Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Educational Research Journal
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marschark, M.
Right arrow Articles by Seewagen, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

Classroom Interpreting and Visual Information Processing in Mainstream Education for Deaf Students: Live or Memorex®?

Marc Marschark

Rochester Institute of Technology and University of Aberdeen

Jeff B Pelz, Carol Convertino, Patricia Sapere, Mary Ellen Arndt and Rosemarie Seewagen

Rochester Institute of Technology

This study examined visual information processing and learning in classrooms including both deaf and hearing students. Of particular interest were the effects on deaf students’ learning of live (three-dimensional) versus video-recorded (two-dimensional) sign language interpreting and the visual attention strategies of more and less experienced deaf signers exposed to simultaneous, multiple sources of visual information. Results from three experiments consistently indicated no differences in learning between three-dimensional and two-dimensional presentations among hearing or deaf students. Analyses of students’ allocation of visual attention and the influence of various demographic and experimental variables suggested considerable flexibility in deaf students’ receptive communication skills. Nevertheless, the findings also revealed a robust advantage in learning in favor of hearing students

Key Words: deaf education • inclusion • interpreting • mainstream education • multimedia

American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, 727-761 (2005)
DOI: 10.3102/00028312042004727


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
C. M. Convertino, M. Marschark, P. Sapere, T. Sarchet, and M. Zupan
Predicting Academic Success Among Deaf College Students
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., July 1, 2009; 14(3): 324 - 343.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
M. Marschark, P. Sapere, C. Convertino, and J. Pelz
Learning via Direct and Mediated Instruction by Deaf Students
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., October 1, 2008; 13(4): 546 - 561.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
I. R. Rodriguez Ortiz
Sign Language Comprehension: The Case of Spanish Sign Language
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., July 1, 2008; 13(3): 378 - 390.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



AER home page RER home page EPA home page JEB home page RRE home page