Content uploaded by Michael A Strong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael A Strong on Dec 30, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Study of the Relationship Between American Sign Language
and English Literacy
Michael Strong
University of California, San Francisco
Philip M. Prinz
San Francisco State University
This article presents the findings of a study of the relation-
ship between American Sign Language (ASL) skills and En-
glish literacy among 160 deaf children. Using a specially de-
signed test of ASL to determine three levels of ASL ability,
we found that deaf children who attained the higher two lev-
els significantly outperformed children in the lowest ASL
ability level in English literacy, regardless of age and IQ; Fur-
thermore, although deaf children with deaf mothers outper-
formed deaf children of hearing mothers in both ASL and
English literacy, when ASL level was held constant, there was
no difference between these two groups, except in the lowest
level of ASL ability. The implication of this research is
straightforward and powerful: Deaf children's learning of En-
glish appears to benefit from the acquisition of even a moder-
ate fluency in ASL.
The acquisition
-
of spoken and written language con-
tinues to be a major obstacle to academic achievement
and vocational success for deaf individuals through-
out the world. Reading and writing levels remain at low
levels despite advanced multimedia and computer
technology, new methods of detecting hearing loss at
an early age, and ever more sophisticated means of am-
This study is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, under Field Initiated
Grant # O23C3OO74 and cosponsored by the California School for the
Deaf at Fremont. We thank researchers and students who have contrib-
uted to this work: Eliot Helman, Missy Keast, Noah Kessler, Lon
Kuntze, Daniel Langholtz, Priscilla Poyner Movers, Nancy Silverman,
and Jack Yang. We also thank Nathie Marbury for signing parts of our
ASL test and Daniel Veltri for his video magic and, in addition, our con-
sulting linguists who reviewed the first draft of the Test of ASL: Ben
Bahan, Lon Kuntze, Ella Lenz, Ted Supalla, and Clayton Valli. Corre-
spondence should be sent to Michael Strong, 927 W. Carmel Valley Rd.,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924.
Copyright © 1997 Oxford University Press. CCC 1081-4159
plification (Nelson, Loncke, & Camarata, 1993; Paul
& Quigley, 1994). Surveys conducted at the Gallaudet
Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, for
example, indicate that approximately half the deaf stu-
dents in the United States were reading below the
fourth-grade level at the time of their graduation from
high school (Allen, 1994).
In the United States it
is
well documented that aca-
demic achievement in general is closely connected to
English language skills. Deaf students acquire English
at a slower pace than hearing students, although along
a similar path. According to Paul and Jackson (1993),
this slower learning pace results in low achievement
levels and restricted annual gains, leading to deaf stu-
dents averaging six to seven years behind their hearing
counterparts by the time they leave high school. Read-
ing levels tend to plateau at the fourth-grade level, and
only 7% of deaf high school graduates read at seventh-
grade level or above.
The relationship between deafness and low English
literacy skills' is complex and appears to be related
to a variety of factors including academic achieve-
ment, language competence, cognitive abilities, and
family background. For years, researchers focused on
aspects of cognitive ability to explain performance
differences between deaf and hearing people. This re-
search may be characterized by three distinct historical
phases. In the early part of the century, Pintner et al.
claimed that deaf people were intellectually inferior to
hearing people and showed specific deficits in various
aspects of cognitive functioning (Pintner, Eisenson, &
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
38 Journal of Deaf
Studies
and Deaf Education
2:1
Winter 1997
Stanton, 1941). However, most of these early investiga-
tors used paper and pencil tests as evaluation instru-
ments, often requiring verbal manipulation and verbal
responses in English. The second historical phase was
most aptly articulated by Myklebust (1960, 1964), who
concluded that, when verbal factors in cognitive and
intellectual tasks are controlled, there are quantitative
similarities but significant qualitative differences be-
tween deaf and hearing individuals.
The third and most recent phase embraces the cur-
rent generally accepted theory first expounded by
Furth (1966) and Vernon (1967) that deaf people are
intellectually similar to hearing people. Recently, Bra-
den (1994) summarized the research on cognitive per-
formance of deaf people and the link between intelli-
gence and spoken language: "When language demands
are minimized, but cognitive demands remain stable,
deaf people appear to be somewhat delayed but gener-
ally similar to their hearing peers" (1994,
p.
8).
Literature regarding the reliability, validity, and
predictive power of nonverbal
IQ_
tests suggests that
such tests accurately measure the intelligence of deaf
people. However, lower scores on verbal IQ_ (VIQ)
scales and an average or above normal score on perfor-
mance scales (PIQ) could represent a verbal processing
defect. Braden (1994) argues that the low VIQ_relative
to nonverbal or PIQ_could result from the deaf child's
lack of familiarity with item content
(i.e.,
world knowl-
edge) and because they are unable to use language to
solve problems. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain
whether deaf children have deficits in verbal reasoning
processes, or simply lack knowledge needed to solve
problems. Additionally, Braden points out that motor-
free tests consistently yield lower IQ scores than mo-
tor-intensive tests.
Another area of research regarding deaf children's
academic performance was prevalent in the sixties and
focused on the differences between deaf children of
deaf parents (DP) and deaf children of hearing parents
(HP).
Parental hearing status was found to be a good
predictor of future linguistic and academic success,
with DP children typically outperforming HP chil-
dren, at least in the early years (Meadow, 1968; Quig-
ley & Frisina, 1961; Stevenson, 1964; Stuckless &
Birch, 1966).
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to ex-
plain this phenomenon: DP children are better ad-
justed emotionally because of parental attitudes (e.g.,
Corson, 1973); the etiology of deafness for HP children
includes conditions such as RH factor incompatibility,
maternal rubella, head trauma, and perinatal anoxia,
which are also causes of cognitive problems
(Wolff,
Kammerer, Gardner, & Thatcher, 1989); DP children
are more likely to grow up learning American Sign
Language (ASL) than HP children, and this first lan-
guage exposure is critical in preparing deaf children for
future school learning, particularly in English literacy
(Lane, 1990). Braden (1994) attributes the DP advan-
tage specifically to the fact that DP have an internal
language base, which facilitates their acquisition, stor-
age,
and application of academic knowledge. Until now,
however, the posited relationship between ASL knowl-
edge and English literacy remains uncorroborated by
empirical research.
In recent years, a movement has developed around
the fringes of deaf education to explore the potential
for bilingual approaches in the schooling of deaf chil-
dren. The idea that deaf children should be taught first
in ASL and later in both ASL and English is predi-
cated to some degree on the notion that DP children
outperform HP children because of ASL ability, as well
as on the applicability to deaf children of theories of
bilingualism among hearing children. These theories
stress the "Common Underlying Proficiency" of lan-
guages (Cummins, 1981) and the fact that native lan-
guage proficiency is a consistent and powerful pre-
dictor of second language development (Hakuta, 1990).
Skeptics of
the
approach tend to question that ASL is
analogous to other first languages because it has no
written form, and they rightly point out that no re-
search suggests that knowledge of ASL benefits the
learning of English (e.g., Moores, 1992).
Our study was designed to address this and other
fundamental issues raised in the above review by posing
a question: Is ASL skill related to English literacy de-
velopment in deaf children? This question can produce
information that bears upon the longstanding issue of
why DP children tend to outperform HP children in
academic and linguistic performance, as well as yield
data of critical interest to parents and educators con-
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
ASL and English Literacy 39
sidering the pros and cons of the bilingual education
debate.
Methods
The study described here is the second stage of a re-
search project, whose purpose is to examine the rela-
tionship between ASL skills and English literacy
among residential school deaf children 8 to 15 years of
age at the start of the study. During the first stage, or
pilot study, we developed test instruments, refined data
collection procedures, planned sampling procedures,
and tested a small subsample of subjects (Prinz &
Strong, 1995). The findings from the pilot study con-
firmed that the direction of our planned inquiry was
legitimate and that the measurement instruments were
both reliable and valid. The purpose of this second
stage of
the
study was to address the following research
question: What is the relationship between ASL com-
petence and English literacy among Deaf students,
ages 8 to 15 years? Additionally, we were interested in
a subsidiary question, one that refers back to previous
research: Do deaf children of deaf parents outperform
deaf children of hearing parents in ASL skills and En-
glish literacy skills?
Subjects.
One hundred and sixty deaf students were re-
cruited from the pool of students at the school site with
no other handicapping conditions who fell within the
age parameters defined by the study. The subjects were
divided into two age groups, group 1 including ages
8-11 and group 2 including ages 12 and older at the
time of testing. Younger children were not selected
since it was necessary for them to be able to read and
write our tests, and older children were not included
because the study was to run for three years, during
which we required the subjects to be enrolled at school.
We divided the two groups at the critical develop-
mental age of
11,
to coincide roughly with puberty. We
further determined whether the students had hearing
or deaf parents. In only two cases were the parents or
guardians of different hearing status (in both instances
the mother was deaf and the father hearing). There-
fore,
for our analysis, we use the hearing status of the
mother for grouping purposes. Five students withdrew
Table 1 Distribution of subjects according to age group
and mother's hearing status
8-11 years 12-15 years Total
Deaf mother 14
Hearing mother 42
Total 57
26
73
103
40
115
155
from school during the academic year before the re-
cords were reviewed, and therefore the data on parental
hearing status are missing for these subjects. The dis-
tribution of subjects by age and maternal hearing status
appears in Table 1.
Measurements.
There are two sets of language-related
tests,
one set for ASL and one set for English Literacy.
Nonverbal IQwas measured using the Matrix Analo-
gies Test (MAT) (Naglieri, 1985). In addition, parents
or guardians completed a questionnaire regarding lan-
guage use at home, and other background information
was collected from school records. These sources pro-
vided information on the existence of deaf relatives at
home, standardized test scores, date of birth, and de-
tails of hearing loss.
ASL
tests.
Students' ASL skills were assessed using a
set of production and comprehension measures we de-
veloped (Prinz & Strong, 1994). A draft of
the
test was
sent to five nationally recognized deaf linguists who
were hired as consultants to review the test and suggest
improvements. The final version incorporates their
feedback. ASL production was evaluated with the fol-
lowing tests:
1.
Classifier production test: Each student watched a
five-minute cartoon movie. The movie was then pre-
sented again in 10 segments, and the students were re-
quired to sign in ASL the actions from each segment in
turn. This procedure minimized the effects of memory.
Responses were videotaped and then scored for the
presence of different size, shape, and movement mark-
ers known as classifiers.
2.
Sign
narrative:
Students looked at pictures from
a children's story book that has no text and then signed
the story in ASL. Stories were videotaped and later
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
40 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
2:1
Winter 1997
scored, using a checklist, for the presence of ASL
grammatical and narrative structures.
ASL comprehension was assessed with the following
tests:
1.
Story
comprehension:
Students watched a video-
taped story told in ASL by a deaf native ASL signer.
Ten questions about the events in the story were inter-
laced throughout the videotape. Students signed re-
sponses to these questions as they appeared and their
responses were videotaped. In this way, memory re-
quirements were reduced to a minimum.
2.
Classifier comprehension
test:
Students were shown
pictures of objects with a variety of features. They
watched a native ASL signer describe each object in
five
ways.
Using an answer sheet that contained printed
video freeze frames of each description, students were
required to mark the one that provided the best ASL
description of the picture.
3.
Time marker
test:
Students were shown, on video,
six representations of specific times or periods of
time.
Using an answer sheet containing calendars, the stu-
dent was required to find the corresponding dates.
4.
Map
marker
test:
Students were shown, on video,
eight descriptions of the way objects are located in a
given environment such as vehicles at a crossroads or
furniture in a bedroom. For each description, students
had to select the correct representation from
a
selection
of photographs in an answer booklet.
English literacy
tests.
Both comprehension and produc-
tion were assessed using selected and revised subtests
from the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Test
Battery, revised Version (WJ-R), and the Test of Writ-
ten Language (TOWL).
1.
Comprehension:
Comprehension of English vo-
cabulary, sentences, and paragraphs was tested using
the vocabulary subtest of
the
WJ-R.
Stimulus
items
were
presented either by pictures or words, and the student
marked the correct response on an answer sheet.
2.
Production:
Productive vocabulary was tested us-
ing the synonyms and antonyms subtest of the WJ-R.
Stimulus words were presented in writing and the sub-
ject was asked to find another word that either means
the same or the opposite of the stimulus word.
3.
Syntax: English syntax skills were assessed us-
ing a sentence writing subtest of the TOWL.
4.
Written
narrative:
Students were shown pictures
from a children's story book that has no text (the same
stimulus used in the ASL narrative subtest) and asked
to write a story about the pictures.
Procedures.
Students were taken to a testing room dur-
ing the school day for two sessions of one hour each.
The ASL tests were conducted during one hour and
the English literacy tests and the MAT during the
other hour. Testing order was randomized so that some
subjects received the ASL tests first and others the En-
glish tests first. Instructions were given on videotape
in ASL, and the researcher answered further questions
in person if necessary. The ASL tests were conducted
by deaf researchers fluent in ASL, the English tests by
hearing researchers who were also highly proficient
in ASL. No hearing persons were present during the
ASL testing. All signed responses were videotaped and
subsequently scored from the videotape. Subjects were
given a small remuneration for their participation.
The ASL tests were scored by deaf researchers and
the English test by hearing researchers who were also
fluent in ASL. Interrater reliability was established for
each subtest that required subjective decisions by hav-
ing raters score the same set of 10 protocols, reviewing
and resolving disagreements, and then scoring
a
second
set of
10
protocols. Eventual agreement was better than
96%
in all cases.
Results
Once all tests were scored and background information
collected, data were entered into a working file using a
commercially available statistical software program
(Systat, 1992). In order to address the first research
question regarding the relationship between ASL skills
and English literacy, we performed the following analy-
sis.
In the first step, all subtests of ASL and of English
were standardized (i.e., assigned z-scores) and com-
bined to form two composite scores of overall ASL
and overall English literacy, with all subtests receiving
equal weighting. Secondly, the correlation between to-
tal ASL scores and total English literacy scores was
calculated for all subjects combined, separately for
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
ASL and English Literacy 41
each of the two age groups, 8-11, and 12-15-year-olds,
separately for those with deaf mothers (DM) and hear-
ing mothers (HM), and finally within each age group
according to maternal hearing status. The results can
be seen in Table 2.
Based on these results, the only subgroup with a
nonsignificant correlation coefficient, that of older
children with DMs, was excluded from subsequent
analysis. The third step was to create three levels of
ASL skill by dividing the range of ASL scores into
thirds,
resulting in low, medium, and high levels of
ASL ability, as measured by our test of ASL. Subjects
were distributed across the levels as seen in Table 3.
We developed the following research hypotheses to
address the relationship of ASL skill and English liter-
acy: HI: Subjects in the high ASL group will outper-
form students in the low ASL group in English literacy.
H2:
Subjects in the medium ASL group will outper-
form subjects in the low ASL group in English literacy.
H3:
Subjects in the high ASL group will outperform
subjects in the medium ASL group in English literacy.
We planned a series of eight analyses of covariance
(ANCOVA
2
) to test these hypotheses for the whole
sample and the various subgroups, with the composite
English literacy score as the dependent variable, the
ASL level as the independent variable, and the MAT
score (performance IQ) and age (measured in months)
as covariates. (See Table 4 for probability values for in-
dependent variable covariate interactions.)
The fourth step in the analysis was to run ANCO-
VAs for each of the selected groupings, together with
post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons to test for
significance among the three levels of ASL. The AN-
COVA results for the sample as a whole are displayed
in Table 5. Summary results for all the subgroupings
are displayed in Table 6..
As can be seen in Table 5, the F ratio is significant
at the .000 level, showing a positive relationship be-
tween ASL level and performance on tests of English
literacy. For the sample as a whole, HI, H2, and H3 are
all accepted. Bonferroni pairwise comparisons among
ASL levels were significant for high versus low (p =
.000),
medium versus low (p = .001), and high versus
medium (p = .002).
Table 6 shows the summary results for the sub-
groups of similar analyses. For students ages 8-11 the
Table 2 Pearson correlation coefficients for total ASL
scores with total English literacy scores among all subjects
and subgroups according to age and maternal hearing status
Group
All subjects
Ages 8-11
Ages 12-15
DM
HM
8-11,
DM
8-11,
HM
12-15,
DM
12-15,
HM
n
145
52
93
36
104
13
38
23
66
Pearson r
.580
.663
.500
.603
.507
.742
.660
.219
.391
Probability
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
NS
.001
DM = deaf
mothers;
HM = hearing mothers.
Table 3 Distribution of subjects by age group, maternal
hearing status, and ASL level
ASL level
Low ASL
Medium ASL
High ASL
Total
8-11
DM
03
05
05
13
HM
21
11
09
41
MD
01
01
12-15
DM
01
05
19
25
HM
24
30
14
68
MD
02
01
01
04
Total
51
52
49
152
DM = deaf
mother;
HM = hearing mother; MD = missing data.
Table 4 Probability values for the independent variable by
covariates interactions for the eight planned ANCOVAs on
research question 1
Group
All subjects
Ages 8-11
Ages 12-15
DM
HM
8-11,
DM
8-ll.HM
12-15,
HM
DM = deaf mother, HM
Age.
.630
.579
.598
.963
.178
.940
.722
.242
= hearing mother.
IQ.
.507
.941
.336
.590
.979
.565
.351
.659
F ratio is significant at the .003 level, showing a positive
relationship between ASL level and English literacy for
students in the younger age group. HI was accepted
{p = .004), H2 was accepted (/> = .017), and H3 was
rejected.
For the subgroup of students ages 12-15, the /"ra-
tio is significant at the .000 level. HI, H2, and H3 are
all accepted. For the subgroup of subjects with DMs,
the relationship between ASL level and English liter-
acy was not significant, while for those with hearing
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
42 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:1 Winter 1997
Table 5 ANCOVA table for the relationship of English literacy with ASL level,
adjusted for cognitive ability (PIQ) and age, for all subjects
Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean squares F ratio Significance
ASL level
PIQ.
Age
Error
359,687.97
53,408.84
50,974.23
1,014,887.62
2
1
1
122
179,843.99
53,408.84
50,974.23
8,318.75
21.619
6.420
6.128
0.000
0.013
0.015
Table 6 Summary ANCOVA results and post hoc comparisons of ASL level on
English literacy
Group
F ratio p value High versus low High versus med Medium versus low
All
8-11
12-15
DM
HM
8-11,
DM
8-11,
HM
12-15,
HM
21.6
6.7
17.2
14.5
7.5
9.8
DM = deaf
mother;
HM
.000
.003
.000
NS
.000
NS
.002
.000
.000
.004
.000
.000
.003
.000
= hearing mother; NS
.001
.017
.048
.002
.013
.051
= not significant.
.002
NS
.001
.042
NS
.026
Table 7 Probability values for the independent variable by
covariates interactions of the six planned ANCOVAs on
research question 2
Group
All subjects
Ages 8-11
Ages 12-15
English
Age
.963
.464
.982
IQ.
.414
.331
.964
ASL
Age
.423
.346
.734
IQ.
.614
.844
.694
mothers the F ratio is significant at the .000 level. HI,
H2,
and H3 are all accepted for this group.
For the subgroup of students in the younger age
group who had DMs, the relationship between ASL
level and English literacy was not significant, while for
the younger group with hearing mothers the F ratio
was significant at the .002 level. HI and H2 were ac-
cepted and H3 was rejected for this group.
For the subgroup of students ages 12-15 with
HMs,
the F ratio of 9.844 was significant at the .000
level. HI, H2, and H3 were all accepted.
In order to test the second research question,
whether DP children outperform HP children in ASL
and English literacy, we ran two more sets of ANCO-
VAs with English literacy scores and ASL scores as the
dependent variables, maternal hearing status (MHS) as
the independent variable, and
PIQ.
and age as the co-
variates. The research hypotheses are as follows: H4:
Subjects in the DP group will outperform subjects in
the HP group in tests of English literacy. H5: Subjects
in the DP group will outperform subjects in the HP
group in tests of ASL.
Each set comprises a test of all subjects taken to-
gether, and the younger and older age groups were ana-
lyzed separately. The homogeneity of slopes assump-
tion was tested by measuring the independent variable
by covariates interactions for the six planned ANCO-
VAs.
In every instance acceptance of the assumption is
plausible. Results are displayed in Table 7. The AN-
COVA results for the sample as a whole are displayed
in Tables 8 and 9. The summary results for all the sub-
groupings are displayed in Table 10.
Table 8 shows the comparison of the DP and HP
children on English literacy for the whole sample. H4
was accepted, with the DP group significantly outper-
forming the HP group at the .000 level of probability
(/ratio = 22.127).
Table 9 shows a similar analysis but with ASL
scores as the dependent variable. H5 was accepted with
the DP students significantly outperforming the HP
group at the .000 level of probability (F ratio =
19.278).
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
ASL and English Literacy 43
Table 8 ANCOVA table for the relationship of English literacy with maternal
hearing status, adjusted for cognitive ability (PIQ) and age, for all subjects
Source
MHS
PIQ.
Age
Error
Sum of squares
206,920.42
200,204.23
105,892.18
1,140,878.25
Degrees of freedom
1
1
1
122
Mean squares
206,920.42
200,204.23
105,892.18
9,351.46
/"ratio
22.127
21.409
11.324
Significance
0.000
0.000
0.001
Table 9 ANCOVA table for the relationship of ASL skill with maternal hearing
status,
adjusted for cognitive ability (PIQ) and age, for all subjects
Source
MHS
PIQ.
Age
Error
Sum of squares
208.31
218.94
52.32
1,296.68
Degrees of freedom
1
1
1
120
Mean squares
208.31
218.94
52.32
10.81
F ratio
19.278
20.261
4.842
Significance
0.000
0.000
0.030
Table 10
literacy and
Group
All
8-11
12-15
Summary ANCOVA results of maternal hearing status on
ASL skill
F ratio
22.1
14.6
10.9
MHS and English
literacy P value
.000
.000
.001
F ratio
19.3
19.3
16.4
MHS and
.000
.000
.000
English
ASL P value
MHS = maternal hearing status.
Table 10 shows the results for the subgroups. For
the students in the younger age group, DP students
outperformed HP students in English literacy at the
.000 level of probability, thereby confirming H4. H5
was also confirmed, with DP students outperforming
HP students in ASL also at the .000 level of probability.
For students in the older age group, both H4 and H5
are also confirmed.
Discussion
From the analysis and results presented in the previous
section, a clear, consistent, and statistically significant
relationship between ASL skill and English literacy is
evident. The present data show that, when controlled
for age and PIQ., the subjects perform at a higher level
of English literacy if their ASL skills are well devel-
oped than if those skills are lacking. This is true for all
ages taken together and for students in each of the two
age groups considered separately. The post-hoc analy-
ses reveal that English performance improves even with
a moderate-level ASL skill. In other words, member-
ship in the intermediate ASL group is associated with
significantly higher English literacy scores than ob-
tained by those in the lowest group. Similarly, members
in the highest of the three ASL groups tended to
achieve significantly higher English scores than mem-
bers in the lowest ASL group and, in most cases, than
those in the intermediate ASL group.
There were some exceptions among certain of the
subgroups, notably, those involving students with
DMs.
As we saw earlier, the only Pearson correlation
coefficient between ASL skill and English literacy that
was not statistically significant was for the older group
with DMs. This is almost certainly explained by the
distribution of ASL test scores being skewed towards
the high end for this subgroup. Table
3
shows that only
one out of
25
of
the
older students with DMs fell in the
lowest ASL group, and only five in the intermediate
group. In all likelihood this skewed distribution
affected the ANCOVA for the entire subgroup with
DMs,
which failed to reach significance at the 95%
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
44 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
2:1
Winter 1997
level. The younger group of maternally deaf students
also failed to show a statistically significant ANCOVA
relationship between ASL and English literacy, how-
ever. This finding was predicted by our pilot study
(Prinz & Strong, 1995) and may be partly a result of
the small size of the subsample, but may also indicate
that, for children with DPs, other factors (such as those
discussed below) are influencing the relationship be-
tween ASL and English literacy acquisition, particu-
larly during the early years.
The generally very strong relationship between
ASL skill and English literacy demonstrated by these
data may be interpreted in three ways. First, ASL skill
allows for better acquisition of English literacy. Sec-
ond, English literacy ability promotes increased ASL
skill. Third, some other factor is intervening to influ-
ence both ASL skill and English literacy.
Let us consider these interpretations in reverse or-
der. Two of the factors most likely to influence both the
acquisition of English literacy and of ASL are chrono-
logical age and IQ_, both of which were controlled in
the present analysis. Other potential factors known to
affect school performance in general are socioeconomic
level, quality of teaching, location of school, and, for
deaf children, cause, degree, and age of onset of hear-
ing
loss.
In this study, all the students in
a
single partic-
ipating school within the target age-range were in-
cluded, omitting only students with other conditions
such as those who attended the special unit. Thus, the
effects of teacher differences, school type, and location
are eliminated. All students in the study were described
as having at least a severe hearing loss, all incurred in
early childhood, mostly prelingually. Thus, any effects
of these variables on English literacy acquisition are ei-
ther minimized, controlled, or neutralized by the size
of the sample. Sampling bias is itself ruled out by our
inclusion of the total available population, although, of
course, one would wish to collect corroborating find-
ings from other settings before generalizing with con-
fidence.
One potential factor whose influence is untested by
our data concerns the effect of the quality of parent-
infant communication (as distinct from the language of
communication) on language acquisition of any kind,
either English or ASL. Work by Schlesinger (1988) and
Schlesinger and Acree (1984), for example, indicates
that mother-child interaction might be associated with
the later reading levels of deaf children. Also, a study
by Lou, Strong, and DeMatteo (1991) indicates the
possible importance of consistent linguistic input (re-
gardless of language type) on various academic and
cognitive outcomes.
A second interpretation for the findings is that En-
glish literacy skills affect ASL ability. This would mean
that the students in the study are acquiring English and
that this skill then enhances their acquisition of ASL.
Such an explanation would be plausible in a setting
where deaf children were not exposed to ASL until
they had acquired some skills in English, and then they
subsequently learned ASL to a level influenced by their
knowledge of
English.
However, we know, from earlier
studies, that when deaf children are exposed to both
English and ASL in the same environment, their spon-
taneous language overwhelmingly reflects the ASL
rather than the English input (Strong, 1985; Living-
ston, 1983). Since the present data were collected in a
school for the deaf where ASL is the primary language
of
social
interaction, the conditions that would be nec-
essary for this interpretation to be correct are lacking.
Given the setting, we suggest that the first inter-
pretation for the findings is the most plausible. That is,
expertise in ASL influences the acquisition of English
literacy. This interpretation is further supported by the
results pertaining to the comparisons of DP with HP
children. Since, at home, the HP children are more
likely than the DP children to be exposed to some form
of English than to ASL, then, for the interpretation
that English literacy affects ASL to be correct, one
would expect the HP children to outperform the DP
children in both English and ASL. However, the re-
verse turns out to be true, since DP children outper-
formed the HP children in both English and ASL at
both age levels, confirming the findings from earlier
studies.
The comparison data between DP and HP children
may also shed further light on the question of
why
the
relationship between ASL level and English literacy
was not statistically significant for the DP children. It
is possible to test the speculation that something other
than ASL fluency is positively affecting the perfor-
mance of DP children by holding the ASL level con-
stant. That is, one can make a comparison of DP and
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
ASL and English Literacy 45
Table 11 Summary ANCOVA results of maternal hearing
status on English literacy within three ASL levels
Group F ratio P value
ASL low 4.49 .041
ASL medium 3.12 NS
ASL high 1.96 NS
HP children within ASL skill levels. Thus, if some fac-
tor other than ASL skill were enhancing the perfor-
mance of DP children, they would continue to outper-
form HP children in English literacy, even when ASL
level was controlled.
To address this question, we performed three addi-
tional ANCOVAs with English lteracy as the de-
pendant variable, MHS as the independent variable,
and age and IQ_as covariates, one for the high ASL
group, one for the medium ASL group, and the third
for the low ASL group. The hypotheses were as fol-
lows:
H6: In the high ASL group, subjects with DMs
will outperform those with HMs in English liter-
acy. H7: In the medium ASL group, subjects with
DMs will outperform those with HMs in English liter-
acy. H8: In the low ASL group, subjects with DMs will
outperform those with HMs in English literacy.
Table 11 summarizes the results of these analyses.
As can be seen, H6 and H7 were rejected, whereas H8
was accepted (p = .041). In other words, these data
suggest that, if you have a medium or a high level of
ASL skill, as measured by our test of ASL, then En-
glish literacy performance is not positively affected by
having a DM. However, if you have low ASL skills,
then it is advantageous to have a DM, suggesting that
other factors such as emotional stability, good parent-
child communication, and parental acceptance may
play a role in academic performance until moderate
skills in ASL are acquired, at which point their benefits
are apparently superseded by the advantages of ASL.
Together, the findings from this study strongly
point to the importance of ASL skills in the acquisition
of English literacy.
3
Of particular interest is the fact
that ASL is related to English literacy not only among
deaf children of DPs but also, and in fact even more
consistently, among deaf children with HPs.
Children from deaf families do outperform their
peers from hearing families in both English literacy
and ASL, as earlier research had indicated. In our
study, however, this advantage persists even among the
older children. Furthermore, our data suggest that the
advantage of being from a deaf family is likely to result
largely from fluency in ASL, for, when ASL ability is
held constant, DP children's superiority in English lit-
eracy almost disappears. Thus, the longstanding ques-
tion of why DP children tend to outperform HP chil-
dren academically may be resolved.
These findings do not suggest that ASL knowledge
is the only path to successful acquisition of English lit-
eracy for deaf children, and, indeed, they may not gen-
eralize beyond an environment such as the school for
the deaf studied here, where ASL is in common use.
Nevertheless, the implication of this research for par-
ents and educators is straightforward and powerful.
Deaf children's learning of English appears to benefit
from the acquisition of even a moderate fluency in
ASL. Since, given the right input, any deaf child (with-
out significant neurological impairment) can acquire
ASL, this information should be of interest to parents,
particularly hearing parents, who are attempting to
choose an educational environment for their deaf child.
As for those pondering the value of bilingual education
for deaf children, even the skeptics now have some re-
search findings to draw upon that strongly suggest the
value of
an
approach using ASL as the language of in-
struction.
Notes
1.
We use the term "English literacy" to describe the reading
and writing skills we measure in order to distinguish it from a
more generalized "English knowledge" or "English fluency" or
"English proficiency," which would typically include skills re-
lated to speaking.
2.
ANCOVA tests the hypothesis that there is no difference
in the means of two or more groups, once the variation explained
by the covariates(s) is accounted for. In other words, in this anal-
ysis,
we test the additional amount of variation in English literacy
scores among the three levels of ASL beyond that explained by
age and cognitive ability. Before conducting ANCOVA, it is nec-
essary to determine that there is no significant interaction be-
tween the covariate(s) and the independent variable. This as-
sumption of no interaction is often known as "homogeneity of
slopes." The probability values for the interaction of the covari-
ates age and PIQ_ with the independent variable of ASL level
across the different subgroups are shown in Table 4. The proba-
bilities range between .178 and .963, so the assumption of homo-
geneity of slopes in all cases is plausible.
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from
46 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:1 Winter 1997
3.
The question of how long one can wait to expose a deaf
child to ASL before it ceases to be of value is not addressed by
our data. However, we are collecting longitudinal data over a pe-
riod of three years, with which we will be able to study the rela-
tive improvement in ASL and English literacy skills of the stu-
dents.
These data will provide further information on the
relationship between ASL and English literacy, as well as a pos-
sible insight into the important of age of acquisition of ASL.
References
Allen, T. E. (1994). Who are the deaf and hard-of-hearing stu-
dents leaving high school and entering postsecondary educa-
tion? Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Center for Assessment and Demographic
Studies.
Braden, J. P. (1994). Deafness, deprivation, and IQ. New York:
Plenum Press.
Corson, H. (1973). Comparing deaf children of
oral
parents and
deaf parents using manual communication with deaf chil-
dren of hearing parents on academic, social, and communi-
cation functioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Uni-
versity of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Cummins, (1981). The role of primary language development in
promoting educational success for language minority stu-
dents.
In
Schooling
and
language minority
students:
A theoreti-
cal framework. Los Angeles: California State University,
Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
Furth, H. (1966).
Thinking
without
language:
Psychological
impli-
cations
of
deafness.
New York: Free Press.
Hakuta, K. (1990).
Bilingualism
and bilingual
education:
A
research
perspective. Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 1.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Ed-
ucation.
Lane, H. (1990). Bilingual education for ASL-using children. In
M. Garretson (Ed.), Eyes, hands, voices:
Communication
is-
sues among deaf
people.
A Deaf
American
Monograph, 40
(1,2,3,4),
79-85.
Livingston, S. (1983). Levels of development in the language of
deaf children: ASL grammatical processes, SE structures,
and semantic features. Sign Language Studies, 40, 193-286.
Lou, M., Strong, M., & DeMatteo, A. (1991). The relationship
of educational background to cognitive and language devel-
opment among deaf adolescents. In D. Martin (Ed.), Ad-
vances in
cognition,
education,
and
deafness.
Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Meadow, K. (1968). Early manual communication in relation to
the deaf child's intellectual, social, and communicative func-
tioning.
American
Annals of the
Deaf,
113,
29-41.
Moores, D. (1992). What do we know and when do we know it?
In M. Walworth, D. Moores, & T. J. O'Rourke (Eds.), A free
hand:
enfranchising the education of deaf
children.
Silver
Spring, MD:
T.
J. Publishers.
Myklebust, H. (1960; 1964).
The psychology
of
deafness:
Sensory
deprivation, learning and
adjustment.
1° and 2
nd
eds. New
York: Grune and Stratton.
Naglieri, J. A. (1985). Matrix Analogies Test—Short Form
(MAT).
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Nelson, K., Loncke, F., & Camarata, S. (1993). Implications of
research on deaf and hearing children's language learning.
In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.),
Psychological
per-
spectives
on
deafness.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates.
Paul, P. V., &Jackson, D. W. (1993).
Toward
a
psychology
of
deaf-
ness:
Theoretical
and
empirical
perspectives.
Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Paul, P. V., & Quigley, S. P. (1994). Language and
deafness.
2"
1
ed.
San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Pintner, R., Eisenson, J., & Stanton, M. (1941). The
psychology
of
the physically
handicapped.
New York: Crofts.
Prinz, P., & Strong, M. (1994). A test of
ASL.
Unpublished. San
Francisco State University, California Research Institute.
Prinz, P., & Strong, M. (1995). The interrelationship among cog-
nition, sign language, and literacy. Paper presented at the
18th International Congress on Education of the
Deaf;
Tel-
Aviv, Israel; July 16-20, 1995.
Quigley, S., & Frisina, R. (1961). Institutionalization and psycho-
educational development of deaf
children.
CEC Research
Monograph. Washington, DC: Council on Exceptional
Children.
Schlesinger, H. (1988). Questions and answers in the develop-
ment of deaf children. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language learn-
ing and
deafness.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlesinger, H., & Acree, M. (1984). Antecedants of achieve-
ment and adjustment in deaf adolescents: A longitudinal
study of deaf children. In G. B. Anderson & D. Watson
(Eds.),
The
habilitation and
rehabilitation
of deaf adolescents.
Washington, DC: The National Academy of Gallaudet
College.
Stevenson, E. (1964). A study of the educational achievement of
deaf children of deaf parents. California News, 80, 143.
Strong, M. (1985). A study of sign language among young deaf
children. Paper presented at the 19th Annual TESOL Con-
vention, New York, NY.
Stuckless, R., & Birch, J. (1966). The influence of early manual
communication on the linguistic development of deaf chil-
dren.
American Annals
of the
Deaf,
106, 436—480.
Systat for Windows, Version 5. (1992). Evanston, IL: Systat Inc.
Vernon, M. (1967). Relationship of language to the thinking pro-
cess.
Archives
of
General
Psychiatry,
16, 325-333.
Wolff,
A. B., Kammerer, B. L., Gardner,
J.
K. & Thatcher, R. W.
(1989).
The Gallaudet neurobehavioral project: Brain-
behavior relationships in deaf children. Journal ofthe Ameri-
can
Deafness
and
Rehabilitation
Association,
23, 19-33.
Woodcock, R. W, & Mather, N. (1989, 1990).
Woodcock-Johnson
Psycho-Educational Battery—Revised. Allen, TX: DLM
Teaching Resources.
by guest on July 13, 2011jdsde.oxfordjournals.orgDownloaded from