Systematic Review of Literature: Literacy Learning Strategies for Children and Young People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Use Signed Language (Auslan)
March, 2017
Prepared by the Melbourne Graduate School of Education:
Sharon Klieve Kate Leigh Lorraine Graham Maree Madden Renata Aliani Sue North Chris Corbel Sandra Silfvast LITERACY LEARNING STRATEGIES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING AND USE SIGNED LANGUAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
2 | P a g e 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND: This systematic review is a resource for teachers of deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) school students who use sign language and for other professionals concerned with literacy strategies as part of signing and bimodal / bilingual education. The review identifies the latest research in the field and provides up-to-date knowledge on literacy learning strategies for children and young people who are D/HH and who use sign language.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using five key databases and five key journals in the field. This information was supplemented by searching a further three databases, eight journals and ‘grey’ literature (including government, academic, business and industry documents not controlled by commercial publishers) available on the web, as well as the reference lists of key articles. Data extraction and appraisal of identified instruments were completed using a standardised method and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, incorporating expert input.
RESULTS: Forty seven articles describing literacy learning strategies for deaf children and young people who sign are included in this review. The articles utilise a wide variety of research approaches (i.e., using both quantitative and qualitative methods for data gathering and analysis). They are organised according to key aspects of literacy learning (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing) and rank ordered in terms of quality using the Evidence-Based Practice rating procedure developed by Johns Hopkins University. Any article that addressed the search criteria but was not empirical research was excluded.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the literature related to intervention for children and young people who are deaf or hard of hearing and use sign language lacks a basis of rigorously-designed cohort studies and, overall, more research is necessary to supplement the tentative evidence base identified in this review. In light of the research that shows more similarities than differences between the reading and writing processes of bilingual deaf and hearing English language learner readers, we suggest that future research with deaf bilingual readers should investigate the instructional practices found to be effective with both hearing children with and without literacy difficulties and the emerging research on literacy instruction with English language learners taking into consideration some of the emerging strategies that are unique to the instruction of bilingual deaf students. Importantly, in areas for which there is emerging research relevant to deaf bilingual students, the conclusions of the National Reading Panel (2000) appear to apply to the instruction of these children and young people, indicating that a comprehensive literacy program for deaf bilinguals should incorporate the five research-based components of reading – phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The evidence identified also suggests that there are some specific methods and strategies unique to this population of students that are worth pursuing, such as fingerspelling, visual phonics,
3 | P a g e code switching and translation.
Keywords: sign, Auslan, BSL, ASL, literacy, reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary
4 | P a g e 2. SECTION1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
The purpose of this systematic review was to build a repository of articles related to literacy learning strategies for children and young people who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) and use sign (or signed) language. This review will act as a resource for teachers of students who are D/HH and for other professionals concerned with literacy strategies in signing and bimodal / bilingual education. Background information relevant to this review includes that Auslan was recognised as a “community language other than English” by the Australian government in 1987 (Lo Bianco, 1987). British Sign Language (BSL) was recognised by the UK Government as a language in its own right in 2003 (British Deaf Association, 2014), while currently there is still no federal recognition of American Sign Language (ASL) in the United States.
In regard to people first language a flexible approach, in line with Williams and Mayer (2015 p.632), among others, has been adopted: It is acceptable, however, and often preferred by many deaf individuals and professionals to avoid the restrictions of people-first language in discussions of deaf persons—thus, our flexible approach to terminology. Moreover, across the references reviewed, a range of expressions was used to describe children and young people with hearing loss. Therefore, the current review reflects this practice.
In terms of ‘literacy learning strategies’, it is important to note that literacy is foundational not only for academic achievement but also because it influences employment opportunities beyond schooling, health outcomes, and overall quality of life (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2007; Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH), 2004; Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), 2005). The inability to read and write proficiently leads to barriers to full participation in schools, workplaces and society. Pertinent to this review, international research since the 1970s has shown that deaf students’ literacy levels are consistently low (Qi & Mitchell, 2012) and that this has a negative impact on their access to other aspects of learning and the curriculum (Kyle & Harris, 2010; Kyle & Harris, 2011). The unmet challenge of developing proficient literacy skills for this population has led to a significant number of young people who are D/HH leaving school without sufficient skills to fully participate in higher education or employment (Archbold et al., 2008; Marschark et al., 2010; Moeller et al., 2007). Though it has been established that students who are D/HH are an at-risk group for experiencing difficulties in developing literacy skills, compared to other groups of learners, there is a relative paucity of research and direct evidence available to inform the development of interventions and targeted instruction for these students. This is particularly the case for those students who are D/HH and whose primary mode of communication is a natural sign language.
5 | P a g e A rigorous and robust body of research exists on how hearing children become literate, however. This extensive knowledge base has identified the skills children must learn in order to read well. Numerous major reviews of research on reading, for example, have agreed on the key components of effective reading instruction. These major reviews include the USA National Reading Panel (NRP), which presented its findings in 2000 after the most comprehensive evidenced-based review of research on how children learn to read ever conducted. The NRP identified five essential and interdependent components of effective evidence-based reading instruction. The NRP’s emphasis on these five critical elements is consistent with the findings of other major international reports, such as those conducted by the US National Research Council (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998), the US National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (2000), the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in Australia (Rowe, 2005), the UK Rose Report (2006) and the UK Primary
National Strategy (2006).
These common five ‘keys’ to reading include:
1. Phonemic awareness: Knowledge of, and ability to notice, think about, and manipulate the smallest distinct sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. Phonemic awareness has positive impacts on children’s word reading, reading comprehension and their ability to spell;
2. Phonics: The relationship between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language. Phonics is the understanding that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes (the sounds of spoken language/spoken sounds) and graphemes (the letters and spellings that represent those sounds in written language/ written letters). Knowing about these relationships helps children recognize familiar words accurately and automatically, and “decode” new words.; 3. Fluency: The ability to read accurately, quickly and expressively. Fluency is important as it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Fluent readers are able to focus on reading for meaning; 4. Vocabulary: The words children need to know in order to comprehend and communicate effectively. The words children recognize or use in listening and speaking constitutes their oral vocabulary and their reading vocabulary consists of the words they recognize or use in reading and writing. Beginning readers draw on their oral vocabulary to make sense of the words they see in print. Readers must know what most of the words mean before they can understand what they are reading; 5. Comprehension: The ability to understand what has been read, comprehension is the purpose of reading. Extracting meaning from written text requires using knowledge of words, concepts, facts, and ideas. If readers can read the words but do not understand what they are reading, they are not really reading. Good readers use their experiences and knowledge of the world, their knowledge of vocabulary and language structure, and their knowledge of reading strategies to make sense of what they read. They know when comprehension problems occur and how to resolve them.
The aforementioned major reviews of reading not only agree on the key components of reading but also the most effective ways of teaching them. The reviews found that explicit instruction was the most effective teaching method, especially for the fundamental code-based components of phonemic awareness and phonics. Further, the NRP and subsequent reviews all recommend an emphasis on direct, explicit and
6 | P a g e systematic instruction rather than incidental teaching to ensure strong early progress in literacy.
In recent years, research has continued to demonstrate that explicit teaching, of not only the code-based components of reading, but of all five key components and the writing process benefits all children and can significantly reduce literacy gaps. A review conducted by Marchand-Martella and colleagues (2013), for example, found that explicit instructional approaches are considered more effective and efficient. In Australia, the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy produced similar recommendations to the NRP, with the Committee strongly recommending that empirical evidence be used to improve how literacy is taught in Australia.
1.1.1 BILINGUALISM AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT Research exploring the five pillars of reading instruction and their application to the teaching of reading for children who are learning English as an additional language is emerging. In the early 2000s, the National Literacy Panel (NLP) was additionally tasked with identifying, assessing and synthesising the research on teaching English language learners (ELLs) to read and write. The Panel focused on reviewing research in literacy instruction and identifying methods that consistently related to positive outcomes for this population of children.
In the executive summary of the report “Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth” (August & Shanahan, 2006), the NLP reported that the research on acquiring literacy in a second language remains limited. The Panel was, however, able to put forward several important findings and recommendations related to key skills and methods for developing the literacy competence of second language learners. Specifically, the Panel found that the provision of extensive instruction in the five key components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension, has clear benefits for English language learners - just as focusing on these aspects has positive impacts for the literacy development of native English speakers. Similarly, explicit writing instruction has clear benefits for language- minority students as for native English speakers.
Although instruction in the key components of reading is a necessary factor, the Panel reported that the development of oral proficiency in English is also critical to the English literacy development of ELLs. Well-developed oral competency in English is associated with more proficient English reading comprehension and writing skills for ELLs. Specifically, second language learner’s English vocabulary knowledge, listening comprehension, syntactic skills, and metalinguistic skills (such as providing adequate definitions of words), are linked to their English reading and writing proficiency. Overall, literacy programs found to be the most successful were those that provided instructional support for oral language development in English which has long been central to practices in the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing, aligned with high-quality literacy instruction of the five key components of reading.
The 2006 NLP report also stated that oral proficiency and literacy in the English Language learners’ first language can be used to facilitate literacy development in English. In particular, the report indicated that ELLs who are literate in their first
7 | P a g e language are likely to be advantaged in the acquisition of English literacy because of their ability to use and transfer some skills (August & Shanahan, 2006). Higher-order language skills, cognate relationships, and other transferable language skills such as intraword segmentation and phonological awareness all support the development of proficient English literacy for ELL students.
A further relevant key finding from the NLP report is that effective instruction for ELLs is in many ways similar to effective literacy instruction for native English speakers. Though acknowledging that there are still research gaps around acquiring literacy in a second language, comprehensive reviews of the literature indicate that an effective literacy program for ELLs should at least incorporate intensive teaching of the five research-based components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension. To tailor this approach for ELLs, there should be an additional ongoing and intensive focus on oral English development that builds on first language knowledge.
1.1.2 SIGN BILINGUAL CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT If deaf and hard of hearing children, whose primary mode of communication is a signed language, are considered ‘bilingual’, then their needs may be thought of as comparable to those of English language learners. Within such a paradigm, the analysis of deaf children’s literacy development can then be considered using a second language learning framework with special attention paid to the influences of sign language on children’s developing skills (Swanwick, 2000). However, before considering the literacy development of students who are deaf and bilingual and effective instructional practices, it is important to clarify what is meant when describing a child or young person who is deaf or hard of hearing as ‘bilingual’ and what differentiates bilingual students who are D/HH from other bilingual learners. This is particularly important because Mayer and Trezek (2015) state that characterising a child or young person, who is deaf or hard of hearing, as bilingual is not straightforward. Even with respect to children who are hearing, one cannot assume that what has been learned about one group of bilingual learners, with regard to skill development and cognitive competencies, applies in the same way to others (Bialystok, 2011).
1.1.3 EXPLORING SIGN BILINGUALISM The definition of the term ‘bilingual’ is complex. Knight and Swanwick (2007) define a bilingual person as one who is a native-like user of two or more languages. When considering children, a more flexible definition of bilingualism is necessary to recognise that young learners who operate in two languages can be called ‘bilingual’, regardless of the mode of language used or the level of competence. As Fitouri (2007) writes, “A bilingual child is one who is learning and using two languages (of which one is the mother tongue) irrespective of the level of achievement in the language at a given point in time” (Fitouri, as cited in Knight & Swanwick, 2007, p. 69).
Children who are sign bilingual use two or more languages in their daily lives, at least one of which is a sign language (Knight & Swanwick, 2007, p. 9). Sign bilingual education, then, is an approach to the education of children who are deaf or hard of hearing in which the language of the Deaf community (sign language) and the
8 | P a g e language of the hearing community (spoken and/or written language) are used (Gregory, 2004), and where deafness, sign language and deaf culture are valued (Swanwick, 2010).
The major theoretical basis for spoken language bilingual programs is Cummins’ Linguistic Interdependence Theory (LIT) (1989). In describing this model, Cummins argues for the existence of a common proficiency underlying all languages (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999). The linguistic interdependence model holds that children who have cognitive/academic and literacy skills in a first language (L1) can use these skills to develop the same skills in a second language (L2). Many supporters of sign bilingual education subscribe to the applicability of LIT and argue that deaf children “who have a solid L1 foundation in a native sign language can use this language to buttress their learning of the majority language in its written form” (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999, p. 5).
Further support for the relevance of LIT to sign bilingual education comes from observations that Deaf children of Deaf parents who acquire sign language as their L1 have been found to be more successful academically than those with hearing parents (Gregory, 2004). While there may be other factors influencing this academic achievement, at the very least, as Gregory (2004) states, it can be concluded that the early use of sign language does not inhibit the intellectual and linguistic development of D/HH children.
While widely supported, the applicability of LIT to the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing has also been challenged by researchers like Mayer and Wells (1996) who suggest that because sign languages and spoken languages do not share a mode of production (i.e., one is visual and gestural; the other auditory), the argument that there can be transfer between the two languages is more complex and not entirely supported. Mayer and Wells (1996) argue that the conditions assumed by the LIT do not hold true in this case because children who are D/HH who use sign language as their L1 have minimal access to the auditory channel of communication in order to develop spoken English skills. Similarly, as sign languages do not have a standard written form, they argue that children who are D/HH with a sign language as an L1 cannot transfer their literacy skills to the written form of English as an L2.
Gregory (2004), however, states that the above critique does not suggest that transfer between sign language and written English cannot take place. Instead, she states that the early development of language creates a general linguistic competence which is itself important, regardless of modality, as appears to be the case for Deaf children who have Deaf parents. In contrast, Mayer and Trezek (2015) report that empirical evidence supports the strongest correlations, relationships and transfer between the ability to read and write in L1 and the ability to read and write in L2. Subsequently, these authors posit that there is no demonstrated equivalent correlation between D/HH students’ ability to communicate face-to-face in L1 and their subsequent ability to read and write in L2.
1.1.4 TRANSFERENCE BETWEEN SIGN L1 AND WRITTEN L2 Signed languages use a visual gestural modality and a grammatical and phonological structure that is distinct from spoken English. In examining the
9 | P a g e relationship between sign L1 and written L2, Bialystok (2004) concludes that there is no easy, automatic transfer of skills across languages, especially if they utilise different writing systems. Specifically, Bialystok (2004) states that “predicting what kind of transfer might take place for children’s literacy skills requires comparing the languages, the writing systems and orthographies” (p. 593). This point is particularly relevant in sign bilingualism as there is no widely accepted written form of sign language, which means there are no consistent notations that can be compared to other language systems.
Importantly, Mayer and Wells (1996) believe that some form of English-like signing seems essential if deaf children are to master the code that represents written English. They propose that sign language plays a vital role in supporting students’ capacity to engage in the broad cognitive and conceptual transfer that is necessary between Auslan and English (Mayer & Wells, 1996, p. 105). In further work, Mayer and Akamatsu (1999) conclude that natural sign systems, because of their linear mapping with spoken language and spatial mapping with sign language could usefully build the foundations for English as L2 that are necessary for literacy development.
Since sign bilingualism strives to achieve 'normal’ early L1 acquisition, it faces challenges that are not usual considerations for other bilingual educators. Specifically, sign bilingualism aims to create the conditions under which D/HH children, who would otherwise not begin schooling with age-appropriate native-like proficiency in a sign language will, in fact, do so (Johnston, 2004). The situation becomes complex because some kind of language-based early intervention is usually required to assist the vast majority of D/HH children who are born to hearing parents in order to equip them to achieve age appropriate language (Gregory, 2004; Johnston, 2004).
As Mayer (2007) states, in order for any language to be acquired, four conditions need to be in place in the child’s environment: These are the quality and quantity of exposure to an accessible language used in meaningful interactions with others who are already capable language users. Mayer and Trezek (2015) point out that these conditions are often not met in the D/HH child’s environment “by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of deaf children have hearing parents who are not capable users of the [sign] language, [and] there is little possibility for rich meaningful interaction to occur” (p. 122). It would not be overstating the case, Mayer and Trezek add, to “suggest that, as a consequence, significant numbers of deaf children do not have any firmly established L1” (p.122).
1.1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE RATIONALE Issues related to bimodal bilingualism and literacy require the acknowledgement of interactions between sign, spoken, and written modalities (Swanwick, 2016). Such complexities, unique to D/HH signing bilingual students, demonstrate the need for carefully considering broader research findings in terms of the particular needs of these learners. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this systematic review is to examine the research that has been undertaken to date into literacy learning strategies for children and young people who are deaf or hard of hearing and who use sign language.
10 | P a g e 1.2 OBJECTIVES
Research Question What are the literacy learning strategies used in primary and/or secondary schools for children and young people who are deaf or hard of hearing and use sign language?
Specifically, this review also addressed the following guiding questions related to literacy development and instruction for D/HH sign bilingual students: What aspects of literacy instruction for sign bilingual students align with wider bilingual studies on English language learners? What additional methods or interventions have been researched that are unique to the bilingual D/HH child? What level of evidence do these interventions have to support them as effective support for signing D/HH children learning literacy in English?
In addition, the review aimed to identify future directions for research and practice based on the available evidence base and the gaps in the literature.
11 | P a g e 3. SECTION 2: METHODS
2.1 PROTOCOL
Systematic reviews are a thorough and precise approach to reviewing the literature in a specific subject area. The approach used for this review follows the PRISMA approach (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which sets out a 27-item checklist over four phases (Introduction, Methods, Results & Discussion) (Liberati et al., 2009; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altmann, & the PRISMA Group, 2009). Although following PRISMA provides systematic reviews with a common design, there are two main types of review undertaken using the PRISMA approach. These are a general systematic review or a meta-analysis. Gough, Oliver, and Thomas (2012) discuss this difference in light of the overall aim of the review, whether it is configurative or aggregative. A configurative review sets out to explore heterogeneous studies in order to provide a complete picture of existing theory/research in an area, such that “configurative syntheses can be likened to the patterns in a mosaic, in which the findings from each study are slotted together to form a coherent whole” (Gough et al., 2012, p. 51).
Studies included in configurative review can be both qualitative and quantitative in nature. An aggregative review sets out to answer a specific question or hypothesis, so the studies are more homogenous, and can be visualised as “piling up similar findings in order to gain greater precision” (Gough et al., 2012, p.52). Because of the similarity of methods (of a quantitative nature) across the studies chosen for an aggregative review they can be synthesised as a meta-analysis.
This systematic review is configurative, as it sets out to collect the broad range of literature/research on literacy learning strategies for children and young people who use sign language, and to interpret findings to answer the review question. Each step of this review is recorded and clearly stated so that the process is transparent, accountable and replicable.
A key criterion for a publication to be included in a systematic review is that it reports the findings of a research study (known as empirical research). Literature, desktop research and resources that may address the topic of interest but not fit the criterion of ‘empirical’ are generally excluded from a systematic review. With this in mind, during this review two extra publication lists of records were created containing published work that falls outside the boundaries of ‘empirical research’. The first list consists of other published systematic reviews that address literacy education and the Deaf, and includes literature reviews on this area. The second list contains ‘desktop’ research that includes literature on theoretical perspectives and resources to use in the classroom, as well as unpublished PhD theses, which address the topic. These reference lists are available in Appendix 2.
2.2 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Population: Children and young people of school age. In the records collected, this criterion has been broadened to include literacy learning in early childhood settings
12 | P a g e as well as literacy skills necessary for young people to successfully transition from school to further study or the workplace.
Intervention: Pedagogy (instruction models) for literacy (reading and writing) for children and young people who are deaf or hard of hearing and use sign language. Under these criteria, broader aspects, such as assessment as they relate to pedagogy, have been included.
Comparator: L1 → L2 for those learners who are not deaf or hard of hearing compared to the process of L1 → L2 for the population of this study (and how this operates across different dimensions for the latter group compared to the former).
Outcome: The term ‘literacy’ encompasses reading and writing, so all research that addresses these processes in relation to the population above have been included. This includes the sub-categories of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension) and writing.
Study design: Initially, all publications available through databases were included with no date restriction, which captured literature/research from the 1940s onward.
After due consideration, the inclusion date for publications was set at 1986. There was certainly signing in different forms in education prior to that date. Most of it, however, was a combination of speech and sign, where the sign pattern was designed to follow English speaking in classrooms. There were many issues around this as a communication and education system, despite the fact that its design and use was based on a desire to increase access to syntactic and especially morphological aspects of English that would impact on literacy. 1986 is the delineating year as there was a change in thinking and practice around that time, with Auslan recognised as a community language in 1987. The cut-off of 1986 captures any initial articles framing future directions based on this recognition.
Reading abstracts published prior to this date showed that the introduction of signing for children who were D/HH was new in the education field, particularly in research originating from the UK and the US, for example, “A discussion of the poor reading achievement of hearing-impaired children identifies the two-way communication involved in the reading process, traces the language development of those born to deaf and hearing parents, and suggests viewing American Sign Language as a separate and complete language from English” (Bockmiller, 1981, p. 811) and alternatives to the traditional spoken language approach were explored (Kyle & Woll, 1985).
2.3 INFORMATION SOURCES
Studies were initially identified by searching electronic databases, academic journals, online reports to government departments and organisations, reports from stakeholder meetings and senate proceedings, briefing papers, theses, books, conference papers, newspaper articles, blogs, websites, and unpublished works. No limits were applied for language and all foreign papers were searched for translated versions in English.
13 | P a g e This search was applied to ERIC (using the EBSCOhost platform) and MEDLINE (Ovid platform) using a combination of the search terms listed in Appendix 1, Table 2. The most common term combinations were ‘sign language’ (and its derivations e.g. Auslan, BSL, ASL) with synonyms for education (e.g., ‘bimodal bilingual’, student, teacher), literacy (e.g., reading, writing, spelling, grammar) and ‘learning strategies’ (e.g., phonological, syntax, morphology, semantics, comprehension). These two databases provided the bulk of records gathered, which was then supplemented by searching the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), using the EBSCOhost platform, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts (LLBA), the ProQuest platform and A+ Education through the Informit platform. These searches all took place between 5 May and 14 May 2016.
2.4 SEARCH
2.4.1 TERMS USED The initial broad search in the databases listed in the section above were searched without language limitations, using various combinations of the keywords sign language, education, literacy, learning strategies, and outcomes, as well as combinations of associated words for each of these key terms – for the full list of search terms see Appendix 1, Table 4.
2.4.2 SEARCH STRATEGY There were three stages to the search strategy. One researcher carried out the first two stages in order to conduct a consistent search strategy.
Stage 1: The first stage involved a broad search of databases with combinations of the key terms listed at 2.4.1 in all fields, as well as searching key journals and the grey literature listed at 2.3 above.
Stage 2: The second stage involved searching the articles collected at Stage 1 (i.e., re-searching), using the following refined key terms: sign (or Auslan, BSL, ASL) in combination with literacy (or writing, reading, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, comprehension). All combinations of these terms were used in a search narrowed to looking in Stage 1 article abstracts (or scanning the article/document if an abstract was not available).
Stage 3: The third stage involved searching the articles collected at Stage 2, and required reading of all abstracts. If the abstract described a study that did not meet the eligible criteria, it was either:
a) Discarded (if it was a research study but not on topic); or b) Saved in a separate file if it was not a research study but still on topic.
Stage 4: The fourth stage involved an expert review of all included articles and the refinement and evaluation of the entire publication in terms of research quality and intervention status. Research quality was judged according to the Johns Hopkins Evidence Based Practice Rating Scales for Strength and Quality of Evidence (available from http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidence-based-
14 | P a g e practice/jhn_ebp.html), with each quality rating corroborated by at least two raters. The articles described in Stage 3(b) above were also considered during Stage 4 and decisions made whether to include or exclude each paper.
Stage 5: The fifth stage was focused on decision-making in relation to lists of additional studies that were suggested for consideration during the review process of the draft version of this document.
15 | P a g e 2.5 STUDY SELECTION
Records identified through through
n Additional records identified o i
t databasedatabase searching searching through other resources a c i f i
t (n = 8,475) (n = 51) n e d I
Records after duplicates removed (n = 4,877)
g n i n e e r c
S Records screened Records excluded (n = 4,877) (n = 4,090)
Full-text articles Records excluded (n = 663)
y
t assessed for eligibility i l
i Full text not available b i
g (n = 787)
i Not in English l E Not a research study o Literature review o Systematic review o Thesis o Desktop research o Curriculum resource Not an intervention on topic
Full-text articles Records excluded (n = 66)
d assessed for eligibility e Participant age group either d u l (n = 124)
c infants or adults n I No intervention strategies for improving literacy No sign communication only group Duplicate reference Included studies Research is a test of cognitive functions (n = 58) Position papers
Figure 1: Study selection
The search strategy identified 787 studies for review (Figure 1). Two team members independently reviewed the results at this stage (i.e., Stage 3 as described at 2.4.2), screening articles titles and abstracts for possible inclusion. If insufficient information
16 | P a g e was available to make a determination as to whether the study met the inclusion criteria, the full text of the article was reviewed. Discrepancies between reviewers were discussed until consensus regarding eligibility was reached. This process yielded 124 potentially relevant references for full text assessment. A total of 66 articles were eliminated, leaving 58 for inclusion in the draft systematic review. Following feedback on the draft review, the included studies and other articles suggested by reviewers were reviewed in detail by academics and practitioners whose substantive area of expertise is the education of children and young people who are deaf or hard of hearing. This extensive process of checking across all the publications of interest resulted in final total of 47 intervention articles that explored literacy learning strategies for D/HH children and young people who use sign language.
2.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
The relevant features of each article were then summarised by three research team members, using a data extraction assessment form that was first piloted with six articles. The following table shows the data extraction characteristics that were recorded for each article.
Table 1: Characteristics of included studies
PREDETERMINED DATA EXTRACTION VARIABLES Citation Country Study Participants Sample Intervention Details of Measures Application Design (age, gender, Size (research compariso and s for & severity of summary) n groups Outcome Educational Quality hearing loss, Practice other characteristic s)
Agreement on criteria for evaluating each complete article was established a priori. Each article was then independently evaluated by two team members. When there was disagreement between reviewers on quality assessments, the following process was used to reach consensus agreement. First, the reviewers determined whether their disagreement was based on a question regarding the factual content of the article. If so, the article was consulted to resolve the disagreement. Second, if disagreement was with regard to the degree to which the article adhered to our protocol and eligibility criteria, both the article and our review parameters were consulted and discussed until consensus was established (e.g., deciding if a study on children’s sign language development contributed sufficiently to literacy learning strategies). Any studies that did not sufficiently explain whether or not the participants used spoken language or signing for communication were not included.
Also not included in the systematic review were PhD theses because of their length. As stated in Section 2.1, these documents have been included in a list in Appendix 2 because of their possible usefulness for teachers. Any article that addressed the criteria but was not empirical research was recorded in a separate file for possible inclusion as further literature and information on the topic (see Appendix 2).
Studies that did not have a control group were included in the systematic review, as the primary aim of this review was to provide a resource for teachers (rather than
17 | P a g e conduct a meta-analysis of previous research in the field). This has resulted in a wide mix of research methodologies being represented in this review – from qualitative approaches such as case studies of individual students, and video recordings of student activities, to quantitative approaches such as surveys of teachers, analyses of large secondary data sources, to quasi-experiments with a control group and pre- and post- testing. In the following table, the articles are grouped according to the major foci of literacy learning (reading – phonemic awareness/phonics, morphographemics, fingerspelling, alternative strategies for word identification, vocabulary, fluency, translation from sign to English and comprehension; followed by writing) and ordered according to their quality rating.
18 | P a g e 4. SECTION 3: RESULTS Table 2 provides a summary of the reviewed studies. Included are the author(s) of the study, the date of publication and the title (with the full reference for each study in a list at the end of Section 5: Conclusions). Also included in Table 2 is the country in which the study took place, the type of study and its quality rating, characteristics of the participants involved and how many participants in each study, a summary of the intervention, details of any comparison groups used in the study, and the measures used and outcome of the research. In addition, suggestions for how the results of the study may be applied in educational practice have been carefully considered.
Table 2: Summary of the Characteristics of the Reviewed Studies
AREA OF INTEREST: PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Beal-Alvarez, J. USA Quasi- D/HH N=4 The present NBaseline data of child’s Explicit instruction in GPC S., Lederberg, experimental: pre- studies were part / knowledge of GPCs was using the multisensory A. R., & multiple schoo of a 4-year taken. approach of Easterbrooks, baselines across lers project to Probes administered daily “Foundations” in S. R. content design Avera develop a of targeted phoneme and conjunction with visual (2012) as well as ge to systematic and set of 9 phonemes phonics may provide Grapheme- descriptive low- explicit emergent periodically. additional access to Phoneme analyses. avera literacy Word decoding spoken phonology for Acquisition of [L2 B] ge curriculum for assessment undertaken in children who have limited
19 | P a g e Deaf recept D/HH study 2. The words were speech perception. Preschoolers ive preschoolers only composed of Cannot determine if vocab called phonemes targeted in acquisition of GPCs was ulary Foundations for intervention. unique to whole skills Literacy Near completion of the “Foundations” program or and Study 1 occurred intervention a fluency the use of Visual Phonics varied across a 10- chart was introduced with specifically. speec week period with taught phonemes. Children were unable to h 1 participant. On a post-test, the transfer their knowledge perce Study 2 children were able to of phonemes across to ption implemented decode graphemes into novel words – unable to skills. “Foundations” corresponding phonemes blend known phonemes All the incorporating and showed a high and identify novel words. stude visual phonics degree of fluency on May require a bridge from nts with a group of charts of taught phoneme recognition to used three D/HH phonemes. blending and identifying some preschoolers. Children demonstrated an novel words. form Acquisition of increased ability to Still need to know if D/HH of grapheme- decode and identify words children require a level of sign phoneme that were taught in the functional hearing or langu correspondence intervention from pre- to vocabulary knowledge to age (GPC) by pre- post-test. However, they utilise this skill functionally (ASL, schoolers who did not identify any novel in decoding / encoding. Pidgin were exposed to words. D/HH children who have , and visual phonics. limited speech perception Simult Instruction may need multiple aneou occurred in four exposures within s 30-min sessions semantic contexts to Com each week. decode familiar words munic The intervention with learned GPCs. ation) involved specific Although the pre- as instruction in schoolers in this study their GPCs. The produced all taught mode teacher focused phonemes in all test of each week on items, they were not able comm teaching one to blend those phonemes unicat phoneme and its in order to recognize the ion. associated word when they had not grapheme(s). already practised such
20 | P a g e blending.
Trezek, B. J., & USA Quasi- 28 N=127 The purpose of NPre- and post-test D/HH individuals may be Hancock, G. R. experimental eleme the present / assessed participants’ able to visually link (2013) study ntary study was to knowledge of phonemes to printed Implementing [L2 B] stude examine the Grapheme–phoneme letters and words through instruction in nts results of relations taught mouth movements and the alphabetic 42 implementing Grapheme–phoneme that auditory access to, principle within junior remedial relations applied to and verbal production of, a sign bilingual high instruction in the phoneme blending in phonemes may not be setting. schoo alphabetic words necessary for the l principle with acquisition of Word reading stude D/HH students phonological knowledge. nts educated in a Additional generalization The ability to blend 57 sign bilingual probe included: phonemes and read high setting. It Grapheme–phoneme words appears to be schoo measured the relations applied to necessary elements to l acquisition and phoneme blending in result in generalisation. stude generalization of pseudo words The ability to identify nts skills as a result phonemes in isolation Stude of remedial Pseudo word reading alone may not be nts instruction sufficient. attend supplemented by Participants responded to Direct, explicit, and ed Visual Phonics. test items using a systematic phonics reside The intervention combination of sign instructional approach, ntial comprised of the language, fingerspelling, which includes teaching schoo first 20 lessons Visual Phonics cues, and phoneme blending and l for of the Direct vocalizations. In all segmenting, may produce the Instruction responses, associated more favourable results. deaf Corrective mouth movements were Future studies need to Rangi Reading- also required in order to explore the impact of ng in Decoding A be considered correct. early intervention, along age curriculum Vocalisations, if used, with remedial instruction from supplemented by also needed to be correct. on the acquisition and 7 to both visual Resulted in statistically generalization of code- 19 phonics and significant growth related skills. years, direct vocabulary Future study is also
21 | P a g e 61% instruction between pre- and post- needed to measure their male test results in identifying impact on other reading (n = phonemes in isolation, skills such as fluency and 77) phoneme blending, and comprehension. 39% word reading with large (n = effect sizes. 50) Results indicate that study femal participants could acquire e, an understanding of the 80% alphabetic principle, apply sever this knowledge to the e to reading of words, and profo demonstrate und generalization of skills hearin through a pseudo word g loss decoding task. 40% additi onal disabi lities Partici pants used ASL. Trezek, B. J., & USA Quasi- Deaf N=13 The Direct SGiven 1 year of instruction The direct instruction Wang, Y. experimental or Instruction Ct from the phonics-based explicit systematic (2006) with pre-tests hard Reading Mastery Co reading curriculum phonics curriculum Implications of [L2 B] of I curriculum is Co supplemented by Visual supplemented with visual Utilizing a hearin characterized as o Phonics, participants phonics appears to be Phonics-Based g a systematic, demonstrated successful in teaching Reading stude explicit phonics improvements in D/HH students, with a Curriculum With nts. curriculum beginning reading skills range of hearing losses, Children Who Kinde created to teach as measured by subtests beginning reading skills. Are Deaf or rgarte beginning of the Wechsler Individual Hard of Hearing n and reading skills to Achievement Test-II first students in (WIAT-II) including; grade kindergarten and . first grade.
22 | P a g e Total Com word reading, munic ation pseudo word decoding, progr am reading comprehension. Trezek, B. J., et USA Quasi- Deaf N=20 The study aimed FIn order to determine the Systematic explicit al. experimental or to explore the To appropriate starting point phonics supplemented by (2007) with pre-tests hard results of Owin the LACES program, an visual phonics in Using Visual [L2 B] of utilizing Visual n individually administered combination with the Phonics to hearin Phonics to benchmark assessment is LACES curriculum appear Supplement g supplement the utilized. This assessment to be successful in Beginning stude phonics-based requires students to orally developing beginning Reading nts. reading read a story, and reading skills Instruction for Stude curriculum for measures of reading rate, Students Who nts in students who are accuracy, and Are Deaf or kinder D/HH. comprehension. Hard of Hearing garte The LACES Students in kindergarten n and curriculum in this were administered three first study included subtests: Sentence grade five major Writing Phoneme, Total components in Sentence Writing Com 90-min of daily Spelling, and Phonemic munic instruction; Awareness Segmentation. ation literacy board Students in first grade (explicit were administrated three instruction in additional subtests: phonemic Phonemic Awareness awareness and Deletion, Phonics Onsets, phonics + visual and Phonics Rimes. phonics), read The Dominie Reading and aloud, Writing Assessment vocabulary, Portfolio was the reading and standardized assessment enrichment, and used as a pre-test–post- reteaching. test measure. Results indicated that the participants demonstrated
23 | P a g e statistically significant improvements in beginning reading skills as measured by standardized assessments. Narr, R. F. USA Qualitative study Stude N=10 This study Reading levels for each Educational implications (2008) [L3 C] nts attempts to student were determined from this study are difficult Phonological from examine the by an average of three to draw as it is unclear if Awareness and kinder relationship curriculum-based the visual phonics were Decoding in garte between the use measures: taught in a systematic Deaf/Hard-of- n to of visual phonics way or part of a more Hearing Grade and improved Reading A–Z multifaceted program. Students Who 3 phonological Benchmark Books with It is unclear if the students Use Visual mixed awareness, Comprehension could utilise their Phonics grade decoding and Questions. knowledge of visual classr reading ability for phonics to decode novel oom signing children. A running record with words without the Ages The students in levelled readers. symbols. range this study had As their rhyming ability is d received varying Classroom Reading not related to their from amounts of Inventory Record for performance in reading it 5:9 – visual phonics Teachers is unclear if this aspect is 9;10 over their years important to include in years in the identified Phonological awareness terms of literacy 8 school. Visual was assessed using a development. stude phonics was picture rhyme task 3 nts used in different pictures were presented sever ways and and the participant the e- amounts by the target picture above and profo teachers. It is two pictures below one of und not clear if the which rhymed and a deafn use of visual distractor. ess phonics occurred Decoding. The decoding 2 in a systematic task was designed to stude way. assess students’ ability to nts read and associate mode meaning with words rate without using a whole-
24 | P a g e to word reading strategy. sever Visual phonics symbols e were used instead of the deafn phonetically spelled ess pseudo homophones. On Partici each item, the task was to pants select the set of symbols receiv that represented the ed picture target. acade These students were able mic to use phonological instru information to make ction rhyme judgments and the with visual phonics symbols to sign- decode; however, no suppo relationship between rted performance on reading Englis ability and length of time h and in literacy instruction with Ameri visual phonics was found. can Sign Langu age.
25 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: MORPHOGRAPHEMICS
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Trussell, J. W., USA Quasi- One N=3 The purpose of NPre-tests included; Morphographic analysis & S. R. experimental stude this study was to / Morphemic Awareness instruction may improve Easterbrooks The researchers nt in determine the Test to measure the D/HH students' (2015) used a 4th effects of students’ awareness of morphographic Effects of multiprobe grade morphographic the associations of base knowledge. Morphographic multiple baseline (male instruction on the and derived or inflectional Students may require Instruction on across ) morphographic morphographs ongoing explicit the participants Two analysis skills of Researchers-created instruction in the area of Morphographic design. stude reading-delayed, pretest that included 30 morphographs to improve Analysis Skills [L2 B] nts in late-elementary potential target words. their understanding of the of Deaf and 5th D/HH students. The students attempted to meanings of affixes and to Hard-of-Hearing grade analyse each word enable generalization but Students (1 The intervention morphographically (e.g., it has promise as a male was ___+____=biannual) strategy. & 1 implemented for Woodcock Johnson III femal 20min a day, 5 Tests of Achievement, e) days a week for letter-word identification 2nd to 2-3 weeks. The (LWI), and passage 4th intervention was comprehension (PC) grade subtests readin modelled on the The intervention improved g direct instruction D/HH students' ability to ability program dissect words and -Spelling through determine affix meanings
26 | P a g e Morphographs. but did not enable them to generalize.
27 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: FINGERSPELLING
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Haptonstall- USA Quasi- 21 N=21 The purpose of Three tests were These results indicate Nykaza, T. S., & experimental deaf this study is to administered pre- and fingerspelling should be Schick, B. Within subject stude determine post- intervention. incorporated in teaching (2007) design across nts whether a The receptive print test from the earliest stages of The Transition the two Ages training method had the target word and 3 language learning, even from conditions range that uses distractors with a picture prior to the acquisition of Fingerspelling Pre- and post- d fingerspelling matching the target word. word recognition in print. to English Print: test from and phonological The Written English test Use of lexicalised Facilitating [L2 B] 4–14 patterns that asked the child to write fingerspelling may lead to English years resemble those the English word, looking more positive outcomes in Decoding Profo found in at a picture. terms of writing, reading und lexicalized finger The Fingerspelling test and fingerspelling of hearin spelling (altering required children to targeted vocabulary. g loss the fingerspelling fingerspell the word, Partici to look more looking at a picture. pants sign-like) would Accuracy in all three tests used increase D/HH was measured by the ASL students’ ability proportion of target words to learn the correctly recognized or finger spelled correctly expressed. and orthographic When training version of a incorporated word. fingerspelling that was This study was more lexicalized students
28 | P a g e designed to were better able to teach children recognize and write the new English English word as well as words in two fingerspell the word. different training conditions, using different sets of words. The two conditions were: (a) Sign condition (Sign), where the English word and ASL sign were matched, and (b) Fingerspelling condition, where the lexicalized fingerspelling, the sign, and the English word were matched Hirsh-Pasek, K. USA Quasi- Exper N=26 Reports on three EIndicates students’ Including fingerspelling in (1987) experimental iment experiments that EXfingerspelling the learning of words may The [L2 B] 1: 22 explored the EXmetalinguistic knowledge increase the student’s metalinguistics secon metalinguistic EXcorrelated selectively and word identification skills. of d- competence of Xsignificantly with reading fingerspelling: gener 26 deaf students success. An alternative ation to segment and Metalinguistic way to increase conge manipulate their competence in written nitally finger spelled fingerspelling correlates vocabulary in deaf lexicons. with beginning reading congenitally stude Also reports on a achievement deaf readers nts. training Further, training in Ages experiment that fingerspelling does rangin showed that deaf promote word
29 | P a g e g students identification for those betwe identified more words in the signer's en 5- sight words fingerspelling lexicon. 11 when years encouraged to and decode into 16 fingerspelling. years Exper iment 2: 21 subje cts, 8- 14 years Exper iment 3: Twent y-five subje cts 5- 16 years Exper iment 4: 26 stude nts 8- 14 years Roos, C. Sweden Quasi- All the N=6 This paper NThese aspects of Fingerspelling should be (2013) experimental memb presents a study / children's fingerspelling incorporated in teaching Young Deaf Longitudinal ers of of children's use and their possible from the earliest stages of Children's Ethnographic a of fingerspelling. implications are language learning, even Fingerspelling [L3 B] presc It is part of a addressed, as are some prior to the acquisition of in Learning to hool larger findings regarding how word recognition in print Read and group longitudinal teachers respond to the Write: An were ethnographic children's attempts at
30 | P a g e Ethnographic select study. fingerspelling. Study in a ed as The aim of this Signing Setting partici paper is to pants examine the for different the functions which study. fingerspelling 4 has as a part of At the literacy learning start in the early years of the and later at period school. of Six main themes data are identified produ when the ction, children first this explore and group learn to consi fingerspell: (i) sted exploring of six handshapes, childr letters, inventing en, fingerspelling, aged and later 3;1– exploring its use 6;9 and learning to (i.e. fingerspell in from literacy 3 practices; (ii) years exploring the and 1 direction of month writing and to 6 fingerspelling; years, (iii) practising and 9 and memorizing month words; (iv) s). decoding words; Deaf (v) recalling from childr memory; and (vi)
31 | P a g e en, fingerspelling as who a tool for were exploring the 3-6 relationships; years between letters, old words, signs, when mouth the movements, and study voice. starte d. They are early signer s using Swedi sh Sign Langu age in comm unicat ion with teach ers and peers.
32 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR WORD IDENTIFICATION
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Reitsma, P. Nether-lands Quasi- Childr N=11 An investigation The targeted words were Computer programs for (2009) experiment en of the usefulness part of the children’s teaching words may be Computer- Within subject aged of the spelling, signed vocabulary but not useful with D/HH students Based design, Pre- and betwe meaning and their written language who sign when the Exercises for post-tests en 7 pictorial vocabulary. Two pre-tests programs are multimodal Learning to [L2 B] and 8 representation of were administered. Getting the children to Read and Spell years. single words Reading test: words were closely attend to letter by Deaf 6 when teaching shown on paper and the structure in words by Children boys, signing children children were asked to providing orthographically 5 girls to read. produce the similar distractors may be Profo Computer-based corresponding sign. useful in teaching new und reading Sign test: drawings were words orthographically. hearin exercises were presented and the It is important to focus on g loss used in order to children had to show the both the orthographical Partici determine the corresponding sign. structure of words and the pants effects of Post-tests included the meaning. used emphasizing reading test and an Pictures were beneficial Dutch either the additional two tests: when teaching the sign orthographic or Spelling test: sign meaning of words. The langu the semantic presented and the combinations of signs, age. characteristics of children had to write down written words and pictures a word. the corresponding word. may be beneficial 2 computer Word identification test: based exercises sign presented and the
33 | P a g e were compared children had to select the A word meaning correct word among four by way of a printed alternatives. picture or a sign The results reveal that was presented emphasizing the word on screen, and spelling rather than the child is meaning was most asked to select effective for learning to the correct word read novel words for this spelling from group of deaf children. three alternative The findings suggest that printed words drawings rather than that were signs to refer to the orthographically meaning of the word is similar. slightly more efficient. In the other form, a printed word is presented, and the child is invited to select the correct word meaning as represented by pictures or signs. Corrective feedback was given in each case Stoefen-Fisher, USA Quantitative Partici N=20 This study TTwo sets of word lists Graphic representation of J., & Lee, M. A. study pants investigates h 1. A list of printed English the sign attached to the (1989) [L3 B] used whether signing words with the graphic written word may assist in The either children are able representation of the sign immediate word Effectiveness of Pidgin to better identify for that word placed identification and recall the Graphic Sign words when directly above the word but no evidence that it led Representation Englis these words are (PS) to sustained identification of Signs in h or accompanied 2. A list of print only (PO) skills. Developing Signin with a graphic words. Not generalizable. Word g representation of The words on the No evidence that it leads Identification Exact the sign. retention list were to longer term positive
34 | P a g e Skills for Englis presented in print only. outcomes Hearing h. Each list contained the Impaired Aged same 14 words. Beginning 6:0 – The word identification Readers 8:11 task and the immediate years retention task were Sever administered e to consecutively. Group 1 profo children were given the und PS word list first, followed deafn immediately by the ess retention list. Two weeks later, they were administered the PO list, followed by the retention list. Group 2 children were given the PO list first. Students were able to identify words better when presented in a print-plus- graphic-sign condition compared to a print-only condition when the words were part of their spoken/sign vocabulary. The initial use of the graphic representation of signs with the printed words facilitated the children's immediate retention when reading the printed word only.
35 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: VOCABULARY
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Cannon, J. E., USA Quasi- Deaf N=4 This article NParticipants engaged in Vocabulary teaching et al. experimental or describes a / vocabulary activities using requires explicit teaching (2010). [L2 B] Hard- procedure for the DVD math expository of target words, exposure Vocabulary of- using books read books read through is not sufficient for Instruction Heari on DVD in American Sign Language. students who are D/HH through Books ng American Sign The researchers used and sign. Read in Stude Language with expository books with American Sign nts English- math vocabulary in a Language for Who language multiple-baseline design English- Are learners who are (ABC) across three sets Language Also deaf or hard of of five vocabulary words. Learners with ELLs hearing. Phase A consisted of Hearing Loss Four This research establishing baseline for partici examined the each set of target pants effectiveness of vocabulary words. aged DVDs in Phase B probed the 10 to American Sign students on the five target 12 Language as a vocabulary items, before with tool to increase a and after viewing the DVD sever student's containing the vocabulary. e to production of the Phase C probed students profo printed word. on the five target und vocabulary words. hearin DVDs alone were less
36 | P a g e g loss effective for increasing Partici vocabulary than when pants accompanied with pre- were teaching of the target ELLs vocabulary words who had immig rated to the Unite d State s within the past 5 years. Dimling, L. M. USA Quasi Six N=6 Looks at the Three dependent Targeted rich vocabulary (2010) experimental stude effectiveness of variables were chosen to teaching can be effective Conceptually A single-subject nts. a sign language determine the effects of with D/HH students who Based multiple-baseline Mean vocabulary the vocabulary use sign language as their Vocabulary design across age intervention. intervention and the mode of communication. Intervention: subjects 8.13 Specifically the students' responses. Need to target Second [L2 B] years effects of 1. Recognition: labelling recognition, production Graders' Partici vocabulary the word or phrase by and comprehension in Development of pants intervention on fingerspelling, voicing, or teaching. Vocabulary used word recognition, pointing Words Pidgin production, and 2. Production: Accurately Sign comprehension. produce the sign or say Langu 4x30min the word when prompted age sessions per by a word card (ASL week for 6-8 representing the word signs weeks, learning 3. Comprehension: in 12 new Student understands the Englis vocabulary newly learned signs or h words each words as measured by word week semantic mapping activity order) Each student These dependent
37 | P a g e Bilate had Dolch words variables were assessed ral and bridge during pretest, baseline, senso phrases (English and throughout the rineur phrases that intervention – targeting al require the taught words/phrases mode translation in each week to determine rate ASL for mastery of vocabulary. to conceptual The vocabulary profo meaning e.g. fall intervention successfully und down, clean up) improved all students' hearin that were recognition, production, g selected and comprehension of losse specifically for vocabulary words and s them. phrases. Below Comprised of 3 In the present study on avera intervention average, the students ge components: mastered more than 80% readin (a) word of the sight words from g introduction, the Dolch word levels showing a vocabulary, compared to 3 had written word or 60% of the bridge additi phrase, phrases. onal fingerspelling it Retention of the words disabi and over time was not lities demonstrating assessed the sign(s) for it (b) word activity (semantic mapping) looking at related words, relationships between words and multiple meanings, (c) practice using words/phrases in sentences and sharing
38 | P a g e Trussell, J. W., USA Quasi- Deaf N=6 The purpose of NUtilised a multiple Findings from this study & Easterbrooks, experimental or this study was to / baseline across content suggest that young S. R. [L2 B] hard- investigate the probe design. Assessed signing D/HH students (2014) of- effect of an three sets of five picture can build picture The Effect of hearin enhanced vocabulary items from vocabulary through Enhanced g storybook three different books – Enhanced Storybook Storybook childr reading recorded number of Interactions (Dialogic Interaction on en intervention correctly identified labels reading strategies). Signing Deaf (D/HH (Dialogic for a picture stimulus. Children's ) reading), which Discovered a functional Vocabulary Kinde included scripted relation between the rgarte questions and storybook intervention n or picture prompts, and picture vocabulary first on the identification for several grade vocabulary of participants. Teach young signing ers D/HH children. used Scripted simult questions were aneou used to discuss s the target picture comm vocabulary and unicat to ensure the ion. vocabulary was discussed several times throughout the story. In addition, picture cards were shown when the target vocabulary was discussed Golos, D. B., & USA Qualitative Presc N=7 Looks at the use A researcher-developed Use of ASL videos and Moses, A. M. study. hool of supplemental assessment the Peter’s teacher mediated (2015) Pre- and post- childr activities in early Picture Assessment Tool activities to develop Supplementing tests en. childhood (PPAT) was used to literacy skills was reported an Educational [L3 C] The classrooms to evaluate the participating to improve vocab and Video Series partici help with early children’s targeted ASL positively responded to by
39 | P a g e with Video- pants literacy skills. and early literacy skills teacher, but small sample Related used Over the course and was carried out pre size and baseline data Classroom ASL. of two weeks, and post only for vocab makes it Activities and the teacher The PPAT measured the difficult to generalise. Materials showed the specific skills targeted in After the teacher participants a the selected educational mediated activities, video and video, including vocabulary measures implemented six knowledge of both target improved for the cohort of activities, all of vocabulary and story students which were elements. Literacy based comments designed to The findings suggest that reported as improved but promote early the children displayed no baseline data referred literacy skills many of the targeted skills to (e.g., during the classroom Teacher responses were vocabulary, activities, and the positive in terms of her knowledge of descriptive statistics show own use of the resource story elements, higher mean scores in and the children’s sequencing targeted skills following engagement with the ability). the classroom activities. activities and changes in Each activity their behaviours, but no was video- data recorded and Multi-literacies approach transcribed for children's displays of literacy-related behaviors. The teacher also filled out a survey.
40 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: FLUENCY
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Schirmer, B. R., USA Design of the Childr N=4 The Reread- Pre- and post-test Overall results indicate Therrien, W. J., study was en in Adapt and measures included that repeated reading has Schaffer, L., & experimental, secon Answer- Running Records and the potential for improving Schirmer, T. N. with a d Comprehend four reading subtests of the reading fluency of (2009) combination of grade (RAAC) the Woodcock-Johnson III deaf students but that Repeated single subject Age intervention was Achievement Tests- pairing a fluency strategy Reading As An and quasi- range utilized. This Letter-Word Identification, with a comprehension Instructional experimental 7:1 – study looks at Reading Fluency, strategy may be more Intervention using pre- post- 7:11. the effect on Reading Comprehension, effective than focusing With Deaf measures. Partici reading fluency and Reading Vocabulary. only on fluency. Readers: Effect [L2 B] pants of rereading Results support the value Session intervention On Fluency And used The repeated of the three included measures included the Reading ASL. reading portion components to improve number of readings to Achievement Sever of the RAAC was the reading fluency of reach criteria, word e to modified. The deaf students. reading errors per profo second RAAC Replication with larger session, reading time of und criterion of group of deaf students is each passage per hearin correct words needed and control of session, and number of g per minute was other variables. comprehension questions losse not applied as no answered correctly. s norms for signed reading have yet The present study been incorporated three established. The
41 | P a g e intervention was components: used with 1. passages should be students read aloud to an adult, individually two 2. corrective to three times feedback on word errors weekly over a should be given, and period of five 3. passages should be weeks as a read until a performance supplement to criterion is reached their regular reading Pre- post-data was instruction. analysed and significant The student read results for two measures- the passage, it Running Records and the was timed and Reading Fluency subtest errors notated. were found. A large effect Corrective size for Running Records feedback was and small-to-moderate given during the effect size for Reading reading. The Fluency was found. student was asked to reread Analysis showed that the story until students significantly reaching the improved their reading criterion level of speed on passages that no more than were reread during each two errors or session as well as on a until reading the generalized measure of passage four reading fluency. times. Comprehension did not The student was improve overall but then asked 4 students performed as literal and 4 well on inferential inferential questions as on factual questions and questions. the answers recorded.
42 | P a g e Schirmer, B. R., USA Quasi- 6 N=14 The researchers TPre- and post-test Reading fluency Schaffer, L., experimental middl investigated the Ewmeasures included four instruction showed some Therrien, W. J., design using e effect of the Ex reading subtests of the positive outcomes but not & Schirmer, T. pre- and post- schoo Reread-Adapt x Woodcock-Johnson III significant gains on N. measures was l and Answer- Achievement Tests— standardized (2016) combined with stude Comprehend - Letter-Word assessments. The Effect of the single-subject nts (RAAC) Identification, incorporation of explicit Reread-Adapt design in which 8 high intervention - Reading Fluency, teaching of and Answer- daily session schoo (Therrien, - Passage comprehension Comprehend data were l Gormley, & Comprehension, monitoring strategies Intervention on collected. stude Kubina, 2006) on - Reading Vocabulary show some promise but the Reading [L2 B] nts reading fluency require further Session intervention Achievement of ages and achievement investigation measures included the Middle and range for D/HH Fidelity in administering number of readings to High School d 13;9 students. interventions is important reach criteria, word Readers Who – 18;7 The initial and requires attention reading errors per are Deaf Childr passages were from teachers. session, and reading time en in selected to The profile of the deaf of each passage per the match the student most likely to session. third, instructional benefit has not been fifth, reading level of Outcomes measures identified nor the number and each student as included number of or timing of sessions sixth determined by comprehension questions needed for improvement. grade their scores on answered correctly and s. the Woodcock- the reading level of The Johnson III materials. partici Achievement pants Tests Experiment 1 - Results: used Experiment 1: no significance for any of ASL. The intervention the Woodcock-Johnson III was used reading subtests individually with For comprehension students 2-3x questions good literal and weekly over 2 inferential comprehension months was found and a Experiment 2: continuous increase in The intervention difficulty level of the was used with materials. the students
43 | P a g e individually for Experiment 2 - Results: five–seven No significance was found sessions for the WJIII Reading The Fluency subtest and a comprehension small effect size. The strategy is researchers found somewhat significance for the unclear but a Reading Comprehension cue card cluster score and a containing medium-to-strong effect generic story size Consistently good structure literal and inferential questions (i.e. comprehension during who, what, each session and a where, when, continuous increase in what, and how) difficulty level of the was presented materials was found prior to asking the comprehension questions Enns, C., & USA Case study High N=2 The study piloted NStudents were videotaped A more systematic Lafond, L. D. [L2 C] schoo a 6-month / in three sessions application of the (2007) l intervention (numbers 1, 6, and 10) intervention with a greater Reading stude procedure that out of every 10-session number of students, and against All nts incorporated the cycle – these were including a control group Odds: A Pilot diagn principles of assessment sessions is needed. Study of Two osed automaticity, involving the students Deaf Students with repetition, reading the lists and with Dyslexia dysle functional passage ‘aloud’ to the xia. vocabulary, and teacher in ASL. They 2 a positive also had to answer 10 male teacher student comprehension questions stude relationship. linked to the passages. nts 14 Short, repetitive Formal assessments were and teaching conducted at the 15yrs sessions were beginning of the study First implemented and again after 6 months grade using the same of intervention The
44 | P a g e level word list or Reading Attitude Survey, readin reading passage a sight word reading test g over a 10-day (Diagnostic Learning The period. Centre, 1998), and the partici The “10 Day day Test of Early Reading pants teaching Ability—Deaf/Hard of used process” Hearing version (TERA– ASL. comprised of D/HH) were administered. standard drills, The TERA–D/HH has practice and been adapted for deaf vocabulary students using ASL. reinforcement on The findings reveal gains the same in reading ability on the passage. formal measures, though Following not more than would be completion of expected over a 6-month this period, a period simply due to new list or development. The real passage was improvements were noted introduced and in the students’ attitudes the process was toward literacy, improved repeated social interaction, and increased self-confidence as measured through observation and the Reading attitude survey. This study suggests that brief, daily, repeated reading of the same text may establish an initial vocabulary and give students confidence as readers. The importance of using vocabulary that is of interest to students and reinforcing these concepts in a variety of contexts. The importance of student teacher relationships to
45 | P a g e learning.
46 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: TRANSLATION FROM SIGN TO ENGLISH
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Akamatsu, C. USA Experimental Profo N=16 The effects of TThe following data was Difficult to pull apart the T., & Armour, V. [L2 B] undly complementary wcollected pre- and post- different variables to A. deaf sign language intervention: attribute the (1987) high instruction on 1. Spontaneous writing improvements – was it Developing schoo student’s written sample – editing or translation that Written Literacy l expression. 2. Receptive sign transfer improved the grammatical in Deaf Children stude Literal and ability: This procedure English abilities – need to through nts figurative was used to ascertain know if both are Analyzing Sign from translation whether students could necessary. Language reside aspects were comprehend The teacher would require ntial taught as well as information from sign knowledge of the schoo English and transfer it to linguistics and fluency in l for editing/grammar writing. the targeted sign the skills. Focus on language – what level is Deaf. ASL as a rule- Writing samples and the sufficient? ASL governed answers to receptive sign Study needs replication (Amer language, the transfer test were scored with larger group of ican comparison and for grammar using the students Sign contrasts National Technical Langu between ASL Institute for the Deaf age) and English, and English Written Language and how ASL can be scoring procedure PSE translated into (Crandall, 1979). The (Pidgi written English. answers to the receptive
47 | P a g e n The sign transfer test were Sign experimental scored right or wrong. Englis group of 8 There was a significant h) received difference between the used. instructional test and control groups intervention. The after the intervention. The other students results show that the received practice intervention was as usual. successful, suggesting Subjects for that having students work these groups with translating between were taught in signs and writing makes three separate them more aware of the class groups, by differences in rules the same between signed and teacher. written English. Intervention provided 2x week for 45 mins. Andrews, J., & USA 3 studies used Study 1; N=45 Study 1: SStudy 1: code switching The instructional strategy Rusher, M . experimental Study 2: N=14 Vocabulary - St increased printed word of code switching at the (2010) designs Study 3: N=24 examined the ht recognition word, phrase, and story Code switching 4th used mixed Study 4: N/A effectiveness of Se Study 2: reported on in levels can be planned and techniques: method design code switching t Andrews et al 1994 in implemented in a Evidence-based with qualitative techniques with later section of this review classroom where both instructional and quantitative 45 signing deaf Study 3; Even though the languages are used. practices for the data children weekly retellings in the PVR Code switching may ASL/English [L2 B] story-time treatment were higher, the assist to build English bilingual sessions with retellings were not reading skills—vocabulary classroom storybooks that extensive. and retelling of story and included weekly Study 4; descriptive, expository text segments. ASL story teacher reflections Chaining is a strategy that reading, story has growing support. reciting, and The PVR treatment code switching showed some promise but activities involve needs further printed letters investigation. and finger
48 | P a g e spelled letters, and sign-to- print-to- sign and fingerspelling-to- print-to-sign code switching games and activities. Second study to examine how the amount of exposure to the printed words using code switching would increase printed word recognition. Used fingerspelling, manual signs and graphic pictures of manual signs. Study 2: Effects of ASL summaries on comprehension of fables described in Andrews et al., 1994 Study 3: Measured the effects of employing the Preview-View- Review (PVR) instructional strategy. PVR is
49 | P a g e a code switching instructional strategy. In the preview segment, the teacher provided a short summary of key points of the science passage in ASL. In the view segment, the students simply read the science text in English. The review part consisted of an interactive dialogue where the students were engaged in question-and- answer probing to see what they understood about the text. Study 4; Teacher reflections on their use of code switching in the classroom.
50 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: READING COMPREHENSION
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Al-Hilawani, Y. Israel Quasi- 3rd N=30 Three teaching 3 Comprehension of a Modified reciprocal (2003) experimental grade approaches reading passage was teaching and key word Clinical [L2 B] stude were randomly 1 measured through 12 strategy may be beneficial examination of nts assigned and 2 researcher developed in enhancing students’ three methods 13 implemented in recall short answer scores in reading of teaching boys, this study: the questions. These comprehension reading 17 basic reading questions were classified Need further investigation comprehension girls approach as main idea (one and assessment tools to to deaf and Age modified question), detail (five further validate these hard-of-hearing range reciprocal questions), word meaning strategies but they are students: From 10:7- teaching, and (two questions), and promising. research to 13:9 the key word inferential (four classroom Stude strategy. questions). applications nts These strategies The key word strategy used included teacher and modified reciprocal simult discussion of the teaching method were aneou story, more effective in s identification of enhancing students’ spoke key words and performance in main idea n and events and and word meaning signe teaching questions d students to Use of key word strategy Arabi summarise, and modified reciprocal c question, predict teaching improved
51 | P a g e and clarify. comprehension of 5 x week for 45 passages and knowledge mins of targeted words.
Schirmer, B. R., USA Quasi- Third- N=13 The researcher NSignificant improvement It is important to measure Schaffer, L., experimental , fifth-, investigated the / was found on a both fluency and Therrien, W J., design and effect of the generalized measure of comprehension when & Schirmer, T Pre- and post- sixth- Reread-Adapt reading fluency after working on fluency N. measures grade and Answer- intervention. instruction. (2012) [L2 B] stude Comprehend Though the researchers The reading fluency of Reread-adapt nts intervention on found no significant students who are D/HH and answer- Seve the reading improvement in and sign can be improved comprehend n fluency and performance on a through repeated reading intervention femal achievement of generalized measure of but unclear if this impacts with deaf and e and d/Deaf and hard comprehension after positively on hard of hearing six of hearing intervention, the students comprehension without readers: Effect male elementary-level demonstrated consistently additional instruction in on fluency and stude students. good comprehension on comprehension reading nts both literal and inferential strategies. achievement. with questions during the levels intervention sessions. of The findings support the hearin importance of g loss incorporating a rangin comprehension g monitoring strategy in from fluency instruction. mode rate to profo und. van Staden, A. South Africa Quasi- Partici N=64 This study PFive tests were Difficult to pull apart the (2013) experimental pants investigated a Ta administered pre- and different variables to An Evaluation [L2 B] were balanced h post- intervention. The attribute the of an 64 reading tests include three improvements but the Intervention childr approach, and diagnostic measures and inclusion of rich Using Sign en, the efficacy of two standardized vocabulary teaching, Language and diagn applying multi- measures, - Raven’s chaining, use of visuals
52 | P a g e Multi-Sensory osed sensory coding Progressive Matrices and and comprehension Coding to with strategies and the ESSI word recognition strategies appear to result Support Word sever reading tests. in improvements in both Learning and e to scaffolding to Results demonstrated a reading and vocabulary Reading profo facilitate significant increase in skills in this cohort of Comprehension und elementary reading and vocabulary students. of Deaf Signing bilater phase deaf skills of deaf readers who Children al readers' reading received the balanced hearin development. reading approach g loss Small group intervention, as compared and instruction (two to the control group who aged to three children) received usual classroom from for three days instruction. 6.03 per week, for 45 to minute sessions, 11.08 for 9 months. years Three to five (mea target words n age were selected 9.37 and reinforced years) daily (through . interactive ‘word wall’ activities and chaining). The definition of the word and its synonyms were provided via SASL and the words were used in sentences along with other activities to reinforce the words. Next, the teachers reinforced sight words by sign, print, and picture
53 | P a g e mapping exercises Daily passage or storybook reading. During these reciprocal reading experiences the teacher actively involved the children by guiding them (scaffolding) in the use of reading comprehension strategies such as predicting, questioning, visualizing (mental imagery) and summarizing or retelling stories in SASL. Wang, Y., & USA Mixed method 22 N=22 This study TPrior to the students' The improvements in Paul, P. V. design stude compared the h participation in the word identification were (2011) [L2 B] nts Cornerstones Cornerstones research not matched for word Integrating and 5 approach - a project, their reading knowledge; therefore the Technology and teach literature-based, abilities were assessed by Cornerstones approach Reading ers technology- the Cornerstones staff requires further Instruction with The infused literacy using the Classroom development for it to be Children Who stude project and the Reading Inventory. concluded as beneficial Are Deaf or nt typical approach. The results were mixed. for this group of students. Hard of partici Cornerstones The D/HH students Inconclusive results. Hearing: The pants utilized video- showed significant Effectiveness of had based stories to improvements in word the an match the identification from Cornerstones age students’ participating in the Project range communication Cornerstone Project, but,
54 | P a g e of 7- modes. The no differences were found 11 Cornerstone for word knowledge, and years, intervention mixed results were found and focused on for story comprehension their developing a hearin deep g understanding of losse the vocabulary s from each story range through word from study, practice mild and skills in word to recognition, profo along with the und. development of background knowledge. Gentry, M. M., USA Quasi- Stude N=25 The researchers NThe retelling was The addition of pictures Chinn, K. M., & experimental nts, 9- investigated / videotaped for future can improve the Moulton, R. D. design 18yrs comprehension scoring. Accuracy in comprehension of (2005). Repeated 10 of stories retelling was determined narratives. Effectiveness of measure design males presented by scoring specific A condition of pictures multimedia for single , through a variety features (such as setting, only is needed to see how reading materials subjects within 18 of multimedia plot, theme, and much information a child when used with groups femal formats sequence of the story) gets from a sequence of children who are [L2 C] es. including: and subheadings under pictures with regard to deaf Third- print only, features (such as main story telling. to- print & character). The addition of a video of fourth pictures, The results indicated that the story being signed - comprehension was alongside the print was print & sign grade weakest when the stories not more effective than language readin were presented in a print- pictures for this group of g only format. children. Need to know print & levels Comprehension was whether childrens’ as pictures & strongest when stories receptive sign language deter sign language. were presented in the abilities are impacted. mined The four print with pictures format. Requires further research by treatments were The findings suggest that to provide a clear score presented in multimedia presentation direction for multimedia
55 | P a g e s on random order to of reading material was reading materials. the each participant. significantly more Stanf effective for reading Upon completion ord comprehension than is of each story Achie the use of print only. The format each veme findings also suggest that participant used nt the use of multimedia sign language to Test presentation (signed retell the story. for presentation) was not Story retellings the significantly better than were then Heari the use of print plus analysed, and ng- pictures alone. The scored for Impair incorporation of sign accuracy. ed language with print but (SAT- without pictures did not HI); appear to enhance story Use comprehension. of sign langu age as the prima ry mean s of comm unicat ion Schimmel, C. USA Quantitative Elem N=48 Looks at the NSigned stories are Difficult to draw clear S., Edwards, S. study entary gains in reading / analysed in terms of ASL conclusions from this G., & Prickett, [L2 C] schoo levels of D/HH skills study as measures are H. T. l students after Weekly spontaneous somewhat unclear and at (1999) stude the written language samples times based on teacher Reading?...Pah! nts. implementation were also analysed. feedback rather than (I Got It!): Ages of a reading Criteria for analysis were outcome data. Innovative range program. unclear. Reading d A reading Authors report gains in Techniques for from program utilizing students’ reading levels
56 | P a g e Successful 6-13 five components and academic behaviour, Deaf Readers yrs — teachers' growth in Partici Phonemic reflective sign skills, and pants Awareness. students' and teachers' used Basic phonetic overall growth in ASL ASL. awareness was skills. taught Measures are somewhat Adapted Dolch unclear, some based on Word lists. The teacher feedback rather students and than clear outcome data. teachers received videotapes and decks of cards showing the Dolch words and their multiple meanings. Bridge Lists and Bridging. Videotapes and decks of cards were provided. Students were taught to Bridge phrases as they read. Reading Comprehension The Multiple Skills Series (MSS) were used with the students ASL Development/L anguage Experience Stories.
57 | P a g e The children signed stories to the ASL instructor about their lives or experiences. The ASL instructor retold the stories modelling proper ASL. The children then signed their stories, again. Implementing more SL structures. Then illustrated their story. Finally, students dictate stories which are written down word for word. The five components of the reading program were administered twice a week for 20 minutes Schirmer, B. USA Quasi 9 N=9 A modified Children’s reading Small sample size limits (1995) Experimental childr Directed abilities were assessed generalizability. Requires Mental Imagery [L2 C] en Reading via the Gates-MacGinitie more research to validate and the 7:2 – Thinking Activity Reading Tests mental imagery as an Reading 11:8 incorporating; Quantitative and effective strategy as the Comprehension years building and qualitative methods were results are inconclusive. of Deaf Partici activating used to analyse the data. Children pants relevant Percentages of used background predictions, details
58 | P a g e conce knowledge, included in summaries, ptual introducing new literal and inferential sign sight vocabulary, questions answered directed reading correctly, and parsing – (segmenting categories included in the story into retellings were calculated. passages for No relationship between silent reading, mental imagery and ability asking a to make predictions, prediction summarize, answer literal question, and and inferential questions, asking questions or retell was found after reading For the qualitative each passage). analysis, a content After finishing analysis was conducted. the story, the The prediction, summary, children were question, and retelling asked six responses were questions, three examined to identify literal and three patterns to emerge from inferential, and this data and these asked to retell patterns categorized the story Results of the study The final step indicate that mental was discussion imagery was used as a For the final 4 metacognitive reading sessions the comprehension strategy. children were However, traditional directed to methods for measuring visualize what comprehension were they read and unable to detect again when they differences in how the retold the story. children reflected on 1x 30-45 min narrative text with and session per without imagery week x 11 weeks The qualitative analysis indicated that mental imagery seemed to encourage four qualities
59 | P a g e of thinking—recollection, representation, inference, and evaluation. Mental imagery did not seem to encourage participants to engage more often in identifying main ideas, relevant details, and relationships between characters. Wilson, T., & Australia Qualitative study Sever N=16 This study TOne book for each group The use of signed English Hyde, M. [L2 C] ely- investigates wpresented printed text pictures in association (1997) profo whether the use only; the other book with printed text may The use of undly of signed English presented Australasian facilitate initial reading of signed English deaf; pictures in Signed English pictures in text by some deaf pictures to aged association with association with the text. students and improve facilitate betwe printed text The two books used for their performance on reading en 8- enhances each group were subsequent comprehension 13 students’ reading considered equivalent comprehension by deaf years. comprehension. and within the reading measures. students Signe The students proficiency of each group Not clear if it is d were divided into of students. appropriate for more Englis two groups —A A list of six mature readers h in and B—based comprehension questions Further research is schoo on their was devised for each needed l assessed book. The questions enviro reading age required the readers to nment All students recognize story sequence, received a recognize words in Signed English context, identify a main Text and an idea, decode detail, draw Unmodified Text. inferences, recognize Presentation cause and effect, and order was compare and contrast randomized. story elements. For each book The story retelling was the students analysed by the number received an of details identified introductory correctly.
60 | P a g e reading lesson To determine the before reading. accuracy of the students' The teacher told reading, the transcripts the story in the were examined for original words omissions, substitutions, using additions, and finger Simultaneous spelled items. Communication. The results indicated that Following the students with the Signed introductory English Text condition lesson, the performed at a higher students were level on both videotaped comprehension measures reading the when compared with the story, signing in Unmodified Text signed English. condition. The students The use of signed English were required to pictures seems to answer the six increase word comprehension identification and questions then comprehension among retell the story. deaf students. Students with lower reading ages appear to derive greatest benefit from Signed English Texts. Students indicated a greater preference for the Signed English Texts and also reported a higher level of enjoyment and motivation with this format. Schirmer, B. R., USA Single-subject Conv N=19 The researchers The study used a single- Difficult to draw & Schaffer, L. experimental enien investigated the subject experimental educational benefits from (2010) research design. ce effects of the research design. this program as there was Implementation Qualitative study sampl Guided Reading Qualitative analyses of no control group and of the Guided using e of approach on the observations of instruction progress was not Reading observation and stude reading and interviews with the consistent across
61 | P a g e Approach with interviews nts development of teachers were conducted students. Elementary [L3 B] rangin elementary to determine fidelity to the No statistical analysis School Deaf g school deaf Guided Reading protocol. done. Students from students. Reading achievement All students regressed grade Guided reading level was measured by over the break showing s 1-5. sessions were Running Records, fluency that the improvements Partici conducted 3-4 and ability to retell and were not sustained and pants times each week include main components difficult to regain. used of the academic were also notated. Teachers did not apply ASL. year for 2 years. All students made the intervention with The Guided progress in reading fidelity according to the reading protocol achievement as researcher’s modified had 4 steps measured by Running instructions again making selection of Records but progress was claims for effectiveness levelled books modest and not difficult. (>90% sustained. With only a few accuracy), students making 1 year introduction of growth in 1 year and all the book showing regression in the (discussion of break from teaching. title, topic and Fidelity was difficult to teaching of new sustain across vocab), silent classrooms reading (interactive – teacher provides prompts, questions, predictions), and discussion (teacher assists students to reflect on the strategies they used to construct meaning)
62 | P a g e Akamatsu, C. USA Single subject 11:3 – N=5 Direct instruction NStudents were asked to Direct instruction of story (1988) design 12:4 using a think / read and summarise the grammar may help Instruction in [L3 C] years aloud protocol story. students recall story text structure: 1 and workbooks Recall of specific story events and summarise Metacognitive male, to teach story elements was analysed. short passages. strategy 4 structure and All students demonstrated Explicit instruction of instruction for femal summarisation improved performance. summarizing also shows literacy es skills. Three of the five subjects promise. development in Partici 3 days per week maintained positive gains deaf students pants for 9 days when retested 3 weeks used post intervention. Two manu students’ scores ally decreased but still above coded baseline scores Englis h. Andrews, J. F. USA Mixed methods, Ages N=14 Investigated TFive measures were Small study shows that Winograd, P., & quasi- 11- whether the use oh taken: Stories were summary of story content DeVille, G. experimental 12; 4 of ASL an parsed in ‘pausal units’ by and background in ASL (1994) design femal summaries to a three fluent adult hearing could help students to Deaf children [L2 B] e, 3 build background readers. comprehend information reading fables: male; knowledge First, a raw score of and to independently using ASL all before exposure included pausal units identify the moral of a summaries to were to reading a gave a quantity score fable. improve reading fluent story enhances Second, students were comprehension users students' scored a 3, 2, or 1 if their of understanding of retelling included the ASL their reading. To pausal unit closely, was a see if the midway or a far summaries paraphrase respectively. improve the These scores yielded a quality and weighted quantity result quantity of retells for each student’s and identification retellings. of the stories’ Quality measures were underlying made against college message (e.g., students’ retellings, where moral lesson in a pausal units were valued fable). more highly, the greater
63 | P a g e The teacher number of college signed a students that recalled summary of a them. fable in ASL The third measure was a without giving quality measure where the moral lesson. pausal units were The students measured based on how then read the many of the college fable in printed students included that English. pausal unit. "Retelling A fourth measure of scores" were weighted quality was also computed for scored by combining the retells with the above measures of ASL intervention college student proportion and without the and the closeness intervention. measure. The fifth measure was the moral lesson as told by the reader. These were also scored against the college readers’ responses on a 1-5 descriptive scale. The data showed that the ASL summary technique increased the quantity and quality of the retelling scores; it also improved deaf readers' comprehension of the moral lessons of the fables. Hoffman, M., & USA Case study Childr N=2 The study NSign graphics for the Not generalizable as Wang, Y. [L3 C] en in considered / vocabulary in the texts outcome measures are (2010) first whether adding were printed onto descriptive and sample The Use of grade sign language adhesive labels and size is very small size Graphic at graphics to the placed onto the pages of (n=2) Representation schoo books would the books. This research explored
64 | P a g e s of Sign l. promote the Observation notes were the addition of sign Language in Partici literacy used to monitor the language graphics to the Leveled Texts pants development of students' reading text of a levelled book. to Support Deaf used students who are behaviour over the course The conclusions reported Readers. ASL. D/HH. of the intervention. included students paying Intervention Adding sign language closer attention to the occurred twice graphics to levelled texts English script where weekly for 4 did appear to support the previously they had weeks. The reading performance of focused on the pictures in study used a two deaf or hard of the book. reading hearing emergent workshop model. readers. When reading Observation the modified books, the notes were used students were more likely to monitor the to focus on the English students' reading print rather than derive behaviour over meaning exclusively from the course of the the illustrations. intervention. A videotape of the participant reading a selection of the texts at the end of the intervention was used for analysis. Howell, J. J., & USA Case Study 14 N=1 Direct instruction NReading comprehension Explicit content literacy Luckner, J. L. [L3 C] years of content / assessed via the instruction may be (2003) 1 literacy Woodcock Reading beneficial for students Helping one femal strategies e.g. Mastery Test – Passage who are deaf and sign. deaf student e features such as comprehension. Made Needs replication on develop content Used titles, headings, nearly 12 months of larger numbers of literacy skills: ASL bold and italic progress on her reading students to further An action 3.4 print, figures and skills after >12 months of validate it. research report. grade captions, the instruction. Unclear how often the equiv table of contents, intervention occurred to alent the index, and replicate but the article
65 | P a g e for the glossary. clearly outlines the readin The text features teaching process. g of different types compr of expository ehens texts. The ion student was explicitly taught how to create mental imagery to help remember new vocabulary and additionally explicitly taught how to summarize. Luetke- USA Single subject 7:8 N=1 Mediated NReading comprehension Focusing on text structure Stahlman, B., design years instruction in text / assessed via Gates- and using story retelling Griffiths, C., & [L3 C] femal structure for 9 MacGinite Test of may aid comprehension Montgomery, N. e months Reading. Scored at for children who are D/HH (1998) Signin Teaching scored at a 1.6 grade and sign Development of g focused on text equivalent in both text structure Exact structure, novel vocabulary knowledge knowledge as Englis words and and comprehension. assessed by h syntax. Novel The mean number of spoken and used words were words used to retell each signed targeted text and the number of retellings of a repeatedly in the mean words per sentence deaf second week. The in the retellings were grade student teacher read and analysed. discussed the After baseline, the books, followed student’s inclusion of text by the student components was reading the analysed. Counting books and components such as retelling them to inclusion of main a naive listener characters, setting, and along with statement of the problem additional and events.
66 | P a g e activities on text The researchers then structure and prioritized text structure word meanings. targets for facilitation and retellings Student increased comprehension scores on standard test scores by 12 months in 12 months and the quality and quantity of her retellings improved. Schirmer, B., & USA Single case 6 N=6 To examine the Children’s reading Small sample limits Woolsey, L. study childr effect of abilities were assessed generalizability. (1997) [L3 C] en comprehension via the Gates-MacGinitie Students may benefit from Effect of who questions that Reading Tests using DRTA as a method teacher are require analysis, Quantitative and being encouraged to think questions on D/HH synthesis, and qualitative methods were deeply about what they the reading 10:9- evaluation on the used to analyse the data. read – evaluating, comprehension 12:5 reading For the quantitative synthesising and of deaf children years comprehension analysis, we used simple analysing text – moving 2 of deaf children descriptive statistics on beyond literal questions. males A modified participant’s responses to , 4 Directed the comprehension femal Reading questions and written es Thinking Activity responses to the story Partici 1x 30-45 min cloze. pants session per For the qualitative used week x 8 weeks analysis, a content either analysis was conducted conce on the answers to ptual comprehension questions sign to identify and categorize using any patterns in these Englis data. h The use of directed word reading-thinking activities order improved the participant’s with ability to answer Englis questions requiring
67 | P a g e h analysis, synthesis and morp evaluation. heme s, or Ameri can Sign Langu age (ASL) synta x
68 | P a g e AREA OF INTEREST: WRITING
Citation Country Study Design Partic Sample Size Intervention D Measures and Outcome Applications for & ipant (research e Educational Practice Quality s summary) (age, gend er, heari ng loss, other chara cteris tics) Appanah, T. M., USA Mixed methods, Pre- N=15 The authors EData sources included The rubric served as a & Hoffman, N. Quasi- lingua investigated the i pre- and post-writing scaffold in helping (2014) experimental lly impact of the samples, teacher students improve their Using Pre- post-design profo Deaf Student perceptions of student writing by helping them Scaffolded Self- [L2 B] undly Editing Rubric rubric use, and recording internalize knowledge Editing to Deaf (DSER) as a of revisions made. about their writing and Improve the stude self-editing tool Revisions included use this knowledge to Writing of nts on the writing making changes in their evaluate and improve it. Signing from performance of writing according to the The research showed it Adolescent a pre-lingually seven rubric categories: was most useful in Deaf Students reside profoundly deaf Parts of Speech, Verb conjunction with student- ntial adolescent Rules, Word Choice, teacher discussion with schoo students. The Sentence Structure, feedback on the l for DSER was Paragraphs, Mechanics, strategies they used for the developed by the and Writing Process. revision. Deaf first author. Additionally 8 students The use of rubrics leads acros The DSER were interviewed to students to assess their s 4 aligned with gather information about own writing. This self- classr teacher the use, and value of the assessment enables ooms feedback and rubric along with their students to develop self- in literature on perceptions of their writing editing skills to improve grade characteristics of ability. their writing performance. s 7- Deaf students’ Writing samples were Supplying a rubric allowed 12. writing including blind scored by the raters students to better use
69 | P a g e Partici verb errors, on a 5-point scale using a metacognition and take pants sentence modified version of the responsibility for their own used structure, run on Six Trait Analytical Writing writing quality and editing. ASL sentences and Rubric and a mean score as fragments, calculated. All 15 their difficult with students’ scores improved first syntactically after the intervention. langu complex Using a sign test, the age sentences, lack researcher found a of elaboration, significant difference limited word between the pre-writing choice, use of and post-writing scores. adjectives and The two-tail p value score conjunctions and was .023. minimal or Although all students in incorrect use of the sample increased articles, their mean scores in word adjectives and choice, sentence fluency, prepositions. and conventions, results All students and indicated that only the teachers were interviewed group showed trained in small significant improvement in groups on how their writing. to use the DSER. Each category in the rubric was reviewed and explained. Students were also trained on how to apply the rubric to one of their writing samples. Dostal, H. M., & USA Quasi- Cond N=23 This study TThe analysis The Strategic Interactive K. A. Wolbers experimental ucted investigates the Th demonstrates that a focus Writing Intervention (2014). [L2 B] at a impact of Th on ASL did not detract (SIWI) teaching strategies Developing reside Strategic and h from students' writing could increase the length
70 | P a g e Language and ntial Interactive growth in English. of written narrative texts, Writing Skills of state Writing Instead, a focus on especially in students with Deaf and Hard schoo Instruction building ASL and written higher level language of Hearing l for (SIWI) on the English proficiency skills. Students: A the development of simultaneously resulted in Implementing the SIWI Simultaneous deaf signed significant gains in both teaching criteria will be Approach. in one expressive language and writing. important for transfer of fourth language (ASL) This research these outcomes and this grade and written demonstrated an increase article also includes classr English. in the length of written information on the oom, texts following a five week background and key two intervention. Increase in tenets of the SIWI fifth text length, as measured program, as well as grade by the number of t-units, descriptions of what this classr was greater in the higher looks like in teaching ooms, language group than the practice in the classroom. and lower language group, two suggesting that students sixth with more highly grade developed language were classr better able to take ooms. advantage of the teaching These provided. class This article also reports es on increased MLU and a includ reduction in the number of e the unintelligible utterances entire (UU) in students ASL middl skills following this e intervention. grade s (grad es 4– 6) popul ation of the schoo
71 | P a g e l.
Easterbrooks, USA Quasi- Three N=3 This study used Experimental testing A visual tool can be a S. R., & Stoner, experimental adole a single-subject procedures were useful scaffold to remind M. [L2 B] scent changing conducted in the students’ students to include (2006). stude criterion design natural classroom setting. elaborative language such Using a Visual nts in an attempt to Baseline data were as adjectives in their Tool to Increase who fill the gap collected on each student writing. Adjectives in are between practice before implementation of Further research is the Written D/HH and research. the procedures needed to investigate Language of and The purpose The experimental whether a reduction in key Students Who attend was to test the procedures took about 30 action and story grammar Are Deaf or ed a use of a visual min or less each day. The elements that Hard of Hearing day tool with deaf or procedures were carried accompanied adjective schoo hard of hearing out individually with each increase will reverse l for students in student during the again. This may occur stude writing a traditional guided writing following more experience nts response to age- time established in the and increased who appropriate classroom. independence using the are action pictures. The use of a visual tool in visual tool. deaf Three the practice of writing, and adolescent along with faded teacher hard students who support, helped each of were deaf or student involved in the hearin hard of hearing study increase the g were taught how descriptiveness of his or partici to write a her writing, as measured pated response to a by the number of in this series of adjectives in his or her study. questions using writing samples. However, Two a visual tool and while the number of partici were guided adjectives increased, the pants through an number of action words were experience of and story grammar male modelled, elements decreased. and shared, guided, Further research is one and independent needed to address how to
72 | P a g e was attempts. help students increase femal descriptiveness while e. maintaining action and story grammar. Wolbers, K. A. USA Quasi- Deaf N=33 This study TThe pre- and post-test Writing instruction (2008a) experimental middl investigates the Th measures were scored, following the Strategic Strategic and Pre- and post- e effects of using h according to rubrics, for and Interactive Writing Interactive tests schoo Strategic and evidence of primary traits, Instruction (SIWI) Writing [L2 B] l Interactive contextual language, and principles of collaborative Instruction stude Writing conventions. The interaction, explicit use of (SIWI): nts Instruction multivariate analysis of writing samples and Apprenticing who (SIWI) with deaf variance (MANOVA) and discussions of the Deaf Students use middle school follow-up univariate metalinguistic translation in the Ameri students who analyses were statistically between ASL and English Construction of can use American significant. had a positive impact on English Text Sign Sign Language Furthermore, effect sizes high and low level writing Langu as their L1 and (d) were large to very characteristics of D/HH age written English large, ranging from 1.27 students. A key strategy as as L2. to 2.65, indicating SIWI to for translation was the their Using a pre-test- be an effective approach inclusion of a ‘two-board’ L1 post-test control with deaf L2 writers. system, where ways in and group design, which to communicate writte the research information in each n explores whether language was displayed Englis students and discussed. h as receiving SIWI Students receiving L2. made specific ‘mini-lessons’ on significantly aspects of language such greater gains as combining sentences, compared to using articles and those not avoiding run-ons or receiving SIWI sentence fragments on a number of showed a significant variables. improvement of their use of these aspects in their final written productions. These outcomes were highly dependent on the knowledge and skills of
73 | P a g e the teacher, who incorporated SIWI components in her pedagogical practice prior to being involved in this research. It is likely that teachers new to these strategies could take more time to reach a level of skill that would result in such positive improvements in their students’ writing. Wolbers, K., A. USA Quasi- Partici N=16 Use of balanced Pre- and post- These findings suggest (2008b) experimental pants and interactive assessment battery that involving students as Using Balanced with pre- and used writing included; active participants in and Interactive post-tests ASL. instruction The Writing measure. writing instruction / guided Writing [L2 B] Heari intervention took Students wrote about a writing may lead to Instruction to ng place in two personal event or positive outcomes. Improve the losse elementary experience. The authors acknowledge Higher Order s classrooms (N = In order to detect the skill of the teacher in and Lower range 8) and one progress with both higher- providing this intervention Order Writing d middle school level and lower-level with fidelity – the teacher Skills of Deaf from classroom (N = writing skills, an analytic needs to be able to Students mild- 8) for a total of rubric was designed. It revoice or reformulate profo 21 days. has four main categories student comments und The instructional which provide overall (Mariage, 2001), (b) 8 activity used as scores for high-level model writing strategies middl the intervention writing skills such as through a think aloud e was Morning primary traits and low- protocol , (c) provide schoo Message (MM; level writing skills such as verbal scaffolds as l Englert, Berry, & contextual language, needed, (d) allow a 8 Dunsmore, contextual conventions, gradual transfer of control eleme 2001; Englert & and total words. to students, (e) facilitate ntary Dunsmore, Reading measure. The the active participation of 7 girls 2002; Mariage, SORT-R or Slosson Oral all members, and (f) know (44%) 1996, 2001) Reading Test—Revised when to inquire, explain, 9 MM is generally (Slosson & Nicholson, offer an opinion, confirm, boys a 15- to 30-min, 1990) was used to obtain or listen.
74 | P a g e (56%) daily writing students’ word It is a potential way to . activity, during identification but was not focus on both higher and 4 which teachers normed on the D/HH lower level writing skills in stude and students population. a holistic way with an nts collaboratively Revising/editing authentic audience. with construct a piece measure. additi of text. A clear Students were given a onal outline of all the story in need of editing disabi steps is included and revising. The story lities. in the article. contained mechanical The final co- constructed errors, coherence, text piece is then structure, and sense- published and making problems. Scoring shared with an using a rubric with weight authentic of each error correction. audience. A comparison of pre- and The teachers post-test scores on both were trained in writing and reading the method and measures a one-way provided with multiple analyses of ongoing support variance was used to and mentoring. detect any school-level Possible effects. adaptations were Students made significant also considered gains with use of genre- including an specific traits, use of additional step of contextual language, ASL gloss, editing/revising skills, and symbols or word identification as pictures and defined by paired t tests. having the class Students showed neither discuss gains nor losses with translation into conventions and total English. The word count. inclusion of authentic events to utilize in the intervention was
75 | P a g e also considered if required.
Wolbers, K. A., USA Quasi- Deaf N=29 With the AStudents, whether high or Teaching techniques et al. experimental middl implementation T low achieving, described in Strategic (2012) [L2 B] e- of Strategic and Fh demonstrated statistically Interactive Writing “I Was Born schoo Interactive u significant gains with Instruction (SIWI) are Full Deaf." l Writing writing length, sentence likely to have a positive Written stude Instruction complexity, and sentence impact on writing length, Language nts (SIWI) in awareness. sentence complexity and Outcomes after previous studies, Subordinate clauses were the awareness of correct 1 Year of students have found to be an area of English sentences when Strategic and demonstrated difficulty, and follow up implemented with fidelity. Interactive significant gains strategies were Issues remain around Writing in high-level suggested. implementing the complex Instruction writing skills An analysis of function set of criteria described (e.g., text word data, specifically but the positive outcomes structure) but prepositions and articles, suggest this teaching have also made revealed different patterns technique could be a gains with of written language useful professional English grammar growth by language group learning area for teachers skills. (e.g., American Sign of students whose literacy This 1-year Language users, oral levels are not progressing study expands students, users of with regular literacy on prior research English-based sign). instruction. by longitudinally examining the written language growth (i.e., writing length, sentence complexity, sentence awareness, and function words) of 29 deaf middle-school students.
76 | P a g e A repeated- measures analysis of variance with a between- subjects variable for literacy achievement level was used to examine gains over time and the intervention's efficacy when used with students of various literacy levels. Wolbers, K. A., USA Quasi- Deaf N=29 This study NStudents and teachers Using SIWI techniques, et al. experimental and investigated the / participated in SIWI for where writing instruction (2014) [L2 B] hard extent to which one full academic school focuses on interactive Deaf Writers' of D/HH students year. sessions incorporating Application of hearin with diverse ASL Results indicate that ASL metalinguistic American Sign g exposure transfer is found in the discussions, especially in Language (D/HH incorporated writings of students with the area of translating Knowledge to ) ASL features in varied L1 experiences, between ASL and English stude their English and that SIWI can lead to English, can reduce the nts writing. significant reductions of amount of ASL structures who It also ASL features in writing. in students’ writing and use or investigated the The findings suggest that lead to higher level written are impact of one bilingual literacy programs English texts. devel year of Strategic where there is an Teachers may require oping and Interactive emphasis on implicit comprehensive Ameri Writing language competence professional learning to can Instruction and metalinguistic implement the SIWI Sign (SIWI) to knowledge can support teaching criteria with Langu increase D/HH students in the fidelity. age students' development of written (ASL) metalinguistic English. as knowledge and
77 | P a g e their linguistic L1 competence, D/HH and adole subsequently scent reduce ASL stude features in nts in writing. Grade Strategic s 6-8 interactive (mea writing n instruction age= (SIWI) principles 13.2) include providing with space for divers expression of e ASL ideas in both expos languages. ure Students were also explicitly taught strategies for the writing processes of planning, organising, writing and revising. All classes received three to four SIWI sessions per week that were approximately 45 minutes in length, for an average of 2.5 hours of instruction per week.
78 | P a g e Wolbers, K. A., USA Multiple-probe D/HH N=31 The purpose of FBaseline and intervention The use of the SIWI et al. case studies eleme N=5 this study was to i writing samples were writing guidelines may (2015) Quasi- ntary examine the taken and common have a moderate impact The Writing experimental stude effects of SIWI patterns of improvement on students’ inclusion of Performance of [L2 B] nts on the written identified in student higher level structural and Elementary (Grad expression of writing. text organization aspects Students es 3- D/HH The effect of instruction of instruction, persuasion, Receiving 5) elementary was most readily and to a lesser extent, Strategic and students across demonstrated with recount, when compared Interactive recount/personal information reports and to baseline measures. Writing narrative, persuasive writing, Instruction, information whereas several sessions Grantee report, and of recount instruction Submission persuasive were needed for students genres. to satisfy performance criteria. Additionally, pre- and post-data from a larger group of students (N = 31) were compared. Wilcoxon signed-rank test statistics were statistically significant for each genre with medium to high effect sizes. Data suggest SIWI is a promising practice with elementary students. Schirmer, B. R., USA Quantitative & Stude N=10 Investigates the Data were collected over Findings suggest that Bailey, J., & Qualitative nts usefulness of an the course of 1 academic teachers can use a writing Fitzgerald, S. cross-sectional from assessment year. The language arts rubric to help their M. design fifth & rubric as a teacher implemented the students who are deaf to (1999) [L3 B] seven teaching strategy instruction, evaluated the recognize some qualities Using a Writing th for writing for students’ composition of writing and incorporate Assessment grade middle years using a writing these qualities into their Rubric for s. D/HH students. assessment rubric, and own compositions. Writing Majori Writing provided feedback to the May be more useful if the Development of ty of Assessment students based upon the writing is pre- assessed Children Who partici Rubric. The rubric categories. and the rubric is geared
79 | P a g e Are Deaf. pants rubric included A mixed methodology was towards student’s use seven qualities used to analyse the data. individual needs. ASL. of writing The For the quantitative As some traits did not 1 oral qualities analysis, evaluations of improve it may mean that stude included were; participant’s explicit teaching needs to nt response to compositions, baseline: 1 be incorporated or genre 3 prompt/sequenc month post intervention specific rubrics but this is used e, story and post-test 2 months for future research. conta development, before the conclusion of ct organization, intervention, served as sign word choice, the criterion measure). details, sentence For the qualitative structures, and analysis, evaluations of all mechanics. A 4- compositions using a point scale was content analysis were used to rate conducted. performance Students showed The participants significant improvement in were instructed four writing qualities in how (topic, content, assessment organization & story rubrics can be development) but no used as a improvement in text scoring guide. structure, voice/audience, The writing word choice, sentence assessment structures, and rubric was mechanics. introduced. Each trait outlined in the rubric was taught and students practised evaluating writing with it. The teacher then evaluated the participants own writing with the
80 | P a g e rubric and provided them with the ratings.
Strassman, B. USA Non- Deaf N=69 Using a non- AAnalysis showed Due to the non- K., & O'Dell, K. experimental and experimental increases in content-area experimental design, the (2012) design hard design, the vocabulary, text length, use of captioning to Using Open The present of researchers and inclusion of main support the writing Captions to study hearin explored the ideas and details for texts process is not Revise Writing incorporated g effect of revised in the captioning recommended without in Digital both quantitative middl captioning as software. additional investigation. Stories and qualitative e part of the Given the non- Analysis of the texts, as Composed by measures. schoo writing process experimental design, it is well as interviews with d/Deaf and [L3 C] l of individuals not possible to determine student participants Hard of Hearing stude who are d/Deaf the extent to which the suggest that the images in Students nts and hard of results could be attributed the captioned version may (Grad hearing. to captioned revisions. have functioned as a es 6- Sixty-nine deaf However, the findings do memory prompt and 8) and hard of suggest that the images supported the inclusion of Scho hearing middle acted as procedural content specific ol A: school students facilitators, triggering vocabulary and detailed 10 composed recall of vocabulary and content. stude responses to details. nts (5 four writing-to- femal learn activities in e/5 a word male) processor. Scho Two ol B: compositions 24 were revised and stude published with nts software that (13 displayed texts femal as captions to e/11 digital images; male) two Scho compositions ol C: were revised 33 with a word
81 | P a g e stude processor and nts published on (14 paper. femal e/19 male) Williams, C. USA Qualitative Six N=6 The study Data were collected twice This research describes (2011) Descriptive case Kinde describes an weekly. In all, 45 some of the discussions Adapted study design rgarte adapted form of interactive writing lessons arising during interactive Interactive [L3 C] ns "interactive were videotaped, which writing sessions. Writing stude writing" were then transcribed into While qualitative Instruction with nts (McCarrier, traditional orthography. descriptions suggest Kindergarten (two Pinnell, & The teacher was student engagement, no Children Who boys, Fountas, 2000) interviewed informally on measures of literacy Are Deaf or four and examines its a bimonthly basis, and development or support Hard of Hearing girls). effectiveness as these conversations were for generalization to other Heari an approach to captured in handwritten cohorts of D/HH children ng beginning writing field notes. can be assumed. losse instruction for Findings of the study s young children suggest that interactive range who are D/HH. writing has the potential to d The lessons support early writing from ranged in length development in young mild from 10 to 20 deaf and hard of hearing to minutes. children, if supplemented profo by techniques that make und. the phonology of English Two visible. childr en used Ameri can Sign Langu age (ASL) as their
82 | P a g e prima ry mean s of comm unicat ion. For two childr en, their first langu age was Englis h (spee ch), althou gh both childr en also signe d. One child used Englis h- based signs to comm unicat e, and
83 | P a g e anoth er used a combi nation of Signin g Exact Englis h and speec h Enns, C., Hall, Canada Qualitative study Deaf N=14 Looks at the The data collected Not able to be generalised R., Isaac, B., & [L3 C] stude impact on included videotapes of all – no significant MacDonald, P. nts in students of classroom sessions, quantitative outcomes (2007) three having writing teacher interviews before resulted from the study. Process and classr workshops in and after the classroom Writing skills didn’t Product: ooms, ASL and English intervention, individual develop more than would Creating Stories rangin for their writing student interviews and be usually expected in the with Deaf g in implementation assessments (ASL and 6 months Students age and involved written English), and Attitude to literacy, from working with samples of students' improved social 9 to three classrooms work. Which is discussed interactions and increased 11 daily for from the perspective of self-confidence were years. approximately the teachers, as well as reported through teacher Partici one hour over a four that are discussed feedback – no pants three-week from the perspective of measurements reported. used period. the students: the ASL. The typical steps importance of self- of confidence, the preparing/planni development of student ng, drafting, independence, application revising, editing, of knowledge from ASL, and publishing and sense of ownership. were carried out Students’ language by all students in abilities were measured both languages by analysing a videotaped
84 | P a g e to create stories language sample of the and produce students describing the final products in same wordless picture both videotaped book, a written sample, as American Sign well as the administration Language and of an ASL classifier written English. comprehension task.
85 | P a g e 5. SECTION 4: DISCUSSION
4.1 OVERVIEW AND LIMITATIONS The remit of this systematic review was to examine and summarise the research that investigates literacy learning strategies for children and young people who are deaf and hard of hearing and use sign language. Given the historically low reading achievement levels of many deaf students graduating from high school, (Qi & Mitchell, 2012) the rationale for this review includes whether it is possible to identify issues that are common to both deaf and hearing literacy learners and whether instructional practices for D/HH learners align or differ from those instructional practices found to be effective with hearing literacy learners and/or readers who are English language learners. It is notable that a large proportion of research into sign language and literacy education comes from countries where the practice of teaching children bimodally and bilingually takes place, so publications from the USA, UK and the Scandinavian countries featured most prominently in this review. While further research in Australian context is recommended, the international studies described in this review retain strong relevance to our local setting.
Potential limitations need to be considered to frame this discussion of literacy learning strategies for children and young people who are deaf or hard of hearing and who use sign language. Although an exhaustive review of the literature was systematically undertaken, it is possible that relevant studies were missed. Additionally, limiting the review to peer-reviewed studies means dissertation studies, unpublished studies, studies reported in book chapters, and studies published as part of conference proceedings were not included. A final limitation of this document is associated with the interpretive process of reading, summarising, and determining implications for each study included in Table 2 by at least two researchers. Although care, consistency and adherence to the PRISMA protocol were guiding principles throughout this process, it is possible that other researchers using similar procedures may have summarised the findings of the identified studies differently. In short, the limitations of this review should be taken into consideration when using its results and conclusions.
Underpinning reliable findings are the rigorous standards of high quality research. When considering the results in this review, it is also important to consider the overall quantity and quality of the identified research. As already described, studies were rated both on strength and quality of evidence using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Rating Scale (JHNEBP). A necessary conclusion in relation to the dimension of research quality is that, in general, few studies focus on literacy intervention for sign language learners, and that the majority of relevant research is quasi-experimental in design and rated from moderate to low quality.
After identifying the articles to be included in this review, they were first separated into topics aligned with the areas emphasised by major reviews into reading instruction: phonological awareness and phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. Literature on writing was also included in this review, as were areas specifically pertaining to students who are D/HH and use sign language identified as (i) the use of fingerspelling, and (ii) the process of analysis and
86 | P a g e translation between sign language and the majority spoken language. This discussion section is organised around these topic areas.
4.2 PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND PHONICS
The research on phonemic awareness with readers who are D/HH has focused on examining how deaf readers code printed words cognitively. Such investigations have investigated the capacity of deaf readers to use phonology in word recognition, with the literature only beginning to provide guidance about strategies that can support signing D/HH learners to decode the graphemes of English print. Five studies in total were identified that specifically looked at intervention for the cohort of students who use a signed language as their main mode of communication. These studies varied in quality and applicability to educational practice with no two articles using the same research design or including participants of the same age. The identified studies, however, all focused on using visual phonics to teach the grapheme to phoneme relationship to children who are D/HH and use sign language as their communication mode.
Visual phonics incorporates distinct hand shapes and movements for each phoneme in the English language and has been used to clarify the sound-symbol relationship between spoken English and print (Waddy-Smith & Wilson, 2003). Specifically, the hand shapes of visual phonics imitate an aspect of the oral movements made during spoken production of a phoneme with the aim of providing a visual or kinaesthetic link to the grapheme (Cihon, Gardner, Morrison, & Paul, 2008).
Beal-Alvarez, Lederberg and Easterbrooks (2012) found that explicit instruction in grapheme phoneme correspondence (GPC) utilizing Visual Phonics, combined with the multisensory approach of their program, Foundations, led to students’ increased ability to decode and identify words that were taught during the intervention. The children were, however, unable to transfer their decoding skills from known to unknown words following the intervention. Another limitation of this research (and its subsequent replicability) is that it is unclear if the acquisition of GPCs was unique to the visual phonics aspect of the program or due to a combination of both the use of visual phonics and other aspects of the Foundations program.
Narr’s (2008) research was lower in quality and potentially less replicable due to a lack of specification of aspects of the methodology. This study utilised symbols associated with visual phonics in their intervention. The findings showed that the students were able to decode words when the visual phonics symbols were provided. It is unclear, however, whether the symbols supported the students’ knowledge of visual phonics and whether this knowledge could be transferred to decode novel words without the support of the written symbols. It is also unclear if visual phonics and grapheme to phoneme correspondence were taught in a sequential and systematic way or incidentally. These limitations make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the value of visual phonics symbols and their facility for enabling transference of decoding skills to unknown words during reading.
An earlier study by Trezek and Wang (2006) researched the implications of using a phonics-based reading system with students who were deaf or hard of hearing and
87 | P a g e use sign language. These researchers began with a phonics-based direct instruction curriculum and supplemented it with visual phonics for participants in kindergarten and first grade. Results indicated that after one year of instruction the students demonstrated improvements in word reading, pseudo word decoding, and reading comprehension as measured by standardised assessments. Trezek and colleagues (2007) then undertook further study into the effectiveness of using visual phonics in conjunction with Direct Instruction reading programs. The participants were students who were D/HH, including those who sign. Results of the investigation again revealed that, given one year of instruction, students who are deaf or hard of hearing including signing students demonstrated statistically significant improvements in beginning reading skills as measured by standardized assessments of the sentence writing phoneme, sentence writing spelling, phonemic awareness segmentation, phonemic awareness deletion, phonics onsets, and phonics rimes.
In their most recent research Trezek and Hancock (2013) further investigated the use of a direct instruction program supplemented by visual phonics with students in a sign bilingual setting. The intervention utilized the first 20 lessons of the Direct Instruction Corrective Reading-Decoding (Level A) curriculum (Engelmann, Carnine, & Johnson, 2008) with support from visual phonics. Results indicated that children who are D/HH and who use sign language may be able to link phonemes to printed letters and words more effectively through the use of mouth movements with the support of visual phonics. Trezek and Hancock (2013) also found that the ability to identify phonemes in isolation alone may not be sufficient to foster generalization, instead, the ability to blend phonemes and read words appear to be necessary elements.
The aforementioned studies support visual phonics as an emerging strategy with preliminary evidence of effectiveness. More research is required to further validate this strategy, however. Such future research needs to consider, for example, the key aspects of intervention studies conducted with hearing children which highlight the importance of blending, segmenting and the systematic and sequential teaching of grapheme phoneme correspondences as part of successful intervention strategies.
4.2.1 MORPHOGRAPHEMICS While researchers have looked at the capacity of deaf readers to use phonology in word recognition in previous studies, there has been developing interest in morphographemics, and fingerspelling as possible alternative strategies that may support deaf readers who use varying communication modes to decode written print. Morphographemics is the relationship between a meaningful unit (or morpheme) and the grapheme that represents it. Morphographemics incorporates knowledge of the meanings of affixes, roots, and base words, the ability to deconstruct words into their component morphographs, and the ability to create new words or to change the grammatical class of a word by combining morphographs (Gaustad, 2000). Morphographic skills and phonological skills have been found to be comparable predictors of reading comprehension in hearing students and have also been found to make a unique contribution to decoding accuracy (Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006). Therefore, it has been suggested that improving D/HH students’ morphographic analysis and affix meaning
88 | P a g e knowledge may positively influence their decoding skills (Carlisle, 2000), vocabulary and reading comprehension (Carlson, Jenkins, Li, & Brownell, 2013; Dyer, MacSweeney, Szczerbinski, Green, & Campbell, 2003).
The role of morphological processing specifically in respect to word learning and word identification for D/HH learners is seen as a promising area for research due to morphological units being visually accessible, morphographic correspondence being more stable in English and also transmissible through sign language (Berthiaume & Daigle, 2014). Accordingly, this systematic review identified one study by Trussell and Easterbrooks (2015) targeting morphographic instruction for D/HH students who sign. The intervention targeted the teaching of morphographics, specifically word analysis and affix meaning, through scripted lessons modelled after the Spelling through Morphographs direct instruction curriculum.
Trussell and Easterbrooks (2015) found that morphographic instruction positively impacted participants’ morphographic analysis skills and that these changes were maintained over time. While the participants showed increased ability to break words apart, they did not display equal proficiency in identifying the underlying meaning of the affixes. These findings suggest that bilingual signing students may require ongoing explicit instruction in the area of morphographs to enable generalization. Although word dissection skills are positively correlated with reading comprehension (Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Nagy et al., 2006; Nunes, Burman, Evans, & Bell, 2010) reading comprehension was not assessed in this intervention study. This type of instruction, however, shows promise as it provides an alternative meaning-orientated, word identification strategy (Mayberry, del Giudice, & Lieberman, 2011) for this population of children.
4.2.2 FINGERSPELLING Correlational research in this area suggests that the ability to identify finger spelled words relates closely to reading and spelling performance and that competence in fingerspelling and signing can predict reading and writing skills (Puente, Alvarado & Herrera, 2006). It may be that fingerspelling facilitates the internal representation of words and supports reading acquisition. Three research studies focusing on the use of fingerspelling to support literacy development in D/HH children met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic literature review.
The first is an older study by Hirsh-Pasek (1987) who reported on a training task that examined whether use of fingerspelling decoding could improve word identification. The findings showed that students were, in fact, able to identify more sight words when they were encouraged to decode in fingerspelling. Later, Roos (2013) undertook an ethnographic investigation of the development of fingerspelling in six young deaf children. The longitudinal nature of this research provides rich data, describing how fingerspelling can support children’s written language development and their understanding of the relationship between letters, words, signs, lip patterns and voicing.
Roos’ (2013) study highlights the developmental nature of fingerspelling and suggests that children’s developmental use of lexicalized fingerspelling may support their learning. Lexicalised fingerspelling incorporates sign-like characteristics with finger spelled words; changes of hand shape, orientation, location and movement
89 | P a g e combine to make the fingerspelling more sign-like. It can also be used in combination with spatial placement and movement to convey grammatical information simultaneously with the production of the finger spelled word.
The third study by Haptonstall-Nykaza and Schick (2007) investigated the impact of lexicalised fingerspelling on novel word learning for 21 students, aged from four to 14 years. The authors concluded that incorporating lexicalised fingerspelling with other representations results in better recognition and use of novel words. The intervention strategies reviewed in this article included the use of chaining, where signs, written representations and images were produced in a chain with lexicalized finger-spelled words to encourage shared meaning and transliteration. In this study, lexicalized fingerspelling had a positive impact on participants’ ability to write, read and fingerspell new vocabulary. The authors explain their results by suggesting that lexicalized fingerspelling may provide a phonological link between the ASL sign and concept for the word, and the written English representation.
Thus the two most recent studies suggest that incorporating fingerspelling can facilitate children’s literacy development. Specific recommendations include using lexicalized fingerspelling in a range of early communicative contexts, including prior to the recognition of printed words. Correlational findings also suggest that lexicalized fingerspelling used in communication and book reading with very young children can function as a key pre-literacy strategy and support the development of both reading and writing.
4.2.3 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR WORD IDENTIFICATION The effectiveness of the graphic representation of signs in developing word identification skills for hearing-impaired beginning readers who used either Pidgin sign or Signing Exact English was investigated by Stoefen-Fisher and Lee (1989). They investigated whether students were better able to identify words within their spoken/sign vocabulary when presented in a print-plus-graphic-sign condition compared to a print-only condition. Results indicated that graphic representation of the sign attached to the written word may assist in immediate word identification and immediate recall when reading the printed word. There was no evidence, however, of sustained identification skills and therefore its utility is inconclusive.
An additional study by Reitsma (2009) looked at the development of word identification skills in D/HH signing students through the use of computer-based reading exercises. Reitsma (2009) investigated the effects of emphasising either the meaning or the spelling of a word when teaching signing children to read. Two computer-based exercises were compared. In one exercise the meaning of the word, represented through a picture or a sign, was presented on screen and the child was asked to select the correct word from three orthographically similar printed words. In the other exercise, a printed word was presented, and the child was invited to select the correct word meaning as represented by pictures or signs. Corrective feedback was given in each case.
The results reveal that using computer-assisted practice for word identification appeared to be efficient, with emphasizing the word spelling rather than meaning most effective for learning to read novel words for this group of deaf children. The findings also suggested that when the word meaning was represented by a drawing
90 | P a g e rather than a sign it was slightly more memorable. Reitsma (2009) concludes that getting children to closely attend to letter structure in words by providing orthographically similar distractors may be useful in teaching new words, but that both the orthographical structure of words and the meaning should be targeted to support further reading development.
4.3 VOCABULARY
The link between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension has been well established in hearing readers, with early vocabulary level found to be a powerful predictor of later reading comprehension (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Hairrell, Rupley, & Simmons, 2011). A strong vocabulary has additionally been shown to have a positive and broad impact on thinking, speaking, and writing (Verhoeven & van Leeuwe & Vermeer, 2011).
Accomplished and poor D/HH readers also show significant differences in vocabulary knowledge suggesting that vocabulary knowledge may be a good predictor of reading comprehension for this cohort, just as it is for hearing children (Daza, Philips-Silver, Ruiz-Cuadra, & Lopez-Lopez, 2014). Kyle and Harris (2010), for example, found that vocabulary knowledge of children who are D/HH was longitudinally related to reading at word, sentence and text comprehension levels. A correlation study by Hermans and colleagues (2008) looked at the relationship between vocabulary and story comprehension skills in Sign Language of the Netherlands and written Dutch in signing deaf children. A strong positive correlation was found between sign vocabulary and reading vocabulary along with a positive correlation between vocabulary and skills in story comprehension, both signed and written. Although this was not an intervention study it does continue to highlight the importance of deep and broad vocabulary knowledge and the positive effects this can have on individuals’ communication and understanding of what they read. The literature continues to suggest that children who are D/HH, regardless of communication mode, are delayed in their attainment of vocabulary, have smaller lexicons, learn new words at slower rates, and have a more limited range of contexts in which to learn words (Cole & Flexer, 2015; Easterbrooks & Estes, 2007; Lederberg, 2003; Paul, 2009; Rose, McAnally, & Quigley, 2004; Trezek, Wang, & Paul, 2010). The aforementioned studies and findings point to the value of focused vocabulary intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing including those whose communication mode is sign language.
In addition to the background discussion provided above, there are few examples in the literature of vocabulary intervention research addressing practices that have been tested and demonstrated as being effective with D/HH children. Fewer still that focus on students who use sign language as their chosen mode of communication. Only four studies that examined the effect a specific program, method, approach, or set of activities had on vocabulary learning in sign-bilingual children were identified in this systematic review.
Trussell and Easterbrooks (2014) investigated the effect of an enhanced storybook reading intervention on the vocabulary of young signing D/HH children. The intervention utilised dialogic reading (DR) which incorporated scripted questions and
91 | P a g e picture prompts. Five question prompts were used during DR to elicit language and develop target vocabulary. The acronym CROWD represents the first letter in each question type: completion, recall, open-ended, wh-, and distancing questions (Whitehurst, Epstein et al., 1994). The scripted dialogic storybook intervention targeted specific vocabulary through the varying types of question forms. Results indicated that there was a functional relationship between enhanced storybook reading and correctly identified picture vocabulary items. The participants were able to learn novel picture vocabulary through the use of dialogic reading of storybooks, lending support for the use of this reading intervention with sign-bilingual children.
An additional study that utilised books with English-language learners who are deaf and who sign was undertaken by Cannon, Fredrick and Easterbrooks (2010). This study evaluated the effectiveness of using repeated readings of DVD books presented in American Sign Language to increase the vocabulary recognition of the participants. The researchers used expository books featuring math vocabulary. Four participants aged 10 to 12 engaged in vocabulary activities using the DVD math expository books read through ASL. Results indicated that target vocabulary words did not increase when the participants were shown the DVD only, but did increase when a pre-teaching component was added before viewing the DVD. The pre-teaching involved showing the participants the sign, giving a definition with both an example and a non-example, and directing attention to where the words appeared in the text. Limitations of this study include the small sample size and the lack of a comparison group of deaf or hard-of-hearing participants who were not ELLs. This study was focused on the identification and signing of words recognized in print. Additional research is needed to determine whether this type of intervention increases students’ comprehension of vocabulary meaning.
The third identified study was Dimling (2010), whose intervention targeted participants’ recognition, production and comprehension of two types of vocabulary: Dolch words and Bridge phrases. All students improved across three dimensions on both the words and phrases. Some of the instructional components previously discussed as important for developing both the quality and quantity of vocabulary in typical children, ELLs and children with disabilities were incorporated. Specifically, rich vocabulary teaching involving semantic mapping of words, modelling of word use, and practising using the targeted words in context, was part of the intervention. The strategy of ‘chaining’ was also applied when words were introduced, with written words matched with the finger-spelled equivalent, and then the sign equivalent. This ‘chaining’ strategy has been shown to be of benefit in other research within this review, adding strength to its use with the population of interest to this review.
Lastly, a study that targeted vocabulary as well as other early literacy skills was described by Golos and Moses (2015). The study examined the impact of an educational video series in ASL that was supplemented by activities designed to promote early literacy skills. The video was theme based and involved an adventure story. It targeted specific and key early ASL and emergent literacy skills, including vocabulary, letter recognition, concepts of print, and aspects of story comprehension (e.g., characters, settings, sequence of the main events), as well as grammatical features of ASL. Each video focused on ten targeted words taught via chaining. Participants go on an adventure that entails sequencing pictures taken
92 | P a g e during their adventure; making a book using the sequenced pictures; creating sentences for each page; playing a word game using the targeted words; and reading the newly created book aloud. Supplementary activities included word games to help the children make connections between fingerspelling, sign and print, sequencing pictures linked the video story, and discussion of story structure.
Overall, the results of this final vocabulary-oriented study suggest that the children displayed many of the targeted skills during subsequent classroom activities, with descriptive statistics showing higher mean scores in targeted skills, particularly in vocabulary learning. Findings indicate the potential benefits of educational media presented in ASL and illustrate how supplemental classroom activities facilitate the learning of skills that such media target and can assist learners to make connections between sign language and English print.
4.4 FLUENCY
Fluency has been identified as one of the essential reading skills associated closely with comprehension. As explained by Trezek, Wang, and Paul (2010), “Fluency is an important reading skill because it provides the critical bridge between word reading and comprehension” (p. 36). Fluency is most frequently defined as being comprised of three aspects: accuracy, speed and expression. Individuals who are able to read effortlessly and accurately have more cognitive capacity to focus on meaning and, as a result, better comprehend what they read. For students to become skilled at reading text accurately and quickly, they need to become fluent with lower level skills such as letters, words, and phrases and sentences (Albertini & Mayer, 2010; Easterbrooks & Estes, 2007; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Ritchie & Speece, 2006; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001).
An added complexity when considering fluency in literacy skills for learners who use a sign language is the way fluency has traditionally been measured. Fluency is usually calculated by counting the total number of words read out loud in one minute and subtracting the number of errors, resulting in a measure of the number of words accurately read out loud per minute. Whether this approach is suitable for learners who express fluency through the automatic rendering of print into sign language is debatable. When a reader translates printed text into a sign language or hybrid signs, then alternative fluency measures or assessments need to be considered.
When searching the literature related to the alternative assessment of fluency in sign bilingual students, two key studies were identified. Rose, McAnally, Barkmeister, Vernig and Long (2006) developed the Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (Pro-Ed, Inc) as a process for rating silent fluent reading of D/HH students who sign. Students are presented with rows of contiguous text (i.e. no spaces in between the words) and asked to read for three minutes while inserting lines within the text to identify separate words. Rose and colleagues found this tool correlated with reading comprehension scores. There is, however, no research that has identified whether silent fluent reading or face-to-face fluent reading has more predictive value for the development of literacy skills for D/HH students.
Additionally, a study by Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) aimed to define and
93 | P a g e identify the components of signed reading fluency, and develop an assessment rubric. The resultant rubric aims to assist professionals to define and measure reading fluency for students who use sign language as their chosen modality. It also offers an opportunity for future research to investigate how, and if, fluency links to comprehension for this cohort of students. The authors reported a positive correlation between scores on the rubric and the Word Comprehension and the Passage Comprehension subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test– Revised (Woodcock, 1987). They also found that as signed reading fluency scores increased, so did word comprehension and reading comprehension scores. Therefore, the Signed Reading Fluency Rubric for Deaf Children appears to be a useful tool in making judgments regarding fluency, but requires further research with a greater number of participants to confirm its efficacy.
Given the importance of fluency for becoming a proficient reader, the links between comprehension and fluency, and the difficulties that children who are D/HH experience becoming skilled readers, this is an area that is important to explore. However, only two studies that incorporated interventions to improve signing students’ reading fluency were identified by this systematic review. Schirmer, Therrien, Schaffer, and Schirmer’s (2009) study focused on the effect of repeated rereading on fluency using the Reread, Adapt and Answer Comprehend (RAAC) approach. Participants were given short passages that matched their instructional reading levels and read them as quickly as they could until there were fewer than two errors or until they had read each four times. They were then asked four factual and four inferential questions about each passage. Overall, results indicated that repeated reading has the potential for improving the reading fluency of deaf students. The improvements in comprehension were not significant, however, so the authors suggested the incorporation of a comprehension strategy to further improve understanding.
The other and most recent study undertaken by the same authors (Schirmer, Therrien, Schaffer, & Schirmer, 2016), again focused on the Reread, Adapt and Answer Comprehend intervention but this time incorporated a comprehension strategy. Though the comprehension strategy was not clearly defined in the methodology, results demonstrated that reading fluency instruction may have positive outcomes for this cohort of students. Improvements were noted in both comprehension and fluency, though these improvements were not significant enough to be reflected in formal tests.
The paucity of research on instructional methods for improving reading fluency in students who are deaf and hard of hearing and use sign language is notable. The studies identified were both quasi-experimental and of moderate quality. Though repeated reading has been reported as an effective intervention for improving word recognition, speed, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension among hearing readers (NRP, 2000) and shows promise for sign bilingual children, there needs to be additional research conducted to determine the effectiveness of repeated reading for improving fluency and increasing comprehension not only at a passage level but also at different levels (i.e., letter, word, phrase or sentence, and passage). There is also a need to investigate other fluency interventions shown to be effective with other at-risk populations to identify the most effective strategies for sign-bilingual children.
94 | P a g e A linked additional study that met the criteria of the systematic review and targeted automaticity of sight words was conducted by Enns and Lanfond (2007). This study piloted an intervention procedure that incorporated the principles of automaticity, repetition, functional vocabulary, and a positive teacher-student relationship for two deaf high school students with dyslexia in an American Sign Language–English bilingual program. The aim of the intervention was to increase the participants’ sight word vocabularies. The key instructional tenets were repeated exposure to words in print to establish word-sign equivalents, functional relevance, and the use of meaningful passages and daily practice for short periods of time. The intervention was implemented through short, repetitive teaching sessions using the same word list or reading passage over a 10-day period. Following completion of this period, a new list or passage was introduced and the process was repeated. Results of standardised testing indicated that both students demonstrated clear gains (six months gain within six months) compared to their previous very limited progress.
The authors identified several key features of the intervention strategy which contributed to this improvement. These included a focus on building automaticity through repeated practice; the use of individualized, functional vocabulary within meaningful contexts; and the strong positive relationship between teachers and students. The methods used in the present study reflect standard drill, practice, and vocabulary reinforcement strategies. Further testing, scaling up and exploration of the key features in the intervention program are needed.
4.4.1 TRANSLATION FROM SIGN TO ENGLISH Arising from Cummins’ (1989) theory of linguistic interdependence, understanding how to translate between a first language (L1) and a second language (L2) has been recognised as a key conceptual skill in second language development. Deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) children and young people communicating in a natural signed language such as Auslan are developing literacy skills in a second language such as English. In this situation, discussions of the ways in which meaning is created across the two languages may be paramount to developing an understanding of how read and written English function to communicate information.
Two research studies in the area of sign language analysis or translation fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. One publication focused on the emergence and development of specific linguistic understanding in students accessing their education through a signed language system. Akamatsu and Armour (1987) investigated the impact of an intervention which highlighted the linguistic structure of ASL and overtly discussed comparisons across ASL and English. When compared to a matched control group, the eight participating students who received the intervention improved performance related to the grammar and content of their written expression.
In this intervention, teachers supported students to both translate and edit their written expression, with a specific focus on instruction about linguistic aspects of ASL. While replication of this study with greater numbers of participants is needed to verify results, preliminary findings suggest that enhanced metalinguistic knowledge in terms of translation between languages and editing skills, positively impact written expression in English. The ability to discuss and modify meaning in an L1 and understand similarities and differences across the two languages
95 | P a g e appears to underpin improved grammatical accuracy in English written expression. In order to establish such an effective intervention with their students, Teachers of the Deaf would require linguistic knowledge and fluent, competent communication skills in both languages.
Related research cited by Andrews and Rusher (2010) discussed code switching techniques as an instructional strategy through a summary of the results of four studies. The first study reported on the use of code switching to increase printed word recognition through the employment of fingerspelling, signs and graphic pictures of signs, similar to the chaining supported in other studies in this review. Results indicated that the words that were drilled and part of the chaining process were better retained. The second study reported on the use of ASL summaries to develop background knowledge to increase comprehension of written stories, this study (Andrews, Winograd & DeVille, 1994) is reported on further in the next section.
The third experimental study reported on the use of the Preview, View, Review (PVR) code- switching instructional strategy. In the preview segment, the teacher provided a short summary of key points of the passage in ASL, in the view segment the students read the text in English. The review part consisted of an interactive dialogue between the students and the teacher in sign language with question-and- answer comprehension probing. This PVR strategy resulted in retellings that were more accurate, but still reduced in length. Overall, this research suggests the instructional strategy of code-switching can be implemented at the word, phrase, and story levels to build vocabulary and reading comprehension. The findings were not conclusive, however, and the strategies still require more research to measure their efficacy and validate them with a broader range of signing students.
96 | P a g e 4.5 COMPREHENSION
The reading comprehension deficits of D/HH readers are well documented with many studies using correlational or exploratory methods to examine the strategies deaf readers use and difficulties that they experience. For such a key component of reading, relatively few intervention studies of deaf signing readers focus on comprehension strategies. This systematic review identified 16 studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The studies were of varying strength and quality and drew upon a variety of intervention approaches.
4.5.1 VISUAL-BASED STRATEGIES Researchers have attempted to improve the reading skills of students who are deaf and use sign language to communicate by adding pictures or graphic representations to support text. Four visual-based studies were identified in this review. Gentry, Chinn and Moulton (2005) researched the effectiveness of multimedia reading materials with students who were deaf and signed. The stories were presented on computers in four different formats, print only, print plus pictures, print plus sign language, print plus pictures and sign language. Results indicated that the print and pictures format resulted in the highest reading comprehension scores as opposed to the assumed print, plus pictures, plus sign language. The authors cite the need for more research about the support that sequenced pictures may provide for students who are deaf and sign.
Another visual based study was conducted by Wilson and Hyde (1997) who investigated whether the use of signed English pictures in association with printed text enhanced deaf signing students' reading comprehension. The participants’ comprehension of both the unmodified and modified texts were assessed through comprehension questions and story retell. Results indicated that the students performed more effectively with signed English text on the two measures of comprehension. The use of signed English pictures in association with printed text seemed to facilitate both the initial reading of text and performance on subsequent comprehension measures. The strategy had most benefit for beginning readers, but due to ceiling effects it is not clear if this strategy is appropriate for more experienced readers.
Hoffman and Wang (2010) modified books by having sign language graphics (from both ASL and Signing Exact English) attached under words. This intervention was implemented with two students who were deaf and used ASL. The intervention involved the teacher and then the students reading and signing the book. The students then retold the story, identified their favourite part, and justified why. Additional activities focused on vocabulary and involved signing or fingerspelling the English printed word and matching it to the appropriate sign graphic. Observations of student behaviours indicated that the support of the sign graphics led to the students being more focused on the English print rather than the illustrations only. This research was observational and, consequently, it is difficult to make strong conclusions about the benefit of the visual supports. However, such a configuration of graphics may be a way for signing children to mediate between visual sign language and English language print.
97 | P a g e Wang and Paul (2011) conducted a study that compared a technology-based literature program (The Cornerstone Project) and a ‘typical approach’ in an effort to determine the effects on the reading comprehension for students who are D/HH. The Cornerstone Project used video-based stories to match the students’ communication modes. The various modes were American Sign Language, Signing Exact English, and Cued Speech. The Cornerstone intervention focused on developing a deep understanding of the vocabulary from each story through word study, practice and skills in word recognition, along with the development of background knowledge. The experiments conducted using the two programs yielded mixed results. The findings revealed that the D/HH students showed significant improvements in word identification from participating in the Cornerstone Project, but, no differences were found for word knowledge, and mixed results were found for story comprehension.
4.5.2 READING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES Other studies were identified that did not have any visuals added to the text. Unlike the previous studies discussed, Schirmer, Schaffer, Therrien, and Schirmer (2012) investigated the effect of a specific reading comprehension strategy with D/HH students. The instruction was based on the Reread Adapt Answer Comprehend intervention. RAAC involves repeated reading and question generation strategies. Improvements in reading comprehension were not identified via standardized tests but the observational data collected indicated that the students showed improving comprehension on both literal and inferential questions following the RAAC intervention (Schirmer, Schaffer, Therrien, & Schirmer, 2012). In order to ensure that reading comprehension itself was more effectively improved, the authors suggested adding a further comprehension monitoring strategy, but this has not been trialled to date. van Staden (2013) investigated the use of a balanced literacy approach with the addition of multi-sensory coding strategies and reading scaffolding to increase the reading skills of a group of Deaf students who used South African sign language (SASL). While one group received regular classroom instruction, the other group received the intervention strategies. The intervention strategies included targeting vocabulary teaching through interactive ‘word wall’ activities, such as matching the printed form with an object/picture or SASL sign and fingerspell ‘chaining’. Word definitions and synonyms were taught and words were used in context. Reciprocal reading was also utilized, with the teacher signing the story in SASL and guiding (scaffolding) the learners in the use of reading comprehension strategies such as predicting, questioning, visualizing (mental imagery) and summarizing/retelling stories in SASL.
Pre-intervention, there were no major differences in the groups’ scores on the assessments administered. Post-intervention results though, showed that there was a large increase in the reading and vocabulary skills of the sign-bilingual intervention students. This supports the use of targeted rich vocabulary teaching and reciprocal reading comprehension strategies with students who are D/HH and communicate via sign language.
Schirmer and Woosley (1997) examined the effect of comprehension questions that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation on the reading comprehension
98 | P a g e performance of deaf children who communicate using sign language. The instruction followed a modified Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) approach where the teacher asked questions that encouraged prediction, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the story they were reading. When discussion was complete the children were asked to fill in a cloze activity of the story to assess their comprehension. The findings of this study suggest that teachers can use comprehension questions to encourage deaf children to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate, and that they were still able to recall salient literal features of the story as measured through cloze activities.
Schirmer (1995) investigated the effectiveness of mental imagery as a reading comprehension strategy with deaf students who used conceptual sign. Intervention again followed the format of a Directed Reading Thinking Activity. After finishing the story, the participating students were asked six questions, three literal and three inferential, and instructed to retell the story, before participating in a group discussion. For the final four sessions the children were directed to additionally visualize what they read and visualise again to support their retelling. Quantitative analysis of predictions, summaries, descriptions of mental imagery, answers to the questions, and the completeness of retellings showed no relationship between mental imagery and comprehension. Qualitative analysis revealed six qualities of thinking during the mental imagery phase of the study: recollection, representation, analysis, inference, integration, and evaluation. Given the lack of conclusive results from this study, it cannot be concluded that mental imagery is an effective additional reading comprehension strategy for D/HH students who sign.
Al-Hilawani (2003) investigated the effect of three teaching conditions: the key word strategy, modified reciprocal teaching, and the basic reading approach, on reading comprehension of D/HH signing children. Analyses showed that the key word strategy and modified reciprocal teaching significantly enhanced students’ overall performance in terms of reading comprehension scores. It revealed that any one of the three methods would be adequate for teaching factual information, but the key word strategy and modified reciprocal teaching were more effective in enhancing students’ performance in main idea and word meaning. This study supports the further investigation of these strategies with this cohort of children.
Schirmer and Schaffer (2010) implemented the guided reading approach with a group of elementary school deaf students who used ASL. It is difficult to draw conclusions about the educational benefits from this program, however, as there was no control group, no statistical analysis, and progress was not consistent across students. All students regressed over the break, showing that the improvements were not sustained and also proved difficult to regain. The authors also reported that the intervention fidelity of the modified instruction was questionable across classrooms. These limitations make claims for the effectiveness of guided reading difficult to support.
In another study, Schimmel, Edwards and Prickett (1999) looked at the gains in reading levels of D/HH students who used ASL after the implementation of a multifaceted reading program. The intervention consisted of five components: basic phonemic awareness, Dolch words linked to ASL signs, English phrases and their ASL translation, reading comprehension from the Multiple Skills Series, and American Sign Language development/language experience stories. The
99 | P a g e researchers reported gains in students’ reading levels and academic behaviour but it is difficult to identify the measures used within the methodology to be able to judge their validity. Teachers involved in the intervention study did, however, report growth in their reflective sign skills through developing awareness of where sign modes fitted on the sign continuum and after considering how to make this clear to students. Although teachers felt this allowed them to assist their students to understand shifts between ASL and sign code for English more effectively, overall it is difficult to draw further conclusions about the efficacy of this intervention.
A further study identified by the systematic review, used ASL summaries in an attempt to improve the reading comprehension of signing deaf students. Andrews, Winograd and DeVille (1994) used ASL summaries to build students’ background knowledge before reading a story. After the ASL summary the students were asked to retell the story and identify the moral of the fable. The results showed that the use of an ASL summary increased the quantity and quality of the retelling scores; it also improved deaf readers' comprehension of the moral lessons of the fables. This was a small study, but shows that summarising story content and background in sign language may help students to comprehend information in subsequent written texts.
4.5.3 TEXT STRUCTURE Several studies were identified that targeted story or text structure within their intervention. Akamatsu (1988), for example, investigated the effects of an instructional intervention designed to increase knowledge of story structure in two deaf students, ages 11 and 12, who were both ASL users. The intervention involved teaching story structure components and strategies for summarizing stories. The findings indicated greater use of story structure elements in the students' written summaries as a result of the intervention, and reported maintenance of skills three weeks after the intervention ended.
Luetke-Stahlman, Griffiths and Montgomery (1998) used teacher mediation during student retelling as an approach to teach story structure. The participant was a seven-year-old deaf child who used signed English. Text structure targets were identified and the intervention included teacher mediation of the student’s retellings through scaffolding strategies such as modelling and the use of a graphic organizer. Findings showed an increase in the targeted story structure components and lengthier retellings as a result of the intervention.
More recently, Howell and Luckner (2003) implemented an action research study with a single student who used ASL. Their research incorporated explicit instruction in three content literacy strategies: text features, mental imagery and summarization. Following the intervention, assessment indicated that the student made nearly one full year of progress as indicated by the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Passage Comprehension scores. Anecdotal evidence also reported improvements in the student’s confidence and further involvement in mainstream curriculum.
Due to the small sample size of all three studies described above, however, generalizability is limited but future research, focused on improving the understanding of story and text structure, is warranted. This skill appears to play an important role in comprehension for students who are D/HH and communicate
100 | P a g e through sign.
4.5.4 SUMMARY When considering the intervention research focused on improving the reading comprehension of signing deaf readers, it should be noted that National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000) identified seven effective strategies for improving comprehension for hearing readers. The seven strategies comprised of comprehension monitoring, cooperative learning, graphic and semantic organizers, story structure, question answering, question generating, and summarization. The NRP further found that a combination of strategies was most effective. This systematic review uncovered intervention studies examining only four of these identified effective strategies with signing deaf readers - story structure, question answering, graphic organizers and summarization. In relation to these four strategies, the conclusions overlap with those of the NRP review with story structure, question-answering, graphic organizers and summarization strategies appearing to have promise in improving the comprehension of deaf signing readers. Some of the identified research also explored a combination of strategies which also seem to be tentatively effective for signing bilingual readers.
4.6 WRITING
The ability to use written English to effectively express information and ideas, as well as to argue and persuade, is essential for both academic and employment outcomes. Deficits in the writing of children who are D/HH have been described across structural, content and text level difficulties (Albertini & Schley, 2011; Antia, Reed, & Kreimeyer, 2005; Marschark, Mouradian, & Halas, 1994; Paul, 1998; Yoshinaga-Itano & Snyder, 1985). Their writing has been variously found to include less genre characteristics, to be less well structured, shorter with less complex sentences and fewer word variations, and to exhibit difficulties with function words and English syntactic rules (Paul, 1998; Yoshinaga-Itano, Snyder, & Mayberry, 1996).
A historical focus on writing product and the measurement of text-level writing features has given way to a greater emphasis on teaching metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies around the process of writing. Twelve studies on intervention into writing met the criteria for this systematic review. Half of these studies report on the work of Wolbers and colleagues, describing their refinement and use of the Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction approach, or SIWI. The remaining studies focus on a number of strategies for supporting the writing process, including the use of visual tools such as rubrics, the implementation of a process approach, and the encouragement of translation across English and a signed language such as ASL.
4.6.1 STRATEGIC AND INTERACTIVE WRITING INSTRUCTION Over a range of research projects dating back to 2008, Wolbers and colleagues (Dostal & Wolbers, 2014; Wolbers, 2008a; Wolbers, 2008b; Wolbers et al., 2014; Wolbers et al., 2012; Wolbers et at., 2015) described the positive impact of strategic intervention in writing and the inclusion of instruction and interaction techniques relevant for deaf and hard of hearing students. These studies incorporate quasi-
101 | P a g e experimental designs, with pre- and post-test results analysed for effect size, resulting in a level 2 quality rating of ‘good’ research design across the publications reviewed (Newhouse et al., 2007). These six research studies are included in this systematic review and described below.
In research into a 21-day intervention focused on the ‘Morning Message’ writing approach, Wolbers (2008b) suggested the balanced and interactive nature of this program provided the opportunity to support language learning in D/HH students by focusing on translation between ASL and English. Eight middle school students made gains across writing processes (e.g. planning, organising, writing, and revising) during the intervention, most significantly in their ability to revise and edit a piece of writing. While the younger students made surface level changes during the editing process, older students also changed text structure, coherence and meaning in post-test writing samples. The results illustrate the program’s success across both the content and form aspects of writing. Additionally, Wolbers found student gains correlated with specific teaching topics focused on during the intervention. The skills of teachers, and their roles in balancing the interactive, strategic and collaborative aspects of instruction, were key to the success of this project.
In a further study (Wolbers, 2008a), researchers provided an eight-week intervention programme to 16 students, while 17 students matched for age and reading level continued with regular writing instruction. The students receiving the SIWI instruction made greater gains than the comparison group based on a rubric measuring both high-level language skills such as structure and contextual language use, as well as lower level language use including grammar and punctuation. Teachers’ skills in English and ASL, and ability to implement strategic and interactive writing instruction were significant to the success of this program. Outcome measures showed a large effect size for the SIWI approach. Notably, a key strategy for translation was the inclusion of a ‘two-easel’ system, where appropriate forms of communicating ideas and concepts in each language were displayed and discussed to build students’ metalinguistic skills and translation abilities.
Wolbers, Dostal and Bowers (2012) describe Strategic Interactive Writing Instruction as likely to have a positive impact on writing length, sentence complexity and the awareness of correct English sentences when implemented with fidelity. Positive impacts of these techniques were seen in the writing of high and low language groups as well as across students using a range of sign-based communication modes. In this one-year study, the researchers followed the written language development of 29 D/HH middle school students. High- and low-achieving students consistently demonstrated significant improvement in measures of length, sentence complexity and sentence awareness, while the correct use of function words, such as articles and prepositions, was more complex, with outcomes dependent upon the students’ preferred communication mode.
Likewise, Dostal and Wolbers (2014) describe the outcomes of five weeks of SIWI intervention compared to five weeks of regular writing instruction for 23 year four, five and six students. The student group was further broken into high and low language level subgroups based on a formal language test and teacher rating. This research demonstrated an increase in the length of written texts following a five- week intervention. Increase in text length, as measured by the number of t-units indicating sentence complexity, was greater in the higher language group than the
102 | P a g e lower language group. This suggests that the students with more highly developed language were better able to take advantage of the teaching provided. Additional measures of mean length of utterance and the incidence of unintelligible utterances showed this intervention also had a positive impact on ASL language skills. The limitations of this study, however, include that the intervention was delivered by only one teacher and that final outcomes were measured solely on narrative genre changes, despite the intervention focusing on additional genres. The authors also comment that their study does not address which aspects of SIWI may have had the most significant impact on student outcomes.
In a longer intervention trial, of one school year, Wolbers and colleagues (2014) addressed the written English narratives of 29 adolescent students (grades six to eight) using regular SIWI sessions. Sessions focused on building both language competence and metalinguistic knowledge, with improvement noted consistently across language ability level, as well as the communication mode used.
In the most recent study, Wolbers and colleagues (2015) report on the first year of a three-year project to develop SIWI for implementation with D/HH students in years three to five. This focus examines the impact of SIWI instruction on the discourse skills of 31 D/HH elementary school students seen in narrative, informative and persuasive genres in years three to five. This project also incorporates a professional learning component for teachers, with five teachers implementing the intervention, although no outcomes based on teacher variability were reported in this study. Instead, common patterns of achievement were illustrated through the inclusion of five qualitative case studies, showing how students improved in their discourse and organizational level skills across three genres and included complex constructions in their final writing samples that were not present at baseline. Similar outcomes for this study were also reported in a quantitative analysis of the writing produced by the total cohort of 31 students. Statistics showed a medium to high effect size for this intervention across each of the three genres, although developmental measures still placed the majority of students at the ‘marginal’ rather than ‘adequate’ level on identified characteristics.
The development and refinement of the SIWI program has a promising outlook based on its inclusion of strategy instruction and explicit teaching balanced across high and low level aspects of written language within a framework of authentic communicative contexts. The findings reported across the suite of published research studies suggest involving students as active participants in writing instruction can lead to positive outcomes such as improved text length, revision strategies, text level accuracy, sentence complexity, sentence awareness, metalinguistic knowledge and general linguistic competence. Teachers additionally reported observation of improved student engagement, confidence and enthusiasm for writing. A key part of the program focused on translating between languages, using a ‘two-surface’ system to display and subsequently discuss key differences between ASL and English.
While SIWI positions itself in the key area of strategy instruction, implementation requires teachers to be highly competent in the language/s used by students, as well as in written English. Therefore, teachers new to the principles and strategies of SIWI are likely to require comprehensive professional learning to incorporate SIWI principles with fidelity and are also likely to take time to reach a level of competence
103 | P a g e that would result in comparable improvements in their students’ writing.
4.6.2 OTHER STRATEGIC APPROACHES TO WRITING INSTRUCTION: RUBRICS, VISUAL TOOLS & PROCESS WRITING Appanah and Hoffman’s (2014) research also focused on a process approach to writing. These researchers provided a visual tool in the form of a rubric to act as a scaffold to students’ learning about the process of writing and the structure of written English. Specifically, 15 secondary school students, in a residential school for the deaf, were trained in the use of the Deaf Student Editing Rubric (DSER), which was created to support the students’ revision of their own writing. The authors designed the DSER as a guide or checklist across seven key areas of writing: parts of speech; verb rules; word choice; sentence structure; paragraphs; mechanics, and the writing process. As inter-rater agreement could not be reached on the idea and content areas, this study focused only on the areas of word choice, sentence fluency and conventions.
Eight of the 15 students were selected, due to attendance and engagement in the interview process, to respond to questions about their use of the rubric and the ways in which their writing had changed. While consistent use of the rubric was found to have a positive impact on all participants’ written texts, collaboration with an adult had the most positive impact on their writing. Consequently, Appanah and Hoffman (2014) suggest that while the rubric provided the opportunity for students to assess their writing independently, it was through teacher collaboration that students engaged in the writing approach and developed greater understanding of both the process of writing and of English conventions. The ability to discuss the process of writing using ASL helped students to evaluate and improve their writing. These discussions also enabled teachers to build a profile of student knowledge and skills about the writing process. Limitations of this study include the ability to reliably report on only the word choice, sentence fluency and writing conventions sections of the rubric. The selection of students to be interviewed may also have affected the results and it would be useful to know if the remaining students would also have received further benefit from the interview process. It is also important to note that teachers involved in this research were consistently supported by the researcher in their implementation of this intervention.
Schirmer and colleagues (1999) also focused on the use of a rubric to facilitate the writing development of 10 fifth and seventh grade students across one academic year. The researchers revised a six-trait writing rubric to create a rubric covering seven key areas of writing: ideas; story development; organization; word choice; details; sentence structures; and mechanics. They then used this rubric to describe and focus on important aspects of writing and to highlight suitable goals for students. Students were trained to use the rubric and worked in groups to assess writing samples using the rubric. This aspect of the intervention helped students to become aware of the range of qualities involved in writing and how these could be characterized.
Teachers then used the rubric to rate students’ writing and share feedback throughout the intervention year. Analysis of changes in the writing of students showed that students from both grade levels demonstrated significant improvement
104 | P a g e in the areas of topic, content, organisation and story development but showed no significant change in the areas of text structure, voice/audience, word choice, sentence structure or mechanics. While there were no data available on the teaching focus areas covered throughout the year, the researchers suggest explicit teaching could support growth in areas of need. Pre-assessment of writing samples could further guide both rubric design and appropriate teaching focus areas.
The results of this research, when combined with Appanah and Hoffman’s (2014) findings on rubric use as a form of intervention, suggest that this is a useful tool to help students recognize writing qualities and incorporate these qualities into their own compositions. Issues remain around the creation of rubrics that can be consistently used and the ways in which students are guided and supported to develop skills across both higher and lower level aspects of language, however. While Appanah and Hoffman reported improved use of the text level conventions of writing they were unable to measure change in the higher-level structural and organizational aspects of writing. In contrast, Schirmer and colleagues (1999) demonstrated growth in higher level but not lower level aspects of writing, suggesting rubrics can support focus and growth in both areas.
In the next study to be considered, Easterbrooks and Stoner (2006) described an intervention designed to increase the use of adjectives in the writing of three D/HH adolescents (17-18 years) using a visual tool. Across a five-day instruction cycle, individual students participated in the modelled (1 day), shared (3 days) and guided (1 day) use of the visual tool, which was facilitated by questions from the teacher that aimed to elicit descriptive concepts and language. During this phase, the teacher guided the students to identify nouns from a picture prompt that could be further described. By using questions about the noun on the visual prompt (How many? How does it feel? What kind? How old? What size? What colour? What does it look like?) adjectives were generated and recorded for use during the writing process. Over the following four to five weeks of intervention, student independence increased and the teacher was able to reduce involvement and gradually ‘fade’ support.
Throughout the intervention, all students increased the use of adjectives in their written texts with reduced teacher support. Although participants’ final written products were rated more highly in their use of adjectives, other aspects of their writing, however, had reduced in quality, most notably story grammar elements and action sequences. In conclusion, Easterbrooks and Stoner (2006) recommended further research to see if this decline reversed once a level of confidence with the new skill was reached.
The following three studies focus on: the use of interactive writing for kindergarten aged D/HH students (Williams, 2011); how the development of ASL narratives can support English literacy skills in D/HH elementary students (Enns et al., 2007) and the use of captioning in creating text in middle school D/HH students (Strassman & O’Dell, 2012). While these studies have been assessed as lower in research design quality than the majority of studies previously described in this section, they offer an insight into how researchers are attempting to support D/HH children and students to bridge the gap between their communicative signed language and English literacy.
Williams (2011) describes the use of ‘interactive writing’ which incorporated “teacher
105 | P a g e scaffolding, social interaction, collaborative learning and shared problem solving” (p. 24) with six D/HH kindergarten children, five of whom used a variety of sign-based modes of communication, across an academic year. The inclusion of teacher ‘think- alouds’ in this study, to provide insight into problem-solving and decision making throughout the writing process, was key to this approach, as was an emphasis on authentically communicative writing.
A qualitative analysis of transcripts of 45 ten- to twenty-minute interactive writing sessions and teacher interviews provided the data for this research. The discussions arising from the sessions led the researchers to conclude that interactive writing could support D/HH children’s early writing development, but that a focus on English phonology would enhance outcomes. Specifically, the researchers recommended interactive writing as a key strategy to support conversations around the purpose and process of writing as well as the ways in which ideas and concepts are displayed in written English. They suggest that the inclusion of visual representations of English phonology could further supplement and enrich interactive writing and provide additional benefits for young D/HH children developing literacy.
Similarly, Enns and colleagues (2007) studied a writing process approach encompassing the key stages of preparing, planning, drafting, revising, editing and publishing in both ASL and English with 14 D/HH students aged nine to eleven years. In this study, writing workshops were provided daily for one hour over three weeks and students were supported to produce videotaped ASL and written English narratives. The author suggested this process would support increased understanding of the writing process and the development of metalinguistic skills, enabling transfer across the two languages. Teaching strategies included visual processing, focusing on meaning and translation across ASL and English.
At the conclusion of the study, benefits were reported from teacher and student perspectives, with both teachers and students highlighting increased ASL knowledge and feelings of confidence and ownership. Teachers additionally recognized examples of metalinguistic awareness in their students, whereas students reported increased independence and self-confidence in the writing process. Overall, however, the developmental measures of writing showed growth occurred at the expected rate across the six months of the intervention sessions, suggesting that further research is needed to demonstrate the impact that a process approach to expression in both sign and written modes might have.
Lastly, Strassman and O’Dell (2012) reported on the differences seen in the written products of 69 year six to eight students from three schools across two different contexts of text revision. Using a process approach to writing, students drafted four pieces of writing and then revised and published two using a word processing program and two using software which provided visual images with texts as captions. This second context was called ‘authoring with video’ (AWV). Analysis of the final products revealed texts revised using the captioning program were longer and included a greater number of main ideas, details and topic specific vocabulary. The researchers suggest the provision of digital images may have supported students’ retrieval of content area vocabulary and recall of details, but caution that text length does not always equate with complexity or quality. As there was no baseline measure included and texts were not analysed for other measures of quality, further
106 | P a g e research is necessary to assess whether the use of AWV had an overall positive effect across aspects of student writing.
4.6.3 SUMMARY The intervention research included in this section shows that many D/HH children and students continue to exhibit difficulties in their writing, particularly in areas of English language structure and the elaboration of ideas. The research reviewed included interventions that: applied specific strategy instruction,
emphasised the process of writing,
used collaborative instruction and active student participation,
employed visual supports, and
used explicit teaching balanced across both higher and lower aspects of language.
In a recent review of writing instruction research, Strassman and Schirmer (2012) also identified instruction focusing on a strategy approach to writing, collaborative teaching styles and the use of visual tools to support students’ independence as promising areas for further research. Graham and Perin (2007) identified teacher training and professional development as a strong predictor of positive outcomes. Many of the research projects reviewed involved extensive professional learning and researchers often provided ongoing support and guidance to teachers implementing intervention strategies.
107 | P a g e 6. SECTION 5: CONCLUSION
This review addressed whether the research on literacy instruction for sign bilingual students aligned with wider bilingual studies on English language learners, namely within the five areas that were highlighted by the National Literacy Panel (August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2009) It also investigated writing instruction research, along with identifying any additional intervention methods unique to the deaf bilingual student.
Drawing from the studies selected and discussed, this review showed there are important gaps in knowledge concerning the effectiveness of literacy strategies for children who are deaf and hard of hearing and use a sign language to communicate. Overall the literature related to intervention for literacy for children who are deaf and sign as their chosen communication mode lacks rigorously designed cohort studies. Interventions need to be reported with specific detail so that they can be replicated and further validated. It is important that more research is conducted to supplement the tentative evidence base that has been identified.
For example, further research into writing instruction for D/HH students is needed to build upon current knowledge, particularly projects that focus on the areas of collaborative writing, strategy instruction, process writing intervention and the use of visual tools. Future research projects should involve greater numbers and diversity of teachers and students and use improved research design quality and rigour to support greater generalisation of findings.
In relation to reading, this review indicates that in areas for which there is emerging research on deaf bilinguals, the conclusions of the National Literacy Panel appear to apply to the instruction of children who are deaf and sign to communicate. Following from this is a recommendation that a comprehensive literacy program for deaf bilinguals should at least incorporate the five research-based components of reading. The tentative evidence identified also suggests that there are specific methods and strategies unique to this population of students that are worth pursuing, such as fingerspelling, visual phonics, code switching and translation.
Teaching students to translate between Auslan and written English and to compare the way information is conveyed in each language was shown to be an emerging effective strategy for literacy outcomes. Teachers’ fluency in both written English and the natural sign language of the local Deaf community has been identified as important across a range of reviewed studies. For D/HH students to develop their translation skills and competence in both languages, teachers require a deep understanding of the linguistic aspects of each language and the ability to provide ongoing, intensive instruction in both languages.
Teachers’ translation skills need to include an awareness of how they use natural sign languages, such as Auslan, contact sign or sign using English word order to support literacy development in the classroom. Inclusion of studies across the spectrum of sign communication modes reflects current international practice and describes techniques used to translate and bridge from sign language to literacy. This research area acknowledges the importance of identifying the type and style of signed communication that is used by children and teachers. While some reviewed
108 | P a g e studies define how and when different modes of sign communication are used, others refer more generally to the use of sign or manual systems of communication. In future research, defining choice and changes in communication mode is crucial to build a better understanding of the impact of these different systems on literacy outcomes.
Given the small number of quality studies reviewed, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the instructional strategies that are most effective; however, there is evidence to suggest that some of the interventions reviewed are worth pursuing. It is also important to note that the exclusion of certain strategies and instructional methods does not mean they are ineffective, but that there is insufficient research support at this time. More research is needed in this field before a clear picture emerges of the most effective and efficient ways to develop proficient literacy skills for children and young people who are deaf and hard of hearing and use sign language. In light of the research that shows more similarities than differences between the reading and writing processes of bilingual deaf and hearing English language learner readers, we suggest that future research with deaf bilingual readers should investigate the instructional practices found to be effective with both hearing children with and without literacy difficulties and the emerging research on literacy instruction with English language learners taking into consideration some of the emerging strategies that are unique to the instruction of bilingual deaf students.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW STUDIES REFERENCE LIST
Akamatsu, C. T. (1988). Instruction in text structure: Metacognitive strategy instruction for literacy development in deaf students. A.C.E.H.I. Journal 14(1), 13-32. Akamatsu, C. T., & Armour, V. A. (1987). Developing written literacy in deaf children through analyzing sign language. American Annals of the Deaf, 132(1), 46-51. 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 applications. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 146-156. Appanah, T. M., & Hoffman, N. (2014). Using scaffolded self-editing to improve the writing of signing adolescent Deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 159(3), 269-283. Andrews, J. F., & Rusher, M. (2010). Codeswitching techniques: Evidence-based instructional practices for the ASL/English bilingual classroom. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 407-424. Andrews, J. F., Winograd, P., & DeVille, G. (1994). Deaf children reading fables: Using ASL summaries to improve reading comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 139(3), 378-386. Beal-Alvarez, J. S., Lederberg, A. R., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2012). Grapheme- phoneme acquisition of deaf preschoolers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 39-60. Cannon, J. E., Fredrick, L. D., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2010). Vocabulary instruction through books read in American Sign Language for English-language learners with hearing loss. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(2), 98-112. doi:10.1177/1525740109332832
109 | P a g e Dimling, L. M. (2010). Conceptually based vocabulary intervention: Second graders' development of vocabulary words. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 425- 448. Dostal, H. M., & Wolbers, K. A. (2014). Developing language and writing skills of deaf and hard of hearing students: A simultaneous approach. Literacy Research and Instruction 53(3), 245-268. Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stoner, M. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in the written language of students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(2), 95-109. Enns, C., Hall, R., Isaac, B., & MacDonald, P. (2007). Process and product: Creating stories with deaf students. TESL Canada Journal, 25(1), 1-22. Enns, C., & Lafond, L. D. (2007). Reading against all odds: A pilot study of two deaf students with dyslexia. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 63-72. Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403. Golos, D. B., & Moses, A. M. (2015). Supplementing an educational video series with video-related classroom activities and materials. Sign Language Studies, 15(2), 103-125. Haptonstall-Nykaza, T. S., & Schick, B. (2007). The transition from fingerspelling to English print: Facilitating English decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 172-183. Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1987). The metalinguistics of fingerspelling: An alternative way to increase written vocabulary in congenitally deaf readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 455-474. Hoffman, M., & Wang, Y. (2010). The use of graphic representations of sign language in leveled texts to support deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(2), 131-136. Howell, J., & Luckner, J. (2003). Helping one deaf student develop content literacy skills: An action research report. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(1): 23-27. Luetke-Stahlman, B., Griffiths, C., & Montgomery, N. (1998). Development of text structure knowledge as assessed by spoken and signed retellings of a deaf second-grade student. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(4), 337-346. Narr, R. F. (2008). Phonological awareness and decoding in deaf/hard-of-hearing students who use visual phonics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(3), 405-416. Reitsma, P. (2009). Computer-based exercises for learning to read and spell by deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2), 178-189. Roos, C. (2013). Young deaf children's fingerspelling in learning to read and write: an ethnographic study in a signing setting. Deafness and Education International, 15(3), 149-178. Schimmel, C. S., Edwards, S. G., & Prickett, H. T. (1999). Reading?...Pah! (I Got It!): Innovative reading techniques for successful deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 144(4), 298-308. Schirmer, B. R. (1995). Mental imagery and the reading comprehension of Deaf children. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(3), 177-189. Schirmer, B. R., Bailey, J., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (1999). Using a writing assessment rubric for writing development of children who are deaf. Exceptional Children, 65(3), 383-397.
110 | P a g e Schirmer, B. R., & Schaffer, L. (2010). Implementation of the guided reading approach with elementary school deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(3), 377-385. Schirmer, B. R., Schaffer, L., Therrien, W. J., & Schirmer, T. N. (2012). Reread- adapt and answer-comprehend intervention with Deaf and hard of hearing readers: Effect on fluency and reading achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(5), 469-475. Schirmer, B. R., Schaffer, L., Therrien, W. J., & Schirmer, T. N. (2016). Effect of the Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend Intervention on the reading achievement of middle and high school readers who are deaf. Reading Psychology, 37(4), 650-663. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1105338 Schirmer, B. R., Therrien, W. J., Schaffer, L., & Schirmer, T. N. (2009). Repeated reading as an instructional intervention with deaf readers: Effect on fluency and reading achievement. Reading Improvement, 46(3), 168-177. Schirmer, B. R., & Woolsey, M. L. (1997). Effect of teacher questions on the reading comprehension of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(1), 47-56. Stoefen-Fisher, J. M., & Lee, M. A. (1989). The effectiveness of the graphic representation of signs in developing word identification skills for hearing impaired beginning readers. Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 151-167. Strassman, B. K., & O'Dell, K. (2012). Using open captions to revise writing in digital stories composed by d/deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(4), 340-357. Trezek, B. J., & Hancock, G. R. (2013). Implementing instruction in the alphabetic principle within a sign bilingual setting. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 18(3), 391-408. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent016 Trezek, B. J. & Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of utilizing a phonics-based reading curriculum with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 202-213. Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., Woods, D. G., Gampp, T. L., & Paul, P. V. (2007). Using visual phonics to supplement beginning reading instruction for students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3), 373-384. Trussell, J., & Easterbrooks, S. (2014). The effect of enhanced storybook interaction on signing deaf children's vocabulary. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(3), 319-332. Trussell, J., & Easterbrooks, S. (2015). Effects of morphographic instruction on the morphographic analysis skills of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(3), 229-241. van Staden, A. (2013). An evaluation of an intervention using sign language and multi-sensory coding to support word learning and reading comprehension of Deaf signing children. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(3), 305-318. Wang, Y., & Paul, P. (2011). Integrating technology and reading instruction with children who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effectiveness of the Cornerstones Project. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 56-68. Williams, C. (2011). "Adapted interactive writing instruction with kindergarten children who are deaf or hard of hearing." American Annals of the Deaf 156(1): 23-34.
111 | P a g e Wilson, T., & Hyde, M. (1997). The use of signed English pictures to facilitate reading comprehension by deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 142(4), 333-341. Wolbers, K. A. (2008a). Strategic and interactive writing instruction (SIWI): Apprenticing deaf students in the construction of english text. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 299-326. Wolbers, K. A. (2008b). Using Balanced and Interactive Writing Instruction to improve the higher order and lower order writing skills of deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(2), 257-277. Wolbers, K. A., Bowers, L. M., Dostal, H. M., & Graham, S. C. (2014). Deaf writers' application of American Sign Language knowledge to English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 410-428. Wolbers, K. A., Dostal, H. M., & Bowers, L. M. (2012). “I was born full deaf.” Written language outcomes after 1 year of strategic and interactive writing instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 19-38. Wolbers, K. A., Dostal, H. M., Graham, S., Cihak, D., Kilpatrick, J. R., & Saulsburry, R. (2015). The writing performance of elementary students receiving strategic and interactive writing instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 00(00),1-14.
112 | P a g e 7. SECTION 6: REFERENCES
Albertini, J., & Mayer, C. (2010). Using miscue analysis to assess the comprehension in deaf college readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 35–46. Albertini, J. A., & Schley, S. (2011). Writing: Characteristics, Instruction, and Assessment. In P. Nathan, M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, Volume 1: Oxford University Press. Antia, S. D., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2005). Written language of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 244-255. Archbold, S., Harris, G., O’Donoghue, T., Nikolopoulos, A.,White & Richmond, H. (2008). Reading abilities after cochlear implantation: The effect of age at implantation on outcomes at five and seven years after implantation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 72, 1471–1478. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing literacy in second-language learners—Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432-452. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2007). Young Australians: Their health and wellbeing. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/aus/yathaw07/yathaw07.pdf Berthiaume, R., & Daigle, D. (2014). Morphological processing and learning to read: The case of deaf children. Deafness & Education International, 16(4), 185- 203. Bialystok, E. (2011). Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and bilingual children. In A. Y. Durgunnoglu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.). Language and literacy development in bilingual settings (pp. 121-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Bialystok, E. (2004). The impact of bilingualism and literacy development. In T. K. Khata & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.). The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 577-601). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bockmiller, Patricia R. (1981). Hearing-Impaired children: Learning to read a second language, American Annals of the Deaf, 156(7), 810-813. British Deaf Association. (2014). Charter for British Sign Language. British Deaf Association. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing,12(3), 169-190. Carlson, E., Jenkins, F., Li, T., & Brownell, M. (2013). The interactions of vocabulary, phonemic awareness, decoding, and reading comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 120-131. Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH). (2004). Let’s Read: Literature Review. Retrieved from http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/LetsRead_LitReview.pdf
113 | P a g e Cihon, T., Gardner III, R., Morrison, D., & Paul, P. (2008). Using visual phonics as a strategic intervention to increase literacy behaviors for kindergarten participants at-risk for reading failure. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 5(3), 138. Cole, E. B., & Flexer, C. (2015). Children with Hearing Loss: Developing Listening and Talking, Birth to Six. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing. Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework of bilingual special education. Exceptional Children, 56, 111-119. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-299. Daza, M., Philips-Silver, J., Ruiz-Cuadra, M., & Lopez-Lopez, F. (2014). Language skills and nonverbal cognitive processes associated with reading comprehension in deaf children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3526-3533. Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 223-238. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2005). National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy: Report and Recommendations. Canberra: DEST. Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 465. 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(3), 215-229. Easterbrooks, S. R., & Estes, E. L. (2007). Helping Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students to Use Spoken Language: A Guide for Educators and Families. California, CA: Corwin Press. Easterbrooks, S., & Huston, S. (2008). Signed reading fluency of students who are deaf/hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 37-54. Engelmann, S., Johnson, G., Carnine, L., & Meyer, L. (2008). Corrective reading: Decoding [curriculum program]. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education. Gaustad, M. G. (2000). Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 60-80. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, (3), 445-476. Gregory, S. (2004). Issues in sign bilingual education. In S. Bradaric-Joncic & V. Ivasovic (Eds.). Sign language, deaf culture and bilingual education. Zagreb: Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences. Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (2012). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Sage: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC. Hairrell, A., Rupley, W., & Simmons, D. (2011). The state of vocabulary research. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(4), 253-271.
114 | P a g e Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). The relationship between the reading and signing skills of deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1-11, online, enn009. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn009. Johnston, T. (2004). The assessment and achievement of proficiency in a native sign language within a sign bilingual program: The pilot Auslan receptive skills test. Deafness and Education International, 6(2). 57-81. Knight, P. & Swanwick, R. (2007). Sign bilingual education: Policy and practice. Coleford: Douglas McLean. Kyle, J. G., & Woll, B. (1985). Sign language : The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kyle, F. & Harris, M. (2010). Predictors of reading development in deaf children: A 3- year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 229– 243. Kyle, F. & Harris, M. (2011). Longitudinal patterns of emerging literacy in beginning deaf and hearing readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(3), 289–304. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21. Lederberg, A.R. (2003). Expressing meaning: From communicative intent to building a lexicon. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education (pp. 247–260). New York: Oxford University Press. Liberati, A., Altmann, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P., Ioannidis, J. P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kliejnen, J. & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Studies that Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration, PLoS Medicine, 6(7), online, e1000100. doi: 10.371/journal.pmed.1000100 Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Language. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Marchand-Martella, N., Martella, R., Modderman, S., Petersen, H., & Pan, S. (2013). Key areas of effective adolescent literacy programs. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(1), 161-184. Marschark, M., Mouradian, V., & Halas, M. (1994). Regular Article: Discourse Rules in the Language Productions of Deaf and Hearing Children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 89-107. doi:10.1006/jecp.1994.1005 Marschark, M., Sarchet, T., Rhoten, C., & Zupan, M. (2010). Will cochlear implants close the gap in reading achievement for deaf students? In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education. (pp. 127–143). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mayberry, R., Del Giudice, A., & Lieberman, A. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 164-188. Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early literacy development of Deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(4), 411-431. Mayer, C. & Akamatsu, C. T. (1999). Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for Deaf students: Considering the claims. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4 (1), 1-8. Mayer, C. & Trezek, B.J. (2015). Early literacy development in Deaf children. New York: Oxford University Press.
115 | P a g e Mayer, C. & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a bilingual- bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of Deaf Students and Deaf Education, 1(2), 93-107. Moeller, M., Tomblin, J., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Connor, C., & Jerger, S. (2007). Current state of knowledge: Language and literacy of children with hearing impairment. Ear and Hearing, 28(6), 740–753. Moher, D. Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altmann, D. & the PRIMSA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement, Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-270. Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle- school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/ documents/report.pdf National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. http://www. nationalreadingpanel.org Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S. L., Poe, S. S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model and Guidelines. Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing. Nunes, T., Burman, D., Evans, D., & Bell, D. (2010). Writing a language that you can’t hear. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and Dyslexia in Different Orthographies, (pp. 109-129). New York: Psychology Press. Paul, P. V. (1998). Literacy and Deafness: The Development of Reading, Writing, and Literate Thought. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Paul, P. (2009). Language and Deafness (4th ed.). Boston: Jones & Bartlett. Primary National Strategy (2006). Primary framework for literacy and mathematics, UK Department of Education and Skills. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/20100202100434/nationalstrategies.standards. dcsf.gov.uk/node/84445 Puente, A., Alvarado, J. M., & Herrera, V. (2006). Fingerspelling and sign language as alternative codes for reading and writing words for Chilean deaf signers. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(3), 299-310. Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2012). Large-Scale Academic Achievement Testing of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 17(1), 1-18. Ritchie, K. D., & Speece, D. L. (2006). From letter names to word reading: The nascent role of sublexical fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 301–327. Rose, J (2006). Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading. Bristol: Department for Education and Skills http://dera.ioe Rose, S., McAnally, P., Barkmeier, L., Virnig, S., & Long, J. (2006). Silent Reading Fluency Test: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth for students who
116 | P a g e are deaf and hard of hearing at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. (Report No. 9). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Rose, S., McAnally, P., & Quigley, S. (2004). Language Learning Practices with Deaf Children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Rowe, K. (2005). Teaching Reading. National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Snow, C. E., Burns, S, & Griffin, P (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Report of the National Research Council. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/ reading/ Strassman, B. K., & Schirmer, B. (2012). Teaching writing to deaf students: does research offer evidence for practice? Remedial and Special Education, 3, 166-179. Swanwick, R. (2000). Deaf Children’s Developing Sign Bilingualism: Dimensions of Language Ability, Use and Awareness. PhD thesis. The Open University. Swanwick, R. (2010). Policy and practice in sign bilingual education: Development, challenges and directions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(2), 147–158. Swanwick, R. (2016). Deaf children's bimodal bilingualism and education. Language Teaching, 49, 1-34. Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2010). 7 Processes and Components of Reading. The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, 1, 99. Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8-25. Waddy-Smith, B., & Wilson, V. (2003). See that sound: Visual phonics helps deaf and hard of hearing students develop reading skills. Odyssey, 5, 14-18. Whitehurst, G., Epstein, J., Angell, A., Payne, A., Crone, D., & Fischel, J. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542–555. Williams, C., & Mayer, C. (2015). Writing in young deaf children. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 630-666. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239. Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Wright, R. W., Brand, R. A., Dunn, W. & Spindler, K. P. (2007) How to write a systematic review, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 455, 23-29. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Snyder, L. (1985). Form and meaning in the written language of hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 87(5), 75-90. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Snyder, L. & Mayberry, R. (1996). How deaf and normally hearing students convey meaning within and between written sentences. Volta Review, 98, 9-38.
117 | P a g e 8. APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – METHODS
INFORMATION SOURCES
Table 3: Sources
DATABASES JOURNALS EBCSOHost Databases Key journals ERIC Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education CINAHL Deafness and Education International Education Research Complete American Annals of the Deaf Volta Review OVID Databases MEDLINE Other journals with a focus on deafness EMBASE Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research PsychInfo Ear and Hearing Developmental Psychology Proquest Databases Journal of the American Academy of Audiology Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts (LLBA) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology Proquest Education Journals International Journal of Audiology Proquest Family Health Sign Language & Linguistics Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source Sign Language Studies
Informit Databases Journals with broader topic areas A+ Education Communication Disorders Quarterly Topics in Language Disorders JStor International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Google Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools Google Scholar Sign Language Studies International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Journal of Special Education Educational Research Journal Teaching Exceptional Children Review of Educational Research American Journal of Audiology Exceptional Children Journal of Early Childhood Literacy Australian Journal of Linguistics Disability and Health Journal Interpreting Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour
118 | P a g e Language in Society Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools
TERMS USED
Table 4: Themes/concepts and the key terms linked with each
SIGN LEARNING LANGUAGE EDUCATION LITERACY STRATEGIES OUTCOMES OBSTACLES teaching literacy phonological sign language literacy Learning strategies achievement code novel word language and academic deaf* intervention mapping fluency literacy achievement strateg* hearing word learning literacy teaching semantics listening abilit* impair* strateg* experiences conceptual hard of speaking acquisition of sign bilingual morphology learning hearing abilit* vocabulary strateg* bilingual cognitive spoken lower-level AUSLAN syntax bicultural strateg* language skills British sign multimodal linguistic text-based language instruction phonics perceptual interdependenc literacy (BSL) strateg* e American sign language literacy phonological* decoding (ASL) bimodal severe hearing bilingual vocabulary comprehen* impair* pedagog* profound comprehensio vocabulary hearing chaining n skills impair* discourse hearing loss sandwiching fluency skills manually education reading literacy skills coded English simultaneous communicatio children writing bilingual* n sign supported student* spelling bicultural English decoding cued speech natural sign linguistics systems literacy Transfer narrative bimodal development conceptual pragmatics knowledge discourse metacognitive participation strategies verbal pragmatic reasoning skills
119 | P a g e language linguistic outcomes knowledge receptive phonological vocabulary knowledge expressive learning vocabulary language process* academic skills grammar
SEARCH STRATEGY The search that was undertaken on ERIC was conducted on 5 May 2016.
Table 5: Electronic search strategy for ERIC database
SEARCH TOOL SEARCH STATEMENT RESULTS ERIC sign language AND literacy 239 (using EBSCOhost auslan AND literacy 3 interface) british sign language AND literacy 4 american sign language AND literacy 107 deaf* AND literacy 524 "severe hearing impair*" AND education 13 "profound hearing impair*" AND education 26 "profound hearing impair*" AND literacy 5 "severe hearing impair*" AND literacy 0 hearing loss AND literacy 68 bimodal bilingual 40 deaf* AND morphology 101 deaf* AND phonological 197 sign supported AND education 15 sign supported AND literacy 6 deaf* AND multimodal perceptual strateg* 0 deaf* AND conceptual learning strateg* 0 deaf* AND comprehen* 820 deaf* AND vocabulary* 499 deaf* AND reading 1368 deaf* AND writing 568 deaf* AND semantics 180 deaf* AND pragmatics 72 Note: Truncation [*] was used to find variations of search terms e.g. deaf*captures the words deaf, deafness, deaf/hard of hearing; impair* captures the words impair, impairs, impaired, impairment, impairments.
120 | P a g e APPENDIX 2 – OTHER LITERATURE SOURCES
LITERATURE REVIEWS AND OTHER SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS Andrews, J. F., Byrne, A., & Clark, M. D. (2015). Deaf scholars on reading: A historical review of 40 years of dissertation research (1973-2013): Implications for research and practice. American Annals of the Deaf, 159(5), 393-418. Andrews, J. F., & Wang, Y. (2015). The qualitative similarity hypothesis: Research synthesis and future directions. American Annals of the Deaf, 159(5), 468- 483. Beal-Alvarez, J. S., & Huston, S. G. (2014). Emerging evidence for instructional practice: Repeated viewings of sign language models. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 35(2), 93-102. Bennett, J. G., Gardner, R., III, & Rizzi, G. L. (2013). Deaf and hard of hearing students' through-the-air English skills: A review of formal assessments. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(5), 506-521. Bowe, F. G. (2002). Preventing students from becoming "low-functioning Deaf" as Adults. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(5), 22-27. Cannon, J. E., & Guardino, C. (2012). Literacy strategies for deaf/hard-of-hearing English language learners: Where do we begin? Deafness and Education International, 14(2), 78-99. Cannon, J. E., & Kirby, S. (2013). Grammar structures and deaf and hard of hearing students: A review of past performance and a report of new findings. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 292-310. Cawthon, S., & Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achievement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 363-376. DesJardin, J. L., & Ambrose, S. E. (2010). The importance of the home literacy environment for developing literacy skills in young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Young Exceptional Children, 13(5), 28-44. Drasgow, E. (1998). American Sign Language as a Pathway to Linguistic Competence. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 329-342. Dye, M. W., Hauser, P. C., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Visual skills and cross-modal plasticity in deaf readers: Possible implications for acquiring meaning from print. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145, 71-82. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1416.013 Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stephenson, B. (2006). An examination of twenty literacy, science, and mathematics practices used to educate students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(4), 385-397. Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stephenson, B. H. (2012). Clues from research: Effective instructional strategies leading to positive outcomes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 13, 44-49. Ellis, J. A. (2014). “All methods—and wedded to none” 1: The deaf education methods debate and progressive educational reform in Toronto, Canada, 1922–1945. Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, 50(3), 371-389.
121 | P a g e Evans, C. (1998). Literacy Acquisition in Deaf Children. Paper Presented at Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language, Seattle, WA. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED424751.pdf
Fernandes, J. K. (1999). Overview of a literacy program: Nine important pieces. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 17(6), 2-43. Gallaway, C. (1998). Language acquisition in the 1990s. Deafness and Education, 22(1), 39-46. Gaustad, M. G. (2000). Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 60-80. Hermans, D., Ormel, E., & Knoors, H. (2010). On the relation between the signing and reading skills of deaf bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(2), 187-199. Kalivoda, K. S., Higbee, J. L., & Brenner, D. C. (1997). Teaching students with hearing impairments. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3), 10-16. Leybaert, J. (1998). Phonological representations in deaf children: The importance of early linguistic experience. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 169- 173. Luckner, J. L., & Cooke, C. (2010). A summary of the vocabulary research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(1), 38-67. Luckner, J. L., & Handley, C. M. (2008). A summary of the reading comprehension research undertaken with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(1), 6-36. Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young, J., III, & Muir, S. G. (2005). An examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(5), 443-456. Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young III, J., & Muir, S. G. (2005). A review of evidence-based literacy research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 5, 443-456.
Luckner, J. L., & Urbach, J. (2012). Reading fluency and students who are deaf or hard of hearing: Synthesis of the research. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33(4), 230-241. Luetke-Stahlman, B., Hayes, P. L., & Nielsen, D. C. (1996). Essential practices as adults read to meet the needs of deaf or hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 141(4), 309-320. Marschark, M. (2003). Interactions of language and cognition in deaf learners: From research to practice. International Journal of Audiology, 42 Suppl 1, S41-48. Marschark, M. (2001). Language Development in Children Who Are Deaf: A Research Synthesis. Project FORUM, National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org/DesktopModules/DNNspot- Store/ProductFiles/157_6562b22b-8934-4062-a42b-e46400be157c.PDF Moog, J. S., & Geers, A. E. (2003). Epilogue: Major findings, conclusions and implications for deaf education. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 121S-125S. Moores, D., Anderson, K., Ayers, K., Krantz, K., Laffery, M., Locke, A., &. Weide, R. V. (2008). Issues and trends in American annals of the deaf publications 2001 to 2007. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(2), 99-120.
122 | P a g e Moores, D. F., & Miller, M. S. (2001). Literacy publications: American annals of the deaf 1996 to 2000. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(2), 77-80. 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(1), 9-31. Nelson, K. E. (1998). Toward a differentiated account of facilitators of literacy development and ASL in deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 73-88. Nielsen, D. C., Luetke, B., & Stryker, D. S. (2011). The importance of morphemic awareness to reading achievement and the potential of signing morphemes to supporting reading development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(3), 275-288. Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 30-46. Pepnet. (2004). Planning for Success: Initiatives for Positive Outcomes. Proceedings of the PEPNet 2004 Biennial Conference (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April 21- 24, 2004): PEPNet 2. Pepnet. (2006). Roots & Wings. Proceedings of the PEPNet 2006 Biennial Conference (Louisville, Kentucky, April 4-8, 2006): PEPNet 2. Power, D., & Leigh, G. R. (2000). Principles and practices of literacy development for deaf learners: Ahistorical overview. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 3-8. Rathmann, C., Mann, W., & Morgan, G. (2007). Narrative structure and narrative development in deaf children. Deafness and Education International, 9(4), 187-196. Rose, S. (2007). Monitoring Progress of Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Washington, DC: National Centre on Student Progress Monitoring. Rusher, M. A. (2012). Language interdependence between American sign language and English: A review of empirical studies. A paper presented at the Association of College of Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Conference, New Orleans, LA, March 4-8, 2008. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530276.pdf Schirmer, B. R., & McGough, S. M. (2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the conclusions of the national reading panel apply? Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 83-117. Strassman, B. K. (1997). Metacognition and reading in children who are deaf: A review of the research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 140-149.
Strassman, B. K., & Schirmer, B. (2013). Teaching writing to deaf students: Does research offer evidence for practice? Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 166-179. Tucci, S. L., Trussell, J. W., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2014). A review of the evidence on strategies for teaching children who are D/HH grapheme-phoneme correspondence. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 35(4), 191-203. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525740114523776 Wang, Y., & Williams, C. (2014). Are we hammering square pegs into round holes? An investigation of the meta-analyses of reading research with students who are d/deaf or hard of hearing and students who are hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 159(4), 323-345.
123 | P a g e Webster, A. (2000). An international research review of literacy intervention strategies for children with severe to profound deafness. Deafness and Education International, 2(3), 128-141. Wilbur, R. B. (2000). The use of ASL to support the development of English and literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 81-104. Williams, C., & Mayer, C. (2015). Writing in young deaf children. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 630-666. Woolsey, M. L., Satterfield, S. T., & Roberson, L. (2006). Visual phonics: An English code buster? American Annals of the Deaf, 151(4), 452-457. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Downey, D. M. (1996). Development of school-aged deaf, hard-of-hearing, and normally hearing students' written language. Volta Review, 98(1), 3-7. Zupan, B., & Dempsey, L. (2013). Facilitating emergent literacy skills in children with hearing loss. Deafness and Education International, 15(3), 130-148.
DESKTOP PUBLICATIONS (OTHER THAN RESEARCH DESIGN PUBLICATIONS – INCLUDES THESES) Akamatsu, C. T., Stewart, D. A., & Becker, B. J. (2000). Documenting English syntactic development in face-to-face signed communication. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5), 452-463. Allen, T. E. (2015). ASL skills, fingerspelling ability, home communication context and early alphabetic knowledge of preschool-aged deaf children. Sign Language Studies, 15(3), 233. Amann, N. H. (1992). Closed captioning as a literacy tool for deaf and hard-of- hearing middle school students. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/85666571? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA %29&atitle=&title=Closed+captioning+as+a+literacy+tool+for+deaf+and+hard -of-hearing+middle+school+students&issn=&date=2006-08- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Amann %2C+Nancy+Hlibok&isbn=&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Anthony, M. E. The Role of American Sign Language and "Conceptual Wholes" in Facilitating Language, Cognition, and Literacy. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/85603139? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA%29&atitle=&title=The+Role+of+American+Sign+Language+and+ %22Conceptual+Wholes%22+in+Facilitating+Language%2C+Cognition %2C+and+Literacy&issn=&date=2003-08- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Anthony %2C+Michelle+Erica&isbn=&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database.
124 | P a g e Berke, M. G. Deaf parents with deaf children and hearing parents with hearing children: A comparison of shared reading experiences. (AAI3507966). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/1530415770? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA %29&atitle=&title=Deaf+parents+with+deaf+children+and+hearing+parents+w ith+hearing+children %3A+A+comparison+of+shared+reading+experiences&issn=&date=2013-01- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Berke %2C+Michele+G&isbn=9781267335067&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id =info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Blasko, J., & Donahue, S. (2008). Cornerstones: Literacy units ready for teachers, students. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 9(1), 38-41. Cormier, K., Smith, S., & Sevcikova, Z. (2013). Predicate structures, gesture, and simultaneity in the representation of action in British Sign Language: Evidence from deaf children and adults. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 18(3), 370-390. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent020 Cripps, J. H. A case study on reading processes of signing deaf children. (AAI3291237). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/85714701? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA %29&atitle=&title=A+case+study+on+reading+processes+of+signing+deaf+c hildren&issn=&date=2008-01-01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Cripps %2C+Jody+Herbert&isbn=9780549360162&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft _id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Di Perri, K. A. ASL Phonemic Awareness in Deaf Children: Implications for Instruction. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/85620241? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA%29&atitle=&title=ASL+Phonemic+Awareness+in+Deaf+Children %3A+Implications+for+Instruction&issn=&date=2004-01- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Di+Perri %2C+Kristin+Anderson&isbn=&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Ingham, W. E. (1989). Encoding Strategies Used to Process Print Information by Prelingually, Profoundly Deaf Children. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/58221836? accountid=12372
125 | P a g e http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA %29&atitle=&title=Encoding+Strategies+Used+to+Process+Print+Information +by+Prelingually%2C+Profoundly+Deaf+Children&issn=&date=1990-03- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Ingham %2C+William+Edward&isbn=&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Kuntze, M., Golos, D., & Enns, C. (2014). Rethinking literacy: Broadening opportunities for visual learners. Sign Language Studies, 14(2), 203-224. Moeller, M., G., C., Seaver, L., Stredler-Brown, A., & Holzinger, D. (2013). Best practices in family-centred early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: An international consensus statement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(4), 429-445. Nussbaum, D., Waddy-Smith, B., & Doyle, J. (2012). Students who are deaf and hard of hearing and use sign language: Considerations and strategies for developing spoken language and literacy skills. Seminars in Speech & Language, 33(4), 310-321. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1326912 Padden, C. A. (1990). Deaf Children and Literacy. Literacy Lessons. Geneva: International Bureau of Education. Paul, P. V. (1990). Use of ASL to teach reading and writing to deaf students: An interactive theoretical perspective. Paper presented at the meeting of the Bilingual Considerations in the Education of Deaf Students: ASL and English Conference (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED337928). Paul, P. V. (2006). New literacies, multiple literacies, unlimited literacies: What now, what next, where to? A response to "blue listerine, parochialism and ASL literacy". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 382-387. Pribanic, L. (2006). Sign language and deaf education: A new tradition. Sign Language & Linguistics, 9(1-2), 233-254. Rathmann, C., Mann, W., & Morgan, G. (2007). Narrative structure and narrative development in deaf children. Deafness and Education International, 9(4), 187-196. Rodda, M., & Eleweke, C. J. (2000). Theories of literacy development in limited English profiency deaf people: A review. Deafness and Education International, 2(2), 101-113. Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2008). Language and literacy development in prelingually-deaf children. Journal on Educational Psychology, 2(2), 16-20.
Schembri, A., Napier, J., Beattie, R., & Leigh, G. (1998) The test battery for Australian Sign Language morphology and syntax project: noun-verb pairs in Australian. Selected papers from the Australasian Deaf Studies Research Symposium, August 22 -23. North Rocks, NSW: North Rocks Press. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.14/1185455 Sedey, A. L. (1995). Fast Mapping of Novel Fingerspelled Words by Profoundly Deaf Students. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/85631840? accountid=12372
126 | P a g e http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA %29&atitle=&title=Fast+Mapping+of+Novel+Fingerspelled+Words+by+Profou ndly+Deaf+Students&issn=&date=1996-06- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Sedey %2C+Allison+Lee&isbn=&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Shantie, C., & Hoffmeister, R. J. (2000). Why schools for deaf children should hire deaf teachers: A preschool issue. Journal of Education, 182(3), 37-47. Sieben, C. L. Working toward improving the writing skills of deaf children in secondary schools. (AAI1557503). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/1684415685? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA %29&atitle=&title=Working+toward+improving+the+writing+skills+of+deaf+chil dren+in+secondary+schools&issn=&date=2015-01- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Sieben %2C+Chatman+L&isbn=9781303949623&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_i d=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Swanwick, R., & Watson, L. (2005). Literacy in the homes of young deaf children: Common and distinct features of spoken language and sign bilingual environments. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(1), 53-78. Trezek, B. J. Phonics Instruction for Deaf Students: Assessing the Generalization of Skills. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/85634983? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+ %28LLBA%29&atitle=&title=Phonics+Instruction+for+Deaf+Students %3A+Assessing+the+Generalization+of+Skills&issn=&date=2005-02- 01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Trezek %2C+Beverly+J&isbn=&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. Walker, L. M. (1995). An evaluation of the reading comprehension of students in Victoria who are profoundly, prelingually deaf and of an intervention programme to improve their inferential reading comprehension skills. Parkville, VIC: University of Melbourne. Weaver-Trumble, B. (1996). From Symbol to Meaning: Processing Skills and Literacy Development in Deaf Students. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/58338872? accountid=12372 http://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+ %26+theses&sid=ProQ:Linguistics+and+Language+Behavior+Abstracts+
127 | P a g e %28LLBA%29&atitle=&title=From+Symbol+to+Meaning %3A+Processing+Skills+and+Literacy+Development+in+Deaf+Students&issn =&date=1997-08-01&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Weaver-Trumble %2C+Barbara&isbn=&jtitle=&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database.
128 | P a g e APPENDIX 3 – GLOSSARY
TERM DEFINITION Bimodal An individual who uses two or more languages where at least one of them is bilingual a sign language. Conceptual A communicative bridge to support and facilitate communication between a sign deaf student and others in the home or school environment to help them understand each other better. Deaf or deaf A capital ‘D’ indicates that a person is a member of the Deaf community, (capitalisation) identifies with that culture and has a strong Deaf identity. A lowercase ‘d’ indicates that a person does not identify with members of the deaf community, strives to identify with hearing people and regards their hearing loss in medical terms. The lowercase ‘d’ is also used when describing a person’s audiological ability to hear. Hybrid sign The use of hybrid sign encompasses both a sign language and a spoken language to provide access to both forms of communication. Hybrid communication systems include cued speech, Signed English and Signing Exact English, among others. Pidgin sign Pidgin sign language is a combination of a natural sign language, such as American Sign language (ASL) or Auslan and a signed form of the local spoken language such as English. Because the sign language is a distinct language and does not exactly match English, pidgin sign, or contact signing as it is more recently referred to, is seen a bridge between the two. Pidgin sign Pidgin Signed English (PSE) is a combination of a natural sign language such English as American Sign Language (ASL) and English, where ASL signs are presented in English word order. It is a communication system rather than a full language Sign (or Sign (or signed) English refers to a sign system which represents all signed) English elements of spoken English visually, on the hands. It was developed for use Signing Exact in Educational settings to enable visual access to the structures of English English (SEE) but is now rarely used. (also known as In different countries, Signed English was formed in different ways. Signed Exact In the American “Signing Exact English”, or SEE, a range of ASL signs were English or supplemented by additional arbitrary signs to represent the morphological Seeing Exact aspects of English, such as ‘ed’, ‘ly’, ‘ing’, etc. English) In Australian “Signed English”, morphological word endings and prefixes were represented through fingerspelling. Sign Educational contexts or programs using a sign bilingual approach typically bilingualism use a natural sign language (such as ASL or Auslan) as the language of educational instruction and introduce a spoken language (such as English) as a second language, especially in terms of literacy. Sign language Sign language system refers to a spontaneously developed sign system system which is influenced by the dominant spoken language of the local community. A sign language system is based on the spoken language and often used to communicate with a hearing person who has little knowledge of the local native sign language. Sign language systems can have features from both the native sign language and the spoken language combined together and can include signs, fingerspelling and mouthing of English words. Sign using Signed languages follow their own particular word order patterns. Signing English word using English word order uses signs following the same order or grammar, as order spoken English rather than the order of their natural sign language.
129 | P a g e