LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Mann, W.; Peña, E. D.; Morgan, G. (2014)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: P1

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: education
We describe a model for assessment of lexical-semantic organization skills in American Sign Language (ASL) within the framework of dynamic vocabulary assessment and discuss the applicability and validity of the use of mediated learning experiences (MLE) with deaf signing children. Two elementary students (ages 7;6 and 8;4) completed a set of four vocabulary tasks and received two 30-minute mediations in ASL. Each session consisted of several scripted activities focusing on the use of categorization. Both had experienced difficulties in providing categorically related responses in one of the vocabulary tasks used previously. Results showed that the two students exhibited notable differences with regards to their learning pace, information uptake, and effort required by the mediator. Furthermore, we observed signs of a shift in strategic behavior by the lower performing student during the second mediation. Results suggest that the use of dynamic assessment procedures in a vocabulary context was helpful in understanding children's strategies as related to learning potential. These results are discussed in terms of deaf children's cognitive modifiability with implications for planning instruction and how MLE can be used with a population that uses ASL.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Asad, A., Hand, L., Fairgray, L., & Purdy, S. (2013). The use of dynamic assessment to evaluate narrative language learning in children with hearing loss: Three case studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265659012467994
    • Bracken, B., & McCallum, R. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
    • Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (Eds.). (2000). Language acquisition by eye. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Cawthon, S., Winton, S., Garberoglio, C., & Gobble, M. (2011). The effects of ASL as an accommodation for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 198-211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq053
    • Elliott, J. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educational Review, 55(1), 15-30.
    • Enns, C., & Herman, R. (2011). Adapting the Assessing British Sign Language Development: Receptive Skills Test into American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(3), 362-374.
    • Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
    • Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore: University Park Press.
    • Haug, T. (2011). Adaptation and evaluation of a German Sign Language Test - A computer-based receptive skills test for deaf children ages 4-8 years old. Hamburg, Germany: Hamburg University Press.
    • Haywood, H. C., Brooks, P., & Burns, S. (1992). Bright Start: Cognitive curriculum for young children. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge Publishing.
    • Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
    • Herman, R., Grove, N., Holmes, S., Morgan, G., Sutherland, H., & Woll, B. (2004). Assessing BSL Development: Production Test (Narrative Skills). London, UK: City University Publication.
    • Herman, R., Holmes, S., & Woll, B. (1999). Assessing BSL Development - Receptive Skills Test. Coleford, UK: The Forest Bookshop.
    • Katz, M. (1984). Use of the LPAD for cognitive enrichment of a deaf child. School Psychology Review, 13, 99-106.
    • Kapantzoglou, M., Restrepo, M. A., & Thompson, M. S. (2012). Dynamic assessment of word learning skills: Identifying language impairment in bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(1), 81-96 http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0095)
    • Keane, K. J. (1987). Assessing deaf children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 360-378). New York: Guilford.
    • Krivitski, E. C., Mcintosh, D. E., Rothlisberg, B., & Finch, H. (2004). Profile analysis of deaf children using the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22(4), 338-350.
    • Lederberg, A. R., & Spencer, P. E. (2009). Word-learning abilities in deaf and hard-of-hearing preschoolers: Effect of lexicon size and language modality. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 44-62 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn021
    • Lederberg, A. R., Schick, B., & Spencer, P. E. (2013). Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Successes and challenges. Developmental psychology, 49(1), 15-30.
    • Lidz, C. S. (2004). Successful application of a dynamic assessment procedure with deaf students between the ages of four and eight years. Educational and Child Psychology, 21(1), 59-73.
    • Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioners' guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
    • Mann, W., & Marshall, C. (2012). Investigating deaf children's vocabulary knowledge in British Sign Language. Language Learning, 62(4), 1024-1051 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00670.x
    • Mann, W., & Prinz, P. M. (2006). An investigation of the need for sign language assessment in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(3), 356-370.
    • Mann, W., Roy, P., & Marshall, C. (2013). A look at the other 90 per cent: Investigating British Sign Language vocabulary knowledge in deaf children from different language learning backgrounds. Deafness & Education International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1557069X12Y.0000000017
    • Marshall, C., Rowley, K., Mason, K., Herman, R., & Morgan, G. (2013). Lexical organization in deaf children who use British Sign Language: Evidence from a semantic fluency task. Journal of Child Language, 40, 193-220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000116
    • Mitchell, R., & Karchmer, M. (2004). Chasing the mystical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4, 138-163.
    • Morgan, G., & Woll, B. (Eds.). (2002). Directions in sign language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Olswang, L. B., & Bain, B. A. (1996). Assessment information for predicting upcoming change in language production. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 39(2), 414-423.
    • Pen˜ a, E. D., Gillam, R., Malek, M., Felter, R., Rese´ ndiz, M., & Fiestas, C. (2006). Dynamic assessment of children from culturally diverse backgrounds: Applications to narrative assessment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1037-1057.
    • Pen˜ a, E. D., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children's word learning ability. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 10, 138-154.
    • Pen˜ a, E. D., & Quinn, R. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and African American children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 323-332.
    • Pen˜ a, E. D., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. Journal of Special Education, 26, 269-280.
    • Pen˜ a, E. D., Rese´ ndiz, M., & Gillam, R. (2007). The role of clinical judgments of modifiability in the diagnosis of language impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 1-14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14417040701413738
    • Pen˜ a, E.D., & Villarreal, B., Modifiability observation form. Unpublished instrument, 2000..
    • Schick, B., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in the sign language development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Shield, A., & Meier, R. (2012). Palm reversal errors in native-signing children with autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45, 439-454 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.08.004
    • Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: Educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385-435.
    • Tzuriel, D., & Caspri, N. (1992). Cognitive modifiability and cognitive performance of deaf and hard of hearing preschool children. Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 235-252.
    • Ukrainetz, T., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 142-154.
    • Woolfe, T., Herman, R., Roy, P., & Woll, B. (2010). Early lexical development in native signers: A BSL adaptation of the MacArthur-Bates CDI. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 322-331.
    • Zhao, L., Kipper, K., Schuler, W., Vogler, C., Badler, N., & Palmer, M. (2000). A machine translation system from English to American Sign Language. In Envisioning machine translation in the information future (pp. 54-67). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article