PresentationPDF Available

Teaching Science to Deaf Students: Language and Literacy Considerations

Authors:

Abstract

How to incorporate reading research practices and sign language into the teaching of science to young deaf students.
!
1!
Teaching Science to Deaf Students: Language and Literacy Considerations
Jean F. Andrews, Ph.D.
August 18, 2017
Universidade Federal Fluminense
Introduction
Thank you for inviting me to your university today. When I was coming to Rio de
Janeiro, I read your paper--Deafness and the Educational Rights: A Review through a
Brazilian Perspective and learn about Eduard Huet, the Deaf Frenchman from the Paris
School who set up the first school for the deaf in Brazil in 1855. (Similar to the U.S
(North America when the deaf Frenchman Laurent Clerc set up the first deaf school, the
American School for the deaf in 1817). Also I read with interest your efforts in
recognizing educational rights of deaf students, developing Libras and Portuguese
bilingual education and your work in improving science instruction. I am delighted to
have this opportunity to visit INES, your university and meet new colleagues to share
mutual understandings about deaf education.
I choose the topic, “Teaching science to deaf students: Language and literacy
considerations.” Even though I am not a scientist, nor am I a science educator, over the
years, I trained many teachers who were science educators. As a university professor in a
teacher-education program, I was always looking for funding for students and through the
U.S. National Science Foundation (NFS), a Federal government agency; I was able to get
funding to set up workshops and fund dissertation research. My area of training and
interest is in language and literacy. So for these science projects I enlisted the aid of
science university professors and K-8 science teachers to collaborate. I wanted to share
with you some of our outcomes related to science education. But first, let me start with
“the Big Picture” about language deprivation because this issue impacts deaf students’
learning of science as well as our teaching of science.
Key Points
Language deprivation
Language deprivation and its effects on language, literacy and science teaching
Science Teaching
o Teacher inservice and preservice training
o ASL/English bilingual strategies
o Reading comprehension strategies
o Writing science materials for struggling deaf readers
The Big Picture
Anyone who works even a short time with deaf children immediately recognizes
these children are intelligent by observing their alertness and eagerness to learn. Despite
intellectual potential, what most deaf children share is language deprivation. In the U.S.
they are an estimated 40 to 60 percent of deaf children who have additional disabilities
that impact learning (See Leigh & Andrews, 2017), but these children also have their
!
2!
unique learning potential that we need to address. Language deprivation affects every
aspect of deaf students’ academic learning, particularly science learning (Andrews &
Cocke, 2005; Andrews et al., 2006). First I am going to talk briefly about language
deprivation then discuss several of our past and ongoing science education projects.
Language Deprivation
The challenge deaf children and their families face is not the biological aspect of
being without or losing hearing. But the challenge is providing deaf children with early
and full access to language either spoken, signed or both. This also includes access to
early (emergent) literacy experiences. I tell my students that the providing language
access is our problem, not the deaf students! It is up to us as educators to set up language-
rich environments at schools and to convince families to do the same on the home front.
Language deprivation can be prevented. Indeed, the psycholinguists and
neurologists tell us is that the human brain does care if language comes through the eyes
or the ears (Penicaud et al., 2012). From birth, babies have sensitivities to rhythmic-
temporal patterns, which establish brain structures for language, regardless of the
modality (Penicaud et al., 2012). But infants need full access to what Kuhl and her
colleagues term the statistical regularities in language between the ages of 6 months to 10
to 11 months. A visual language such as sign language can provide equivalent brain
structures to those developed with spoken language. Thus the brain structures function
the same for both spoken and signed languages (Kuhl & Rivera-Gaziola, 2008; Penicaud
et al., 2012) if the baby has early exposure to a visual language.
Emergent Literacy
Early literacy experiences fit in too and they are part of the language deprivation
puzzle. These emergent literacy experiences provided by families and early childhood
educators are essential. For those young deaf children who are exposed to sign language,
researchers have found a fundamental linguistic and learning differences between deaf
and hearing emergent literacy learners (Allen et al., 2014; Allen, 2015; Andrews et al.,
2017). Studies have consistently shown the interdependency of visual languages, such as
American Sign Language, fingerspelling, reading and writing as meaning-making
systems for deaf students to scaffold the learning of English (Andrews et al., 2017; Stone
et al., 2015). Due to linguistic research, we also know that there are different
phonological systems of ASL and English and that these linguistic differences impact
acquisition of early reading. For instance, young deaf children use fingerspelling,
initialized signs, lexicalized or loan signs to communicate as well as bridge their signing
to English skills (Allen, 2015; Andrews et al., 2017).
Medical/Audiology View & Cultural/Linguistic View
To address hearing loss, professionals such as doctors and audiologists have taken
the medical/audiological perspective. This view focuses primarily on “fixing” or
rehabilitating the child’s physical hearing loss. Remediation includes the fitting of
children with hearing aids or cochlear implant surgery and special auditory/oral training.
Some children do benefit from these prosthetic devices and training and can learn
language from them. However, many deaf children fall through the cracks and do not
!
3!
succeed with them. The medical/audiological view, while important, is shortsighted and
does not address the developmental needs of the whole child. The cultural/linguistic
view is more inclusive and takes a long-term, developmental perspective. This view
introduces sign language early and acknowledges the child’s bilingual and bicultural
identity with special attention to Deaf culture. The child’s deaf identity is recognized
early and build upon in order maximize socio-emotional wellness as well as learning
potential. Many families in the U.S. today are choosing bilingual and bimodal approaches
to home communication, language, and early literacy development (see reviews of papers
in Leigh & Andrews, 2017). This approach also seeks the expertise and experiences of
the adult deaf community in helping hearing families provide optimum language and
socio-emotional family environments where the child’s socio-emotional and learning
potential can be supported.
When I was at INES on Wednesday, I had conversations with Dr. Ana Campello
on the importance of Libras and Deaf culture in deaf education. Dr. Campello discussed
how deaf children need their language (Libras) and their deaf identity supported by the
schools and in their families too so they can develop a healthy perspective about
themselves rather than the “deficit view.” During my tour, Dr. Campello also shared
with me the fascinating history of INES and showed me the picture of Eduard Huet, its
deaf founder who secured funds through King Pedro. She also showed me outstanding
examples of artwork by deaf artists such as the sculptures of young deaf children. She
also informed me about archives and library of early historical writings about INES.
Such a wealth of deaf history INES has and it would be beneficial to share this Deaf
Brazilian history with INES students to instill Deaf pride in their community.
High Risk Factors
If children are not provided with accessible language then language deprivation
sets in as early as soon after birth. Language deprivation brings along with it a variety of
high risk factors which can include loneliness and social isolation, cognitive delays,
socio-emotional delays, bonding interference, and other psycho-social disorders (e.g.
depression) (Lomas, Andrews, & Shaw, 2017). But language deprivation can be
prevented if the child receives early sign language along with spoken language
instruction. Raising the child bilingually can reduce the risks of language deprivation.
How Language Deprivation Impacts Science Teaching/Learning
During my tour of INES on Wednesday, Dr. Erika Winagraski shared with me her
work as a biology teacher with deaf high school students. Many of the challenges she
expressed to me are similar to our challenges in the U.S. For example, U.S deaf students
have stronger ASL skills than English skills similar to the Brazilian deaf students who
have stronger Libras skills than Portuguese. As teachers we scaffold our science teaching
in ASL and bridge these concepts to the written English language. Another challenge Dr.
Erika shared was the students’ lack of background knowledge about health issues such as
teenage pregnancy. We have these very same issues in the U.S. Deaf teenagers like
Brazilian deaf teens more often than not rely on their teachers rather than their families to
!
4!
learn about hygiene, sexuality and other health related issues. In the classroom, we must
use their sign language to educate them about these issues.
Deaf students need to learn about a plethora of other concepts such as the life
cycles of plants and animals, the water cycle and weather, about the moon and the tides,
scientific method, about the solar system, gravity and so on. Deaf students are not privy
to incidental learning because their family members do not sign. That means they need
teachers and interpreters skilled in ASL (or Libras) around them who can communicate
about science facts and processes. They need to acquire background knowledge about
science so teachers often must prepare extra teaching materials to prepare them before the
actual assignment. Dr. Erika also mentioned that her older deaf students did not like to
read and write in Portuguese in the classroom and I reported that we have that same issue
with U.S. deaf teens, who do not like to read and write in English but prefer ASL. But as
Dr. Erika pointed out---the students need both languages, Portuguese and Libras to
survive and advance themselves in the hearing world. I would agree that this is the same
with US deaf teens. They also need to learn about science writing during activities such
as journal writing and writing-up of experiments. The teachers may also benefit from
learning about DeafSpace so that their classrooms and laboratories are set up so students
can view the signing as well as the experiments and other demonstrations. DeafSpace
refers to removing architectural and physical barriers and provide adequate lighting in the
classroom so that deaf children can see the signing around them from teachers and their
peers. And still another challenge is learning science terminology. During lunch on
Wednesday, Dr. Erika described her research on how young deaf teens developed their
own signs for science terminology. This is a very exciting research direction that needs to
be continued and expanded. Often hearing teachers incorrectly make up or invent science
signs that are not linguistically valid. Science signs should only be developed by
members of the deaf community who are native users of Libras or ASL.
We know from reading research that vocabulary, including words for science
terminology are best taught not as lists but in the context of other written material along
with supporting visuals. Another challenge for teachers is to make science books
accessible to deaf students. In our workshops, science teachers informed us that science
textbooks were written two and sometimes three grade levels above the students’ reading
levels so students can’t read them. Some science teachers address this problem by re-
writing sections of science books for the students to read (Andrews & Cocke, 2005;
Andrews et al., 2006).
Use of ASL and Fingerspelling in Science Classroom
Dr. Erika also shared with me her use of Libras to teach science in her classroom
along with visuals, plastic models, fingerspelling and writing. We do the same in science
classrooms in the US (Andrews et al., 2006). ASL and fingerspelling are widely used in
the science classroom because of its visual nature and use of iconicity. Classifiers can be
used to label instruments, beakers, test tubes and other items. (see in the resources on the
PPT a video of classifiers for lab containers
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajiog8S9P3Y).
!
5!
I want to emphasize the use of fingerspelling. Some hearing teachers do not use
fingerspelling much in the classroom because they think that if deaf students do not read
or spell words much then they will not understand fingerspelling. However, research
shows that the spelling of words is only one use of fingerspelling. Its capacity to teach
language is much greater. For example, in the schoolyard at INES on Wednesday, I met a
deaf father of a young deaf child. I asked him if he used fingerspelling with his young
deaf child and he nodded, Yes. He reported to me that at age 1 or 2 he would sign
storybooks to his deaf child and the child would take the book and sign back to him using
pictures. He would also point to words in the storybook and fingerspell them to his young
child. These techniques we call “deaf indigenous practices” and they are very effective
in teaching literacy to young deaf children. Deaf scholars have written dissertations on
the use of ASL and reading and highlight these deaf indigenous practices that deaf
families use (Andrews et al. 2015). Other research summarized by Dr. Sharon Baker and
others in the U.S. shows that very young children learn fingerspelling as a “gestalt
whole or as a sign, then later they learn to break down words into individual letters with
fingerspelled handshapes.
Fingerspelling also plays an important role in the science classroom because there
are many science words with no signs. So we must describe the meaning of the word in
several signs, then provide the written word and fingerspell the word. This is often called
an ASL expansion or it can be called chaining or sandwiching (Andrews & Rusher,
2010). Take the sign for PROBLEM, meaning a challenge or some obstacle or barrier. If
the teacher wants to teach the concept of a “scientific problem” she would fingerspell P-
R-O-B-L-E-M then describe the concept. That way the deaf student is not confused with
the meanings of a problem as a “barrier/obstacle with a problem used in the scientific
sense. So many other English words have multiple meanings and to understand the
meaning, one must understand the context of how it is used because the meanings of
words spelled the same can shift.
Facial expressions, mouth movements, repetition, questions, sequencing are all
parts of ASL that can be used to teach science concepts and meanings as well. See
Youtube for many excellent examples of how ASL is used to teach science. I provided
some citations in my Powerpoint. You may consider developing your own Youtube
videos for deaf students using Libras and Portuguese.
Two National Science Foundation (NSF) Projects
I am going to just briefly describe these two projects. Both projects were written
and implemented in response to Texas requiring that elementary age students be assessed
on state standards in science even though many elementary school teachers had no
training in science other than their elementary education curriculum. I refer you to two
articles for more discussion (Andrews & Cocke, 2005; Andrews et al., 2006).
Project ACE
In Project ACE (Accessible Science for deaf and hearing bilingual students) we
assembled a collaborative team of university professors in chemistry and deaf education,
deaf school administrators, deaf school science teachers, and bilingual teachers in a
hearing elementary school (Spanish/English), and a multimedia specialist. During
!
6!
summer workshops we presented lectures on problem-based learning (PBL) and inquiry
teaching and reviewed with the teachers how to develop lesson plans using these PBL
elements. Then based on their own classroom needs, teachers developed bilingual lesson
plans (ASL and English) for deaf education teachers and (Spanish and English) for the
bilingual hearing teachers. We also presented workshops on the bilingual strategies of
translation, transliteration, preview-view-review, codeswitching, chaining, and
sandwiching (Andrews & Rusher, 2010; Andrews, 2012; Andrews et al., 2015). Our
multimedia specialist gave the teachers digital cameras and small digital microscopes.
Over the school year, Teachers communicated with each other using videoconferencing
technology and shared their ideas and challenges. We also educated the teachers about
the concept of DeafSpace and how to arrange the science lab and classroom for optimal
visual learning. We also presented workshops on how to incorporate reading
comprehension strategies in the science teaching. We discussed the use of visual
(pictures, movies) reviews, semantic webs, paraphrasing key points, ASL summaries,
using the title, rereading, lookback/lookahead, context clues, asking an expert for help,
using linguistic cueing systems while reading such as graphophonics, syntax, and
semantics (Andrews & Mason, 1986; Andrews, Winograd, & Deville, 1994).
Project EET
Project EET: Enabling technologies, best practices science pedagogy, and
bilingual/ESL strategies for teaching science to elementary deaf and hearing students was
an extension of the former project (Andrews et al., 2006). In this study we enlarged our
teacher base to include 4 schools for the deaf (Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and the
National Deaf Academy) and 2 hearing schools, Fletcher Elementary and Reuben
Rodriquez Bilingual School. We invited two teachers from each school to come to our
summer workshops where we gave them informational seminars and technology to take
home with them. Technology included document cameras, microscopes, and digital
camcorders. One innovation of this project was the incorporation of Deaf culture where
the teachers read about famous Deaf scientists and brought these materials to their young
deaf students. Teachers also discussed the challenges of being a deaf bilingual and a
hearing bilingual. They developed problem-based lessons. To make their science
textbooks more accessible to young struggling readers, they learned about using visuals,
graphic organizers, and examined how science textbooks are organized (e.g. titles,
headings, subheadings, summaries). Dr. Chad Smith shared his Deaf Scientist Corner
(http://www.twu.edu/dsc/level_I_alphabetical.htm) which now features short biographies
of more than 30 deaf scientists. Additional workshops were carried out on the use of
bilingual strategies such as translation (free and literal), PVR, codeswitching, ASL
storysigning, guided reading, mini-grammar lessons, fingerspelling, ASL expansions,
science lab reports and journal writing and guided writing (Andrews & Rusher, 2010;
Simms, Andrews, & Smith, 2005).
Science and Deaf Education Studies
Grant funded workshops bring added value. Not only do they provide funding for
preservice and inservice teachers, improvement in teaching, motivation and reduction of
teacher-burn-out, ideas for dissertations inevitably rise to the top like the old-fashion
!
7!
cream in a milk bottle. Two dissertation ideas emerged from these workshops. 1) to
empirically test one bilingual strategy (PVR) for deaf and hearing bilinguals (2005) and
2) to find out what kind of training do teachers of deaf children need related to the
teaching of science (2009).
Dr. Ying Li’s study: PVR
Dr. Li (2005) measured the effects of using the PVR (preview-view-review)
strategy as a concept developing technique for two groups of English L2 (second
language) users. Her participants included 12 deaf ASL/English students and 12 hearing
Spanish/English students who were in the 3rd and 4th grade. The children received 6 short
science lessons using the PVR strategy. For the deaf group, one session they received the
Preview in ASL, the read the text in English (View), then a Review in ASL. The hearing
group had the Preview in Spanish, the View in English, then the Review in Spanish. The
presentations were counterbalanced with the bilingual PVR and other stories presented in
the reading only mode. Five comprehension measures were used out using five mixed
designed ANOVAS. The PVR treatment scores were higher than scores of reading alone
for both deaf and hearing groups on the literal question tasks. But there were no effects
on using PVR to increase the inferential question tasks. It was hypothesized that deaf
children’s lack of background knowledge and incidental learning affected their inability
to answer the inferential questions. More research is needed to address this finding.
Dr. Cynthia Shaw’s study: Survey
Dr. Cynthia Shaw (2009) surveyed 67 science teachers who taught at elementary
level in the U.S. She collected teacher background variables and utilized a purposeful
convenience sample with a non-experimental, basic research design. Dr. Shaw found that
most science teachers who responded to her survey were female and had less than 10
years teaching experience with deaf students. About 60% were considered “highly
qualified” in science and only 40% of the teachers had a state certification to teach
science. She found that deaf teachers reported the more use of bilingual strategies. Her
study showed that hearing teachers reported they used computers more than deaf
teachers. Teachers in residential schools stated they attended more state mandated science
workshops than teachers who worked in public school mainstreamed programs. She
found that overall, most science teachers lacked training in science, used technology
infrequently and did not have access to inservice science workshops (Shaw, 2009).
Writing Science Nonfiction Stories of Deaf Children
Another route upon which to support science learning for deaf children is to
create materials that they can read and enjoy to learn and appreciate science ideas.
Currently, my colleague Dr. Jana M. Mason and I have written 12 short stories for deaf
children based on our observations of Great Egrets, a waterbird family found in southeast
Texas and southwest Louisiana. Our stories are illustrated by artist, Jan Kellogg. You
can see these birds along the ditches, in the lakes, bayous, and rivers and even on the Gulf
coast salt marshes looking for fish to eat. The framework of these stories are based on a
storybook model originally designed by Jana M. Mason, Ph.D. and Christine
McCormick, Ph.D. in their “Little Books” series (McCormick & Mason, 1990). These are
simple, picture, phrase books with familiar vocabulary and familiar themes that give the
!
8!
child the experience of reading a complete book. Longitudinal research shows that these
materials help emergent readers well into early elementary school (Philips, Norris, &
Mason, 1996).
Our Great Egret Family on Ruby Lake stories are made of 10 to 11 sentences
each. Each story makes up one complete story. As a set, the 12 stories relate the life cycle
of Great Egret family from mating, laying of eggs, hatching, growing up in nest, learning
to fly, leaving nest, migrating back to mate and start new family. Our illustrations are
strongly matched to the story idea match to support reading comprehension. The books
are filled with science vocabulary such as hatch, eggs, migrate, bill, hovers, snakes,
slither, swallows a fish, nest, sticks, wings, feathers, mate, roost, perch and so on. We are
developing reading and writing lessons that focus on science vocabulary, sentence and
narrative structures. We based our story structures on two central ideas.
1. deaf students need experiences reading complete or whole stories to understand
story structures, sequencing, characters, beginning-middle-end, etc.
2. ASL, reading, and writing are meaning-making systems that are connected to
students’ reading comprehension (see Figure 1).
Idea #1: Reading “Whole” or Complete Stories in Important
Because of language deprivation, many deaf students do not get the opportunity to
independently reading whole stories until they are older and have additional reading
skills. There are plenty of fiction stories available but fewer options for expository
nonfiction for young children. Our goal was to write science stories that deaf students
could read at an early age. Even if they were struggling readers, they could use the ASL
translations, illustrations, and short sentence structures and short story lengths to read and
enjoy learning about the life cycle of great egrets.
Idea #2: ASL, reading and writing are connected
We are developing literacy lessons (Before viewing the story, During viewing
the story, After reading the story) for teachers. Our reading lessons showing sign-to-print
relationship. The lessons incorporate in them the following-- signing, retelling, labeling,
drawing, writing, reading, and fingerspelling to show the interrelationships. See Figure 1.
Sign language and print recognition can be used as a bridge to learning to read more
print. Children and teachers can make use of multiple ASL and English bilingual and
reading comprehension strategies (Andrews & Rusher, 2017; Andrews et al., 2006;
Andrews & Cocke, 2005).
As mentioned above, studies show that fingerspelling can be learned very early by
deaf children (Baker, 2010; Stone et al., 2015). Deaf children first learn to fingerspell
first name, names of family. When I visited INES, the children that I met were very
enthusiastic and proud to fingerspell their first and last names and learn the fingerspelling
of my name and name sign. Deaf children also can learn about environmental print in the
kitchen and when driving in the city if parents can help them match this print to
fingerspelling. As mentioned above, children learn fingespelling as a whole, then later
!
9!
learn to break down the letters to spell out words into fingerspelled letters (Baker, 2010;
Stone et al., 2015). Deaf children also learn “loan signs” “lexicalized fingerspelling (JB,
BK) and initialized signs (BLUE, GREEN, YELLOW, FAMILY). I don’t know Libras
but I am sure they occur in your language too. Fingerspelling is receiving increased
attention in its use to scaffold or support the learning of reading and writing (Allen, 2015;
Andrews et. al., 2017; Haptonstall-Nykaza, & Schick, 2007). Teachers and deaf students
use it to expand vocabulary, decode print and learn the letter patterns of words as well.
Summary
The challenges of teaching science to deaf children are multifaceted. Deaf
students have the potential to learn science if we set up the environment that makes the
information visually accessible to them. If we better understand language deprivation,
and work at ways to limit it by encouraging families and teachers to learn more ASL (or
Libras as in Brazil) as well as to use fingerspelling, we can provide science learning
opportunities for deaf students. Incorporating more ASL and English bilingual strategies
and more reading and writing (literacy) activities into the science classroom needs further
investigation to empirically test these ideas for wider dissemination. Also the
development of additional science materials that are written so that younger and older
deaf struggling readers can read them is still another avenue worth exploring to increase
deaf students’ appreciation, enjoyment and learning of science concepts.
Resources
At the end of my Powerpoint, I provided names of researchers and also some
websites with resources to examine related to science learning and deaf education that
may be of interest.
References
Allen, T. E., Letteri, A., Choi, S. H., & Dang, D. (2014). Early visual language exposure
and emergent literacy in preschool deaf children: Findings from a national
longitudinal study. American Annals of the Deaf, 159(4), 346-358.
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), 233-265.
Andrews, J., Liu, H., Liu, C., Gentry, M. & Smith, Z. (2017). Increasing early reading
skills in young deaf children using shared book reading: A feasibility study. Early
Child Development and Care, 187(3-4), 583-599.
Andrews, J., Hamilton, B., Misener-Dunn, K., & Clark, M. D. (2016). Early reading
for young deaf and hard of hearing children: Alternative frameworks. Psychology,
7(4), 510-522. Http://www.scirp.org/journal/psyh.
!
10!
Andrews, J. F., and Mason, J. M., Strategy Use among deaf and hearing readers.
Exceptional Children, 1991.57, (6), 536-545.
Andrews, J. & Cocke, D. (2005). Accessible Science for Deaf and Hearing
Bilingual Students in Elementary School, 28(5), 8-10, 24. NABE News
(National Association of Bilingual Educators).
Andrews, J., Gentry, M., DeLana, M. & Cocke, D. (2006). Bilingual Students—Deaf
and Hearing: Learn about Science: Using Visual Strategies, Technology and
Culture. The Language Learner, 2(2), 5-7, 10.
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. (2012). Reading to Deaf Children Who Sign: A Response to Williams (2012)
and Suggestions For Future Research. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(3), 307-
319.
Andrews, J., 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., Winograd, P. & DeVille, G. (July, 1994). Deaf children reading fables:
Using ASL summaries to improve reading comprehension. American Annals of
the Deaf,139(3), 378-386.
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.
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., Pollard, R., &
Smith, S. (2014). What medical education can do to ensure robust language
development in deaf children. Medical Science Educator, 24, 4, 409-419.
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., &
Smith, S. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of
zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9(1)
1.
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., &
Smith, S. (2016). Language choices for deaf infants. Clinical Pediatrics, 55, 6,
513.
Kuhl, P., & Rivera-Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of language acquisition. Annu.
Rev. Neurosci., 31, 511-534.
!
11!
Leigh, I., & Andrews, J. (2017). Deaf People in Society: Psychological, Sociological, and
Educational Perspectives. 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge
Lomas, G., Andrews, J., & Shaw, P. (2017). Chapter 23: Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Students. In the Handbook of Special Education. Edited by James M. Kauffman
and Daniel Hallahan (Eds.). (338-357). New York: Routledge.
Li, Ying (2005). The effect of the bilingual strategy preview-view-review on the
comprehension of science concepts by deaf ASL and English and hearing
Mexican-American Spanish-English bilingual students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas.
McCormick, C. & Mason, J. (1990). Little books. Chicago, IL: Scott Foresman.
Penicaud, S., Klein, D., Zatorre, R. J., Chen, J. K., Witcher, P., Hyde, K., & Mayberry, R.
(2012). Structural brain changes linked to delayed first-language acquisition in
congenitally deaf individuals. NeuroImage, 66, 42-49.
Phillips, L., M., Norris, S.P., Mason, J.M. (1996). Longitudinal effects of early literacy
concepts of reading achievement: A kindergarten intervention and five-year
follow up. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(1), 173-195.
Shaw, Cynthia (2009). Science teachers in deaf education: A national survey of K-8
teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas.
Simms, L., Andrews, J. & Smith, A. (2005). A Balanced Approach to Literacy
Instruction for Deaf Signing Students. Balanced Reading Instruction, 12, 39-54.
Stone, A., Kartheiser, G., Hauser, P., Petitto, L.-A., & Allen, T. (2015).
Fingerspelling as a novel gateway into reading fluency in deaf bilinguals. PLoS
One, 10, 1-12.
Visual Language and Visual Learning Science of Learning Center. (2010). The
Importance of Fingerspelling for Reading. Research Brief No. 1). Washington,
D.C. Sharon Bake
!
!
!
1.
ASL$Translation
Digital'+'face!to#!face
2.
Read%English%with%
signs%+%fingerspell
3.
Recite&stories&in&ASL
4.
Draw%pictures
5.
Write&lab el&
drawings
6.
Use$ASL$to$describe$
drawing/writings
!
!
!
!
!
!
... Studies prior to the emergence of COVID-19 berated teachers' capacity to adopt and use ICTs and Internet-enabled technologies, such as Zoom, for the teaching of the natural sciences Andrews, 2017). Remarkably, however, a recent study emphasised the significance of ICTs in science teaching, and especially in practical laboratory work (Jita & Munje, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
The Experiences of Emergency-Remote Teaching Via Zoom: The Case of Natural-Science Teachers Handling of Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Learners in South Africa.
... The similar real scenarios observed and reported in recent researches that highlight that despite having a normal, average, above average, and high intellectual competency, LwPHI exhibits low academic performance in schools (Andrews, Jean., 2017). Although, there is no match of their attentiveness and inquisitiveness, still, the outcome is found to be disappointing. ...
Article
The current research explored the effectiveness of using Indian Sign Language (ISL) as an instructional medium for developing Science Practical skills among LwPHI. Methodologically, the research falls under the mixed-method research paradigm. This study had one group, pretest post-test design and the sample was selected through purposive sampling. The data was collected from 10 Science teachers and 20 LwPHI studying at the upper primary sage in the Inclusive schools of Delhi, India. The researcher used interview schedule, rubrics, and Science practical lesson plans as the tools. The intervention phase was designed to develop the skills related to 4 important components of science practical i.e. procedural and manipulative skills, observational skills, drawing skills, and Interpretive & reporting skills. On analysis of the descriptive statistics, it was found that there was a mean gain difference of 14.95 between the pre-post test scores and 0.423 in the standard deviation. The hypothesis testing was done through Wilcoxon signed-rank test statistical analysis, Z: -3.936, P-value was less than 0.05 (0.000<0.05), indicated that there was a significant difference in the performance and hence, H0 was rejected. The qualitative analysis of the rubrics and interview revealed that the LwPHI not only had limited ability to connect the science content taught in the classrooms to their daily life but also were less aware of science as a subject and had many misconceptions. And, due to the communication gap, this learning gap was widening. The analysis of data collected after the intervention indicated improved content understanding, a rise in science vocabulary, and awareness of scientific terminologies. The finding of this study is in coherence with the preceding researches and acknowledges that the curriculum objectives are better attained by learners if they are delivered in the respective learner’s first language.
Article
Full-text available
A feasibility study was conducted to test a storybook intervention to increase early reading skills of 25 young signing deaf children of ages 4-9 in grades K through third grade. The children had wide ranges of hearing losses, non-verbal IQs, and signing skills. All were at risk for developing early reading skills, reading below the first grade level. Using a pre-experimental pre/post test design, standardized tests and early reading tasks, the children changes in letter, word and story knowledge were documented over a full school year. The intervention included 20 weekly story reading sessions with children receive modelling by Deaf story signers, with children using their signing and fingerspelling to practice storybook reading, story reciting, vocabulary learning, fingerspelling and writing skills with easy-to-read picture word/phrase storybooks after modelling from Deaf caregivers and teachers. Future research directions for intervention studies were outlined based on outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
Deaf children can develop reading skills by using a visual language to bridge meaning to English print without the use of English auditory phonology. To this end, five deafcentric frameworks are described that take into account the use of visual language and visual learning, as well as the use of deaf cultural role models in the teaching of reading. Moving away from the deficit model, these frameworks focus on Deaf1 students in the act of reading in order to document their actual behaviors using a bilingual American Sign Language/English philosophy. These five models suggest that there is more involved in reading than simply bottom-up code-based strategies based on spoken language. Multiple pathways are recommended, based on the work of Treisman, and his idea of “fault tolerant” approaches, which permit and encourage multiple pathways for deaf readers.
Article
Full-text available
Studies have shown that American Sign Language (ASL) fluency has a positive impact on deaf individuals' English reading, but the cognitive and cross-linguistic mechanisms permitting the mapping of a visual-manual language onto a sound-based language have yet to be elucidated. Fingerspelling, which represents English orthography with 26 distinct hand configurations , is an integral part of ASL and has been suggested to provide deaf bilinguals with important cross-linguistic links between sign language and orthography. Using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, this study examined the relationship of age of ASL exposure , ASL fluency, and fingerspelling skill on reading fluency in deaf college-age bilinguals. After controlling for ASL fluency, fingerspelling skill significantly predicted reading fluency, revealing for the first-time that fingerspelling, above and beyond ASL skills, contributes to reading fluency in deaf bilinguals. We suggest that both fingerspelling—in the visual-manual modality—and reading—in the visual-orthographic modality—are mutually facilitating because they share common underlying cognitive capacities of word decoding accuracy and automaticity of word recognition. The findings provide support for the hypothesis that the development of English reading proficiency may be facilitated through strengthening of the relationship among fingerspelling, sign language, and orthographic decoding en route to reading mastery, and may also reveal optimal approaches for reading instruction for deaf and hard of hearing children.
Article
Full-text available
Taking a historical view, the authors reviewed 40 years of dissertation research by deaf scholars (1973-2013) related to reading. Using a qualitative interpretive analysis approach (J. Smith & Osborn, 2003), the authors selected 31 dissertations as primary texts, reviewing them for themes over five time periods. The first finding was a trend of themes on communication methodology in the 1970s (first period), to English reading skills in the 1980s (second period), to American Sign Language/English bilingualism to support acquisition of English literacy during the third, fourth and fifth periods (1990-2013). The second finding was that most of the dissertations used a combination of qualitatively similar and qualitatively different epistemologies in their research. These two findings are related to (a) the role of the deaf reading researcher, (b) historical and current trends in reading research, and (c) the qualitative similarity hypothesis (Paul, Wang, & Williams, 2013).
Article
Full-text available
The typical medical education curriculum does not address language development for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children. However, this issue is medical because of the frequency with which DHH children as a population face health complications due to linguistic deprivation. The critical period for language development is early; if a child does not acquire an intact language before age five, the child is unlikely to ever have native-like use of any language. Such linguistic deprivation carries risks of cognitive delay and psycho-social health difficulties. Spoken language is inaccessible for many DHH children despite assistive-technology developments. But sign languages, because they are visual, are accessible to most DHH children. To ensure language development, DHH children should have exposure to a sign language in their early years, starting at birth. If they also receive successful training in processing and producing a spoken language, they will have the many benefits of bimodal bilingualism. Undergraduate medical education curricula should include information about early language acquisition so that physicians can advise families of deaf newborns and newly deafened young children how to protect their cognitive health. Graduate medical education in primary care, pediatrics, and otolaryngology should include extensive information about amplification/cochlear implants, language modality, and the latest research/practices to promote the development and education of DHH children. Training in how to establish connections with local authorities and services that can support parents and child should be included as well. Further, students need to learn how to work with sign language interpreters in caring for DHH patients. We offer suggestions as to how medical curricula can be appropriately enriched and point to existing programs and initiatives that can serve as resources.
Book
Deaf People and Society incorporates multiple perspectives related to the topics of psychology, education, and sociology, including the viewpoints of deaf adults themselves. In doing so, it considers the implications of what it means to be deaf or hard of hearing and how deaf adults’ lives are impacted by decisions that professionals make, whether in the clinic, the school, or when working with family. This second edition has been thoroughly revised and offers current perspectives on the following topics: Etiologies of deafness and the identification process The role of auditory access Cognition, language, communication, and literacy Bilingual, bilingual/bimodal, and monolingual approaches to language learning Educational, legal, and placement aspects Childhood psychological issues Psychological and sociological viewpoints of deaf adults The criminal justice system and deaf people Psychodynamics of interaction between deaf and hearing people Each chapter begins with a set of objectives and concludes with suggested readings for further research. This edition contains 10 new and original case studies, including ones on hearing children of deaf adults, sudden hearing loss, a young deaf adult with mental illness, and more. Written by a seasoned deaf/hearing bilingual team, this unique text continues to be the go-to resource for students and future professionals interested in working with deaf and hard-of-hearing persons.
Article
This article reports on a correlational study of language and home factors and their role in fostering the development of alphabetic knowledge among a national sample of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old deaf children. A structural equation model was constructed and tested in an examination of the combined impacts of student age, fingerspelling ability, and receptive American Sign Language ability on the participants' ability to write, say, or sign letters of the English alphabet. The resulting models explained more than half of the variance in letter-writing ability and revealed significant independent effects of all three variables. Additionally, ASL skill revealed noteworthy indirect effects through its impact on fingerspelling, emphasizing the importance of the combination of signing and fingerspelling as predictors of emergent literacy in young deaf children. A follow-up analysis examined the correlations between age and letter writing, as well as those between ASL skill and letter writing, separately for subgroups (defined by parental hearing status and the use of sign in the home). This analysis revealed strong associations between ASL skill and letter writing in signing deaf and hearing families but not in nonsigning hearing families, raising a concern that deaf children in families with no early exposure to a visual language may be at greater risk for delay in their emerging reading abilities.
Article
Brief review is provided of recent research on the impact of early visual language exposure on a variety of developmental outcomes, including literacy, cognition, and social adjustment. This body of work points to the great importance of giving young deaf children early exposure to a visual language as a critical precursor to the acquisition of literacy. Four analyses of data from the Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2) Early Education Longitudinal Study are summarized. Each confirms findings from previously published laboratory findings and points to the positive effects of early sign language on, respectively, letter knowledge, social adaptability, sustained visual attention, and cognitive-behavioral milestones necessary for academic success. The article concludes with a consideration of the qualitative similarity hypothesis and a finding that the hypothesis is valid, but only if it can be presented as being modality independent.
Article
A survey was conducted with 67 science teachers who taught deaf children at the elementary school level. Teacher background variables, information about teacher preparation and certification, preferred teaching methods, communication methodologies, curriculum, and the use of technology were gathered. A purposeful, convenience sampling technique was employed. Utilizing a non-experimental, basic research design and survey methodology, the researcher reviewed both quantitative and qualitative data. The majority of science teachers in this survey at the elementary school level are female and hearing. More than half have deaf education masters degrees. Few have science degrees. The majority of teachers had less than 10 years teaching experience with deaf students. Sixty percent were highly qualified in science; only forty percent were certified in science. They were equally employed at either a state residential school or a public day school. Two-way chi-square analyses were carried out. Hearing teachers preferred to observe other teachers teaching science compared to deaf teachers chi2 (1, N = 67) = 5.39, p < .05, deaf teachers were more familiar than hearing teachers with the ASL/English Bilingual Star School program (chi2 (1, N = 67) = 8.49, p < .01). Deaf teachers participated more in the Star Schools training compared to hearing teachers (chi2 (1, N = 67) = 14.15, p < .001). Deaf teachers compared to hearing teachers were more likely to use the bilingual strategy, translanguaging than hearing teachers (chi2 (1, N = 67) = 4.54, p < .05). Hearing teachers used the computer more often in the classroom than deaf teachers (chi 2 (1, N = 67) = 4.65, p < .01). Hearing teachers had their students use the computer more regularly than deaf teachers (chi2 (1, N = 67) = 11.49, p < .01). Teachers who worked in residential schools compared to working in public schools attended more state department of education science workshops chi2 (1, N = 67) = 6.83, p < .01, attended national or state science meetings chi2 (1, N = 67) = 7.96, p < .01, were familiar with the Star Schools program chi2 (1, N=67) = 13.23, p < .01, and participated more in Star Schools programs chi 2 (1, N = 67) = 15.96, p < .01. Compared to hearing teachers, the deaf teachers used web-based science materials (chi2 (1, N = 67) = 4.65, p < .01), used codeswitching chi2 (1, N = 67) = 10.78, p < .001, used concurrent translation chi2 (1, N = 67) = 11.30, p. < .001, used the Cummins BICS model chi 2 (1, N = 67) = 5.71, p < .01, and used problem based learning chi 2 (1, N = 67) = 4.14, p < .01. Survey response revealed that science teachers in the elementary school lacked training in science, used technology infrequently and did not have access to in-service science workshops. Recommendations are made to provide higher quality science preparation at the pre-service and in-service levels. More research was also suggested to investigate the use of bilingual strategies in the teaching of science as many of the deaf teachers reported they used these strategies often.
Article
The effects of a literacy intervention in kindergarten were measured using a control-group design. Three treatment groups were taught using beginning-reading booklets to complement the authorized language program. One group used the booklets at home; the second, both in school and at home; and the third, in school only. Data were gathered at the beginning of kindergarten and at the end of kindergarten, first, second, third, and fourth grades. Results indicated that children's knowledge of early literacy concepts increased during kindergarten, and that this improved students' reading achievement for the next 4 years. Effects were strongest and longest lasting for the in-school group.