Search

This article describes a customized early reading intervention for a Chinese first grader at risk for failing to learn to read. Building upon observational notes, artifacts, diagnostic teaching, information about classroom performance, and a battery of tests, our goal is to provide insights into ways to develop and implement a one-on-one tutoring program with nonalphabetic readers. The child's progress demonstrated that one-on-one tutoring can appreciably raise the proficiency of a struggling Chinese reader, suggesting that one-on-one tutoring might be worthwhile for the lowest-achieving students learning to read a nonalphabetic writing system. (Contains 5 tables and 3 figures.)

The national policy in deaf education in Mainland China primarily focuses on oral/aural instruction and hearing rehabilitation. The curriculum in primary grades is specifically structured on speech and hearing skills for language development. But there is little evidence that documents what early literacy instruction looks like or how teachers conduct the teaching of reading and writing in classrooms with Chinese deaf children. By analyzing videotapes from the first and second grade classrooms, we describe how reading and writing are taught to deaf children in China. The key findings are that the primary grade literacy instruction (1) shares features of Gradual Release of Responsibility model with a focus on speech and hearing skills; (2) uses multimodal strategies and pedagogical tools such as lip-reading, Pinyin phonetic symbols, Pinyin Finger Spelling, Chinese Sign Language (CSL), and Signed Chinese (SC). Moreover, the curriculum reflects low expectations for deaf students as it lacks the academic content provided to their hearing peers. We conclude with implications for literacy instruction in deaf education, and suggest a future research agenda.

Case studies of adult d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing Multilingual Learners (DMLs) are few, especially studies of DMLs who learn more than one sign language and read logographic and alphabetic scripts. To reduce this paucity, two descriptive case studies are presented. Written questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, and self-appraisals of language-use rubrics were used to explore (a) the language and literacy histories of two adult Asian DMLs who had learned multiple languages: Chinese (spoken/written), English (written), Chinese Sign Language, and American Sign Language; and (b) how each language was used in different cultural communities with diverse conversational partners. Home literacy environment, family support, visual access to languages, peer and sibling support, role models, encouragement, perseverance, and Deaf identity all played vital roles in the participants' academic success. The findings provide insights into the acquisition of multiple languages and bi-literacy through social communication and academic content.

Knowledge of compound word structures in Chinese and English was investigated, comparing 435 Chinese and 258 Americans, including second, fourth, and sixth graders, and college undergraduates. As anticipated, the results revealed that Chinese speakers performed better on a word structure analogy task than their English-speaking counterparts. Also, as anticipated, speakers of both languages performed better on noun + noun and verb + particle compounds, which are more productive in their respective languages than noun + verb and verb + noun compounds, which are less productive. Both Chinese and English speakers performed significantly better on novel compounds than on familiar compounds, most likely because familiar compounds are lexicalized and do not invite decomposition into constituents.