Search

This study investigated writing achievement in a Canadian cohort of school-aged deaf learners (N = 64). In the current context, in which most students are educated in inclusive settings and use hearing technologies, the goal was to establish whether outcomes approach those of hearing-age peers and identify demographic factors (e.g. gender, grade, additional disability, home language, hearing loss, hearing technology, auditory perception) influencing performance. Results indicated that a high percentage of participants performed in the average range or higher on a standardized, norm-referenced assessment, the Test of Written Language–Fourth Edition (TOWL-4, Hammill & Larsen, 2009). Grade, type of hearing loss, higher auditory perception scores, and absence of an additional disability were identified as variables of significance. As auditory access continues to improve, additional investigations of writing achievement in this population will be essential to further inform educational policy and pedagogical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces a systematic review of the available research evidence documenting the literacy achievement of deaf students educated in sign bilingual programs, published in the "American Annals of Deaf."

Historically it has been reported that deaf students do not achieve age-appropriate outcomes in reading, with this performance often being characterized in terms of a fourth grade ceiling. However, given the shifts in the field during the past 20 years (e.g. widespread implementation of newborn hearing screening, advances in hearing technologies), it would be timely to question whether this continues to serve as a meaningful benchmark. To this end, the purpose of this study was to investigate reading outcomes of a Canadian cohort of school-aged deaf learners (N  = 70) who all used listening and spoken language as the primary mode of communication. Specifically, the goal was to establish whether their achievement approached that of their hearing age peers and to identify demographic factors influencing performance (i.e. gender, unilateral/bilateral hearing loss, personal amplification, level of auditory functioning, grade placement, additional disabilities, home language). Results indicate that participants obtained standard scores in the average range on both the Basic Reading and Reading Comprehension clusters of the Woodcock Johnson III-Diagnostic Reading Battery (Woodcock et al. 2004), surpassing the fourth grade reading achievement ceiling often reported for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors (a) examine the available peer-reviewed research documenting the literacy achievement of deaf children educated in sign bilingual programs, (b) identify gaps in the empirical literature, and (c) propose directions for future research. This review was limited to studies that reported reading and writing outcomes. On this basis, only 3 studies were identified, representing those published over a period of approximately 20 years (1997–2017) and collectively reporting literacy outcomes for 127 deaf students. Overall, the studies indicate that the majority of participants were not achieving reading comprehension scores in the average range; further, a wide range of variability in achievement was reported across the 3 studies. Factors potentially affecting achievement, such as the presence of additional disabilities, level of American Sign Language proficiency, use of hearing technologies, and parental hearing status, are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors comment on the four articles published within the issue which addressed topics related to bilingualism in the education of deaf students. Topics covered include the positive correlation between American Sign Language (ASL) and reading comprehension, the relative roles played by Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) and spoken Cantonese in developing literacy in d/Deaf and hard of hearing participants, and the need for more research as more deaf children are learning two spoken languages.

WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN attempts to develop written systems for signed languages, none have been widely used or adopted. In his article in an American Annals of the Deaf special issue that also includes the present article, Grushkin makes a case not only for why, but how efforts should be renewed to develop a written signed language, suggesting that increased written-English competence will be a consequence of increased competence in written and signed American Sign Language, with literacy-related skills transferring across languages. The present author responds in terms of what is known about linguistic interdependence in spoken-language contexts and in light of the evidence base from hearing bilinguals. She argues that, given the field's current context, no compelling rationale exists for pursuing this route to literacy for deaf learners, and that other routes are more workable from pragmatic, theoretical, and evidence-based perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined the efficacy of using an informal reading inventory to assess literacy levels in elementary-age deaf students, grades 3-5: the period when the gap between deaf and hearing learners often begins to widen, and the need to identify and remediate specific skill deficits becomes increasingly imperative. Emphasis was placed on exploring how results of a formative assessment can inform instruction across a variety of literacy skills (e.g., word identification, reading accuracy, reading fluency, reading comprehension, writing) and among a broad range of learners. A case study approach is used to present in-depth overviews of the performance profiles of three students; also, instructional implications of the findings are discussed. The results illustrate how an informal reading inventory can be used to design interventions that are differentiated and targeted based on identified needs in both the code- and language-related domains of literacy skill development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A QUARTER CENTURY AGO, Hanson (1989) asked, "Is reading different for deaf individuals?" (p. 85). Appealing to evidence available at the time, she argued that skilled deaf readers, like their hearing counterparts, relied on their knowledge of English structure, including phonological information. This perspective on the role phonology plays in the reading process for deaf learners continues to generate much debate in the field, and little consensus exists on whether it is a necessary aspect of learning to read for this population. The present article revisits this question in terms of what is known about phonology and reading in typically developing learners, and in light of two reviews of the research from the field of deafness. The authors conclude that there is stronger empirical evidence for the argument for a relationship between phonology and reading in the population of deaf readers than for the counterargument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the impact that cochlear implantation has had on the practice of deaf education in terms of educational placement, communication choices, and educational attainments. Although there is variation in outcome, more children with implants are going to mainstream schools, and using spoken language as their primary means of communication, and the evidence to date suggests that cochlear implantation early in life has led to improved levels of spoken language and educational attainments. However, there is also evidence that providing an appropriate educational environment for these learners remains a challenge - from parents making choices in the early years to students managing the complexity of the secondary and post-secondary setting. Managing the technology effectively in the classroom remains an issue in many schools, and ongoing training of teachers and other educational workers needs to include its management. While the positive benefits of cochlear implantation are clear, we must also be mindful of the attendant challenges in providing flexibility of choice in meeting the needs of this increasingly diverse population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a model describing exemplary communicative practice in the education of the deaf. Nature of signed classroom discourse; Sociocultural theory; Interdependent co-construction of meaning.

As Carolyn Ewoldt (1996) points out '[M]uch has been written of late about the viability of a bilingual focus in deaf education.' While these writings are necessary to the ongoing pedagogical dialogue in the field, much of the rhetoric suffers because, rather than truly adopting a 'holistic perspective', arguments and positions focus only on selected aspects of the relevant theoretical and research information. If proponents of bilingual education for deaf children truly rely on 'research on the benefits of native sign language and from theoretical and research support coming from other disciplines' (Ewoldt, 1996, p. 5) to support their claims, then these research and theoretical supports must be examined as comprehensively, and holistically, as possible. Weaving together only a few threads of theory and research does not create the fabric for a pedagogical position that can withstand close scrutiny and analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Mayer and Trezek offer a rejoinder to an article by Scott, Dostal, and Lane-Outlaw in which Scott et al. challenge the findings and conclusions of a literature review by Mayer and Trezek published in the Winter 2020 American Annals of the Deaf. Both the rejoinder and the article by Scott et al. appear in the Annals' Spring 2021 issue. Mayer and Trezek reiterate the rationale and aims of their review, as well as the process for conducting it, emphasizing the need for empirical evidence to inform policy and practice in deaf education. They also address observations made in terms of (a) factors to be considered when generating or consuming research and (b) the nature of the search procedures that are used. Mayer and Trezek conclude by restating the findings of their review and the implications of these findings for the field moving forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various papers published within the issue including one on the impact of cochlear implantation on deaf education, one on speech reading, and another on special education for deaf children.

The article discusses the reasons for the reading comprehension challenges of deaf students in the U.S. which caused the lack of improvement in their reading abilities. It states that the introduction of sign languages in deaf education only caused a little increase in the reading achievement of deaf students and the reading challenges are mostly attributed to deprivation of early language experience. It notes two experiments examining the print literacy skills of deaf students which found that students learned more from reading than they did from seeing passages presented by interpreters using sign language. It also mentions that the belief of college students that they understand sign better than print was proven negative by the experiments.