms and the presentation of information. Educators should carefully consider several factors when assessing their students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. Those factors include, but are not limited to: the format of the assessment, the format in which the student is expected to respond, classroom acoustics, as well as how to continue monitoring learning outcomes based on classroom instruction.

Literacy demands have changed over the years and for success in society it is necessary to handle a wide range of texts and written information. The school has been criticized for not giving their pupils the necessary abilities to handle the kind of information they are faced with in society. One important dimension of literacy is reading comprehension, but even though much written information has the form of tables, drawings, graphs, etc. such presentations are most often accompanied by written text. This chapter focuses the comprehension of different kinds of written information, and data from different tasks are evaluated in light of the simple view of reading. A total of 132 grade 6 readers were given four reading comprehension tasks concurrently with a decoding task and a listening comprehension task. It was found that the sum of decoding and listening comprehension accounted for a larger part of the variance in all the reading comprehension tasks than the product of decoding and listening comprehension. The pupils' results on a naming task and morphological tasks from preschool accounted for significant parts of the variance in the comprehension of both plain text and text combined with tables and graphs over and above the concurrent decoding and listening comprehension results. Speed of orthographic identification in 2nd grade accounted for an additional, significant part of the variance in the plain text reading tasks. These results show that processing speed and linguistic knowledge, such as morphological knowledge, are important contributors to the comprehension of different kinds of written information. Even if speed of orthographic identification is especially important for comprehending plain texts, a broad linguistic and cognitive perspective seems to be important when preparing pupils to comprehend different kinds of written material.

Dynamic assessment in the educational setting has been shown to offer many benefits for students with speech and language disorders. This chapter highlights the benefits of dynamic assessment and describes the limitations of static assessments. Because dynamic assessment can be implemented in many ways, three scenarios have been designed to provide an overview of some of these variations. Scenario 1 includes a graduated prompt approach for assessing abilities in the production of speech sounds using a standardized dynamic assessment. Scenario 2 includes a graduated prompt approach for assessing the linguistic skills underlying spelling errors. Scenario 3 includes a test-teach-retest approach for determining the presence of language impairment in students who speak a nonmainstream dialect of English. Suggestions for goal setting and increasing dynamic assessment applications for students with speech and language disorders are presented.

Writings about language and speech impairments (SLI) have been present for many centuries (Smith, 2004). Unfortunately, early historical accounts tended to reflect negatively upon individuals with SLI. For example, Van Riper and Erickson (1996) related that during the Roman times, an individual who stuttered was placed into a cage for entertainment purposes. According to these authors, citizens passing would throw coins into the person's cage to get him to talk. During the late 1800s, the profession of speech-language pathology began as an avocation of certain professionals, notably doctors, educators, and elocutionists (public speakers), who were interested in helping others improve their speech. American doctors studied under the auspices of European doctors who treated people with communication disorders. The two most common disorders that were treated then were dysfluency (stuttering) and speech sound errors (articulation) (Duchan, 2002). Treatment was available for the above disorders, however, the programs were not in public schools and the results of intervention were mixed (Smith, 2004).

Inclusion of deaf/hard of hearing (D/HH) students is more common than ever before. General education teachers need to be aware of strengths and needs of this particular group of students as well as have a few simple strategies to implement in the classroom. This chapter will present strengths and needs relative to language, social/emotional skills, and literacy. Language modalities, educational philosophies, as well as assistive listening technologies are discussed. We will further present important information on changes in technology and support personnel that may be used to improve the education of D/HH students.

Children's failure to develop proficiency in reading and writing continues to challenge educationalists, parents and carers. In this chapter we argue that the concept of dyslexia as an explanation for failure or as a starting point for intervention is fatally flawed. Our argument is that the concept is a socially constructed category with no scientific basis. Hence quasi-medical differential diagnosis is invalid and educationally divisive. We question this phenomenon that persists despite the protestations of Stanovich (1994, 2005) and others, through a brief survey of work in the fields of social categorisation, cognitive psychology and neuroscience. In summary our view is that whilst there are some ‘natural’ tendencies to categorise, with regard to literacy there is no identified objectively defined and unambiguous discontinuity between skilled and unskilled reader. There is, therefore, no support for the persistence of a distinctive category of dyslexia. Further, the notion of ‘dyslexia’ in itself does not support appropriate intervention.

Reading comprehension is a critical area of instruction for all students, but particularly for students with learning disabilities (LD) that impede their ability to understand what they read. This synthesis includes 30 intervention studies on reading comprehension for students with LD conducted in several countries and all regions of the United States. Specifically, the current review focuses on the efficacy of these strategies across grade levels, with various types of reading materials, and in conjunction with other instructional components that have potential to enhance instructional benefits to students. Results suggest that reading comprehension instruction is effective for improving the skills of this population.