Cooperative learning incorporating computer- mediated communication: participation, perceptions, and learning outcomes in a deaf education classroom

Many researchers have documented deaf students’ struggles with reading, writing, and communication in the classroom over the last twenty years Fang & Beil, 2005; Antia, et al., 2005; Mallory & Long, 2002; Mallory et al., 2006, Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). With the advent of email and text pagers, students today need to be exposed to the communication technologies of the future (Marschark et al., 2002; Bruce & Levin, 2003); especially deaf students, who will more typically rely on technology in the workplace for communication than hearing people (Wood, 2002). This exploratory research study with deaf undergraduate students examined whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) facilitated equitable participation and learning outcomes in a classroom activity. The study also examined the students’ perceptions of CMC as a valid instructional approach and whether they felt they could communicate easily via CMC. Results showed that participation was significantly more balanced within the CMC group pairs than within the comparison group pairs. It was also found that learning outcomes were significantly greater for the CMC group than the comparison group. In addition, students using CMC agreed that they could communicate easily and that CMC was an enjoyable method of communication in the classroom. Introduction: Since the inception of PL-94-142 (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) in 1975, the mainstreaming of students with disabilities, including deaf and hard-of-hearing students, has become more and more common. Currently, around seventy-five percent of deaf and hard-of-hearing (hereafter referred to as “deaf’) students are mainstreamed in public schools across the United States (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). This trend toward integration of the school environment has forced mainstream teachers to seek methods of instruction that accommodate the learning needs of all students in their classrooms. Student-centered cooperative learning lessons have been designed to meet some of these learning needs (Sherman, 2000). As conceived by social and cognitive psychologists Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, Lewin, and others, the social constructivist theories of how people learn have contributed greatly to the development of cooperative learning practices used in schools today (Sherman, 2000). Yet while cooperative learning strategies are powerfit1 teaching tools in the classroom (Bransford, et al., 2000; Slavin, 2001; Felder, 1995), the foundation for a cooperative learning system is communication the very element which can pose a stumbling block to mainstreamed deaf students’ participation and hence could interfere with their learning in a cooperative classroom environment (Long & Beil, 2005; Antia et al., 2005). Deaf and hardof-hearing students arrive in school &om many different communication backgrounds and continue to develop various communication preferences throughout their school experiences. These students often fmd communicating with their partners or small groups difficult (Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Long & Beil, 2005).Thus, it has become imperative to find ways to facilitate dialogue and participation of students with varying communication needs or styles in any cooperative learning lesson. Can computer-mediated communication (CMC) help facilitate communication during group work for students with different communication backgrounds and preferences? Just as the advent of the TTY (or TDD) revolutionized telephone communication for deaf people, the technological advances of email, IM, and text pagers, have revolutionized the way deaf people can and do communicate with both hearing people and each other (Power & Power, 2004). Many computer programs have been developed capitalizing on communication technologies to make them available to students within the classroom @mce & Peyton, 2002). These synchronous and quasi-synchronous programs have brought instant messaging text-as-you-type communication capabilities to students’ fmgertips. Communication strategies such as these may eliminate some of the communication barriers that exist between deaf students who are relying on amplification devices such as FM systems andlor who depend on interpreters, and non-signing students and teachers in the classroom. An examination of theories and practices in cooperative learning, computer-mediated communication, deaf students’ writing, and social issues related to deaf education follows in the literature review. The attempt here is to examine the potential success of using synchronous IM technology to help reduce communication barriers that exist in cooperative learning environments with deaf students in the mainstream or deaf students with diverse communication modes. A Review of the Literature: Cooperative Learning and Deafness “When students are engaged in a creative open-ended task, the more that they talk and work together, the more they will learn” (Cohen, 2002). Elizabeth Cohen’s quote fiom the conference for the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education in June 2002, describes cooperative learning in a nutshell. Active collaboration in the classroom involves students exchanging ideas, comments and insights, then synthesizing a stronger conceptual understanding of academic material. Research on collaborative group activities has shown that students recall and comprehend curricular content more effectively than when they work individually, which leads to higher academic achievement and a more positive student perception of the educational experience (Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Felder, 1995). Cooperative learning strategies and applications have been shown to facilitate more efficient acquisition of knowledge and problem solving methods, and to improve human relations within groups of diverse learners (Sherman, 2000). In theory, teachers have some power to ensure that no student is isolated or alienated from his or her peers (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). In the past thirty years, educational and social psychologists have developed volumes of research supporting the success of many different small group cooperative learning h e w o r k s at the elementary and secondary education levels, and more current research efforts involve po~secondary/university learning environments (Sherman, 2000). As the name implies, cooperative learning incorporates what Sherman (2000; p. 3) calls “cooperative goal structures,” where two or more students are grouped heterogeneously add given a task that requires positive interdependence of alI in the group. Heterogeneous grouping implies specifucally sorting individuals by diversifying characteristics such as academic ability, gender, ethnic background, and real or perceived disability. For deaf students in the mainstream, heterogeneous grouping would consider deahess a diversifying characteristic. For deaf students in a residential setting or university setting, communication preference (ASL, signed English, cued speech, oral method) and student background would be diversifying characteristics. Sherman (2000) goes on to suggest that cooperative goal structures must include face-to-face interactions, individual accountability (for participating in the group and contributing toward the goal), and group processing of information that incorporates each participant’s views and ideas surround’ing the task at hand. The communication barriers faced by heterogeneous groups of deaf and hearing students or heterogeneous groups of deaf students with varying communication preferences pose challenges to Sherman’s cooperative goal structures that must be addressed. First, face-to-face interaction can be awkward for both hearing and deaf students who communicate with each other through interpreters andlor FM systems, and therefore a less than desirable level of information may be exchanged in the process (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). Schull, Axelrod, and Quinsland note that, “When deaf and hearing individuals converse in combiied groups, conversational strategies often conflict and fail, despite interpreter’s Herculean efforts” (Schull, et al., 2006, p. 3). Second, when a deaf student is paired or grouped with other students and is accustomed to a communication mode different fiom those students, he or she may miss information that is being transmitted &ong & Beil, 2005). Under these circumstances, communications may be kept short and cover less depth of content. The potential for greater learning is truncated and educational outcomes are limited, because the key to successful cooperative learning situations is fluid communication between participants. Group processing of information, and therefore learning, is also compromised by poor access to communication. Cooperative learning helps students develop higher-order thinking (Vygotsky, 1978). A p u p ‘ s ability to mull over and reflect upon information together leads to a refinement of ideas and new ownership of the materials on a more personal level for the participants. Freedom and ease of communication are required for more complex reasoning to occur within the group and for students to share personal information and opinions, both of which will lead to increased social interaction and greater transfer of learning. Research by Long and Beil(2005, p. 6) has found that if communication breaks down, students are “less likely to become engaged, active learners,” and the exchange of ideas is limited In a study of US and Thai information technology students collaborating on a group project, Sarker (2005) found that both the US and the Thai students perceived that US members of the team transmitted more learning and information, even though capability and experience levels were equal. She suggests this resulted fiom a communicatiodlanguage barrier, because the language medium was English.