Content

The Content dimension of the Complex Learning Model adapted for deaf learners encompasses the internal processes of learning including the

acquisition of knowledge; the construction of meaning and the development of abilities and skills. Even with evidence to indicate that many teachers consider that removing the communication barriers will enable deaf students to learn using the same processes, as their hearing peers (Marschark and Knoors, 2012), the teaching assistants identified a number of challenges for deaf students that indicate this is not the case. Challenges categorised as Content resonate with recent research identifying differences in the cognitive functioning of deaf students. These included meta-comprehension (10.3.1); speed of

processing information (10.3.2) and visual learning (10.3.3). See figure 10.2. Interestingly there was no indication that interventions or strategies were in place to address these issues or that the challenges they present were acknowledged within the classroom environment for the deaf students. this reinforces the notion of a disconnect between research and educational practices.

Figure 10-2 Challenges within the Content Dimension of learning identified by the teaching assistants

These different aspects of cognitive functioning are not discrete processes and connections between the different aspects are evident in the literature and were apparent in the teaching assistants’ discussions.

10.3.1 Meta-comprehension

The issue of a deaf student’s ability to monitor his own comprehension was raised early on in the research process. One participant described her surprise when she became aware that an able deaf student had been engaged in a history lesson assuming the focus was “castles” when in fact it had been

“cattle” and that he had not been aware of his own misunderstanding; the initial error having occurred, presumably, through mishearing the word “cattle”. The meta comprehensive skills of deaf students, being aware of their own

comprehension or lack of comprehension as illustrated here, were initially examined in relation to the reading comprehension of deaf students. Many studies have highlighted deaf students’ poor reading attainment and research indicates that their ability to monitor their own understanding of a text would appear to be a contributory factor (Gibbs, 1989, Kelly et al., 2001, Borgna et al., 2011). More recently it has been identified that the self-monitoring of

comprehension of a lesson, that may include processing both voice and text, may also be problematic for deaf students (Knoors and Marschark, 2014). Marschark et al. (2005) and Borgna et al. (2011) suggested that deaf students were more likely to misjudge their understanding of the content of a lecture than their hearing peers, frequently assuming greater comprehension than they had in fact attained. Research to determine the extent of the overestimation of comprehension amongst younger school aged deaf students has not been undertaken. Having been identified by participants within this study as

occurring within a secondary classroom it would be valuable to investigate its prominence and subsequent impact on learning within the classroom

10.3.2 Information processing and working memory

The length of time taken by deaf students to process information was mentioned frequently by the teaching assistants. This was viewed as

particularly problematic in the classroom environment frequently resulting in the student being left behind endeavouring to resolve a problem or question as the remainder of the class moved on to the next stage of the lesson. The capacity to hold information and manipulate it simultaneously is referred to as Working Memory (Badderley and Hitch, 1974, Badderley, 2000).( See 4.4.3)

The capacity of working memory is limited for everyone and should a deaf student need to engage different and more extensive processing, as a result of their past experiences or limited ability to access information from their

environment, it will lead to the loss of potentially crucial information that will subsequently impact on their ability to complete the learning task (Alloway, 2006). Potentially all aspects of the working memory model are likely to demonstrate differences when applied to a deaf learner because of the increased challenges the deaf student faces in accessing the information in comparison with a hearing peer. The phonological loop, for example is likely to be differently engaged for a deaf student as they endeavour to process the language based information whether spoken or signed. Within a mainstream classroom environment a teacher has to make assumptions as to the capacity of the students within their lesson to process and attach meaning to the

curriculum content to be delivered. This will be based on the mainstream teacher’s knowledge and practice of working with students who do not

experience the same demands on their working memory as a deaf student. It may therefore result in unanticipated excess demands on the deaf students’ working memory. If the demands on working memory exceed capacity it is likely to result in the student not making the necessary development in that particular learning step, which in turn will impact on the assimilative nature of the learning anticipated during the educational process (Gathercole, 2004). Some of the challenges posed for deaf students’ working memory have been illustrated by studies which have explored problem solving. These reveal that deaf students demonstrate differences in their use of language; the application and transfer of knowledge and skills, as well as the visualisation of problems. (Pagliaro and Ansell, 2002, Ansell and Pagliaro, 2006, Bull et al., 2005, Blatto- Vallee et al., 2007). The studies in general conclude the extra load required on deaf students’ working memory creates additional challenges for them that are not experienced by their hearing peers.

Deaf students’ ability to process information is also likely to be affected by their ability to recall previously encountered information. The teaching assistants commented on the length of time deaf students required to recall information and they attributed this to poor memory skills. They considered that the deaf students’ frequently limited vocabularies were indicative of this. It is well documented that deaf students are likely to have smaller and more

idiosyncratic vocabularies than their hearing peers (Griswold and Commings, 1974, Kiese-Himmel, 2008, Lucker and Cooke, 2010, Percy-Smith et al., 2013). Research also indicates that the links and connections between words are less strong (Marschark et al., 2004) and consequently “…there are qualitative

differences in both organization and application of that knowledge that

influence performance.” (p.59). Being able to access their knowledge of words

and link them with other associated words and concepts in order to make sense of a situation or text as illustrated by the CI model of reading (section 4.4.5) and link it to previous knowledge often appears to be a slower process than for their hearing peers. There is a clear need to develop evidence based strategies that address the differences in deaf students working memory if they are to be able to maximise their learning within a mainstream environment. 10.3.3 Visual Learning

Teaching assistants described the use of visual resources to assist deaf

students in recalling and processing information. They frequently referred to the deaf students as visual learners as a consequence of the benefit of visual resources in supporting the students’ memory and engagement. Research suggests that deaf individuals’ memory may differ from that of hearing individuals in their use of sequential and visual memory skills. However it indicates that rather than this being a result of a loss of hearing it strongly correlates to their prevailing language modality; spoken or signed. Those individuals who predominantly communicate through sign language develop stronger skills in visual memory, particularly for details within complex

diagrams, than do hearing students and adults (Todman and Cowdy, 1993, Hall and Bavelier, 2010). Deaf students and adults whose primary language is in the spoken mode, and particularly those who demonstrate good phonological processing, perform better with sequential memory tasks. (Hall and Bavelier, 2010). All the students the teaching assistants worked with in this study were predominantly spoken language users. It is possible, therefore, that the teaching assistants’ concept of a visual learner was a learner that benefitted from frequent visual reinforcement rather than a person that was able to

process visual information particularly effectively. Either way the use of such resources was described as beneficial for these students possibly as a means to support their word recognition and working memory.