the english-language and reading achievement … english-language and reading ... abbott, vaughan,...

Th n l h L n nd R d n h v nt f h rt f D f t d ntp n nd n n t nd rd n l h: Pr l n r t d

D n r r n N l n, B rb r L t , n L n, D b r h tr r

r n nn l f th D f, V l 6 , N b r , r 20 6, pp.42 68 ( rt l

P bl h d b ll d t n v r t PrD : 0. d.20 6.0026

F r dd t n l nf r t n b t th rt l

Access provided by University of Kansas Libraries (16 Aug 2016 19:42 GMT)

http : .jh . d rt l 62 2 0

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/627250

VOLUME 161, NO. 3, 2016 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

342

Nielsen, D. C., Luetke, B., McLean, M., & Stryker, D. (2016). The English-language and reading achievement of a cohort ofdeaf students speaking and signing Standard English: A preliminary study. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(3), 342–368.

THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE AND READING

ACHIEVEMENT OF A COHORT OF DEAF STUDENTS

SPEAKING AND SIGNING STANDARD ENGLISH: A PRELIMINARY STUDY

Keywords: English-languagedevelopment, morphology, readingachievement, Signing Exact English,syntax

Introduction to the ProblemMost students who are deaf or hard ofhearing (D/HH) do not achieve thesame reading levels as their hearingpeers despite early identification andimproved assistive listening technol-ogy such as cochlear implants (CIs;Spencer & Marschark, 2010). One pos-sible explanation for D/HH students’plateauing in reading achievement isthat they cannot always hear grammat-

ically accurate English (Guo, Spencer,& Tomblin, 2013), especially pronouns,conjunctions, articles, and the boundmorphemes of English. As studentsmove beyond primary-grade readingmaterials, words get longer and the de-mands of vocabulary increase, makingcomprehension more challenging(Carlisle, 2004; RAND Reading StudyGroup, 2002). Many vocabulary wordshave the same root word, yet differ onthe basis of changes in pronunciationand audibly insalient spelling, whichmakes these words’ meaning difficultto comprehend when they are read.Knowing how to unlock the morphol-

ESEARCH SUGGESTS that English-language proficiency is critical if stu-dents who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) are to read as their hear-ing peers. One explanation for the traditionally reported readingachievement plateau when students are D/HH is the inability to hear insalient English morphology. Signing Exact English can provide visualaccess to these features. The authors investigated the English morpho-logical and syntactic abilities and reading achievement of elementary andmiddle school students at a school using simultaneously spoken andsigned Standard American English facilitated by intentional listening,speech, and language strategies. A developmental trend (and noplateau) in language and reading achievement was detected; most par-ticipants demonstrated average or above-average English. Morphologi-cal awareness was prerequisite to high test scores; speech was notsignificantly correlated with achievement; language proficiency, meas-ured by the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 (Semel,Wiig, & Secord, 2003), predicted reading achievement.

DIANE CORCORAN NIELSEN,BARBARA LUETKE, MEIGAN MCLEAN, ANDDEBORAH STRYKER

NIELSEN IS A PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OFCURRICULUM AND TEACHING, UNIVERSITY OF

KANSAS, LAWRENCE. LUETKE AND MCLEAN ARE

BOTH AFFILIATED WITH THE NORTHWEST SCHOOLFOR DEAF AND HARD- OF-HEARING CHILDREN,SHORELINE, WA. LUETKE IS THE OUTREACH AND

LITERACY COORDINATOR; MCLEAN IS A TEACHER

OF THE DEAF. STRYKER IS AN ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR AND PROGRAM COORDINATOR OF THE

UNDERGRADUATE DUAL DEAF/EARLY CHILDHOODEDUCATION AND GRADUATE EDUCATION OF THE

DEAF TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS,BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

R

18927-AAD161.3_Summer2016 7/15/16 11:37 AM Page 342

ogy of multimorphemic words is an essential reading skill, and facilitates in-dependent comprehension of age- appropriate vocabulary as well as largerchunks of school-subject text (see,e.g., Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan,& Vermeulen, 2003; see also Nagy,Carlisle, & Goodwin, 2014, for a re-view). Morphological awareness (MA)predicts the reading achievement ofhearing students (Nagy, Berninger, &Abbott, 2006) and English-languagelearners (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2008).Few studies have investigated the re-

lationship between morphology, syn-tax, and reading when students areD/HH, although Moores and Sweet(1990) substantiated the correlation ofMA knowledge to reading achievementmore than a quarter century ago. Mostof the research on morphology withstudents who are D/HH has been con-ducted with middle-grade through col-lege-age students (e.g., Gaustad, Kelly,Payne, & Lylak, 2002; Kelly & Gaustad,2007), however it is during the primarygrades when MA begins to develop foruse as a decoding reading strategy(Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, & Carlisle,2010).In discussing the findings of their

study of the MA abilities of hearingmiddle-school and college studentswho were D/HH, Gaustad et al. (2002)suggested that using Signing ExactEnglish (SEE; Gustason & Zawolkow,1993) had the potential to improve the“insufficient morphological skills ofdeaf students” (p. 17). Gaustad andKelly (2004) observed that incidentallearning of MA did not seem to occur,but suggested that exposure to the“morphological aspects of conversa-tional language acquisition” (p. 283) beprovided, noting that “the morpholog-ical component of conversational com-petence in English is dependent onthe mode and completeness of themodels of English to which deaf stu-dents are exposed” (p. 283). When the

reader is D/HH and unable to hear thevarious morphemes of spoken wordsor to hear them well, visually signedsupport of affixes (i.e., bound mor-phemes) and small words (e.g., articles,pronouns) is necessary. For studentswho are below the norm in compre-hension development, “through theair” conversational use of signed mor-phology can make a difference. Afterall, C. Mayer (2007) concluded in dis-cussing the literacy abilities of deaf chil-dren, “it is not the presence of ASL[American Sign Language] but the ab-sence of some form of face-to-faceEnglish that is at issue and the chal-lenge for educators” (p. 416). Thereare few programs for children who areD/HH in which staff and students signin a such a manner that bound mor-phemes are visibly salient (as is donewith SEE), and no recent research thatinvestigated the English morphologi-cal and syntactic as well as reading abil-ities of such students was found.

Reading Theories and DeafnessIn the present section, our purpose isto provide a brief discussion of thetheories of reading relating to childrenwho are D/HH, including the role ofmorphology in these theories. Al-though Trezek, Wang, and Paul (2010)suggested that reading theories aboutchildren who are D/HH provide nu-merous and sometimes conflictingideas, McGuinness (2005) stated thatthere appear to be fundamental skillsthat apply to all children in the UnitedStates, among them English-languageproficiency. Wang and Andrews (2014)called for “interdisciplinary dialogueregarding literacy research with d/Deafand hard of hearing (d/Dhh) students”(p. 319) and provided an overview ofthe qualitative similarity hypothesis(QSH) of Paul and his colleagues (Paul,Wang, & Williams, 2013). They ex-plained that the QSH suggests that“the English language and reading de-

velopment of all students, regardlessof hearing status, is qualitatively or de-velopmentally similar; whereas somestudents who are d/Dhh might demon-strate a quantitative delay when com-pared with their typically developinghearing peers” (p. 321). It might bethat this delay is due in part to thequality of English input to which stu-dents who are D/HH have access. Forexample, if English is being transmit-ted to such students via sign, LaSassoand Crain (2010) posited a structurallimitation hypothesis that included theirregular success of manually codedEnglish systems to encode all mor-phemes that are spoken or read. Othertheorists have underscored the impor-tance of signing a grammatically cor-rect version of Standard English, suchas is assumed in the “input hypothesis”developed by Krashen (1985), a (hear-ing) bilingual educator. A modificationof Standard English for D/HH studentswas developed by Luetke-Stahlman(1998) that includes a comprehendible,grammatically complete input (i.e., Eng-lish syntax and morphology) that is con-sistently signed and provided at a leveljust slightly more difficult than the stu-dent’s assessed level of linguistic ability.Morphology, the structure and for-

mation of words, is a key element oftheories of reading for both hearingstudents (Alvermann, Unrau, & Rud-dell, 2013) and students who areD/HH. The Cambridge Encyclopediaof the English Language (Crystal,1995) presents a comprehensivemodel of English that includes atten-tion to sign as one of the forms of lan-guage “transmission” (p. 2), along withgraphology and phonology. Crystal(1995) noted that most sign languagesused in English-speaking countries bydeaf people are “independent of thestructure of the English language,”with the exception of “devised signlanguages that do reflect the proper-ties of English, as in the case of Signing


343

18927-AAD161.3_Summer2016 7/15/16 11:37 AM 43

Exact English in the USA” (p. 434). Formany years, morphology has been amajor area of study for linguists, withnumerous books written on the sub-ject. It now is widely accepted that“measures of student knowledge ofmorphology account for more vari-ance in reading comprehension thanphonological awareness, which forsome time was thought to be key tosuccess in learning to read” (Nagy etal., 2014, p. 3). Empirical support forMA as an essential skill in reading wasthe focus of a special issue of the Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities in 2014.More recently, researchers have stud-ied the role of morphology as a decod-ing strategy (Gilbert, Goodwin,Compton, & Kearns, 2014; Goodwin,Gilbert, & Cho, 2013; Nagy et al., 2014;van Hoogmoed, Knoors, Schreuder, &Verhoeven, 2013). Although the rela-tionship between English grammarand reading achievement has been ex-tensively studied in deaf educationover the past 40 years (see, e.g.,Quigley & King, 1980; see also a reviewby Cannon & Kirby, 2013), research re-garding MA, reading, and deafness ismore recent.

Morphological Awareness andStudents Who Are D/HHThe purpose of the present section isto review current research on the development of MA when students are D/HH. A few years ago, Nielsen,Luetke, and Stryker (2011) defined andexemplified terms related to MA (e.g.,bound morphemes, derivational mor-phology, and inflectional morphol-ogy). Nielsen et al. also reviewed theempirical literature on MA as an essen-tial reading strategy for both hearingstudents and students who are D/HH,including the research of Moores andSweet (1990) with high school stu-dents and studies by Gaustad and col-leagues with college students (e.g.,Gaustad et al., 2002; Kelly & Gaustad,

2007). Subsequent to publication ofthe 2011 article by Nielsen et al., Can-non and Kirby (2013) reviewed the research regarding knowledge of re-ceptive and expressive English syntaxand morphological structures whenstudents are D/HH. They noted thatmultiple factors appear to contributeto the knowledge of lexical items, suchas pronouns and auxiliaries, possessedby students who are D/HH. These factors included age at identification,socioeconomic status, level of intelli-gence, intervention history, acquisitionof assistive listening devices, quality oflinguistic input and level of languageproficiency, degree of parent involve-ment, and modality of language in-struction. With regard to MA, Cannonand Kirby wrote in summary that stu-dents who are D/HH might have vo-cabularies characterized by delayedacquisition, smaller size, and less sophistication; struggle with the Eng-lish verb system; and evidence diffi-culties that appear unimportant butthat can significantly affect academicachievement.In studies with samples of children

who were hard of hearing (i.e., not in-cluding children who were deaf), bothMcGuckian and Henry (2007) andKoehlinger, Van Horne, and Moeller(2013) described irregular morphemicdevelopment. Koehlinger et al. foundthat children who were hard of hearingwere less accurate in their use of verb-related morphemes than hearingpeers, and that undeveloped grammat-ical morphology was a risk if adult in-put was “inconsistent and distorted”(p. 1702). For example, children whoare hard of hearing may have difficultyprocessing and storing grammaticalmorphemes that have “low phoneticsubstance,” such as “contracted formsof be, third-person singular -s, and reg-ular past tense -ed,” due to inconsis-tent and/or distorted access (pp.1702–1703). If inconsistent grammati-

cal access indeed puts children whoare hard of hearing at risk, it can be as-sumed that it will negatively influencethe morphemic development of chil-dren who are deaf as well.Similarly, Guo et al. (2013) noted

that children with CIs receive a “de-graded electrical signal” (p. 188). Theresearchers conducted a carefully de-signed study of the tense-marking de-velopment of children with CIs (whodid not sign) over a 3-year period. Guoet al. found that at 4–5 years postim-plantation, the children producedtense markers at a significantly lowerrate than their hearing peers. Two find-ings suggest potential effects on aca-demic outcomes: that participants’errors tended to be ones of omission,and that the participants fell furtherbehind academically as they grewolder. The researchers concluded,“Taken together, the group and the in-dividual data suggested that childrenwith CIs tended to have difficulties inlearning tense markers because of theearly deprivation of auditory input andthe nature of the electrical signals theyreceive” (pp. 202–203). One explana-tion for this difficulty was that “thesemorphemes in English are acousticallyinsalient . . . have relatively shorter du-ration and/or weaker energy as com-pared to surrounding content words”(p. 187).Also in 2013, van Hoogmoed et al.

compared sixth-grade deaf studentswith their hearing peers and con-firmed that many children who areD/HH were delayed in comparison tohearing children in accurate readingof both monomorphemic and poly-morphemic words. The researchersfound that “the delay was larger forderivational words compared to com-pounds and monomorphemic words”(p. 1087) and concluded that the differences might be due to “unfamil-iarity with derivational morphemes . . . that are only encountered in mor-


344

ENGLISH-LANGUAGE AND READING ACHIEVEMENT


phologically complex words” (p.1087).In summary, research has demon-

strated MA’s importance to readingachievement, and studies conductedwith students who were D/HH haveconcluded that it is challenging to gainaccess to and acquire English mor-phology, and that development of MAis often delayed. Many bound mor-phemes and short words are difficultto hear, no matter how mild the hear-ing loss, even with the advancementof early detection of hearing loss andthe early acquisition of high-poweredhearing aids and CIs. A typical findingwas that children with CIs had lowerlevels of English-grammar ability thantheir hearing peers and were chal-lenged by tense markers and deriva-tional morphemes (e.g., Guo et al.,2013). Sometimes researchers addedinvented measures of MA to test inflec-tional and derivational morphologydue to the lack of such an availablemeasure (Gaustad et. al., 2002; Moores& Sweet, 1990). In later studies, testsof the English language—includingmorphology and syntax—that werenormed on hearing children replacedthose normed on students who wereD/HH. Many studies lacked informa-tion on individual participants’ back-ground characteristics, including aidedhearing acuity or device use. With theexception of the work of Bow, Blamey,Paatsch, and Sarant (2004), who fo-cused on primary-grade students, theextant studies on MA and reading wereconducted with middle school and col-lege students (e.g., Gaustad et al. 2002;Moores & Sweet, 1990). Findings atthe word level of reading (e.g., Gaus-tad & Kelly, 2004; Gaustad et al., 2002;van Hoogmoed et al., 2013) were thatMA was underdeveloped for many stu-dents, even those who had been inschool for many years. The few studiesavailable that were conducted with stu-dents who were D/HH indicated that

higher MA corresponded to higherreading achievement.

Assessment of CognitiveAcademic Language andReadingBecause knowledge of English mor-phology and syntax is an essentialcomponent of reading theory andachievement, the purpose of the pres-ent section is to explain why morphol-ogy and syntax should be assessed ontools that measure the theoreticalconstruct of cognitive academic lan-guage proficiency, or CALP (Cum-mins, 1980, 1984). Thus, of interest inthe present study were tests designedto capture morphological and syntac-tic elements of English language, bothreceptively and expressively, as well asreading comprehension. Such meas-ures assess the ability to analyze, un-derstand, express, and read Englishwith little pictorial support, repeti-tion, or example because these arethe skills intrinsic to functioning inthe decontextualized academic arenawith hearing peers (Kieffer & Lesaux,2008). Such measures offer more in-formation about a student’s CALPthan a test designed to assess onlyone element (e.g., receptive vocabu-lary) with pictorial support (e.g., thePeabody Picture Vocabulary Test, orPPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). As Wangand Andrews (2014) stated, followingan overview of concerns about thefact that some students who areD/HH do not have full access to Eng-lish language, “It is the child’s compe-tence in language . . . that providesthe foundation for reading” (p. 320).Parents and educators are interestedin the development of the academiclanguage of children who are D/HH inpreparation for higher education andemployment (Spencer & Marschark,2010).Two examples of standardized tools

that measure CALP are the Structured

Photographic Expressive LanguageTest (SPELT; Werner & Krescheck,1983) and the Clinical Evaluation ofLanguage Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4;Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003). Recently,Bennett, Gardner and Rizzi (2014) re-viewed the literature on assessmentto identify which assessments re-searchers and practitioners used withD/HH students. Bennett et al. sug-gested that tools be reliable and valid,citing the CELF-4 as an example. Yet inreviewing the current research inwhich both English-language and read-ing achievement were measured, wefound few studies that utilized a CALPtest, such as the SPELT and CELF, inaddition to a standardized readingmeasure, and that focused on school-age students.For example, Gilbertson and Kamhi

(1995) used the SPELT to match thelinguistic abilities of young hearing anddeaf school-age students, but adminis-tered no reading measure. Guo et al.(2013) used the SPELT in a study thatinvestigated the development of thespoken past-tense marker (i.e., /-ed/,/s/, /are/) in children with CIs (who didnot sign) over a 3-year period whenthey were 5–7 years old, but includedno reading measure.Most studies that used standardized

measures of both English and readingwere several decades old, did not in-volve school-age children, and wereused to verify English-language delay(e.g., Catts, 1993). Summarized belowin the order of publication date are themore recent studies that includedboth a standardized English test and areading test.Tomblin, Spencer, and Gantz (2000)

investigated the development of 17children who had prelingual, profoundbilateral deafness and who had re-ceived CIs between 2.6 and 10.0 yearsof age, using the Woodcock ReadingMastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R; Wood-cock, 1998) and three CELF subtests.


345


The tests were readministered a yearlater. Results were reported as groupmeans, and individual scores wereplotted on a regression line by per-centile and grade level, but were notmentioned in the narrative. Tomblin etal. did not report correlations betweenlanguage and reading data nor run anyother analyses, but they concludedthat the language and reading abilitiesof children who receive CIs at earlierages coincided with those of same-agehearing peers.Moog (2002) studied 17 children

ages 5–11 years who wore CIs. Thechildren were described as prelin-gually, profoundly deaf, but no un-aided or aided pure tone averages(PTAs) were reported. They had re-ceived CIs between the ages of 2.4 and7.7 years and were between 5.8 and11.8 years old when tested. All 17 stu-dents attended an oral educationalprogram that offered a concentratedfocus on reading. Both the CELF andthe Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test(GMRT; MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria,& Dryer, 2000) were administered tochildren younger than 8 years, and theStanford Achievement Test (SAT) tochildren age 8 years and older. Moogdid not clarify whether she used theSAT designed and normed on deafchildren or the one designed andnormed on hearing children. She didnot include statistical information orcorrelations for language and reading;however, she reported that more than70% of the participants scored withinthe average range for overall readingachievement. It is assumed that for theGMRT this would be an average rangecompared to that of hearing peers,since only hearing norms are available.With regard to the SAT, it is possiblethat this average range is based ondeaf, rather than hearing, norms.Other than CI information, no subjectbackground characteristics were dis-

cussed relating to language and read-ing ability.One longitudinal case study also

was found in the review of the litera-ture pertaining to English languageand reading that utilized formal testmeasures (Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman,2002). It included analyses of 9 years oflanguage and literacy data on a childwho was profoundly deaf (unaided)who had received a CI at age 5 years(PTA = 40 dB) and used SEE at bothhome and school. As documented byCELF scores, the child’s English wasbelow average in preschool andkindergarten, but improved as she ma-tured. For example, on comprehen-sion of sentence-level grammar, herscores rose from the 9th percentile tothe 50th percentile from first to sec-ond grade on the CELF SentenceStructure subtest. By fourth grade, thestudent demonstrated improvement“in her ability to deal with decontex-tualized language” (p. 47) as exempli-fied by her CELF Word Classes subtestscore (i.e., the 37th percentile infourth grade and the 50th percentile infifth grade). The student’s readingcomprehension was low-average ingrades 1–3 and between low-averageand high-average in grades 4–6, as as-sessed by both the GMRT and theWRMT-R.Wake, Hughes, Poulakis, Collins, and

Richards (2004) studied 86 seven- andeight-year-old Australian children whoused hearing aids and did not have in-tellectual or major physical disabilities.The mean age at diagnosis was 21.6months, with 19% having a mild hear-ing loss, 27% a moderate loss, 15% asevere loss, and 26% a profound loss.The authors did not clarify whetherthe students’ level of hearing loss wasunaided or aided. Both the CELF andthe PPVT (a non-CALP test) were ad-ministered, as well as a reading meas-ure referred to only as the “Reading

Progress Test.” (No citation or detailsas to content were provided.) Onlygroup results, not individual scores,were included in the report. It wasfound that the greater the hearing loss,the lower the language scores on boththe CELF and PPVT. No informationwas provided on reading achievementother than that the “mean delay on theReading Progress Test was 9.9 months”(p. 4).In summary, an explanation for the

use of tools that measured Englishmorphology and syntax to capture theconstruct of CALP was offered whenstudents were D/HH and their lan-guage and reading achievement wereof interest. The use of standardizedtests normed on hearing children ofboth English-language and readingachievement is relatively new in thefield of deaf education, replacing theuse of tests normed on deaf children.Three group and one case study werefound (all used the CELF for languageassessment), and two of these involved17 participants each. Standard scoresoften were reported as group meansrather than in a manner that revealedindividual scores, and correlations be-tween language scores and readingcomprehension typically were not included. Some background charac-teristics were collected in previous re-search (e.g. age, unaided hearing loss,date of identification of loss, andlength of device use); however, partic-ipants’ aided hearing acuity was notcommonly reported.

The Potential of Sign toSupport English Syntax andMorphological Awareness for ReadingBecause some of the authors who in-vestigated MA and reading ability whenstudents were D/HH suggested thatsigning in English might support ac-quisition of the essential reading skill


346



of MA (Gaustad et al., 2002; C. Mayer,2007; C. Mayer & Akamatsu, 2000), var-ious systems are described in the pres-ent section, with a focus on SEE. Forexample, C. Mayer and Trezek (2014)stated that “for the purpose of learningto read, children must have an age- appropriate level of proficiency in thesame language that is to be read andwritten” (italics in the original, p. 360).The systems that include signs to codeaudibly insalient English words (i.e., ar-ticles, pronouns, conjunctions) andbound morphemes (the hearing diffi-culty substantiated empirically by Guoet al., 2013) are Seeing Essential Eng-lish, or SEE 1 (referred to today asMorphemic Sign Systems, or MSS, asdescribed in Luetke-Stahlman, 1996)and Signing Exact English (SEE or SEE2; Gustason, Pfetzing, & Zawolkow,1973; Gustason & Zawolkow, 1993).MSS is used only in Amarillo, TX.Signed English (SE; Bornstein, Saulnier,& Hamilton, 1983), unstudied since theearly 1990s, includes only 14 sign mark-ers for bound morphemes, and thuscannot represent Standard Englishgrammar accurately.SEE is currently used in several

school districts in the state of Wash-ington, in more than a dozen regionalday-school programs in Texas, and inindividual cities in California, Indiana,Kansas, and Nebraska. The primary ra-tionales for its use are that (a) “manyword endings are difficult to hear andnot visible via speechreading” (e.g., in-terest, interesting, interests, and inter-ested are nearly impossible todistinguish) and “some involve hard-to-hear sounds” (Gustason, 1990, p. 109);(b) it makes English morphemes visu-ally apparent and useful as word-de-coding tools (Nielsen et al., 2011); and(c) knowledge of Standard Englishmorphology and syntax has beenfound to facilitate reading comprehen-sion (Knoors & Marschark, 2012).

Attention to the morphemes ofEnglish and the syntax of English is afocus of SEE. It was designed to corre-spond accurately to the number ofmorphemes of English utterances(Luetke-Stahlman, 1998), providingsigns for root words and about 80 af-fixes (e.g., -al, -ity, re-, un-, -ness, non-),the majority of which do not exist inSE. Different signs exist for differentbut similar words in SEE. For example,it is possible to use SEE to sign deri-vations of the word electric (e.g., elec-trical, electrician, electricity, andnonelectrical), but these derivationscannot be signed in SE. In SEE, an at-tempt is made to simultaneously speakand sign grammatically accurate Eng-lish (i.e. Standard English) with all themorphemes of the language included(Gustason, 1990). Moores (2000)noted that the invented systems donot perfectly represent English, andhe compared their accuracy to that ofwritten English, which, he claimed, in-disputably represented English. Hispoint was that while SEE may not be a“perfect” representation of English, itcomes very close, as illustrated in thelanguage sample provided in AppendixA, in which a teacher of the deaf(TOD) speaks English and simultane-ously signs SEE. This transcript isfrom a qualitative study in whichTODs were filmed while teaching (M. Mayer, 2013). The purpose of thatstudy was to identify the listening,speech, and English- grammar strate-gies used during lessons in the schoolwhere the filming was done (see Ap-pendix B).The basic similarities and differ-

ences between SEE, other inventedsign systems, and ASL are provided byNielsen et al. (2011), as are the findingsof research, published predominantlyin the 1990s, documenting that SEEcan convey English on the hands whenusers are motivated and trained, set

goals, and are supervised (Leigh, 1995;Luetke-Stahlman, 1989, 1991; M. Mayer& Lowenbraun, 1990), to a degree ofaccuracy that has been likened to thatof English orthography codes for spo-ken English (Moores, 2000). Researchpublished around this same timefound that SEE functions as a primarymethod of communication (i.e. firstlanguage, home language) for manychildren in the United States (Luetke-Stahlman, 2000; Luetke-Stahlman &Moeller, 1990; C. Mayer & Akamatsu,2000; Moeller & Luetke-Stahlman,1990; Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman,2002; Schick & Moeller, 1992), and nonewer studies could be found. In ear-lier research (Luetke-Stahlman, 1988a,1998b), students who used SEE werefound to score higher on standardizedtests of English language and readingthan students using oral English, MSS,SE, PSE, and ASL. More recent researchinvolving SEE and language and/or lit-eracy achievement is unavailable.The rationale for the use of Stan-

dard English via simultaneous spokenEnglish and SEE with students who areD/HH is that it is the national languageof the United States and hearing stu-dents in this country are expected tolearn to speak, understand, use, read,and write age-appropriate English.The relationship of proficient Englishto grade-level reading comprehen-sion has been well documented forboth hearing and deaf children. Fill-more and Snow (2002) stated that stu-dents learning English should beexposed to good language models.Therefore, it seems obvious that theteacher’s ability to communicate us-ing grammatically accurate StandardEnglish is essential to students’ lin-guistic and literacy growth. Beyondteaching children to read and write,teachers can “help children learn anduse aspects of language associatedwith the academic discourse of the


347


various school participants” (Fillmore& Snow, 2002, p. 12).

Purpose of the Present StudyA review of the empirical literatureshows that there is evidence of a rela-tionship between a student’s English-language abilities (e.g., MA and syntax)and reading achievement; that MA hasbeen demonstrated to be an essentialskill in the reading process; that someinvented sign systems were designedto encode English morphemes; andthat approximately half of studentswho are D/HH do not read as theirhearing peers do and plateau at aboutthe fourth-grade level when evaluatedwith standardized measures. The find-ings of this review support the QSH(Paul et al., 2013), suggesting thatwhile MA has a role in the readingachievement of all students, QSH calls for “differentiated interventions”(Wang & Andrews, 2014, p. 321) basedon the unique needs of students whoare D/HH. We hypothesize that if stu-dents who are D/HH had access to andwere expected to use grammaticallyaccurate English, this access and ex-pectation would support their lan-guage and reading development.Thus, the purpose of the present studywas to investigate the English-languageabilities and reading achievement of asample of students who were D/HHand attended a school where staff andstudents communicated simultane-ously in grammatically accurate Stan-dard English via speech and SEE.Specifically, the following researchquestions were investigated:

1. Do the participants demonstrateStandard English morphologyand syntax proficiency as meas-ured by informal and formaltests?

2. Do the participants demonstratereading achievement within the

average range of their hearingpeers?

3. Are there significant correlationsbetween the participants’ Eng-lish-language and reading scores?

4. Do participants’ scores on Eng-lish-language measures predictreading achievement as meas-ured on a standardized assess-ment of reading achievement?

MethodSettingSimultaneous speech and grammati-cally accurate sign (i.e., SEE) is thecommunication method used at aschool for the deaf located in thenorthwestern United States where an-nual evaluation using informal and for-mal English-language and readingtools guides lesson planning. It is anonpublic school whose administra-tors adhere to the rules and regula-tions of a public school and contractwith special education directors fromapproximately 20 school districts inthe area (about a 2-hour radius fromthe school itself) to enroll a culturallyand socioeconomically diverse studentbody. Students are ages 3 to 13 years(preschool through grade 8) and D/HH.They have been assessed to requirespecially designed instruction as deter-mined by the individualized educationprogram (IEP) process. Textbooks de-signed for hearing students enrolled ingeneral education classes are used forall school subjects, including reading.For example, the reading selections inHoughton Mifflin Harcourt’s Collec-tions series (http://www.hmhco.com/shop/education-curriculum/literature-and-language-arts/literature/collections)require knowledge of morphemes, asdemonstrated by Luetke (2013), whoanalyzed stories from the series, listingthe affixes that are common in first-through fifth-grade selections. First-grade stories utilized words with 10bound morphemes (dis-, -ed, -en, -ly, -

ful, -ing, plural -s, possessive -s, thirdperson -s, and -y) that are understoodand used by hearing 6-year-olds whoare prepared linguistically to readthem (de Villiers & de Villiers, 1978).Luetke also found that 21 additional af-fixes were used in third-grade stories (-able, -an, -ant, -en, -er, -ible, -ic, -ice, in-,-ion, -ious, -its, -ity, -ment, mis-, -or, re-, -sion, -th, -tion, and -un), as well as 9more in fifth-grade text. Students areexpected to read the words that con-tain the morphemes introduced attheir grade level.With the exception of one child, all

students at the school at the time ofthe present study could detect speechby means of assistive listening devices(hearing aids and CIs). Students at theschool are expected to speak and signgrammatically accurate and authenticEnglish (i.e., Standard English). Whenchildren speak and use Standard Eng-lish, they are positively reinforced, andwhen they do not, a technique calledthe “Again” strategy is used (Appel-man, Callahan, & Lowenbraun, 1980).The “Again” strategy is one of the strate-gies identified by M. Mayer (2013) thatappear in Appendix B, and it affordsstudents multiple exposures to boundmorphemes, noted as necessary byGuo et al. (2013).The philosophy and enforced policy

of the school is that students wear theirhearing aids or CIs throughout the day.These devices are checked twice dailyto ensure that they are working, as areFM systems, which are used to facilitatelistening, speech articulation acquisi-tion, English-language development,and literacy attainment. A modificationof the Slingerland (1996) approach tovisually representing phonemes istaught and used in the preschool,kindergarten, and early primary classesto develop phonological awareness andknowledge of phonics. This method ofphonics instruction includes demon-strations and repetition of the manual


348



handshape of a letter in addition to theformation of the letter drawn in the airto represent a “letter name,” the hand-shape of the letter pulled to one side(usually the right) while one makes theletter sound to represent a “lettersound,” and key words posted in theclassroom to assist a child in recallingthe sound and spelling associated witheach letter (e.g., a picture of a ball dis-played for the /b/ sound).Students are placed in grade-level

homerooms on the basis of chronolog-ical age, and a TOD and an assistantteacher are assigned to each class,which typically totals seven students.In addition to a daily literacy block,math, and other classes (e.g., science,art, music), students receive an indi-vidual tutoring session with a TOD forabout 15 minutes on most days, and allstudents are mainstreamed into localarea schools with hearing peers for aminimum of one subject. Skills in theareas of listening (the DevelopmentalApproach to Successful Listening;Stout & Van Ert Windle, 1992), speech(Ling, 1978), unit vocabulary, and spe-cific developmentally ordered sen-tence patterns (Appelman et al., 1980)are assessed and practiced during tu-toring. Data taken daily in these fourareas are used to inform instructionand are shared on report cardsthroughout the school year. In thequalitative study referred to previously,M. Mayer (2013) identified 23 listening,23 spoken-English, and 16 English-grammar strategies that TODs infusedinto daily lessons to facilitate the devel-opment of students’ grammatically ac-curate spoken and signed English.Readers are referred to Appelman et al.(1980) and Appelman, Callahan, M.Mayer, Luetke, and Stryker (2012) foradditional information about schoolpolicies and curriculum, as well asabove-average rates of college gradua-tion and employment of graduatesfrom the school.

Adults’ Use of Signing Exact EnglishTeachers and teaching assistants areobserved and monitored monthly byadministrators to ensure grammati-cally accurate and consistent use ofStandard English via speech and signs.SEE vocabulary is practiced at weeklystaff meetings, and most staff attendannual intensive 3-day professional de-velopment sessions on SEE referred toas “Skillshops.” The five TODs whotaught the students involved in thepresent study, and one of two admin-istrators who were employed duringthat time and who taught one literacyclass daily, were filmed for the qualita-tive study of the listening, speech, andEnglish-grammar strategies used dur-ing lessons (M. Mayer, 2013). Theseprofessionals had been working at theschool an average of 13 years (range:1–30 years) and had been signing SEEan average of 17 years (range: 4–38) atthe time of data collection. Two of theTODs involved in the present analysiswere certified SEE transliterators, hav-ing passed the Educational Sign SkillsEvaluation (S.E.E. Center for the Ad-vancement of Deaf Children, 1991) atLevel 5, the highest level.Language samples used in the study

by M. Mayer (2013) were later tran-scribed, and sign-to-voice ratios werecalculated (Luetke-Stahlman, 1998) foruse in the present study (see AppendixA for an example). At the time of datacollection, none of the TODs wereaware that sign-to-voice ratios wouldbe calculated as a measure of the de-gree to which they encoded StandardEnglish in sign. It was found that theTODs signed an average of 94.4% ofwhat they were saying while teaching(see Appendix C).

ParticipantsAt the initiation of the present study,45 students, ages 3–13 years (i.e., pre-school to eighth grade), were enrolled

in the school. Twenty-three studentswere identified by the school adminis-tration as having normal intelligence,no additional disabilities that inter-fered with cognitive development,and English-speaking parents. It wasschool policy to administer the CELFbeginning in second grade, so childrenin grades 2–8 who met these criteriawere potential participants. These 23students had been enrolled in theschool for at least 5 years, with the ex-ception of the youngest child, who hadattended for 3 years. Parents of 17 chil-dren (74%) granted permission fortheir child to participate. These chil-dren included 8 boys and 9 girls, rang-ing in age (and grade level) at the timeof data collection from 7.6 years (sec-ond grade) to 13.9 years (eighthgrade). Eleven of the 17 participantswere Caucasian, 3 were Asian, and 3were biracial.In terms of hearing, all participants

were identified as having a hearing lossat a young age: 7 between birth andage 1 year, 6 between ages 1 and 2years, and the remaining 4 between 2and 4 years of age. Of the 6 childrenidentified between the ages of 1 and 2years, 1 had been adopted internation-ally at 4 years of age, and his age ofidentification for deafness was re-ported in his adoption paperwork. Un-aided hearing losses of the studentsranged from moderate-to-severe toprofound, with 13 of the 17 partici-pants identified as profoundly deaf, 2severely to profoundly, 1 severely, and1 moderately to severely. Aided PTAsranged from 10 to 83 dB, with a meanof 27.5 dB. All students used assistivelistening devices. Six had received ei-ther hearing aids or CIs before theirfirst birthday and another 3 beforethey were 2 years old. An additional 5children had received their initial hear-ing aid or CI before they were 3 yearsold, 2 between the ages of 3 and 4years, and 1 between the ages of 4 and


349



350


5 years. Eight of the 17 children (47%)had initially worn a hearing aid, butthen had CI surgery as young children.At the time of data collection, 11 partic-ipants used a CI, and no child was bi-laterally implanted. All the studentswore amplification at home andschool. All participants were monolin-gual speakers of Standard AmericanEnglish. They came from familieswhere English was the language of thehome; no family used ASL in thehome. When the students were wear-ing their equipment (either hearingaids or CIs), 80% could detect sound inthe mild hearing range, although re-search has shown that even a mild losshas educational ramifications (Bess,Dodd-Murphy, & Parker, 1998). SeeTable 1 for individual participant infor-mation.

MeasuresIn the fall and spring of each academicyear, TODs and administrators assess

students’ English speech and lan-guage, as well as academic achieve-ment, using informal and formalassessments. In the year the data forthe present study were collected,those adults who were involved in thetesting had an average of 13 years ofexperience giving the assessments de-scribed below. (Data for the study werecollected in the spring.)

English LanguageBoth informal and formal measureswere used to confirm that the partici-pants used English. The assessmentsdescribed below have been given byhomeroom TODs at the school as a part of an annual IEP evaluationprocess since at least 2002. All assess-ments are administered and studentresponses given in simultaneous spo-ken and signed Standard English. Eachstudent’s speech and signed responsesare transcribed so that the most gram-matically inclusive utterance is cap-

tured. For example, if a student wereto respond in speech, “The boys arewalk to the car,” and simultaneouslysign “BOY WALK+ING TO CAR,” the ut -terance “The boys are walking to the car” would be transcribed andcredited.The Photo Articulation Test (PAT-3;

Lippke, Dickey, Selmar, & Soder, 1997),a speech articulation inventory, is ad-ministered to each student individuallyin the spring of each school year by hisor her homeroom TOD. Students areasked to describe a photo that hasbeen shown reliably to prompt the useof a word with a target sound in the ini-tial, medial, or final position. The testincludes 93 items. Test norms werenot used in scoring for the presentstudy because the test was designedfor children with normal hearing whowere ages 3–8 years, and all but one ofthe study participants were older than8. Instead, the number of correctlypronounced phonemes out of the to-

Age Age of Unaided Aided pure tone Equipment

Student (yrs.mos.) hearing lossa hearing loss average (dB) (years of use) Ethnicity

1 7.6 2.0 Moderate to severe 43 Hearing aid (6) Asian

2 8.11 @ birth Severe to profound 83 Hearing aid (6) Asian/White

3 9.5 3.0 Profound 10 Cochlear implant (9) White

4 9.5 @ birth Profound 20 Cochlear implant (6) African American

5 9.11 2.4 Profound 20 Hearing aid (8) Asian

6 10.7 1.1 Severe 20 Hearing aid (6) White

7 10.8 4 Profound 20 Cochlear implant (5)b White

8 10.9 1.1 Profound 13 Cochlear implant (8)b White

9 10.11 1.0 Profound 75 Hearing aid (7) Native American/White

10 11.2 5 mos. Profound 20 Cochlear implant (10) White


12 11.8 11.5 mos. Profound 20 Cochlear implant (5)b White

13 11.8 2 mos. Profound 20 Cochlear implant (6)b White



16 13.7 6 wks. Profound 10 Cochlear implant (12)b Asian

17 13.9 9 mos. Severe to profound 40 Hearing aid (12) White

Note. The students are sequenced on the basis of age at time of testing, youngest (7.6 years) to oldest (13.9 years).a Years/months (unless otherwise indicated).b Students with cochlear implants who were previously fitted with hearing aids.

Table 1

Characteristics of the Study Participants


tal possible articulation targets was cal-culated, yielding a raw score.An expressive structured-language

sample using the SPELT also is collectedroutinely. The questions and com-mands, provided in the test manual,are designed to elicit target morpholog-ical and syntactic English structureswhen approximately 50 photographsare presented.An unstructured language sample

of each student’s use of English also iscollected by homeroom TODs and re-ported on three report cards through-out the school year. The sample hastwo components. The first is a per-centage of 20 utterances that wereproduced correctly by the studentspontaneously while engaged in a rou-tine lesson or classroom activity with

classmates and another school profes-sional. Examples of when the TODscollect these unstructured languagesamples include scenarios such as ascience lesson taught by another professional, a whole-group activityfacilitated by the teaching assistant,and times when the students werechatting in the lunchroom. In these situations, the TOD focused on andwrote the bimodal language of onestudent at a time. The second compo-nent of the unstructured languagesample was the percentage correct of30 sentences produced by a student(without prompts or modeling) as heor she looks at a book without words.Examples of picture books used in thistask include, for first graders, FrogGoes to Dinner (M. Mayer, 2003), for

fifth graders, Sing, Pierrot, Sing (de-Paola, 1987), and for sixth graders, TheSnowman Storybook (Briggs, 1978).The scores showed in Table 2 are per-centages based on the number ofgrammatically correct sentences usedby the students out of 50 sentences. A high score on the unstructured lan-guage sample is judged by school administrators to be harder to obtainthan a structured language score be-cause there is no photo cue or teacherremark to initiate the student’s expres-sive use of English in the homeroomclass. It is worth noting that duringthe time of this data collection, two of the six classroom teachers filmedtheir language sample collection andwatched it to be certain that they hadscored the students correctly.


351

Un- Grade

SPELT structured level

PAT (English English- CELF-4 CELF-4 CELF-4 and

(speech morphology language Receptive Expressive Core GMRT GMRT GMRT GMRT MA

articulation) syntax sample Language Language Language test Vocabulary Comprehension total %

Student % correct % correct % correct (NCE) (NCE) (NCE) level (NCE) (NCE) (NCE) correct

1 95 34 30 86 77 78 2 29 32 28 30

2 96 34 30 73 55 54 3 34 34 33 90

3 100 52 32 76 71 64 3 48 55 52 78

4 100 30 18 83 61 62 3 29 35 32 45

5 100 96 86 116 110 112 4 72 75 75 100

6 99 78 48 96 96 97 4 51 42 46 95

7 85 84 62 102 96 96 4 54 55 55 90

8 96 68 52 79 77 72 4 42 51 46 85

9 99 78 62 90 101 94 5 58 68 62 93

10 69 82 64 90 99 98 5 77 81 80 93

11 100 84 42 67 53 62 5 32 25 26 80

12 54 68 60 96 89 91 5 67 68 67 98

13 99 56 44 79 57 64 5 36 27 31 95

14 84 30 38 76 61 58 6 24 52 38 85

15 97 66 56 85 63 69 6 50 38 43 88

16a 100 98 82 121 108 112 8 66 75 74 100

17b 100 94 82 107 110 118 8 71 77 80 100

Notes. CELF-4 = Clinical Assessment of Language Fundamentals. The mean normal curve equivalent (NCE) of the CELF–4 is 100 (SD = 15).GMRT = Gates MacGinitie Reading Test: The mean NCE of the GMRT is 50 (SD = 21.06).MA = morphemic awareness assessment. PAT = Photo Articulation Test. SPELT = Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test.a The CELF was not collected for students 16 and 17 in the year of the present study because of the high scores in the previous year and the fact that theywere transitioning to high school at another school. Their CELF data is from the individualized education program from the previous year.

Table 2

Students’ English Language and Reading Assessment Scores


Finally, students were administeredthe CELF-4, a standardized assessmentof Standard English that yields threescores for each participant: Receptive,Expressive, and Core Language. Ben-nett et al. (2014) recently reviewed for-mal assessment of the English skills ofstudents who are D/HH and con-cluded with a strong recommendationthat the CELF-4 be used in researchand practice. The CELF-4 subtests areConcepts and Following Directions,Word Structure, Recalling Sentences,Formulated Sentences, Word Classes,Sentence Structure, Expressive Vocab-ulary, Word Definitions, UnderstandingSpoken Paragraphs, Sentence Assem-bly, and Semantic Relationships. Themajority of the subtests for each com-posite were the same for all age levels;however, only students age 13 yearsand older were given the Word Defini-tions subtest for computation of theCore Language score. One subtest di-rectly assesses MA (Word Structure),while others require the child to applymorphemic understanding to be suc-cessful at the task. For example, in theFormulated Sentences subtest, the stu-dent formulates a sentence about vi-sual stimuli using a targeted word orphrase, for example, “Tell me a sen-tence about the word I say. You mustmake your sentence about the pictureand use the word I tell you in your sen-tence. ‘Longest.’”The CELF-4 was given as a part of

the annual IEP process at the school,and TODs were unaware that theCELF data would be used for the pres-ent study. Approximately half theCELF tests were administered byTODs and the other half by two ad-ministrators. All assessors followedthe guidelines for administration andscoring as presented in the manual.Accuracy of scoring and conversion ofraw scores into standard scores bymeans of the charts in the manualwere verified by four professionals,

three of whom were the authors ofthe present study.

ReadingThe fourth edition of the GMRT wasselected for the present study becauseits validity has been researched exten-sively, it is commonly administered inreading research, and it is useful forcomparing scores of children who areD/HH with those of a representativesample of hearing children of the sameage and grade. The GMRT yields threescores for each student: Vocabulary,Comprehension, and a total score. TheVocabulary subtest requires the stu-dent to read a word that is presentedin the context of just a few otherwords. The student’s task is to selectthe word or phrase that represents themeaning of the target word. The Com-prehension subtest is designed tomeasure a student’s ability to demon-strate understanding (e.g., know lit-eral meanings, make inferences, drawconclusions) of expository and narra-tive texts. The second author adminis-tered the GMRT to most participants insmall groups by grade level. One groupof students took the test in theirhomeroom, supervised by the thirdauthor, a classroom TOD. Accuracy ofscoring and conversion of raw scoresinto standard scores as directed in thecharts in the manual was verified byfour professionals, three of whomwere the authors of the present study.Demonstration of morphological

awareness was assessed not only inthe English-language tasks of theSPELT and CELF, but also during read-ing. A researcher-created assessment,referred to the present article as theMorphological Awareness (MA) task,was designed specifically to assess stu-dents’ ability to apply their knowledgeof the bound morphemes of English toidentify the word that would correctlycomplete a sentence while reading.Forty simple sentences were provided

on a work sheet, each with a missingword. This was essentially a cloze pro-cedure, a form of reading assessment(Read, 2000), with choices providedfor the reader. Test items were inflec-tional and derivational morphemesthat were developmentally orderedand based on linguistic informationfrom the Developmental LanguageCurriculum (Cheney, Compton, &Harder, 1988). Examples include “Thecat _____ with me yesterday (play,plays, played, playing)” and “That sillybehavior is _____ (remature, prema-ture, postmature, immature).” Aftertwo practice items were completed insmall groups with a TOD, the studentscompleted the MA reading assessmentindependently by reading each sen-tence and circling the word thatseemed the best fit. This researcher-created reading assessment provided areading task that focused on students’application of their knowledge of mor-phology. (A copy of this researcher-created measure is at Appendix D.)

Data Analysis and ResultsIn the spring of the academic year, thesubject background information and assessment data were collected by thesecond and third authors, an administra-tor and a TOD at the school. The re-searchers were recorded and compileddata on an Excel spreadsheet for analy-sis. Because the students were of dif -ferent ages and grades, they recordedraw scores for nonstandardized assess-ments, and identified the standardscores and normal curve equivalents(NCEs) using the test manuals for thestandardized measures. Normative ta-bles were based on national samples ofhearing children from geographical ar-eas specified by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Research Question 1To determine whether the participantsin the present study demonstratedStandard English morphology and syn-


352



tax proficiency, both informal and for-mal tests of English were used. Speecharticulation in English, as measured bythe PAT, was clearly a strength for moststudents in the cohort, as may benoted by examining individual per-centage-correct scores presented inTable 2 and scores by grade-levelgroupings (primary and intermediate)in Table 3. While students scoredfrom 54% to 100% correct on theitems, the group average (N =17)was 93%. All but 4 students hadscores of 95% or higher. There wasno developmental pattern within thescores; nor was there a significant re-lationship between aided hearing andspeech as measured by the PAT (cor-relation = .154, p = .555), or be-

tween speech and any of the otherlanguage measures.On both the SPELT structured lan-

guage sample and the unstructured lan-guage sample, older students scoredconsiderably higher as a group than theyounger students. (See Table 2 for in-dividual scores and Table 3 for groupscores on the SPELT, unstructured lan-guage sample, and CELF.) The stan-dardized CELF-4 assessment suggestedan overall strength in students’ under-standing of English (receptive) relativeto hearing peers. There was wider vari-ability in individuals’ expressive Eng-lish, with a range of scores from morethan two standard deviations belowthe mean to scores above the mean.There was also a developmental pat-tern evidenced by CELF-4 scores,

showing that, overall, older studentshad much higher standard scores thanyounger students. As a group, the pri-mary-grade children scored below theaverage range on the CELF-4. Therewas wide variability across the studentswho were enrolled in grades 4–6, al-though as a group they achieved withinthe average range. Thus, as a group,students in grades 4 and above demon-strated Standard English proficiencycommensurate with that of their hear-ing peers, but students in the primarygrades did not.

Research Question 2To determine if the participants’ read-ing achievement was within the aver-age range in relation to that of theirhearing peers, standard scores (NCEs)


353

Grades 2–3 (n = 4) Grades 4–8 (n = 13) All participants

PAT (speech articulation) 98% correct 91% correct 93% correct

SPELT (structured sample) 38% correct 76% correct 67% correct

Unstructured sample 28% correct 60% correct 52% correct

CELF-4 receptive

Mean NCE (SD) 79.5 (6.0) 92.6 (16) 89.5 (15.1)

Range 73–86 67–121 67–121

CELF-4 Expressive

Mean NCE (SD) 66.0 (9.9) 86.1 (21.2) 81.4 (20.8)

Range 55–77 53–110 53–110

CELF-4 Core

Mean NCE (SD) 64.5 (10.0) 87.9 (20.6) 82.4 (21.0)

Range 54–78 58–118 54–118

GMRT Vocabulary

Mean NCE (SD) 35.0 (9.0) 53.8 (16.7) 49.4 (17.1)

Range 29–48 24–77 24–77

GMRT Comprehension

M (SD) 39.0 (10.7) 56.5 (19.2) 52.4 (18.9)

Range 32–55 27–77 27–77

GMRT total

M (SD) 36.3 (10.7) 55.6 (18.7) 51.1 (18.9)

Range 28–52 26–80 26–80

Morphology assessment 60% correct 93% correct 85% correct

Notes. CELF-4 = Clinical Assessment of Language Fundamentals: The mean normal curve equivalent (NCE) of the CELF-4 is 100 (SD = 15). GMRT =Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. The mean NCE of the GMRT is 50 (SD = 21.06). PAT = Photo Articulation Test. SPELT = Structured Photographic Expres-sive Language Test.

Table 3

English-Language Scores and Reading Achievement Within Grade Level Bands and Whole Group Averages



354


on the GMRT were compared to na-tional norms. Just as with the CELF,since the students were at variousgrade levels, NCEs were used to com-pute group mean scores. The meanNCE for the GMRT was 50 and thestandard deviation was 21.06. Thus,students with NCEs between 29 and 71were considered within the averagerange for their grade levelwhen com-pared to hearing peers. There weretwo components to the GMRT, Vocab-ulary and Comprehension, and a totalscore, which reflected both compo-nents. As a group, the participants’ to-tal mean score was 51.1, essentially atthe mean. Individual reading scoresare presented in Table 2 and groupscores in Table 3. On the Vocabularysubtest, 1 student was in the below-average range and 16 (94%) scoredwithin (14 students) or above (2 stu-dents) the average range. On both theComprehension subtest and the totalscore, 2 students were in the below-av-erage range, and the other 15 (88%)scored within (11 students) or above(4 students) the average range whencompared to hearing peers.Reading scores of students in the

primary grades (2–3) were comparedto those in the intermediate/middlegrades and higher (4–8). (See the NCEmeans within grade-level bands pre-sented in Table 3.) As groups, both theprimary-grade and intermediate-and-higher-grade students’ achievementwas within the average range for theirgrade level when compared to the per-formance of hearing peers. Proficiencygenerally improved as students ad-vanced in grade level. Of the 13 stu-dents in grades 4–8, one was in thebelow- average range and the rest(92%) were in the average (8 students)or above-average range (4 students), asdetermined from the GMRT totalscore. Thus, the reading achievementof this group of students did notplateau.

While the MA assessment was notused to directly answer the researchquestion about comparing participants’achievement to that of hearing peers, aswas possible with the standardizedGMRT, it does provide additional read-ing achievement information on theparticipants. The individual scores(Table 2) and grade-level band groupachievement (Table 3), as well as signifi-cant correlations between achievementon the MA assessment and the GMRTVocabulary (.622, p = .008) and Com-prehension (.523, p = .031) subtestsand the total score (.593, p= .012), sug-gest that the students used their knowl-edge of morphology to select theappropriate word on this cloze-stylereading measure and that ability washighly related to their achievement ona standardized reading measure, theGMRT.

Research Question 3To determine if there were significantcorrelations between the participants’English-language proficiency and read-ing achievement, a correlational analy-sis was run using the raw scores on theinformal measures of English (PAT,SPELT, unstructured language sample)and the standard scores (NCEs) on theCELF-4 compared to the NCEs on theGMRT. The results, as presented inTable 4, indicate that while speechscores (PAT) were not significantly cor-

related to reading scores, proficiencyon measures of English language weresignificantly correlated to readingachievement.

Research Question 4A multiple-regression analysis wasused to evaluate if students’ compe-tency in English predicted their read-ing achievement as measured on astandardized assessment of readingachievement. Since the subtests of theGMRT (Vocabulary and Comprehen-sion) were significantly correlated withthe total score (r = .956 and r = .971,both p < .001), and as the total scorereflected both the Vocabulary andComprehension components of theGMRT, the GMRT total score was usedas the dependent variable in the analy-sis. The standard scores of the Recep-tive and Expressive components of theCELF-4 were treated as the predictorvariables. The results of the regressionanalysis revealed that the two predic-tor variables, when studied simultane-ously, explained 78% of the variance inreading achievement scores (R2 =.778, p < .001).

Discussion and Directionsfor Future ResearchThe present study examined the Eng-lish-language (i.e., morphology andsyntax) and reading abilities of a cohortof students at a school where Standard

GMRT Vocabulary GMRT Comprehension GMRT total

PAT (speech) –.316 –.354 –.312

SPELT (structured sample) .796** .604* .718**

Unstructured sample .860** .784** .854**

CELF-4 Receptive .754** .709* .771**

CELF-4 Expressive .855** .849** .882**

CELF-4 Core .861** .789** .859**

Notes.CELF-4 = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–4. GMRT = Gates-MacGinitie Read-ing Tests. PAT = Photo Articulation Test. SPELT = Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4

Correlations Between English-Language Measures and Reading Achievement (N = 17)


American English was used in simul-taneously spoken and signed com-munication. Students were expected touse grammatically correct English, andtheir progress was systematically docu-mented. The children had worn hear-ing aids and/or CIs from a young age,were monolingual speakers of English,and had been administered informaland formal measures of English speech,language, and reading.While most students had high scores

on the PAT-3, speech articulation abilitydid not correlate significantly with lan-guage or reading ability. Instead, theconsistent variable that was associatedwith reading proficiency was access togrammatically accurate English mor-phology and syntax, which was availableto the students at this school via SEE.Perhaps unique to the field of deaf ed-ucation, speech-articulation ability of-ten does not reflect age-appropriatelanguage ability. As Appelman et al.(2012) advised, educators can do muchto assist students who are D/HH to ob-tain the same age-appropriate Englishthat is acquired by their hearing peersand required for academic advance-ment and employment. Adults canmodel grammatically correct English,just as they would if they were in-structing hearing children; there is noresearch to suggest otherwise. Theycan be aware of the research that doc-uments how difficult it is to hear pronouns, articles, and bound mor-phemes, and, when words or wordparts are inaudible to a student, pairsign with their speech. If children whoare D/HH cannot hear the quick, quietmorphemes of English, they do notuse them; if they do not express them,they do not read them well.In the present study, a developmen-

tal trend was documented across theresults of the informal and formal testsof the English language (morphologyand syntax), with the older studentsspeaking, understanding, and using

more grammatically correct Englishthan the younger children. This trendis supportive of the CALP theory(Cummins 1980, 1984) stating thatwhile many children develop basic,routinized language within 2 years ofimmersion in the target language (orsystem), it takes 5–7 years for a child todevelop the decontextualized aca-demic language necessary for aca-demic achievement. While as a groupthe primary-grade students were in thebelow-average range on standardizedmeasures in comparison to their hear-ing peers, the intermediate middle-grades group demonstrated receptiveand expressive Standard English pro-ficiency within the average range. Thisfinding is similar to that in the casestudy of a child who used SEE(Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman, 2002) inwhich the child had low CELF scoresin the primary grades, but scored inthe average range by grade 5. In addi-tion, the language findings of thepresent study differ from the resultsof previous research that did not findthe language development of thispopulation within the average range(e.g., Johnson & Goswami, 2010) orthat found that children who receivedCIs at an early age achieved within theaverage range only on some meas-ures (e.g., narrative ability and re -ceptive vocabulary) but not onsyntax-related measures (e.g., Geers,Nicholas, & Sedey, 2003). Cannon andKirby (2013) found that students whoare D/HH struggle with many mor-phosyntactic structures of English. Theresults of the present study suggestthat the modeling and expectation ofgrammatically correct morphology andsyntax require attention if studentswho are D/HH are to acquire CALPand reading proficiency, particularly asthey read and discuss more challeng-ing content-area text.Since student morphology and syn-

tax abilities were the focus of the pres-

ent study, it is important to note thatonly four previous studies regardingreading and deafness have used a stan-dardized English-language measure inaddition to a standardized readingmeasure in the same investigation, apractice that allows a comparison tohearing norms and a more realisticimpression of a D/HH student’s abili-ties compared to those of hearingpeers. That is, the CELF-4, commonlyused and respected (Bennett et al,2014), measured the ability of childrenin this cohort to analyze, understand,and express the morphemes of Englishwith little pictorial support, repetition,or example, as required in the aca-demic arena (Nagy et. al, 2014).Findings about deafness and the ac-

quisition of English syntax and mor-phology in the present study mightadd to the body of research in deaf ed-ucation because, as Gaustad and Kelly(2004) suggested, deaf students re-quire excellent models of and expo-sure to morphological aspects ofEnglish in order to continue to prog-ress in language and literacy. It is pos-sible that the children in the presentstudy benefited from more exposureto a wider variety of English morphol-ogy in conversation, as was also recom-mended by C. Mayer (2007), whichperhaps was an improvement on the“insufficient morphographic skills”demonstrated by the deaf students inprevious investigations lead by Gaus-tad (Gaustad & Kelly, 2004; Gaustad et al., 2002) and summarized in the review of the literature. Because English-based signing has been sug-gested as necessary to increase age-appropriate English literacy in deafeducation (C. Mayer, 2007; C. Mayer &Akamatsu, 2000), and the SEE signingused at the school in the presentstudy is not used in most places in thecountry, the results of the study mightbe of interest to others working in thefield of deaf education. It might be


355


advantageous to study the English- language and reading abilities of othergroups of students who are using par-ticular invented sign systems andcompare the results to those reportedhere.That the students in the present

study used English via simultaneousspoken English and SEE was evidencedin the language sampling that was tran-scribed for the SPELT (structured) andunstructured language samples, aswell as in CELF subtest scores. More ex-tensive sign-to-voice ratios and longerlanguage samples for teachers and stu-dents would improve future investiga-tions. In addition, the expectation atthe school in this study was that Stan-dard English be used as it would be inany other classroom in the country(Fillmore & Snow, 2002) by teachersand students alike. The study might bea contribution to the field becausesuch effort was taken in the programto use and have the students use Eng-lish (simultaneously spoken and SEE)and because the opportunity to do re-search on such a program is not easilyafforded to other researchers. Thecharacteristics found in previous re-search (Appelman et al., 2012; Leigh,1995; Luetke-Stahlman, 1989, 1991; M.Mayer & Lowenbraun, 1990) to resultin the most accurate representationof Standard English grammar via sign(i.e., attitude, training, goal setting,and monthly supervision) were com-ponents of the program in which thestudents in the present study were en-rolled. Even so, more specific study isneeded to determine if SEE assists stu-dents in understanding and using Eng-lish signs for pronouns, conjunctions,articles, and bound morphemes thatare not signed in many sign systems(e.g., Pidgin Signed English), but arerequired to obtain a high score on theSPELT and CELF. The present studyadds to the research literature becauseit is a newer study in which an invented

sign system (SEE) used in conjunctionwith simultaneous speech was foundto function as a first or primary lan-guage for a group of children whowere D/HH (Luetke-Stahlman, 2000;Luetke-Stahlman & Moeller, 1990; C. Mayer & Akamatsu, 2000; Moeller & Luetke-Stahlman, 1990; Nielsen &Luetke-Stahlman, 2002; Schick &Moeller, 1992).Just as with the language-assess-

ment findings, the findings on readingachievement differed for the twogroups of students in the presentstudy. The younger students (secondand third graders) did not read withinthe average range when compared tohearing peers. One possible explana-tion is that they were in the process ofdeveloping their English-languageskills, as reflected in their CELF scores,and as is explained by the Cumminsmodel of CALP mentioned above(Cummins, 1980, 1984). The result ofthe present study was that as a group,the older students (in grades 4–8) readwithin the average range on the stan-dardized reading test that assessedboth reading vocabulary and compre-hension. For them as a group, readingachievement did not plateau at grade 4(Spencer & Marschark, 2010; Traxler,2000), a finding that contrasts withthose of previous research, which didnot include students exposed to andusing SEE (e.g., Cannon & Kirby, 2013;Geers, Tobey, Moog, & Brenner, 2008;Harris & Terlektsi, 2011; Kyle & Harris,2010).While we acknowledge that not all

of the older students in the presentstudy were reading at grade level, anexplanation for the achievement ofthose reading at or above grade levelmay be found in an examination of in-dividual English-language scores asmeasured on the CELF and the GMRTreading achievement scores. They illus-trate the well-documented relationshipbetween English-language abilities and

reading achievement that was pre-sented in the review of the literatureand found in the correlational analysesof the present study. The stronger theEnglish-language skills of a learner, themore access that learner has to the academic content of the classroom,both presented by the teacher andread. As Marschark, Rhoten, and Fabich(2007) pointed out, children who areD/HH, even with CIs, probably aremissing out on some information intheir classes. If SEE can support greateraccess to the language of academiccontent, then students will have a better chance of making progress bothlinguistically and in their studies. Wangand Andrews (2014), who provided an overview of the QSH, discussed atthe beginning of the present article,noted that “while suggesting qualitativesimilarities in language and readingcomponents that are the same for any-one engaged in learning English” (p. 321), the allowance of individual dif-ferences in the model is particularlyrelevant in understanding why somestudents do not achieve at or abovegrade level.Explanations for reading achieve-

ment, or the lack thereof, are com-plex. While explicit attention togrammatically accurate Standard Eng-lish is essential and needs to be furtherinvestigated, it is important that mem-bers of the research community studyother reading-related variables as well.For example, Geers et al. (2008) calledfor research that would examine mul-tiple student-background variables inrelation to reading achievement tohelp further explain student out-comes. Such information might helpresearchers identify factors to includein their investigations. While not withinthe scope of the present article to pres-ent, information on other variables(e.g., age of access to English language,parental signing ability, and parentalengagement in school activities) was


356



collected at the same time as the pres-ent study, and examined in an effort to further understand individuals’progress, or lack thereof. Case studiesare available (McLean, Nielsen, Stryker,& Luetke, 2014) of four intermediate-grade students who had many of thesame characteristics (intelligence, eth-nicity, closeness in age at the time ofidentification of hearing loss) but developed age-appropriate English-language proficiency and readingachievement to different degrees.A standardized measure that fo-

cuses on students’ ability to applyknowledge of inflectional and deriva-tional morphology when reading is notavailable. For the present study, as inthe few studies that included a MA as-sessment (e.g., Gaustad & Kelly, 2004;Gaustad et al., 2002; Moores & Sweet,1990), a researcher-created assessmentwas used. It was found that all com-parisons between MA scores and thescores on the CELF and GMRT subtestsshowed significant correlations—withcorrelations that compared MA scoreswith GMRT Vocabulary subtest scoresbeing the highest. These results are re-ported with caution because the MAtool was not subjected to reliability orvalidity measures, but the associativenature of the findings of the presentstudy might motivate future re-searchers to develop a more stringenttest. The recent work of Cannon andKirby (2013) on the grammatical struc-tures that are the most challenging tostudents who are D/HH may be impor-tant to consider in the development ofsuch an assessment.There are additional ways in which

the findings of the present investiga-tion might add to the research in deafeducation. Information on aided hear-ing acuity, as well as the commonly in-cluded unaided hearing data, wasincluded on each participant. The stu-dents in the present study were ele-mentary and middle-grade students

who were D/HH, not beginning read-ers or college students, as has been thecase in much of the past research re-garding reading and deafness. Whenstandardized tests of English languageand reading normed on hearing chil-dren have been used in previous re-search in deaf education, only groupaverages have been reported, not alsoindividual scores as in the presentstudy. When only averaged scores arereported, it is difficult to examine the interrelationships of variables that might inform the understandingof the factors that affect English- language and reading achievementwhen D/HH children are in the ele-mentary and middle-school gradesand are thus expected to be readingbeyond the emergent and beginningreading levels.

Limitations of the StudyOne limitations of the present studywas that the sample was small (N=17), although it was similar in size tosamples in other studies reviewedabove. Also, the sample consisted of agroup of students from only oneschool. While the sample was diversein terms of ethnicity and family back-ground, it did not allow for generaliza-tion or analysis beyond itself.Second, while the MA assessment,

designed to measure application ofmorphological knowledge in a readingtask, was found to be significantly cor-related to the vocabulary componentof the standardized GMRT (.622, p =.008), it was not subjected to measuresof reliability and validity, and older stu-dents reached a score ceiling on it.Therefore, the findings are reportedwith caution. A future version of thisassessment tool should include addi-tional items of more difficulty andshould be subjected to reliability andvalidity testing.Third, the sign-to-voice ratios of the

teachers at the school were calculated

from short segments. Thus, it cannotbe reported with complete certaintythat these adults consistently usedgrammatically accurate English; re-search to replicate these ratios shouldbe conducted.Fourth, because student language

samples for unstructured and struc-tured language and some CELF testswere collected by homeroom TODsas a part of the IEP process and notjudged by a second rater, student useof Standard English is reported withcaution. If the present study is repli-cated, interjudge reliability measuresshould be employed. For example,testing should be administrated by anuninvolved third party and interjudgereliability reported.

ConclusionResearch continues to suggest that thegap between the reading achievementof students who are D/HH and that oftheir hearing peers widens as studentsmove beyond the primary grades (e.g.,Geers et al., 2008; Harris & Terlektsi,2011). However, as presented in detailby Paul et al. (2013) in their book onthe QSH, whether students are hear-ing native English speakers, English-language learners, or students who areD/HH, their learning and developmentof the English language and readingare similar, even if the rate of learningis different.Researchers in varied disciplines

need to collaborate and study the var-ious aspects of English-language andreading development and identify “ev-idence- and reason-based instructionalstrategies” (Paul et al., 2013, p. 151) inorder to support students who areD/HH. The purpose of the presentstudy was to investigate two such aspects: the role of access to the morphology and syntax of English- language development and readingachievement. The participants wereD/HH and enrolled in the same school


357


program, where simultaneous speechand a specific system of grammaticallyaccurate SEE was modeled and ex-pected. This system gave these stu-dents access to the audibly insalientcomponents of English, such as pro-nouns, articles, conjunctions, andbound morphemes, critical for gainingaccess to the vocabulary and grammarcommon in reading materials beyondthe third grade. We hypothesized thatsuch access would allow the study par-ticipants to achieve within the averagerange on standardized measures oflanguage and reading when comparedto hearing peers. It was found thatthere was a developmental trend (andno plateau) in the English-languageand reading achievement of the stu-dents, with the older ones scoring generally higher than the youngerones; more than half of the partici-pants demonstrated average or above-average command of morphology andsyntax, an integral CALP component(Cummins, 1980, 1984). MA was neces-sary to receive a high test score, andspeech was not significantly correlatedwith language skills or reading achieve-ment. In addition, students with higherEnglish-language ability scored higherin general on tests of reading vocabu-lary and comprehension; as a group,the students read within the averagerange when compared to hearingpeers on a standardized measure ofreading achievement; all but one ofthe students in grades 4–8 read withinthe average range. Thus, achievementdid not plateau for this group. Finally,language proficiency, as measured onthe standardized CELF-4, predictedreading achievement.The present study is a contribution

to the field of deaf education becauseit underscores the need for access to the morphology of English whenstudents are D/HH—essential to un-locking the words of more challengingtext—through a specific invented sign

system. It is critical that ways to providemore access to English morphology beidentified as one means of supportingstudents who are D/HH so that theycan continue to progress and reachtheir literacy and academic potential.

ReferencesAlvermann, D., Unrau, N. J., & Rudell, R. B.

(2013). Theoretical models and processes ofreading (6th ed.). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Appelman, K., Callahan, J., & Lowenbraun, S.(1980). Teaching the hearing impairedthrough Total Communication. Columbus,OH: Merrill.

Appelman, K., Callahan, J., Mayer, M., Luetke,B., & Stryker, D. (2012). Education, employ-ment, and independent living of youngadults who are deaf and hard of hearing.American Annals of the Deaf, 157(3),264–275.

Bennett, J. G., Gardner, R., & Rizzi, G. L. (2014).Deaf and hard of hearing students’ through-the-air English skills: A review of formal as-sessments. American Annals of the Deaf,158(5), 506–521. doi:10.1353/aad.2014.0003

Berninger, V., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle,J. (2010). Growth in phonological, ortho-graphic, and morphological awareness ingrades 1 to 6. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch, 39(2), 141–163. doi:10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6

Bess, F., Dodd-Murphy, J., & Parker, R. (1998).Children with minimal sensorineural hearingloss: Prevalence, educational performance,and functional status. Ear and Hearing,19(5), 339–354.

Bornstein, H., Saulnier, K., & Hamilton, L. (Eds.).(1983). The comprehensive signed Englishdictionary. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Uni-versity Press.

Bow, C. P., Blamey, P. J., Paatsch, L. E., & Sarant,J. Z. (2004). The effects of phonological andmorphological training on speech percep-tion scores and grammatical judgments indeaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal ofDeaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(3),305–314.

Briggs, R. (1978). The snowman storybook. NewYork, NY: Random House.

Cannon, J., & Kirby S. (2013). Grammar struc-tures and deaf and hard of hearing students:A review of past performance and report ofnew findings. American Annals of the Deaf,158(3), 292–310.

Carlisle, J. (2004). Morphological processes thatinfluence learning to read. In C. A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.),Handbook of language and literacy: Devel-opment and disorders (pp. 318–339). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.

Catts, H. (1993). The relationship between

speech-language impairments and readingdisabilities. Journal of Speech, Language,and Hearing Research, 36(5), 948–958.

doi:10.1044/jshr.3605.948Cheney, H., Compton, C., & Harder, K. (1988).

Developmental language curriculum: Acomprehensive guide and record-keepingsystem for hearing-impaired students, in-fants through 12 years. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopediaof the English language. Cambridge, Eng-land: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (1980). The entry and exit fallacyin bilingual education. National Associa-tion for Bilingual Education Journal, 4(3),25–59. doi:10.1080/08855072.1980.10668382

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special ed-ucation: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

DePaola, T. (1987). Sing, Pierrot, sing. SanDiego, CA: Harcourt.

De Villers, J. G., & deVillers, P. A. (1978). Lan-guage acquisition. Boston, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.� � � �

Dunn, Lloyd M., & Dunn, Leota M. (1997).Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.).Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Ser-vice.

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teach-ers need to know about language. In C. T.Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.),What teachers need to know about lan-guage (pp. 7–53). McHenry, IL: Center forApplied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

Gaustad, M., & Kelly, R. (2004). The relationshipbetween reading achievement and morpho-logical word analysis in deaf and hearing stu-dents matched for reading level. Journal ofDeaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(3),269–285. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh030

Gaustad, M., Kelly, R., Payne, J., & Lylak, E.(2002). Deaf and hearing students’ morpho-logical knowledge applied to printed Eng-lish. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(5),5–21.

Geers, A. Nicholas, J., & Sedey, A. (2003). Lan-guage skills of children with early cochlearimplantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1),46S–58S.

Geers, A., Tobey, E., Moog, J., & Brenner, C.(2008). Long-term outcomes of cochlear im-plantation in the preschool years: From ele-mentary grades to high school. InternationalJournal of Audiology, 47(S2), S21–S30.doi:10.1080/14992020802339167

Gilbert, J., Goodwin, A., Compton, D., & Kearns,D. (2014). Multisyllabic word reading as amoderator of morphological awareness andreading comprehension. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 47(1), 34–43. doi:10.1177/0022219413509966

Gilbertson, M., & Kamhi, A. G. (1995). Novelword learning in children with hearing im-


358



pairment. Journal of Speech and HearingResearch, 38(3), 630–642.

Goodwin, A., Gilbert, J., & Cho, S. (2013). Mor-phological contributions to adolescentword reading: An item response approach.Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 39–60.doi:10.1002/rrq.037

Guo, L.Y., Spencer, P., & Tomblin, B. (2013). Ac-quisition of tense marking in English-speak-ing children with cochlear implants: Alongitudinal study. Journal of Deaf Studiesand Deaf Education, 18(2), 187–205.doi:10.1093/deafed/ens069

Gustason G. (1990). Signing Exact English. In H.Bornstein (Ed.), Manual communication:Implications for education (pp. 108–127).Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D., & Zawolkow, E.(1973). Signing Exact English. Los Alamitos,CA: Modern Signs.

Gustason, G., & Zawolkow, E. (1993). SigningExact English. Los Alamitos, CA: ModernSigns.

Harris, M., & Terlektsi, E. (2011). Reading andspelling abilities of deaf adolescents withcochlear implants and hearing aids. Journalof Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 16(1),24–34. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq031

Johnson, C., & Goswami, U. (2010). Phonologi-cal awareness, vocabulary, and reading indeaf children with cochlear implants. Jour-nal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Re-search, 53(2), 237–261.

Kelly, R. R., & Gaustad, M. G. (2007). Deaf col-lege students’ mathematical skills relative tomorphological knowledge, reading level, andlanguage proficiency. Journal of Deaf Stud-ies and Deaf Education, 12(1), 25–37.doi:10.1093/deafed/enh030

Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role ofderivational morphological awareness in thereading comprehension of Spanish-speakingEnglish language learners. Reading and Writ-ing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(8),783–804. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8

Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2012). Languageplanning: Revisiting bilingual language pol-icy for deaf children. Journal of Deaf Stud-ies and Deaf Education, 17(3), 291–305.doi:10.1093/deafed/ens018

Koehlinger, K. M., Van Horne, A., & Moeller, M.P. (2013). Grammatical outcomes of 3- and6-year-old children who are hard of hearing.Journal of Speech, Language, and HearingResearch, 56(5), 1701–1714. doi:10.1044/1092-4388

Krashen, S. D. (1985), The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY:Longman.

Kyle, F. E., & Harris, M. (2010). Predictors ofreading development in deaf children: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experi-mental Child Psychology, 107(3), 229–243.doi:10.1016/.jecp.2010.04.011.

LaSasso, C., & Crain, K. (2010). Cued Speech for

the development of deaf students’ readingcomprehension and measured comprehen-sion. In C. LaSasso, K. Crain, & J. Leybaert(Eds.), Cued Speech and cued language fordeaf and hard of hearing children (pp.285–322). San Diego, CA: Plural.

Leigh, G. (1995). Teachers’ use of Australiansigned English system for simultaneous com-munication with their hearing impaired stu-dents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Monash University, Sydney, Australia.

Ling, D. (1978). Teacher/clinician’s planbookand guide to the development of speechskills. Washington, DC: Alexander GrahamBell Association for the Deaf.

Lippke, B. A., Dickey, S. E., Selmar, J. W., &Soder, A. L. (1997). The photo articulationtest (PAT-3). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Luetke, B. (2013, April). Research update: Signsupported speech. Workshop presented atthe meeting of the Center for ChildhoodDeafness and Hearing Loss: Using Sign Sup-ported Speech to Improve Speech and Eng-lish Grammar, Tacoma, WA.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (l988a). Educational ramifi-cations of various instructional inputs forhearing-impaired students. Association ofCanadian Educators of the Hearing Im-paired Journal, 14(3), 105–121.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (l988b). The benefit of oralEnglish-only as compared with signed inputto hearing-impaired students. Volta Review,90(7), 349–361.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (l989). Documenting syntac-tically and semantically incomplete bimodalinput to hearing impaired participants. Amer-ican Annals of the Deaf, 133(3), 230–234.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1991). Following the rules:Consistency in sign. Journal of Speech andHearing Research, 34(6), 1293–1298.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1996). A history of SeeingEssential English (SEE I). American Annalsof the Deaf, 141(1), 29–33.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1998). Language issues indeaf education. Hillsboro, OR: Butte.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (2000). One mother’s story.Los Alamitos, CA: Modern Signs.

Luetke-Stahlman, B., & Moeller, M. P. (1990). En-hancing parents’ use of Signing Exact Eng-lish: Progress and retention. AmericanAnnals of the Deaf, 135(5), 371–378.

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., &Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie read-ing tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Marschark, M., Rhoten, C., & Fabich, M. (2007).Effects of cochlear implants on children’sreading and academic achievement. Journalof Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3),269–282.

Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the earlyliteracy development of deaf children. Jour-nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,12(4), 411–431.

Mayer, C., & Akamatsu, C. (2000). Deaf childrencreating written texts: Contributions of Amer-

ican Sign Language and signed forms of Eng-lish. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5),394–403.

Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2014). Is reading differ-ent for deaf individuals? Reexamining the roleof phonology. American Annals of the Deaf,159(4), 359–371. doi:10.1353/aad.2014.0032

Mayer, M. (2003). Frog goes to dinner.New York,NY: Dial.

Mayer, M. (2013, April). Strategies to support lis-tening, speech, and English with Signing Ex-act English. Workshop presented at themeeting of the Center for Childhood Deaf-ness and Hearing Loss: Using Sign Sup-ported Speech to Improve Speech andEnglish Grammar, Tacoma, WA.

Mayer, M., & Lowenbraun, S. (1990). Total Com-munication use among elementary teachersof hearing impaired children. American An-nals of the Deaf, 135(3), 257–263.

McGuckian, M., & Henry, A. (2007). The gram-matical morpheme deficit in moderate hear-ing impairment. International Journal ofLanguage and Communication Disorders,42(Suppl. 1), 17–36.

McGuinness, D. (2005). Language developmentand learning to read: The scientific study ofhow language development affects readingskill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McLean, M., Nielsen, D. C., Stryker, D., & Luetke,B. (2014). Characteristics of students whoread on grade level: What can teachers influ-ence? Canadian Journal of Education ofthe Deaf, 5(1), 18–25, 36–37.

Moeller, M. P., & Luetke-Stahlman, B. (l990). Par-ents’ use of Signing Exact English: A descrip-tive analysis. Journal of Speech and HearingDisorders, 55(2), 327–338.

Moog, J. S. (2002). Changing expectations forchildren with cochlear implants. Annals ofOtology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 111(5),138–142.

Moores, D. (2000). Educating the deaf: Psychol-ogy, principles, and practices (5th ed.).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Moores, D., & Sweet, C. (1990). Factors predic-tive of school achievement. In D. Moores &K. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.), Educational anddevelopmental aspects of deafness (pp.154–201). Washington, DC: Gallaudet Uni-versity Press.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006).Contributions of morphology beyondphonology to literacy outcomes of upper el-ementary and middle school students. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 98(1),134–147.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., &Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of mor-phology and other language skills to literacyskills in at-risk second-grade readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 95(4), 730–742.

Nagy, W., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2014).Morphological knowledge and literacy ac-


359


quisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities,47(1), 3–12. doi:10.1177/0022219413509967

Nielsen, D. C., Luetke, B., & Stryker, D. (2011).The importance of morphemic awarenessto reading achievement and the potential ofsigning morphemes to supporting readingdevelopment. Journal of Deaf Studies andDeaf Education, 16(3), 275–288.

Nielsen, D. C., & Luetke-Stahlman, B. (2002).The benefit of assessment-based languageand reading instruction: Perspectives from acase study. Journal of Deaf Studies and DeafEducation, 7(2), 149–186.

Paul, P., Wang, Y., & Williams, C. (2013). Deaf stu-dents and the qualitative similarity hypoth-esis: Understanding language and literacydevelopment. Washington, DC: GallaudetUniversity Press.

Quigley, S., & King, C. (1980). Syntactic per-formance of hearing impaired and normalhearing individuals. Applied Psycholinguis-tics, 1(4), 329–356.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading forunderstanding: Toward an R&D program inreading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA:RAND.

Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Schick, B., & Moeller, M. P. (1992). What is learn-

able in Manually Coded English sign systems?Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(3), 313–340.

S.E.E. Center for the Advancement of Deaf Chil-dren. (1991). Educational sign skills evalu-ation (receptive and educational sign skillsevaluation): Interpreting (ESSE). Los Alami-tos, CA: Author.

Semel, E, Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinicalevaluation of language fundamentals–4.(CELF-4). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Slingerland, B. H. (1996). A multi-sensory ap-proach to language arts for specific lan-guage- disability children. Cambridge, MA:Educators Publishing Service.

Spencer, P., & Marschark, M. (2010). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Stout, G. G., & Van Ert Windle, J. (1992). Devel-opmental approach to successful daily lis-tening II. Englewood, CO: Cochlear Corp.

Tomblin, J., Spencer, L., & Gantz, B. (2000). Lan-guage and reading acquisition in childrenwith and without cochlear implants. Ad-vances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 57,300–304.

Traxler, C. (2000). Measuring up to performancestandards in reading and mathematics:Achievement of selected deaf and hard of

hearing students in the national norming ofthe ninth edition Stanford Achievement Test.Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa-tion, 5(4), 337–348.

Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2010). Read-ing and deafness: Theory, research, andpractice. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Van Hoogmoed, A., Knoors, H, Schreuder, R., &Verhoeven, L. (2013). Complex word read-ing in Dutch deaf children and adults. Re-search in Developmental Disabilities,34(3), 1083–1089. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.010

Wake, M., Hughes, E., Poulakis, Z., Collins, C., &Richards, F. (2004). Outcomes of childrenwith mild-profound congenital hearing lossat 7 to 8 years: A population study. Ear andHearing, 25(1), 1–8.

Wang, Y., & Andrews, J. (2014). Reading and deafindividuals: Perspectives on the qualitativesimilarity hypothesis. American Annals ofthe Deaf, 159(4), 319–322. doi:10.1353/aad.2014.0028

Werner, E., & Krescheck, J. (1983). Structuredphotographic expressive language test.Sandwich, IL: Janelle Publications.

Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock reading mas-tery test–revised. Circle Pines, MN: AmericanGuidance Service.


360



Appendix A

Language Sample of a Teacher of the Deaf (TOD) at a School Using Simultaneous Spoken English and Signing Exact English (SEE)

The following transcription uses the convention of lowercase letters to represent spoken-English words andunderlining to represent signed morphemes. For example, the words for “DO YOU THINK THOSE ARE COCONUT+S marker” are underlined in the first utterance to show that TOD 1 paired seven signs withspeech when talking to a kindergarten child during tutoring.

SignedOh, do you think those are apples? (7)Oh, you know what? (3)Those are coconuts. (4)Yeah, with an /s/ on the end. (5)Because I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. (9)Six coconuts—yeah (Reinforcing listening).Can you tell me the /s/ on the end of coconuts? (12)Good /s/ sound. (3)Very nice. (2)You love coconuts? (4)Oh, you are asking for the squirrel. (7)May I have the squirrel? (5)Ah, again. (1)OK, listen again for the word “the.” (6)Listen. (1)(Said behind a speech hoop) May I have the squirrel?Oh, you are so close! (4)Good job. (2)Listen again for “may I.” (5)(Said behind a speech hoop) May I have the squirrel?(Routine reinforcement) Good job.You may have the squirrel after we are finished with vocabulary. (11)OK? (1)You say “OK.” (3)OK. (1)Listen again. (2)You may have the squirrel after we finish with vocabulary. (10)(Said behind a speech hoop) OK.Better /k/ sound. (3)Good job. (2)

Notes. Sign-to-voice ratio = 113 of 119, or 95%. Sign-to-voice ratio if the word “oh” is counted = 94%.


361


Appendix B

Communication Strategies Used at the School in Conjunction With Signing Exact English (SEE)

LISTENING

1. Audiological management of assistive listening devices that are state of the art, worn daily, working, andsafe.a. Equipment checked twice daily, including the Ling Six Sound Test.b. Children begin to learn to manage and maintain their equipment beginning at 3 years of age.

2. Listening skills are assessed both formally and informally, with instruction guided by daily recordkeeping.

3. Listening instruction, reinforcement, and practice are embedded in all lessons throughout the day sothat automatic listening skills are developed (Appelman et al., 1980).

4. Daily, individualized, direct instruction based on each student’s needs is provided by a trained teacher ofthe deaf.

5. Modeling, reinforcement, and repetition are used to encourage listening.6. Request students to listen/audition only, using a speech/listening hoop, standing behind or to the side of

the child or turning away, asking students to close their eyes or put their heads down, etc.7. “Verbal highlighting” is used with and without the speech hoop.8. Students are requested to listen for a particular phoneme, morpheme, phrase, or utterance.9. Use of “Auditory Sandwich” [e.g., “Touch the /–s/ (auditory); touch the /–s/ (auditory and sign); touch the

/–s/ (auditory only)].10. Speaking and using the speech hoop while counting syllables via sign.

SPEECH ARTICULATION

11. Speech skills are assessed both formally and informally, with instruction guided by daily record keeping.12. The “Again” strategy: Speech instruction, reinforcement, and practice are embedded in all lessons

throughout the school day, so that automatic speech skills are developed (Appelman et al., 1980).13. Modeling, specific reinforcement, and repetition are used to encourage speech production (e.g., “You

said a better /k/ sound! Good job! /k/, /k/. Good”).14. Daily, individualized, direct instruction based on each student’s needs is provided by the trained teacher

of the deaf.15. Highlighting of phonemes, syllables, and morphemes, in speech and signs, is used.16. Direct instruction is used (e.g., “You are saying a /d/ sound; I want it to come from the back of your

throat”).17. Physical prompts are used to aid production.18. Words are broken up into familiar parts of speech so that the child can produce each syllable (e.g.,

“cat er pill ar”).19. The handshape is used at the beginning of a sign to cue the word the teacher predicts the child might

omit as he or she is speaking.20. The student is requested to say a specific phoneme, morpheme, word, or phrase.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

21. Grammar skills are assessed formally and informally, with instruction guided by daily record keeping.22. The “Again” strategy: Grammar instruction, reinforcement, and practice are embedded in all lesson

throughout the day so that automatic grammar skills are developed (Appelman et al., 1980).


362



23. Modeling, reinforcement, and repetition of grammatically accurate, authentic Standard English insimultaneous spoken English and SEE are used.

24. Receptive and expressive skills are assessed both formally and informally, with language instructionguided by daily record keeping.

25. Strategies for using correct vocabulary and grammar are embedded in all lessons throughout the day sothat automatic grammar skills are developed (Appelman et al., 1980).

26. Daily individual direct instruction based on each student’s needs is provided by the teacher of the deaf.27. Highlighting of phonemes, syllables, and morphemes in speech and signs is used.28. Direct instruction is used (e.g., “Can you put the word “an” in that sentence?”).29. Respond to child-led topic, expand utterance, paraphrase, etc. (Luetke-Stahlman, 1998).30. Manually modeling, correcting, or manipulating fingers and hands is used to promote correct

articulation of signed morphemes.


363



364


Appendix C

Grammatical Signing While Speaking, Calculated for Language Samples in M. Mayer (2013)

<appn>Appendix C</>

<appt>Grammatical Signing While Speaking, Calculated for Language Samples in M. Mayer

(2013)</>

Teachers Omissions Student age, number of samples

Sign-to-voice ratio

TOD 1 1 one-word comment; 1 five-word utterance;

3 uses of “ah” or “oh”;

1 use of “OK.”

1 sample, kindergartener

95%, 26 utterances (see Appendix A).

TOD 2,

reading discussion

–1 “yes/yeah” at the beginning of utterances;

–1 word (“but”) at beginning of utterance.

3 samples; fourth graders

97%, 20 sentences

TOD 3,

math discussion

–1 third-person “s”;

the word “so” at the beginning of an utterance;

–1 contracted “s”

7th–8th grade math

98%, 20 sentences

TOD 4,

math with speech correction work

2– plural “s”

3–yeah/yup and 1 OK at the beginning of utterances;

3–word “6” and “60” during speech work;

5 morphemes at the beginning of two different sentences.

2 sessions with 7th–8th graders

90% with speech work, 92% without speech work; 20 sentences

TOD 5 “OK” and “oops” omitted at the beginning of two utterances;

1 five-word utterance

Fourth graders; speech and listening work during vocabulary review

92%, 16 utterances


Appendix D

Morphemic Awareness (MA) Assessment


365

Item Sentence starter Circle the answer

1 The cat was _____ with me. play

plays

played

playing

2 The boy _____ loudly, doesn’t he? talk

talks

talking

talked

3 Dad ____ the steps yesterday. clean

cleans

cleaned

cleaning

4 I see many _____ at the school. buses

bus

busing

busly

5 The girl ____ well. readly

reading

reads

readed

6 Dad _____ the house last week. paint

paints

painting

painted

7 The bee _____ noisily. buzz

buzzes

buzzly

buzzment

8 The dog is _____ with the boy. running

runs

ran

run

9 She makes me laugh. She is so _____. funny

funniness

funnying

funniest

10 He ____ the race last year. win

won

winning

winded



366


11 Her mother looks ________. love

loves

loveful

lovely

12 His hands are so ____! dirtiness

dirted

dirty

dirt

13 That’s the ____ food. cat

cat’s

cats

catful

14 She acted ____. bravely

braved

braving

braves

15 The boy ____down yesterday. fall

falls

fells

fell

16 That is the _____ toy. dog

dogs

dog’s

dogful

17. OK, good, we are in _____. agreement

agree

agrees

agreeing

18 That baby is the _____ kid in the world! happy

happiest

happier

happily

19 I am _____ the toy can be fixed. hope

hoped

hopefully

hopeful

20 The green book is the _____ one of all. new

newer

newest

news



367

21 Wow, that tool is really _____. use

useful

using

usement

22 The nozzle is broken. There is no ____. movement

move

moves

moved

23 I don’t want any of that food because it’s ____. taste

tastes

tasting

tasteless

24 You showed _____ when you helped her. kind

kindly

kindness

kindful

25 Please ___ your hair because I like it better when it’s long. reclip

unclip

misclip

preclip

26 The green wagon is _____ than the red wagon. longest

long

longing

longer

27 Put your dirty clothes in the laundry basket after you ___. disdress

predress

undress

imdress

28 Did you _____ while I was gone today? misbehave

unbehave

prebehave

rebehave

29 Watch out! You are being _____. careless

carely

careful

caring

30 Don’t _____ the words on your spelling test. unspell

disspell

respell

misspell



368


31 The blue truck is _____ than the green car. big

biggest

bigger

bigging

32 I didn’t hear you. Will you _____ what you said? dispeat

repeat

mispeat

unpeat

33 Mom _____ with me and said I was wrong. reagreed

misagreed

unagreed

disagreed

34 Before starting to bake the cookies, ___ the oven. preheat

disheat

reheat

unheat

35 I feel such ______. happy

happiness

happily

happyful

36 Please _____ that messy paper. diswrite

unwrite

rewrite

prewrite

37 The car didn’t move. It was _____. mismobile

premobile

immobile

remobile

38 I think you were ____ when you said you said you didn’t cheat. mishonest

dishonest

rehonest

unhonest

39 I will give you a ______ to see which words you already know how to spell. pretest

untest

retest

mistest

40 That silly behavior is _____. remature

premature

postmature

immature


the english-language and reading achievement … english-language and reading ... abbott, vaughan,...

Documents