In one investigation with 48 deaf and hard-of-hearing (hh) high school students and a second investigation with 48 deaf/hh college students, all viewed one lecture with an interpreter and one with the C-Print® speech-to-text support service. High school students retained more lecture information when they viewed speech-to-text support, compared to interpreter support, and when they studied note taker notes or a hard copy of the text after viewing the lecture, compared to no opportunity to study. For college students, however, there was no difference between retention with these two kinds of support or with study of notes, compared to no study. For the college investigation, there was a three-way interaction due to markedly better performance on a multiple-choice than on a sentence-completion test when students viewed an interpreter and did not study notes. This result may have reflected difficulty in comprehending unfamiliar terms. Reading proficiency was also related to retention.
College Board. (2006). Scholastic Aptitude Test. Retrieved January 19, 2006, from http://www.collegeboard.com
3.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2000). TerraNova CAT. Retrieved August 2, 2004, from http://www.ctb.com
4.
Cuddihy, A., Fisher, B., Gordon, R., & Schumaker, E. (1994, April). C-Note: A computerized notetaking system for hearing-impaired students in mainstream post-secondary education. Information and Technology for the Disabled, 1, 2.
5.
Elliot, L.B., Foster, S.B., & Stinson, M.S. (2002). Using notes from a speech-to-text system for studying: Research on deaf and hard of hearing high school and college students. Exceptional Children, 69, 25-40.
6.
Elliot, L.B., Stinson, M.S., Francis, P., Coyne, G., & Easton, D. (2003, June). What's new with C-Print. Paper presented at the International Instructional Technology and Education of the Deaf Symposium, Rochester, NY.
7.
Elliot, L., Stinson, M., McKee, B., Everhart, V., & Francis, P. (2001). College students' perceptions of the C-Print speech-to-text transcription system. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , 6, 285-298.
8.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (2005, January). Regional and national summary report of data from the 2003-2004 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Author/Gallaudet University.
9.
Gates, R. (1971). The reception of verbal information by hearing-impaired students through television medium: A comparison of speech-reading, manual communication and reading. Proceedings of the 45th meeting of the convention of American Instructors of the Deaf, 513-522.
10.
Hastings, D., Brecklin, K., Cermak, S., Reynolds, R., Rosen, H., & Wilson, J. (1997). Note taking for deaf and hard of hearing students: A report of the National Task Force on Quality of Services in the Postsecondary Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Rochester, NY: Northeast Technical Assistance Center, Rochester Institute of Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED437777)
11.
Heiman, G.W. (2000). Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12.
Holden-Pitt, L., & Diaz, J.A. (1998). Thirty years of the Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth: A glance over the decades. American Annals of the Deaf, 142(2), 72-76.
13.
Holt, J.A., Traxler, C.B., & Allen, T.E. (1992). Interpreting the scores: A users guide to the 8th edition Stanford Achievement Test for educators of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Research Institute, Gallaudet University.
14.
Karchmer, M., & Mitchell, R.E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (pp. 21-37). New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Kierwa, K.A., DuBois, N.F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245.
16.
Knox-Quinn, C., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1996, April). Project CONNECT: An interim report on wirelessly-networked note taking support for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
17.
Knox-Quinn, C., & Anderson-Inman, L. (2001). Migrant ESL high school students succeed using networked laptops. Learning and Leading With Technology, 28, 18-21, 52-53.
18.
Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2002a). Educating deaf students. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2002b). Understanding language and learning in deaf children . In M. D. Clark, M. Marschark, & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Cognition, context, and deafness (pp. 71-86). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
20.
Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., & Seewagen, R. (2005). Educational interpreting: Access and outcomes . In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
McMillan, J.H. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
Microsoft. (2001). Microsoft Word X for Mac: Service Release 1 [Computer software]. Redmond, WA: Author.
23.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities: Enrollment, services, and persistence (NCES 2000-092). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
24.
National Technical Institute for the Deaf. ( 2003). C-Print speech-to-text system. Retrieved August 2, 2004, from http://www.ntid.rit.edu/Cprint
25.
Norwood, M. (1976). Comparison of an interpreted and captioned newscast among hearing-impaired high school graduates and hearing-impaired college graduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
26.
Osguthorpe, R.T. (1980). The tutor/note taker. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf .
27.
Preminger, J.E., & Levitt, H. (1998). Computer-assisted remote transcription (CART): A tool to aid people who are deaf or hard of hearing in the workplace. Volta Review, 99, 219-230.
28.
Rodriguez, R.F. (2000, April). Letter to participants. Presentation at the conference on Innovation in Education: PEPNet 2000, Denver, CO.
29.
Saur, R. (1992). Resources for deaf students in the mainstreamed classroom. In S. B. Foster & G. G. Walter (Eds.), Deaf students in postsecondary education (pp. 96-113). New York: Routledge.
30.
Siple, L.A. (1995). The use of addition in sign language transliteration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
31.
Steinfeld, A. (1998). The benefit of real-time captioning in a mainstream classroom as measured by working memory. Volta Review, 100(1), 29-44.
32.
Stinson, M.S., Eisenberg, S., Horn, C., Larson, J., Levitt, H., & Stuckless, R. (1999). Real-time speech-to-text services. In R. Stuckless (Ed.), Reports of the National Task Force on Quality Services in Postsecondary Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Rochester, NY: Northeast Technical Assistance Center, Rochester Institute of Technology.
33.
Stinson, M.S., Elliot, L., McKee, B., & Francis, P. (2000). The C-Print real-time speech-to-text support service . Volta Voices, 8, 16-22.
34.
Stinson, M.S., Meath-Lang, B., & MacLeod, J. (1982). Recall of different segments of an interpreted lecture by deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 126, 819-825.
35.
Stinson, M.S., & McKee, B.G. (2000). Final report: Development and evaluation of a computer aided speech-to-print transcription system. Rochester, NY: NTID.
36.
Stinson, M.S., McKee, B.G., & Elliot, L.B. (2000). Development and implementation of the C-Print speech-to-text support service. In J. Albertini , E. Ehrhardt, & H. Strauss (Eds.), Kommunikation und Kreativität [Communication and creativity]. Villingen-Schwenningen , Germany: Neckar-Verlag.
37.
Stinson, M.S., Stuckless, E.R., Henderson, J., & Miller, L. (1988). Perceptions of hearing-impaired college students toward realtime speech-to-print: RTGD and other support services. Volta Review, 90, 336-348.
38.
Stuckless, E.R. (1999). Recognition means more than just getting the words right. Speech Technology, 4, 30-38.
39.
Viable Technologies, Inc. (2002). Viable Realtime Translation. Retrieved August 2, 2004, from http://www.viabletechnologies.com
