16 Participants Needed

Retrieval Practice Strategies for Language Learning in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

JC
Overseen ByJena C McDaniel, PhD
Age: < 18
Sex: Any
Trial Phase: Academic
Sponsor: Vanderbilt University Medical Center
No Placebo GroupAll trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Trial Summary

What is the purpose of this trial?

This study is designed to advance the promising yet underutilized research on retrieval practice by evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of two key retrieval practice features (feedback and spacing). The study uses four single case adapted alternating treatments studies, each with four 5- to 8-year-old children who are deaf and hard of hearing to evaluate the effects of feedback and spacing on the efficiency of word learning and retention.

Will I have to stop taking my current medications?

The trial information does not specify whether participants need to stop taking their current medications.

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Feedback, No teaching control for language learning in deaf and hard of hearing children?

The research on auditory and audiovisual word learning for children with hearing loss shows that children can learn effectively with both auditory-only and audiovisual conditions compared to a no-teaching control, suggesting that feedback in language learning can be beneficial. Additionally, studies indicate that deaf children exposed to spoken language with signs tend to understand and produce more words, highlighting the potential effectiveness of feedback in language learning.12345

Is retrieval practice safe for deaf and hard of hearing children?

The studies reviewed do not provide specific safety data for retrieval practice strategies in deaf and hard of hearing children, but they do not report any adverse effects related to similar educational interventions.678910

How does the treatment for language learning in deaf and hard of hearing children differ from other treatments?

This treatment is unique because it focuses on retrieval practice strategies, which involve actively recalling information to enhance learning, rather than relying solely on visual or contextual cues. This approach is different from other methods that may emphasize explicit instruction or orthographic (spelling-related) facilitation, as it specifically targets the cognitive process of memory retrieval to improve language skills.111121314

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is for deaf and hard of hearing children aged 5-8 who only speak English, have some prelingual hearing loss, and normal nonverbal cognition. They should have basic receptive and expressive vocabulary skills but can't participate if they have severe motor impairments or uncorrected vision issues.

Inclusion Criteria

You have some level of hearing loss from birth.
You need to have good vocabulary skills, scoring at least 70 in tests for understanding and using words.
I only speak English.

Exclusion Criteria

You have difficulty with thinking and problem-solving skills without using words.
I have severe difficulty moving or controlling my movements.
You have vision problems that have not been fixed with glasses or contacts.

Timeline

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Intervention

Participants undergo retrieval practice interventions focusing on feedback and spacing to improve word learning and retention

Up to 6 months

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for retention of word learning after the intervention

4 weeks

Treatment Details

Interventions

  • Feedback
  • No teaching control
Trial OverviewThe study tests how well different teaching methods help these children learn words. It compares giving feedback versus no feedback, and doing learning sessions close together (massed) versus spread out over time (spaced). There's also a control group with no teaching.
Participant Groups
4Treatment groups
Experimental Treatment
Group I: Contrast DExperimental Treatment3 Interventions
Spaced vs massed trials with feedback
Group II: Contrast CExperimental Treatment3 Interventions
Spaced vs massed trials without feedback
Group III: Contrast BExperimental Treatment3 Interventions
Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials
Group IV: Contrast AExperimental Treatment3 Interventions
Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials

Find a Clinic Near You

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Lead Sponsor

Trials
922
Recruited
939,000+

Findings from Research

Children with congenital hearing impairment showed better performance in non-word recall compared to real word recall, indicating specific challenges in verbal short-term memory related to spoken language.
Despite difficulties in recalling words, these children demonstrated strengths in visual working memory, suggesting that targeted interventions could help improve their spoken language skills and address their learning difficulties.
The strengths and weaknesses in verbal short-term memory and visual working memory in children with hearing impairment and additional language learning difficulties.Willis, S., Goldbart, J., Stansfield, J.[2014]
In a study involving four preschool children with prelingual hearing loss, both auditory-only (AO) and audiovisual (AV) interventions were effective for receptive word learning, showing that children can learn well with either method.
No significant difference in learning rates was found between the AO and AV conditions, suggesting that visual speechreading cues do not provide a clear advantage over auditory input alone in developing spoken language skills.
Comparing Auditory-Only and Audiovisual Word Learning for Children With Hearing Loss.McDaniel, J., Camarata, S., Yoder, P.[2020]
Deaf Italian preschoolers showed significant delays in vocabulary and grammar compared to hearing peers, but their language development was comparable to hearing children when matched for the duration of formal language experience, suggesting that the length of language education is crucial.
Deaf children who received language education that included both spoken language and sign language demonstrated better vocabulary and grammar skills than those who were taught only spoken language, highlighting the benefits of a multimodal approach to language learning.
Lexical and grammatical abilities in deaf Italian preschoolers: the role of duration of formal language experience.Rinaldi, P., Caselli, C.[2008]

References

The strengths and weaknesses in verbal short-term memory and visual working memory in children with hearing impairment and additional language learning difficulties. [2014]
Comparing Auditory-Only and Audiovisual Word Learning for Children With Hearing Loss. [2020]
Lexical and grammatical abilities in deaf Italian preschoolers: the role of duration of formal language experience. [2008]
Longitudinal Development of Executive Functioning and Spoken Language Skills in Preschool-Aged Children With Cochlear Implants. [2021]
Word learning processes in children with cochlear implants. [2021]
The effect of the method of repeated readings on the reading rate and word recognition accuracy of deaf adolescents. [2019]
Development of visual sustained selective attention and response inhibition in deaf children. [2023]
Novel-word learning in children with normal hearing and hearing loss. [2016]
Instructed rehearsal strategies' influence on deaf memory processing. [2019]
Verbal learning and memory in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants. [2022]
11.United Statespubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Linguistic coding by deaf children in relation to beginning reading success. [2019]
12.United Statespubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Explicit and Contextual Vocabulary Intervention: Effects on Word and Definition Learning. [2021]
13.United Statespubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Word-learning skills of deaf preschoolers: the development of novel mapping and rapid word-learning strategies. [2022]
14.United Statespubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Orthographic Facilitation of Oral Vocabulary Acquisition in Children With Hearing Loss. [2021]