An Investigation of Two-Way Text Messaging Use With Deaf Students at the Secondary Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deaf and hard-of-hearing students are often delayed in developing their independent living skills because of parental restrictions on activities outside the home due to worries about their child's inability to communicate, their whereabouts, and their general safety. Recent accounts of the use of two-way text messagers suggests that, like electronic mail, distance communication problems that have long plagued deaf people may be ameliorated--by the use of such technology (M. R. Power & D. Power, 2004; S. S. Rhone & Cox News Service, 2002). This project was designed as an initial foray into investigating the use of two-way text messaging technology as a way of increasing the independence of deaf adolescents and reducing their parents' anxiety about their safety and responsibility. All the deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the deaf and hard-of-hearing programs at two urban high schools (ages 13-19), the staff of the deaf departments at these two schools, and the parents/guardians of the students participated in this study. Preuse surveys, postuse surveys, and monthly statistics on the number of times each pager was used enabled us to chart how often the participants used the technology. The data were used to identify concerns that parents have about student independence and safety, the extent to which deaf students engage in independent activities, and expectations surrounding how two-way text messaging use might increase independence and literacy skills. The data collected on this project to date confirm that two-way text messaging technology is indeed useful for deaf adolescents and helps alleviate some of the concerns that have kept them from developing independence as quickly or readily as their hearing peers. The potential policy implications for this research are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".