Search

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the available peer-reviewed research regarding literacy achievement in deaf children with cochlear implants. A related goal is to identify gaps in the empirical literature and suggest directions for future research. Included in this review are studies that exclusively report reading and writing outcomes for groups of students. A total of 21 studies were identified, representing those published over approximately a 20-year time period (1997-2016) and collectively reporting the literacy outcomes for over 1,000 cochlear implant users. Overall findings of the studies of reading comprehension suggest that the majority of participants achieved scores in the average range, although a wide-range of variability was reported. Only 3 studies of writing were available for review, with 2 reporting lower achievement in this area as compared to reading. Factors impacting outcomes achieved such as age at implantation, presence of additional disabilities, consistency of device use, and communication modality are explored and summarized., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

Thirty-three young people with cochlear implants, aged between 9 and 16 years, were assessed for use of their implant system, cognitive abilities, vocabulary, reading, and writing skills. The group came from throughout England and included 26 born deaf, six deafened by meningitis, one with auditory neuropathy, and five with additional needs. Nineteen had bilateral implants with a mean age at first implantation of three years six months. The majority were educated in mainstream, with 85 per cent using oral communication in school. The group was cognitively able, all scoring within or above the normal range. In terms of receptive and expressive vocabulary, 75 per cent and 67 per cent scored within the average range respectively. Using the Single Word Reading Test, 55 per cent were within the average range, and 21 per cent above. As measured by the York Assessment of Reading Comprehension, 72 per cent were commensurate with hearing peers, and 9 per cent above on reading rate, and 75 per cent within the average range, and 13 per cent above on comprehension. Free writing samples indicated that 25 per cent were performing at the expected level for their age, 19 per cent above, and 56 per cent below. Influences on outcomes were age at implantation, bilateral implantation, and age at testing. Overall this group demonstrated good use of their technology, and much stronger outcomes in vocabulary and reading than evidenced in the deaf population prior to implantation. Writing outcomes were not as strong as in reading, but were not showing the use of non-standard English as in the past, and were showing writing strategies such as invented spelling, common in hearing children.

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.

For over 30 years, teachers have used miscue analysis as a tool to assess and evaluate the reading abilities of hearing students in elementary and middle schools and to design effective literacy programs. More recently, teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students have also reported its usefulness for diagnosing word- and phrase-level reading difficulties and for planning instruction. To our knowledge, miscue analysis has not been used with older, college-age deaf students who might also be having difficulty decoding and understanding text at the word level. The goal of this study was to determine whether such an analysis would be helpful in identifying the source of college students' reading comprehension difficulties. After analyzing the miscues of 10 college-age readers and the results of other comprehension-related tasks, we concluded that comprehension of basic grade school-level passages depended on the ability to recognize and comprehend key words and phrases in these texts. We also concluded that these diagnostic procedures provided useful information about the reading abilities and strategies of each reader that had implications for designing more effective interventions.

The widespread implementation of newborn hearing screening and advances in amplification technologies (including cochlear implants) have fundamentally changed the educational landscape for deaf learners. These changes are discussed in terms of their impact on sign bilingual education programs with a focus on the relationships between language and the development of literacy and the changing role of signed language in this process. (Contains 3 notes.)

Deaf learners whose first language is American Sign Language face particular challenges and constraints in developing literacy in English as a second language. These constraints are interrogated and discussed in terms of their relationship to issues of language proficiency in both L1 and L2, and to models of second language literacy education. Suggestions are proposed as to ways in which these constraints might be addressed in designing future bilingual programs for deaf learners.

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."

All writers face the challenge of making meaning on a blank page. They struggle to make meaning for themselves and to communicate this meaning to the potential readers of their texts. Although, in this way, the act of writing can be perceived as a solitary endeavor, the activity of writing, as one aspect of literacy development, is embedded in a sociocultural framework and must be considered not only from the perspective of an individual's mental functioning but from the social context in which it exists. What follows is a preliminary report from a larger case study examining the composing processes of four deaf student writers. This broader study aspires to the goal of sociocultural research, which is to understand the relationship between human mental functioning, on one hand and cultural historical and institutional settings, on the other (Wertsch, 1995). From such a perspective, individual mental processes and sociocultural setting are understood in terms of this relationship, and human action is understood in the context of interrelated moments. I focus on one 'moment' of the writing process that I will term, to borrow a phrase from Stephen Krashen (1977) and James Britton (1978), 'shaping at the point of utterance.' In other words, I will explore what deaf writers do as they face the 'challenge of the blank page.' [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]