Alessandra Brandão
Hugo Nicolau
Vicki L. Hanson
ABSTRACT
Following multimedia lectures in mainstream classrooms is challenging for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students, even when provided with accessibility services. Due to multiple visual sources of information (e.g. teacher, slides, interpreter), these students struggle to divide their attention among several simultaneous sources, which may result in missing important parts of the lecture; as a result, access to information is limited in comparison to their hearing peers, having a negative effect in their academic achievements. In this paper we propose a novel approach to improve classroom accessibility, which focuses on improving the delivery of multimedia lectures. We introduce SlidePacer, a tool that promotes coordination between instructors and sign language interpreters, creating a single instructional unit and synchronizing verbal and visual information sources. We conducted a user study with 60 participants on the effects of SlidePacer in terms of learning performance and gaze behaviors. Results show that SlidePacer is effective in providing increased access to multimedia information; however, we did not find significant improvements in learning performance. We finish by discussing our results and limitations of our user study, and suggest future research avenues that build on these insights.
References
- Ayres, P. and Sweller, J. 2005. The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning.Google Scholar
- Cavender, A.C. et al. 2009. ClassInFocus: Enabling Improved Visual Attention Strategies for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. (2009), 67--74. Google Scholar
- Foster, S. et al. 1999. Inclusive Instruction and Learning for Deaf Students in Postsecondary Education. (1999).Google Scholar
- Harskamp, E.G. et al. 2007. Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction. 17, 5 (Oct. 2007), 465--477.Google Scholar
- Knoors, H. and Hermans, D. Effective Instruction for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: Teaching Strategies, School Settings, and Student Characteristics.Google Scholar
- Kushalnagar, R.S. et al. 2010. Multiple View Perspectives: Improving Inclusiveness and Video Compression in Mainstream Classroom Recordings. Proceedings of ASSETS. (2010), 123--130. Google Scholar
- Kushalnagar, R.S. and Kushalnagar, P. 2014. Live and Collaborative Gaze Review for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. International Conference on Computers Helping People. (2014), 72--80.Google Scholar
- Lang, H. et al. 1992. Characteristics of Effective Teachers: A Descriptive Study of Perceptions of Faculty and Deaf College Students. (1992).Google Scholar
- Lang, H. and Pagliaro, C. 2007. Factors predicting recall of mathematics terms by deaf students: implications for teaching. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education. 12, 4 (Jan. 2007), 449--60.Google Scholar
- Lang, H.G. 2001. Higher Education for Deaf Students: Research Priorities in the New Millennium. 1999 (2001).Google Scholar
- Lang, H.G. and Steely, D. 2003. Web-based science instruction for deaf students: What research says to the teacher. (2003), 277--298.Google Scholar
- Lasecki, W.S. et al. 2014. Helping Students Keep Up with Real-Time Captions by Pausing and Highlighting. (2014).Google Scholar
- Marschark, M. et al. 2005. Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and deaf education. 10, 1 (2005), 38--50.Google Scholar
- Marschark, M. et al. 2006. Classroom Interpreting and Visual Information Processing in Mainstream Education for Deaf Students: Live or Memorex? 42, 4 (2006), 727--761.Google Scholar
- Marschark, M. et al. 2008. Learning via direct and mediated instruction by deaf students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education. 13, 4 (Jan. 2008), 546--61.Google Scholar
- Marschark, M. et al. 2002. Teaching and the Curriculum. Educating deaf students: From research to practice.Google Scholar
- Marschark, M. and Hauser, P.C. 2008. Deaf cognition: foundations and outcomes: foundations and outcomes. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mather, S.M. and Clark, M.D. 2012. An Issue of Learning. (2012), 20--24.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R.E. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R.E. and Chandler, P. 2001. When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology. 93, 2 (2001), 390--397.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. 1998. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology. 90, 2 (1998), 312--320.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. 2010. Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. December 2014 (2010), 37--41.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R.E. and Wittrock, M.C. Problem-solving transfer. Handbook of educational psychology. (1996), 47--62.Google Scholar
- Moreno, R. and Mayer, R.E. 2002. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology. 94, 1 (2002), 156--163.Google Scholar
- Nelson, D.L. et al. 1976. Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 2, 5 (1976), 523.Google Scholar
- Schick, B. et al. 1999. Skill levels of educational interpreters working in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 4, 2 (1999), 144--155.Google Scholar
- Sitzmann, T. et al. 2008. A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 93, 2 (2008), 280.Google Scholar
- Statistics, N.C. for E. 1999. Integrated post-secondary education data system, Fall enrollment data file, Fall 1997.Google Scholar
- Sweller, J. et al. 2011. Cognitive load theory.Google Scholar
- Weissman, J. 2008. Presenting to win: the art of telling your story. FT Press.Google Scholar
Index Terms
SlidePacer
Comments