This study was planned with the knowledge that the tasks of reading require the same acquisition of skills, whether a child is hearing or deaf, monolingual, or bilingual. Reading and language research literature was reviewed. Subjects were 31 deaf students (7.9-17.9 years of age) who attended one of three U.S. programs. Performance on 15 language and literacy measures was analyzed. Results were that students who scored highest on a passage-comprehension measure also were more able (a) to provide synonyms, antonyms, and analogies of read words and phrases, (b) to read more listed words, and (c) to substitute one phoneme more correctly for another to create new words than were readers with lower scores. Two groups of students also were compared: a Longer Exposure to English Group (n = 22) who used Signing Exact English (SEE) for 5 years or more and a Shorter Exposure Group (n = 8) exposed to SEE for less than 2 years. A correlational analysis revealed that there were no significant relationships among 14 background variables with the exception of "age of identification of hearing loss," a variable then covaried in subsequent analysis of covariance. Students in the Longer Exposure Group scored higher on all measures. Significant differences were found between groups for short-term memory, receptive and expressive English, and five phonological subtests. Mini-case studies and the performance of eight students in the Longer Exposure Group who scored lowest on the comprehension measure also are discussed.
A case is made for the importance of children's development of phonological awareness—whether they are hearing or deaf—if they are to reach their potential as readers. Relevant terms are defined (i.e., phonological awareness, phonological processes , and phonics ) to assist the reader with the research review, which covers (a) the typical stages in the acquisition of phonological awareness and (b) phonological awareness and deafness. Suggestions for phonological awareness assessment are offered, along with the recommendation that the use of recently developed formal and informal measures of phonological awareness might facilitate the setting of goals and objectives when deaf educators or speech-language pathologists are evaluating the skills of deaf students and planning instruction for these students. Such tools yield information about skills that have been shown to correlate with literacy attainment and that are not commonly addressed by deaf educators or speech-language pathologists serving deaf students. Finally, research concerning the facilitation of phonological awareness and its application is explained.
Strategies found to facilitate the language development of young, hearing children are reviewed in this paper, and adaptations and examples for use with deaf and hard-of-hearing children are provided as alternatives to simply advising professionals and parents to increase the quantity of conversation with these children. It is suggested that adults accelerate the language acquisition of deaf and hard-of-hearing students by capitalizing on the linguistic opportunities provided in particular environments, rearranging environments, being responsive to indications that children have comprehended messages and are open to risk communication, and specifically by intervening on form, content, and use skills. The author challenges professionals to document empirically the usefulness of each language intervention technique presented here.
Parental use of simultaneous communication is advocated by many programs serving hearing-impaired students. The purpose of the present study was to describe in detail the input characteristics of five hearing parents, who were attempting to use one such system, Signing Exact English or SEE 2 (Gustason, Pfetzing, & Zawolkow, 1980). The parents were intermediate-level signers, motivated to use SEE 2. Voiced and signed segments from videotaped language samples were transcribed and coded for equivalence and other features of interest. Results were that parents' signed mean lengths of utterance (MLUs) were lower than those of their children although the majority of their sign utterances were syntactically intact. Structures categorized as complex in the Developmental Sentence Scoring procedure (Lee, 1974) and considered abstract in a semantic coding scheme (Lahey, 1988) were seldom used by the parents. Parents provided a narrow range of lexical items in their sign code. Results are discussed in terms of the type of input the parents are providing and the procedures used to identify priorties for parent education.
Over the past 30 years, several Manual Codes on English have been developed in the United States. Unlike American Sign Language, which is a language independent of English, manual codes of English were designed to specifically reflect English and are signed in English word order. The first such system to appear during this time frame was Seeing Essential English (SEE I), developed by David Anthony, a deaf educator of the deaf. Today most educational programs for the deaf use Signing Exact English (SEE II) or Signed English and there is confusion about the nature and role of SEE I. This paper is designed to clear up some of the misconceptions that have grown up around SEE I, to provide some historical background about its development, and to review some research findings concerning its effectiveness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.