1
Review of the Literature in
Literacy Development and Instruction in
Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Susan R. Easterbrooks
Professor
Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education
Georgia State University
January, 2005
2
Special Recognition
Special recognition for their participation goes to Kathleena Whitesell, Lenoir
Rhyne College, and Elaine Gale, City College of New York, for their reviews of 15
articles each, and to Melody Stoner, doctoral student, Georgia State University, for her
review of several of the articles. Recognition also goes to Gay Su Pinnell, Ohio State
University, who reviewed the draft outline of the project and offered her expert
suggestions.
3
Literacy Literature Review
Background
Children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) learn to read across a
continuum of stimulus sources. Some children have sufficient residual hearing and
powerful amplification that allow them to develop literacy through the auditory pathway
(Izzo, 2002); some require visual support from English based sign systems (LuetkeStahlman & Nielson, 2003); and still others learn to read English as a second language
based on competence in their natural language of American Sign Language (Musselman,
2000) or another native language such as Spanish (Walker-Vann, 1998). Some of the
practices commonly used today, such as Guided Reading, may be used both as auditory
means and as visual means of instructing DHH children in literacy. Some practices, such
as phonemic awareness (e.g., /k/ sound as in cat or kite), vizeme awareness (e.g., a visual
symbol represents each letter shape on the lips), or cheremic awareness (e.g., the index
finger shape as in think or me) tend to be language-specific (i.e., spoken English, signed
English, American Sign Language) and require modifications depending on whether they
are being used with primarily auditory learners or primarily visual learners. The
multiplicity of procedures and strategies that may be appropriate for an individual student
requires teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing to have a broadly based set
of skills to apply in the classroom, especially since the majority of students with hearing
loss fall below the basic skills level (Traxler, 2000). This literature review looks at the
categories identified below and, whenever possible, does so from several perspectives,
which are described first in this document.
Perspectives
The following skills are identified as critical to literacy learning by the National Reading
Panel (2000):






Phonemic awareness
Phonics (traditional decoding and encoding)
Vocabulary Comprehension
Text Comprehension (reading strategies)
Fluency (spoken)
Motivation
To the above we add




Visual Fluency
Visual decoding and encoding (e.g., use of Cued Speech, Visual Phonics)
Code-Switching (dealing with dual languages)
Reading in the content areas
4
In addition, the Laurent Clerc Center of Gallaudet University) identifies nine practices
that are critical to literacy development. Where information is available, these are
reviewed (http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Literacy/programs/literacy.html).









Reading to Students
Language Experience
Shared Reading and Writing
Guided Reading and Writing
Writer’s Workshop
Research Reading and Writing
Dialogue Journal
Journals and Logs
Independent Reading
Some of the above categories were collapsed or not reviewed due to a lack of literature
available.
References for Background
Izzo, A. (2002). Phonemic awarenss and reading ability: An investigation of young
readers who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(4), 18-28.
Luetke-Stahlman, B. & Nielsen, D.C. (2003). The contribution of phonological
awareness and receptive and expressive English to the reading ability of deaf
students with varying degrees of exposure to accurate English. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 464-484.
Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who can’t hear learn to read an alphabetic
script? A review of the literature on reading and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 5, 9-31.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of
the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Traxler, C.B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National norming and
performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 337-348.
Walker-Vann, C. (1998). Profiling Hispanic deaf students: A first step towards solving
the greater problems. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(1), 46-54.
5
Review of the Literature
We have attempted to identify appropriate research-based literature for the
literacy actions identified above. A brief annotation is also given. The evidence is
identified by the following coding system so that the reader will have a sense of the rigor
and reliability of the data:
1= true experimental research containing quantitative methods, an actual treatment, and a
matched control group
2= quasi-experimental research where qualitative or quantitative methods are used but no
control group is available but where a comparison group may have been used.
3= narrative information regarding cases studies, overall program data, or other
descriptive means of identification of information; theoretical or literature review articles;
testomonials.
I. Phonemic Awareness
Izzo, A. (2002). Phonemic awareness and reading ability: An investigation with
young readers who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 147 (4), 18-28.
Rating: 2
Results: For 29 severe to profoundly deaf elementary school children in the midsouth
who used ASL as a primary mode of communication, there were four interesting
findings.
1. Language ability was significantly correlated to reading ability.
2. Age was significantly correlated to reading ability.
3. Phonemic awareness was not significantly correlated to reading ability.
a. Most scores in phonetic ability were low.
b. Scores in reading ability were widely distributed.
1. Suggested that language ability accounted for wide variance in
reading scores.
2. Even students reading on grade level had low scores in
phonemic awareness.
4. Phonemic awareness was not correlated significantly to any variable under
investigation.
The researcher suggested that perhaps skilled readers who are deaf are using strategies
other than phonetics, such as orthographic, visual, and/or sign-based strategies.
Considering the popularity of including phonetics in early education programs, perhaps
we should look at teaching reading to students who are deaf via other methods as well.
The suggestion is not to dump phonetics, but to include other strategies in reading
instruction as well, or, more of a holistic approach to teaching reading rather than
focusing only on the bottom-up approach of teaching phonemic awareness.
Luetke-Stahlman, B., & Corcoran-Nielsen, D. (2003). The contribution of
6
phonological awareness and receptive and expressive English to the reading ability
of deaf students with varying degrees of exposure to accurate English. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, (8), 4, 464-484.
Rating: 2
Results: 31 students (ages 7:9 to 17:9) from three different educational programs strongly
committed to the use of SEE were investigated. Three groups were made from the 31:
one group of 31, one group of students exposed to SEE for 5 years or more, and one
group of students exposed to SEE for 2 years or less. There were four research questions:
given a battery of tests standardized on hearing children, which elements would most
strongly correlate with reading comprehension ability; do any background or program
variables affect reading comprehension scores; do any background or program variables
differ for the students in 5 year SEE group versus students in 2 year SEE group; and, do
students in 5 year SEE group score higher than students in 2 year SEE group? In response
to the first question, it was determined that students in the 31 group who scored highest
on reading comprehension also scored highest on word comprehension, word
identification, and phoneme substitution. In response to the second question, it was
determined that there was no difference between groups except for age of identification,
only because this information was not available for all participants. In response to the
third question, it was determined that there was no significant difference between groups.
In response to the last question, it was determined that students in the group of 5 years or
more scored higher on all 15 language and literacy measures investigated.
Miller, P. (1997). The effect of communication mode on the development of
phonemic awareness in prelingually deaf students. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research (40), 5, 1151-1163.
Rating: 1
Results: Three groups of children (oral of hearing parents, signing deaf of deaf parents,
and hearing control group) were compared on measures of phonemic awareness by
splitting across communication mode (oral deaf, signing deaf, and hearing). It was
determined that the two deaf groups scored lower on phonemic awareness, but that
deafness does not preclude phonemic awareness development. It was also determined that
there was no significant difference between deaf groups in phonemic awareness
performance.
Sterne, A., & Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological awareness of syllables, rhymes, and
phonemes in deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41 (5), 609625.
Rating: 1
Results: Three experiments were completed. In the first, three groups of children in
England were compared, a deaf group, a chronological age match group, and a reading
7
level match group. Children were asked to indicate whether words were the same or
different in word length and were measured on correct answers as well as length of time
to respond. Different sets of words were used, such as words that had the same number of
letters, but different numbers of syllables, or, different number of letters, but same
numbers of syllables. All groups scored above chance level. There was a significant
effect of condition (congruent versus non-congruent word pairs), but this did not affect
any of the three group’s performances to be better or worse than another group. Each
group took longer to determine length for word pairs that were incongruent. Researchers
concluded that deaf children can make decisions about word length on par with agematched hearing children, so are capable of representing syllables phonologically.
In the second experiment, two groups of children were compared, a deaf group, and a
reading level match group. Children were asked to pick which of two pictures rhymed
with the target picture and were measured on correct answers as well as length of time to
respond. Deaf children performed better with orthographic rhyme pairs than nonorthographic rhyme pairs, while hearing children performed equally well on both tasks.
However, deaf children did perform above chance level on both tasks. Orthographic
similarity was significant for deaf participants. For the hearing participants, number of
correct rhyming judgments was significantly higher than for deaf participants.
Researchers indicated that deaf children are able to determine rhyme pairs in a simple
task.
In the final experiment, two groups of children were compared, a deaf group, and a
reading level match group. Children were asked to look at a picture and determine which
of four “nonsense” words sounded most like the picture (i.e., “boiz” for “boys” versus
“beiz,” “roiz,” or “boin”). The measurement was based on the number of correct
nonsense words chosen. The deaf children performed higher than expected, significantly
above chance level. In an analysis of the types of errors made by the deaf children, it was
surprisingly found that only 9% of the errors were initial, versus 37% medial, and 55%
final. The control group performed at ceiling.
The researchers indicated that deaf children with an average reading age of 7:6 do have
some phonological awareness at each of the three levels investigated, syllable, rhyme,
and phoneme. Researchers also suggested that identification of onset seems more salient
for these deaf children than identification of rime (which is the same as pre-reading
hearing children).
Other Non-Reviewed Sources
Badian, N. A. (1998). A validation of the role of preschool phonological and
orthographic skills in the prediction of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
31, 472-482.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in
kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental
spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 49-66
8
Miller, P. (2002). Another look at the STM capacity of prelingually deafened
individuals and its relation to reading comprehension. American Annals of the
Deaf,147(5), 56–70.
Torgesen, J. K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response
to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 63, 1-21.
II. Phonics, Visual Decoding and Encoding, and the Use of Cued Speech and Visual
Phonics
Harris, M. & Moreno, C. (2004). Deaf children's use of phonological decoding:
Evidence from reading, spelling, and working memory. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 9: 253-268.
Rating= 1
This study looked at the performance on three reading tasks by 29 deaf 7 and 8 year olds
and 33 deaf 13 and 14 year olds as compared to a hearing control group matched by
chronological age and a second control group matched by reading age. The three tasks
measured short term memory, lexical legality, and spelling. The researchers found that
deaf children performed as well as their hearing peer of the same reading age but lower
that hearing peers of the same chronological age on tests of memory for pictures and that
short term memory span predicted reading ability in the older group. On the orthographic
awareness task, the deaf students scored as well as control group matched by reading age.
On the spelling task both groups scored significantly lower on percentage of phonetically
based spelling errors than either of the control groups. The authors argued that the data
supported the notion that deaf students do not rely on phonological coding during literacy
tasks.
Leybaert, J. & Lechat, J. (2001). Variability in deaf children’s spelling: the effect
of language experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 554-562
Rating= 1
Research:
This study investigated deaf children’s use of phoneme-to-grapheme
relationships. The authors believe cued speech entails accurate phoneme-tographeme relationship especially those who use cued speech at home because the
exposure is early and intensive. The authors believe that the majority of spelling
errors would be phonologically accurate in CS-home as in hearing children and
not as phonologically accurate for CS-school children because of later exposure.
The authors also compared spelling errors of signing children at home and school
if early exposure to a fully accessible language would be the critical factor instead
of exposure to early CS. Participants were 67 deaf children and 32 hearing
children with hearing loss greater that 90dB in better ear. The 20 children in the
9
CS-home group (mean age 8 years 2 months) started CS at home with a mean age
of 24 months, the 18 children in the CS-school group (mean age 10 years 10
months) started CS at school several hours a day inconsistently with a mean age
of 49 months. The 14 children in the SL-home group (mean age 11 years 1
month) had deaf parents and the 10 children in the CS-school group (mean age 11
years 7 months) had hearing parents but used sign language at school.
Participants were asked to write words suggested by a drawing or short sentence
context in their test booklet. Sometime part of a word would be written and
children had to fill in the correspondence.
Findings:
CS-home children like their hearing peers spelled dominant graphemes better than
non-dominant graphemes. And CS-home children made phonologically accurate
spelling errors like their hearing peers. In addition, CS-home children like their
hearing peers applied dominant correspondences between phonemes and
graphemes when they did not have a fully detailed orthographic representation.
SL-home and SL-school children make more word errors than hearing and CShome children.
Conclusion:
 Early acquisition of a natural language and language with phonological structure
of spoken language is important for accurate use of phonome-to-grapheme
relationships.
 Spelling production system of SL children seems more governed by orthographic
knowledge.
Miller, P. (2002). Communication mode and the processing of printed words:
Evidence from readers with prelingually acquired deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 7(4), 312-329.
Rating= 1
Since all alphabetic systems represent a spoken language, is spoken language necessary
in order for students to decode vocabulary meaning? This is the question posed in this
well-crafted empirical study of deaf students who were raised orally and deaf students,
68% of whom had deaf parents, who were raised using Israeli Sign Language. The 22
oral deaf students, 22 signing students, and 39 hearing controls were selected from 4th to
9th grade classrooms for mean grade levels of 6.9, 6.9, and 6.6, respectively. Preliminary
data on the groups indicated that as compared to hearing controls, the deaf students
performed equally as well on short term memory capacity and letter-processing capacity
but markedly poorer on phonemic awareness and syntactic skills.
This study evaluated word coding strategies of the participants when vowels were
manipulated. Note that in Hebrew, vowel information is represented through diacritical
marks rather than letter-graphemes, and these marks are generally left off of printed
matter past the early grades. Forty nouns were presented in either unmarked
(nonpointed), correctly marked, incorrectly marked but phonologically acceptable, and
incorrectly marked by not phonologically acceptable forms. Subjects were shown a
10
category label on a computer screen followed by a word that was either a member of that
category or not. The task was to push a button indicating a yes or no judgment regarding
the membership of the second word in the category. Second words were given in one of
the four forms described above. The participants were familiar with all the target words
included in the analysis when in their unmarked or nonpointed form. Multivariate
analyses of variance using yes/no response latencies and response accuracies across
groups and within factors were examined. The orally raised students made more errors on
the phonologically distorted target nouns than the signing deaf students. Both the hearing
and the orally raised deaf participants categorized phonologically distorted words more
slowly than the other three categories while the signing group showed no difference in
rate of categorization among the other categories. The authors concluded that the deaf
signers “mediated the categorization of word stimuli by means of a processing strategy
that was apparently essentially different from the one used by the two other participant
groups for the same purpose.” (p. 323) Part of this strategy was to ignore the linguistic
(i.e., phonological) information available from the vowel markings. The authors suggest
that teachers need to take into account the fact that signing deaf students may not use
phonological strategies when designing instruction.
Transler, C., Leybaert, J., & Gombert, J. (1999). Do deaf children use phonological
syllables as reading units? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(2), 124143.
Rating= 1
This study examined whether deaf children process written words morphophonologically, that is, at the syllable unit level. Subjects were 21 students in France who
were attending schools where a combination of French Signs Language (FSL) and the
French version of Cued Speech were used. All subjects had severe to profound,
prelingual losses. Mean age was 10 years 6 months. They were matched on word
recognition level with a hearing control group from 2nd and 3rd grades. The task was to
copy written words and pseudo-words. Their attempts to copy and produce syllables
based on phonological and orthographic rules were examined. When the phonological
and orthographic patterns were consistent with one another, the deaf subjects performed
as well as the hearing subjects, but when the orthographic and phonological segments
differed (i.e., the words were irregular), the deaf children did not perform as well as the
hearing children. The authors speculated that the level of difficulty of the words, the
children’s lack of automaticity with phonological conversion of pseudo-words, and the
impact of fingerspelling may have contributed to their lesser successes with the less
consistent word patterns
Waddy-Smith, B. & Wilson, V. (2003). See that sound! Visual phonics helps deaf
and hard of hearing students develop reading skills. Odyssey, 5(1), 14-17.
Rating =3
11
Visual phonics is a system developed in 1982 by the International Communication
Learning Institute specifically for deaf children. It uses a multisensory approach
including hand cues and written symbols to represent phonemic skills for the purpose of
decoding and encoding sounds in English print. Wilson-Favors (1987) described the
system. Although it may be appropriate as a literacy tool, Zaccagnini & Antia (1993)
found that it does not improve speech production. This article described the program, its
application, and its use with one student. Testimonials from teachers were also presented.
Other Non-reviewed Sources
LaSasso, C., Crain, K., & Leybaert, J. (2003). Rhyme generation in deaf students: The
effects of exposure to Cued Speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
8, 250-270.
Leybaert, J. (1998). Effects of phonologically augmented lip speech on the development
of phonological representations and deaf children. In M. Marschark & M. D.
Clark (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness (Vol. 2, pp. 103-130).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leybaert, J., & Charlier, B. (1996). Visual speech in the head: The effect of cued-speech
on rhyming, remembering, and spelling. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 1(4), 234-248.
Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who can’t hear learn to read an alphabetic
script? A review of the literature on reading and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 5, 9-31.
Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language:
Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 5, 3250.
Olson, A. C., & Nickerson, J. F. (2001). Syllabic organization and deafness:
Orthographic structure or letter frequency in reading. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 54A(2), 421-438.
Schimmel, C. S, Edwards, S. G., & Prickett, H. T. (1999) Reading?...PAH! (I GOT IT!)
American Annals of the Deaf, 144 (4),
.
Wilson-Favors, V. (November/December 1987). Using the Visual Phonics System to
Improve Speech Skills: A Preliminary Study. Perspective for Teachers of the
Hearing-Impaired, 6 (2), 204.
Zaccagnini, C. & Antia, S. (1993). Effects of Multisensory Speech Training and Visual
Phonics on Speech Production of a Hearing-Impaired Child. Journal of Childhood
Communication Disorders, 15 (2), 3-8.
12
III. Vocabulary Comprehension
DeVilliers, P., & Pomerantz, S. (1992). Hearing-impaired students learning new
words from written context. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 409-431.
Rating=2
Research
This study investigates deaf students’ abilities to derive lexical and syntactic
information about unknown words embedded in short passages of text. In study
one, thirty oral upper school hearing-impaired students between 12-18 years of
age participated and study two included 36 middle school students, 21 students
between the ages of 9-14 years from an oral school and 15 students between the
ages of 10 –15 from a TC program using Signed English. Students read passages
that were lean, rich and explicit then asked what selective words mean, if the
word was good or bad, to circle if the word was a noun, verb or adjective and if
the word was used correctly in a sentence.
Findings:
The skill to derive at least partial meaning from highly informative written text is
related to hearing-impaired students’ reading comprehension level. Better readers
were able to generate meanings from short passages when compared to poorer
readers, specifically with passages that had rich contexts. Knowledge of labels
such as noun, verb, and adjective is not influenced by the context of a passage;
however, context only goes so far in helping with grammatical knowledge.
Conclusion
Better readers gained far more from context than poorer readers when they tried
to generate meanings for the unknown words based on their usage in a short
passage. To enhance students’ English literacy skills and help students expand
their vocabularies independent of direct instruction, teachers need to teach
students how to learn vocabulary from context. Suggested by Sternberg and
Powell, three basic ways to learn new words from context are 1) separate relevant
from irrelevant information about the meaning of a word 2) combining relevant
cues into a working definition and 3) relate new information about the word given
in the text to old information about the topic already stored in memory.
Gaustad, M.G. & Kelly, R.R. (2004). The relationship between reading achievement
and morphological word analysis of deaf and hearing students matched for reading
level. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 269-285.
Rating= 1
English language word meaning is based on a highly morphemic system. That is, word
meanings are expanded, modified, and changed routinely by affixing single and multiple
morphemes to the front or end of a root word. The word “antidisestablishmentarianism”
comes to mind, where “establish” is the root word modified by two prefixes (anti-, dis-)
13
and four suffixes (-ment, -ary, -an, -ism). Others might parse this differently, but the
point would be the same. In addition, rules of spelling (changing y to i) complicate the
matter. In order for DHH students to read and write well, they must have utility with this
system. Gaustad & Kelly compared the morphological skills of college students and
hearing middle school students matched for reading achievement levels and found that,
even though the older deaf students were measured to be on the same reading level as the
younger hearing students, the younger hearing students were significantly superior on the
ability to understand the meaning of derivational morphemes and roots and to segment
words containing multiple morphemes. They concluded that although morphological
awareness impacts reading ability in both groups, it impacts in different ways for the deaf
students. An error analysis was conducted, and the authors presented implications for
instruction.
Hanson, V. L., Goodell, E. W. & Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Tongue-twister effects in the
silent reading of hearing and deaf college students. Journal of Memory and
Language, 30, 319-330.
Rating = 1
This study investigated if deaf students used phonological information during sentence
comprehension using 16 profoundly deaf students from Gallaudet and 16 undergraduate
hearing students. All the deaf participants had deaf parents and used ASL as their first
language. To investigate use of phonological information, participants read tonguetwister sentences and control sentences. In addition, participants also read concurrent
memory load numbers along with tongue-twister sentences.
Findings: Deaf and hearing college students both made more errors in their acceptability
judgments when reading tongue-twister than when reading control sentences. In
addition, subjects, deaf and hearing, made more errors in tongue-twister sentences and
concurrent memory load numbers were phonetically similar than when they were
phonetically dissimilar.
Conclusion: The findings support that phonological processes an important role in
reading.
Kelly, L. (1996). The interaction of syntactic competence and vocabulary during
reading by deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1(1), 75-90.
Rating= 2
This study investigated the correlational interaction between vocabulary knowledge and
syntactic competence and its influence on reading comprehension in three comparison
groups for cross-validation: 100 adolescents from oral programs, 113 adolescents from
programs using sign language, and 211 entering freshmen at Gallaudet University. The
Test of Syntactic Abilities,the reading vocabulary subtest of the California Achievement
Test, and the reading comprehension subtest of the SAT-HI, among others, were
administered to the adolescent subjects. The English Structure, Vocabulary, and Reading
components of the university’s placement test and the Degrees of Reading Power test of
14
comprehension were administered to the college students. In all three groups, the results
for the interaction of syntax and vocabulary was the first predictor to enter the stepwise
procedure. For the adolescent groups, vocabulary was the second most influential factor,
but for the college students, syntax knowledge was the second most influential factor.
Whether this difference is due to the nature of the different tests given or an actual
difference in the groups needs to be examined. The author concluded that if a deaf
reader’s syntactic competence is limited, this may obstruct the reader’s ability to apply
stored vocabulary knowledge. Participants in the study who had higher levels of syntactic
competence were better able to apply their vocabulary knowledge to a reading task..
Vocabulary is necessary but not sufficient for reading comprehension.
Paul, P.V. (1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 1(1), 5-15.
Rating= 3
Paul reviews the knowledge base on vocabulary acquisition in this theoretical and review
article and proposes that the knowledge model of vocabulary acquisition is an
appropriate model for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. According to the
knowledge model vocabulary development must consider how a word fits into a student's
semantic repertoire rather than how it is used in a particular context. Mere memorization
of a list of words in order to be able to read an upcoming assignment, which Paul refers
to as the “traditional definition-and-contextual (or sentence) approach” is ineffective as it
leads only to common meaning that cannot be transferred to other contexts. The model
includes the following components: integration (e.g., semantic maps, word maps, and
semantic features analysis), repetition, meaningful use (i.e., encounters of words in
deliberate and natural learning contextual situations).
Other Non-Reviewed Articles
Allman, T. M. (2002). Patterns of Spelling in Young Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students.
American Annals of the Deaf, 147(1), 46–64.
Davey, B., & King, S. (1990). Acquisition of word meaning from context by deaf
readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 135, 227-234.
Gaustad, M. (2000). Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for deaf
readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 60-80.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Freyd, P. (1984, May). Vocabulary development: How deaf
individuals can learn to use the information given. Paper presented the annual
meeting of the International Reading Association, Atlanta, GA.
Leybaert, J. (2000). Phonology Acquired through the Eyes and Spelling in Deaf Children.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology; 75(4), 291-318.
15
Paul, P. V. (1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 1(1), 3-15.
Sutcliffe, A., Dowker, A., & Campbell, R. (1999). Deaf children’s spelling: Does it show
sensitivity to phonology? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(2), 111123.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Snyder, L. S, & Mayberry, R. (1996). Can lexical/semantic skills
differentiate deaf or hard-of-hearing readers and non-readers? Volta Review,
8(1), 39-61.
IV. Text Comprehension (Including Reading Strategies)
Andrews, J. F., & Mason, J. M. (1991). Strategy usage among deaf and hearing
readers. Exceptional Children, 57, 536-545.
Rating= 1
This study investigated strategies deaf elementary-school age youths used when reading
expository text and filling in blanks for deleted words or phrases. The participants were
15 males. Five were deaf between the ages of 17-20, profoundly deaf from birth with
hearing parents. These deaf participants had reading levels between 2nd and 6th grade.
The comparison groups included 5 males between the ages of 8-11 and reading on grade
level and 5 males between the ages of 14-18 with learning disabilities with a 4-year delay
in their reading All the deaf participants had deaf parents and used ASL as their first
language. Participants were asked to read a passage and asked to predict what the
missing word or phrase might be and discuss their rationale for making the prediction.
Findings: Although deaf youths used similar strategies as their hearing peers, the
frequency of strategy type differed. Deaf youths relied on rereading and background
knowledge while hearing made use of context clues. Deaf youths infrequently used
context clues and never used the title of the passage.
Conclusion: The results suggest that instruction for deaf readers should include more
effective comprehension strategies. One example is reading through text with a skilled
teacher who can help them identify and use appropriate strategies to eventually use on
their own.
Brown, P., & Brewer, L.C. (1996). Cognitive processes of deaf and hearing skilled
and less skilled readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,1(4), 263-270.
Rating=1
This study looked at the impact of “on-line” or extemporaneous inference-drawing on the
speed and accuracy of literal and inferential text comprehension and on the speed and
accuracy of a lexical decision-making task. All subjects were college attendees. Forty
control subjects had normal hearing; forty subjects were deaf and had reading skills
equivalent to the hearing control group; and forty subjects were deaf and had poorer
16
reading skills. The authors were interested in determining if passages requiring inference
assisted readers in speed and accuracy in making judgments about whether words were
real or not real and if passages requiring inference assisted readers in speed and accuracy
of comprehension. Said differently, they wanted to know if deaf readers draw inferences
about what they are reading while they are reading it and, if so, does this ability
differentiate between good readers and poor readers?
The authors asked hearing good readers, deaf good readers, and deaf poorer readers to
read a series of two sentence paragraphs and then decide if a target word was a real word
or a non-word. Measures of speed and accuracy of lexical decision-making were
gathered. Four types of paragraphs were used: prediction (where the second sentence did
not refer to the inference but was consistent with it), coherence (where the second
sentence could only be understood by drawing an appropriate inference), disconfirming
(where the second sentence was antithetical to the inference), and a control condition
(where all the same words were used but the content was not related to the inference).
Findings: The authors found significant differences between skilled and less skilled deaf
readers but not between equally skilled hearing and deaf readers on reaction time to the
lexical decision. Reaction ties on non-words were slower than on real words. Although
not significant, there was a pattern of slower reaction to the word decision task when
followed by a control passage as opposed to the other three conditions requiring
inference. Hearing students answered comprehension questions faster than skilled deaf
readers; skilled deaf readers answered comprehension questions faster than lesser skilled
deaf readers. Comprehension increased when students drew inferences while reading.
Differences were found between skilled versus nonskilled readers rather than between
deaf versus hearing readers indication that deafness, per se, does not prevent the
development of word decoding or of text comprehension of both factual and inferential
material.
Luetke-Stahlman, B., Griffiths, C., & Montgomery, N. (1998). Development of text
structure knowledge as assessed by spoken and signed retellings of a deaf secondgrade student. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(4), 337-346.
Rating=3
Described development of text structure knowledge through narrative and expository
retellings of one deaf second grade student in across a baseline phase, and 2 intervention
phases.
Findings: Mediated reading experience enhanced comprehension of text structure and
affected the quantity and quality of the deaf second grade student’s story retelling over
time.
Conclusion: Discussion of text structure can play an important role in students
comprehending text structure.
Story retelling methodology is a way to document progress in text structure and reading
progress.
17
Schirmer, B.R., Bailey, J., & Lockman, A.S. (2004), What verbal protocols reveal
about the reading strategies of deaf students: A replication study. American Annals
of the Deaf, 149(1), 5-16.
Rating= 2
Research:
This replica study looked at two questions: 1) Can thinking aloud during reading
be used to examine reading strategies of deaf students and 2) Do verbal reports
(think-aloud) of deaf readers reflect reading strategies similar to verbal reports of
hearing students? The participants include 6 public school deaf children between
8 and 11 years of age. The participants read a wordless storybook and a short
story. The participants also took the Gates-MacGinite Reading Tests. The
authors coded the data using Pressley and Afflerbach activity analysis.
Findings:
1) As found in the first study, this study also found that verbal reports can be
used to examine reading strategies of deaf students
2) As a group, the deaf students used activities (constructed meaning, monitored
and improved comprehension and evaluated comprehension) like their hearing
peers but the deaf students did not demonstrate each of the reading strategies
within the activities. Deaf students engaged more variety of reading strategies
in the first activity, constructing meaning when compared to the other two
activities. The findings in this replication study are consistent with the
findings in the first study.
Conclusion:
 The findings suggest the need for instruction reading strategies such as
monitoring text characteristics, purpose for reading, recognizing problem of
concentration, evaluating and accommodating what to read carefully, skim, or
skip, improve comprehension by reading more slowly when needed, evaluate
quality of writing and ideas.
Strassman, B. K. (1997). Metacognition and reading in children who are deaf: A
review of the research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(3), 140-149.
Rating = 3
This paper reviews literature related to metacognition and reading in deaf children. Three
main issues are discussed:
 current instructional practices used to teach reading to deaf children might hinder
metacognition: reading activities such as worksheets, answering teacher
questions, or memorizing vocabulary may not promote metacognition.
 Low-level reading materials may not allow for practice of metacognition: deaf
students reading in challenging texts engage in metacognition strategies may
suggest challenging reading materials instead of low-level reading materials to
promote metacognition.
18

Deaf students can benefit from metacognitive strategy instruction: teaching of
reasoning skills to hearing student may work for deaf students as well.
Walker, L.., Munro, J., and Rickards, F.W. (1998). Literal and inferential reading
comprehension of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. VoltaReview, 100(2),
87-103.
Rating = 2
Research:
This study looked at types of reading comprehension (inferential, literal,
functional, textual and recreational) in 3 different types of educational settings
(segregated, resource room and mainstream). Participants included 195 deaf and
hard-of-hearing students between the ages of 9 and 19. Forty-seven in segregated,
88 in resource room and 74 in mainstream. The Test manual for Stanford
Diagnostic Test of Reading was used to analyze reading comprehension.
Findings:
 Mainstreamed students did better with literal and inferential reading that
segregated and resource room students.
 Students between 6 and 12th grade comprehend textual and functional print easier
than recreational print.
 Overall mainstreamed students comprehend all types of print better than
segregated students who comprehend at the lowest level for all types of print.
Resource room students comprehend textual and functional print better than
segregated students.
Conclusion:
 Educational settings and teacher style may influence skill and type of reading
comprehension.
 Mainstream students exposed to similar expectations than hearing peers while
resource room and segregated students have accommodations that may lower their
reading comprehension skills.
 Students need to be taught how to read for enjoyment and not take recreational
print literally to improve their recreational print comprehension.
 Implication for reading comprehension instruction need to move onto teaching
metacognitive strategies to improve literal and inferential reading.
Other Non-Reviewed Sources
Al-Hilawani, Y.A. (2003). Clinical examination of three methods of teaching reading
comprehension to deaf and hard-of-hearing students: From research to classroom
application. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 146-156.
Akamatsu, C. T. (1988). Instruction in text structure: Metacognitive strategy instruction
for literacy development in deaf students. ACEHI/ACEDA, 14, 13-32.
Ewoldt, C., Israelite, N., & Dodds, R. (1992). The ability of deaf students to understand
19
text: A comparison of the perceptions of teachers and students. American Annals
of the Deaf, 137, 351-361.
Satchwell, S. E. (1993). Does teaching reading strategies to deaf children help increase
their reading levels? ACEHI/ACEDA, 19, 38-48.
Schirmer, B.R. (2003). Using verbal protocols to identify the reading strategies of
students who are deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 157-170.
V. Reading Fluency (Spoken and Visual)
Ensor, A. D., & Koller, J. R. (1997). The effect of the method of repeated readings
on the reading rate and word recognition accuracy of deaf adolescents. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(2), 61-70.
Rating=1
Can the method of Repeated Readings help deaf student improve reading rate and word
recognition accuracy? Forty-two residential school deaf students between the ages of
15-19 participated in this study. The participants used Total Communication, had
moderate-to-severe hearing loss and hearing parents. The participants were divided into
two groups: 20 in the treatment group and 22 in the control group. All participants read
5 passages from Reading for Concepts. The treatment group reread the same passage 3
days in a row while the control group only read the passage twice, one the first day and
last day. The control group read different Reading for Concept passages in between the
pre and post readings. The pre and post readings were videotaped to analyze reading
rate, reading accuracy and combined reading accuracy.
Findings: Participants in the treatment group demonstrated greater improvement between
pre and post measurements for reading rate, reading accuracy and combined reading
accuracy.
Conclusion: The Repeated Reading technique is an effective method for improving
reading fluency with deaf students.
Kelly, L. P. (2003). The importance of processing automaticity and temporary
storage capacity to the differences in comprehension between skilled and less skilled
college age deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 230-249.
Rating= 1
The author defines processing automaticity as “the ability to complete certain basic
operations of reading, such as word recognition and syntactic analysis, with a minimum
of mental effort” (p.231) and posed the question of whether lack of linguistic knowledge,
low automaticity, or limited short term memory accounted for slower reading between
groups of 16 skilled and 14 less skilled college-age readers who are deaf. In an inventive
series of reading tasks, Kelly applied activities that singled out and measured working
memory span for reading, addition span and automaticity, facilitation (i.e., faster decision
20
time) in a lexical decision task using words and pseudo words, sentence reading
automaticity, effects of automaticity on reading comprehension, and the effects of an
increased temporary storage burden on comprehension. using words and pseudo words,
sentence reading automaticity, effects of automaticity on reading comprehension, and the
effects of an increased temporary storage burden on comprehension. He found the
following:
 Processing automaticity distinguishes between skilled and less skills readers
 Processing automaticity contributes to reading comprehension
 Greater processing challenges impact reading speed and comprehension of poor
readers more than of skilled readers, implicating grammar as a contributor to
poor automaticity
 Processing automaticity is a primary source of the difference in comprehension
between skilled and less skilled readers
Shroyer, E. H., & Birch, J. (1980). Captions and reading rates of hearing-impaired
students. American Annals of the Deaf, 125(7), 916-922.
Rating= 2
This study investigated reading rates and fluency of 185 deaf students in residential
schools using the speed and accuracy portion of the Gates McGinitie Reading Test.
Participants were grouped into primary, intermediate, junior high and high school based
on reading test administered by the schools and then again based on the Gates McGinitie
Reading Test.
Findings:
 Some participants were categorized in primary level by the school was
recategorized into the intermediate level determined by the Gates McGinitie
Reading Test.
 Intermediate fourth-sixth grade students reading at a mean of 145 wpm while deaf
intermediate students who differ in age are reading at 142wpm. Hearing junior
high reading at 188 wpm while deaf are reading at 181. Hearing high school
reading at a mean of 216 wpm while deaf reading at a mean of 275 wpm.
Conclusion:
 Keep in mind the limitations of this study because measuring reading rates
depends on difficulty, interest, purpose and other factors
 The results suggest that instruction for deaf readers should include more effective
comprehension strategies. One example is reading through text with a skilled
teacher who can help them identify and use appropriate strategies to eventually
use on their own.
 Deaf high school students reading at 110wpm will not be able to keep up with
captions that run up to 120 wmp.

Vaughn, S., Chard, D., Bryant, D. P., Coleman, M., Tyler, B., Thompson, S., &
Kouzekanani, K. (2000). Fluency and comprehension interventions for third-grade
students: Two paths to improved fluency. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 325335.
21
Rating = 2
Research:
This study investigated the effects of two reading interventions: partner reading to
enhance fluency by repeated readings and hearing fluent reading models and
collaborative strategic reading to enhance comprehension using four strategies:
preview, click and clunk, get the gist and wrap-up. Participants included 8
teachers and 111 students in the 3rd grade who either had significant reading
problems or had low-to-average reading skills.
Findings:
All students who participated in either the CSR or PR made gains in rate of
reading and correct words read per minute but made no gains in reading accuracy
measure or the comprehension measure.
Conclusion:
CSR was a more difficult intervention to implement when compared to PR and could be
the reason why difficult to teach comprehension. Need future study.
Other Non-Reviewed Articles
Dyer, A., MacSweeney, M., Szczerbinski, M., Green, L., & Campbell, R. (2003).
Predictors of reading delay in deaf adolescents: The relative contributions of rapid
automatized naming speed and phonological awareness and decoding. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 215-229.
Easterbrooks, S. R., & Huston, S. G. (2001). Examining reading comprehension and
fluency in students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Paper presented at the 80th
Annual Meeting of the International Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas
City, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454654)
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for
students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41-44.
Meyer, M., & Felton, R. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches
and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306.
VI. Motivation
Koskinen, P. S., Wilson, R. M & Jensema, C. J. (1986). Using closed-captioned
television in the teaching of reading to deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf,
March, 43-46.
Rating= 1
22
This study looked a the effects of using closed-captioned television as a medium for
reading instruction with 41 deaf students between 13 to 15 years of age who had reading
levels from 1st to 3rd grade. Eight teachers who participated in the study were trained
how instruct reading with closed-captioned television. Teachers collected data in four
instructional settings, two with closed-caption and two without closed-caption. The
percentage of retained words by the students was compared in each instructional setting.
In addition, teachers were asked to share their perception of students’ motivation and
learning as well as their reaction to instruction with and without closed-captioning.
Findings: Approximately 10% more sight vocabulary was retained in the two
instructional settings where closed-captioned TV was used when compared to the other
two instructional settings where closed-caption TV was not used. Regarding the
teachers’ perceptions and reactions, instruction with closed-captioning was more
favorable when compared to instruction without closed-captioning.
Conclusion: Severe-to-profound deaf children retain sight words better when closedcaptioned TV is used for instruction.
 Closed-caption TV facilitates comprehension, motivation and quality of learning.
Milone, M. (2004). A teacher takes on the challenges of deaf literacy: an interview
with Jennifer Herbold.
Rating =3
In the interview a teacher talks about the role of a Literacy Specialist and technology in
the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The role of a Literacy specialist
include setting up literacy resource room with multicultural books and resources, guided
reading and shared reading materials and other books for classroom use. Also included is
providing support to teachers by providing literacy development workshops and helping
teachers plan literacy lessons. In addition, a literacy specialist holds files on each student
to monitor their literacy progress. The teacher mentions teachers of deaf and hard-ofhearing students are faced with developing children’s world-knowledge and general
semantics in ASL and English. Potential techniques in literacy development could
include ASL storytelling, word games and semantic development in ASL and English.
Another component is technology, which is seen as a fun tool for students to learn to read
and write. Technology includes email journals, IM, videoconferencing, smartboards,
computer software, still and motion digital cameras. A project idea using technology to
help students develop their writing skills would be to make a commercial after learning
about advertising.
NOTE: Center for ASL/English Bilingual Education and Research (CAEBER) at the
New Mexico School for the Deaf is focusing on improving literacy and learning and
instruction.
Rowe, L., & Allen, B. (1995). Interactive storybook reading with young deaf
children in school and home settings (pp. 170-182). In P. Dreyer (Ed.), Towards
multiple perspectives on literacy: Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the Claremont Reading
Conference. Claremont, CA: The Claremont Reading Conference.
23
Rating= 3
Describes a two-teacher approach to interactive storybook reading with deaf, hard-ofhearing, and hearing children. The group varied in size from 20 to 30 on a day to day
basis. Children ranged in age from 18 months to 2.6 years. The first teacher would read
the story orally, then she would hold the book while the second teacher read the story in
ASL, using appropriate techniques for gaining the children’s attention. The authors found
that the children with hearing loss were motivated to take the books home and read them
with their parents when they had received the model in ASL.
Other Non-Reviewed Articles
Calderon, R. (2000). Parental involvement in deaf children’s education programs as a
predictor of child’s language, early reading, and social-emotional development.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 140-155.
VII. Code-Switching (Dealing with Dual Languages)
Evans, C. (2004). Literacy development in Deaf students: Case Studies in bilingual
teaching and learning. American Annals of the Deaf, 149 (1), 17-27.
Rating= 3
In an effort to bridge the theory to practice gap of a bilingual model to the education of
deaf students’ learning ASL as their first language and written English as their second
language, Evans studied a focus child in each of three classrooms (grades 4th, 5th and 6th,)
the teacher in each classroom, and, the home environments for each of these students.
Data were obtained via 27 classroom observations and 8 home observations of language
arts and “literacy activities” respectively, employing qualitative research methods. The
author suggests that teaching strategies supporting a bilingual approach such as: using
ASL as the language of instruction; making translation conceptual rather than literal;
giving multiple translations to a word or phrase; and presenting information through
multimodal methods to illustrate the same message or meaning; contributed to literacy
learning. Findings further indicate that some inconsistencies persist in applying a
bilingual approach with deaf students.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in
Language Disorders, 18, 30-46.
Rating= 2
In this article, evidence is presented demonstrating that there is a relationship between
ASL and reading, but the relationship involves associations between specific elements of
ASL and the alphabetic writing system. Moreover, it is argued that the associations must
be “cultivated” because they do not “naturally” link with written language. A
24
relationship was found between fingerspelling skills and reading skills as indicated on
tests and regardless of parental hearing status. In addition, findings revealed a
relationship between reading ability and the initialized signs test. Deaf teachers were
found to fingerspell more than twice as often as hearing teachers. Teachers who
fingerspell often were also found to use the teaching techniques of “chaining” and
“sandwiching” which merit further investigation as both pedagogy and student
experiences are studied. These are ways of showing matched items across systems within
interactive conditions. They are practices deaf children of deaf signing families are
routinely exposed to as generations of deaf readers have devised mediational systems
specifically for the purposes of cracking the code of written language. Thus, the
researchers stress the importance of further study of the contexts of reading instruction as
well as the mediating tools and structures that enable two systems to become
meaningfully related to one another.
Strong, M. & Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the relationship between American sign
language and English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 37-46.
Rating= 2
The authors of this article studied the relationship between American Sign Language
(ASL) skills and English literacy in 160 children who were deaf. They rated ASL ability
using a specially designed test of ASL the differentiated children’s signing skills into
three levels, measured English literacy skills, and compared the two. They found that the
children whose signing skills fell at the higher two levels of ASL had significantly better
English literacy skills than the children in the lowest ASL ability level regardless of age
and IQ. In addition, although deaf children with deaf mothers had better ASL and English
literacy skills in general than deaf children of hearing mothers, a significant finding was
that, when ASL level was held constant, there was no difference between the two groups,
except in the group whose ASL skills fell in the lowest level. The authors concluded that
deaf children’s English literacy skills benefit from the acquisition of even a moderate
fluency in ASL.
Wilbur, R. (2000). The use of ASL to support the development of English and
literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 81-104.
Rating- 3
This article reviews the literature relating ASL to the development of English, reading
skills, and social skills and presents a strong case for the use of ASL as a primary
language upon which the English language and the ability to read the English language
may be based as second language processes. One very important concepts upon which the
author speculates is that “the most efficacious coding strategy will be the one which is
congruent with the primary communication mode.” (p. 89) Taken together with
Calderon’s (2000, above) findings that maternal communication is the single most
important factor influencing early literacy outcomes, this should strengthen the field’s
25
resolve to support parents in becoming skilled communicators, whatever their choice of
communication option.
Other Non-Reviewed Articles
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California Office of Bilingual
Bicultural Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center, California State University.
Lichtenstein, E. H. (1998). The relationships between reading processes and English
skills of deaf college students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 80134.
Padden, C., & Hanson, V. (2000). Search for the missing link: The development of
skilled reading in deaf children. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of
language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp.
435-447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VIII. Reading in the Content Areas
Kelly, R.R., Albertini, J. A., & Shannon, N. B. (2001). Deaf college students' reading
comprehension and strategy use. American Annals of the Deaf, 146, 385-400.
Rating=2
Two comprehension studies were conducted with 46 deaf college students reading
science text. The results indicate that deaf students have difficulty identifying a topically
incongruent sentence in a passage. Students reading at a higher level showed improved
comprehension of short passages after training while the students at a lower reading level
did not.
Schirmer, B. (1997). Boosting reading success: Language, literacy, and content
area instruction for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students---and bilingual students, and
students learning English as a second language, and everyone else who needs a little
help. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30 (1), 52-55.
Rating=3
Schirmer discusses strategies teachers can use to support children with and without
disabilities in comprehending reading material. She describes factors contributing to text
readability. She also provides some background information on the challenge of meeting
a triple agenda of language acquisition, literacy development and content learning by
stressing the need for consistently and consciously providing the following: a) accessible
interpersonal communication, b) intrapersonal language to reflect new concepts and
26
skills, c) writing that incorporates the variety of patterns of expository writing and the
purposes uniquely available in each subject area, and d) reading the bodies of information
in content area subjects in various forms. Strategies for in-class text reading and
independent text reading are also described.
Yore, L.D. (2000) Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading
instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 5, 105-122.
Rating=3
Deaf students need opportunities to express what they are learning and experiencing in
science and to contrast their understandings with the interpretations of the science
establishment. The author of this article discusses how science literacy is developed as
students learn about the "big" ideas of science and how to inform and persuade others
about these ideas. A framework for using science reading and science writing with deaf
students is proposed, based on research and informed practice with hearing students.
IX. Language Experience
Helms, L. & Schleper, D. (Summer 2000). Language Experience: Fun Projects
After School, Including Writing. Odyssey, 1 (3), 13-16.
Rating= 3
The coordinator of literacy education and the coordinator of residence programs at a
school for the deaf share their understanding and application of language experience with
young adult students in the dorm as those youngsters also refine their literacy skills.
With twenty pictures and the accompanying language to describe each one, readers see
the approach in action. One is also reminded of how various subjects are integrated into
this language-literacy experience.
Whitesell, K. (May/June 1999). Language experience-Leading from behind.
Perspectives in education and deafness [special literacy issue], 17 (5), 36-38.
Rating=3
Describes how the language experience approach may be used in a child-centered,
inquiry-oriented learning environment to facilitate authentic language and literacy
learning. Shares the ten steps utilized by one teacher of the deaf and her 6th grade
students as they investigate the possibility of adopting a stray dog to live at the school for
the deaf. From posing initial inquiry questions, writing a letter to the school
superintendent, researching data on the topic of inquiry, preparing notes, conferencing
with one another, telephoning an outside expert, writing/ re-writing, illustrating and
finally going public, the students worked on concepts about print, text-to-life and life-to-
27
text connections, sense of story, phonics in context, vocabulary development and
beginning authorship. Was highly motivating and a confidence builder for the students.
X. Reading to and with Students (Storytelling and Shared Reading and Writing)
Gillespie, C.W., & Twardosz, S. (October 1997) A group storybook-reading
intervention with children at a residential school for the deaf. American Annals of
the Deaf, 142 (4), 320-32.
Rating=1
Group storybook reading in the residences of a state-sponsored school for the deaf was
investigated as a means of fostering literacy development outside of the classroom.
Eighteen children, ages 4-11 years, in four cottages participated. The study followed a
before/after experimental group/control group design. The nine children in the
experimental group cottages participated in group storybook reading twice a week for
five months. Both the experimental and the control group cottages were provided with a
variety of books that were rotated biweekly. Several limitations of the study are
discussed, including experimental and control groups that were not ideally matched;
problems inherent in using questionnaires; and, whether or not the emergent reading task
procedure used by a prominent researcher with hearing emergent literacy learners is in
fact the most appropriate way to measure deaf children’s emergent reading development.
Implications for practice include; commitment of the staff; consideration of competing
activities; experience in managing groups of young deaf children; positioning or sitting
with children and becoming engaged themselves in the reading; and, scheduling at times
most conducive to engagement. The subjects were motivated when they had animated,
engaging readers with appropriate texts at appropriate times in their schedule (as opposed
to long books very close to bedtime) but not motivated enough to pick up texts on their
own. The children were more motivated when additional counselors were present and sat
down with children on their laps or with their arms around the children. They
concentrated more readily and were more likely to engage in discussions with the reader
about the book than if no adult was sitting with the children. The children were more
motivated by certain books and requested certain books repeatedly, i.e., picture
identification, counting, or animal books. They were not interested in long books or
books containing story lines of any kind. Watching/listening to the book was the most
frequently observed category of engagement, representing 66% of the engagement
observations.
Gioia, B. (2001). The emergent language and literacy experiences of three deaf
preschoolers. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48 (4),
411-428.
Rating= 2
This is a multiple case study of literacy acquisition of three deaf preschoolers who
demonstrated receptive vocabularies of fewer than 25 words on the Peabody Picture
28
Vocabulary Test Revised and substantial language delays at the beginning of the study.
Initial classroom practices around group storybook sharing involved looking at picture
and talking about them and then often tying the storybook to classroom themes. With
researcher encouragement, the classroom teacher began reading the actual text rather than
engaging only in picture talk or paraphrasing, and she engaged the children in an ongoing process of negotiation with the books. By the end of the 8 month intervention, all
three preschoolers grew from their beginning vocabulary of fewer than 25 words to
speaking and signing in five, six, and seven word sentences. They also improved from no
interest in storybook reading to actually incorporating new and interesting vocabulary
that had been pointed out to them when storybook reading into their own vocabularies.
In addition, all parents initially reported being unable to develop satisfactory shared
reading rituals with their deaf children in October. Yet, by the end of the study at the end
of the school year, the children asked to be read to more frequently and on a regular basis
and even read on their own at home when parents were not available, thus taking the lead
themselves to improve their home literacy practices.
Luetke-Stahlman, B., Hayes, L.P., & Nielson, D. (October 1996). Essential
practices as adults read to meet the needs of deaf or hard of hearing students.
American Annals of the Deaf, 141, 309-20
Rating=3
Based on a literature review of practices that are supported by research and linked to
literacy attainment, the authors provide a rationale and description of ten practices they
feel are essential to include when reading to students if they are to become proficient
readers themselves. Some initial discussion is given to the language experiences and
needs of deaf or hard of hearing students versus those of typically developing students
prior to delineating the ten essential practices. In essence, frequent, systematic literacy
experiences whereby D/hh students truly have access to the information and engage in
mediated dialogue, (be it with narrative or expository texts), is what is encouraged.
Maxwell, M. (1984). A deaf child’s natural development of literacy. Sign
LanguageStudies, 34, 11-30.
Rating= 2
Studied the emergent literacy skills of a deaf child of deaf parents, whose parents read to
her using books containing illustrations, sign drawings, and print. The subject was
studied from ages 2 to 6, during which time she developed concepts of print, awareness
of the relationship between concepts and sign drawings, and the relationship between
concepts and English print. The author indicated that her emergent literacy followed
similar patterns to those of hearing children. Follow-up evaluations indicated that she was
reading on grade level at first and third grade.
XI. Guided Reading and Writing
29
Malik, S. (1996). Reading for Meaning: A Guided Reading Approach. Volta Review;
98 (3), 127-36
Rating=2
Discusses the author’s approach to “guided reading” to teach reading and describes a
specific approach that uses a morning letter written to students to preview the day’s
events. This letter uses vocabulary and syntax corresponding to students’ reading
abilities.Teachers model and guide students in applying various reading strategies via
group reading of the letter. Over three years results have included “developing
competent reading skills” and “achieving higher test scored.” Beginning of the year test
scores and end of the year retest scores on the Rhode Island Test of Language Structure
showed an increase in T-scores ranging from 10-15 points, an increase of an entire
standard deviation.
Miller, K. & Rosenthal, L. L. (November 1995). Seeing the Big Picture: Deaf Adults'
Development of Summarization through Book Discussion in American Sign
Language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.
Rating=2
Investigators discuss a classroom-based reading discussion group project involving three
profoundly deaf adult learners whose primary mode of communication was sign language
and whose ages ranged from 30 to 55 years of age. All were enrolled in the Adult
Literacy Program at the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf and according to a basic
reading inventory, their reading and writing abilities ranged from fourth to sixth grade.
The purpose of the study was to determine if deaf adults could use ASL as a vehicle to
access or interpret English and thereby improve their literacy skills. The study focused
on the deaf adults’ first attempt at reading and discussing a novel. A three step approach
to guiding the learners toward comprehending text and summarizing it rather than word
by word or sentence analysis was the main focus. While the concept of summarizing was
clarified, evolved and expanded over the course of the book project, at the end of the
eight week project, the reading discussion group still struggled with what it means to read
a text.
XII. Writer’s Workshop- (Not reviewed)
Several articles were scanned for inclusion in this section, but all articles found were of a
descriptive or testimonial nature. No articles are reviewed as no data-based articles were
found.
XIII. Research Reading and Writing (Not reviewed)
Several articles were scanned for inclusion in this section, but all articles found were of a
descriptive or testimonial nature. No articles are reviewed as no data-based articles were
found.
30
XIV. Dialogue and Other Journals and Logs
Bailes, C, (1999). Dialogue journals: Fellowship, conversation, and English
modeling. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 17 (5).
Rating=3
The basics of setting up and implementing dialogue journals with deaf and hard of
hearing students are provided. The fact that dialogue journals are student centered;
respect the writer’s privacy; are driven by the student; and the guidelines for teacher to
follow in responding are all addresses. The author stresses the social, risk-free nature of
dialogue journals and shares excerpts from a 4th grade deaf student’s journal.
Kluwin, T.N.& Kelly, A. (1991) The effectiveness of dialogue journal writing in
improving the writing skills of young deaf writers. American Annals of the Dea ,
136(3), 284-291.
Rating=2
The purpose of this study was to examine the claim that dialogue journal writing would
improve the written English skills of a limited English language population. The project
involved 204 pairs of deaf and hearing students in ten cities across the United States
writing back and forth with each other exchanging interests, ideas and feelings over the
span of one school year. The writing was personal, reflective and included narrations,
explanations and descriptions which were written at the language and interest level of the
two young people involved. In general, blind matches were done. 153 journals were
available for analysis. The average age of the correspondents was 13 and a half with a
range from 10 to 18 years old. Although there was observable improvement in the
sentence complexity of some deaf students, not all students benefited equally from the
experience, nor were all students and teachers equally positive about the outcomes. The
authors conclude with three recommendations for further implementation of such an
exchange.
Walworth, M. (1985). Dialogue journals and the teaching of reading. Teaching
English to Deaf and Second Language Students, 3 (1), 21-24.
Rating= 2
Describes an intervention in which writing dialogue journals was used by college deaf
students in an effort to assess their reading levels and guide them through the process of
moving from basic skill reading and writing to content focused reading and writing. In
this non-threatening and conversational way of approaching reading, the teacher gained
insight into the students’ strengths and weaknesses, which helped in guiding them
appropriately and tracking their progress. The students gained a better understanding of
what they were reading and how they approached their reading assignments. They were
able to identify effective ways of reading and writing without the typical judgmental
feedback.
XV. Independent Reading
31
Dry, E., & Earle, P.T. (1988) Can Johnny have time to read? American Annals of the
Deaf, 133, 219.
Rating=3
Believing that reading is over-taught and under-practiced, the authors remind readers of
the benefits of providing time for students to engage in sustained silent reading. They
further contend that alternating between months of traditional and sustained silent reading
may be one alternative to the strict structure-bound model. Further recommendations
include a) giving students time to read books of their own choice; b) allowing students to
enjoy good books and stories at many different levels; c) observing, commenting on and
enjoying student strategies as students reread sections or tell others what they are reading;
d) allowing students time to find their own levels and discard books they become
disinterested in while encouraging them to find other books; e) having students keep a
simple record of reading; f) stating broad reading goals openly. Though SSR requires a
firm commitment of student time, the authors remind readers that it conveys to students
the extreme value the teacher places on reading as an individual pursuit and conveys a
respect for student interests and resources far beyond words and lectures.
XVI. Other
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Literacy/about/reading.html
The Laurent Clerc Center of Gallaudet University provides two charts, one for
reading and one for writing, that identify skills that are critical to literacy learning in
DHH students. The chart lists practices for teachers to increase on one side and practices
for teachers to decrease on the other. It is a very useful tool for the instruction of future
teachers of children who are deaf and hard of hearing.
Overall Findings
Major Finding #1
Hearing loss per se does not impose a restriction on the ability of a
child to learn to read. This is evidenced by the various studies reviewed that compared
lesser skilled readers with those whose skills exceeded the dire predictions generally
bandied about the field. The two most prominent factors in the development of literacy
are linguistic ability (whether English or ASL, but most definitely conveyed routinely by
a mother well-versed in communication interactions) and opportunity to access
comprehensive and cohesive instruction. All arguments made boil down to these two.
Major Finding #2
Research available in the area of literacy, although improving in
the last 5 or 10 years, is rife with speculation, pseudo-empirically based for the most part,
deferential to a belief system, and characterized by many holes in the knowledge base.
Among the more than 85 articles skimmed or reviewed for this document, only about a
dozen could be categorized with a research rigor rating of 1. This rating was given to
studies of true, empirical design, where a matched (or quasi-matched) control group and
experimental group engaged in a particular treatment, the outcomes of which were
examined with statistical rigor. Most articles that compared groups did not match them
32
carefully. Most articles that compared groups looked at existing skills based on some
kind of test or rating. Few engaged in experimental design, so although we can make
assumptions about what is working in literacy instruction based on existing skills of a
sample, we cannot point to many programs, materials, strategies, or interventions and
declare there is experimental proof of their effectiveness. In addition many of the
practices that are considered sacred cows in deaf education have little or no evidence to
support their efficacy. They may have exceptional sources describing their characteristics
and their use, but based on the 100s of articles scanned to locate the 85 plus skimmed or
reviewed, evidence is still of a descriptive nature rather than an empirical nature.
Major Finding #3
Those characteristics of literacy instruction identified by the
National Reading Panel as key characteristics of effective instruction are among the
better researched in deaf education, although the complexity of these characteristics are
not sufficiently investigated relative to the deaf and hard of hearing population. Findings
include the following:
 Readers with hearing loss who possess better phonemic awareness and phonics
skills have better literacy outcomes than those with poorer phonemic awareness
and phonics skills, but there is still a debate as to whether or not audition is
required in order to learn these skills. Popular visual strategies for supporting
phonemic awareness and phonics point to success stories, but little empirical
evidence is available comparing programs, strategies, or approaches.
 Readers with hearing loss possess better reading vocabulary knowledge when
they have a base of world knowledge and the ability to apply strategies to discern
meaning (e.g., phonemic, morphographemic, or contextual strategies). This
particular finding is typical among the literature. There is a lot of information
telling the field what good readers who are deaf do compared to what lesser
skilled readers who are deaf do, but there is virtually do research taking random
samples of deaf children, matching them to control groups, applying instructional
treatments, and documenting that that strategy was, in fact, responsible for the
outcome.
 Better readers with hearing loss possess better reading fluency skills than poorer
readers when fluency when fluency is defined as reading automaticity.
Automaticity includes facile linguistic ability, whereas traditional definitions of
fluency refer to spoken reading expression. There is little evidence to support that
speed of reading out loud, per se, influences reading comprehension in children
with hearing loss. The issues involved in fluency for deaf and hard of hearing
children are far more complex. Only recently is there discussion in the literature
of what fluency means to non-speaking, signing deaf children.
 Children with hearing loss who are motivated to read will read more often than
children who are not motivated to read. Being read to by skilled communicators
(especially parents who are skilled communicators) whether via English, ASL,
Cued Speech, or another language, and having access to engaging materials are
important motivating factors. No studies were found to proved that one
motivating factor was more important than another relative to reading
comprehension outcomes.
33
Major Finding #3
The better a deaf or hard of hearing reader’s linguistic abilities,
whether in English or ASL or both and regardless of mode of conveyance of the
language, the better his or her literacy outcomes. Clearly in order to read a language one
must understand a language. Sufficient evidence exists that many children who are deaf
and use ASL are able to become skilled readers of English given sufficient opportunity to
mediate the two languages. It appears that children who have hearing loss and their brains
do not care how or what their mothers communicate with them; they just care that their
mothers and important others communication with them. Their brains will respond
remarkably to a variety of consistent, persistent language and literacy stimulation as long
as that stimulation occurs early and effectively.
Major Finding #4
Reading in the content area is an important way to promote literacy
skills. Students with hearing loss benefit from specific instruction in content area reading
strategies, so literacy instruction for this population should continue past the traditional
grades at which instruction in reading, per se, ends.
Major Finding #5
Practices associated with Gallaudet University’s Keys to Literacy
perspective have varying degrees of research support. Findings include the following:
 The Language Experience Approach enjoys a long history of support by teachers
of children who are deaf and hard of hearing, however most of the literature is of
a narrative or descriptive nature, suggesting ways to incorporate multiple
elements of instruction into this approach. No articles were found comparing
literacy outcomes of children taught using LEAs to outcomes of children not
taught using LEAs.
 Storytelling and Shared Reading practices have sufficient evidence to detail the
elements of their application; however most of the literature is of a narrative or
descriptive nature. Evidence exists that these practices improve motivation for
reading as well as promoting linguistic experiences.
 Guided Reading practices have been shown to improve the linguistic ability of
children who are deaf and hard of hearing in relation to print media. Since we
know that improved linguistic ability leads to improved reading outcomes,
Guided Reading seems to have the necessary support in the literature to detail its
components and applications as well as documenting positive outcomes.
 Writer’s Workshop and Research Reading and Writing were not reviewed as no
level 1 or 2 research was found among the articles considered for this project.
 The various forms of journaling (dialogue journals, content area journals, etc.)
appear to promote motivation to read and write, but little empirical evidence is
available that examines the relationship of this often-used approach to literacy
development.
 Independent reading is both a goal of literacy instruction and an instructional
strategy promoted in schools. Descriptive literature exists detailing the processes
and procedures involved in designing and implementing independent reading.
Summary
34
Students who are deaf and hard of hearing can learn to read, but most must be
taught to do so. Both conventional wisdom and empirical evidence inform us that this is
no easy task. Learning to read fluently and easily requires at least the following:
 Decoding, morphographemic, and/or contextual word recognition skills
 A working memory and the ability to store and recall information
 World and vocabulary knowledge
 Linguistic proficiency and the ability to understand the meaning conveyed
through phrases, sentences and longer passages
 The ability to draw inferences
 A motivating and supportive communication environment at home and at school
 Committed and caring instructors who have a plan for imparting instruction in an
organized, thoughtful, sustainable, and documentable manner.
Further research of an empirical nature needs to be conducted across all aspects of
literacy in order to sort through the many practices, approaches, and strategies that are
available so that teachers know those tools that are most effective and that can impart
literacy skills most efficiently.