Difference between revisions of "EdTechforDHH"

Revision as of 03:05, 7 December 2007

[1] Marc Marschark, Jeff B. Pelz, Carol Convertino, Patricia Sapere, Mary Ellen Arndt, Rosemarie Seewagen. Classroom Interpreting and Visual Information Processing in Mainstream Education for Deaf Students: Live or Memorex[R]? American Educational Research Journal, v42 n4 p727-761 Win 2005

Comments: Video-based interpreting appears to be just as effective as in-person interpreting. Eye-tracking results show that skilled deaf signers spend more time looking at the interpreter than do novice signers. Hearing peers spend more time looking at the display than either skilled signers or novice signers.

[2] F Dowaliby and H Lang. Adjunct aids in instructional prose: a multimedia study with deaf college students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Vol 4, 270-282.

Comments: tested effects on learning of (1) text only, (2) text and content movies, (3) text and sign movies, (4) text and adjunct questions, and (5) all of these together (full condition). Nothing matters more than student participation (questions).

[3] J. Schull. An extensible, scalable browser-based architecture for synchronous and asynchronous communication and collaboration systems for deaf and hearing individuals. In Assets ’06: Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, pages 285–286, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press.

[4] Donald H. Beil. Tablet PC – The New New Thing – Demonstration, and Implications in Deaf Education. Instructional Technology and Education of the Deaf Symposium, NTID, June 23-27, 2003

[5] Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf boosts visual learning with SMART Board interactive whiteboards

[6] D. Miller, J. Culp, and D. Stotts. Facetop tablet :: note-taking assistance for deaf persons. In Assets ’06: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, 247–248, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press.

[7] Marc Marschark, Greg Leigh, Patricia Sapere, Denis Burnham, Carol Convertino, Michael Stinson, Harry Knoors, Mathijs P. J. Vervloed, William Noble. Benefits of Sign Language Interpreting and Text Alternatives for Deaf Students' Classroom Learning. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 11(4):421-437, 2006.

Comments: Paper presents several experiments comparing many different types of accommodation for deaf students (sign language instruction, sign language interpretation, real-time text with both CART (stenographer) and C-Print (trained speech-to-text captioner), and both C-Print and sign language). Mixed results are not easy to parse but there are a few finding relevant to us. Real time text may be better than sign language interpretation for courses involving many new vocab terms. One study indicates that too much accommodation can be a bad thing: both real time text alone and sign language alone were better received than both together (perhaps too much to visual attend to resulting in info loss). In contrast, another study found that having both sources of accommodation to be beneficial and that study showed both on the same computer screen. Student's perceived comprehension did not match actual comprehension. Students learned more from sign language during class but got more out of real time text notes than video of interpreter for studying.

[8] Lisa B. Elliot, Michael S. Stinson, Barbara G. McKee, Victoria S. Everhart and Pamela J. Francis. College Students' Perceptions of the C-Print Speech-to-Text Transcription System. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6:4, pg 285-298. 2001.

[9] S. Bennett, J. Hewitt, D. Kraithman, C. Britton. Making chalk and talk accessible. ACM Conference on Universal Usability 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 119-125.

Comment: another speech rec for real time text captions

[10] R. Kheir and T. Way. Inclusion of deaf students in computer science classes using real-time speech transcription. SIGCSE Bull., 39(3):261–265, 2007.

Comment: yet another speech rec for captions. These same folk have something similar in ASSETS 2007.

[11] Jill E. Preminger, Harry Levitt. Computer-Assisted Remote Transcription (CART): A Tool To Aid People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in the Workplace. Volta Review, v99 n4 p219-30 Sum 1997

Comment: appears to be the best ref for CART.

[12] Johnny Carroll and Kevin McLaughlin. Closed captioning in distance education. ACM Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges (April 2005), Volume 20, Issue 4, 183-189.

[13] Jan Richards, Deborah Fels, Jim Hardman. The Educational Potential of the Signing Web. Instructional Technology and Education of the Deaf Symposium, NTID, June 27-30, 2005.

Comment: Same people as Sign Link Studio. ASL Video can be edited so that certain parts link to other videos. Idea is to create of web of video the way the internet is a web of text and images.

• • • Signing Avatars for Educational Purposes:

[14] [15] [16] Judy Vesel. Signing Science! Learning & Leading with Technology ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) May 2005, Volume 32 Number 8, pg 30-35.

[17] Ron Cole, Dominic W. Massaro, Jacques de Villiers, Brian Rundle, Khaldoun Shobaki, Johan Wouters, Michael Cohen, Jonas Beskow, Patrick Stone, Pamela Connors, Alice Tarachow, Daniel Solcher. New tools for interactive speech and language training: Using animated conversational agents in the classrooms of profoundly deaf children.

• • • Less relevant stuff

[18] Kathleen F. McCoy and Lisa N. Masterman (Michaud). 1997. A tutor for teaching English as a second language for deaf users of American Sign Language. In Proceedings of Natural Language Processing for Communication Aids, an ACL/EACL97 Workshop, pages 160--164, Madrid, Spain, July.