University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

We can read and write: critical characteristics of highly literate deaf and hard of hearing students and their families

(USC Thesis Other)

We can read and write: critical characteristics of highly literate deaf and hard of hearing students and their families

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content WE CAN READ AND WRITE; CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF HIGHLY LITERATE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES

by

Deborah Lynne Hamm

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEREN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Deborah Lynne Hamm
ii

DEDICATION
To parents and teachers who do not give up. To children who teach us so much-
-if we are only willing to learn from them.
iii

Table of Contents
Dedication ................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................... v

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................... 6
Background of the Problem ................................................................................ 7
Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 13
Importance of the Study ..................................................................................... 13
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 16
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................ 16

Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................... 23
Brief Overview of the History of Deaf Education in America ........................... 23
Special Education Schooling and Hearing Loss ................................................. 27
Inclusion ............................................................................................................. 29
Achievement Gaps and DHH Students .............................................................. 31
The Importance of Literacy ................................................................................ 33
Literacy and the DHH Child ............................................................................... 33
Comprehension and Vocabulary Development for DHH Students .................... 39
Schema Building and DHH Students ................................................................. 41
Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education .................................................................. 46
Technology use Including Cochlear Implants .................................................... 51
Family Influences of DHH Students‟ Early Language Development ................ 62
The Role of Family Beliefs and DHH Students ................................................. 65
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 68

Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................. 71
Research Design ................................................................................................. 71
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 72
Sample and Population ....................................................................................... 73
Sampling Strategy and Research Context .......................................................... 75
Data sources and Instrumentation ...................................................................... 77
Questionnaires and Interviews ........................................................................... 79
Documentation ................................................................................................... 81
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 82
iv

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 83
Triangulation ...................................................................................................... 84
Role of the Researcher ........................................................................................ 86
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 86
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 87

Chapter 4: Findings .................................................................................................... 89
Case Study 1--Elizabeth ..................................................................................... 91
Review of Elizabeth‟s Case Study ..................................................................... 98
Case Study 2--Sherry .......................................................................................... 99
Review of Sherry‟s Case .................................................................................... 105
Case Study 3--Johnny ......................................................................................... 105
Review of Johnny‟s Case ................................................................................... 110
Analysis Across Case Studies ............................................................................ 111
Computer Technology ........................................................................................ 124
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 154

Chapter 5: Conclusions ............................................................................................... 132
Summary of the Findings by Research Question ............................................... 132
Implications for Practice .................................................................................... 137
Implications for Research …………………………………………………… .. 141
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 142
Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 144

References ................................................................................................................... 148

Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment Script-High School Graduate ..................................... 154
Appendix B Recruitment Script-Parent ............................................................... 155
Appendix C: Informed Consent-Student .............................................................. 156
Appendix D: Consent to Participate ..................................................................... 159
Appendix E: Student Questionnaire ..................................................................... 162
Appendix F: Parent Questionnaire ....................................................................... 163
Appendix G: Interpreter Confidentiality .............................................................. 166

v

List of Tables

Table 1: Background Information of the Participants ................................................ 77
Table 2: Data Sources ................................................................................................. 77
Table 3: Data Collection Chart ................................................................................... 84

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1. 2006 STAR Results, CSDR, Language Arts ............................................... 4
Figure 2. 2006 STAR Math Scores, CSDR ................................................................ 5
Figure 3. California ELA Test Scores for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students ......... 7
Figure 4. 2005-2006 State of California Data from STAR Testing ........................... 32
Figure 5. Data Analysis Cycle .................................................................................... 85

vii

Abstract
Historically, people who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH) have not
succeeded academically. Literacy skills for students with hearing loss are well below
average on all measures. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has made this achievement gap
public by requiring data on this subgroup. Yet, even with the overwhelming number of
“failing” students, some are successful. This is a case study of 3 highly successful high
school graduate extreme cases. The cases represent different etiologies, different
communication choices, differing degrees of hearing loss, and family structures. The
researcher is interested in identifying factors that contributed to the success of these
three students and as families are the foundation upon which children develop, the
parents will be given questionnaires and interviewed to gather suggestions for other
parents of children who are deaf and to inform future practices of the professionals in
the field of Deaf education.
1

Chapter 1:
Introduction
There is a large body of research documenting that the reading achievement of
students with hearing loss is very poor (Cawthon, 2004; Miller, 2004; Padden &
Ramsey, 1998). Researchers, regardless of their theoretical or communicative stance all
agree that consistently, children with hearing loss do not perform well on academic
measures, particularly reading and language measures. Causes for under performance
and interventions related to addressing this gap in achievement are the subject of much
educational research for many subgroups (Harris & Moreno, 2004). There is little
research examining successful Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students and how they
became successful. This study is designed to examine DHH recent high school
graduates who are literate and their families to identify their beliefs, programs,
parenting, etc. to identify any commonalities.
Federal legislation called, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), requires states to
implement statewide accountability systems based on challenging standards in reading
and mathematics for all public schools and students, ensuring that all groups of students
reach proficiency by the year 2014. Assessment results and state progress objectives
should be broken out by subgroups (poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited
English proficiency) to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools
that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals
will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring
measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet state standards (NCLB, 2002).
2

Prior to NCLB, the Education of Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL94-142)
was foundational for changing the climate for the education of children with disabilities.
PL94-142 had four main points for disabled education. These are free and appropriate
public education (FAPE); placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE);
protecting the rights of children with disabilities; and a call to educate all children with
disabilities. PL 94-142 set the foundation for both, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA 1997, IDEIA, 2004), and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
of 2002. Both IDEA and IDEIA set expectations beyond access and educational
placement. IDEA/IDEIA supported the belief that students with disabilities should
produce academic results similar to their non-disabled peers. NCLB (2002) put into
place a system of accountability measures for student achievement--for all students.
The shift from the issue of appropriate placements to focusing on academic
accomplishments or results that mirror non-disabled students is critical for all disabled
students (Grenot-Scheyer, Jubala, Bishop, & Coots, 1996; Kochhar, West, & Taymans,
2000) and can be readily applied to the education of students who are deaf or hard of
hearing. DHH students have been considered disabled and entitled to special services
but have rarely been held accountable for academic accomplishments on par with
hearing students.
Students with hearing loss who are receiving special education services are all
labeled as being DHH and are enrolled in a DHH program. These students are a
subgroup of the K-12 public school population, and are expected to meet the same
requirements, achievement-wise as their non-disabled peers. In California, the
3

standardized testing data used is the Standardized Testing and Reporting program
(STAR) data. The STAR program measures the progress schoolchildren in California
have made on meeting California‟s Content Standards by grade level. The scores on the
tests that comprise the STAR report are compared with other students in California and
nationally. Schools are “graded” by the results of the STAR report. Including large
numbers of special education students in a school site‟s STAR data has the potential to
lower the schools rankings. Whether or not to test DHH students on tests normed for
hearing students is a recent debate as previously special education students were either
not tested, or their test results were not included in school site report, this is particularly
true for students who have a hearing loss (Sager, 2007).
STAR data measures academic progress for students in public schools, but this
was not always applied to DHH students as historically and traditionally, most children
with hearing loss were enrolled in state run residential schools for the Deaf. These
schools are just beginning to collect and report some data for the students enrolled there
(Mayer, 2007). Residential schools began in the 1880s and were believed to be the
most expedient and effective way to pool resources and provide the best education for
students who were considered defective (Richardson & Parker, 1993).
California has two residential schools for the Deaf and both schools report
STAR data. While one might expect deaf students to struggle with English/Language
Arts, the proficient level on these subtests varies from 0% (the most frequent score) to a
high of 14% for 6
th
graders with 8
th
and 9
th
graders posting 11% proficient. For
example the DHH students at the California School for the Deaf, Riverside (CSDR)
4

reported that students in grades 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7 scored 0% advanced proficient (see
Figure 1).

Figure 1. 2006 STAR Results, CSDR, Language Arts

The reading and language arts scores for the students enrolled at CSDR do not
meet the minimum requirements under NCLB guidelines. One might expect that the
math scores would be higher. However, as noted in Figure 2, the math scores for DHH
students are not significantly higher than language arts. While 27% of 3
rd
graders and
31% of 4
th
graders scored proficient on the math subtest no 5
th
graders did. Of the
students tested in algebra I, only 3% scored at the proficient level. For High School
math, geometry and algebra II the results are lower, 0% of the students pass these
2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th
Far below basic 36% 67% 53% 74% 67% 77% 69% 82% 69% 85%
Below Basic 27% 33% 29% 9% 24% 13% 31% 14% 26% 5%
Basic 27% 0% 12% 13% 5% 3% 0% 4% 3% 5%
Proficient 9% 0% 6% 4% 5% 6% 0% 0% 3% 5%
Advanced 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
5

exams, even at the basic level. All of these students are scoring below or far below
basic.

Figure 2. 2006 STAR Math Scores, CSDR

DHH students in grades 8 and 9 were tested on grade 6 and 7 tests and still
scored 0% proficient. Students enrolled in the residential schools for the Deaf certainly
are in a sociocultural setting and one might expect the scores to be higher as they are
enrolled in a program with other deaf students and have access to ASL and role models
as opposed to DHH students who are “isolated” in traditional programs.
NCLB (2002) requires the identification of adequate yearly progress objectives
and requires the disaggregated reporting of results for improved achievement by all
students and for specific groups in order to engage in a process of “alignment” and
2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th
Advanced 9% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Proficient 18% 17% 0% 13% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Basic 9% 8% 24% 4% 14% 3% 3% 12% 0% 0%
Below Basic 18% 42% 35% 26% 29% 35% 47% 38% 0% 0%
Far below basic 45% 33% 29% 57% 57% 58% 50% 50% 0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
6

change for improvement (Linn & Baker, 2002). In California, achievement data for the
DHH students and programs has been collected as a sub group since 2007 (Sager,
2007). Requiring yearly progress for students in the DHH program as a group was not
possible prior to 2007 as there was no group data. Even without explicit data, the
achievement gap for DHH students has been noted in the research for many years
(Schirmer & McGough, 2005). That this has remained accepted, and acknowledged
without test data speaks to the widespread nature of the problem. With NCLB (2002)
making this data public, improving the academic performance for students who are
DHH is now a focus.
Statement of the Problem
At the 2007 California Achievement Gap Conference, Nancy Sager, CDE
Consultant for students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing stated that less than 8% of the
DHH students who are assessed are able to score at the proficient or advanced proficient
level on reading assessments. She admitted that they had not previously disaggregated
data for the DHH program, but were currently working on publishing that data. Figure
3 (below) illustrates the data released showing the California English Language Arts
testing results for students enrolled in the DHH program. The data are disaggregated by
hearing status (Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing) as the students are identified for special
education services.
The California data show clearly that students who are enrolled as DHH students
in the State of California are not meeting the academic goals set forth under NCLB
7

(2001) or IDEIA (2004). The data show that DHH students are not meeting proficiency
levels.

Figure 3: California ELA Test Scores for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

Background of the Problem
There are many theories as to why so many DHH students do not acquire
literacy skills. Often the context of the family and the lack of an early use of signing
are considered to be reasons for the data presented in Figures 1 and 3, even though the
data do not provide matching information as to the level of signing in the families.
Both Deaf and Hard of Hearing students are scoring below the target score of advanced
or proficient. Even if the scores of Deaf and Hard of Hearing students were combined,
few of the students would score advanced in English Language Arts and the vast
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Far Below
Basic
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Hard of Hearing
Deaf
Percent of Students
8

majority would score Far Below Basic--which is not acceptable. Often, the reason
given for the lack of literacy for DHH students is focused on the early home life of the
child.
According to Luckner and Velaski, (2004) a common statement is that parents
are the child‟s first and most important teachers who set the foundation for success, yet
90% of children who are born deaf are born into hearing families, and a means of
communication will need to be developed. The familial context is an important
component in the literacy development of DHH students. The importance of early
interventions and family education has been codified by legislation (Luckner &
Velaski).
Upon the diagnosis of hearing loss, families need to make many life-altering
decisions about and for their baby. The choices between types of hearing aides to use,
whether to surgically implant cochlear implants (CI), choices about which mode of
communication to use, (oral, ASL, SEE or total communication) and type of
educational placement (public school, special education, residential school) have life
altering implications. The choices the families make and the role they play in the
educational success of their child is the focus of many research studies (Kuntze, 1998;
Luckner & Velaski, 2004; Stewart & Clark, 2003).
Theoretical Framework
Social cognitive theory, ecocultural theory, and social constructivism guide this
dissertation theoretically. Social cognitive theory as espoused by Bandura and Huston
(1961) holds that a child‟s behaviors are acquired through identification with important
9

adults in their lives. Environment (including nurturing) interacts with personal qualities
and are incidental and imitative and not directly taught.
Other important components include interest, goals, and motivation (Bandura &
Huston, 1961; Eccles & Wigfield, 1992). These variables have largely been considered
and researched separately. Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) reviewed the two separate
areas of interest and goals and argue that a multi-dimensional approach is warranted
(especially for unmotivated students). They state that research needs to attend to the
importance that significant others play in the academic success of students.
In a review of research which focused on motivating unmotivated students, Hidi
and Harackiewicz (2000) state that (especially for unmotivated students), research
needs to attend to the importance that significant others play in the academic success of
students. These significant others may be early intervention specialists, teachers,
coaches, and/or parents. The primary source of interactions for children is the family
and the family network or the family system. Within this system, all of the members
are connected to each other and any change affects all of the members. According to
Luterman (1987), when a child is born with hearing loss into a hearing family in one
sense the entire family becomes “deaf” as the relationships all change and respond
differently in order to meet the demands of the child‟s hearing loss. A diagnosis of
hearing loss is stressful and causes the need for a shift in the way the family relates to
each other and works together. Luterman states that the family now needs to respond to
this change and develop into a “deaf family” (p. 7). The family members have to
establish a new system of working and relating to each other. How the family adapts
10

and changes can have a tremendous impact on any child‟s development, but is perhaps
even more important for a deaf child due in part to the isolation of their hearing loss.
In light of the importance of the role of the family for the development of
successful DHH children, a second theoretical frame guiding this study is the ecological
theory of Bronfenbrenner (1986). This takes the social cognitive model a bit further
and emphasizes the importance of the environmental factors in understanding
development. These factors are categorized by five environmental systems: the
microsystem (family, school, and peers), the mesosystem (the interaction between the
microsystem and the exosystem), the exosystem (neighbors, social welfare, media, and
work), the macrosystem (the cultural attitudes and ideologies), and the chronosystem
(the patterns of events over a lifetime). Each of these systems affects and interacts with
each other with the individual at the center. The ecological theory can be applied to
hearing loss, particularly as the circle around a diagnosis of hearing loss expands to
include early intervention specialists, speech therapists, audiologists, and perhaps other
specialists.
A child‟s hearing loss can affect the entire system as hearing loss presents
unique challenges to communication, relationships and educational placement (Rousch
and Matkin, 1994). For example, many children with hearing loss attend special pre-
school programs designed for deaf children. Beginning at the preschool level, the
families interact with health care professionals (audiologists, speech therapists,
psychologists), teachers, and special education teachers. These families also meet and
interact with the families of other deaf children, and these children may become the
11

child‟s peer group. The ecology of the family has been altered to include these
„outsiders‟ and adapt their families to include deafness as a part of their family (Rousch
& McWilliam, 1994).
Many researchers in the field of hearing loss, (Hintermair, 2006; Luckner &
Velaski, 2004; Luterman 1987) have focused on the family as being fundamental to the
development of a healthy deaf child. Luterman synthesized research by several family
therapists and identified the characteristics of an optimal family. “Optimal families
should produce optimal hearing-impaired children and adults” (p. 9). The
characteristics of an optimal family include: clear communication between all
members, clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, family members accept limits for
the resolution of conflict, caring, and close relationships, a healthy balance between
change and the maintenance of stability.
Within the ecological framework, the family is at the center of the child‟s life.
For „deaf families‟ the center core is expanded to include various specialists and the
parents may need outside support as they respond to the changing needs and impact of
having a deaf child and becoming a „deaf family‟. The stress may be extreme during
this period, as the family may need to “dissolve” and evolve into a different way of
connecting to each other and the outside world (Luterman, 1987). A term used for this
„reformation‟ is family homeostasis.
Family homeostasis refers to a family seeking to maintain order, balance, and a
sense of continuity in their family life (Luterman, 1987). The diagnosis of hearing loss
upsets the family system and the family will need to respond differently to each other
12

and their child. This is particularly difficult at the time of diagnosis as the family will
not know how to change or what to do (Luterman; Rousch & McWilliam, 1994).
As families are central to the ecology of young children and their development,
a family centered philosophy of services is important. A family centered philosophy
would assume that: (1) social supports affect family functioning; (2) the child‟s needs
are best met by meeting family needs; and (3) families have the right to retain as much
control as they desire over the intervention process (Rousch & McWilliam, 1994).
Early intervention programs for children with disabilities have focused on a family
centered approach. Parent-child relationships are especially important for the language
acquisition of young children with a hearing loss (Luterman, 1987).
Socio-Constructivism
According to the social constructivist theory of Vygotsky, language is acquired
through interactions with others (for young hearing children this interaction is largely
oral and auditory). Through these interactions, learners scaffold or add new knowledge
upon previous knowledge with the support of a more abled other in their zone of
proximal development (ZPD). For children with hearing loss, these interactions may be
limited due to their inability to process the auditory spoken language. In the case of
parenting a child with a hearing loss, the parents too will need to learn how to parent
this particular child and interact with many “new” and different layers (audiologists,
speech therapists, infant specialists, language specialists, IEP, and IFSP teams). Very
little research is being conducted on the parent‟s construction of the knowledge and
skills necessary to support their child with a hearing loss to be successful academically,
13

nor how they remain motivated to continue and persist year after year to support their
child in attaining academic skills (Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young, & Muir,
2005/2006).
Purpose of the Study
Researchers, regardless of their theoretical or communicative stance all agree that
consistently, children with hearing loss do not perform well on academic measures,
particularly reading and language measures. The purpose of this study is to explore the
literacy experiences of literate DHH high school graduates. Using a case study
approach, the study aims to identify the factors that relate to literacy development in
DHH adolescents, and what support structures play role in this process.
Therefore, an overarching research question for this dissertation was: What is
the nature of the literacy experiences of literate DHH high school graduates? Two
subquestions guide this dissertation: (1) What factors are related to literacy
development in DHH adolescents? (2) What do the parents of these successful students
identify that specifically supports the literacy development of their children with a
hearing loss?
Importance of the Study
This dissertation study focused on literate DHH recent high school graduates
(optimal) and their families to identify practices and characteristics of the students and
their families that may have led to their literacy success. To obtain this information, the
students and parents were interviewed to identify what they remember about developing
literacy. This study identified specific practices/experiences that lead to their success as
14

a family and to the literacy development of their student. This knowledge can fill in the
gap as to what successful deaf readers (and families) actually did to develop such
academically optimal children.
Identifying the knowledge, program, or service that these successful families
found supportive can inform future practices. If a specific program or personnel made a
difference, this study will seek to identify specifics that made a difference. Cross-
referencing for any common elements between the families will strengthen the
applicability of this study. In order to be more inclusive of the breadth of the DHH
community, this study examined successfully literate deaf adolescents from a cross-
section of the deaf world. This would include students who are oral and students who
use ASL, families who consider they are part of the Deaf community and families who
identify with the hearing community. All of the participants associated were
interviewed to identify critical characteristics (personal, familial, educational) that they
believed led to their becoming literate. Identifying critical characteristics or
experiences that have lead to these deaf students will provide information to support the
development of future programs for literacy development or family supports.
Recent high school graduates were targeted for this study as these students have
developed and maintained their literacy skills over time. DHH high school graduates
who are literate can provide unique insight into their own literacy development. There
are few highly literate DHH high school students. The average reading level of high
school graduates who are Deaf or hard of hearing is well below hearing peers (Padden
& Ramsey, 1998). Other studies quantify the reading level of high school graduates as
15

averaging a fourth grade level, with about 20% graduating with a reading level below
second grade (Luckner et al, 2005/2006). There is very little research on this small
segment of the DHH population as the focus of research is usually on remediation and
repair (Enns & Lafond, 2007).
The achievement gap for students with hearing loss appears to be similar to the
achievement gap for students with disabilities as a whole (Cawthon, 2007). Studying
successful student with hearing loss may prove to provide useful information for
students with disabilities who are struggling with literacy development. Students who
are deaf or hard of hearing are falling further behind in literacy and research to connect
successful practices for this population is needed to close this gap (Luckner et al,
2005/2006).
Limitations
This study is limited to a very small sub-set of a low incidence group, namely
successfully literate DHH recent high school graduates. This delimitation is intentional
and can also be considered as one of the strengths of this study. These students also
attended the same high school, but were enrolled in different courses. Highly
successful DHH high school graduates have rarely been studied in depth. Nor have the
families of successfully DHH students. This study is also limited to one geographic
area of a large western state although the achievement data for the DHH students in this
state mirrors the national data.

16

Conclusion
Students who are labeled as DHH have not achieved literacy levels
commensurate with students who are hearing. The reasons posited for the low literacy
levels include mode of communication, schooling location, and degree and etiology of
hearing loss.
Literacy achievement for students who are DHH has been elusive. The research
focus has been largely focused on comparing between various DHH groups. Recently,
some researchers have shifted towards using knowledge of the literacy development and
skills used by hearing students as elemental in the literacy development for students
who are DHH. This study will examine three literate DHH high school graduates and
their families to identify programs or factors that contributed to their literacy success.
Definition of Terms

This study will be using vocabulary that are very familiar to the field of
education, yet some of the terms and definitions are specific to the DHH community
and need to be defined in that context. The terms used in this study include:
Achievement Gap: The Achievement Gap most typically refers to the
differences between test scores between white students and racial minority students.
This gap is large and predictable and has been known for many years. Another
Achievement Gap is the gap between hearing students and deaf students. While hard of
hearing students score higher than DHH students, both groups are well below the lowest
scores for all other underachievers.
17

American Sign Language (ASL): This is the language of the Deaf. It is a
manual language that has its own syntax and rules. It is conceptually based and does
not conform to English word order. It does vary regionally much like dialects.
Average Yearly Progress (AYP): This is a set increase each school and/or
subgroup is to make as they improve their test scores.
Bilingual Deaf Education (BDE): An educational and pedagogical approach
that uses bilingual techniques and beliefs to teach deaf children. This approach is very
controversial and has mixed results. BDE is often referred to as a Bilingual-Bicultural
Approach to Deaf Education or Bi-Bi (Mayer & Wells, 1996; Stewart, 1993).
Cochlear Implant (CI): A device that is implanted into the brain with an
exterior magnetized receiver which transmits sounds into the implant which is then
“heard‟ without going through the ear canal.
Deaf or deaf: Capital “D” Deaf refers to one who is deaf or hard of hearing
from a Deaf family or who is deaf and aligns themselves as a member of the Deaf
Culture. Small “d” deaf refers to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing from a
hearing family and/or aligns themselves with the hearing community.
Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH): Refers to all with hearing impairments.
While there are some clear distinctions between hard of hearing and deaf, (ie. hard of
hearing have more hearing ability than deaf) the two are most commonly linked as
DHH. DHH also refers to the educational programs which are designed for students
who are deaf or hard of hearing.
18

Deaf Culturalist: Refers to researchers and other who actively worked to
identify and gain acceptance for deafness as viewed not as a disability but as a distinct
group with a culture, history, experiences and a voice. There is a wide range of beliefs
within this label. (Padden and Humphries, 2005).
Deficit Model (deaf): Most children who are deaf or severely hearing impaired
and are members of hearing families, are not identified until they are from 3 to 5 years
of age when the child enters preschool or kindergarten. Then the diagnosis is from a
medical framework and hearing loss is seen as a deficit (Young, et al. 2006). Upon
diagnosis, Luterman (1987) states that the family dynamics change and the family
becomes a deaf family. This also shifts the responsibility for the child away from the
family to the service providers for that child which may have unintended side effects of
fostering dependency relationships with those providers and placing an emphasis on
cognitive and educational issues rather than socio-emotional well being (Rousch &
McWilliam, 1994).
Dyslexic: A term used to describe a person who may have difficulty seeing and
interpreting letters and/or numbers, often transposing or reversing numbers such as
b,d,p and q.
Elementary School Education Act (ESEA): Federal education programs
established in 1965 and set requirements for the education of all students in the United
States.
Etiology: Refers to the cause of a condition. For example, deafness can be
genetic, or acquired due to environmental conditions or disease.
19

Family homeostasis: Refers to a family seeking to maintain order, balance, and a
sense of continuity in their family life (Luterman, 1987).
Fingerspelling: The act of spelling words using the manual alphabet.
Fingerspelling is used extensively in Sign Language (Padden & Ramsey, 1998).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): IDEA replaced the 1975
special education law known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL
94-142). This guides the provisions for services for “students” from birth to age 23.
After the reauthorization of IDEA, it is often referred to as IDEA 2004 or IDEIA 2004-
Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act. IDEIA includes a stronger
focus on improving the education outcomes for students with disabilities.
Individualized Educational Plan (IEP): Students receiving special education
services have an IEP which is a plan for their education. IEPs include services that are
required such as speech, or physical therapy, as well as specific modifications that are
required for this individual. These may include additional time on tests, interpreters,
note takers, or many other modifications. IEPS are legal contracts and must follow and
be met in accordance to the guidelines and processes set forth by legislation.
Inclusion/Mainstreamed: Identifies the placement of special education in
regular education classes. The students can be placed full time (mainstreamed) or part
of the day/year- included (Aefsky, 1995).
L1 or L2: Identifies the language as either the primary language (L1) or an
additional language learned later (L2) (Cummins, 1991).
20

Linguistic Interdependence: A belief that knowledge of a first language (L1)
transfers and supports the learning of a second language (L2) particularly where there is
adequate exposure and motivation to learn the language and the learner has mastered
the comparable literacy skills in L1. (Cummins, 1991)
Mastery Motivation: Refers to a child‟s persistence at moderately difficult or
challenging tasks which is foundational for learning (Pipp-Siegel, Sedey, VanLeeuwen
and Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Signed into law by President George Bush. This
act reauthorized and amended federal education programs established under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The major focus of No
Child Left Behind 2001 (also known as ESEA) is to provide all children with a fair,
equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. The U.S.
Department of Education is emphasizing four pillars within the bill: NCLB (2002)
includes four areas of focus: accountability, flexibility, research-based education and
parent options. The focus on accountability has helped bring to light the achievement
gap problem for sub groups.
Oral Approach: A focus on speech for students who are DHH. For many years
sign language (manualism) was considered to be an inferior mode of communication
and was actually banned (with caning) at the residential schools for the Deaf. There is
still tension between oral deaf programs and signing programs although this schism is
closing somewhat (Baynton, 1992; Padden & Humphries, 2005).
21

Phonemic Awareness: The ability to recognize that speech is composed of
sounds and the ability to manipulate those sounds (Izzo, 2002).
Phonological Code: The mapping of knowledge of the spoken language which
can then be used to facilitate learning to read (Luckner et al., 2005/2006).
Prelingual: Indicate before language is learned. A person who is prelingually
deafened was deaf prior to learning a spoken language.
Schema: The way one organizes knowledge, thoughts and/or behaviors based on
previous experiences or ideas (Schirmer, 1997).
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): As part of the accountability
requirement of NCLB (2002), schools are required to report test scores for their students
in a specific manner and make that data public in their school report card.
Special Education Local Planning Area (SELPA): Some sub-groups of special
needs students are few in number and require specialized services. In order to better
(and more economically) provide those services, regional areas band together and create
a local planning area to address the needs of the students. As hearing loss is both a low
incidence disability and requires very specialized knowledge/skills (sign language,
audiology, speech, and counseling) many DHH programs are part of a SELPA.
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR): The program that
California uses to test students and report their scores to parents and the community
through the SARC. STAR test data is used to compare the achievement of various
subgroups. STAR data for students who are DHH has recently been disaggregated and
made available in limited ways (Sager, 2007).
22

Total Communication (TC.): Refers to an educational approach to the education
of the deaf that combines both sign language and oral English. As the two languages
have distinctly different syntax, this approach is considered difficulty to do (Padden &
Ramsey, 1998).
23

Chapter 2:
Literature Review
Deaf literacy, education, research and language development have historically
been separate from mainstream literacy, education, research and language development.
More recently under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) the educational achievement gap for
students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) has been made public and questions
about this separation are being raised (Cawthon 2004; Schirmer & McGough, 2005).
This study will include literacy, education, and research and language development for
both the mainstream literacy research and DHH research.
The following literature review will be focused on several areas. First, the
review will set the framework of the deaf educational experience in America by
examining the historical roots of the achievement gap and deaf culture. Seminal
literacy research for normally develop and learning disabled students will be linked to
research on deaf literacy development. The research on the important role families have
on the development of literacy for their deaf children will be examined as fundamental
and foundational to the development of successfully literate DHH students.
Brief Overview of the History of Deaf Education in America

To understand where we are today in deaf education requires a brief visit to
where deaf education was in the nineteenth century in America. Baynton, (1992)
succinctly reviewed the educational history of the deaf in America. This review helps
set the context for the diametrically opposed positions still very evident today. The two
positions can be titled deaf versus Deaf. In short, deaf is a hearing view of deficit while
24

Deaf (with a capital D) refers to a culture and language choice–American Sign
Language (ASL). Baynton explains that children who were deaf were at first isolated
with little or no educational opportunities. The deaf were considered by many to be
“poor creatures” without abilities. The first American school for the deaf was opened in
1817 and was called the American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb (Baynton, 1992;
Valentine, 1991).
According to the historical account by Valentine (1991), one of the hallmarks of
this school was the belief that the deaf could learn. The founders Clerc and Gallaudet
brought a force referred to as “success-expectancy” to the deaf students, to the teachers
they trained and perhaps most importantly to the public at large. For the first time, the
students embraced a common language and common experience and began to create an
American deaf cultural and linguistic community (Lane, 1999).
Residential schools for the Deaf were developed in various regions or states.
Through the late 1900s, by and large, the deaf in America were still educated on
separate school sites--preferably residential schools--and in fact, some still are today.
The residential schools developed a strong sense of community and culture of their
own. In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed an enactment “empowering this
institution to confer collegiate degrees upon deaf-mutes” (Scouten, 1984, p. 78).
Gallaudet University, National Technical Institute for the Deaf or NTID, (a part of
Rochester Institute of Technology), and California State University, Northridge are the
3 options for higher education institutions that are primarily geared for the deaf in the
25

US. In the Deaf community, these three schools are rivals for incoming students and
are closely associated with different Deaf identities and communities.
Along with the establishment of ASL as a common language for the Deaf, a
sense of Deaf culture was established in residential schools. Following this rise of ASL
as a common language, another group of reformers worked to ban the use of sign
language in classrooms and replace it with oralism in the 1860‟s. Oralism was a focus
on speech and speech reading (lip reading) in an attempt to integrate the Deaf into the
mainstream and to become assimilated into the hearing community (Baynton, 1992).
Some elements of this historical struggle between Deaf culturists and oralists are
highlighted by Baynton (1992) and Lane (1999). The struggles between these two
perspectives are important to this review as research, educational programs and
resources are influenced by these two perspectives.
According to Baynton (1992) and Lane (1999) the history of the oralists
perspective were founded on several key beliefs. Oralists believed that Deaf students
should learn English, and they should be taught in English. Many schools for the deaf
would actually „cane‟ or bind the hands of the children if they were caught signing in
school in order to remove signing and focus on oral English. Oralists also began a
movement to disband the schools for the deaf as they believed that the isolation of the
deaf in residence schools would lead to the development of a deaf variety of the human
race as the students would intermarry. Oralists believed that the deaf needed to be
rescued from their confinement and isolation and that hearing loss is a condition to be
cured.
26

Deaf culturalists have a very different idea of the construction of what it means
to be Deaf (Lane, 1999; Tucker, 1997). According to deaf culturists, deafness is a
culture that is separate, distinct, and precious to the Deaf. Deafness is not something to
be “fixed” but rather something to be cherished (Padden and Humphries, 2005). They
hold that deafness is not a disability per se but a disabling condition that does need
special assistance-as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Another
element of this struggle for identity is to decide how deafness fits into the definition of
disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (Tucker, 1997).
One very public demonstration of this tension was the „Deaf President Now‟
(DPN) movement at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC in 1988, which resulted in
I. King Jordan (Deaf) becoming the 8
th
President of Gallaudet-and the first Deaf College
President. Up until this historic event, most of the teachers of the deaf were hearing
(Vernon, 2006/2007). In 2006, Dr. Jordan retired and the school board elected a new
president, Dr. Jane Fernandes, who is deaf but oral. Her election prompted new protests
and a furor in the community based on her identification as an oral deaf person. The
protests were made public and resulted in the board rescinding her appointment. Dr.
Robert Davila, a “more Deaf” President took her place in 2007 (Lang, Cohen, &
Fischgrund, 2007). The tensions between the oralists and Deaf culturists, between sign
language and oral education are still evident at all junctures of the education of students
who are DHH. Laws and legislations have been developed and implemented of and for
students with disabilities. Just how these apply and are applied to DHH students is
extremely challenging. This disagreement continues especially when considering
27

educational placement and programs for DHH children. Questions about deafness as a
disability requiring special education or deafness as a culture group continue.
Special Education Schooling and Hearing Loss
In the early 1960s, special education placement options included a wide variety
of possibilities, from isolation to occasional inclusion (York & Reynolds, 1996).
Beginning in about 1972, parents of special needs students began to advocate for access
to a wider variety of educational programs. These cases set the stage for inclusion as a
goal. The law resulting from these events is PL94-142, which required least restrictive
environment (LRE) and most appropriate placement for all disabled children on an
individual basis (Grenot-Scheyer et al., 1996). Both of these refer to placing students in
the best situation for their particular set of disabilities, from separate schools such as
residence schools, to full inclusion in traditional educational classes with many possible
steps in between the extremes.
Deaf students enrolled in residential schools for the Deaf reside at the school
and may return home on the weekends. For example in the State of California there are
two residential schools for the Deaf. One is in Southern California (CSD, Riverside)
and one in Northern California (CSD, Fremont). According to the CDE enrollment
data, there were 10,441 school age children identified as being DHH in California in
2005. Of these students, 602 students were enrolled in a residential school for the deaf.
This means that 9,839 (94%) of the school age students who were identified DHH in
California were enrolled elsewhere. Nationally, 70% of the eligible students are not
enrolled in residential schools (DeLana, Gentry & Andrews, 2007). More and more
28

deaf students are being enrolled in “traditional” education programs, causing decreased
enrollment in residential schools-where many deaf are employed (Vernon, 2006/2007).
In a study of the effects of NCLB (2002) on residential schools for the Deaf,
Cawthon (2004) found that 28 states had accountability policies to include their schools
for the deaf in reporting data, and 15 had AYP designations for the schools for the Deaf,
and 3 met their AYP goals. Neither of the two residential schools for the Deaf in
California met the AYP requirements of NCLB (Cawthon, 2004). California is not
alone in achievement dilemmas for DHH students. A national survey of data for
schools for the deaf showed that students enrolled in schools for the deaf consistently
scored below the levels of the general school population (Cawthon, 2004).
The literacy achievement data obtained from residential schools across the
country are not demonstrating that residential schools for the deaf are meeting national
standards. The data from the 2 residential schools in California also do not meet
improvement standards. Another option for the educational placement for DHH
students is to include them in “regular education” classes with hearing peers. Inclusion
has a different meaning depending on your perspective within the Deaf community.
An example of the cost to operate a residential school for the Deaf was analyzed
in 1997 by Tucker (1997). At that time it was estimated that the average cost of
educating one child in a residential school for the deaf was $35,780 while it cost $9,689
for a deaf in a self-contained class for the deaf and $3,383 to educate that same child in
a traditional classroom. In other words, the cost of educating a child at the residential
29

school was over 10 times the cost of educating that same child in a traditional
classroom.
Special education law also added a number of options for educating students
with hearing loss. In a metastudy of 30 years of research in England, Young, et al
(2006) found that hearing parents were not made aware of the range of educational and
linguistic choices available to support their deaf children. These parents reported
receiving a medical model of hearing loss as a deficit in their dealings with
professionals with little or no information given to them about communication options,
early intervention strategies, or information they would need to make an informed
choice for their family. There are many choices that need to be made. The choices of
language usage and school placement are complex and have life altering implications
(Luckner & Velaski, 2004; Luterman, 1987; Stewart & Clark, 2003).
Inclusion
Another aspect of IDEA/IDEIA 1997 that affected the education of the Deaf is
the stronger focus on educating students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers
(Kochhar et al., 2000). Inclusion/mainstreaming are concepts that seem to be supported
by the Brown decision-that separate is never equal. Included in the list of generic
benefits from inclusion are: increased communication and social interaction
opportunities, age appropriate models of behaviors and skills, more active participation
in the life of the school community, increased individualized educational goals and
objectives, access to the rich core curriculum, and the opportunity to build a network of
friends (Grenot-Scheyer et al.,1996)
30

One group that is especially skeptical of the entire concept of inclusion is
advocates in the area of hearing impairments (Aefsky, 1995; Catlett & Osher, 1994).
Some deaf culturists (Lane 1999) actually consider the movement to include deaf
children as an attack on the deaf community and an attempt to limit the impact of the
community. The communication and other distinct needs of the hearing impaired are
often cited as reasons why regular education is not the least restrictive environment for
the DHH (York & Reynolds, 1996). Even today, the great majority of students with
hearing loss under the age of 21 remain enrolled in “special education” programs (either
residential schools or separate programs) that are both costly to operate and
marginalizing in their effects on deaf children (Smith, 1997). Forty-five states
(including the District of Columbia) have public schools for the deaf (Cawthon, 2004).
Deaf advocates argue that the reasons given for inclusion are the reasons for
educating deaf children in schools for the deaf (Lane, 1999). Deaf students in
residential schools have increased opportunities to communicate and live within a
community providing role models and complete access to information. Deaf students
who may have been isolated from other deaf people and who lived in hearing families
have a chance to be a part of and develop a sense of community at a residential school.
The argument is that the separation and segregation of residential schools and deaf
classes are an important way to continue and strengthen the Deaf community and
support children who are deaf but born into hearing families.
Inclusion legally means to place with regular education students. Within the
Deaf community, inclusion is argued to mean “placed with Deaf peers.” The
31

educational placement choice made for DHH students is still very divisive and
controversial within the Deaf community. Comparing DHH and hearing students on an
identical measure has historically been viewed as being completely inappropriate.
Recently, researchers in the Deaf community have begun looking at educational
research on hearing students (particularly literacy research) and looking for its
applicability for students who are DHH (Schirmer & McGough, 2005). Historically,
DHH students have been excluded from standardized tests, but recently DHH students
have been included as a subgroup on the achievement gap data (Mayer, 2007; Sager,
2007).
Achievement Gaps and DHH Students
With all of the technological advances and opportunities for an education, the
average reading level of a high school graduate who is deaf is still far below hearing
students (Fagan, Pisoni, Horn, & Dillon, 2007). Under employment, unemployment,
high rates of academic failure and low college enrollment are still evident in the DHH
community (Rogers, Muir, & Evenson, 2003). At all grade levels and on all academic
indicators, students who are DHH score far below hearing students. NCLB (2002) has a
stated goal of having all student subgroups scoring 95% proficiency within 8 years and
in all subgroups. NCLB (2002) also includes students with disabilities in both the
testing requirement and in the requirement that at least 95% of all students must
participate in the assessments (Cawthon, 2004). According to STAR data issued by the
California Department of Education (CDE) (see Figure 4 below), students who are deaf
score even lower than students who are hard of hearing.
32

As shown in Table 2, 9.4% of the DHH students are scoring at the advanced
level and 17.8% at the proficient level with 83.9% scoring at the far below basic level
on English Language Arts tests in California in the 2006-2007 year. With a target of
95% proficiency and yearly benchmarks for proficiency, students who are enrolled in or
recently graduated from the DHH program are well below the NCLB requirements in
literacy.

Figure 4. 2005-2006 State of California Data from STAR Testing

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Far Below
Basic
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Hard of Hearing
Deaf
33

The Importance of Literacy
Literacy skills are very important in today‟s world. Literacy now includes more
than just the ability to read and write, literacy also includes using the internet, reading
instructional manuals for work, computers, computer games, or cars, following written
directions on medicine or maps and reading the newspaper (Luckner et al., 2005/2006).
Rosenblatt (2001) identifies literacy as a transaction, a two-way process whereby a
reader (or writer) interacts with text in a certain manner at a particular time and under a
certain circumstance. Reading is a transaction between a reader and a text based on a
“personal sound-system for communicating with others before assimilating the
linguistic code of the social environment” (Rosenblatt, 2001, p. 270) where the reader
links language to their own experiences, thus bringing meaning to the text-the words.
DHH students may indeed have experiences to relate to the reading and writing,
but perhaps not the sounds of words and letters. Readers must have a “mental set” to
value reading and writing (Rosenblatt, 2001). Becoming literate requires specialized
knowledge for all, and while a few DHH students read at grade level, the majority of
DHH students find learning to read and write to be extremely difficult (Luckner et al,
2005/2006)
Literacy and the DHH Child
Since the founding of the first school for the deaf in 1817, literacy has been an
educational goal for the deaf and many different communication approaches have been
used in pursuit of this goal (Stewart & Clarke, 2003). Despite almost 200 years of
efforts, DHH students are currently leaving school with “language skills that are grossly
34

underdeveloped and, in many cases, are not even achieving functional literacy” (Stewart
& Clarke, 2003, p. 9).
DHH children‟s language development follows a similar pattern as hearing
children although the ages they go through each stage may vary (Stewart & Clarke,
2003). There are some agreed upon factors that may impact the development of literacy
for a DHH child. These include: the degree of hearing loss, the age at onset of hearing
loss, the etiology (cause) of the hearing loss (some may include neurological damage),
age of diagnosis, ability of the parent and child to communicate, hearing status of the
parents, and parental acceptance of the child‟s hearing loss (Stewart & Clarke, 2003).
According to Stewart and Clarke (2003), DHH children face many specialized
and distinct challenges in developing literacy in English. One challenge is that English
is a spoken language with a very large vocabulary. Although reading helps improve
vocabulary, DHH children do not have enough hearing to engage in communication to
practice and develop their ability to read and write. Although children learn language
by using it, DHH children (90% of whom are born into hearing families) have little
practice with the communication process for two reasons; their families use a spoken
language so the DHH child has little ability to practice communicating with their
families, and the DHH child will need to learn English while learning to read and write
and can‟t use their knowledge of English to support learning to read and write.
Luckner et al., (2005/2006) identified five major obstacles to developing literacy
for DHH students. These include: lack of access to the phonological code, limited
fluency with the language prior to attending school, lack of early literacy experiences
35

prior to entering school, a delay in the acquisition of vocabulary and difficulties with
lower level reading skills.
The development of literacy is a high priority in education and legislation for all
children, especially under NCLB. By all accounts, the literacy level of DHH students
remain well below the minimal levels required, (Luckner et al., 2005/2006). Both the
National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000) and NCLB (2002) support reading instruction that
is founded on scientifically based research, yet according to Luckner et al. many
instructional strategies and interventions used with students who are DHH are not
connected to any research but based on assumptions and historical practices. IDEIA
(2004) has added a requirement to use research based instructional methods for the
instruction of students receiving special education services.
Schirmer and McGough (2005) conducted a review of the research literature on
the reading development and reading instruction of deaf students in mainstream reading
research using the NRP (2000) framework. Because DHH students on average have a
fourth-grade reading level upon high school graduation and there is no evidence that
their reading processes are different than hearing readers the authors sought to
determine if the evidence from mainstream research was generalizable to the deaf
(Schirmer & McGough, 2005). The authors chose studies on deaf readers that: “(a)
identified reading as a variable; (b) were published in English in a refereed journal,
conference yearbook or monograph; (c) focused on reading development between
preschool and Grade 16; and (d) used a quantitative or qualitative research design”
(Schirmer & McGough, 2005, p. 85). All of the studies chosen were published between
36

1970 and 1999. The NRP (2000) study was based on 441 studies and this review was
based on 67 studies. The authors compared the findings in four topic areas; alphabetics,
fluency, comprehension, and computer technology. They found that deaf readers are
able to access phonological information but no evidence as to whether or not they could
be taught to use phonological information. These authors made explicit reference to
their surprise at the lack of research on instructional interventions for deaf students.
Fluency is considered to be very important for reading achievement but
Schirmer and McGough (2005) only found two studies on fluency ability in deaf
readers. Fluency is defined as the ability to read with appropriate pacing, expression
and accuracy (RICA, 2009). Regarding the research on fluency for deaf readers the
authors state “the most striking observation is the very limited research with deaf
readers” (Schirmer & McGough, 2005, p. 110).
According to the NRP (2000) comprehension includes vocabulary instruction
and text comprehension instruction. The NRP linked vocabulary instruction directly to
comprehension and indicated that direct and indirect instructional methods should be
used. Vocabulary is important for all readers including deaf readers. For Deaf readers,
the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension may be
complicated by language choice of the students and the instruction. Deaf readers and
their language of instruction may be oral, use ASL, SEE sign or a combination.
The NRP review (2000) identified seven strategies for text comprehension that
are important for improving comprehension. These include; comprehension
monitoring, cooperative learning, graphic and semantic organizers, story structure,
37

question answering, question generating and summarization. While nine studies of deaf
reader‟s abilities and six studies of interventions were found, the consistent finding was
that deaf readers have weak comprehension monitoring abilities. Their conclusion is
that:
Relatively few studies of deaf readers involve the assessment of intervention
strategies; just over half of the strategies found to be effective by the NRP have
been investigated with deaf readers; and fewer than half of the text
comprehension strategies reviewed by the NRP have been investigated with deaf
readers. (Schirmer & McGough, 2005, p. 111)

Connecting computer technology and reading instruction is also thought to be
promising for reading instruction by the NRP (2000). Although the use of speech to
print technology, hypertext, and word processing seem promising for deaf readers, no
research on using these with deaf readers was found.
The overall conclusion of Schirmer and McGough‟s (2005) review of the
literature on DHH readers is that the research on normally developing and struggling
readers has very little overlap to the research on deaf readers. Mainstream research into
literacy and deaf research of literacy are very separate and disconnected from each
other. Low reading achievement for deaf readers has not been correlated with reading
processes distinct from those of hearing students (Schrimer & McGough, 2005).
Luckner et al. (2005/2006) also conducted a meta-analysis of research of the
literature for evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. In a search of 40 years
of peer-reviewed journals, 22 articles met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis.
Their search located 964 articles related to literacy and hearing loss, but only 22 met the
standards for inclusion in their review. The five standards for inclusion in their meta-
38

analysis were: (1) the study had to have been published in a peer reviewed journal
between 1963 and 2003; (2) participants were either deaf or hard of hearing; (3)
participants were between the ages of 3 and 21 years of age; (4) the study provided
statistical information and (5) the studies had to have a control group.
The number of studies included in this meta-analysis indicates that there is
considerable interest in the literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing students.
Yet, the results of this meta-analysis indicate that (a) no two studies examined the same
dimension of literacy; (b) there were very few well-designed studies; (c) there was no
systematic duplication of studies; and (d) there were very few studies showing evidence
of effectiveness about interventions for DHH students (Luckner et al., 2005/2006).
While these two reviews Luckner et al. (2005/2006) and Schirmer and
McGough, (2005) were conducted separately, and had different criteria for including
research in their analysis, their conclusions were almost identical. They concluded that
there is a lack of research with deaf readers on these important reading areas and there
have been no systematic replication of studies. Schirmer and McGough concluded that:
Given the historically low reading achievement levels of deaf students
graduating from high school, a comparison of findings would show the
commonality of issues for deaf and hearing readers and would indicate whether
instructional practices and future research with deaf readers might benefit from
the instructional practices found to be effective with hearing readers and
disabled readers. (p. 109)

Next, the literature on deaf literacy following the guidelines of the NRP (2000)
is reviewed in detail. The areas of review include: comprehension (including
vocabulary development); fluency; phonemic awareness; computer technology and
reading instruction. There are two themes that cross the areas of review. One is a
39

readers ability to link reading and language to their schema (prior knowledge and
experiences) and the other is the important role of the family environment.
Comprehension and Vocabulary Development for DHH Students
Comprehension and vocabulary development are considered to be important
elements for developing literacy (Luckner et al., 2005/2006, Schirmer & McGough,
2005, Stewart & Clark, 2003). Schirmer and McGough (2005) identified three types of
prior knowledge related to reading comprehension: content schema (the readers
background knowledge), textual schema (knowledge of how a text is structured), and
vocabulary knowledge.
Vocabulary can be defined in several ways according to the NRP (2000).
Vocabulary can be receptive (what the child understands when listening or reading) and
expressive (what the child uses in writing or speaking), and oral (listening), reading, and
sight words (words that are automatic). Vocabulary knowledge is complexly connected
to reading comprehension (Schirmer & McGough, 2005).
Word recognition and vocabulary development for students who are DHH is
complicated and may be dependent on their language mode. Vocabulary and sentence
understanding will be discussed later in the literature review under linguistic
interdependence and bilingual-bicultural Deaf education.
Activating prior knowledge (schema) and linking to familiar concepts for the
readers is considered important for increasing reading comprehension. Students who
have background knowledge (prior experiences) with a topic will have higher reading
comprehension results when reading about that topic (Rosenblatt, 2001).
40

Jackson, Paul, and Smith, (1997) studied deaf adolescent‟s activation of prior
knowledge. Their study compared the reading of 51 DHH adolescents to hearing
adolescents. The design included a pre- test consisting of a questionnaire of prior
knowledge (PK) in two versions (long or short probes) and post-test to determine
passage comprehension (RC). Students were randomly assigned one of two forms of
pretests and then independently read a 500 word passage rated to be at a third grade
reading level After reading the passage the students were asked 18 multiple-choice
comprehension questions.
Jackson et al. (1997) focused their analysis on three areas. The first analysis
focused on the effect of question type and pre-test (ANOVA). The second analysis was
an inter-correlation matrix between the subject characteristics and PK question types
and RC. The third analysis consisted of a stepwise discriminant analysis to determine if
one particular question type would be the best overall predictor of RC.
Jackson et al. (1997) concluded that proficient hearing readers activated prior
knowledge and engaged in an interactive relationship with the text and were able to
answer inferential questions but the deaf readers were not as able to answer inferential
questions nor bring their prior knowledge to the reading. Deaf readers were more likely
to rely on pattern recognition to answer questions and did not use retrieval strategies to
activate their prior knowledge and establish relationships outside of the print (a key
element in Rosenblatt‟s, 2001 literary transaction). When the deaf students received the
longer PK experience, they were able to answer more questions correctly. One
implication from this study is that deaf students may need different instructional
41

strategies than hearing students. Deaf students may need more time to activate their
prior knowledge and may need to be directly involved in activities that are designed to
specifically develop and link experiences to the reading than hearing students.
The findings from the Jackson et al. (1997) study highlight the importance of
schema in developing literacy. While the study did find that more time and more
focused probes helped improve comprehension, the authors did not examine why the
DHH readers in general did not access their prior knowledge and bring that to their
reading.
Schema Building and DHH Students
According to Schirmer and McGough (2005), “deaf children have schema that
are less developed than hearing children (although deaf children with deaf parents
perform as well as hearing children” (p. 397), thus they have difficulty comprehending
and relating to text. In order to study the activation of schema in deaf readers, Schirmer
and McGough examined the reading comprehension of deaf children “during the
reading of narrative texts by exploring the predictions they made when the text
confirmed or did not confirm their expectations” (p. 398). The participants in this study
included 48 severe or profoundly deaf students enrolled in one of 3 schools for the deaf
in grades 4-8.
Schirmer and McGough‟s (2005) study used two stories controlled for length
and readability (2.1 and 2.2 grade levels) with a thematic organizer for each story. One
story was considered well-formed as it included a predictable story line and text and the
other was not well formed as it was not considered to be predictable by the researcher.
42

The students were randomly divided into 4 groups. One group read both of the stories
using graphic organizers, one group read both of the stories without the graphic
organizers and the other groups read one with the graphic organizer and one without the
organizer. The students were videotaped as they read the story individually with the
researcher.
Schirmer and McGough (2005) had posited that the students would make more
predictions with the well-formed story and with stories accompanied with a graphic
organizer. What she found was that students who made elaborate predictions used
visual imagery and made predictions for both stories. She also found that well-formed
stories and stories with thematic organizers did not encourage students to make
elaborate predictions. When the learners were reading stories where they encountered
some cognitive conflict, or text that did not exactly match their content schema or world
view, they were more engaged with the text and made more predictions. When the
stories were predictable (and matched the readers schema), the readers were less
engaged. So in a sense, when presented with materials that required these students to
make connections, and predict what might happen engaged the students in making
literary transactions as espoused by Rosenblatt (2001).
Although not referencing schema specifically, Enns and Lafond‟s (2007) studied
successful dyslexic DHH readers who made a 6 month gain during 6 months of
intervention which was designed to increase the participant‟s schema. In this study, the
teacher deliberately chose words the students would be interested in using and had the
students engage in real-life exercises with those words. The participants engaged in
43

filling out job applications and made their own dictionaries of the words they knew.
Thus, the students had a context for the words that were meaningful, they had a purpose
for reading. Using these words and applying them to real-life experiences with a peer
increased the students‟ schema for the words.
Enns and Lafond‟s (2007) study made note of the importance of the teacher‟s
beliefs in the students‟ abilities and the deliberate application to real-world applications.
This lack of expectations is evident in Schirmer and McGough (2005) study as the
reading materials used were written at the 2
nd
grade level for students in grades 4-8. A
mismatch between the chronological age of the participants and the target age of the
readings may have affected the engagement of the students, because of a lack of interest
in the materials.
Linguistic Interdependence for Deaf Children
Deaf children of Deaf parents tend to perform at higher levels than deaf children
of hearing parents (Schirmer, 1997). One possible explanation for the discrepancy
between children born to Deaf and hearing families may be related to the concept of
linguistic interdependence. The linguistic interdependence model was developed by
Cummins (1991) and is used extensively in bilingual education programs and research.
This model proposes that knowledge of the first language (L1) transfers and supports
the learning of a second language (L2) particularly where there is adequate exposure
and motivation to learn the language and the learner has mastered the comparable
literacy skills in L1.
44

In researching the transfer of reading comprehension from L1 to L2, Walter
(2004) found that transfer of reading comprehension to L2 is linked to establishing
mental representations of the text and to working memory. She found that:
A failure to link appropriately even once or twice at crucial early points in the
building of a mental representation might be enough to prevent the building of a
cohesive structure, and hence to prevent recall of earlier information (Walter, p.
334).

A study by Ramsey and Padden (1998) showed quite clearly that there is some
relationship between having ASL as L1 and literacy-even though they did not
specifically address the linguistic interdependence theory in their article. Padden and
Ramsey studied the classroom practices of a group of 3
rd
grade deaf students enrolled in
a residential school for the deaf. The class included 12 children and was team taught by
two teachers who were both fluent signers. Deaf signing parents have home language
practices that include the distinct patterns of language discourse in the Deaf community
and these patterns support the child‟s involvement in the literacy events in the school
where ASL is used (Ramsey & Padden). For example, the authors noted many
instances where a deaf child of hearing parents was unable to interact successfully with
the teacher or other students while the deaf children of Deaf parents understood the
discourse patterns appropriate to the Deaf and were able to participate fully and make
better use of the classroom experiences. Being left out of the discourse in the classroom
limited the interactions this child had with the content, the teacher, and the other
students.
Mayer and Wells (1996) argue that the situation of the deaf in language
acquisition is significantly different and does not fit well with Cummin‟s linguistic
45

interdependence theory. Using a rather narrow definition of literacy, Mayer and Wells
argue that because ASL has no written form, DHH students cannot acquire literacy
skills in their first language and thus have no comparable literacy skills to transfer to a
second language. However, the linguistic interdependence theory helps to explain the
discrepancy between deaf children born to deaf families and deaf children born to
hearing families, and may even partially explain the differences between deaf students
and hard of hearing students (see Figures 3 & 4). Deaf children of Deaf parents have
early language experiences, which may provide the schema base (L1) for developing
competence in English-(L2), even though English and ASL are significantly different in
form.
Deaf children often have limited language and knowledge of story structure and
story elements particularly deaf children from hearing families (Schirmer & McGough,
2005). In a review of literacy in deaf education, Luckner et al. (2005/2006) state that as
a group, DHH children enter school with very limited experiences with being read to as
many of their parents are not comfortable with signing as reported by the parents in
interviews, questionnaires or by trained observers.
Also for signing DHH children, the relationship between a concept, a sign, and
the written word is not direct and can be very complex (Mayer & Wells, 1996). While
these students may see a vocabulary word in print, it is not likely they will experience
the same word in ASL, nor use the word in their communication with peers. For
example, if the vocabulary word is “leviathan” the sign would be “big” with emphasis.
This relationship also relies heavily on non-verbal input including facial expressions
46

and the location of the sign to convey meaning. Sign language users have language that
does not exactly mirror language in print so the vocabulary of sign language users may
not be as extensive as people with a spoken language that is congruent with their written
language.
Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education
Related to the concept of linguistic interdependence is the Bilingual-Bicultural
(Bi-Bi) approach to deaf education. A Bi-Bi approach uses ASL as the primary
language of instruction and communication with a focus of Deaf cultural awareness.
This approach is designed to both support the establishment of linguistic skills and lead
to a greater self-esteem which will lead to higher academic achievement (Ramsey &
Padden, 1998; Stewart, 1993). Using a Bi-Bi approach to deaf education is important as
multiple instructional strategies are used in bilingual approaches to education (Stewart).
There are some differences between bilingual Deaf education (BDE) and bilingual
education in general.
Perhaps the most important difference between BDE and bilingual education is
that bilingual education is founded on the child‟s family language (Padden & Ramsey,
1998). For most DHH children, there is no family language base. Less than 10% of
deaf children are born to deaf parents so they have little or no access to ASL as a family
language which makes the acquisition of English literacy even more difficult, but not
impossible. Padden and Ramsey reported a relationship between ASL competence and
reading in support of BDE.
47

Padden and Ramsey (1998) developed a series of tasks to explore the specific
relationship between ASL and reading skills. They focused on two important
components of sign language: fingerspelling and initialized signs. ASL includes
gestures, movements, and facial expressions which are not related to English, while
fingerspelling and initialized signs are two elements that are most closely connected to
English.
Fingerspelling is actually spelling the word you are using with your fingers.
Rarely is spelling out loud a part of English conversations, but it is regularly used to
more clearly communicate in ASL. Fingerspelling is used extensively in daily
communication with Deaf adults and comprises 15% of all signing (Padden & Ramsey,
1998).
Initialized signs also are connected to English words, and the first letter of the
English word is used in the sign and the same sign can have many different meanings
depending on the initialized letter used. For example, the manual sign for family, class,
group, or team all have an identical motion but the initialized letter used determines the
word you are signing. While the motions would be the same, family would be signed
using the letter “f,” class the letter “c,” and team the letter “t.” There are many other
examples of “English-linked” signs.
The question is whether or not DHH students whose first language is ASL
would benefit from bilingual education practices. To test the relationship between these
two “English-linked” elements (fingerspelling and initialized gestures), Padden and
Ramsey, (1998) developed a set of tasks to measure ASL competence and the ability to
48

use fingerspelling and initialized signs to write in English. These tasks were
administered to 31 profoundly deaf children in fourth or eighth grade in a residential
school or public school with special classes for the hearing impaired. Each of the
children had at least an average reading ability as measured by the SAT-HI Reading t
Comprehension test.
The participants were also tested on their ASL memory and their ability to
recognize both fingerspelling and initialized signs. Students were asked to watch a
videotape of a sentence and then repeat it to test for ASL memory and watch a
videotape and write either the English word or English translation of the sentence which
included fingerspelling or the use of initialized signs.
According Padden and Ramsey (1998) there is a relationship between ASL
ability and reading competence. The scores on the ASL tests correlated with reading
skills. Students who demonstrated ASL competence also performed well on the
fingerspelling and the initialized signs task. Fingerspelling and reading skills were
related (.43) and initialized signs task and reading ability was also related (.80).
Fingerspelling and initialized signs tasks were also highly correlated (.82). Padden &
Ramsey suggest that these tasks are interrelated. Interesting to note, in this study, no
relationship was found between hearing status of parents and ASL competence or
reading ability.
Padden and Ramsey (1998) conclude that there is a relationship between ASL
competence and reading competence, but that the nature of the relationship needs to be
further identified. They also indicate that the context of reading instruction for students
49

who are hearing impaired will need to deliberately include mediating instructional tools
and structures designed to link ASL to reading instruction.
DHH students from non-English speaking families may face additional
challenges developing literacy in English, and have not been included in this review.
However, just suggesting that DHH students acquire literacy in a manner similar to
bilingual students represents a tremendous change for deaf education.
What BDE has done is to lead the change from viewing deafness from a deficit
model to one of difference that considers the linguistic, cultural, and educational
implications of hearing loss rather than just the sensory disability (Delana, Gentry &
Andrews, 2007). A simple philosophical shift (such as from deficit to different) can
make a huge difference (Nelson, 1998; Scott 1992; Williams, 1995; Young et al., 2006;
Zucker, 1993). BDE is fairly new and little empirical data on the effectiveness of BDE
has been provided (Delana et al.). According to both the CDE data and Cawthon‟s
(2008) recent report on NCLB and DHH students, the achievement gap is not closing.
Mayer and Wells (1996) refuted the claim of proponents of the bilingual-
bicultural models of deaf literacy make about using Cummin‟s linguistic
interdependence model to support literacy of ASL proficient deaf students. They stated
that ASL--when used alone--does not bridge the gap between inner sign and written
language which is critical to the development of fluency in both languages. Thus, DHH
students who use ASL as their primary means of communication, (L1) have very
limited opportunities to engage with the specific vocabulary word in English, (L2)
unless these opportunities are manufactured within the classroom setting. Mayer and
50

Wells stated that “ASL can develop the cognitive power that would support broad
cognitive and conceptual transfers between ASL and English. . . . however linguistic
transfer is unlikely” (p. 105). Missing from this analysis is the repeated finding and
claim that deaf children from Deaf families consistently outperform deaf children from
hearing families (Schirmer & McGough, 2005) and have a primary language--ASL
(Ramsey & Padden, 1998).
For students who are DHH, literacy can be defined as “a complex set of
practices that operate on both group and individual levels” (Ramsey & Padden, 1998, p.
6). Learning to read and write can also be connected to social interactions and in the
case of DHH students to the “juxtaposition of ASL and English and the ability to use
one‟s primary face-to-face language to approach one‟s print language” (Ramsey &
Padden, p. 21) in a signing setting. A Bi-Bi approach uses ASL as a foundational
language base for the cognitive and conceptual transfers between ASL and English.
The issue of linguistic transfer has not been fully researched using different views or
definitions of language and literacy development from the perspective and experiences
of the Deaf individual and family. Deaf parents bring something to the literacy
experiences of their Deaf children. One conclusion could be that Deaf children of Deaf
parents have established the foundation for language development.
An additional element in the discussion on language development for students
who are DHH is technology, which affects language development.

51

Technology use Including Cochlear Implants

Science and technology have impacted all of our lives. The technologies of
hearing aids and Cochlear Implants (CIs) have impacted the Deaf community.
Following the hearing world‟s concept of hearing loss as a deficit, many in the Deaf
community view these technological aids as designed to make the deaf hearing- to fix
them.
Cochlear implants (CI) have posed new challenges for the deaf community and
the deaf educational community and serve as an identifiable research sub-group. CIs
have been found to be beneficial for the development of spoken language, improving
social interactions, and academic achievement (Fagan et al., 2007). CIs have increased
the auditory speech abilities of deaf children and the social interactions and have had
variable results on academic outcomes (Fagan et al.).
An early study by Vermeulen, van Bon, Schreuder, Knoors, & Snik, (2007)
compared 50 deaf children with CIs to the reference data of 500 deaf children without
CIs. The deaf children with CIs performed on average-3.6 standard deviations below
the hearing norm, but the mean for deaf children without CIs was 7.2 standard
deviations below the norm. These researchers posited that the language skills the
students with CIs were able to learn contributed to their better reading comprehension.
This study found that the reading skills of CIs are better than DHH children without
CIs, but that both were still significantly scoring lower than hearing children. Their
conclusion states that still unanswered is the link between receptive vocabulary
knowledge and improved reading comprehension with children with CIs.
52

In another study of the reading abilities of children with cochlear implants, the
results were different (Fagan et al., 2007). This study compared the reading abilities of
26 deaf children with CIs in place between 3 and 11 years to hearing norms as measured
by standardized tests. These tests had not been normed on DHH students.
In Fagan et al. (2007) each student was tested individually on standardized
measures of vocabulary knowledge, reading, and digit span. They were also tested on 5
nonverbal neuropsychological tests to investigate the relationship between nonverbal
indicators and outcome measures. These were taken from Lindamoodbell Auditory
Conceptualization Test-Third Edition (LAC3), Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-
Revised (WRMT), A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment (NESPY),
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT III), Peabody Individual Achievement Test
(PIAT), and 3 subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition
(WISC-III).
Most of the participant‟s scores in the Fagan et al. (2007) the study were within
or above the average ranges on sensorimotor measures, but low average on the design-
copying test. Mean performance on the vocabulary test was 1 standard deviation below
the norm for hearing children, while mean scores on the reading measures were within
average range although the mean score on the LAC Test was in the low average range.
The mean performance on the digit span measures was below average.
Fagan et al. (2007) compared the participants by etiology, length of implant, and
age at implantation. None of these were found to be correlated with outcome measures,
but age at implantation and chronological age was negatively correlated with backward
53

digit span and phonological awareness. The authors posit that “the cognitive processes
underlying the ability to copy geometric designs. . . may be similar to those that
underlie vocabulary comprehension and. . . cognitive manipulation of spoken digits and
phonemes” (Fagan et al., p. 468). Digit span measures (although below average) were
correlated with all measures of reading. The mean performance of children with CIs
was within the average range for hearing children, (and above the norms for deaf
children), while children who were implanted earlier scored between 1 and 2 standard
deviations higher than scores reported in previous studies. The correlation between
design copying (DC) and the PPVT indicates that language performance and IQ may be
based on cognitive and not on sensorimotor components of nonverbal measures.
Although the relationships between the tasks were not always consistent, the
results show the importance of using nonverbal cognitive measures for students with
CIs (Fagan et al, 2007). Further research on these non-verbal cognitive measures may
contribute to identifying factors that contribute to the differences in performance
between deaf students with and without CIs. Unanswered still is the question whether
or not DHH readers process language differently than hearing students and any
differences between Deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
Language Processing and the Deaf or Hard of Hearing Child (Reading Fluency)
Miller (2004) sought to identify how prelingual hearing loss (before speech
development) affected the ability to process written words. This study included 18 deaf
students and 28 hearing students from public schools in Israel. The students were
matched by age and gender and had a mean grade level of 4.9. One difference between
54

the groups is that none of the deaf student‟s parents had college degrees. The
participants were shown word pairs which were either physically identical (PI; DOG-
DOG) or conventionally identical (CI; DOG-dog). The participants were asked to
quickly identify if the pairs were the same or different.
A t-test was used to confirm that there was no mean difference between the two
groups. Two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were used to determine
the speed and accuracy of the groups. Miller (2004) determined that there were no
significant differences between the two groups, even though pre-lingual hearing loss
does impair the acquisition of phonological knowledge.
Miller further explained that:
This finding is encouraging because it implies that at least for the processing of
the lexical level of the text, readers with prelingual deafness might have
adequate and efficient processing skills. If this is indeed the case, then the final
implications of these findings may be that reading difficulties of prelingually
deaf people do not reflect a deficient ability to process written words per se.
Rather, their difficulties arise from the lack of crucial (probably general as well
as linguistic) knowledge that is necessary to arrive at the words‟ final
interpretation (p. 986).

Another study of fluency and DHH readers was conducted by Enns and Lafond
(2007). They studied the reading fluency (automaticity) of two dyslexic Deaf high
school students, designed and implemented an intervention program to improve their
reading fluency. Following formal reading assessments, an intervention program was
developed and taught to these students. The interventions included: short, repetitive
teaching sessions with the same word lists over a 10-day period with regular assessment
sessions. At the end of the 10-day period, a new list of words was introduced and the
55

cycle was repeated. The students maintained a binder with three sections: test results,
dictionary, and teaching activities.
The students tracked their own individual progress on charts and added to their
individual dictionaries as they mastered the words. In the teaching activities section the
students wrote the words repeatedly, used the words in sentences and in real-world
applications (such as job applications and keeping a calendar) and played a variety of
games with the words (such as Bingo, Memory and picture/word matching).
At the end of this 6 month study, the students each showed a 6 month gain. This
is significant because previously, these two students had gained one year of reading
growth over the past 9 years of schooling. While these results are significant for these
students, the authors did not identify the reading gain as the most significant aspect of
the study. They concluded that:
The most notable improvements in (the participants) were not captured by
formal measures. . . Both (sic) felt more positive about their reading and writing,
sat up straighter in class, participated more often in class. . . no longer referred
to themselves as “stupid” and were starting to leave written notes for their
families and were reading at home” (Enns & Lafond, 2007, p. 68).

Improving their reading fluency skills improved their self-confidence and increased
their social interactions.
Also identified as critical to the success of these students were the teacher and
her relationship to the students. These students began to see the importance of literacy
in their lives because the teacher believed in them and their abilities. She structured the
activities and word lists so that they were meaningful to the students. In this study, the
56

teacher was the important significant other as identified by Hidi and Harackiewicz
(2000):
The methods used in this study are neither new nor revolutionary. . . . (yet put
together in a systematic manner). . . with a teacher who believed in the students‟
abilities and genuinely cares about them as individuals made a difference (Enns
& Lafond, 2007, p. 69).

This conclusion highlights the importance of the social environment in the success of
developing literacy for DHH students.
DHH Students and Phonemic Awareness
Linguistic knowledge is rooted in phonemic awareness, which includes a wide
variety of skills and tasks used to test for the concept of phonemic awareness (Yopp,
1988). Phonemic awareness is another NRP (2000) target area. Phonemic awareness
tasks are focused on the sounds of words, letters, or letter combinations and phonemic
awareness tests have been found to hold great predictability for reading acquisition
(Yopp). The inability of accessing auditory information and developing phonemic
awareness is often given as a reason why DHH students are unable to develop literacy.
At first thought, one might not expect phonemic awareness to be important to deaf
readers as phonemic awareness refers to an awareness of the auditory sound
connections between the written print and the spoken sound.
In order to test this idea, Trezek and Wang (2006) utilized a reading program
(the Reading Mastery curriculum) with kindergarten and first grade students who are
deaf or hard of hearing. The program included specific phonic skills and
comprehension checking strategies for both decoding and for reading comprehension
checks. Trezek and Wang were specifically testing if the subjects would “show
57

improvements in beginning reading skills as measured by standardized assessments of
(a) word reading, (b) pseudoword decoding, and (c) reading comprehension” (p. 204).
The DHH students used the Reading Mastery skills while reading and their reading
comprehension skills improved at a statistically significant level (t = -13.514, p = .000)
between pre- and post-test. The grade equivalent gain was 9 months over one year of
instruction. There was no difference between degree of hearing loss and student gain.
At least with this group of DHH students, being explicitly taught phonic skills directly
improved their reading.
One caution in interpreting this result is that the authors were intimately
involved with the program development, teacher in-service, and the classroom site
which may compromise the findings. However, these findings do point out that
researchers need to study all aspects of literacy acquisition and how hearing loss affects
literacy. Teaching phonics directly seems to improve the reading skills of the students
in this study. Replication of this study by a neutral researcher is needed.
In another study of reading delay of deaf adolescents, Dyer, MacSweeney,
Szczerbinski, Green, and Campbell, (2003) studied 49 deaf adolescents (with 81 hearing
students as a control group) on their ability to use phonemic awareness and rapid
processing (which is related to fluency). The mean age of the participants was 14 and
the average reading age (RA) of the participants was 7 years of age. The study included
two tasks. One task was the “rhyme decision” task that had the students rapidly identify
(RAN) if the two pictures rhymed and the other task was to match the picture to a
written letter stream that was phonologically (PAD) matched to the picture (for example
58

FOCS for a picture of a fox). In order to not conflict with their hearing loss, phonemic
awareness was studied in these two ways.
Correlational analysis were conducted to identify any relationship between the
tasks and hearing status and to explore relationships between the different tasks. The
authors also analyzed the patterns of results for students who were from Deaf families
(where sign language was the native language). Although non-verbal IQ (NVIQ) was
similar between groups, there was a 4-5year difference between the chronological age
and reading age for the DHH students. The DHH students were compared to both
hearing students with the similar chronological age (CA) and younger hearing students
with a similar reading age (RA) (Dyer et al., 2003).
The results of Dyer and her colleague‟s (2003) research reveal that DHH
students RA was related to picture rhyme and PAD and these two tasks correlated with
each other with a marginal significance; p = 0.52. For the RAN-experiment, speech-
speed failed to account for any of the variance in (raw) reading scores or in scores of
reading delay but was related to both CA and NVIQ. As a whole, the DHH students
showed reading delays which is consistent with many studies of deaf readers. In this
study, the deaf readers did make use of the phonological structures when reading, but
those with the greatest degree of hearing loss were slower at the RAN speech repetition
task (r = -0.40). Older DHH students were faster on all of the tasks than younger DHH
readers. Dyer et al., (2003) concluded that:

59

If the constraints of the RAN task are primarily phonological (quality of
phonological representations of words, efficiency of representation retrieval),
deaf participants might be predicted to be impaired on RAN because of their
deficient phonology. Because they were not slow at these tasks, resources other
than phonology constrain their RAN performance. (p. 227)

Dyer et al. (2003) found that rapid processing was not a significant predictor of
reading success but phonemic awareness and decoding was. An interesting preliminary
finding was that the students from homes with Deaf parents who used sign language as
their first language showed patterns of relationships between the test factors like hearing
participants. This is evidence that these students may have integrated visual cues (such
as lip shapes) into their sense of phonological awareness. The findings from this
research demonstrate that phonemic awareness and decoding are closely correlated to
reading success for DHH students.
This study showed very clearly that phonemic awareness and decoding are
important for deaf readers (as they are for hearing readers). Fundamental questions
have not been answered yet regarding phonemic awareness and fluency. One question
left from this study is just how DHH readers acquire phonemic awareness skill.
Another question is why Deaf children of Deaf parents score most like hearing students.
Also left unanswered is that if DHH readers use the same skills as hearing readers, then
they how do we explain or understand the continuing and growing achievement gap for
DHH students.
The studies described above have compared the literacy levels between hearing
and DHH students and between skilled and unskilled DHH readers using the findings
from the NRP (2000) as a base. These studies view different segments of the
60

community and vary between the participant‟s ages, onset of hearing loss, between
different degrees of hearing loss, different communication mode choices, or different
family structures.
What remains constant is that DHH students continue to be behind hearing
students in literacy development. The gap does not narrow after beginning school, but
continues to widen throughout the DHH students education (Schirmer & McGough,
2005).
Regardless of the perspective of the researchers or any characteristic of the
research questions, research on the deaf all indicate the importance of early
interventions for DHH students and their families. Families are one of the most critical
elements in the development of healthy, competent, and caring children (Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act Amendments, 1997). One area that has been identified
as a problem area for the development of literacy for DHH students that was not a focus
of the NRP (2000) study is the lack of literacy and language experiences in early
childhood, the resultant delay in vocabulary and language development. Families are
the context for early language development and may be even more critical to the
development of literacy for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The behaviors
and attitudes of the parents and their interaction with their children influence the
socializing behaviors developed by the children (Bandura & Huston, 1961). The
attitudes and beliefs of the parents are important to consider in this study.

61

Language Development
Language development affects literacy development. Children arrive at school
with language from home. Most Deaf children are born into hearing families and do not
acquire language as hearing children can. Early language development for DHH
children is very closely linked to literacy development and the family context is
important to revisit for this study. There are two theories of language development
important to note for children who are deaf. These are constructivism and the social
interaction theory.
According to the social constructivist theory of Vygotsky, language is acquired
through interactions with others (for young hearing children this interaction is largely
oral and auditory). Through these interactions, learners scaffold or add new knowledge
upon previous knowledge with the support of a more abled other in their zone of
proximal development (ZPD).
Schema theory, which is based on Piaget‟s work, views language learning as a
building process that is largely an internal process. Children construct or build
knowledge upon previous knowledge (schema), in an active process. Learners either
assimilate or accommodate new learning in order to maintain equilibrium as they build
upon their schema. For young hearing children, much of their learning occurs through
oral language, language play, and social interactions. Parents (and others) use oral
language to support and build schema with the young child.
Social constructivist and schema theories have common elements that are
particularly relevant to the language development of children who are DHH. Both
62

theories have the learners adding to previous knowledge or understandings.
Researchers in the field of Deaf Education have long identified that reading at an age-
appropriate level is an exceptional achievement for deaf children (Harris & Moreno,
2004; Wauters, VanBon, Tellings, & Van Leeuwe, 2006), and that because these
students do not have a language base to build upon may be one reason for this result.
The importance of a language base for Deaf readers was also shown in a study
of phonemic awareness in deaf children by Izzo (2002). This study included 29 DHH
children enrolled in a residential school for the deaf. The students ranged in age from 4
to 13 years of age and were all prelingually deafened. In this study, reading ability was
significantly correlated with language ability, and language ability and age were also
correlated but phonemic awareness was not correlated. The two students who scored at
the highest reading levels were 9 and 10 year old girls who were both from Deaf
families and were fluent in ASL. Given the probable mismatch between the oral home
language of the vast majority of DHH children, the context of the family and influence
of family interactions upon the early language development and schema development
becomes critical to study.
Family Influences of DHH Students‟ Early Language Development
Children from Deaf families performed better at phonological skills than
children who are deaf from hearing families (Dyer et al., 2003). Ninety percent of DHH
students have hearing parents, and only 10% of DHH students have Deaf parents. The
ecological environment of Deaf children from Deaf families is different than that of
DHH children from hearing families in a most fundamental way- language.
63

Early language experiences serve as the foundation for both cognitive
development and schema building according to both the constructivist and social
interaction theories (Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1986). The early language context is
perhaps more critical for children who are DHH as approximately 90% of the children
who are deaf have hearing parents. This indicates that the L1 of most DHH students
(ASL) is learned later than the language of a hearing child, often not until after they
enter school. The 10% of DHH students who use American Sign Language (ASL) as
their primary mode of communication in Deaf homes prior to enrolling in school have
more language knowledge than the 90% of DHH students who are raised in hearing
homes (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2001). Deaf families do not have to change their
family structure upon the identification of a child‟s hearing loss- they have family
homeostasis, but, hearing families will need to make perhaps “cataclysmic” changes to
adapt to a DHH child (Luterman, 1987).
While the hearing family is adjusting to their child‟s hearing loss,
communication may be limited. The DHH children of hearing families may not have
multiple encounters with the content vocabulary words and even begin learning
language much later as the parents deal with the changes and become comfortable with
the diagnosis. Often there is a delay between diagnosis and choosing to learn sign
language (Stredler-Brown & Yoshinaga-Itano, 1992). The ecology of a hearing family
is not designed to optimize the DHH child‟s acquisition of language.
In a study of the mastery motivation and expressive language for young children
with hearing loss, Pipp-Siegal, Sedey, Van Leeuwen, and Yoshinaga-Itano, (2003)
64

studied the relationship between expressive language and mastery motivation in 200
young children with hearing loss. The children ranged from birth to 6 years of age with
an average age of 15 months. The mothers were asked to rate their belief of their
child‟s mastery motivation- persistence in three representative areas: object-orientated
persistence, social/symbolic persistence, and gross motor persistence. The play
interactions between the mothers and their children was recorded and analyzed. The
mastery motivation scales were significantly correlated and related to expressive
language through a multiple regression analysis. Younger children were found to have
a higher language quotient than older children, with the gap between their language age
and chronological age becoming wider very early- even before age 6 and continuing to
widen as they aged.
Pipp-Segal et al. (2003) identified two findings. First, social/symbolic
persistence significantly predicted expressive language quotients and second, the
acquisition of language related to the increased persistence with objects used in social
situations and during play. The largest percentage of variance in the expressive
language quotient was directly linked to the mother‟s estimate of the child‟s
competence (25%) and was evidenced in the mother‟s supportive and nondirective
interactions which increased the child‟s autonomy and positive interactions which in a
circular manner increased the positive interactions (Pipp-Segal et al., 2003).
Parental beliefs and support are important to all children, but may play an even
greater role for their children who are DHH. Hearing loss adds an extra layer of
complexity and stress on the family and dependence on the part of the child. In addition,
65

the hearing environment continues to maintain negative attitudes and stereotypes about
deafness and deaf individuals (Nikolaraizi and Makri, 2004/2005). “The role of health
professionals and educators who believe that deafness is a disability influence learning
parents‟ initial views of deafness” (Nikoraraizi and Makri, p. 405).
The Role of Family Beliefs and DHH Students
In studies focusing on the families of students who are DHH, both Hintermair
(2006) and Luckner and Velaski (2004) focused on studying the dynamics and beliefs
of the families of children who are identified as DHH. Each study focused on what they
termed “healthy” indicators although, Luckner and Velaski only considered deaf
students and their families (not hard of hearing students).
Luckner and Velaski (2004) sent letters to all teachers of the deaf in a western
state and asked them to nominate families for inclusion in the study following certain
criteria for „healthy‟. These criteria included “good communication, clear roles,
intimacy, and an ability to cope with and adjust to daily life demands” (Luckner &
Velaski, p. 333). While 33 families were nominated and contacted for participation, 19
families were included in the study. Families completed demographic information and
responded to 8 interview questions.
This study identified 4 themes as contributing to the development of healthy
families: support; proactive stance; sign language; and family involvement (Luckner &
Velaski, 2004). Support was identified as critical to the family. The most helpful
support identified the strengths of the families and took a strength perspective. Another
theme was that each of the healthy families was proactive. They gathered information
66

and acted upon that information, often fighting for their child‟s needs. Third, most of
the families learned sign language. Teachers for the deaf may believe that sign
language is a necessary quality of a healthy family and may have not included families
who did not sign in the pool. A final theme was that these families found ways to be
involved with their child‟s education and participate in school-sponsored classes for
families. Meeting the criteria for nomination can be interpreted differently by different
teachers and may have affected nomination for inclusion in this study and the findings.
All of these students and families would be considered “optimal” by Luterman (1987).
Hintermair (2006) conducted a qualitative study of families of children who are
DHH. He focused on the parental experience with hearing loss and the impact upon the
socioemotional development of the children. His study is important to consider as it
included a wide variety of families (213 mothers and 213 fathers) not just the “healthy”
families. He studied a resource-oriented consultation model and how it affected
parental resources, parental stress, and the socioemotional development of the DHH
children in Germany. A detailed discussion follows.
Family Empowerment and Resource Orientation
In the US, IDEA (and the reauthorization IDEIA, 2004) requires early
intervention and support for families. This support is mandated and often is very rigidly
applied as a complete program depending on the philosophical camp of the program. In
Germany there has been a “change in perspective” (Hintermair, 2006, p. 494) to include
providing resources and support to and for families of disabled children with the family
being empowered with information in order to make decisions for their families.
67

According to Hintermair (2006), in order to support families of DHH children,
services must involve empowerment with a resource orientation. Empowerment is
defined as:
the process that encourages people to take their own affairs in hand, to discover
their own powers and capabilities, and to also take these seriously while at the
same time learning to appreciate the value of solutions that they have worked
out for themselves. (Hintermair, p. 494)

Resource orientation basically turns away from the deficit view of what is
lacking to look at and for the strengths and abilities (of the family and the DHH child)
which can be developed and encouraged to improve the quality of life.
Hintermair (2006) studied the parents of 213 DHH students who had a mean age
of 9.9 years. A confirmatory path analysis was run to identify “connections between
parental resources, children‟s and parent‟s characteristics, parental stress experience,
and the psychological development of deaf children” (Hintermair, p. 503). Parental
stress was found to be highly influenced by the parent‟s resources. Parents who
believed they had the competence to raise a deaf child had the least stress. The support
parents received that was geared directly to their specific family was found to be the
most helpful in reducing stress. This is a significant finding as most early intervention
“programs” have a philosophically well organized program of interventions which have
not always taken into account the needs, resources, beliefs and strengths of the
individual families or children.
Other findings of Hintermair‟s (2006) study were that the child‟s communicative
competence had a significant effect on parents‟ stress experience but the language used
(oral or sign) was not found to be relevant. The ability to communicate in the family
68

was most important to both the child‟s socioemotional development and parental stress
levels. This study also found that the parents hearing status was not correlated to either
parental stress or child development. Both of these findings are in contrast to the long-
held understanding of the Deaf community and among educators of the deaf. The
resource orientation model of intervention support is fundamentally the same as the
family centered approach espoused by Roush and McWilliam (1994).
The ecology of a less stressed family is working in sync to support the
socioemotional development of the child. Parents who report less stress have children
with better socioemotional development. Stress reduction was linked in many ways to
the parent‟s sense of empowerment. Resources that were individually tailored to the
specific family were found to be the most successful in reducing stress. Families who
were less stressed were able to create the social system and social support that was
optimal for their deaf child (Luterman, 1987).
Conclusion
In spite of the fact that hearing loss is not a cognitive disability, the achievement
gap for students who are DHH has continued to be problematic for the vast majority of
students with hearing loss (Cawthon, 2004). The achievement gap includes children
who are deaf, Deaf, hard of hearing, signing, oral, with Deaf parents or hearing parents.
There are many gaps in the literature regarding Deaf literacy.
One gap in the literature is studying successfully literate DHH students. Much
of the literature on Deaf literacy focuses on students who are not literate as such a small
percentage of this population is literate--or focuses on early literacy development. The
69

participants in this study are “extreme cases” as far as their literacy achievement. They
are literate and have maintained their literacy through high school. This study will fill
the gap in the literature on literate DHH high school graduates.
Literature in the field usually studies one segment of the DHH population or
compares one narrow segment to another (such as oral versus ASL). The literature does
not include participants who are representative of all segments of the DHH population.
Rather than repeat the divide comparing language options, this study will include
participants from all segments of the DHH population.
The participants in this study will be signing and non-signing and their families
who are also both signing and non-signing. The participants will include Deaf of Deaf
parents, and Deaf and deaf of hearing parents. The participants include both pre-
lingually and post-lingually deafened participants. The interview will seek to identify
how these parents set and developed the foundation for language development and how
they supported the literacy development for their DHH child.
Families are important and that families make a difference are common
statements in the literature. Specifics as to what families do that makes a difference is
rare. The role of the family and their belief in the future of their DHH child is
important, perhaps crucial. Families of successful high school students are important to
study because unlike many DHH students, these students continued to maintain their
academic success and did not fall into the widening achievement gap typical for DHH
students as they continue through school. This study will continue to contribute to the
field by examining in depth the beliefs and experiences of successfully literate DHH
70

high school graduates and their families to identify critical characteristics and familial
attitudes that may have contributed to the success of these DHH students.
It is important to capture just what made the difference for these children and
their families in order to inform future practices and services. These families were
successful at overcoming obstacles to literacy development. These DHH students are
literate. Under the NCLB (2002), the enduring lack of achievement for DHH children
will not be allowed to continue to be left behind. This study will add to the field by
examining in depth the beliefs and actions of families of successfully literate DHH
students and their families to identify the critical characteristics and/or attitudes that
may have contributed to the success of these DHH students.
71

Chapter 3:
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to identify critical characteristics of highly literate
Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) high school graduates and their families. This study
was designed to identify specific traits, practices, characteristics, or educational
programs that contributed to the literacy success of these DHH students. Multiple
sources of evidence were collected from each of the three families which allowed for
triangulation or comparisons between multiple sources of evidence on a phenomenon
(Yin, 1990). The three case studies in this research included representation from many
corners of the DHH community and different philosophical stances. Including
information from multiple sources on the same phenomenon corroborated and
strengthened the applicability of any findings or conclusions drawn from this study
(Yin).
Research Design
A case study format is appropriate for this study because, “In general, case
studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or “why” questions are being posed,
when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a
contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context” (Yin, 1990, p. 13). Yin also
stated that there are three principles of data collection. These are: multiple sources of
evidence; creating a case study data base; and maintaining a chain of evidence. These
principles will be followed in this study.
72

Language leads to literacy and language is first learned by young children at
home within the microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) of the family and immediate
community. In order to obtain insight into locating or identifying critical practices or
characteristics of literate DHH students, rich descriptions as to what these families did,
how they did it, and what they think about how they supported the literacy
development of their child is important. The parents (and students) were asked to
identify the motivational factors(s) that helped them persist in developing literacy. A
case study with in-depth focused interviews is the most appropriate means for
exploring this question. This study was designed to identify the “Ah-ha” experiences
or memories of the participants and find out what they remembered about how they
learned to read and write in order to answer the research questions.
Parents (and families) have been identified as critical to the success of students
with a hearing loss (Luckner & Velaski, 2004; Luterman, 1987), so the parents will be
important participants in this case study. Parents set the environment and social
interactions for their children.
Research Questions
Research in the field of deaf education often begin with a confirmation that
students who are deaf or hard of hearing are not as literate as hearing students but
under NCLB (No Child Left Behind), that research focus is changing (Cawthon, 2007).
Historically, research in deaf literacy has focused on comparing students with various
degrees of hearing loss, age at onset or identification of hearing loss or communicative
modality (oral or signing). This study examined successfully literate DHH high school
73

graduates with different degrees of hearing loss, different communication modalities,
and different etiologies to find out what they knew about how they became literate.
This study looked for commonalities and differences between the literacy development
of these students. The overarching research question for this dissertation was: What is
the nature of the literacy experiences of highly literate recent high school graduates
who have hearing loss and were enrolled in a DHH program? Two subquestions guide
this dissertation. (1) What factors are related to literacy development in DHH high
school graduates? (2) What do the parents of these successful students identify that
specifically supports the literacy development of their children with a hearing loss?
The research questions in this study are intended to identify the nature of the
literacy experiences of highly literate high school graduates with a hearing loss.
Interviews were conducted to identify specific factors or events that supported or
influenced the literacy development of these students. Common critical characteristics
of these specific highly literate DHH high school graduates were identified. The role
the parents played in supporting the literacy development of their children who are
DHH was also a focus of this study.
Sample and Population
The participants in this study were 3 literate high school age DHH high school
graduates and their parents. After casting a wide net for participation, final
participation was determined by the researcher to include students who are literate, and
represent the spectrum of languages (ASL, oral), etiologies (deaf at birth, progressive
loss), degree of hearing loss, and aided, cochlear implant and non-aided.
74

Literacy was determined by initial identification by the administration or
teacher, enrollment in mainstream English classes, student work, and/or test scores.
These students all attended the same public high school in a western state and lived in
different cities. While historically, many students with significant hearing loss have
been enrolled in residence schools, most recently more DHH students are being
enrolled in “traditional” education classrooms (Vernon, 2006/2007). The students in
this study all graduated from the same high school--College High School (CHS)--a
pseudonym.
CHS is located in the western US and is part of a county program and houses a
large county-wide program for DHH students. The school description section of the
API report for CHS reads, “CHS . . . enrolled 2,172 students and an additional 115
students in the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program,” the DHH students, as a sub group,
have been legally excluded from the school‟s accountability report.
The program for DHH students at CHS is considered a model program. The
DHH students enrolled at CHS have a separate principal who uses ASL, separate
counselors, teachers, clerks, psychologists, and even custodians who use sign language.
Students were either enrolled in DHH classes or mainstreamed with highly qualified
interpreters. CHS is a part of a large county SELPA (Special Education Local
Planning Area) which is a county-wide program and the data are reported with the
county office data. This regionalization has provided a larger pool of potential
students for this study and a concentration of literate DHH students.
75

The context for these students is important as 2 of the 3 participants did not live
within the assigned service area. These two students live in two different service areas
(SELPA‟s) and their parents have been able to obtain “out-of-district” placements for
their students. The process for obtaining these out of district placements is time
consuming, and can be expensive and confrontational. Each of the students attended
different pre-schools, elementary and middle schools.
Sampling Strategy and Research Context
All three case study student participants had been enrolled in the DHH program
and attended CHS. Each of these participants was identified as being literate. The
participants were enrolled in CHS and have no additional disabilities and were
mainstreamed for their English/Language Arts courses. The three cases were
purposefully chosen to represent the DHH spectrum.
Parents of DHH students enrolled in CHS high school were solicited to
participate in the study and signed releases prior to participation. Participants were
purposefully selected from this pool. Criteria for participation in the study included:
high literacy levels, attendance at CHS, and representation from various language
choices, genders, hearing loss levels and etiology of hearing loss. The California
STAR test data confirmed the literacy success levels of the participants for
participation in the study. The participants were all at the proficient or advanced
proficiency level on the STAR test (or an equivalent level if the student did not take
the test), and were willing to participate in the study. If no test scores were available,
then program documents were collected to determine their proficiency.
76

This dissertation utilized a case study approach looking in depth at 3 DHH high
school graduates participants and their families. Potential participants were identified
for inclusion in this study to represent the wide spectrum of the DHH community. The
participants included female and male high school graduates. The participants
intentionally included students who are oral and ASL, aided and unaided, and from
different families and different locations. All student participants were recruited from
the CHS Academic Decathlon team meeting using a recruitment script (Appendix A)
or a parent meeting (Appendix B).
The participants were aware of each other as they attended the same high school
and were members of a small low incidence group. The participants for each case
study were purposefully selected and are extreme cases as they are considered to be at
a proficient level of literacy. The study participants are similar in that they all attend
CHS and are recognized as being proficient or advanced proficient in their literacy
skills.
These participants have the following characteristics in common- they are all
deaf, they attended the same high school, they all have siblings, and they all plan on
attending college. They live in different cities (even different counties), and attended
different schools until high school. Two of the participants were female and one male.
Two are the first born and one is the youngest in the family- all have siblings. One
participant is from a single parent family and one has a Deaf parent and the first
language of that family is ASL. Each of the participants has different aspirations and
plans after high school. One of the participants has a CI and started to learn ASL in
77

high school although neither the parents nor siblings of this student sign. Two of the
participants began communicating in sign language early (one at birth and one as a
toddler). One has parents and family members who are proficient in ASL, one has
parents and siblings who have intermediate signing skills and one has no signing at
home (Table 1).

Table 1. Background Information of the Participants

ID

Age Stat

Onset

Aided

Lang.

Mother

Father

Lang.
Mode
Birth
Order
F1 18 Deaf Birth No ASL Hear H/H Eng/ASL Youngest
F2 18 Deaf PS CI Oral Hear Hear Eng Oldest
M1 18 H/H PS Yes ASL Deaf Hear ASL/Eng Oldest

Data Sources and Instrumentation
Yin (1990) stated that there are “six sources of evidence that can be used in case
study research. These include: documentation, archival records, interviews, direct
observation, participant observation, and the collection of physical artifacts” (p. 84).
This study included interviews, documentation, and archival records (Table 2).

Table 2. Data Sources

Data type

Source

Source

Source

Source
Interviews Parent Surveys Student
Surveys
Parent
Interviews
Student
Interviews

Documents Literacy
Samples
Report Cards Current IEPs Audiograms

Archival
Records
Previous literacy
Samples
Previous IEP
Documents
Census Data Program
Document
Reports

78

A case study is designed to study a phenomenon in depth. This dissertation case
study focused on literate DHH students (with input from the parents) to find out about
their personal experiences becoming literate. Using constructivist theory and
Bronfenbrenner‟s (1986) ecological theory of development, the family and the
environmental factors of the family are important. How each family makes sense of
their child‟s deafness is important.
A case study allows one to obtain information about the experiences of each
family. Information gathering began with a survey questionnaire in order to minimize
miscommunication. Parents have information about the early support providers and
their effect on the family. The questionnaire asked for detailed information about the
previous experiences and current processes the participants used to develop their
literacy. Additional questions were more open-ended in order to cast a wide net to
elicit feelings, program specifics and long-term understandings from the participants
(Appendices D & E). The questionnaire served as the base for a data chart.
The interview was designed to follow up the survey and the researcher then
asked for more in depth responses about their experiences with the programs/services.
These data provided additional information into the beginning stages of literacy
development and the familial context. The interview captured and pursued any
emotional responses which may not have been apparent on the survey in order to
clarify the responses. Interviews were conducted to clarify the written responses and
obtain more clarity and detail. The researcher has knowledge of sign language but an
interpreter was available to minimize miscommunication.
79

Including questionnaires, interviews, documents, and archival records provided
the researcher an opportunity to identify the critical activities, characteristics or
services they received that facilitated the literacy success for these students. DHH
students may have different social interaction experiences than hearing students and
gathering data from both survey questions and family interviews provided insight into
the sociocultural dimension of literacy development for these DHH students and their
families.
Questionnaires and Interviews
Each case study began with an individual questionnaire. While similar topics
were represented, there was one questionnaire for the parents (Appendix F) and one for
the young adults (Appendix E). The questionnaires included semi-structured and open
ended questions. The questions were designed to obtain base-line information about
the actual programs and literacy experiences they remembered. Data obtained from the
questions served to identify the title of the programs they attended and to identify their
service providers. More in-depth information was obtained in the interviews (which
are detailed in the following section). Parent questions included questions about the
families‟ demographics, (education level, SES, number of children, etc.) as well as
their experiences with hearing loss prior to their child‟s diagnosis, onset of
identification, etiology, and what they remembered doing to support their child‟s
literacy development.
The questions chosen for the parent survey are similar to the questions posed
separately by both Luckner and Velaski (2004) and Smith (2007) in his unpublished
80

survey of the parents of successful DHH students. The questions are designed to find
out about their personal experiences as parents of a child with hearing loss, and their
sense of what was helpful to them as they raised academically successful children.
The young adults are themselves literate and were also given questionnaires to
understand their sense of their own literacy development in comparison to their peers.
As participants in their literacy development, the students have a unique perspective
and can insight and responses from their unique views. The students are members of
all layers of the social ecological model (Bronfenbrenner 1986). “Student” questions
(Appendix E) were linked to the research questions in “student friendly” language and
were left intentionally open-ended. The questions sought to gather their feelings and
opinions. These questions were designed to ascertain what they remembered about
learning to read and write, whether or not they enjoy reading and writing, and if they
know why they are able to read and write while many of their DHH peers struggle with
these skills.
Following the administering of the survey questionnaires, parents were
interviewed using an open-ended technique. These interviews probed into the early
responses of the parents to the diagnosis of hearing loss. How did they feel? What did
they do? Where did they go for additional information? Who was their primary
support? Do they remember intentionally doing something different with this child?
These interviews attempted to find out if the families altered their interactions and
expectations for their DHH child and if they (as parents) did something different to
support the literacy development of their DHH child. If so, they were asked to identify
81

differences in the literacy development of this child as they all have additional
children.
The young adult participants were interviewed to explore their responses to the
questionnaires. The participants are all able to read and write. Interviews began with
acknowledgement of the questions they had already answered and asking if they had
any questions about the survey, the study, or if the survey caused them to have any
questions for the researcher. Then the interviewer probed into their answers to prompt
a discussion about what the students remembered or felt about literacy. Questions
were asked about their own success and what they attribute their success to as well as
what they thought about the literacy levels of other DHH students.
Documentation
Additional documentation was obtained to support the claim of literacy
(particularly in the absence of standardized test data) and provided evidence of test
scores, academic achievement, education goals and hearing loss. These documents
included audiograms, IEPs, and literacy samples. Each document was coded to
maintain confidentiality and kept in a secure location.
Audiograms documented the degree of hearing loss for each child. The IEP‟s
verified eligibility for special education and participation in the DHH program and
contained test score information. One of the participants had been exempt from
standardized testing, so literacy samples in the form of written essays were provided to
verify her literacy level.
82

Archival records included accountability reports, census data (state, program,
national), IEP reports, and individual student test scores. Parents were invited to
include additional archival records to document specific programs they attended which
they felt were important. These included additional samples of student work, program
descriptions, or other records such as letters from teachers. Some of these records
(particularly IEP reports) were photo copied and the originals given back to the
families.
Data Collection
Once participants were selected, the participants were given informed consent
forms to sign (Appendices C & D). As some of the participants are deaf, email contact
information will be provided in lieu of phone numbers.
The participants all indicated that email was the preferred method of
communication, so the survey questionnaires were emailed to them. Once their
responses were completed and returned to the researcher an interview was scheduled in
a location chosen by the interviewee.
The interviews by asking if the participants had any questions about the surveys
they had filled out, and allowed the interviewer to clarify any questions she had about
the surveys. Notes were taken during the interviews. Interviews that were conducted
in English were tape recorded and transcribed. The interview with the Deaf parent was
offered to be videotaped and conducted in ASL with an interpreter present for the
interview or video transcription, but the participant declined An interpreter
confidentiality statement had been signed (Appendix G). Confidentiality of the
83

participants was maintained by omitting all names from the data collected and
maintaining the notes in a secure location-a locked faculty office. All notes will be
destroyed in three years.
Data Analysis
Questionnaires, interview transcripts, and documents were collected, organized,
and analyzed per family. Key terms were identified with their sources and organized
on a chart. After each family unit was analyzed, the data were compared across
families to identify any patterns of similarity or difference (Yin, 1990). Although this
is a study of one phenomenon (literate DHH students), each family represented a
significant aspect of the DHH population, so it was important to compare the findings
across the 3 cases by families to ascertain any patterns or critical elements common to
these DHH students representing different aspects of the DHH community.
Notes were analyzed to look for commonalities and/or discrepancies between
the participants. Data evidence was gathered and sorted first by family to identify
critical elements, and then again across the three families to match and identify any
patterns (Table 3). Key terms were identified and tagged.
Data from all sources were word processed and categorized per family groups
using the NRP (2000) literacy components and the 5 major obstacles to literacy
identified by Luckner et al. (2005/2006). These are: (1) comprehension (including
vocabulary) and a delay in the acquisition of vocabulary and difficulties with lower
level reading skills, (2) fluency and limited fluency with the language prior to
attending school, (3) phonemic awareness and lack of access to the phonological code,
84

(4) computer technology, and (5) reading and a lack of early literacy experiences prior
to entering school.
Data from each family group were compiled on a data collection chart (Table 3).
The next step was to identify similarities and differences between and within the
families. Each participant was also asked to give advice to parents of Children newly
diagnosed with a hearing loss and if they had advice for professionals. Themes and
common experiences were identified and correlated across the three cases.

Table 3. Data Collection Chart

Indicators/Categories Surveys Interview Documents/Records
Comprehension (including vocabulary) and
a delay in the acquisition of vocabulary
and difficulties with lower level reading
skills.

Fluency and limited fluency with the
language prior to attending school;

Phonemic awareness and lack of access to
the phonological code,

Computer technology

Reading and a lack of early literacy
experiences prior to entering school.

Triangulation
Multiple sources and forms of data were collected from both parents and their
students and strengthened this case study. The data collected was compared within and
across families. According to Yin (1990), case studies are more convincing if they
85

include different sources of information. This study is more convincing to the deaf
educational community as it included data from families representing very different
communication aspects of the DHH community. The cases attended different pre-
schools, elementary and middle schools, each has a different etiology and degree of
deafness.
Key terms were located in each case study and charted (see Table 3). After each
case study had been charted and analyzed per the NRP (2000) categories, a cross case
analysis was conducted between the three families to identify similarities or differences
(See Figure 5.).

Figure 5. Data Analysis Cycle

Individual survey
responses will
be analyzed and
then a cross case
analysis will be
conducted.
Individual
interviews will
first be coded for
key terms and
then a cross case
analysis will be
conducted.
Documents and
archival records
will provide
additional evidence
to support the
interview data.
86

This triangulation between cases is especially critical in this case study due to
the historic divide between language choices, Deaf, deaf and hard of hearing, and
between hearing versus Deaf parents. Triangulation in this study is designed to
strengthen the findings.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher is the mother of a highly literate profoundly deaf child. She was
a bilingual classroom teacher and she is currently a college professor teaching literacy
and language acquisition courses to future teachers. While not a member of the Deaf
community, she is a member of the group of hearing parents of deaf children and
experienced first-hand the difficulties faced by these families in making life altering
decisions for their babies or young children. In that sense, the researcher is a participant
observer with familiarity with the issues faced by the families. While the researcher
shared some of these experiences with the families, each family was provided or offered
different choices, service options, service providers, and each made different choices for
their families. Each family lives in different cities. The researcher has access to the
population as a parent and has access to the administrators, teachers, and school site as
both a parent and as a member of the education profession.
Limitations
This study is intended to be very specific to these participants. Each participant
had recently graduated from a public high school and the DHH program. As the
potential participant pool was very small (45 DHH students in grades 12) and made
even smaller by limiting participation to students who are at the advanced proficient
87

level in Reading/language arts. Less that 8% of the total DHH population is
categorized as advanced proficient in Reading/Language Arts. The student participants
knew each other and had some similar high school experiences although they attended
different elementary and middle schools.
The very limited participation pool was both a limitation and strength of this
study. As two of these families were able to have their student attend this particular
high school (both across county lines and “out-of-district”), they may not be “typical”
in their level of advocacy, but may represent what Hintermair (2006) titled
“empowered” and Luterman (1987) termed “optimal.” The relatively unstudied nature
of this group and the depth to which they were studied are strengths of this study.
Conclusion
This case study focused on three high school graduates and their parents. The
students are literate and representative of DHH students. This qualitative approach
allows the participants to actively guide the study and minimize the effects of
researcher bias. Using a case study approach allows for detailed, contextualized
descriptions of the experience of developing literacy for these DHH students and their
parents. Case studies are often used as tools for in depth research into a social science
phenomenon (Yin, 1990).
Developing literacy is a very complex phenomenon, particularly for the Deaf or
hard of hearing students. This case study was designed to fill a gap in the knowledge
base in Deaf education by identifying practices, programs, or factors that foster the
development of literacy for DHH students. Isolating and identifying factors important
88

and common among these literate DHH high school graduates can serve as a base for
further research in Deaf education.
89

Chapter 4:
Findings
The purpose of this study was to closely examine three literate DHH (Deaf or
Hard of Hearing) students and their parents to identify common characteristics
attributing to their developing literacy. An enduring trait in both the Deaf community
and research in deafness is the consistent lack of literacy for the Deaf. This trait is
continuing in spite of advances in technology, early identification, Schools for the Deaf
and credentials specifically designed for teachers of the Deaf, and the public and
federal focus on “No Child Left Behind.”
The participants in this study are representative of the Deaf population by degree
of hearing loss, etiology, and early intervention program attendance. Identification of
the participants as deaf or Deaf was based on their individual socio-political belief.
Basically deaf (small d) indicates someone who has a hearing loss but does not self
identify as a member of the Deaf community and Deaf (capital D) indicates someone
has a hearing loss and who identifies themselves as a member of the Deaf community
and the Deaf culture. The degree of hearing loss is not as critical for this designation.
All of the names are pseudonyms. The participants represent the less than 8% of the
Deaf population who are literate.
Data was obtained from both students and a parent, through interviews and
survey questions were used to answer these questions. The surveys were designed to
obtain socio-demographic information. The interviews were designed to obtain
qualitative details and more in depth information about the questions. Interviews were
90

transcribed and categorized into three research questions and further examined by the
themes in a cross case analysis. The research question was: What is the nature of the
literacy experiences of literate students who have a hearing loss and are enrolled in
DHH programs? The two subquestions were: (1) What factors are related to literacy
development in DHH adolescent students; and (2) What do the parents of these
successful students identify that specifically supports the literacy development of their
children with a hearing loss?
The themes used for further analysis have been combined from the NRP (2000)
and five major obstacles to literacy for DHH students identified by Luckner et al.
(2005/2006). Combined, these include: (1) Comprehension (including vocabulary)
and a delay in the acquisition of vocabulary and difficulties with lower level reading
skills. (2) Fluency and limited fluency with the language prior to attending school. (3)
Phonemic awareness and lack of access to the phonological code. (4) Computer
technology. (5) Reading and a lack of early literacy experiences prior to entering
school.
Each case study is presented in depth by family group. Each case discussion
will begin with socio-demographic information, the nature of their literacy experiences
and then factors that are related to literacy development as identified by the parents.
Each case study will be analyzed by each of the NRP (2000) categories and obstacles
to literacy for DHH (Luckner et al. 2005/2006). Following a family-by-family case
study analysis, the data will be analyzed across families per the same categories.

91

Case Study 1--Elizabeth
Socio-Demographic Information
Elizabeth (a pseudonym) was born deaf and has a profound hearing loss when
tested at the 110 DB level at 9 months of age. She is the youngest child in the family,
but the only child of her father. She is the only deaf person in her extended family,
although father has some hearing loss in one ear. All of her immediate family
members use American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with her. Her parents
divorced when she was five years old. Both of her parents are college educated
professionals working in educational fields and parent one owns her own home.
Elizabeth considers herself to be bi-cultural-both Deaf and deaf, using ASL as her
primary language to communicate, and comfortable in both cultures.
Elizabeth was enrolled in an infant/parent oral language development program
and attended an oral infant program and one year of an oral preschool. Her parent
reported that Elizabeth was frustrated in the oral program and was also enrolled in a
total communication (TC) toddler program which used sign language with oral
expressions simultaneously. After a year of attending both programs, Elizabeth was
removed from the oral program by her parents who then focused on a signing
education and program. She was mainstreamed into a K/1 class for her last year of
preschool. She was considered “ready” for Kindergarten, and the Kindergarten teacher
was also trained as a teacher for the Deaf and used ASL. Because of her literacy
levels, she was then fully mainstreamed into a first grade class in her home district.
She was mainstreamed in elementary and middle school in her local district.
92

Elizabeth was transferred into an out-of-district county program for the deaf for
high school after a lengthy process. The reason for the transfer was in part to provide
her with opportunities for social contacts- she was still mainstreamed in classes but had
opportunities to join Deaf clubs and participate in extracurricular Deaf-focused events.
In high school she was on the soccer and softball teams. Elizabeth was the first Deaf
journalist on the school paper. Elizabeth wrote her own column on deaf issues and
another generic column. She became an editor on the paper her last year in high school
(again the first Deaf editor). She was a member of the Deaf Academic Bowl team all 4
years of High School and in her senior year the team took first place in the nation.
The Nature of the Elizabeth‟s Literacy Experiences
To answer the question about what she remembered about learning to read she
wrote: “I have no idea how I learned to read, for as long as I can remember I‟ve been
reading. I fell in love with reading and writing instantly.” Her mother reported that
Elizabeth was bored in the DHH program. Elizabeth expressed this clearly when she
was three years old and declared the third grade DHH reading program as „boring‟ to
her teacher.
Elizabeth began reading and scribbling to communicate as a toddler. Her
mother provided school tests and documents to show that Elizabeth has always tested
above grade level in reading and writing. The “facts” about the abysmal literacy levels
of DHH children was a shock to Elizabeth‟s mother and she remembers focusing on
literacy, and how difficult it was to find a good infant or preschool program for
Elizabeth, even though such programs are supposed to be provided. This mother was
93

able to find some programs in the larger area, but she reported that these all told her
that her child would not learn to read beyond a third grade level, and they wanted her
to commit to their approach (oral only).
As required by IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act), (and the
reauthorization IDEIA, 2004) early intervention and support for families were made
available. But, the services offered are often very rigidly prescribed as a specific part
of a complete program depending on the philosophical camp of the program. In
Germany there has been a “change in perspective” (Hintermair, 2006, p. 494) to
include providing resources and support to and for families of disabled children with
the family being empowered with information in order to make decisions for their
families.
One example of an empowering person is identified by Elizabeth‟s parent:
I finally found a great infant program. The TC infant/preschool teacher changed
her expectations/program to work with her on learning to read-even though she
had never had a preschooler able to do this; she was willing to learn and
celebrated her success. She changed some of the things she was doing in her
program to bring in more literacy and literacy events for all of the children. . . I
remember I volunteered and asked to label the room (she later told me she
thought it was a silly idea), so I labeled the room with words every- really
everywhere. . . .Not much later Elizabeth threw a fit because a project was not
finished--she took the cat artwork over to the bulletin board with animal pictures
labeled and copied the word cat onto the paper. She was 3 years old at that time.
. . . The teacher and aide celebrated her developing literacy and actively pursued
curriculum and ways to increase pre-literacy for all the students. . . . Happy
years.

Elizabeth may be an exceptional child, especially in her ability and desire to
read and write. This particular infant/preschool teacher modeled a belief in an
empowerment stance rather than following the „program‟ as it was designed. Neither
94

the mother nor the preschool teacher followed a deficit view of Elizabeth or her
capabilities. This teacher worked with Elizabeth from infancy through first grade,
adapting as Elizabeth became older and more capable. The teacher knew that
Elizabeth wanted to read and write, but the reading program for DHH did not start until
3
rd
grade (and was stupid and boring- according to the 3 year old when she was shown
the books), so the mother reported that “the teacher and I developed a different
program for the kids (basically using Reading Recovery ideas).” This teacher was
willing to learn something new and also willing to work with the parent who had no
formal education in working with the deaf and minimal signing skills.
Parental beliefs and support are important to all children, but may play an even
greater role for their children who are DHH. Hearing loss adds an extra layer of
complexity and stress on the family and dependence on the part of the child. In this
case, both the parent and teacher believed in Elizabeth‟s abilities and modified,
adapted, and learned new strategies to continue to support her literacy development.
Both of these adults worked together as a team with a single focus, Elizabeth‟s success.
Pipp-Segal et al. (2003) identified that the largest percentage of variance in the
expressive language quotient for deaf children was directly linked to the mother‟s
estimate of the child‟s competence (25%). This was shown in the mother‟s supportive
and nondirective interactions which increased the child‟s autonomy and positive
interactions which in a circular manner increased the positive interactions
Elizabeth‟s mother took the role of being the child‟s champion very seriously.
She was not impressed with the intervention supports provided by her local school
95

district, private clinics or county program. The mother also reported that her
experiences with “Deaf education” were largely disappointing. For example:
I had to make sure she was held to standards at school (constantly demanded
that) but also she was treated like a child first not a Deaf child. . . at home she
had the same chores, same self help expectation (tying shoes, ordering at
restaurants, sharing toys, going to the library, same behavior expectations etc.)
as her siblings. She was NEVER treated like a poor little deaf kid, NEVER--
unfortunately I had to enforce that often especially at school. I understood that
the regular teachers had little experiences with Deaf kids but the Deaf program
teachers (and interpreters and others) constantly tried to „advocate‟ for her over
all kinds of things. I guess they were trying to be helpful and protective but I
had to tell them to let her be. One example was that she did not do her
homework and the consequence was to sit on the line or something. . . I was
called into a meeting about this! I replied that if that was the rule that was the
rule she had to take the consequence like all of the other kids. Really, to be
called into a school meeting with 3 teachers about something as simple as this!

Along with a belief in her child, Elizabeth‟s mother also made sure that
Elizabeth‟s learning experiences (schema) were translated into text. She made many
books with and for Elizabeth about her experiences. These books provided Elizabeth
with a solid foundation to draw from when engaged in literacy tasks. One theory
explaining the lack of literacy for DHH children suggests that “deaf children have
schema that are less developed than hearing children; although deaf children with deaf
parents perform as well as hearing children” (Schirmer & McGough, 2005, p. 397),
thus have difficulty comprehending and relating to text.
Elizabeth‟s mother also reported that she made reading and understanding
English a focus at home and at school. The focus of the parental experiences was on
building schema and making connections between environmental print, letters,
concepts, and later ASL. She elaborated:
96

Everything became a language experience (grocery store trips, buying a
pumpkin, making cookies). I made tons of books for her about our lives. She
had long term language experiences (reading/ writing/ communicating- not just
speech). She also had a tremendous desire to communicate with others; she
started writing notes before she could make letters. To this day, she brings out
the language experience books when her friends come over!

Elizabeth‟s mother reported that this lack of expectations from teachers and
programs continued throughout her schooling:
Reading and writing was such a focus that I remember that in her first year in
this model high school, she was assigned to attend a lab class that was designed
to support the Deaf. They gave her vocabulary lists, but the lists were way
below her reading level so she went through all of the lists in a few weeks (up to
the highest level possible--Advanced Placement level words). That was the end
of her taking DHH classes until one summer; she took Driver‟s Ed. which was
paired with a Health class. The teacher was from the DHH program. The
reading packets for the Health class were copied from a 3
rd
grade workbook (the
grade level was on the bottom of the pages). My experience with literacy in the
DHH programs and for DHH kids is that very few of the adults involved have
expectations that the kids CAN learn.

Factors Related to Elizabeth‟s Literacy Development

Elizabeth believes that she just always loved reading and writing and does not
remember any particular event that lead to her reading. “I have no idea how I learned
to read, for as long as I can remember I‟ve been reading. I fell in love with reading and
writing instantly.” She sees herself as a reader and writer and these events are
important elements of her life.
Elizabeth‟s mother provided considerable additional information about the
factors leading to her child‟s literacy. In addition to Elizabeth‟s ability and desire to
read and write, the mother placed a tremendous focus on literacy in the home:
I was a bilingual teacher and taught language acquisition in college but this
whole deaf thing threw me for a loop. I needed to rethink things and figure out a
way to teach her to read without relying on sounds or listening (no
97

storytelling???). At first it was scary. . . people were telling me that she would
never be able to read beyond a third grade level, she would never write in
correct English but in Deaf English, she would be awkward socially, would
throw tantrums. . . it was just shocking the negative and limiting things I was
told about my baby. . . this really made me mad and put me on a mission to
show them on one hand and to protect my child from those negative limitations.
. . . So to answer your question, I believe that there are two huge factors for
Elizabeth‟s literacy success. First of all, she really wanted to communicate and
loved reading and writing, and I spent a lot of time teaching her to read and
write, making these as fun as I could.

Elizabeth‟s parent had schema of both literacy development and instructional
strategies supporting literacy development, what she did not have is knowledge of the
particulars of literacy development or strategies proven effective for teaching literacy
to Deaf children. Searching for successful programs and materials was identified as
both “frustrating” and “stressful.”
Factors Identified by Elizabeth‟s Parent as Supporting Literacy Development
Elizabeth‟s parent felt that the support Elizabeth received from home and the
very important pre-school teacher is what made the most difference. She stated that it
was important to treat her child “normally” and to believe in her possibilities:
I never told her she couldn‟t do something because she was deaf. I had to make
sure she was held to standards at school (constantly demanded that) but also she
was treated like a child first not a Deaf child. . . same chores, same self help
expectation (tying shoes, ordering at restaurants, sharing toys, going to the
library, same behavior expectations etc.. she was NEVER a poor little deaf kid. .
. NEVER--unfortunately I had to insist on this with others. I really focused on
teaching her to read and write--more than I did with her brothers. I felt that the
teachers did not expect her to be able to read and write and I knew that she could
do it and that it was really up to me to make sure that she did.

Elizabeth‟s parent also went on to expand upon the importance of believing in
her child. She emphasized the importance in seeing the potential in her child, in every
child but perhaps most importantly if your child has a “disability.” Parents need to:
98

Make sure others believe in her potential, school folks (particularly DHH folks),
audiologists, speech, and relatives. Also, find ways to keep her a part of things
(dinner conversations, parties, TV programs, and movies (before CC). It was
really hard sometimes. Too many times I was told well deaf don‟t deaf can‟t. . .
Seriously, how would you know they can‟t do something?

Parental beliefs and support are important to all children, but may play an even
greater role for their children who are DHH. Hearing loss adds an extra layer of
complexity and stress on the family and dependence on the part of the child. The
important role of the family for DHH children has been a focus of research in the field
of deaf education (Hintermair, 2006, Luckner & Velaski, 2004; Luterman, 1987).
Elizabeth‟s parent clearly expressed a belief in her child and in her ability as a parent
to at least protect her child from those who did not actively believe in her child.
Elizabeth‟s case provided answers to the research questions. The family focused
on early literacy development and maintained involvement in her education. This
family focused on reading vocabulary, sight words, and paired sign language with
English from a very early age. The level of involvement by the mother (in particular)
supported the literacy development in the context of the family.
Review of Elizabeth‟s Case Study
Elizabeth‟s case study included a bright child and an educated and skilled
parent. The diagnosis of a pre-lingual and profound hearing loss was conducted at a
very young age and the child (and family) received mandated early intervention
services and attended the „best‟ program for DHH children. The diagnosis for this
child was bleak. She was born pre-lingually, profoundly deaf to a hearing family,
which according to her mother was considered a “triple-whammy” or worst case
99

scenario. The mother did not understand this as the child (even as an infant) “was not
cognitively impaired, she just could not hear!” This early confusion trying to balance
what she was being told by the experts and what her common sense and experiences
told her set this mother on a quest to figure out a way to “prove them all wrong.” This
mother never lost sight of her child as one who could achieve things--including literacy
skills.
Although early intervention services were mandated and used, the services were
not credited as being helpful to the child or the family in terms of literacy
development- or in any other way. The mother felt as though no one was paying
attention to what the child could do or to what skills the mother might have. She felt
left out of the „team‟ and ignored by the specialists. This caused a tremendous amount
of extra stress on this mother in particular. The mother never wavered in supporting
her child and was very proactive in learning about programs/services and obtaining the
best for her child. In essence, this mother felt alone and largely unsupported in her
quest to support her child.
One significant other stood out- the preschool teacher. This teacher was so
important to the mother, that she changed her job in order to be available during the
days, she drove her child to the program which was almost an hour from her home.
This teacher became the support system for the mother and indeed they became good
friends and colleagues. She became a member of the inner family circle, the
microsystem outlined by Bronfenbrenner (1986).

100

Case Study 2--Sherry
Socio-Demographic Information
Sherry (a pseudonym) is the oldest of four children and also the only deaf person
in her extended family. She has two younger brothers and one younger sister. Her
parents are both college educated and own their own business and home. Their
religion is very important to them. Sherry was found to be profoundly deaf as a baby
and received a cochlear implant at the age of four. The parents chose to have Sherry
enrolled in an oral only program and began Sherry in early intervention programs soon
after diagnosis.
Sherry attended an oral deaf program for preschool and elementary school. Her
mother deliberately placed her in a very sheltered environment which she called a
“bubble.” In middle school she was placed in a program with deaf kids who used sign
language and Sherry began to learn sign language in 7
th
grade. She was enrolled in the
DHH program in High School and was gradually mainstreamed into the “regular
education” classes beginning in 10
th
grade. She was on the Deaf Academic Bowl team
for three years. Her mother had her “exempted” from standardized tests to maintain
her sense of efficacy, but had her take the CAHSEE (California High School Exit
Exam), which she passed on her first effort.
The Nature of Sherry‟s Literacy Experiences
This question was intended to obtain information about the educational
experiences of these students in school. Sherry remembered that, “I learned to read a
bit in Kindergarten and started reading levels in 1
st
grade. In 1
st
grade I tooking (sic)
101

1
st
grade book designed for DHH to read. That was what I remember much (sic) at that
time.” This same student also remembered clearly that “I pushed myself in 6
th
grade
and surpass (sic) my teacher‟s expectations . . . . I agree teachers helped me to become
literate, but I believe the key to it is motivation and willingness”.
In contrast to Elizabeth‟s parent, Sherry‟s parent followed an Oral approach and
chose a CI (cochlear implant) for her child. This parent also focused her home
interactions on reading, language and literacy. She explained:
I believe the biggest experience comes from home. We read to the kids-even
when money was tight books were at the top of the list. . . . I spent time (and
money) in teachers supply stores buying workbooks, flashcards etc. and used
them with my kids--I did not separate her from her brothers and sister--we
worked on them together. . . a family activity non-stop. . . . Even in the car.

Both Sherry and her parent commented on the importance of the 6
th
grade
experience as being an important time for Sherry. Sherry‟s parent remembers:
We always put her in summer school--summer was too long to be out of school.
. . one time I asked to put her in another higher group and the teacher told me
that she was 2 full workbooks behind the higher group (all of her friends were in
the lower group and the top group was made up of 2 boys--so peer pressure was
not pushing her). The teacher gave me the workbooks and the teachers edition
to use at home after summer school was over and before school started--if she
finished she could be in the higher group. . . but that summer we moved (I had to
pack up for 4 kids) and did construction work on our home, so I did not give as
much attention to the workbooks but she did! She took the workbooks and did
them herself--she even surpassed the boys (the high group).

Clearly, something made a difference for Sherry in that summer. As involved as
this mother had been in Sherry‟s schooling, she was unaware that Sherry was so far
behind the other group of kids. Sherry, in effect, saw herself as a capable learner and
took responsibility and ownership for completing those workbooks without her
mother‟s involvement. Another explanation may be that by this time Sherry had
102

developed enough schema and was at a stage to move to more difficult and age
appropriate texts.
Factors related to Sherry‟s Literacy Development
Sherry‟s parent was asked to identify factors that supported Sherry‟s literacy
development. She began her answer by focusing on a specific program “JT (program)
is not the reason for my kids‟ success.” Her answer then veered to focus in on a
particular teacher in high school and the focus is on the teacher not the program:
We had one teacher in 10th grade Ms D---she really helped her. . . it takes all of
us. . . my child wanted to succeed we had so many people who were focused on
her success that we were all on the same page it was a compilation of all of us. .
. I had a huge push to get her to grade level--the IEP was much shower. I have
higher expectations than they did; she is just too bright not to succeed. I
remember one speech pathologist who did not let the kids get away with
anything. I always asked what I could do at home to help. I was really worried
because her vocabulary was deficient. We needed vocabulary development;
let‟s focus on vocabulary she is falling further behind. So again, I went to
Teacher‟s Supply and bought flash cards and vocabulary games and we worked
on those in the car and at home.

Sherry‟s parent then added that she also remembered another person who made
a difference. This person was not a teacher but a speech therapist who had not trained
to work with the deaf and did not represent any particular program or philosophy:
One specialist really had no formal training in working with the deaf (let alone
CIs which were very new), but she educated herself and developed a program to
teach oral deaf how to use their tongues in placement to make sounds they
couldn‟t hear. She was tough and loving. She took the time to learn the new
technology and she was the key to her language learning during the elementary
years. We had academics in the classroom and language with her. Sherry
thrived in this sheltered environment with the constant focus on language all day
long she would not have received this in a mainstreamed environment. I
remember one teacher who called an ape a monkey and didn‟t even care!!! I
was trying to build her vocabulary and they were not using the correct words. . .
I wanted high expectations all day long--we maintained high expectations at
home.
103

In a sense, the speech therapist worked with the mother to give Sherry the
support she needed- even though she needed to learn some new skills. The mother felt
acknowledged and a part of things. This mother identified what she had done at home
as being the most important for Sherry‟s success; she did identify these two others as
being important. All of the supports mentioned by this parent can be placed within the
microsystem in Bronfenbrenner‟s (1986) ecological theory. Unfortunately, this parent
also mentioned several others within the support microsystem who were anything but
supportive.
Factors Sherry‟s Parent Identified as Supporting Sherry‟s Literacy Development
Sherry‟s parent also took responsibility for her child‟s literacy development and
felt a lot of pressure to support her child. A critically important factor that contributed
to Sherry‟s success was the mother‟s efforts and focus:
I had a huge push to get her to grade level-the IEP (Individualized Educational
Plan) was much shower. I have higher expectations than they did; she is just too
bright not to succeed. I expected more. I was always worried because she is
profoundly deaf--so profound and I did not want her put into the TC (Total
Communication) class because they included kids who were retarded (literally)
and the teacher did not use her voice at all!!!!!! I really had to educate myself
and did not take no for an answer. One time we had an IEP with a different
psychologist who started off saying that Sherry is a delightful left handed child.
She is right handed and they would not listen to me until a teacher left the
meeting and watched her. . . yep I was right she is right handed. When we got
the CI (we were among the earliest to do so) they did not understand CI issues--
they acted like--who are you?? You are only a stupid parent--I was really
intimidated at first- they are more educated than I am and they use that against
you. When I got myself educated, I stopped it--all the head trips. The parents
need to get educated--work with the IEP team and know the laws. I read those
laws and knew them inside out--many times.

The importance of the parent‟s beliefs is supported over and over by research
(Hintermair, 2006, Luckner & Velaski, 2004; Luterman, 1987). Sherry‟s mother never
104

wavered in her support of her child. She also identified her child as one who indeed
could learn, and never lost that focus. She took a very proactive stance. To this parent
the key is to:
Believe in your child. . . focus on what they like to do and their special skills
(not their special deficits)--find out your rights--educate yourself--be an
advocate for your child--surround her with a team wanting the best for the child-
-not just to protect the program or funding. After all, who cares if the folks
limiting your child don‟t like you?

Sherry‟s parent felt so strongly about the importance of the parents in
developing literacy that her answers were written down in an organized list for parents.
(1) Get educated as to your child‟s needs. (2) Get educated on special education law.
(3) Work with your IEP team- everyone working for the same goal gets better results,
but be prepared to get tough if the time comes. (4) Listen to your child, watch for
frustration but encourage them to take risks. (5) Have your child do everything,
expose them to everything. (6) Take charge at home. Parents are the key to all
children‟s success. Work with the teachers, audiologists, speech therapists; learn what
you can do at home to reinforce school lessons, reading, speech, etc. (7) Parents need
to expect more than schools do. (8) Put a book into your child‟s hands as soon as they
can hold a book.
Sherry‟s case also provided answers to the research questions. This family also
focused on the literacy and language development of Sherry. They provided multiple
activities for enhancing Sherry‟s literacy development with a focus on her speech
(following an Oral approach). This case also highlighted the importance of believing
in the child‟s ability.
105

Review of Sherry‟s Case
Sherry‟s case study includes a family who chose an oral approach and a cochlear
implant. Although these two choices are very different than the choices made in case
study 1, the responses were in many ways very similar. This mother also felt a
profound sense of responsibility to make sure her child succeeded. She did not have
exceedingly high regard for any specific program and in fact often felt as though she
were taking on the system by herself. She felt especially alone because of being oral.
“Of course trying to network was hard also because some deaf hated us because we are
oral . . .” She did not feel a sense of being supported, except by classroom aides or
teachers who were also parents of oral deaf children or young adults.
This mother was not specifically trained as a teacher nor did she have any
expertise in the field of deafness. What this mother did have was a profound sense of
responsibility for and an unwavering belief in her daughter and her possibilities. She
did not let anyone, or anything stand in the way of her daughter‟s success. She
believed in her child and demanded that others also believe in her child.
Case Study 3--Johnny

Socio-demographic Information
Johnny (a pseudonym) is the older of two children- his sister was born when he
was starting high school. Both Johnny and his sister were born hearing but became
deaf as preschoolers as a result of a degenerative genetic hearing loss that runs in the
mother‟s family. His mother is Deaf and father is hearing. Johnny has many Deaf
relatives and ASL is the family language. Johnny considers himself to be Deaf. His
106

parents are both college educated and work in entertainment business, his mother part
time. His parents became separated when he was in high school.
Johnny attended a DHH TC preschool and elementary school through the 3
rd

grade. He was mainstreamed in grades 4-6 but was put back in a DHH program in the
7
th
grade due to the lack of socialization opportunities or activities with deaf peers. He
academically outgrew his peers and his parents had him transferred out-of-district to
College High School after a lengthy legal process. As College High School was about
45 miles from his home, mother took a leave from her work and drove him to and from
school. At College High School, he took both mainstream honors classes and DHH
classes. Johnny was reported to have been very active in Deaf clubs (was student
president of the Jr. National Association of the Deaf) and was a member of the Deaf
Academic Bowl Team each year of high school, and the team took first place in the
nation his senior year.
Nature of Johnny‟s Literacy Experiences
Johnny distinctly remembers learning to read. “I learned to read and write
letters in Kindergarten and first grade. I was frustrated with remembering my ABC‟s.”
Although Johnny was in a specialized infant and preschool program, Johnny‟s parent
did not mention any specific program as leading to his literacy. Like the previous case
study parents, she also took a proactive stance on literacy development. “I taught
myself, reading research, and interviewing linguistic researchers and inverted (sic) on
ways to teach him. Lots of books, lots of storytelling and lots of life experiences.”
She does state that Johnny had lots of books and was read to everyday. He also was
107

very curious about nature and how things worked. His father (who is hearing) spent a
lot of time talking to him and answering questions before he began gradually losing his
hearing at age 3.
Factors related to Johnny‟s Literacy Development
Children from Deaf families performed better at phonological skills than
children who are deaf from hearing families (Dyer et al., 2003). Ninety percent of
DHH students have hearing parents, and only 10% of DHH students have Deaf parents.
Johnny in a sense had two advantages. He was born into a Deaf family, and he was
born hearing, losing his hearing post-lingually. The ecological environment of Deaf
children from Deaf families is different than that of DHH children from hearing
families in a most fundamental way--language. Even though Parent 3 is herself Deaf
and considers her extended family to be Deaf, she stated that they as a family felt a
responsibility to develop his literacy skills. She stated they had:
Lots of communication, we used sign language with him, and had lots of books,
lost of storytelling and lots of life experiences. Read to him every day (sic) for
at least 15 minutes with the parents or offering reading time. . . and he started
grabbing baby books before he was one. We knew he might lose his hearing
(genetic) so spent a lot of time talking, discussing, answering questions, he had
full access to language because we signed to him from birth and dad talked to
him a lot!!

Without specific training or guidance, this mother also recognized the
importance of early language experiences for Johnny. She also worked at developing
his schema for literacy and for seeing himself as a literate person. Because she thought
he might lose his hearing, she specifically focused on giving him as much oral
108

language as possible with play dates, other children, and real life experiences while she
used ASL with him (the mother only uses writing or ASL to communicate).
Johnny‟s parent also generated a list with one main point preceding the list as it
is the most important for this parent. Language choice and communication was seen as
critical to this parent. For this mother there really is no “choice” because in her
opinion, “Parents need to learn sign language and communicate with their child!”
Then Johnny‟s parent added 3 points: (1) Family positive role model of reading on
daily basis starting at early age 5-6 months and daily communication. Sign and spell
words exposing vocabulary, indentify names and categories etc. (2) Continuation (sic)
exposure of daily world, life experiences, discussing about topics with the child at
every opportunity. The communication of the topic may be 30 sec- from point it out to
a full conversation for a few minutes. As child gets older, the child wants to discuss
longer and in depth about subjects he is curious about. (3) An eyeful watch over what
child is doing at school and homework, daily conversations with the child about that
child‟s learning, how is he (sic) doing with homework, etc. Keeping track with
teachers (via email, or meetings) whenever child is not able to stay on top of any unit,
lesson, etc. As he becomes older the last two years, his lessons are simply difficult for
me to understand so I ask questions like what excites him about the lessons, what he
finds boring and why. . . I even encourage him to teach me what he is learning!! And
he finds it musing (sic) that I can‟t (sic) understand some things! HAHA!!!
Johnny was taught ASL as an infant and is from a Deaf family. His mother
stated that teaching Johnny ASL from birth was important, but she did not credit any
109

specific program or other person as being important in Johnny‟s literacy development.
She also did not rely on any program to do the job, she was actively involved learning
how to support her child. She too defined the inner circle of family as being the most
important to her son‟s literacy development.
Factors Identified by Johnny‟s Parent as Supporting His Literacy Development
Johnny‟s parent was adamant that the main reason Johnny is literate is because
he was taught ASL as his first language and that his parents had a positive view of
deafness in general and his deafness in particular. This is aligned with research that
states that the 10% of DHH students who use American Sign Language (ASL) as their
primary mode of communication in Deaf homes prior to enrolling in school have more
language knowledge than the 90% of DHH students who are raised in hearing homes
(Gallaudet Research Institute, 2001). Deaf families do not have to change their family
structure upon the identification of a child‟s hearing loss- they have family
homeostasis, but, hearing families will need to make perhaps “cataclysmic” changes to
adapt to a DHH child (Luterman, 1987). Johnny‟s parent made note of the cultural
match between Johnny and his family when she stated:
We do not view Deaf as disability, we view it as a cultural minority community.
So, Johnny as a child bypass (sic) the grief the parents usually go through. We
did not grieving (sic) over his deafness, we knew what to do and were actually
delighted to have a deaf child. . . so we were able to focus on communication,
language development rather than retreating to "treatment,” auditory options and
speech therapy. We introduced language (ASL) first from birth, then at around
6 months, we introduced books and reading, signing, fingerspelling. We acted
out a lot (sic) and make the connection between action and words. . . A lot of
language play on daily basis, continue to go back and forth between ASL and
English.

110

While all parents in this study were very concerned about the beliefs of the
professionals they had to deal with and the lowered expectations, Johnny‟s parent
tended to link her concerns more specifically to knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of
ASL. She also did not identify that the professionals were supportive:
There need (sic) to be more training for each field. For audiologists and speech
therapists, there should be two category (sic). . . general speech therapist and
those who want to work with deaf. For those who want to work with deaf (sic) -
they should require that they) have special certification. All of them should
have basic ASL skills, have deaf friends and or at least spent a semester at
Gallaudet University doing projects with Deaf & HH students. For
doctors especially for AAP and Family medicine doctors--there should be
presentation (sic), awareness on how deaf children learn language, so that
doctors can respect the needs of deaf children rather than everyone going by
their own opinions on what is best for the child. We are not here to allow our
opinions (to) interfere with the right of deaf infant (sic) to access language.

Even though Johnny‟s parent did not have to overcome „grief‟ because of her
son‟s deafness, she did not feel that she, as a member of the Deaf community was
represented or respected by the professionals she dealt with. The “experts” in the
educational and medical profession were not included as part of this team either.
Johnny‟s case also provided answers to the research questions. Johnny‟s mother also
believed in her child‟s ability, and focused on vocabulary and communication (in this
particular case in both English and ASL), read to her child and provided rich
experiences in order to build her child‟s schema.
Review of Johnny‟s Case
It is natural and understandable to focus on communication as important in the
literacy development of a DHH child, and all three parents did. Parent three focused
on ASL as the key which is very much in keeping with the previous reasons given for
111

the achievement gap for students who are DHH which has been the language mode
choice of the parents. However, recent research has shown that the mode of
communication is not as important as had previously been thought but the ability to
communicate is directly and clearly related to the level of empowerment and stress
within the family (Luckner & Velaski, 2004; Luterman, 1987). Hintermair‟s (2006)
study also concluded that the child‟s communicative competence had a significant
effect on parents‟ stress experience but the language used (oral or sign) was not found
to be relevant. The ability to communicate in the family was most important to both
the child‟s socioemotional development and parental stress levels.
Arguably, Johnny‟s parent had an advantage over the other families as the first
language of the family is ASL and they were delighted to have a deaf child. Johnny
was born hearing and lost his hearing as a preschooler so he did also have the
advantage of hearing and oral language development for several years before losing his
hearing. Nevertheless, the parent identified a lack of information, a lack of respectful
professional help and felt a tremendous responsibility to take charge of her son‟s
literacy development. She too, saw her son as one who could think, learn and develop
literacy.
Analysis Across Case Studies

Each of these three case studies included families with different family
structures, language choices, and different etiologies. Although the cases represent
such different segments of the DHH community, when a cross case analysis was
conducted, the answers to the research questions were remarkably similar. Data were
112

analyzed across cases using the themes combined from the NRP (2000) and five major
obstacles to literacy for DHH students identified by Luckner et al. (2005/2006).
Combined, these include: (1) Reading instruction and a lack of early literacy
experiences prior to entering school. (2) Fluency and limited fluency with the
language prior to attending school. (3) Comprehension (including vocabulary) and a
delay in the acquisition of vocabulary and difficulties with lower level reading skills.
(4) Phonemic awareness and lack of access to the phonological code. (5) Computer
technology.
Reading Instruction and a Lack of Early Literacy Experiences Prior to Entering School
These parents all made sure their children saw themselves (identified) as capable
learners by providing early literacy experiences for them. All of the parents reported
reading to their children, making books, going on “field trips” and providing a rich set
of early language experiences prior to their child entering school. Each parent believed
their child could learn and took different approaches to these early experiences,
depending on their language choice and professional experiences.
Perhaps as a result of their parents‟ actions and beliefs, all three of these
students saw themselves as readers from an early age. The students all mentioned that
their parents read to them. “Parents should buy books the kids are interested in and
encourage them and read to them.” “My parents would always read to me, other
parents don‟t, they put the kids in front of the TV and don‟t communicate.” They
believed in their abilities and saw their role as being a capable learner. They all
113

indicated that they see reading as a natural event. They identified themselves as
capable and were surprised at being asked the question. They stated:
I have no idea how I learned to read, for as long as I can remember I‟ve been
reading. I fell in love with reading and writing instantly. I learned to read and
write letters in Kindergarten and first grade. Learned to read. . . hmm ever since
I was a baby.

According to Schirmer and McGough (2005), many investigators have
suggested that “deaf children have schema that are less developed than hearing
children (although deaf children with deaf parents perform as well as hearing
children)” (p. 397), thus have difficulty comprehending and relating to text. Early
language experiences serve as the foundation for both cognitive development and
schema building according to both the constructivist and social interaction theories
(Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1986). These parents took the responsibility to personally
insure and provide quality early language experiences for their child. This became an
all encompassing role for them. None of the parents expressed regret about taking on
this role.
While the ecology of a hearing family is not designed to optimize the DHH
child‟s acquisition of language (Stredler-Brown & Yoshinaga-Itano, 1992), these
families all changed their family‟s ecology (adjusted) in order to maximize the success
for their DHH child. Unlike many hearing parents who often experience a delay
between diagnosis and choosing to learn sign, both hearing parents in this study
jumped right in, learning what to do with their child (even though one parent chose an
Oral approach, she began immediately). The parents (particularly the hearing parents)
felt a tremendous self-imposed pressure to not let their child fall behind. In referring to
114

a support group (or the whine and cry group according to mother two) mother one said,
“Oh please, not another meeting about the grieving process- who has time to grieve? I
have things to learn and do!”
Each of the parents took on the role of primary teacher, especially for their DHH
child. They all believed passionately that their child could indeed succeed. All of the
parents expressed a belief in their child. “I never told her she couldn‟t do something
because she was deaf.” Sherry‟s parent stated that “I gave love and encouragement. I
always told her to try and that I would be there to catch her, that I loved her, she can do
anything.” These parents provided early literacy experiences prior to their child
entering school and unwavering support throughout their schooling.
Early experiences with intervention programs and their supports were not
viewed as helpful at all for any of the parents in this case study. Elizabeth‟s parent was
searching for a quality program or services for her child; she remembers that every
program she found “would not help me until I committed to their particular
philosophy. . . . I mean really, I did not know yet what to do.” She actually did
overcome most of the obstacles to literacy by following her training and “intuition”
about her child and learning to read. Finally Elizabeth‟s parent found a program and
teacher that seemed to meet her needs. She detailed the social support she received
from that teacher as being critical to her ability to parent her child. She had visited
every program in three counties to find this one teacher, who believed in her child.
Elizabeth‟s mother clearly explains how important she felt early literacy experiences
were for her child:
115

The TC teacher knew Elizabeth wanted to read and write, but the reading
program for DHH did not start until 3
rd
grade (and was stupid and boring-
according to the 3 year old (I agree), so together we developed a different
program for the kids (basically using Reading Recovery ideas). . . The TC
preschool teacher changed her expectations/program to work with her on
learning to read--even though she had never had a preschooler able to do this,
she was willing to learn and celebrated her success. She changed some of the
things she was doing in her program to bring in more literacy and literacy events
for all of the children. . . I remember I volunteered and asked to label the room
(she later told me she thought it was a silly idea). So I labeled the room with
words every- really everywhere. . . . Not much later my child threw a fit because
a project was not finished--she took the cat artwork over to the bulletin board
with animal pictures labeled and copied the word cat onto the paper. She was 3
years old. . . . The teacher and aid celebrated her developing literacy and
actively pursued curriculum and ways to increase pre-literacy for all the
students. . . . I felt valued and a part of the program. . . . Happy years.

All of the parents mentioned reading to their children, making books, focusing
on reading and writing, and two students mentioned support from parents as being
important. Elizabeth said, “Parents should encourage their children to read and write-
some parents don‟t think their DHH children can read. . . parents should just encourage
their children. I read and write a lot. I like to, too--probably some parental influence.”
Johnny also mentioned that his parents read to him a lot and that other parents of DHH
kids “just put their kids in front of the TV and don‟t communicate with them.”
These students were read to, and felt a part of the family. Two students did
respond to a question about why so many other DHH kids were not able to read and
write. Elizabeth stated that “Some parents don‟t know what to do with their deaf
children, they don‟t know they are deaf or don‟t learn until the children are older then
there is a delay in learning the English language and the kids can‟t catch up.” Johnny
mentioned that, “My parents would always read to me other parents don‟t they put the
kids in front of the TV and don‟t communicate.”
116

Early intervention programs are designed to meet the needs of the families of
disabled students. One might expect early intervention programs for children who are
DHH to focus on literacy and language experiences in support of the families and
children. All of the parents expressed varying degrees of frustration with getting their
needs met through the established programs or services offered. Elizabeth‟s parent
stated:
Honestly, the program mind-set was not helpful as they were unable (or
unwilling) to answer questions, provide information about options--only their
perspective was presented. . . . I had refused to commit to a program without
understanding the implications/options and had asked for options and
information and each group, but they would only talk to me if I committed to
their program, I needed information. It was so frustrating. Then they offered
support groups to help us deal with the diagnosis. I went a few times, but these
groups dealt with parents crying about things. I hated these groups and was
increasingly impatient with them. I wanted to do something- the fact as I saw it
was that she is Deaf--get over it and move on-it‟s done. I ended up putting her
in a preschool program that was over 45 minutes away from my home and out of
my district. I got a part time job in the evenings in order to take care of
Elizabeth and take her to school--and learn ASL.

Arguably, Elizabeth‟s parent was the most “prepared” of the parents in this case
study to teach literacy skills to her child. Even though she had bilingual teaching
experiences, language development experiences, and an advanced degree in Reading,
she felt lost in dealing with issues specific to deafness and deaf education. While she
felt powerless, and „clueless‟ at first, she relied on her instincts and training as a
teacher:
I felt a huge responsibility for her- more than my other children. At first it was
scary. . . people were telling me that she would never be able to read beyond a
third grade level, she would never write in correct English but in Deaf English,
she would be awkward socially, would throw tantrums. . . it was just shocking
the negative and limiting things I was told about my baby. This really made me
117

mad and put me on a mission to show them on one hand and to protect my child
from those negative limitations.

Sherry‟s parent was an involved and dedicated mother. She did not have any
specialized knowledge of deafness or teaching, but she also felt a strong need to take
control of her child‟s educational experiences. She also focused on early language and
literacy experiences at home:
We read to the kids-even when money was tight books were at the top of the list.
I spent time (and money) in teachers supply stores buying workbooks, flashcards
etc. and used them with my kids--I did not separate her from her brothers and
sister--we worked on them together. . . a family activity non-stop. . . . I had a
huge push to get her to grade level--the IEP was much slower. I have higher
expectations than they did she is just too bright not to succeed.

Johnny‟s parent was herself a strong member of the Deaf community, with no
formal training in teaching or language development, yet she too did not rely on others
to teach her son and took control of her son‟s literacy development. She elaborated:
I taught myself, reading research and interviewing linguistic researchers and
inverted on (sic) ways to teach him. We had a positive role model of reading on
a daily basis starting at an early age 5-6 months and daily communication. We
had lots of books and storytelling and lots of life experiences. We spent a lot of
time talking, discussing, answering questions. . . dad talked to Johnny a lot.

Sherry‟s parent intuitively knew that the early years of language development
were important and felt a tremendous amount of pressure as a parent. She stated that:
The window of language was closing and she had missed so much. . . her
hearing age didn‟t start until she was 4 years old, she had lost so many years--
the window was so small. Her vocabulary was so limited but I just knew she
was really smart, and too smart to be that far behind she needed to catch up but
the gap just kept widening! She was falling farther and farther behind. I wanted
her to be at the 5
th
grade level when she entered 7
th
grade, well she made it to 4.8
entering middle school. She was ahead of the curve--well so what as the
national average is so pathetic I heard that the average reading level of High
School DHH is third grade! The schools can only do what the schools can do,
schools can‟t go the extra mile.
118

Fluency and Limited Fluency with the Language Prior to Attending School

Fluency refers to the ability to use language to communicate to others. For
many DHH students, fluency with language is underdeveloped when they enter school.
Limited language prior to attending school indicates a lack of communication.
Communication was seen as important for all of the families. Historically, reasons
given for the achievement gap for students who are DHH has been the language mode
choice of the parents. All of the parents in this study did comment upon the divides
between communication choices, made different choices but all focused on
communicating with their child. Recent research supports their focus on developing
and maintaining communication and has shown that the mode of communication is not
as important as had previously been thought but the ability to communicate is directly
and clearly related to the level of empowerment and stress within the family (Luckner
& Velaski, 2004; Luterman, 1987).
Hintermair‟s (2006) study supported the conclusion that the child‟s
communicative competence had a significant effect on parents‟ stress experience but
the language used (oral or sign) was not found to be relevant. The ability to
communicate in the family was most important to both the child‟s socioemotional
development and parental stress levels. His study also found that the parents hearing
status was not correlated to either parental stress or child development.
Each of these families focused on developing communication skills in a
different way. The Deaf family chose ASL, one hearing family chose a TC approach
and the other hearing family chose an Oral approach. All identified communication as
119

important, and all also identified communicating with the „support providers‟ as
frustrating, unhelpful, and/or discouragingly difficult. According to the ecological
model (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) the parents and support providers are within the
microsystem and theoretically work together. There seemed to be problems for all
families in communicating with support providers, across all communication modes.
Elizabeth‟s parent felt ignored because she was hearing, had literacy development
knowledge, and would not commit to a specific program. Sherry‟s parent felt ignored
because she chose an oral approach, and Johnny‟s parent felt ignored because she was
Deaf and used ASL as the primary language.
The beliefs of the parents have also been shown to be among the most important
elements of healthy families who are raising DHH children who are successful
(Hintermair, 2006; Luckner & Velaski, 2004). Each of the parents took on the role of
primary teacher, especially for their DHH child. A family centered philosophy of early
intervention assumes that: social supports affect family functioning; the child‟s needs
are best met by meeting the family‟s needs; and that families have the right to retain as
much control as they desire over the intervention process (Roush & McWilliam, 1994).
Each of these families took control of the intervention process (and more) to get their
needs met. While two of the families could mention one or two specific influences,
none of these families felt others (outsiders) in the intervention process were there to
specifically meet their needs.
All of the parents saw their role as critical for the school success of their DHH
child. Each parent (especially the two hearing parents) distanced themselves a bit from
120

other parents of DHH children. None of these parents would give up their role or
responsibility to their child to the experts. They were the first teachers and worked to
make sure their children developed fluency with language. Fluency refers to facility
with language. Elizabeth‟s mother linked fluency to reading development, Sherry‟s
mother focused on speech fluency and Johnny‟s mother on both English and ASL.
Each parent elaborated on what they as parents and or what they as a family did to
ensure the success of their child. Elizabeth‟s parent stated that:
I had no clue what to do, but it became clear that I had some skills and
experiences that did not allow me to accept the limitation I heard from so many
“experts.” I went on a quest to find out, to read, to observe, to seek out teachers
and other successful Deaf adults to find out what I needed to DO. I remember
sometimes feeling like I was in the Twilight Zone or something. They would
say things that just did not make sense. . . I would ask how do they know that? I
was constantly searching for strategies, materials and techniques to help
Elizabeth learn to read and write. . . . No one stepped up an offered to answer
my questions or provide data to me. I would hear of a program, or teacher, go
and observe and take bits and pieces from that and modify to use with Elizabeth.
Everything became a language experience. Everything. Having some
experience in teaching and language development helped me, surely. But this
was uncharted territory to me. But I knew it was completely up to me.

Sherry‟s parent also saw that her role was critical in developing her child‟s
language. “I got myself educated, I knew I needed to be the one pushing to make sure
she did well in school, the schools and teachers can only do so much.” She also saw
her role as one of protector. “I placed her in a little bubble in her classes. It was not
until middle school that Sherry learned she was different. All of the teachers had been
nurturing of the kids. They were in a sheltered environment with language all day.”
Placing Sherry in a “bubble” in effect served to maintain her sense of being capable
and able to learn.
121

Johnny‟s parent began to use ASL with her son from birth on and made sure his
father (who is hearing) also spent a lot of time talking with him and explaining things
to him:
We read to Johnny everyday for at least 15 minutes with the parents or offering
reading time. . . and Johnny started grabbing baby books before he was 1.
Johnny was very curious, asked lots of questions about the world and the
environment. . . knew he might lose his hearing (genetic) so spent a lot of time
talking, discussing, answering questions. He had full access to language
because we signed to him from birth and dad talked to him a lot!!

All three families felt that early language experiences were important to their

children‟s language development, and none of them waited until their children

entered school to begin reading and writing.

Comprehension and a Delay in the Acquisition of Vocabulary and Difficulties with
Lower Level Reading Skills
All three of these case studies focused on developing vocabulary and early
reading skills. Each parent went about this in different ways, but the focus for all of
them was on comprehension (of speech, print or ASL). Elizabeth‟s mother worked on
understanding and developing comprehension of print with her daughter by making
books. Sherry‟s mother worked on speech production, and Johnny‟s mother
emphasized hearing English vocabulary (until he lost his hearing) with ASL.
All of the parents worked on making sure their children would be able to
comprehend text at an early age. Elizabeth‟s parent admitted to a focus on
comprehension and vocabulary with her deaf child:
She had long term language experiences (reading/writing/communicating--not
just speech)--she also had a tremendous desire to communicate with others, she
started writing notes before she could make letters. . . . She would write “notes”
122

to waiters in restaurants, neighbors and family members as a toddler. . . she
knew writing communicated to others as so wanted to communicate. I wanted
her to speak of course but she is so deaf and wanted so badly to communicate
with everyone that she did throw a tantrum once because she was frustrated
because she could not communicate so we learned sign language and have had
access to communication always.

Sherry‟s parent also focused on vocabulary at a later age. She reported that in
hindsight, she spent maybe too much time on sounds and not enough on vocabulary
development. She did demonstrate that she had placed importance on developing
comprehension of vocabulary with this statement. “In my family we decided not to
speak Farsi because it would be too difficult for Sherry--we decided to be English
only.” This focus on one language was to increase Sherry‟s access to vocabulary. As
Sherry‟s family chose an oral approach, her mother stated that communication was
difficult until she was old enough to write well.
Sherry continued to be successfully oral and developed both a spoken and
written vocabulary. After the interview, Sherry‟s parent sent a follow up email of her
thinking about why some DHH children are successful and others not. This quote is
focused on believing in your child but also indicated the importance of communicating
which requires vocabulary and comprehension skills:
Yes, we all love our children, but that is an oversimplified definition of what we
have done and why Sherry is so much more successful than other DHH children
who also come from good homes. I really enjoy talking to all of my kids,
interacting with them; I believe in them and want them to dream big. I put my
kids first. Other families love their kids, but don‟t put them first.

Johnny‟s mother (who is Deaf) made sure that Johnny had hearing people
talking to him, answering his questions and provided many opportunities for him to
123

interact with books. She wanted him to have access to vocabulary. She planned „field
trips‟ taught him ASL from an early age.
Phonemic Awareness and Lack of Access to the Phonological Code
Elizabeth‟s parent indicated that she had assumed Elizabeth would not learn to
read phonetically so she did not plan to teach phonemic awareness. She instead
focused on making connections between printed words and their meanings. She made
flash cards and books. She was surprised when- on her own- “Elizabeth was reading a
book, pointed to a word then flipped back several pages to another word and asked if
these two words sounded alike because they had the same letters at the end.” The early
literacy, vocabulary building, and language experiences seemed to serve as a
foundation for Elizabeth to develop phonemic awareness. Dyer et al. (2003) found that
DHH students who use sign language as their first language may integrate visual clues
into their own sense of phonemic awareness.
Sherry‟s mother took an oral approach and focused on speech sounds, which
included phonemic awareness and phonics. They played phonics games, read, and
used phonics workbooks focusing on sounds. Her mother reported that in hindsight,
she spent maybe too much time on sounds and not enough on vocabulary. At any rate,
Sherry had access to phonemic awareness and the phonological code which she uses to
sound out unknown words.
Johnny‟s case is different in regards to phonemic awareness, perhaps because
his mother is Deaf. When interviewed about phonological awareness, she stated, “I
don‟t know what that is.” But she knew that Johnny needed to develop vocabulary
124

(auditorily) while he had his hearing so she made sure he had access to hearing
children and adults in order to learn English. She planned field trips and events that
were language rich in order to support his phonologic skills. She taught him ASL, and
used ASL with him to communicate from birth. Although she may not have known
what the term “phonological awareness” meant, she certainly provided opportunities
for Johnny to learn phonological skills.
Computer Technology
All of the students stated that they use reading and writing a lot with their
friends. They all are quite adept at “networking” texting, emailing and using Facebook
or other network sites. They all kept in contact with friends regularly and did not feel
removed or isolated. Sherry‟s parent mentioned that she as a parent might not have felt
so isolated if she had been using email back then.
Johnny‟s parent did mention computer technology because she used the
computer to locate research and websites in her quest to find ways to teach her son.
Johnny has had access to technology as he is very interested in computers and is on the
computer a lot at home. He used computers at an early age in order to contact others.
One example of using computer technology was mentioned by Elizabeth‟s
mother. She remembered:
One psychologist was awesome and tried some things “out of the box” because
she listened to me and observed Elizabeth. . . she let her use a speech computer
program even though it was „reserved‟ for the older children. . . . I remember the
first time the program was demonstrated to her (with observers because we were
breaking the rules) and Elizabeth took the mouse away from the demonstrator
after one example and started doing the program. She loved using her voice to
move the cars/monkeys whatever on the screen.

125

Another form of technology is the cochlear implant. Sherry is the only student
in this case study with a cochlear implant. Her mother indicated additional frustration
with support providers not knowing enough about the particular needs of a child with a
cochlear implant.
As these children have grown up, they all have Blackberry‟s, Sidekicks,
Facebook and MySpace accounts and use video relays, instant messaging and email
constantly. Technological advances may be changing the access to literacy for the next
generations of DHH students.
Conclusion
Socio-cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory as espoused by Bandura and Huston (1961) holds that a
child‟s behaviors are acquired through identification with important adults in their lives.
Environment (including nurturing) interacts with personal qualities and are incidental
and imitative and not directly taught. Each of the parents took on the role of primary
teacher, especially for their DHH child. They all believed passionately that their child
could indeed succeed. All of the parents expressed a belief in their child. “I never told
her she couldn‟t do something because she was deaf.” “I gave love and encouragement.
I always told her to try and that I would be there to catch her, that I loved her, she can
do anything.” These parents provided unwavering support and they also made sure that
their child had early literacy and language experiences. These experiences were
different depending on the families‟ language choice and parental knowledge, but each
student benefitted from these early experiences and their family‟s involvement.
126

Enns and Lafond (2007) demonstrated rather dramatically that having a teacher
who believed in the capabilities of the students was critical to their success. The
parents in this case study all believed in their children and acted upon those beliefs.
They all made sure their children were surrounded by professionals who believed in
them as much as the parents did. Surrounding themselves with professionals who
believed in their child and who involved the parents as important participants (roles) in
the education of their DHH child reinforced their ability to cope with the hearing loss
(or the system) and increased their feeling in control.
The familial context for DHH students and the beliefs of the parents has also
been shown to be among the most important elements of healthy families who are
raising DHH children who are successful (Hintermair, 2006; Luckner & Velaski,
2004). A family centered philosophy of early intervention assumes that: social
supports affect family functioning; the child‟s needs are best met by meeting the
family‟s needs; and that families have the right to retain as much control as they desire
over the intervention process (Roush & McWilliam, 1994).
Ecological Theory
The family is at the core of ecological theory of Bronfenbrenner (1986). His
theory takes the social cognitive model a bit further and emphasizes the importance of
the environmental factors in understanding development. These factors are categorized
by five environmental systems: the microsystem (family, school, and peers), the
exosystem (neighbors, social welfare, media, and work), the mesosystem (the
interaction between the microsystem and the exosystem), the macrosystem (the cultural
127

attitudes and ideologies), and the chronosystem (the patterns of events over a lifetime).
Each of these systems affects and interacts with each other with the individual at the
center.
The three case studies presented here, all identified that communication was
critical and they all reported difficulty communicating with the „experts‟ within and
across the environmental system. They all worked to have a means of communicating
with their child and all of these parents felt as if no one in the system was listening to
them. It is interesting to note that these feelings were elaborated on in detail across all
communication modes. Each parent felt as though their needs were not being attended
to or respected. This common feeling is represented by:
You have a lot of knowledge and education, but you still need to pay attention to
the individual and their family. . . each one may need something different.
Listen to the parents. Observe the child as a whole not just ears or an
audiogram.

The ones (experts) who were focused on their philosophy or program and not
willing (or able) to see the child were not helpful at all and probably caused a lot
of unnecessary grief and damage. It is still amazing to me to think of the experts
who told me she would never do so many things they said she would not be able
to do! Please where does that come from?

In a sense, the parents (at the center of the ecosystem) focused more specifically
on their child and their family and many of the „supports‟ in the outer rings were not
seen as part of their functioning (and certainly not supportive). The support these
families needed (and elaborated positively about) was when they were given
information and a purposeful role to play with experts who believed in their child and
gave them as a responsible, capable, and important person in their child‟s schooling. In
a sense, these parents looked to the experts and others in the system for support and
128

motivation (they wanted a significant other to help them as identified by Hidi and
Harackiewicz, 2000). Each parent clearly remembered someone (finally) listening to
them, giving them information and encouragement and acknowledging that the parents
had done something or contributed something or had some important role to play in
their child‟s educational development. Their role was critical for their DHH child and
in a sense encouraged a more intimate relationship and supported the parents‟ ability to
cope and maintain a sense of homeostasis (Luterman, 1987).
Social Constructivist Theory
According to the social constructivist theory of Vygotsky, language is acquired
through interactions with others (for young hearing children this interaction is largely
oral and auditory). Through these interactions, learners scaffold or add new
knowledge upon previous knowledge with the support of a more abled other. For
children with hearing loss, these interactions may be limited due to their inability to
process the auditory spoken language which is the main means of communication for
hearing children. According to Schirmer and McGough (2005), many investigators
have suggested that “deaf children have schema that are less developed than hearing
children, although deaf children with deaf parents perform as well as hearing children”
(p. 397) on measures of schema activation, thus have difficulty comprehending and
relating to text.
Perhaps in response to the limited interactions with others for language
development, all of the parents took a very active role in working with their DHH child
on language and literacy. These parents took a proactive stance and worked
129

deliberately at developing their child‟s schema (even if they did not know what that
meant). The parents created literacy events, took their children out into the world,
provided experiences for them and connected literacy events to everyday events on a
regular basis. These parents made deliberate connections between concepts,
experiences, and language (whether signed, oral, or written). The active role in
supporting their child and their less than wonderful experiences with the “experts” who
did not have high expectations for their child lead to a very intimate relationship and a
heightened sense of protectiveness.
These parents protected their children from the very system set up to serve them.
The parents were very careful about who their child interacted with. These parents
searched across districts for programs, professionals, and teachers who believed in their
child. They litigated for these people and drove long distances for and away from
specific individuals. One parent fought to keep her child separate “I kept her in a
bubble” until middle school; the kids did not know they were different.” The other two
parents fought to have their children in the most inclusive environment for more than
academics. Each of the parents knew their children and their needs. They knew their
child needed to be surrounded by others who had a positive view of their child- and who
believed in the academic potential of their children. They all knew their children could
learn to read and write (in spite of multiple statements to the contrary). They all knew
that their child‟s teachers were critical to their success.
These parents all definitely took control of the literacy development of their
children with incredible results! The families all functioned and met the needs of their
130

child, often in spite of the social supports that were provided. These parents did not
participate in the “whine and cry groups” or treat their children as “poor little things.”
All of the students felt that they could read and write and that their doing so was no big
deal. These students (and perhaps their parents) had a mastery motivation stance as
identified by Pipp-Siegel et al., (2003).
Each of these parents reported that the stress they felt was exacerbated whenever
they had to deal with the supports provided by the intervention teams or specialized
program personnel. None of these parents felt as though the “team” was actually a
team, all working toward a common goal--the success of their child. The parents were
repeatedly told that they were unrealistic, did not understand their Deaf child (less for
the Deaf mother), and needed to let the experts do what they knew how to do best.
“They acted like- who are you?? You are only a stupid parent--I was really intimidated
at first--they are more educated than I am and they use that against you. When I got
myself educated I stopped it- all the head trips.” None of these parents accepted the
lowered expectations and dire diagnoses for their child. None of these intervention
resources seemed to be tailored to support the specifics of each family. None of these
parents felt a part of a team.
These parents took control of the early literacy education of their DHH child.
Each parent basically invented a program that was best for their family and child. At
times, they worked with the experts and more often, they worked against the experts,
as what they were being told “just didn‟t make any sense.” These parents felt the
disconnectedness between mainstream research into literacy (and practices) and deaf
131

research of literacy, although low reading achievement for deaf readers has not been
correlated with reading processes distinct from those of hearing students (Schirmer &
McGough, 2005).
These parents “taught” their DHH children in ways similar to how they would
teach their hearing children. They taught their children the NRP (2000) skills of
vocabulary, language and comprehension using many “child and parent friendly”
strategies. These parents created an environment where in their DHH children could
thrive. They maintained high expectations for their children and themselves.
Perhaps what these parents did was to use their knowledge of reading processes
of hearing people (or their own experiences) and modify those as needed for their child
in order to overcome the obstacles to literacy identified by Luckner et al. (2005/2006).
The long standing achievement gap for DHH students seems to indicate that the system
does not know how to support DHH students to literacy.
The system seemed to have failed these families. Yet, the results show three
very successful families of very literate DHH young adults who are all currently
attending 4-year colleges. These three children may indeed have been exceptional in
their own right without the extra efforts of their parents. The enduring achievement
gap for DHH students indicates clearly that what these parents did is important.

132

Chapter 5:
Conclusions
The focus of this study centered on the literacy development of successfully
literate DHH students. This case study of 3 literate DHH students clearly has
implications for teaching practices, support providers, research, and parents. The
research questions included: (1) What is the nature of the literacy experiences of
highly literate recent high school graduates who have hearing loss and were enrolled in
a DHH program? (2) What factors are related to literacy development in DHH high
school graduates? (3) What do the parents of these successful students identify that
specifically supports the literacy development of their children with a hearing loss?
Summary of the Findings by Research Question
There were many differences between these cases. Each of these three cases
attended different pre-schools, elementary schools, middle schools and made different
language and audition choices. There were many findings across all three cases. The
findings will be summarized across cases and by research question.
Question 1
The first study question was: What is the nature of the literacy experiences of
highly literate recent high school graduates who have hearing loss and were enrolled in
a DHH program?
There is a large body of research documenting that the reading achievement of
students with hearing loss is very poor (Cawthon, 2004; Miller, 2004; Padden &
Ramsey, 1998). Researchers, regardless of their theoretical or communicative stance
133

all agree that consistently, children with hearing loss do not perform well on academic
measures, particularly reading and language measures. There is little research
examining successful DHH students and how they became successful.
There are many theories as to why so many DHH students do not acquire
literacy skills. Most often, the context of the family and the lack of an early use of sign
language are considered to be reasons for both Deaf and Hard of Hearing students
scoring far below the target score of advanced or proficient which is not acceptable (See
Figures 1, 2, & 3). Often, the reason given for the lack of literacy for DHH students is
focused on the early home literacy experiences of the child. In fact, in a list of 5
obstacles to literacy for DHH children Luckner et al., (2005/2006) indicate that 3 of the
obstacles relate to pre-school experiences (or a lack thereof). These include: limited
fluency with the language prior to attending school, lack of early literacy experiences
prior to entering school and a delay in the acquisition of vocabulary.
Each of these families took it upon themselves to get educated about deafness
and immediately began to provide the early language and literacy experiences they
could at home. Each family (while responding a bit differently) read to their children.
They used life experiences to build their child‟s vocabulary and concepts, they
maintained literacy expectations for their DHH child. The hearing families view
Deafness as something that might require them as parents to do some things differently
and they were willing to learn. They in a sense took it upon themselves to become
„empowered,‟ per Hintermair‟s (2006) terminology.
134

The participants all lived in urban areas and had access to and made use of the
early interventions provided for DHH infants and children. None of the families felt
those services provided what they needed or wanted for their child. These families all
chose different language modes, so attended programs with different philosophies, yet
their experiences and reactions were very similar. As a group, these families found the
service providers did not hold or maintain expectations for the education of their child
and were not willing to adapt the program to the child or the family. They found, as did
Nikolaraizi and Makri (2004/2005) that these service providers viewed deafness as a
disability and perpetuated negative stereotypical attitudes and beliefs to the parents.
As the environment was negative, each family closed in around their child,
focusing on the child‟s interests, abilities, and strengths, often in spite of the program
sequence or recommendations. They actively protected their child‟s self image as
competent, bright, and capable people. These parents knew, as found by Enns and
Lafond (2007), that they needed to maintain high expectations for their children. It is
quite striking that according to all of these families, the system is not working to
support literacy development of DHH children. The system itself is rife with experts
telling the parents about the limitations of being deaf and the deficits of their child‟s
deafness. This is supported by Nikolariazi and Makri (2004/2005) who also found that
heatlh care providers and teachers perpetuated these negative stereotypes. The parents
had to search far and wide to find experts with supportive attitudes, willing to try new
things to support the needs of these DHH children and their families. The system of
support was not supportive as far as academic possibilities are concerned.
135

Parents wanted to support their children and looked to the experts. The experts
by and large let them down. These parents persevered and fought against the system--a
system that has come to accept abysmal educational results for DHH students. The
parents all felt abandoned by the system--outsiders “in the twilight zone” as they
worked to maintain their high expectations for their DHH child and the teachers.
Hintermair‟s (2006) empowerment focus was not in evidence as the supports provided
did not actively or effectively work to empower the parents and families of these
students. The support system was not supportive.
Bronfenbrenner‟s (1986) ecological model of the layers in a system working
together was not evident in these three case studies. All three families found that
„others‟ were not a part of their basic unit of support. All of the families reported that
they spent considerable energy and time fighting against the “support providers.” The
support providers most often had a view of their children that was based on a deficit
and stereotyped limitations like the hearing population in general (Nikolaraizi and
Makri, 2004/5). There were huge rifts and areas of strife within and between the
systems of support- especially around communication mode and CI issues.
Question 2
The second question was: What factors are related to literacy development in
DHH high school graduates?
These parents thought DHH child might need something different from them in
order to develop literacy. They were not sure just what to do. They turned to research
and the experts for guidance, support and advice. Unfortunately what they found was
136

not considered supportive. The hearing families were told that they needed to commit
to a specific language choice- without information and the Deaf family could not find
support that respected her „Deafness”. The mothers looked for research and best
practices and found little--as did both Schirmer and McGough (2005) and Luckner et
al., (2005/2006).
While Deaf and hard of hearing children‟s language development follows a
similar pattern as hearing children (Stewart & Clarke, 2003) and while research has
shown that “there are greater similarities than differences between the reading processes
of deaf and hearing readers” (Schirmer & McGough, 2005, p. 111), there is little
research on the literacy development of DHH children using the literacy elements
established by the NRP (2000). The NRP identified as 5 research based elements
important for developing literacy. These elements include: comprehension (including
vocabulary), fluency, phonemic awareness, computer technology, and reading
instruction. One might expect to see these elements would also be applied and
researched for deaf readers. This is not the case.
So these parents did what many parents do. They read to their DHH children.
They made books with and for their DHH children. They maintained expectations for
their DHH children. These parents taught their DHH child, using skills, pedagogies,
and strategies they would use with hearing children. Only one of the parents had
previous teaching experience. The parents did make some modifications for their
DHH child. They saw nothing especially magical about this. Yet this belief in the
137

abilities of their children was also found to be key to reading improvement in a study
by Enns and LaFond (2007).
Question 3
The third question was: What do the parents of these successful students identify
that specifically supports the literacy development of their children with a hearing
loss?
All of the parents saw their role as critical for the school success of their DHH
child. Each parent (especially the two hearing parents) distanced themselves a bit from
the other parents of DHH children. None of these parents would give up their role or
responsibility to their child to the experts. Each parent elaborated on what they as
parents and or what they as a family did to ensure the success of their child.
What these parents all did, was to believe in the abilities of their children. This
belief may be one of the critical characteristics behind the literacy success of these
three students and is supported in research by Pipp-Segal, et al., (2003). Against all
odds and against all expert advice, these parents knew their children could learn to read
and write. These parents basically „empowered‟ themselves (Hintermair 2006) without
the support of the system. What they all ended up doing, was to teach their children to
read and use language without relying on hearing or speaking, but rather in
combinations which varied by their language choices. They all searched far and wide
for information and strategies to use with their children and they ended up using
strategies that were just common-sense to them. These parents had varying
knowledge of teaching and Deafness, yet each, in their own way, maintained a belief in
138

their children‟s abilities- which mirrors the findings by Enns and LaFond (2004/2005)
that a teacher‟s belief in the student‟s abilities is paramount to success. In these cases
the teachers were the parents.
Implications

This case study of three literate DHH students and their families represented
both genders, differing etiologies, different educational experiences, different levels of
hearing loss and perhaps most importantly different language choices. The implications
for both practice and research apply to each of the cases.
Implications for Practice

The findings of this study have clear and important implications for practice,
particularly the early support providers. All of the parents in this study wanted to
support their children and looked to the experts for help and guidance. All of the
parents reported that the experts by and large let them down. These parents did not
feel empowered by the supports as purported by Hintermair (2006). These parents
searched for support providers who believed in their children‟s abilities to learn and be
successful, like the teachers in Enns and LaFond‟s (2004/2005) study. Finding
teachers or support providers who actually believed in their children was so rare for
these families that they could clearly identify that person even 15 years later. Early
support providers (and teachers, speech therapists and others) need to believe that
DHH children can indeed learn, gain an education and become productive members of
society, that DHH children are not mentally disabled.
139

These parents lived in three different cities in an urban area which provided a
system of supports for special needs children. None of these parents found the system
of supports supportive. Using Bronfenbrenner‟s (1986) ecological model one might
view the family as the center with expanding layers of social and emotional supports in
place to surround the family and provide supports. All of these parents felt abandoned
by the system- outsiders “in the twilight zone.” These families all turned inward and
maintained a stronger sense of commitment and responsibility for their children. The
implications are that the system is not working to support these families. The early
support providers and health workers (audiologists, MD‟s, nurses, speech therapists,
infant teachers, and most pre-school teachers encountered) seemed to maintain and
exude a hearing perspective of DHH children as disabled as found by Nikolaraizi and
Makri (2004/2005). Support providers- as first contacts-must be retrained away from a
deficit (or audiologic) view of deafness to supporting and encouraging DHH children
(and their parents) to see them as competent capable people first, then as someone with
a specific hearing diagnosis.
In addition to not feeling supported by this system, each of the families felt they
were pressured to commit into one specific ideology or language choice. These
ideologies were in competition with each other. The parents (especially the hearing
parents) wanted information and options and did not feel informed enough to commit
to a specific approach (particularly without evidence of its success).
There is not only one-way of achieving literacy (ASL, oral, TC (total
communication), aided, CI). Both Luckner et al., (2005/2006) and Schirmer (2003)
140

identified that DHH children enter school with limited experiences with language and
story structures. These families began to read with and to their DHH children
immediately, even before committing to a specific program. The implication is that
support providers should focus on the child and family and not on one specific
ideology.
Putting together a team with a common goal of literacy for DHH children may
achieve the near impossible--literacy for DHH students. Support providers,
audiologists, speech therapists, early intervention specialists, and others involved in
with the families of DHH children need to understand their roles in providing support
for the families and offer hope for the families. The deficit model needs to be
abandoned for DHH children and their families. The implication is that an
empowerment approach espoused by Hintermair (2006) may provide families what
they need to ensure their DHH children are not left behind academically and place the
focus of Bronfenbrenner‟s (1986) ecological system on adapting to meet the strengths
of each family.
Parents are indeed their child‟s first teachers and can and do make a difference
for their child. Early literacy experiences are important for all children and perhaps
even more important for DHH children (Stewart & Clarke, 2003). These parents all
read to and with their DHH child (Pipp-Segal, et al., 2003), even if they were unsure
about language mode or the hearing level of their child. These parents all became
advocates for their children and became very involved in their child‟s education.
141

These parents did not back-off of this responsibility because they had little or no
knowledge of deafness.
The parents in this study never gave up or turned their children over to the
“experts.” They actively challenged the status quo and pushed the boundaries holding
their children back. All parents need to take charge to alter the educational future of
DHH students and do their part to close the achievement gap, one family at a time.
Implications for Future Research
Most of the research to date in the field of deaf education has consisted of expert
testimony, consensus and committee reports, that most often compare Deaf students
and hard of hearing students (Luckner et al., 2005/2006). There is evidence that
language development for DHH children is quite similar to hearing children (Stewart
and Clark, 2003). There is little or no evidence that DHH students learn significantly
differently than hearing students according to both Luckner et al., (2005/2006) and
Schirmer and Mc Gough (2005).
Research on literate DHH students is needed. Not only research, but quality
research is needed to identify how some DHH students achieve literacy. In discussing
the research on reading for deaf readers, researchers (including Luckner et al.,
2005/2006; Schirmer and McGough, 2005) refer to a striking lack of quality research
on DHH literacy. Research on successfully literate DHH students is even more limited.
In order to close the achievement gap between deaf and hearing readers, literate DHH
students need to be a focus of research using proven strategies and interventions.
142

That DHH children enter school with limited language and literacy experiences
seems to be a common theme in DHH research (Luckner et al., 2005/2006; Padden &
Ramsey, 1998; Schirmer, 1997; Schirmer & McGough, 2005/2006). Lack of reading
success and failure for DHH children is often attributed to the parents. Families are
universally acknowledged to play very important roles in the academic success of
some DHH children (Hintermair, 2006; Luckner & Velaski, 2004; Luterman, 1987).
Research is needed to identify what families of successful DHH families do. If it is the
families that matter most- what is it about successful families? What services are the
most beneficial-from the client‟s perspective and across communication choices?
More research must be done to identify what matters most in the literacy
accomplishments of successful DHH students and their families.
Research is needed on using proven reading strategies with DHH students as
well. Comparing DHH and hearing students on an identical measure has historically
been viewed as being completely inappropriate but needs to be undertaken. The
majority of interventions used in deaf education are not supported by research findings
as to their efficacy (Luckner et al., 2005/2006; Schirmer & McGough, 2005). The
interventions that are used have not been evaluated systematically as to their impact on
the test scores of the students (Cawthon, 2007).
There may indeed be some differences between Deaf readers and hearing
readers, but there is no evidence that the NRP (2000) elements do not apply to deaf
readers. Research on effective programs and successful DHH children needs to be
143

undertaken. DHH research needs to be designed that replicates research on successful
mainstream programs, practices and interventions.
Limitations

This study only included three families and largely collected data from mothers
(fathers were included in the original contacts- but did not choose to participate) and
their DHH child in separate interviews. The study is limited in that the potential study
pool is very limited (less that 8% of the population) and the number of participants is
small. As two of these families were able to have their student attend this particular
high school (both across county lines and “out-of-district”), they may not be “typical”
in their level of advocacy, but may represent what Hintermair (2006) titled
“empowered” and Luterman (1987) termed “optimal.”
Each of the students (although representative of the DHH community
communication spectrum) came from middle class Caucasian homes. Although one
family considers ASL to be its primary language and one family could have been
bilingual, each family was English speaking. No non-English families were included
in the study.
The students attended different pre-school, elementary and middle schools and
although they attended the same high school, they were in different programs. Two of
the students were mainstreamed (one in an Honors track) and one was enrolled in
DHH-sheltered classes and was a grade level ahead of the other two. Any effects of a
specific teacher or program have been minimized.

144

Conclusions

Early language experiences serve as the foundation for both cognitive
development and schema building according to both the constructivist and social
interaction theories (Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1986). The early language context is
perhaps more critical for children who are DHH as approximately 90% of the children
who are deaf have hearing parents. This indicates that the L1 of most DHH students
(ASL) is learned later than the language of a hearing child, often not until after they
enter school. Each of the case study families “knew” that early language experiences
were critical for their child‟s literacy development. Each case study family- in their
own way- made literacy a focus in their family. Each family turned to experts for help
in developing these early experiences and each family felt they had received little or no
help. Two of the families clearly felt they needed to actively fight against the experts
and indeed these two families successfully litigated for their children.
Deaf families do not have to change their family structure upon the
identification of a child‟s hearing loss- they have family homeostasis, but, hearing
families will need to make perhaps “cataclysmic” changes to adapt to a DHH child
(Luterman, 1987). Two of these families are “hearing families” and needed to adapt to
the identification of a deaf child. Both of these hearing families took responsibility for
their child and made adaptations to their family dynamics in order to meet the need of
their DHH child. One family chose an oral approach and the other a bi-bi approach.
Both choices are valid and worked best for that family. If the parents felt any grief,
they „got over it‟ quickly as they felt a tremendous pressure to learn about how to best
145

parent their DHH child. Early intervention in support of language development for
DHH students is critical. Language and concept development -not speech-should be
the focus for everyone involved.
In the US, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act) (and the
reauthorization IDEIA, 2004) requires early intervention and support for families. This
support is mandated and often is very rigidly applied as a complete program depending
on the philosophical camp of the program. Under the 2002 NCLB (No Child Left
Behind) Legislation, the enduring lack of achievement for DHH children will not be
allowed to continue. NCLB legislation will not allow this group to remain behind. All
of these families reported almost identical detailed problems with the lack of
expectation and deficit thinking of the „support‟ providers even though they were in
three different programs. This was true no matter what the language choice made by
family. The hearing parents were told they did not know what to do or how to parent a
DHH child and the Deaf parent felt ignored by the support providers also. None of
these families felt supported by the mandated early support providers. The ecological
system (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) is not working as it is designed to support families of
DHH children
Each of these cases had parents who took full responsibility for their children
and made themselves accountable for their child‟s educational success. In a sense the
parents constructed their own meaning of deafness and language development. The
parents ensured that the support providers, audiologists, speech teachers, teachers and
others all maintained a belief in their child. All three families had negative experiences
146

with the support providers and encountered low (at best) or no expectations from the
education system and its representatives. Each of these families found a way to
support their DHH child develop literacy. All three families made major changes in
their lives (including employment changes) in order to provide for the best educational
opportunities for their child. None of the families viewed what they did as
extraordinary.
Accountability is beginning to be applied to the DHH population. Two recent
events indicate that indeed the times of DHH being left behind may be coming to an
end. In October 2009, the Rhode Island School for the Deaf was reported in the press
to have been taken over by the state due to a lack of performance. At this school, less
than 10% of the students were proficient in language and none were proficient in math.
The board of regents for the school was asked to identify the needs of deaf children;
develop educational policies; and develop staffing polices that ensure that students are
taught by high-quality educators. Deputy Commissioner David V. Abbott said that the
intent of the takeover is to improve student achievement and help school leaders,
faculty and trustees achieve this goal. This intent does fit with the mandates of NCLB.
At a recent alumni gathering of Deaf college graduates in California, the
Superintendent of the California Schools for the Deaf received an award for the
success of one of his schools. In his speech, he stated that “for the first time, all of the
Seniors at (one of his schools) had passed the CAHSEE (California High School Exit
Exam)!” The audience gave a lengthy standing ovation for this statement. They were
thrilled with this news--even though the CAHSEE is testing at about an 8
th
grade level.
147

Cleary something extraordinary happened in these three cases. There is much to
learn from these successful families. It is time to abandon the communication wars
that has long hampered progress for the literacy education of students who are DHH.
It is time to support the families of DHH students do what they need to do to support
the language and cognitive development of their child. Supports need to be adapted
and tailored to support the specifics of the family and their strengths and needs. High
quality research on promising practices, effective pedagogies, and strategies that
support the literacy and educational success for DHH students must be conducted and
derived from successful cases. All of the participants should be united and focused on
the DHH child/student and do whatever it takes to support the literacy development of
that child--irrespective of communication choices.
It is well beyond the time to truly leave no DHH child behind.
148

References

Aefsky, F. (1995). Inclusion confusion: A guide to educating students with exceptional
needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Aronson, E. (2008). The Social animal (10
th
ed.). NY: Worth Publishers.

Bandura, A., & Huston, A. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental learning.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(2), 311-318.

Baynton, D. (1992). A silent exile on this earth: The metaphorical construction of
deafness in the nineteenth century. American Quarterly, 44(2), 216-243.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Catlett, S., & Osher, T. (1994). What is inclusion anyway? An analysis of organizational
position statements. Alexandria, VA: Project Forum, National Association of
State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document No ED 369 234).

Cawthon, S. (2004). Schools for the deaf and the no child left behind act. American
Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 314-323.

Cawthon, S. (2007). Hidden benefits and unintended consequences of no child left behind
policies for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Educational
Research Journal, 44(3), 460-492.

Cummins, J. (1991). Language development and academic learning. In M. L. Malave, &
G. Duquette (Eds.), Language, culture, and cognition. Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters.

Dyer, A., MacSweeney, M., Szczerbinski, M., Green, L., & Campbell, R. (2003).
Predictors of reading delay in deaf adolescents: The relative contributions of
rapid automized naming speed and phonological awareness and decoding.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 215-229.

Enns, C., & Lafond, L. (2007). Reading against all odds: A pilot study of two deaf
students with dyslexia. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 63-72.

Fagan, M., Pisoni, D., Horn, D., & Dillon, C. (2007). Neuropsychological correlates of
vocabulary, reading, and working memory in deaf children with cochlear
implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(4), 461-471.

149

Gallaudet Research Institute. (2001). Regional and national summary report of data from
the 1999-2000 annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Grenot-Scheyer, M., Jubala, K., Bishop, K, & Coots, J. (1996). The inclusive classroom:
Professional‟s guide. Westminster, CA: Teacher Created Materials.

Harris, M., & Moreno, C. (2004). Deaf children‟s use of phonological coding: Evidence
from reading, spelling, and working memory. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 9(3), 253-268.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the unmotivated: A critical issue for the
21
st
century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.

Hintermair, M. (2006). Parental resources, parental stress, and socioemotional
development of deaf and hard of hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 11(4), 493-513.

Izzo, A. (2002). Phonemic awareness and reading ability: An investigation with young
readers who are Deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(4), 18-28.

Jackson, D., Paul, P., & Smith, J. (1997). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension
ability of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(3),
172-184.

Kochhar, C., West, L., & Taymans, J. (2000). Successful inclusion: Practical strategies
for a shared responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Merrill
Education.

Kuntze, M. (1998). Literacy and deaf children: The language question. Topics in
Language Disorders, 18(4), 1-15.

Lane, H. (1999). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the Deaf community. (2
nd
ed.).
San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.

Lang, H., Cohen, O., & Fischgrund, J. (2007). Moments of truth: Robert R. Davila-the
story of a deaf leader. Rochester, New York: RIT Press.

Linn, R., & Baker, E. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of
the no child left behind act of 2001. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of
Evaluation.

Luckner, J., & Velaski, A. (2004). Healthy families of children who are deaf. American
Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 324-335.
150

Luckner, J., Sebald, A., Cooney, J., Young, J., & Muir, S. (2005/2006). An examination
of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the
Deaf, 150(5), 443-456.

Luterman, D. (1987). Deafness in the family. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in early literacy development of deaf children.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(4), 411-431.

Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a
bilingual-bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1(2), 93-107.

Miller, P. (2004). Processing of written words by individuals with prelingual deafness.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 979-989.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children
to read-an evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on
reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.

Nelson, K. (1998). Toward a differentiated account of facilitators of literacy development
and ASL in deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 73-88.

Nikolaraizi, M., & Makri, M. (2004/2005). Deaf and hearing individuals‟ beliefs about
the capabilities of deaf people. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 404-414.

Padden , C., & Humphries, T. (2005). Inside Deaf Culture. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.

Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in
Language Disorders, 18(4), 30-46.

Piaget, J. (1969). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge & Keagan.

Pipp-Siegal, S., Sedey, A., Van Leeuwen, A., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). Mastery
motivation and expressive language in young children with hearing loss. Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 133-145.

Ramsey, C., & Padden, C. (1998). Natives and newcomers: Gaining access to literacy in
a classroom for deaf children. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(1), 5-
24.

151

Reading Instruction Competence Assessment. (2009). Reading instruction competence
assessment. Evaluation Systems. Amherst, MA: Pearson Education.

Richardson, J., & Parker, T. (1993). The institutional genesis of special education: The
American case. American Journal of Education, 101(4), 359-392.

Rogers, S., Muir, K., & Evenson, C. (2003). Signs of resilience: Assets that support deaf
adult‟s success in bridging the deaf and hearing worlds. American Annals of the
Deaf, 148(3), 222-232.

Rosenblatt, L. (2001). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into
Practice, 21(4), 268-278.

Roush, J., & McWilliam, R. (1994). Family-centered early intervention: Historical,
philosophical, and legislative issues. In J. Roush, & N. Matkin (Eds.), Infants and
toddlers with hearing loss (pp. 3-21). Baltimore: York Press.

Sager, N. (2007, November). Introduction at “the achievement gap and students who are
deaf or hard of hearing” session. The First Annual Achievement Gap
Conference, Sacramento, CA.

Schirmer, B. (1993). Constructing meaning from narrative text: Cognitive processes of
deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 138(5), 397-403.

Schirmer, B. (1997). Boosting reading success: Boosting reading success: Language,
literacy, and content area instruction for deaf and hard-of-hearing students-and
bilingual students, and students learning English as a second language, and
everyone else who needs a little help. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(1), 52-
56.

Schirmer, B., & McGough, S. (2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the
conclusions of the national reading panel apply? Review of Educational
Research, 72(1), 83-117.

Scott, J. (1992). Deficit theories, ethnic dialects & literacy research: When and
why recycling is not cost efficient. In C. Kinzer, & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacy
research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 49-63).
Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Scouten, E. (1984). Turning points in the education of deaf people. Danville, Ill:
Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc.

152

Smith, M., & Campbell, P. (1997). Discourses on deafness: Social policy and the
communicative habilitation of the deaf. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(4),
437-456.

Stewart, D. (1993). Bi-Bi to MCE? American Annals of the Deaf, 138(4), 331-337.

Stewart, D., & Clarke, B. (2003). Literacy and your deaf child: What every parent
should know. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press.

Stredler-Brown, A., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1992). F.A.M.I.L.Y. assessment: A
multidisciplinary evaluation tool. In J. Roush, & N. Matkin (Eds.), Infants and
toddlers with hearing loss (pp. 133-162). Baltimore: York Press.

Trezek, B., & Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of utilizing a phonics-based reading
curriculum with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 202-213.

Tucker, B. (1997). The ADA and deaf culture: Contrasting precepts, conflicting results.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 549, 24-36.

Valentine, P. (1991). A nineteenth-century experiment in education of the handicapped:
The American asylum for the deaf and dumb. The New England Quarterly, 64(3),
355-375.

Vermeulen, A., van Bon, W., Schreuder, R., Knoors, H., & Snik, A. (2007). Reading
comprehension of deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 12(3), 283-302.

Vernon, M. (2006/2007). A half-century of progress for deaf individuals. In K Freiberg
(Ed.), Education of exceptional individuals (119-122). Dubuque, IL: Mc Graw-
Hill.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wauters, L., VanBon, W., Tellings, A., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2006). In search of factors in
deaf and hearing children‟s reading comprehension. American Annals of the
Deaf, 151(3), 371-380.

Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental
representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25(3),
315-339.

153

Williams, C. (1995). Preschool teacher‟s theoretical & pedagogical stances on the
language and literacy development of deaf and hard of hearing children:
Implications for teacher preparation and in-service programs. American Annals of
the Deaf, 140(1), 56-64.

Yin, R. (1990). Case study research: Designs and methods. In L. Bickman (Series Ed.),
Applied social research methods series: Vol.5. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Yopp, H. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23(2), 159-177.

York, J. & Reynolds, M. (1996). Special education and inclusion. In J. Sikula, T.
Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), The handbook of teacher education (pp. 820-836).
New York: MacMillian.

Young, A., Carr, G., Hunt, R., McCracken,W., Skipp, A., & Tattersall, H. (2006).
Informed choice and deaf children: Underpinning concepts and enduring
challenges. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 322-336.

Zucker, C. (1993). Using whole language with students who have language and learning
disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 46(8), 660-670.
154

Appendix A:

RECRUITMENT SCRIPT-HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

“Hello my name is Deborah Hamm and I am a doctoral student at USC working
on my dissertation. I am conducting a research study. I am interested in interviewing
you as recent high school graduate from the DHH program who is literate. The aim of
the research is to learn what you felt helped support your literacy success. If you agree
to participate, you will be asked to complete 30 minute questionnaire and participate in
an interview that will take about 1 hour of your time. I would like to also like you to
give me copies of your recent IEP and audiogram. Participation is entirely voluntary
although in order to participate in this study; both you and a parent will need to agree to
participate. Your identity will be confidential. Your parents will not have access to
your responses, nor will you have access to theirs.
I can email the questionnaires and follow up with in-person interviews at a time
and location of your choosing. These interviews may be audio or videotaped with your
permission. If you do not choose to be taped, you can still participate in the study.

My contact information includes:
Email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Phone: XXX XXX-XXXX
Address: XXXX Xxxxxxxx Xxx. XX, XX XXXXX

My dissertation chair at USC is Dr G. Ragusa Ragusa@usc.edu

Date of Preparation: September 22, 2009
UPIRB#: UP-09-00214

155

Appendix B:

RECRUITMENT SCRIPT-PARENT

Hello my name is Deborah Hamm and I am a doctoral student at USC working on my
dissertation. I am conducting a research study. I am interested in interviewing you as a
parent of a recent DHH high school graduate who is literate. The aim of the study is to
identify any program, experience, specific acts, or support that you felt were critical to
the literacy development of your DHH child, to find out from you what you felt made a
difference for you and your family practices to support the success of your child. If you
agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 30 minute questionnaire and
participating in an interview which will take about one and a half hours of your time.
Participation is entirely voluntary although in order to participate in this study; both an
adult child and parent must agree. Your identity will be confidential and you will need
to sign a consent form in order to participate. You will not have access to your childs
responses and vice versa. The parent and adult child interviews will be conducted
separately

I can email the questionnaires and follow up with in-person interviews at a time and
location of your choosing. These interviews may be audio or videotaped with your
permission. If you do not choose to be taped, you can still participate in the study.

My contact information includes:
Email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Phone: XXX XXX-XXXX
Address: XXXX Xxxxxxxx Xxx. XX, XX XXXXX

My dissertation chair at USC is Dr G. Ragusa Ragusa@usc.edu

Date of Preparation: September 22, 2009
UPIRB#: UP-09-00214

156

Appendix C:

INFORMED CONSENT--STUDENT

University of Southern California

INFORMATION SHEET CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH

****************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Consent Form

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Deborah Hamm and Dr.
Gisele Ragusa, from the University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education
because you are a literate student who recently graduated from the D/HH Program
through the OCDE and you are 18 years or older. A total of 6 participants (parent and
adult child) will be selected to participate. For participation in this study, both a parent
and an adult child must agree to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You should
read the information that follows, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to consent to participate in this study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to identify critical characteristics or experiences that
contributed to your literacy success. The focus of this study is literate high school
graduates.

PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to engage in the following
activities:

1. Answer a questionnaire which will take about 30 minutes. These questions are
designed to find out what early intervention services and programs you may have
participated in and your feelings about those programs/services.
2. Participate in an interview about your literacy experiences which is expected to
take about 45 minutes. The interview may be audio or video taped in order to
allow the researcher to accurately transcribe your responses. If you do not want
to be taped, you can still participate in the research study and handwritten notes
will be taken.
3. Provide the researcher with documents, including IEPs, audiograms, and a writing
sample.

Your parents will also be asked to complete a questionnaire and participate in an
interview. However, the interviews will be conducted separately.
157

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. You may feel uncomfortable being
taped.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There is no direct benefit to you. However the information gathered from your
experiences may be used to inform future professionals interacting with families of
DHH children and may be used to inform future program development.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.

Only the researcher will have access to the data associated with this study. Your parents
will not have access to your responses, nor will you have access to their responses.

The data will be stored in a locked file cabinet/password protected computer. All of the
data, including the video or audio tapes will be stored for seven years after the study has
been completed and then destroyed. The tapes will be transcribed by the researcher

When the results of the research are published or discussed at academic conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether you will participate in this study. If you consent to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. The
investigators may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent for participation at any time and discontinue
participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding
your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
114, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact:
158

Deborah Lynne Hamm, Doctoral Student, xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx, (XXX) XXX-XXXX or
Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D. Director, Teacher Education, Associate Professor, University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education, University Park Campus, Waite
Phillips Hall 503B, Los Angeles, CA. 90089 (213) 821-3147, fax (213) 740-3671,
ragusa@usc.edu

Date of Preparation: September 22, 2009
UPIRB#: UP-09-00214

159

Appendix D:

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

****************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Consent Form

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Deborah Lynne Hamm
and Dr. Gisele Ragusa, from the University of Southern California, Rossier School of
Education because you the parent of a literate student who recently graduated from the
D/HH Program through the OCDE. A total of 6 parent and adult child participants will
be selected to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information that follows, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether or not to consent to participate in this study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to identify critical characteristics or experiences that
contributed to your literacy success. The focus of this study is literate high school
graduates.

PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to engage in the following
activities:

1. Answer a questionnaire which will take about 30 minutes. The questionnaire is
designed to obtain information about your experiences and programs from early
intervention that influenced your decision making for your DHH child.
2. Participate in an interview about your literacy experiences which is expected to
take about 45 minutes. This interview is designed to go in depth about your
responses to the questionnaire and clarify your responses. The interview may be
audio or video tapes in order to allow the researcher to accurately transcribe your
responses. If you do not want to be taped, you can continue with your
participation and handwritten notes will be taken.

Your child will be also be asked to complete a questionnaire and participate in an
interview; however, the procedures will be conducted separately in order to ensure
confidentiality.

160

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. You may feel uncomfortable being
taped.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There is no direct benefit to you. The information gathered from this study may be used
to improve future programs and services to DHH children and their families and perhaps
inform future program development.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. You will not have access to your child‟s responses.

Only the researcher will have access to the data associated with this study. The data will
be stored in a locked file cabinet/password protected computer. All of the data will be
stored for seven years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. The tapes
will be transcribed by the researcher only.

When the results of the research are published or discussed at academic conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. You have the right to
review your audio/video tape if you so wish to.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether you will participate in this study. If you consent to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. The
investigators may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so. A student and parent pair is required for participation in this study.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent for participation at any time and discontinue
participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding
your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact:

161

Deborah Lynne Hamm, Doctoral Student, xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx, XXX XXX-XXXX or
Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D. Director, Teacher Education, Associate Professor, University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education, University Park Campus, Waite
Phillips Hall 503B, Los Angeles, CA. 90089 (213) 821-3147, fax (213) 740-3671,
ragusa@usc.edu

Date of Preparation: September 22, 2009
UPIRB#: UP-09-00214

162

Appendix E:

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

DHH Student Questionnaire

Name __________________________ Date _______________

As you know, you have agreed to be a part of a study about literate high school
graduates who are deaf or hard of hearing. These questions will help me understand
what you think about reading and writing and how you think you learned to read and
write so well.

What do you like to do in your free time?

Do you like to read? If yes, what do you like to read? If no, why not?

Do you like to write? If yes, what do you like to write? If no, why not?

When did you learn to read? What do you remember as being the first book you read?

When did you learn to write? What do you remember writing first?

What do you remember about learning to read or write?

163

Appendix F:

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Name ______________________________ Date ______________________

Your DHH Child‟s Current Age:______________

Demographic Information
Was your child born deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing?
___Deaf ___Hard of hearing ___Hearing ___Unknown

What age was your child when you suspected that he/she had a hearing loss?
___0-6 months ______6 months-1 year 1-3years ___
___4-5 years Other, please specify ________

Hearing status of the Father
___Hearing ___Hard of hearing ___Deaf

Highest education level of the father
___ Little education ___High School ___College degree ___Advanced degree

Hearing status of the Mother
___Hearing ___Hard of hearing ___Deaf

Highest education level of the mother
___ Little education __High School __College degree ___Advanced degree

How many other children do you have? _____ Their ages? _________________

What is the hearing status of these children? ___________________________

Early Intervention Survey

If you received early intervention support, at what age was your child when you began
receiving services such as counseling, parent training, home visits, language support,
etc?
___0-6 mos ___6 mo–1 yr ___1-2 yrs ___2-4 yrs ___4-5 yrs

Other, please specify ____________________________________________________

164

What was the primary method of communication you utilized at home while teaching
your child language? Check all that apply.
___American Sign Language (ASL)
___Signing Exact English (SEE)
___English-based sign language (Signing and talking at the same time.)
___Cued Speech
___Speech and speech reading using the ability to hear and listening devices
___Speech and speech reading without hearing devices

If your child used hearing devices, what hearing devices has your child used to hear
from birth to age 5? Check all that apply.
___Analog hearing aids ___Auditory trainer/FM system
___Digital hearing aids ___Cochlear implant
___Cochlear implant ___None
___Other____________________________________________________

Did you and your child receive any early intervention services? If so, what were they?
These could include language development, communication instruction, home visits,
attending a special preschool or other services? If yes what were they?

Did you receive any parent training or attend support groups? If yes please elaborate on
what you considered to be helpful to you.
Which of these services were the most helpful to you and why?

Were extra efforts made for your young child to interact with deaf adults or the deaf
community? If so what were they?

How many school years did your child attend the following types of educational
programs?

Special education class at a special education center?
___0 years ___2 years ___3 years ___4 years ___5+ years

Special education class on a regular school campus?
___0 years ___2 years ___3 years ___4 years ___5+ years

Regular school campus class at neighborhood school?
___0 years ___2 years ___3 years ___4 years ___5+ years

Residential school (stay overnight in dorms during the week)?
___0 years ___2 years ___3 years ___4 years ___5+ years

165

Residential school (day student only)?
___0 years ___2 years ___3 years ___4 years ___5+ years

At what age did the child enter into an educational program?
___0-2 years __3 years old __4 years old _5 years old ___6+ years

How many different schools did your child attend K-8
th
grade?
___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5+

Of these educational placements and experiences- which do you think had and
impact on the literacy development of your child? How and why do you think so?

How would you describe your child’s communication abilities?
_____Written expression is easier than self expression using sign and/or speech
_____Self expression (speech/sign) is easier than written expression
_____Written and self expression are equally fluent
_____Both are difficult
_____Do not know

If your child requires an interpreter, In your opinion, how many years has your
child had a certified interpreter?
___none ___1-2 years ___3-4 years ___5+ years ___don‟t know

On average, how much many hours per week does your child spend communicating and
interacting meaningfully with others at home?
___0-3 hours
a week
___4-5 hours
a week
___6-8 hours
a week
___9-10 hours
a week
___11+ hours
a week

How would you evaluate your child’s motivation?
____ Internally self motivated
____Mostly self motivated but needs some other source of motivation
____Needs another individual to motivate them, not motivated on their own

Which professionals were the most helpful to you? Why?
Which professionals were the least helpful to you and why?
What advice would you give to professionals and why?
What do you think are the most significant reasons your child achieved well on the
English Language Arts portion of the California Standards Test? Specify at least three
reasons. What were the challenges you had to face due to your child’s hearing loss?

What advice would you give to other families with a newly diagnosed with a
hearing loss?
166

Appendix G:

INTERPRETER CONFIDENTIALITY

I, ____________________________________ am a certified sign language interpreter
who has been hired to interpret an interview or to verify the transcription of a videotape
of an interview of a person who uses sign language as their primary means of
communication. I am bound by my profession and hereby reiterate that any information
or involvement in this study will be maintained in the strictest confidence.

______________________________________ _________
Signature of Interpreter Date

______________________________________ ____________
Signature of Researcher Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Historically, people who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH) have not succeeded academically. Literacy skills for students with hearing loss are well below average on all measures. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has made this achievement gap public by requiring data on this subgroup. Yet, even with the overwhelming number of "failing" students, some are successful. This is a case study of 3 highly successful high school graduate extreme cases. The cases represent different etiologies, different communication choices, differing degrees of hearing loss, and family structures. The researcher is interested in identifying factors that contributed to the success of these three students and as families are the foundation upon which children develop, the parents will be given questionnaires and interviewed to gather suggestions for other parents of children who are deaf and to inform future practices of the professionals in the field of Deaf education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Accommodating deaf and hard of hearing students in the mainstream classroom

PDF

Mexican immigrant families with deaf and hard of hearing children: the importance of informal support structures

PDF

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

Asset Metadata

Creator Hamm, Deborah Lynne (author)

Core Title We can read and write: critical characteristics of highly literate deaf and hard of hearing students and their families

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/13/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag deaf,families,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ragusa, Gisele (committee chair), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member), Tocco, Frank (committee member)

Creator Email dhamm@csulb.edu,dhamm@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3436

Unique identifier UC1211917

Identifier etd-Hamm-3620 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-388281 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3436 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hamm-3620.pdf

Dmrecord 388281

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hamm, Deborah Lynne

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu