Abstract
In this paper we discuss the role of visual resources, namely Greek Sign Language videos, concept maps and pictures, and their allocation in a multimedia educational software designed to enhance reading comprehension in deaf children. First, we summarize research findings from three bodies of literature that informed the design of the software: reading comprehension and deaf children, the role of visual displays in reading comprehension and multimedia learning theories. In the following part, we describe the software “See and See” and explain how relevant theory and research regarding visual displays and multimedia learning has been applied to its design. Finally, we present a pilot evaluation of “See and See” regarding the students’ interaction with the software and its role in reading comprehension.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
In this paper, the term deaf is used to describe the entire population of deaf students.
In their typology Levin et al. (1987) included one more category of pictures, those serving a transformation function, but this one applies to expository and not to narrative texts.
The educational software “See and See” was developed as part of a project, implemented by the University of Thessaly in Greece and co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and national resources (Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs-Operational Programme for Education and Initial Vocational Training).
References
Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153–160.
Andrews, J., & Mason, J. (1991). Strategy usage among deaf and hearing readers. Exceptional Children, 57, 536–545.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bailes, C. (2001). Integrative ASL-English language arts: bridging paths to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1, 147–174.
Berent, G., Kelly, R., Schmitz, K., & Kenney, K. (2008). Visual input enhancement via essay coding results in deaf learners’ long-term retention of improved English grammatical knowledge. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 190–204.
Byrnes, J. (1996). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26.
Castillo, E., Mosquera, D., & Palacios, D. (2008). Concept maps: A tool to enhance reading comprehension skills of children with hearing impairments. Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Retrieved from http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p247.pdf
Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. (2000). Theorizing about the relation between American Sign Language and reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 221–259). Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chen, I.-D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5–23.
Chmielewski, T. C., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 407–413.
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dowaliby, F., & Lang, H. (1999). Adjunct aids in instructional prose: a multimedia study with deaf college students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 270–282.
Easterbrooks, S., & Baker, S. (2002). Language learning in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Erwoldt, C., Israelite, N., & Dodds, R. (1992). The ability of deaf students to understand texts: a comparison of the perceptions of teachers and students. American Annals of the Deaf, 137, 351–361.
Filippatou, D., & Pumfrey, P. D. (1996). Pictures, titles, reading accuracy and reading comprehension. Educational Research, 38, 259–291.
Garderen, D., & Whittaker, C. (2006). Planning differentiated, multicultural instruction for secondary inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 12–20.
Gentry, M., Chinn, K., & Moulton, R. (2004/05). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149, 394–403.
Ghinea, G., & Thomas, J. (1998). QoS impact on user perception and understanding of multimedia video clips. Proceedings of the sixth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 49–54. Retrieved from http://dspace.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1219/1/p49-ghinea.pdf
Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.
Hansen, E., Mounty, J., & Baird, A. (1994). Interactive video and sign language for improving literacy skills of deaf students. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA ’94-World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 241–245. Retrieved from http://eric.edu.gov (ED 388250).
Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). The relationship between the reading and signing skills of deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 518–530. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn009.
Kelly, L. (2007). The comprehension of skilled deaf readers.The roles of word recognition and other potentially critical aspects of competence. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language (pp. 244–280). Ney York: Guilford.
Kim, A.-H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: a synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: I. Basic Research (pp. 51–85). New York: Springer.
Loeterman, M., Paul, P., & Donahue, S. (2002). Reading and deaf children. Reading Online, 5. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/loeterman/index.html
Luckner, J., Bowen, S., & Carter, K. (2001). Visual teaching strategies for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 38–44.
Mahshie, S. N. (1995). Educating deaf children bilingually. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University.
Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological development of deaf children. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M. (2002). Educating deaf children. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M. (2005). Classroom interpreting and visual information processing in mainstream education for deaf students: live or memorex? American Educational Research Journal, 42, 727–76.
Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005c). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, C., & Akamatsu, C. (1999). Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: considering the claims. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 1–8.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.
Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a bilingual-bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 93–107.
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–43.
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.
Μusselman, C. (2000). How do children who can’t hear learn to read an alphabetic script? A review of the literature on reading and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 9–31.
Nesbit, J., & Adesope, O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006).The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them, (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006–01 Rev 01–2008). Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
O’ Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., & Hall, R. (2002). Cognitive maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.
Paul, P. (1998). Literacy & deafness: The development of reading, writing and literate thought. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.
Petrantonakis, P., Kosmidou, V., Nikolaraizi, M., Koutsiogiorgou, S., & Hadjileontiadis, L. (2008). “See and see”: An educational tool for hard of hearing kids (pp. 1032–1033) In P. Diaz, I. Aedo, E. Mora (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Santander.
Reynolds, H., & Booher, H. (1980). The effects of pictorial and verbal instructional material on the operational performance of deaf subjects. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 175–186.
Reynolds, H., & Rosen, R. (1973, February/March). The effectiveness of text-book, individualized and pictorial formats for hearing-impaired students. The annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://eric.edu.gov (ED 075 968).
Schirmer, B. (2000). Language and literacy development in children who are deaf. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Schirmer, B. (2003). Using verbal protocols to identify reading strategies of students who are deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 157–170.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, D., & Kluwin, T. (2001). Teaching deaf and hard of hearing students. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Strassman, B. (1997). Metacognition and reading in children who are deaf: a review of the research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 140–141.
Sweller, J. (2005a). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J. (2005b). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159–166). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.
Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145.
Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT.
Walker, L., Munro, J., & Richards, F. (1998). Teaching inferential reading strategies through pictures. The Volta Review, 100, 105–120.
Wauters, L., Van Bon, W., Tellings, A., & Van Leuve, J. (2006). In search of factors in deaf and hearing children’s reading comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 371–380.
Wilbur, R. (2000). The use of ASL to support the development of English and literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 81–104.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Leontios Hadjileontiadis, Panagiotis Petrantonakis, Viky Kosmidou and Sofia Koutsogiorgou and all project participants who contributed to the development of the educational software “See and See”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nikolaraizi, M., Vekiri, I. The design of a software to enhance the reading comprehension skills of deaf students: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Educ Inf Technol 17, 167–185 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9152-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9152-1