How Do Profoundly Deaf Children Learn to Read?

Reading requires two related, but separable, capabilities: (1) familiarity with a language, and (2) understanding the mapping between that language and the printed word (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Children who are profoundly deaf are disadvantaged on both counts. Not surprisingly, then, reading is difficult for profoundly deaf children. But some deaf children do manage to read fluently. How? Are they simply the smartest of the crop, or do they have some strategy, or circumstance, that facilitates linking the written code with language? A priori one might guess that knowing American Sign Language (ASL) would interfere with learning to read English simply because ASL does not map in any systematic way onto English. However, recent research has suggested that individuals with good signing skills are not worse, and may even be better, readers than individuals with poor signing skills (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000). Thus, knowing a language (even if it is not the language captured in print) appears to facilitate learning to read. Nonetheless, skill in signing does not guarantee skill in reading—reading must be taught. The next frontier for reading research in deaf education is to understand how deaf readers map their knowledge of sign language onto print, and how instruction can best be used to turn signers into readers.     

How “open” is open learning?

Many of the models and paradigms that underlie open learning are based on inappropriate mechanistic, closed-system models-to name two, Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and behaviorism. This paper explores the roots of the open learning systems approach to education and examines the relationship between the goals of this approach and the models and methodologies that have followed its implementation. These models are then analyzed within the context of the theory of open and closed systems and a number of incongruities noted. An open systems orientation toward the development of learning systems is suggested and recommendations are made for its implementation.     

Educating a growing minority—Canadian women engineers

Conclusion The Canada-wide survey of women engineers has provided a wealth of detailed information about a still small, but rapidly growing, minority within the profession. A major source of satisfaction of these women is the interest and variety of the work they do and for which they are financially rewarded on the same scale as men. Few wives earn salaries equivalent to those of their husbands, but women engineers do. This fact may account at least in part for the egalitarian nature of their marriages. With two professional salaries coming into the household, it is possible to engage competent and reliable assistants. The proportion of women engineers who have household employees, either full-time or on a part-time basis, is many times greater than for Canadian women in general. The ability of women engineers to divide their time between family and profession seems to maximize the satisfaction they derive from each. Their use of continuing education to maintain continuity of professional interests during their short periods out of full-time employment as engineers shows careful planning and individual ingenuity. In spite of occasional instances of unfairness or perceived discrimination by an individual, women engineers report a high level of satisfaction with the profession they have chosen. Many wrote at length about why they would recommendit to other women who want an interesting, challenging, and rewarding career. They say that engineering is a great profession—especially for a woman!