An Examination of Balanced Literacy Instructional Model Implemented to Youths with Hearing Loss.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, the balanced literacy approach, a combination of whole language and skill development approaches has received attention in literacy instruction. The purpose of this school-based action research was to create a balanced literacy environment, and to describe the impacts of the various instructional activities based on the balanced literacy approach on literacy development of the youths with hearing loss attending a vocational school for the handicapped, Anadolu University, Turkey. This study was conducted between 2005 Fall Term and 2009 Spring Term. The volunteer students and the school instructors were the main participants of the study. Eight experienced faculty members of the school continuously and systematically reviewed the data. An ongoing qualitative (inductive and descriptive) and quantitative (descriptive ) data analyses were applied to various kind data sources. This article summarizes the emerged literacy instruction model and some of the achievements. This action research effort provided some improvements for the literacy instructional programs applied in the School and the literacy performance of the hearing impaired students. Based on the outcomes of the study efforts, it is also expected that this set of data would provide basis for creating literacy curricula and the area of literacy of hearing impaired students in Turkey and abroad. Key Words Balanced Literacy Instruction, Hearing Impaired Youths, Education of Hearing Impaired, Action Research. Today, children are surrounded by various types of print written for different purposes in many culture (Butler & Clay, 1983). And a comprehensive definition of being literate contains not only reading, writing, speaking, and listening but also it includes the skills to criticize, to create , to question, and to think logically (Fisher & Williams, 2001). It is now known that spoken and written language development of children with hearing loss can be similar to that of normally hearing children, but often delayed. Individuals with hearing loss have more difficulties than their normally hearing peers in literacy learning (Albertini & Schley, 2003; Andrews & Gonzales, 1991; Andrews & Mason, 1986; Arfe & Boscolo, 2006; Berent, 1996; Conway,1985; de Villiers, 1991; de Villiers & Pomerantz, 1992; Erickson, 1987; Evans, 2004; Ewoldt, 1981, 1985; Fischler, 1985; Hirsh-Pasek, 1987; Holt, 1993; Graves, 1983; Kelly, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998; King & Quigley, 1985; Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1978; Kluwin & Kelly, 1992; LaSasso & Mobley, 1997; McGill-Franzen & Gormley, 1980; Paul, 1998, 2001, 2003; Rotenberg & Searfoss, 1992; Ruiz, 1995; Schirmer, 2000; Truax, 1985; Uzuner, 1991; Willams, 1994; Wilson, 1979; Wurst, Jones, & Luckner, 2005; Yoshinaga-Itano & Downey, 1996). The results of the studies suggest that not only chronological age but also linguistic age, hearing loss level, and past experiences are influential on literacy learning of the individuals with hearing loss (e.g., Cambra, 1994; Pakulsky & Kaderavek, 2001; Truax, 1985; Uzuner, Icden, Girgin, Beral, & Kircaali-Iftar, 2005; Uzuner, Kircaali-Iftar, & Karasu, 2005). Because of these difficulties, we have to provide lifelong effective literacy experiences for the hearing impaired individuals (Albertini & Schley, 2003). There are various literacy instructional approaches. Two of them, Whole Language (Goodman, 1986) and Skilled Based approaches, (Asselin, 1999) are popular in the education of both hearing and hearing impaired individuals. Based on the research conducted with individuals with hearing loss, there appeared a need to combine these approaches addressing it as the Balanced Literacy Instruction (Balanced reading instruction; 2005; Evans, 2004; Goodman, 1986; Harp & Brewer, 2005; Howell & Luckner, 2009; Girgin, 1999; Luckner et al., 2006; Musselman, 2000; Pressley, Roehrig, Bogner, Raphael, & Dolezal, 2002; Reutzel & Cooter, 1992; Pearson, Raphael, Benson, & Madda, 2007; Schirmer, 1997, 2000; Walker, Munro, & Rickards, 1998). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it