Suchergebnisse

In Early Literacy Development in Deaf Children, Connie Mayer and Beverly J. Trezek provide an in-depth, evidence-based description of how young deaf children learn to read and write, with a model of literacy development that makes clear links between theory and practice.

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

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

Paul, wang, trezek, and luckner offer a rebuttal to an article by Allen, Clark, del Giudice, Koo, Lieberman, Mayberry, and Miller published in the same issue of the American Annals of the Deaf (Fall 2009) that is critical of an article by Wang, Trezek, Luckner, and Paul that was published in the Fall 2008 Annals. Major themes from the article by Wang and colleagues are reiterated, and the research and theoretical support for the qualitative-similarity hypothesis is emphasized. In addition, specific assertions made in the four sections of the article by Allen and colleagues, which are mostly overgeneralizations and misunderstandings, are addressed. Finally, concluding remarks regarding the importance of phonology are provided.

The article challenges educators to rethink reading instruction practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The authors begin with a discussion of the role of phonology in reading, then summarize the evidence of phonological coding among skilled deaf readers and investigate alternative routes for acquiring phonologically related skills such as the use of speechreading, articulatory feedback, Visual Phonics, and Cued Speech. Finally, they present recent intervention studies and proposed procedures to employ phonics-based instruction with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The authors conclude with the assertion that the teaching of phonologically related skills by means of instructional tools such as Visual Phonics and Cued Speech can and should be incorporated into reading instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The authors recommend additional research in this important area.