Fingerspelling and Print: Understanding the Word Reading of Deaf Children

Scott, J. A., Hansen, S. G., & Lederberg, A. R. (2019). Fingerspelling and print: Understanding the word reading of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 164(4), 429–449.

Fingerspelling and Print: Understanding the Word Reading of Deaf Children Jessica A. Scott, Sarah G. Hansen, and Amy R. Lederberg

Fingerspelling and its relationship with literacy skills among deaf and hard of hearing children who use American Sign Language is an increasingly popular research topic. However, there is limited research on whether reading interventions that systematically include fingerspelling are more effective for improving literacy skills than reading interventions that do not. In an adapted alternating-treatment single-case study, the authors contrasted the number of words learned under three conditions: a productive fingerspelling condition, in which word reading was taught through activities that emphasized productive fingerspelling; a chaining condition, in which teachers chained written words with receptive fingerspelling; and a sign-to-print condition, in which fingerspelling was not used. Five of the 6 participants learned most of the words taught with no differentiation by condition. Participants could recognize and fingerspell taught words, even if those words were not taught via fingerspelling.

Keywords: Deaf education, American Sign Language, fingerspelling, reading, literacy

Although there is increasing research in potential contribution of alternate coding deaf education addressing questions of systems such as fingerspelling (letters of language and literacy development, there the alphabet represented through hand- is little evidence on specific interventions shapes), visemes (representations of speech to improve the literacy skills of deaf and sounds as seen on the lips and mouth hard of hearing (DHH) students (Cannon, during speaking), or handshapes (hand Guardino, Antia, & Luckner, 2016). There positions that are used in the execution is evidence to suggest that reading out- of individual signs) for word recognition comes are improving among some groups and reading (Elliott, Braun, Kuhlmann, of DHH learners (Easterbrooks & & Jacobs, 2012; Haptonstall-Nykaza & Beal-Alvarez, 2012), but identification Schick, 2007; Sehyr, Petrich, & Emmorey, of the route to print access used by these 2016). Specifically for those students who learners remains unclear. For example, use American Sign Language (ASL) to deaf education research is divided on communicate, more research is needed on such issues as the relative contribution of the relative contribution of such coding phonology both within and between mo- systems to reading development. In the dalities (i.e., spoken language and signed present study, we examined one such cod- language; Holmer, Heimann, & Rudner, ing system—fingerspelling—and whether 2016; Mayer & Trezek, 2014), and the and how the use of fingerspelling enhanced

All three authors are affiliated with Georgia State University, Atlanta. Scott is an assistant professor, Department of Learning Sciences. Hansen is an assistant professor, Department of Learning Sciences. Lederberg is Regents’ Professor and professor emerita, Department of Learning Sciences, and principal investigator, Center on Literacy and Deafness.

429

01_Scott.indd 429 07/11/19 2:20 PM 430 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

signing DHH children’s ability to learn not only drawing upon orthographic and novel words. semantic information but also accessing knowledge of German Sign Language Dual-Route Cascaded Model lexicon and spoken-German visemes. For of Reading the indirect route, Elliott et al. argued that rather than access phonology directly, the The dual-route cascaded (DRC) model of deaf adults in their study accessed pho- reading was initially proposed by Coltheart, nology via means of acquiring visemic Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler (2001). information such as speechreading. Others According to this model, phonemic and have examined the role of phonology for lexical routes to word reading provide in- deaf adults reading in French, finding that creasing cues to facilitate word recognition; study participants favored an orthographic this conceptualization is in contrast with route to word reading (Bélanger, Baum, & the previously held notion that visual and Mayberry, 2012). Though valuable, both auditory input must reach a certain thresh- studies considered the word reading of old before the reader is able to identify the deaf adults rather than children, and thus written word. Per the DRC model, when were more likely reflect the word reading presented with a printed word, the reader process for more fluent readers, which may may follow one of two routes: The first is a differ from the word reading process of de- direct route, which allows the reader access veloping readers. to the meaning of the word she is reading directly from the print. The second route Fingerspelling and Literacy relies on sublexical information sources before arriving at the phonemic represen- Evidence has been mounting in support tation of the word. In essence, one route of the importance of fingerspelling in the to reading brings the reader directly from language and literacy development of the printed letters to the pronunciation DHH children (Allen, 2015; Emmorey, of the spoken word, while the other in- McCullough, & Weisberg, 2015; volves retrieval of lexical information via Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007; orthographic and semantic data. The DRC Mounty, Pucci, & Harmon, 2014; Stone, model has been found by some to have Katheiser, Hauser, Pettito, & Allen, 2015). better explanatory power for skills such Because of its through-the-air represen- as pronunciation of nonwords (Pritchard, tation of orthography, fingerspelling has Coltheart, Palethorpe, & Castles, 2012), been thought of as a potential link between oral reading, and visual word recognition ASL and English (Mounty et al., 2014). In- (Coltheart et al., 2001). There is also ev- deed, there is even neuroscientific evidence idence that the DRC model aligns with that print words and fingerspelled words reading approaches that are effective for are processed similarly by deaf readers students with dyslexia (Ziegler et al., 2008). (Emmorey et al., 2015). However, there is not There has been limited research on the yet sufficient research on how these relation- application of the DRC model to DHH ships may be applied to teaching practice. readers. In the only study of its kind, Elliott A number of researchers have found a et al. (2012) argued that deaf adults in relationship between fingerspelling and Germany utilize a modified version of the literacy skills at various ages. Fingerspelling DRC model in which the sublexical route has been found to predict emergent literacy these readers take to word reading includes among young DHH children (Allen, 2015).

01_Scott.indd 430 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 431

Fingerspelling has also been correlated with printed word without explicit instruction reading comprehension ability and English in sublexical structures such as phonol- vocabulary knowledge among adult DHH ogy or fingerspelling. Similarly, a sight readers (Emmorey & Petrich, 2011; Stone word intervention using a single-case et al., 2015). In fact, fingerspelling appears design demonstrated that systematic re- to contribute to scores on a measure of peated exposure to sight words supported reading proficiency over and above the ef- kindergarten-age DHH children in their fects of ASL proficiency—in other words, acquisition of these words (Davenport, it is not ASL proficiency in general, but the Konrad, & Alber-Morgan, 2018). How- specific skill of fingerspelling, that may be ever, there is evidence that DHH children important to the development of reading may learn words better in conditions that skills of signing DHH readers (Lederberg emphasize orthographic patterns; such et al., 2019; Stone et al., 2015). evidence suggests that an indirect route On the whole, these studies suggest emphasizing sublexical structures may be both that DHH children make connections a more successful way to teach DHH chil- between fingerspelled and written words dren to read words (Reitsma, 2008). and that explicit instruction that includes There are interventions that focus on fingerspelling may support literacy devel- the indirect route and attempt to teach opment. However, the use of fingerspelling DHH children to decode written words via as a bridge to word reading is not without spoken phonology. For instance, Fairview its critics. Some have rightly criticized the Learning (Ausbrooks-Rusher, Schimmel, & field for failing to provide sufficient evi- Edwards, 2012) is a commonly used liter- dence that DHH learners could use either acy intervention that teaches children to fingerspelling or signs to connect with the read words through sight word instruction written word without also having suffi- (the direct route) and through phonology cient phonological knowledge or through instruction (the indirect route). Similarly, reliance on spoken phonology (Wang, the Science Research Associates (SRA) Trezek, Luckner, & Paul, 2008). In the pres- Direct Instruction (DI) program is a word ent study, we attempt to contribute to the reading intervention that is based on tra- knowledge base in this area. ditional phonological decoding (Patker, 1997). To make spoken phonology more Word Reading Interventions visually accessible for DHH learners, re- With DHH Learners searchers have used Visual Phonics along- side DI programs (Trezek & Hancock, Though there are few word reading in- 2013). Visual Phonics represents sounds terventions that are designed for DHH with hand movements that mimic articula- learners, those that exist can be divided tion (International Communication Learn- into approaches that use a direct route ing Institute, 1996). In studies that used to reading words and those that use pretest/posttest design, children instructed an indirect route. Reading Milestones with DI using Visual Phonics increased (Quigley, King, McAnally, & Rose, 1981) their ability to decode words and nonwords is a commonly used literacy interven- (Trezek & Hancock, 2013). tion for DHH students. In this approach, An emerging body of literature suggests children are exposed to words multiple that literacy instruction using fingerspelling times and are expected to learn to associ- may be an indirect route to word read- ate the word meaning and sign with the ing that holds promise for DHH children

01_Scott.indd 431 07/11/19 2:20 PM 432 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

(Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007; and later connecting fingerspelling with Humphries & MacDougal, 2000; Stone English print. It differed from chaining and et al., 2015). There are a number of ways sandwiching by not only exposing children that fingerspelling may be used in con- to the fingerspelled forms of words, but also nection with print. Two such approaches by asking them to produce fingerspelling. are chaining and sandwiching. Chaining This intervention included activities that involves making a series of connections be- required children to identify sublexical com- tween meaningful representations of words, ponents of words through analysis of finger- that is, the printed word, the sign, a picture, spelled representations (see Appendix A). and its fingerspelled form. Sandwiching In the present study, we aimed to add uses fingerspelling and signs, with one form to the existing literature about the role of “sandwiched” between another to connect fingerspelling in learning to read words them. The target word is either finger- through an adapted alternating-treatment spelled, signed, and fingerspelled or signed, single-case research design study. We hy- fingerspelled, and signed. Both instruc- pothesized that the presence of fingerspell- tional approaches are used by deaf teaching in instruction would result in better ers to make connections between printed word learning, and that an approach that words, fingerspelling, and ASL signs both exposed students to fingerspelled (Humphries & MacDougal, 2000). Building forms of words and asked them to pro- on these approaches, Haptonstall-Nykaza duce fingerspelled forms of words would and Schick (2007) taught children words be more effective for word learning than either by directly connecting the print with a condition that did not include finger- the ASL sign (direct route) or through spelling. We tested this hypothesis in three chaining that linked fingerspelling, the conditions: two that incorporated finger- English print, and the ASL sign (indirect spelling and one that did not. route). Haptonstall-Nykaza and Schick The first fingerspelling condition found evidence that students learn words was an instructional approach adapted better by the indirect route than by the di- from FOWR that included receptive rect route. This seems to suggest, much as and productive fingerspelling, as well Stone et al. found (2015), that fingerspelling as fingerspelling activities inspired by may facilitate children’s formation of asso- phonological awareness—for example, ciations between signs and print. combining individually fingerspelled As a response to the findings of letters to make one word (a technique Haptonstall-Nykaza and Schick (2007), the known as word blending) and fingerspell- Fingerspelling Our Way to Reading program ing words by separating letter groupings, (FOWR; Schick, Lederberg, Bridenbaugh, such as /c/ and /at/ (a technique known Boll, & Burke, 2018) was developed as a as chunking). The second fingerspelling supplemental intervention for young signing condition was an instructional approach DHH children. It was based on the Words that included only receptive fingerspell- Their Way spelling intervention, which uses ing by incorporating chaining and/or a word family approach to instruction (Bear, sandwiching (i.e., presenting target En- Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2015). glish print words via linking signs, fin- The FOWR intervention focused on build- gerspelling, pictures, and print). The final ing a fingerspelled representation of a word approach, which did not incorporate any by making explicit connections between the fingerspelling, made direct connections fingerspelling of a word and its meaning, between signs and English print.

01_Scott.indd 432 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 433

Method binaural cochlear implants, which both Manuel and Sam were reported to use con- Participants sistently at home and at school. Both Chris Six children between the ages of 6 years and Manuel had been identified in infancy 0 months and 9 years 4 months were re- as having congenital hearing loss. Sam had cruited from two self-contained deaf educa- been identified with a hearing loss between tion classrooms at an elementary school in the ages of 2 and 3 years. the southeastern United States to participate Dorothy, Nick, and James made up in the present study. Classrooms were se- the First-Grade Group. Being more lected if they reported that they used ASL as than 9 years old, two of these students the primary mode of communication and were slightly above the average age for had students who were identified by their first-grade students. All three of the first teachers as early readers (reading at approx- graders wore bilateral hearing aids; both imately kindergarten to first grade level). All Dorothy and Nick were reported to wear students from participating classrooms were them consistently. Dorothy was identified included. All students qualified for free or as having a hearing loss at age 6 years. reduced-price lunch. Students participated Nick and James were identified as having a in two different groups, divided by age and congenital hearing loss in infancy. James’s grade level. The first group consisted of mother was deaf, and he had deaf sib- three students ages 6–7 years who were en- lings. His family communicated primarily rolled in kindergarten (hereafter Kindergar- through simultaneous spoken English and ten Group). The second group comprised sign language. James also had a diagnosis three students ages 8–10 years who were of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, enrolled in first grade (hereafter First-Grade for which he did not take medication. Group). See Table 1 for information on participants. (To protect the participants’ Setting and Interventionist privacy, their real names are not used.) Manuel, Sam, and Chris made up the All sessions took place in the students’ Kindergarten Group. The ranged in age classrooms during school hours. Located from 6 years 0 months to 6 years 4 months. in a major metropolitan area, the school This is slightly higher than the average age was a public elementary school with a for kindergarten enrollment. All three had well-established deaf education unit. DHH

Table 1. Attributes of the Study Participants (N = 6) Namea Group Ageb Gender Race/ethnicity Mode of amplification Home language

Manuel K 6.0 M Hispanic/Latino CI Spanish Sam K 6.4 M African American CI English Chris K 6.4 M Hispanic/Latino CI Spanish James 1 9.7 M African American HA English and sign Dorothy 1 9.4 F Caucasian HA English and Spanish Nick 1 7.10 M African American HA English

Notes. K = Kindergarten Group. 1 = First-Grade Group. CI = cochlear implant. HA = hearing aid. a. All names have been changed to protect the participants’ privacy. b. Years.months.

01_Scott.indd 433 07/11/19 2:20 PM 434 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

children from all over the county attended increasing length. For this subtest, the chil- this program. It featured classrooms that dren viewed a video of a signer fingerspell- primarily used ASL and others that pri- ing simple words such as sun, bus, and dog marily used spoken language. The present through longer words such as pencil and study took place only in the two class- caterpillar. The children were then asked to rooms using ASL. Sessions were conducted spell the same word as the one in the video. by a research associate employed at a pub- The second subtest required the children lic research institution. The interventionist to blend fingerspelled words that were had a master’s degree in deaf education and presented in two or three chunks. For ex- experience with classroom teaching and ample, the interventionist might fingerspell deaf education research. Her ASL skills, sun as /s/ (pause) /un/. The children were rated on the basis of her score on the Sign then asked to blend the letters together Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI), through fingerspelling to create a word. were at the advanced level. The interven- Scores on this assessment are reported as tionist had received training from one of percent correct across items. the professionals who designed FOWR. Three kindergarteners and one first grader scored within the average range on letter and Measures word knowledge as measured by the WJ-III LWID, while two of the children in the First- The interventionist administered initial Grade Group earned a standard score that assessments to the children in ASL, without was significantly below average (see Table 2). voicing, prior to the start of intervention. It is important to note, however, that the de- Correct responses were accepted in either mands of assessment were much higher for voice or sign. Measures included three tests the older children than for the younger ones. of language and literacy. The first was the Kindergarteners were required primarily Woodcock Johnson–III Letter-Word Iden- to identify letters, while the older children tification subtest, which assesses knowledge were required to read words of increasing of letters and sight words (WJ-III LWID; difficulty. This change in level may partially Woodcock, Mather, & McGrew, 2001). account for the lower scores among the older Next, expressive vocabulary was assessed children. On the EOWPVT, all of the chil- by means of the Expressive One-Word Pic- dren scored two standard deviations below ture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT; Martin & the mean. In terms of fingerspelling ability, Brownell, 2010). This assessment asks chil- all of the students in the Kindergarten Group dren to provide a signed word matching scored 0 on both Schick Fingerspelling As- a picture prompt. Previous modifications sessment subtests, while two participants used successfully with DHH children in- in the First-Grade Group had average to cluded administration in sign and a list of above-average scores. This jump in finger- acceptable sign responses generated by deaf spelling ability between the Kindergarten and child of deaf adult (CODA) research- Group and the First-Grade group may have ers, which were both used in the present been an effect of age and exposure to finger- administration (Lederberg et al., 2019). spelling in the classroom setting. Finally, two subtests of the Schick Finger- spelling Assessment (Schick, 2012) were Experimental Design and Analysis used to assess the children on their fingerspelling ability. One subtest required the An adapted alternating-treatment children to imitate fingerspelled words of single-case research design was used in

01_Scott.indd 434 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 435

Table 2. Participants’ Assessment Results

Schick Schick Fingerspelling Fingerspelling WJ-III LWID WJ-III LIWD EOWPVT EOWPVT Assessment: Assessment: standard age/grade standard age fingerspelling PA blending Namea Ageb scores equivalents scores equivalents ability words

Manuel 6.0 105 6.3/1.0 65 3.0 8% 0% Sam 6.4 88 5.8/K.4 63 3.1 8% 0% Chris 6.4 88 5.8/K.4 66 3.3 8% 0% James 9.7 45 5.11/K.6 63 4.8 46% 25%

Dorothy 9.4 65 6.9/1.5 <55 3.5 62% 50% Nick 7.10 90 7.2/1.9 64 4.0 77% 63%

Notes. WJ-III = Woodcock Johnson–III Tests of Achievement. LWID = Letter-Word Identification subtest. EOWPVT= Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. PA = phonological awareness. a. All names have been changed to protect the participants’ privacy. b. Years.months.

the present study. Adapted alternating- Graphed data were analyzed in keeping treatment designs allow for comparison be- with standard procedures for analysis of tween conditions using sets of functionally alternating treatment designs, including equivalent responses (i.e., word families identification of visual separation between at the same or a similar level of difficulty). conditions. Table 3 shows the words used Adapted alternating-treatment designs pro- across conditions for both groups. tect against carryover effects between conditions by using different sets of responses The Intervention that are hypothesized to be equivalent (Ledford & Gast, 2018). This type of design The present study adapted FOWR, an ex- does not require a baseline to meet What isting supplemental literacy intervention Works Clearinghouse standards but does designed for DHH children (Schick et al., require at least four alternations between 2018). Each unit in the original FOWR conditions (Horner et al., 2005). Thus, the intervention consisted of six 25-minute present study met WWC standards with lessons and included interactive instruc- reservations: Because of constraints of the tion around either five words (entry level, curriculum and the available time, we only kindergarten) from one word family or had three alternations between conditions. eight words (1A level, first grade) from Therefore, findings from this study con- two word families. To fit the single-case tribute to the evidence base but should be design and time requirements on the part considered with reservations. of participating classrooms, units were The leading data point in the graphed reduced in duration and reorganized, and adapted alternating-treatment designs certain intervention components, includ- was collected prior to the beginning of ing review sessions, were eliminated. These instruction. Additional pre/post data were modifications resulted in reduction of the collected and are reported separately. Data intervention from six to four lessons per were collected for three experimental unit, which were implemented over the conditions: fingerspelling, chaining, and course of a week in 30-minute (rather than sign-to-print (described in detail below). 25-minute) sessions.

01_Scott.indd 435 07/11/19 2:20 PM 436 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

Table 3. Words Used Across Conditions for Both Groups

Set 1, Set 1, Set 1, Set 2, Set 2, Set 2, Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 FS C SP SP FS C

Kindergarten Bed, fed, led, Can, fan, man, Bow, cow, mow, Get, met, pet, Dot, hot, not, But, cut, nut, Group red, wed pan, van row, tow vet, met pot, rot put, out First-Grade Bake, lake, Cash, dash, Fail, pail, mail, Hide, ride, Back, black, Cold, fold, Group make, take, mash, rash, sail, tail, boil, side, wide, pack, rack, gold, hold, came, game, wash, dish, fish, foil, soil dice, mice, sack, lock, told, child, name, same wish nice, slice rock, sock mild, wild

Notes. FS = fingerspelling condition. C= chaining condition. SP = sign-to-print condition.

General Procedures each condition. We maintained activities The intervention took place over 6 weeks, across conditions so that the instruction with each condition being implemented in only differed on the basis of the presence random order once in the first 3 weeks (set or absence of receptive and/or productive one) and again in the second 3 weeks (set fingerspelling. two). The Kindergarten Group was taught one word family per unit with five words Conditions that followed the C-V-C pattern. The First-Grade Group was taught eight words Fingerspelling Condition per unit from two different word families. The fingerspelling condition featured 2 days Words were assigned to 1 of the 6 weeks of with no exposure to print through activities intervention, and then that week was ran- that used only the fingerspelled and signed domly assigned to a condition within a set versions of the word. The second 2 days of to mitigate order effects. Set one provided instruction systematically introduced the instruction in the fingerspelling condition, written word and made explicit connec- then in the chaining condition, and finally tions between the fingerspelled and written in the sign-to-print condition. Set two forms of the target words. Throughout the presented words first in the sign-to-print four lessons, the interventionist prompted condition, then in the fingerspelling condi- students to fingerspell target words. The tion, then in the chaining condition (order interventionist also included activities that based on randomization, see Table 3). required students to focus on onset and All three conditions used explicit in- rimes of fingerspelled target words. structional strategies to teach children to connect print words to signs, either using Chaining Condition an indirect route to reading (via finger- The chaining condition included print spelling) or a direct route to reading (via throughout all 4 days of the intervention. ASL). Each condition followed the same The interventionist presented target words basic format, including an introduction of through a chain of fingerspelling, sign, the words, opportunities to read and write and print. Students were not explicitly the words, and age-appropriate games and prompted to respond using fingerspelling, activities to practice the words. Appendix nor did the teacher provide instruction A provides a description of each activity on concepts such as onset and rime, but across the four days of instruction for fingerspelled responses were accepted, and

01_Scott.indd 436 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 437

children were exposed to fingerspelled rep- Procedural Fidelity and Interobserver resentations of words. Agreement Sign-to-Print Condition To establish procedural fidelity, a research The sign-to-print condition did not include associate who was not the interventionist fingerspelling in the presentation of target viewed 30% of instructional sessions for words at any point. Print was present for all each group, randomly selected (blocked for days of this condition. The interventionist condition). She used a 12-item checklist showed the children printed words and made created by the research team with items direct connections with the ASL sign without predefined as expected to occur differen- using fingerspelling. If students responded to tially across condition (see Appendix B). a prompt with fingerspelling, they were redi- Procedural fidelity was calculated using rected to provide the sign for the target word. point-to-point agreement (i.e., the number of expected items observed + the number of expected items not observed). Procedural fi- Pretest, Baseline, and Data Collection delity was 77% in the sign-to-print condition Pretest data were collected across all word (range: 67%–83%), 85% in the fingerspelling families the week before intervention be- condition (range: 75%–92%), and 92% in the gan. Students were shown a print version chaining condition (no range). According to of a word and asked to provide the sign. Ledford and Gast (2018), procedural fidelity They were also shown picture cards of the should reach 85% over at least 20% of ses- same words and asked to fingerspell them. sions. Only the sign-to-print condition was For both baseline and intervention data, slightly below the desired fidelity level. the interventionist presented the students The same research associate also with each word from the current unit in scored the word assessments from print and asked for the corresponding sign. video-recordings for 100% of pre- and Baseline data were taken on the first day of postassessments and 20% of intervention each unit prior to instruction. Intervention assessments (randomly selected). There data points were taken at the end of lessons was 100%, 97.5% and 98.0% agreement, two, three, and four. Additionally, on day 4 respectively, between the interventionist the interventionist assessed children’s abil- and the research associate. Point-to-point ity to fingerspell the target words following interobserver agreement was ascertained the procedures from pretest. with the formula [(agreements + disagree- The same procedures were used to ments) – disagreements]/total x 100. collect maintenance data for word reading and fingerspelling after each set. As a Results result, even though the intervention itself took 6 weeks, the study lasted 9 weeks: On the target word pretest, students in the Kindergarten Group scored an average of Week 1: pretest 25% correct on tested words (range 0%– Weeks 2, 3, and 4: first set 40% accuracy). In the First-Grade Group, Week 5: maintenance data collection for students had an average of 38% correct the first set of words (range 0%–75%). Nick had higher pretest Weeks 6, 7, and 8: second set scores, which influenced the scores of the Week 9: was maintenance data collection group. The other students in this group av- for the second set of words eraged 25% accuracy, a finding that suggest

01_Scott.indd 437 07/11/19 2:20 PM 438 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

that for most of them the majority of words Adapted Alternating-Treatment Results were unfamiliar before instruction. For each child, we present the results in Kindergarten Group two graphs corresponding to the two sets Manuel. Set one data show an increasing (Figures 1 and 2). The first data point (B) trend for the chaining condition only, indicates the baseline assessment taken im- with variable responding in the sign-to- mediately prior to instruction. The lines ex- print and fingerspelling conditions (see tending from B to points 2, 3, and 4 represent Figure 1). There is clear separation between the child’s word reading across the three days the chaining condition and all other con- of intervention. Missing data points occurred ditions, with minimal overlap following when children were absent from school. the first data point. Set two data indicate

Figure 1. Kindergarten Group’s Word Learning Across Conditions

Manuel Set 1 Manuel Set 2

100 100

50 50 Percent Percent Words Read Words Read 0 0 B 234 B234 FS Chaining FS Chaining Sign to Print Sign to Print

Sam Set 1 Sam Set 2 100 100

50 50 Percent Percent Words Read

Words Read 0 0 B234 B234 FS Chaining FS Chaining Sign to Print Sign to Print Chris Set 2 Chris Set 1 100 100

50 50 Percent Words Read Percent

Words Read 0 0 B234 B234M FS Chaining FS Chaining Sign to Print Sign to Print

Notes. All names have been changed to protect the participants’ privacy. FS = fingerspelling.

01_Scott.indd 438 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 439

an increasing trend for all conditions, no between conditions. Nick had frequent ab- separation evident within conditions, and sences, including absences for three of the overlapping data between conditions. four sign-to-print sessions in the second Sam. Set one data indicate an increasing word set. trend in the chaining and fingerspelling James. Within set one, James shows conditions and steady responding in the low and steady responding with no clear sign-to-print condition (see Figure 1). separation between conditions. Set two There is separation between the finger- data again shows low responding, with no spelling and chaining conditions and the separation, no clear trend, and high rates of sign-to-print condition, but no separation overlapping data (see Figure 2). evident between the fingerspelling and chaining conditions. Set two data indicate Pretest and Maintenance Results Across minimal separation between conditions Conditions and an increasing trend in all conditions. Chris. Set one data do not indicate clear Across participants, increased acquisition separation between any two conditions (see of target words is evident between pre- and Figure 1). All conditions show an overall maintenance probes for all experimental increasing trend, except for the third data conditions across sets (Table 4). There were point in the sign-to-print condition, which no clear trends in acquisition of target appears to be an outlier. Set two data indi- words between conditions. For example, cate an increasing trend within the chain- Manuel showed the greatest acquisition ing condition, a decreasing trend within in the chaining condition, as did Chris, the fingerspelling condition, and low and but Dorothy consistently demonstrated steady responding in the sign-to-print con- better acquisition of target words in the dition. There is clear separation between all fingerspelling condition. Some participants conditions, with no overlapping data paths. appeared to learn uniformly across conditions (e.g., Sam). However, every student First-Grade Group made gains from pretest to posttest. Over- Dorothy. Set one data indicate an increas- all, the pretest mean was 17.96% correct ing trend across all conditions, but no and the posttest mean was 49.57%. clear separation between conditions (see Figure 2). In set two, the sign-to-print Production of Fingerspelled Words condition shows an increasing trend and At the end of each unit, participants clear separation from both fingerspelling were assessed on their ability to produce and chaining. The fingerspelling condition fingerspelling of target words. Figure 3 appears low and steady, and the chaining shows the rate of correct production of condition has a small increasing trend be- fingerspelled words for each participant fore returning to zero levels on the fourth at pretest (beginning of the study), end data point. of instruction (on day 4 of each unit), Nick. Set one data show high levels of and at maintenance. Table 4 also presents correct responses from the start of inter- end-of-instruction data on fingerspelling vention (see Figure 2). All three condi- across conditions and sets. There is evi- tions are fairly stable, and there is no clear dence that participants were able to pro- separation between conditions. Set two duce fingerspelling for taught words even data show an increasing trend across all in the sign-to-print condition (in which three conditions, but no clear separation they were not exposed to fingerspelling). In

01_Scott.indd 439 07/11/19 2:20 PM 440 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

Figure 2. First-Grade Group’s Word Learning Across Conditions

Dorothy Set 1 Dorothy Set 2 100 100

50 50 Percent Percent Words Read Words Read 0 0 B234 B 234 FS Chaining FS Chaining Sign to Print Sign to Print

Nick Set 1 Nick Set 2

100 100

50 50 Percent Percent Words Read 0 Words Read 0 B 234 B234

FS Chaining FS Chaining Sign to Print Sign to Print

James Set 1 James Set 2 100 100

50 50 Percent Percent

Words Read 0 Words Read 0 B234 B 234 FS Chaining FS Chaining Sign to Print Sign to Print

Notes. All names have been changed to protect the participants’ privacy. FS = fingerspelling.

the fingerspelling condition, the children (38.2%), and fingerspelling (40.1%) on average were able to fingerspell 77.88% conditions. of words at the end of instruction. In the chaining condition, the children were able Social Validity to fingerspell on average 62.38% of words The two teachers whose students partici- at the end of instruction. In the sign-to- pated in the intervention study completed print condition, the children were able to a researcher-created measure of social fingerspell on average 66.67% of words validity. The measure was a 1-to-5 Likert at the end of instruction. However, there scale questionnaire regarding the interven- was a lower level of maintenance of fin- tion itself and the efficacy of fingerspelling gerspelled words in the sign-to-print con- as a tool for supporting word learn- dition (26.5%) compared to the chaining ing. Mean results for each question are

01_Scott.indd 440 07/11/19 2:20 PM 01_Scott.indd 441

Table 4. Pre- and Posttest Results (Percentage Correct) for Children Across Experimental Conditions

Set 1, Unit 1 Set 1, Unit 2 Set 1, Unit 3 Set 2, Unit 4 Set 2, Unit 5 Set 2, Unit 6 Fingerspelling Chaining Sign to print Sign to Print Fingerspelling Chaining

Namea Pre Post FS Pre Post FS Pre Post FS Pre Post FS Pre Post FS Pre Post FS

Manuel 20.0 40.0 60.0 40.0 80.0 80.0 20.0 60.0 40 0 80.0 100 40.0 60.0 80.0 20.0 20.0 80.0

Sam 20.0 60.0 100 0 60.0 0 0 60.0 80 0 60.0 80.0 0 60.0 100 0 60.0 100

Chris 20.0 60.0 100 20.0 100 100 0 40.0 80 0 80.0 80.0 40.0 20.0 100 20.0 60.0 60.0

James 25.0 12.5 12.5 0 12.5 12.5 0 12.5 - 0 25.0 25.0 - 25.0 38.0 0 12.5 0

Dorothy 37.5 37.5 100 25.0 62.5 50.0 0 75.0 75 13.0 0 - 37.5 75.0 25.0 62.5 25.0 100

Nick 62.5 87.5 100 62.5 75.0 100 25.0 75.0 25 50.0 37.5 100 75.0 62.5 62.5 12.5 50.0 100

Ave. 30.9 63.9 78.75 24.5 65.0 57.1 7.5 53.8 60 10.5 47.1 77.0 32.1 50.4 67.6 19.2 37.9 73.3

a All names have been changed to protect the participants’ privacy. 07/11/19 2:20 PM 442 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

Figure 3. Productive Fingerspelling Results Across Conditions for Each Participant

Fingerspelling Condition 100

0 Nick Dorothy James Manuel Chris Sam Pretest Averages Day 4 Posttest Averages

Sign-To-Print Condition 100

0 Nick Dorothy James Manuel Chris Sam Pretest Averages Day 4 Posttest Averages

Chaining Condition 100

0 Nick Dorothy James Manuel Chris Sam Pretest Averages Day 4 Posttest Averages

Note. All names have been changed to protect the participants’ privacy.

presented in Table 5. The teachers strongly involvement in the intervention. The teach- agreed that fingerspelling was important ers found the intervention feasible and and that the intervention was important appropriate for DHH children. They also for literacy. The relatively low score for believed fingerspelling to be an important “This intervention was beneficial to the element of reading instruction for signing students” may be due to the lack of teacher DHH students.

01_Scott.indd 442 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 443

Table 5. Teachers’ Social Validity Ratings

Statement Mean rating

It is important to use fingerspelling in the classroom with deaf children. 5.0 Fingerspelling aligns with some of the literacy goals for deaf students. 4.5 This intervention was beneficial to the students. 3.5 It is feasible for this intervention to be implemented by teachers of deaf children. 4.5 This intervention should be implemented in the classroom with deaf children. 4.5

Note. A 5-point Likert scale was used, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

Discussion and Implications explicit instruction to the literacy development of DHH children. This assertion Though many have speculated about effec- is based on the gains made by most of the tive literacy instruction for DHH children children in most conditions. Others have (e.g., Cannon, Fredrick, & Easterbrooks, found explicit instruction to be an essential 2010; Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2014), there component of an appropriate education has not been satisfactory exploration of for DHH children, especially for the ac- how students learn to recognize English quisition of early literacy skills and phono- print and how instruction may support the logical awareness (Trezek & Wang, 2006), development of word reading skills. The vocabulary (Cannon et al., 2010; Guardino, present study used an adapted alternat- Cannon, & Eberst, 2015; Trussell & East- ing-treatment single-case research design erbrooks, 2014), morphological awareness to evaluate the difference in word reading (Trussell & Easterbrooks, 2015), reading gains resulting from a literacy interven- comprehension (B. R. Schirmer, Schaffer, tion designed for elementary-age DHH Therrien, & T. N. Schirmer, 2012), and children in three different conditions: fin- writing (Wolbers et al., 2015). Explicit gerspelling, chaining, and sign-to-print. teaching was a likely key for word learning We hypothesized that the presence of fin- in the present study. gerspelling would support word learning among participating DHH children. This Fingerspelling and Print Recognition hypothesis was not supported: There was no clear separation of learning across treat- Most of the children in the present study ment conditions. were able to fingerspell target words In our data, no individual condition when given a picture prompt, even for showed better results for individual chil- words in the sign-to-print condition. This dren or across groups of children. That is, suggests that although the children who when we looked across both sets, there was participated in this study were in early el- no consistent pattern of learning point- ementary school and still developing early ing to the superiority of one condition reading skills, they may already have estab- over another. With the exception of James lished a connection between fingerspelled (whose case is explored further below), letters and English print. For most, these all children seemed to benefit from the gains persisted into posttest. However, intervention regardless of whether finger- the children recalled fewer words in the spelling was present and how it was used. posttest from the sign-to-print condition These findings speak to the importance of than in other conditions. It is possible that

01_Scott.indd 443 07/11/19 2:20 PM 444 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

the use of fingerspelling during instruction child with LD (Caemmerer, Cawthon, & lent itself to maintaining learned words Bond, 2016). The difficulty James expe- over a longer time. Although it is not clear rienced with learning words even with from these data whether learning a word in explicit instruction in small groups demon- one form (print or fingerspelled) directly strates the strong need in the field for both supports the acquisition of that word in the improved means of identifying LD in the other form, the data do suggest that a rela- DHH population and research identifying tionship between the two exists and should practices more likely to be successful for be further explored. teaching DHH students with LD. Unfortu- Given the finding by Lederberg et al. nately, without more detailed observation (2019) that fingerspelling among early of James’s home language environment, it readers had a .99 correlation with reading, is difficult to say with certainty the cause we expected to find a relationship between of his difficulty, and we do not believe that the ability to understand and produce James’s outcomes would be typical for a the fingerspelled forms of a word and the DHH child coming from a home with a ability to read that word in English print. deaf parent and signing siblings. The complex relationships between print English and fingerspelling require further Limitations of the Study research. The findings presented here suggest that for participants in the present There are limitations of the present study study, there was not a consistent benefit of that should be acknowledged. First, all six instruction on English words that used fin- of the participants either used primarily gerspelling compared to instructional con- sign or a mix of sign and speech in their ditions that did not use fingerspelling. This home and school lives, and thus do not may be evidence of the notion that instruc- represent children who use primarily or tion around orthography (rather than or in only spoken language. All six of them addition to phonology) can be an effective also experienced language and literacy tool for teaching DHH children to identify delays, and students who have average or print (e.g., see Miller, 2010). above-average language and literacy may not respond the same way to treatment as The Case of James this group. As several of the children who participated in this study earned a score of Although James did not appear to ben- 8% or less across the subtests of the Schick efit from any condition, observation of Fingerspelling Assessment, it is possible instructional sessions and feedback from that the effects of the fingerspelling inter- the interventionist suggest that this lack vention on their literacy and fingerspelling of benefit was strongly influenced by be- skills was undetectable due to a floor ef- havioral difficulties. Given his diagnosis of fect. Replication of this study with children ADHD, for which he used no medication, who are not experiencing a delay in this we believe that his lack of growth may have area is necessary to disentangle these com- been directly related to additional disabil- plex skills. Additionally, we selected the ities (besides deafness) and their effects adapted alternating-treatment design to on learning. Learning disabilities (LD) are reduce the effects of behavioral carryover common among DHH children (Mitchell between conditions; however, there may & Karchmer, 2011), though it can be ex- be evidence of carryover of learning across tremely challenging to diagnose a DHH conditions.

01_Scott.indd 444 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 445

Its limitations aside, the present study curriculum review with supporting data. Theory is one of the first to examine differences and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), between instructional use of receptive and 1317–1329. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.7.1317-1329 Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & productive fingerspelling, chaining, and Johnston, F. (2015). Words their way: Word study sign-to-print conditions in the individual for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction word reading of DHH children who are ac- (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. quiring early literacy skills. Additionally, ex- Bélanger, N. N., Baum, S. R., & Mayberry, R. I. plicit instruction, regardless of the presence (2012). Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty! Scien- or absence of fingerspelling, appeared to be tific Studies of Reading, 16(3), 263–285. doi:10. a significant feature of instruction in word 1080/10888348.2011.568555 reading. In this intervention, some students Caemmerer, J. M., Cawthon, S. W., & Bond, M. appeared to do better when fingerspelling (2016). Comparison of students’ achievement: was added to instruction. This finding sup- Deaf, learning disabled, and deaf with a learn- ports the notion that the DRC model of ing disability. School Psychology Review, 45(3), 362–371. reading is potentially applicable to DHH Cannon, J. E., Fredrick, L. D., & Easterbrooks, S. R. children as soon as the early elementary (2010). Vocabulary instruction through books school grades. Children acquiring literacy read in American Sign Language for English skills at this age may access words through language learners with hearing loss. Commu- an intermediary sublexical structure such as nication Disorders Quarterly, 31(2), 98–112. doi:10.1177/1525740109332832 fingerspelling (an indirect route to reading), Cannon, J. E., Guardino, C., Antia, S. D., & Luckner, or connect the word in print with its mean- J. L. (2016). Single-case design research: Build- ing (a direct route to reading). ing the evidence-base in the field of education of deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(5), 440–452. doi:10.1353/ Notes aad.2016.0007 Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & The research for the present study was supported by Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual-route cascaded the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department model of visual word recognition and reading of Education, through Award No. R324C120001 to aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. Georgia State University to fund the Center on Liter- doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.1.204 acy and Deafness. The content of this article does not Davenport, C. A., Konrad, M., & Alber-Morgan, S. represent views of the Institute or of the U.S. Depart- R. (2018). Effects of reading racetracks on sight ment of Education. word acquisition for deaf kindergarteners. Jour- We wish to thank Lauren Bruce and Melissa nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 24(2), Brasic for their dedication and hard work in exe- 173–185. doi:10.1093/deafed/eny038 cuting this project. We also thank Brenda Schick, Easterbrooks, S. R., & Beal-Alvarez, J. S. (2012). Nancy Bridenbaugh, and Rachel Boll for creating States’ reading outcomes of students who are d/ the materials and lessons that were adapted for this Deaf and hard of hearing. American Annals of the study.—The Authors Deaf, 157(1), 27–49. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.1611 Emmorey, K., McCullough, S., & Weisberg, J. (2015). Neural correlates of fingerspelling, text, and sign References processing in deaf American Sign Language– Allen, T. E. (2015). ASL skills, fingerspelling abil- English bilinguals. Language, Cognition, and ity, home communication context, and early Neuroscience, 30(6), 749–767. doi:10.1080/232737 alphabetic knowledge of preschool-aged deaf 98.2015.1014924 children. Sign Language Studies, 15(3), 233–265. Emmorey, K., & Petrich, J. A. F. (2011). Processing doi:10.1353/sls.2015.0006 orthographic structure: Associations between Ausbrooks-Rusher, M., Schimmel, C., & Edwards, print and fingerspelling. Journal of Deaf Studies S. (2012). Utilizing Fairview as a bilingual re- and Deaf Education, 17(2), 194–204. doi:10.1093/ sponse to intervention (RTI): Comprehensive deafed/enr051

01_Scott.indd 445 07/11/19 2:20 PM 446 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

Guardino, C., Cannon, J. E., & Eberst, K. (2015). Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2011). Demo- Building the evidence base of effective reading graphic and achievement characteristics of deaf strategies to use with deaf English language learn- and hard of hearing students. In M. Marschark & ers. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 35(2), P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf stud- 59–73. doi:10.1177/1525740113506932 ies, language, and education (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. Haptonstall-Nykaza, T. S., & Schick, B. (2007). The 18–31). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. transition from fingerspelling to English print: Mounty, J. L., Pucci, C. T., & Harmon, K. C. (2014). Facilitating English decoding. Journal of Deaf How deaf American Sign Language/English bilin- Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 172–83. gual children become proficient readers: An emic doi:10.1093/deafed/enm003 perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Holmer, E., Heimann, M., & Rudner, M. (2016). Education, 19(3), 333–346. doi:10.1093/deafed/ Evidence of an association between sign language ent050 phonological awareness and word reading in deaf Patker, D. H. (1997). SRA reading. New York, NY: and hard-of-hearing children. Research in Devel- McGraw-Hill. opmental Disabilities, 48, 145–159. doi:10.1016/j. Pritchard, S. C., Coltheart, M., Palethorpe, S., & ridd.2015.10.008 Castles, A. (2012). Nonword reading: Comparing Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, dual-route cascaded and connectionist dual-process G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The models with human data. Journal of Experimental use of single-subject research to identify Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, evidence-based practice in special educa- 38(5), 1268–1288. doi:10.1037/a0026703 tion. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. Quigley, S. R., King, C. M., McAnally, P. L., & Rose, doi:10.1177/001440290507100203 S. (1981). Reading milestones. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Humphries, T., & MacDougal, F. (2000). “Chaining” Reitsma, P. (2008). Computer-based exercises for and other links: Making connections between learning to read and spell by deaf children. Jour- American Sign Language and English in two nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2), types of school setting. Society for Visual An- 178–189. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn031 thropology Review, 15(2), 84–94. doi:10.1525/ Schick, B. (2012). Schick fingerspelling assessment. var.2000.15.2.84 Boulder: University of Colorado. International Communication Learning Institute. Schick, B., Lederberg, A. R., Bridenbaugh, N., Boll, (1996). See the sound/visual phonics. Webster, WI: R., & Burke, V. (2018). Fingerspelling our way to Author. reading. Atlanta: Center on Literacy and Deaf- Lederberg, A. R., Branum-Martin, L., Webb, M., ness, Georgia State University. Schick, B., Antia, S., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2019). Schirmer, B. R., Schaffer, L., Therrien, W. J., & Modality and interrelations among language, Schirmer, T. N. (2012). Reread-adapt and reading, spoken phonological awareness, and fin- answer-comprehend intervention with deaf gerspelling. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Edu- and hard of hearing readers: Effects on fluency cation. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/ and reading achievement. American Annals deafed/enz011 of the Deaf, 156(5), 469–475. doi:10.1353/ Ledford, D. L., & Gast J. R. (2018). Single case re- aad.2012.1602 search methodology: Applications in special ed- Sehyr, Z. S., Petrich, J., & Emmorey, K. (2016). Fin- ucation and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: gerspelled and printed words are recoded into Routledge. a speech-based code in short-term memory. Martin, N. A., & Brownell, R. (2010). Expressive Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(1), one-word picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Austin, 72–87. doi:10.1093/deafed/enw068 TX: Pro-Ed. Stone, A., Kartheiser, G., Hauser, P. C., Pettito, L., & Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2014). Is reading different Allen, T. E. (2015). Fingerspelling as a novel gate- for deaf individuals? Reexamining the role of way into reading fluency in deaf bilinguals. PLoS phonology. American Annals of the Deaf, 159(4), ONE, 10(10), e0139610. doi:10.1371/journal. 359–371. doi:10.1353/aad.2014.0032 pone.0139610 Miller, P. (2010). Phonological, orthographic, and syn- Trezek, B. J., & Hancock, G. R. (2013). Implementing tactic awareness and their relation to reading com- instruction in the alphabetic principle within a prehension in prelingually deaf individuals: What sign bilingual setting. Journal of Deaf Studies and can we learn from skilled readers? Journal of Devel- Deaf Education, 18(3), 391–408. doi:10.1093/ opmental and Physical Disabilities, 22, 549–580. deafed/ent016

01_Scott.indd 446 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 447

Trezek, B. J., & Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of who are deaf or hard of hearing. American An- utilizing a phonics-based reading curriculum nals of the Deaf, 153(4), 396–407. doi:10.1353/ with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. aad.0.0061 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), Wolbers, K. A., Dostal, H. M., Graham, S., Cihak, 202–213. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj031 D., Kilpatrick, J. R., & Saulsburry, R. (2015). The Trussell, J. W., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2014). The writing performance of elementary students re- effect of enhanced storybook interaction on ceiving strategic and interactive writing instruc- signing deaf children’s vocabulary. Journal of tion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(3), 319–332. 20(4), 385–398. doi:10.1093/deafed/env022 doi:10.1093/deafed/ent055 Woodcock, R., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. (2001). Trussell, J. W., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2015). Effects Woodcock Johnson III tests of achievement. Roll- of morphographic instruction on the morpho- ing Meadows, IL: Riverside. graphic analysis skills of deaf and hard of hearing Ziegler, J. C., Castel, C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa- Alario, F.-X., & Perry, C. (2008). Developmental tion, 20(3), 299–241. dyslexia and the dual route model of reading: Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J. L., & Paul, P. V. Simulating individual differences and subtypes. (2008). The role of phonology and phonologically Cognition, 107(1), 151–178. doi:10.1016/j. related skills in reading instruction for students cognition.2007.09.004

Appendix A

Overview of Activities Across Conditions

Fingerspelling condition Chaining condition Sign-to-print condition

Day 1 Assess target words Assess target words. Assess target words. Introduce words using sign Introduce words using sign and Introduce words using signs and fingerspelling. Ask children fingerspelling. Ask children to imitate only. Ask children to imitate to imitate. signs. signs only. Show picture cards and Show picture cards and prompt Show picture cards and prompt students to sign and students to sign. Model signing and prompt students to sign. Model then fingerspell. Model signing fingerspelling. signing. and fingerspelling. Play lily pad game by showing a Play lily pad game by showing Play lily pad game by showing target word picture card. The child a target word picture card. The a target word picture card. The jumps to a lily pad with the picture. child jumps to a lily pad with child jumps to a lily pad with The teacher asks the child to sign or the picture and signs the word. the picture and fingerspells the fingerspell the word. word. Day 2 Show an ASL story. Ask com- Show an ASL story. Ask comprehen- Show an ASL story. Ask comprehension questions on the sion questions on the target words prehension questions on the target words and emphasize using chaining. target words using signs. fingerspelling. Support word recognition by show- Support word recognition by Support phonological aware- ing picture cards of target words and showing picture cards of target ness by asking students to chaining. Ask students to sign target words. Ask students to sign fingerspell target words and words and match the picture and target words and match the pic- identify the first letter and last print cards. ture and print cards. chunk of the word. Play fishing game. Fingerspell and Play fishing game. Show a Play fishing game. Fingerspell show a print word to student and ask print word to student and ask a word to student and ask for for sign. Ask student to “fish” for the for sign. Ask student to “fish” for sign. Ask student to “fish” for matching picture. the matching picture. the matching picture. Assess target words. Assess target words. Assess target words.

(continued)

01_Scott.indd 447 07/11/19 2:20 PM 448 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 164, No. 4, 2019

Fingerspelling condition Chaining condition Sign-to-print condition

Day 3 Link fingerspelling to print Link fingerspelling to print by show- Link signing to print by show- by showing students a target ing students a picture, English print, ing students a picture, English picture, English print, and fin- and fingerspelled word. Ask students print, and sign. Ask students to gerspelling. Build phonological to sign each word. sign each word. awareness by asking for the Use sentence strips that contain the Use sentence strips that initial letter and last chunk of target words. Ask students to read the contain the target words. Ask the word. sentences. Chain any target words students to read the sentences. Use sentence strips that they do not recall. Sign any target words they do contain the target words. Ask Build words with magnetic letters not recall. students to read the sentences based on a picture card. Use chaining Build words with magnetic and use fingerspelling to de- to confirm or correct. Ask students to letters based on a picture card. code target words. sign the word. Correct errors through signing Build word with magnetic Assess target words. and modeling using the mag- letters based on a picture card. netic letters. Ask students to Ask students to fingerspell the sign the word. word. Assess target words. Assess target words. Day 4 Play matching game with pic- Play matching game with pic- Play matching game with picture word cards. Students sign ture word cards. Students sign the ture word cards. Students sign and fingerspell the matched matched words. the matched words. words. Practice writing words using a writ- Practice writing words using a Practice writing words using a ing sheet. writing sheet. writing sheet. Play bingo with picture cards. The Play bingo with picture cards. Play bingo with picture cards. teacher signs words, and if the stu- The teacher signs words, and The teacher fingerspells words, dent has the word on their bingo card if the student has the word on and if the student has the word they get a chip. their bingo card they get a chip. on their bingo card they get Assess target words. Assess target words. a chip. Assess target words.

Note. ASL = American Sign Language.

Appendix B

Procedural Fidelity Document

Conditions Teacher behaviora expectedb Teacher presentation/modeling Teacher modeled fingerspelling of target word in connection with picture or sign (days 1 and 2). FS Teacher modeled fingerspelling of target word in connection with print (days 3 and 4). FS

Teacher chained (fingerspelling+ print + picture) when presenting words. C Teacher chained (sign + print + picture) when presenting words. SP Prompting Teacher prompted students to provide fingerspelled word. FS Teacher prompted students to provide initial letter of fingerspelled word. FS

(continued)

01_Scott.indd 448 07/11/19 2:20 PM Fingerspelling and Print 449

Conditions Teacher behaviora expectedb

Teacher prompted students to provide last chunk of fingerspelled word. FS Teacher prompted students to provide the sign for printed target words. FS, C, SP Teacher prompted students to write or build the target word using letter tiles. FS, C, SP Feedback If the student fingerspelled or read the word incorrectly, the teacher modeled how to fingerspell FS the word and prompted the student to fingerspell the word. If the student fingerspelled or read the word incorrectly, the teacher chained the fingerspelling C and the sign and prompted the child to sign the word. If the student fingerspelled or read the word incorrectly, the teacher chained the print word and/or SP picture and the sign, and prompted the child to sign the word.

a. An item was scored as present if the interventionist exhibited this behavior 70% of opportunities during each instructional session. b. FS = Fingerspelling condition. C = Chaining condition. SP = Sign-to-print condition.

01_Scott.indd 449 07/11/19 2:20 PM