Overview of Current Research in Reading and Deafness
This section summarizes and outlines, by topic area, the findings within current research. Topics are listed below. Resources/Reference Section appears at the end.
Vocabulary Development/Use of Context
Reading Level/Judgment of Difficulty of Text
Visual Matching Test-Taking Strategies
Use of Miscue Analysis in Deaf Readers
Skilled read readers are strategic, selectively recoding print into speech and sign in order to support the derivation of meaning. 2
One of the most effective compensatory strategies is to read extensively and widely, something poor readers do not attempt either inside or outside the school setting. 13
The child with a severe-profoud hearing loss who reads at an age-appropriate level is the exception rather than the rule. (206) 16
Skilled deaf readers more accurately and quickly recognize the function words and inflections appearing in text than poor readers; ability to recognize content words was relatively equal. 2
Deaf students make relatively little use of metacognitive strategies in reading. 5
Deaf students had particular difficulty with the tracking of pronoun referents throughout the story. 10
Deaf students had common linguistic problems that included difficulty with sentences that used negative terms. It was noted that while the students may have control of these structures in sign, they have difficulty with viewing them in print. 10
Word recognition errors are reported to decrease while comprehension increases. 11
Fluency may be achieved through repeated readings. 11
The poorest readers receive the most skill-based instruction, leaving little time for reading instruction. 11
Students use few work attack strategies. 11
Poor readers make ineffective "text connecting references;" they cannot easily integrate information explicitly provided by the text to establish cohesion between different sentences. 14
Poor readers have difficulty in deriving story structure and main point of story. 14
Poor readers are worse at monitoring their own comprehension. 14
There are differences among good readers and poor readers in tasks of working memory. 14
Poorer readers have difficulty answering inferential questions; drawing inferences is not casually related to good comprehension skill, it is more likely a cause of good comprehension. 14
Poorer readers benefit from explicitly pointing out mistakes during reading tasks. Improvement was shown when they went back to text to correct their errors, suggesting that use of making inferences or other strategies are not spontaneously used. 14
Even though all students posses requisite knowledge, poor readers failed to make gap-filling inferences. 14
Poor readers/less skilled readers may be less able to relate general knowledge to text to supply the missing details. 14
Good "comprehenders" produce better structured and more causally linked stories; suggesting well-structured stories is a cause of good comprehension. 14
Good and poor "comprehenders" perform comparably on tasks that assess phonological processing skills and simple short-term memory span; thus teaching single-word decoding must be a priority for teachers of deaf children (58) 14
One way to ensure that the development of text comprehension skills is not restricted by word-reading comprehension difficulties is to use listening compression tasks. For students fluent in signing, tasks can be presented in ASL in order to expose and teach students skills of inference making, comprehension monitoring, and the planning and structuring of stories. 14
Interactive exercises (comprehension skills) during which the teacher asks questions and makes comments throughout the storybook readings is conducive to language development. 15
Vocabulary Development/Use of Context
Students should be encouraged as much as possible to discuss and relate new and difficult information to what they already know. Traditional approaches to vocabulary development do not appreciate starting with what the student already knows. 13
Instruction of multi-meaning words had a positive effect on the student's ability to comprehend passages 13
Vocabulary knowledge is a strong predictor of reading comprehension ability. 13
Students tend to identify (and limit their vocabulary) to primary meanings of words rather than the secondary meanings. 13
Deaf students may not posses the ability to use context cues effectively. 13
Poor readers have difficulty with explicit contextual information. 13
Text vocabulary instruction is necessary for poor readers, which includes many deaf readers. 13
The most important goal of reading instruction is to enable deaf and poor readers to become independent word learners. 13
The use of traditional means of vocabulary instruction does not facilitate the development of the depth of vocabulary knowledge. 13
A variety of research is presented to support the belief that even if some deaf individuals do engage in some kind of phonological encoding, they are relatively inefficient and not widely used strategies. 1
Several kinds of studies, in particular Canard’s research, establish the presence of phonological encoding by deaf readers. 2
Use of phonological encoding aids in memory tasks but is not important in reading tasks. 2
Studies present strong statements that phonological encoding must be developed for deaf readers to become skilled readers.2
It is suggested that deaf individuals develop phonological processes as an outcome of learning to read, but more research is needed. 2
While signing and visual means may be utilized by deaf students, neither of these alternatives is an effective substitute for the benefits of phonological processing. 3
Evidence that phonological information is available to deaf students does not mean it is required. 4
Skilled deaf readers make use of phonological information more often than average deaf readers. (299) 15
There is evidence that older children with profound hearing loss are able to develop phonological encoding skills, but studies of younger deaf children suggest they do not use phonological encoding in their reading processes. 16
Research has shown strategies that rely on the actual text (orthographic structure) and context of written language replace phonological processes for deaf individuals.1
Deaf individuals may possess superior skills in visual sensitivity. 1
Lasso’s research suggests that deaf students visually match words in the text when answering reading comprehension questions. 2
Use of visual features can be seen as a "natural compensatory strategy" for readers with limited hearing. 2
Deaf individuals have superior skills on some visual processing tasks. 2
Although some readers use an orthographic code, it appears to be less effective than a code based on phonology. 2
Deaf readers are more likely to rely on visual word features than hearing students. (207) 16
Finger spelling may be used as part of ASL to mediate between sign language and printed English, there is "no direct evidence that deaf readers use it to encode print." 2
Deaf individuals use sign to encode non-print information in short-term memory. 2
A relationship exists between ASL skills and reading, suggesting that ASL skills "can compensate for deaf students''' deficiencies in spoken English." 2
The use of finger spelling can facilitate word identification. 12
Upper elementary school aged children (9-12 years) in an ASL program had better written language overall than those from other programs. 6
Deaf children often experience major signing inconsistencies among their hearing teachers. (300) 15
An awareness of the need to sign concepts consistently in ASL while reading written English enables teachers and learners to improve their communication and reading skills. (300) 15
The activity of bridging ASL concepts into English makes the sign-to-print relationship clearer when reading with deaf children. Bridging gives deaf children visual access to English and an accompanying improvement in their reading skills. (300) 15
As ASL skills improve, students' English skills improve. 15
Many times deaf children are unable to explain the difference between ASL and English, let alone separate them as two distinct languages in everyday communication. 15
Deaf children must be taught the components of quality ASL skills; in research students have shown most improvement in their use of classifiers, body language, space, directional verbs, facial expression, sequencing, description, and the ability to stay on topic. 15
Consistent formal instruction in ASL expedited the children's baseline skills, as did consistent simultaneous instruction in English. (307) 15
Many deaf children, especially those who's have little exposure to sign in the early years, have significantly lower language competence than their hearing peers. (208) 16
Additional studies focused on language proficiency as a contributing factor. Viewing deaf students in terms of language proficiency, one can understand delayed use of strategies comes from a delayed language proficiency, which clearly is a result of the unique linguistic situation deaf students mature in. 4
The number of years of language experience is the best predictor of successful use of rehearsal strategies. 4
Increased automoticity in the language skills, which result in spontaneous retrieval. A child who does not yet have automated ability will expend more effort in processing. 4
The faster the deaf individual’s signed naming of the stimuli, the more likely they were to spontaneously rehearse. 4
Syntactic, semantic, and most importantly pragmatic skills are important and required for language proficiency. 4
Deaf children do not spontaneously use strategies for rehearsal and retrieval, although they can succeed in such tasks if they are explicitly instructed to do so. Poor automatization (due to low language proficiency) skills are mentioned as a primary factor in low strategy use by deaf students. 4
Reading Level/Judgment of Difficulty of Text
Reading level is an important piece of information that parents of students want to gauge their child’s progress. 7
One of the greatest issues is the variability of results when different tests are used. Studies were mentioned that demonstrated students’ reading levels varying as much as 4 years depending on the test that was used. 7
Text variables mentioned that would influence a student’s performance include length of test, type of language and linguistic complexity. 7
Reader variables are equally important and include motivation to perform on the task, interest in the content, physical and mental state, etc. 7
Research has shown various task variables also influence deaf students’ performance on tests. Task variables refer to the specific kind of questions and perimeters for the test. 7
Deaf children to have greater difficulty with test questions that require them complete a sentence than when they are asked a WH question about the same content. 7
Other task variables found to influence deaf students’ ability to succeed include answer format, whether or not they are permitted to look back to text for answer, and the use of questions that require students to make inferences. 7
The SAT-HI is concluded to be useful in predicting, but not an infallible means of assessing a deaf student’s reading level. 7
Reading levels are seen as flexible starting points that can help guide instruction but subjective measures (such as child’s interest in books, asking about words, reading habits, approaches to unfamiliar words, etc.) are a much better means of determining a child’s success. 7
Typically, teachers of the deaf will determine difficulty in one of three ways: they will use readability formula and an established reading level of the child; they will use clozed procedures; or they will use their own judgment. 8
Hearing teachers of the deaf were unsuccessful in determining reading levels of specific passages.
Deaf teachers were much more successful at predicting difficulty level that matched the deaf students’ actual previous performance, implying deaf teachers may possess superior abilities to determine reading difficulty compared to the abilities of hearing teachers of the deaf. 8
Vocabulary, sentence construction/complexity, comprehensibility of plot/story line, number of characters, difficult/unfamiliar character names were all variables listed by deaf teachers in determining difficulty of text for deaf readers. 8
Visual Matching Test-Taking Strategies
Prior research has shown that deaf students use visual matching test-taking strategies. 9
Overall use of visual matching strategy was not highly related to overall comprehension; deaf students’ use of visual matching strategies were relatively similar regardless of their level of performance on the task. 9
Use of Miscue Analysis in Deaf Readers
Benefits of authentic observation are noted in that they ensure teachers will develop individualized instruction based on the strategies they observe the students using (and not using). Miscue Analysis has the ability to find the “active meaning-making system used by the readers to arrive at comprehension,” (191). 10
Miscue Analysis is concluded to be an invaluable tool for teachers who wish to obtain insight into their student’s reading process; something a standard comprehension task is unable to do. From Miscue Analysis procedures, teachers are able to develop individualized instructional goals for the student. This process is unique in that it also shows the student’s ability to perform without the support of students or structured reading activities. Educators of the deaf are encouraged to use this tool with their students for whom standard assessment approaches are not effective. 10
1. Grushkin, D. (1998). Why shouldn’t Sam read? Toward a new paradigm for literacy and
the deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3:3.
2. 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.
3. Hanson, V. L., Goodell, E. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Tongue-twister effects in the silent reading of hearing and deaf college students. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 319-330.
4. Waters, G. S. & Doehring, D. B. (1990). Reading acquisition in congenitally deaf children who communicate orally; Insights from an analysis of component reading, language, and memory skills. In T. H. Carr & B.A. Levly (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 323-373). San Diego, CA: Academic.
5. Strassman, B. K. (1997). Metacognition and reading in children who are deaf: A review of the research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 140-149.
6. Singleton, J. L., Suppalla, S. J., Litchfield, S., & Schley, S. (1998). From sign to word: Considering modality constraints in ASL/English bilingual education. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 16-29.
7. LaSasso, C. (1987). What parents of hearing impaired students need to know about student reading levels. American Annals of the Deaf. December 1987, 399-402.
8. LaSasso, C. (1987). The effectiveness of hearing-impaired teachers’ judgment of relative text difficulty for deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 2:3.
9. LaSasso, C. (1985). Visual matching test-taking strategies used by deaf readers. Journal of Speech and Hearing, 28.
10. Chaleff, C. D. and Ritter, M. H. (2001). The use of Miscue Analysis with Deaf readers. The Reading Teacher, 55:2.
11. Ensor, A. D., and Koller, J. R. (1997). The effect of the method of repeated readings on the reading rate and word recognition accuracy of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2:2, 61-70.
12. Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1987). the metalinguistics of finger spelling: An alternative way to increase reading vocabulary in congenitally deaf readers. Reading Research Quaterly, 22(4). 455-474.
13. Paul. P. V. (1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1:1. 3-15.
14. Oakhill, J. and Cain, K. (2000). Children's difficulties in text comprehension: assessing causal issues. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5:1, 51-59.
15. Schimmel, C. S, Edwards, S. G., & Prickett, H. T. (1999) Reading?...PAH! (I GOT IT!) American Annals of the Deaf, 144:4
16. Harris, M. & Beech, J. R. (1998, Summer) Implicit Phonological awareness and early reading development in prelingually deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3:3
Back to OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH