The effect of autobiography method on comprehension skill of hearing-impaired students
Background and Aim: Autobiography is a kind of narrative writing about a person written by that same person. Indeed, it is a type of writing about self that is full of subjectivity and experience. The present study investigated the effect of autobiography method on the comprehension skill of hearing-impaired students.
Methods: International Standardized Reading Literacy Questions (2001) was employed for data collection. Six hearing-impaired students from special female schools of Shahriar city, Iran, in the range of severe to profound hearing impairment were selected as control (n=3) and experimental (n=3) groups. Autobiography method was used for the experimental group during 23 sessions of hearing rehabilitation training.
Results: In the experimental group, mean score of posttest was significantly higher than that of the pretest in levels one and two of comprehension process (p<0.05), while there was no significant difference in levels three and four between the pre and posttests (p>0.05). In the control group, there was no significant difference between post and pretests in all the four levels (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Autobiography as a teaching method focuses on the lived experiences of the individual. In so doing, students' experiences are discovered, expressed, and interpreted, and students are committed to improving their writing skill through achieving a broader set of language functions. Furthermore, boosting language skills can improve comprehension in hearing-impaired students.
2. Kelly RR, Gaustad MG. Deaf college students' mathematical skills relative to morphological knowledge, reading level, and language proficiency. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2007;12(1):25-37.
3. Kakojoibari AA, Sharifi A. The effect of hearing impairment on educational achievement of hearing-impaired students. Audiol. 2014;23(2):19-30. Persian.
4. Barth AE, Tolar TD, Fletcher JM, Francis D. The effects of student and text characteristics on the oral reading fluency of middle-grade students. J Educ Psychol. 2014;106(1):162-180.
5. Crosson J, Geers A. Analysis of narrative ability in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2001;22(5):381-94.
6. Northern J, Downs M. Hearing in children. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
7. Cannon JE, Hubley AM, Millhoff C, Mazlouman S. Comprehension of written grammar test: reliability and known-groups validity study with hearing and deaf and hard-of-hearing students. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016;21(1):54-63.
8. Arfe B, Nicolini F, Pozzebon E. The influence of verbal working memory on writing skills in children with hearing loss. In. Arfe B ,Dockrell J, Berninger V, editors. Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia or oral language problems: implications for assessment and instruction. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 85–99.
9. Carretti B, Re AM, Arfè B. Reading comprehension and expressive writing: a comparison between good and poor comprehenders. J Learn Disabil. 2013;46(1):87-96.
10. Schley S, Albertini J. Assessing the writing of deaf college students: reevaluating a direct assessment of writing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2005;10(1):96-105.
11. Harrell RW. Pure tone evaluation. In: Katz J, Burkard RF, Medwestsky L, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p. 71-87.
12. Kakojoibari AA, Sarmadi MR, Sharifi A. Comparison of reading literacy in hearing impaired students in three educational degrees. Quarterly Journal of Rehabilitation. 2010;11(3):8-14. Persian.
13. Nikkhou F, Hasanzadeh S, Afrooz Gh. The comparative study of reading comprehension in normal-hearing and hearing-loss student. Audiol. 2012;21(2):71-7. Persian.
14. Sharifi A, Kakojoibari AA, Sarmadi MR. Comparison of different levels of reading comprehension between hearing-impaired and normal-hearing students. Audiol. 2010;19(2):25-32. Persian.
15. Kakojoibari AA, Sarmadi MR, Sharifi A. Comparison of reading literacy in hearing impaired and normal hearing students. Audiol.2010;19(1):23-30. Persian.
16. Campbell JR, Kelly DL, Mullis IVS, Martin MO, Sainsbury M. Framework and specifications for PIRLS assessment 2001. 2nd ed. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; 2001.
17. Gonzalez EJ. Scaling the PIRLS reading assessment data. In: Martin M, Mulls I, Kennedy A, editors. PIRLS 2001 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; 2003.
18. Fathi Vajargah K. Curriculum into new identities. Tehran: Ayizh; 2007. Persian.
19. Miller P. What the visual word recognition skills of prelingually deafened readers tell about their reading comprehension problems. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2006;18(2):91-121.
20. Arfé B, Rossi C, Sicoli S. The contribution of verbal working memory to deaf children's oral and written production. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2015;20(3):203-14.
21. Wolbers KA, Dostal HM, Graham S, Cihak D, Kilpatrick JR, Saulsburry R. The writing performance of elementary students receiving strategic and interactive writing instruction. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2015;20(4):385-98.
Copyright (c) 2016 Auditory and Vestibular Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.