Laurene E. Simms and Jean F. Andrews
The components for reading are multifaceted. They are phonology, vocabulary, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (Vacca et al., 2012), and involve language abilities, motivation, curriculum, and home and school experiences (Taylor et al., 2000). Reading scholars agree that the heart of reading is comprehension of text (Mason et al., 1984). When teaching reading, teachers often overlook text comprehension, but instead target on word identification with the strategy of matching a sign to one print word, a strategy that can lead to miscomprehension (Simms, Andrews, & Smith, 2005). As such, the reader cannot focus on the meaning of the word within the context of a text (Simms, Andrews, & Smith, 2005). This is not to say that lexical and morphosyntactic knowledge is not important (Hoffmeister & Caldwell-Harris, 2014), but it highlights that comprehension skills are required beyond the word level (Bailes, 2001). Furthermore, overemphasizing the lower-level cognitive skill of word reading can limit deaf learners’ opportunities for discussions in sign language about ideas about what they have read (Andrews, 2012).
Even though a sign language does not map directly onto orthography in neither alphabet nor non-alphabetic scripts, using a sign language to read print is practiced worldwide, as documented in studies from Canada (McQuarrie & Parrila, 2014), Sweden (Holmer, Heimann, & Rudner, 2016) US (Piñar, Dussias, & Morford, 2011), Germany (Kubus et al., 2015), the Netherlands (Ormel et al., 2012), Taiwan (Liu & Liu, n.d.), and China (Jones, 2013). Besides the mapping advantage, using sign language provides opportunities for learners to develop reading comprehension because it is easier to have conversations about the reading process, activate their prior knowledge, teach them grammar, give previews and summaries, and discuss text organization (Andrews, Winograd, & DeVille, 1994).
The purpose of this chapter is three-fold. It provides an international perspective on how deaf learners use their sign language to read print. The chapter describes select reading theories related to deaf learners, demonstrates how reading develops using sign language with examples of sign-print bilingual instructional strategies, and outlines future directions in research and practice.
Conventional terminology for a bilingual, a first language (L1) or native language (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984), second language (L2) and additional language (Ln), and bilingual strategies apply to hearing linguistic minorities, but not do necessarily provide a “good fit” for Deaf bilinguals (Humphries, 2016). Deaf bilinguals differ from hearing bilinguals in language access and the use of the visual gestural modality to mediate print. Deaf sign language bilinguals can be sign-print bilinguals (using sign language and writing) (Piñar, Dussias, & Morford, 2011) or they can be bimodal bilinguals (use sign language and spoken language and writing) (Nussbaum, Scott, & Simms, 2012) or even use their sign language at the sign-word level in simultaneous communication or total communication environments to support print literacy (see Moores, 2010, for a review). Deaf children of culturally Deaf parents learn a first language (L1) at birth and largely learn the written language as a second language (L2) and rarely as a third or additional language (Ln). Humphries (2016) argues that the L1 and L2/Ln distinction does not fit exactly in Deaf families as sign language and spoken language are taught in tandem through fingerspelling, writing, and reading.
Approximately 95% of deaf children have hearing parents whose heritage language is spoken (Mitchner & Karchmer, 2004). These deaf children often do not learn sign language during the sensitive period, but learn it in childhood or even in teenage and young adulthood years (Mayberry & Locke, 2003). Throughout their schooling, they have limited access to sign language models as signing Deaf teachers (Humphries, 2016). Even though it is learned later, sign language becomes their primary language and they learn written language as a “second language.” The terms “L1” and “L2/Ln” are often seen as problematic as many of deaf children of hearing parents are learning sign language and reading at the same time (Andrews & Mason, 1986; Hoffmeister & Caldwell-Harris, 2014).
Modality differences are evident for deaf learners who primarily process their language through the visual-gestural modality rather than the oral/aural modality. The patterns of brain localization for deaf native signers processing a sign language parallel those for spoken language processing in hearing native speakers (MacSweeney et al., 2008). Many sign language users are multimodal using both modalities when communicating with hearing peers or family members (Nussbaum, Scott,& Sims, 2012).
The bilingual strategies that were developed for hearing bilinguals (Baker, 2011) and adapted for use with Deaf bilinguals do not reflect their use by the Deaf bilinguals when compared with hearing bilinguals (Nover, Andrews, & Baker, 2002). One strategy is translation. Translation occupies a vital role in Deaf individuals’ reading process and communication with hearing persons. However, the translation process for deaf learners in the reading classroom involves more than converting messages from one language to another. Translation is a strategy that helps them learn the concepts about how to decode and comprehend print (Andrews, 2012).
Another strategy, codeswitching, refers to how hearing bilingual speakers often switch from one language to another across words and sentences (Riehl, 2005). For the Deaf bilinguals, codeswitching is a purpose-driven instructional strategy that relates to how the languages (sign language and the spoken and written languages) are handled or allocated in the classroom (Nover, Andrews, & Baker, 2002; Swanwick, 2017). In the studies reviewed here, codeswitching is an instructional strategy used by the teacher and occurred at the word, phrase, story, and text level. It is operationalized as a strategy used by teachers when they translate written texts either in a free or literal sense using sign language.
Still another strategy is translanguaging. Translanguaging is a process in which teachers provide input in one language, and expect the Deaf learner to respond in the other language during teacher-talk interactions (Swanwick, 2017), the reading-aloud of texts (Hoffman et al., 2017), and reading lessons (Andrews, 2012; Andrews & Rusher, 2010). In these adapted bilingual strategies with sign and written languages, deaf learners use sign language to support reading print.
To investigate how sign language supports the reading of print, researchers examined the mainstream scholarly literature for models of monolingual L1 reading (Tracy & Morrow, 2017), and L2 reading (Grabe, 2009), and developed theories using Deaf epistemology within grounded theory methodologies (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Select reviews of theories are described below.
The Linguistic Interdependence and Threshold Theory, a cognitive-linguistic model of language learning that was developed by Cummins (1981) in Canada for hearing learners, has been adapted for deaf learners using American Sign Language (ASL) and written English (Cummins, 2007). Its basic premise, the Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP), claims that a learners’ literacy proficiency in their L1 can transfer to their learning of their L2 (Cummins & Swain, 2014). Its companion premise, the Threshold hypothesis, posits that the language learner must attain a “threshold” or a “level” of competence in a L1 prior to developing proficiencies in the L2. Critics of this theory argue that because of distinct structural and modality difference between ASL and English and because ASL does not have a written form, the conditions for Cummins’ model are not met, and the transfer of meaning do not occur (Mayer & Wells, 1996). Cummins (2007) has counterargued, claiming that even though ASL and English do not share a similar structure, language transfer can occur at the conceptual and meaning-based levels, which hinges on the language user’s metalinguistic awareness of the two languages.
The relationship between sign language skills and reading skills in written language were tested in several studies. Niederberger (2008) studied 39 bilingual deaf children ages 8 to 17 years who were learning French Sign Language (LSF) and French in a LSF/French bilingual school. Children were tested in LSF and written French for their narrative and morpho-syntactic expressive and receptive skills. Positive correlations were found between learners’ scores in LSF narrations and written French scores. Dubuisson, Parisot, & Vercaigne-Menard (2008) examined the mastery of the spatial elements of the Langue des Signes Quebeoise (or Quebec Sign Language, LSQ), and written French of 24 deaf young deaf learners. The researchers found a positive relationship between learners’ mastery of LSQ spatial markers and French reading comprehension. Hermans et al. (2008) administered tests in vocabulary and story comprehension in the Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) and in written Dutch to 87 elementary level deaf children. They found a strong and positive correlation between the scores in the sign vocabulary task and the reading vocabulary task, and between story comprehension scores in NGT and written Dutch.
Other studies were conducted in the US. Prinz and Strong (1997, 2000) tested 155 deaf children from ages 8 to 15, and found a strong, positive correlation between six ASL comprehension and production items and English reading and writing measures. Hoffmeister (2000) also found a high correlation between ASL comprehension of antonyms, synonyms, plural markers, and the reading comprehension scores with 50 deaf children, ages 8 to 16. Using language tasks, Chamberlain and Mayberry (2000) found a high correlation between ASL narratives and sentence comprehension and reading comprehension for 48 deaf children ages 7 to 15. Testing a set of linguistic ASL skills with 31 deaf learners in fourth to the seventh grade, Padden and Ramsey (2000) found correlations between ASL verbal agreement productions, ASL sentence order comprehension, ASL sentence repetition, fingerspelling, knowledge of initialized signs and English reading comprehension scores.
In a larger study, Hrastinski and Wilbur (2016) studied 85 deaf learners in 6th to 11th grades in a bilingual school, and found positive correlation between ASL proficiency, academic achievement and reading comprehension. Scott and Hoffmeister (2017) studied 41 deaf learners in three schools for the deaf at the middle and high school levels and found statistically significant interactions between academic English knowledge and word reading fluency in predicting reading comprehension scores of deaf youths. ASL scores were the strongest and most consistent predictor of reading comprehension. They interpreted their findings in light of Cummins’ theoretical premise that learners can utilize their L1 to support their learning of their L2 (Cummins, 2007).
McQuarrie and Abbott (2009) examined how deaf bilingual readers use the phonological structure of signs, which are handshape, movement, location, and orientation, to learn words in English in a study of 50 deaf bilingual learners, ages 7 to 18 at a school for the deaf in Western Canada. They found that deaf learners with higher ASL-Phonological Awareness (ASL-PA) scores had higher reading scores in English word recognition and reading comprehension. They interpret their results in light of their Functional Equivalency Framework, a model that holds that a strong phonological foundation in a sign language may facilitate and transfer across to English print.
Psycholinguistic theories of language processing are tested in some studies on deaf learners’ reading process. One cognitive processing theory is the Simple View of Reading (SVR) (Hoover & Gough, 1990) that was originally developed for hearing readers. The SVR consists of two components, decoding and comprehension, and posits that a reader must be able to comprehend language as well as decode words. Chamberlain and Mayberry (2000) have applied the SVR model in their study with 48 deaf children ages 7 to 15. They found a high correlation between ASL narrative and sentence comprehension and English reading comprehension. In a meta-analysis of 25 studies, Mayberry, Del Giudice, and Lieberman (2011) found that language ability had a greater influence on reading development of deaf learners and contributed 35% of the variance in reading proficiency. These studies suggest that language comprehension skills, not skills in the decoding of words, have the greater impact on reading comprehension. Decoding may be more important than comprehension during the early stages of reading development (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000).
In a study that assesses whether early access to language shapes reading skills, Allen (2015) and Allen et al. (2014) examined print letter knowledge of preschool-aged deaf children over a three-year time frame. They found positive effects of early exposure to sign language on alphabet letter knowledge, sustained attention, and cognitive and behavioral milestones necessary for reading success.
In comparing the lexical processing of deaf readers in four different languages (English, German, Hebrew, and Turkish), Clark et al. (2016) tested three reading theories, which are the dual route theory, the orthographic depth theory, and the early language access theory. The dual route reading theory proposes two routes for word recognition, a direct or lexical route for words that are frequently used, and a route for decoding of individual graphemes into phonemes (Tracy & Morrow, 2017). Clark et al. (2016) also examined the orthographic depth theory, which refers to the orthography, or script, that vary across languages. Scripts are described as phonemic and opaque orthographies. In phonemic orthographies, there is a one-to-one correspondence between its graphemes and phonemes with the spelling of words being consistent. In an opaque orthography, there is a less direct correspondence between letters and sounds, with the spelling largely not matching the phonemics of words. The orthographic depth theory suggests that opaque orthographies shape the learning of reading to a greater extent than the phonemic orthographies (Tracy & Morrow, 2017). The early access theory posits that the earlier learners are exposed to language, the better readers they will be. In the Clark et al. (2016) study, the participants included 857 deaf and hearing dyslexic children in the 3rd through 12th grades who were from countries whose script was either phonemic (e.g., Germany, Turkey), or opaque (e.g., Israel, US). Learners were administered a test to measure their perceptual processing times of words shown on a computer in the learners’ respective language. The study revealed that those learners with early and full access to an early learning of languages regardless of orthographies had faster response times in the processing of print than others without early language access.
Petitto et al. (2016) reported evidence from neurolinguistic imaging studies that the brain has the capacity to segment the linguistic stream and figure out patterns with auditory sound-based phonology and visual sign phonology. Auditory-based phonology is the sub-lexical units, or phonemes (sounds) in words. Visual-based phonology refers to segmenting the parts of signs into sub-lexical units of handshape, movement, location, and orientation. Using fMRI imaging techniques, Pettito et al. (2016) found that sound is not necessary for language and reading acquisition. The brain is sensitive to contrasting, rhythmic-temporal patterning in both spoken and sign languages that can be harnessed to promote reading skills. In other words, the deaf learner can learn to segment and pattern sign-phonetic and sign-syllabic units through fingerspelling and mouthings. These VSP segmentations of sub-lexical signs and fingerspelled letters enable the learner to make orthographic mappings of signs and fingerspelled words onto words and letters. The use of the visual modality helps the deaf reader transition from visual segmentation of visual language (sign-phonetic units) to visual segmentation of orthographic letters in print.
Reading research studies have adopted Deaf epistemologies or “Deaf ways of knowing” in an effort to understand the literacy development of Deaf individuals (Bailes, 2001; Herbold, 2008). Personal testimonies, experiences, and accounts of Deaf people, particularly Deaf parents and Deaf teachers, are used to document indigenous literacy practices (Brueggemann, 2004; Holcomb, 2010). Deaf epistemology focuses on actual behaviors of sign language readers using bilingual strategies, rather than conventional auditory deficit models, to account for their reading skill development (Andrews et al., 2016; Andrews, Byrne, & Clark, 2015). Rather than starting with a theory before data collection and analyses, Deaf epistemology uses an inductive process where themes that are garnered from the data are categorized and analyzed to describe the reading of sign language-using individuals, and condense the findings into an indigenous theory of reading. Two studies using the Deaf epistemology framework are described next.
Mounty, Pucci, & Harmon (2013) analyzed interactive and semi-structured interview data from 12 adult sign language users to identify reading practices at home and at school. The adults were users of ASL and they read in print English. Participants described how they made the transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” and documented reading strategies. Mounty, Pucci, & Harmon (2013) identified four key themes: bidirectional feedback loop that develops between ASL and English; a cultural and visual environment that supports the development of ASL and English; parents and teachers who use a variety of strategies to promote ASL development and reading proficiency; and the use of fingerspelling as bridge between ASL and English.
Hoffman et al. (2017) examined the bilingual strategies of four successful Deaf adult readers who read seven expository texts. They examined the strategies devised by the Deaf adult readers, and found that they used their ASL and Deaf culture knowledge to “think-a-loud.” They also used translanguaging, a strategy they adapted from hearing bilingual work by García and Kleyn (2016). Translanguaging is used as a purpose-driven strategy where the readers alternate languages (ASL and written English) for comprehension (Hoffman et al., 2017). Hoffman et al. (2017) found that the Deaf adult readers’ use of the strategy of translanguaging involved metalinguistic knowledge and experiences with different reading strategies. Hoffman et al. (2017) saw that translanguaging as a bilingual strategy provides the readers with critical thinking skills, a deeper understanding of content, and knowledge of lexical and grammatical structures of the two languages used.
Herbold (2008) studied the development of literacy skills of four deaf preschools for one school year. She observed and interviewed parents and deaf preschoolers at home and school. She found that deaf children of deaf parents developed strategies that were similar to hearing children, which were learning concepts about print, learning the letters of the alphabet, and learning the structure of storybooks. But she also found that the deaf preschoolers used different strategies, which were fingerspelling, initializing signs, chunking letters in a visual sequence, and writing to understand alphabetic print (Herbold, 2008).
Deaf children typically begin formal instruction in reading and “learn to read” when they enter preschool or first grade. As they progress to third and fourth grade, they “read to learn.” It takes deaf children three to four more years to learn to read compared to hearing children because they are often learning sign language at the same time they are learning to read (Hoffmeister & Caldwell-Smith, 2014). Studies show that as deaf learners progress in grades, they have difficulty with reading morphemes; vocabulary, particularly multiple meaning words; figurative language; verb particles; and syntax as well as accessing world knowledge (see Paul, 2009 for reviews; Convertino et al., 2014). The linguistic structures that deaf readers find difficult to read and comprehend are found in children’s books (Schirmer & Gough, 2005).
The environment that is conducive to successful reading for deaf children has been explored in several studies. Studies by Akamatsu and Andrews (1993) and Andrews and Zmijewski (1997) illustrated the visual environment that Deaf parents and Deaf teachers set up for picture book reading. They included the use of body position, eye gaze, and facial expressions; positioning the book so they can see their signs and print; and establishing eye contact and joint attention.
In addition, classrooms with deaf readers should be set up in a way that will optimize the conditions for reading activities. They include lighting and seating arrangements. Following the principles of DeafSpace, the reading classroom should be constructed in such a way that the signing Deaf learners can communicate, collaborate, read, and discuss ideas with each other, and not face architectural barrier environments in seeing other learners’ signs and facial and bodily expressions. In contrast, hearing learners in regular education classrooms sit in rows behind each other, and communicating and interacting through talking and hearing.
The following is an exposition of pedagogical applications for using sign language to support signing deaf children in their learning how to read and understand printed text.
Evidence for the use of sign language-print strategies to support reading has been reported. Yang (2006) surveyed 73 teachers in China where Deaf teachers reported that they translated Chinese text stories into Chinese Sign Language (CSL). The teachers described how CSL was used during the children’s retellings and when they asked them comprehension questions after reading the Chinese texts. Deaf teachers were found to use more analytical questions than the hearing teachers, and Yang attributed this to their fluency in CSL.
Jones (2013) interviewed six teachers and observed reading classrooms from three teachers. The Deaf teachers were found to use sign language-print mapping strategies to teach Chinese characters. She also reported that teachers used visual displays to teach concepts, the one-handed manual Chinese alphabet, and tactile strategies such as touching the throat to teach spoken Chinese. Like Yang (2006), Jones reported that Deaf teachers signed stories in CSL along with strategies such as mouthing words, writing, CSL, fingerspelling, orthographic structuring, and word morphology strategies. The use of translation and codeswitching were seen at the word and the story level with Chinese deaf children to mediate Chinese print.
In Taiwan, Liu and Liu (n.d.) conducted a shared book reading intervention that utilized bilingual storybooks and Taiwanese Sign Language (TSL) to teach comprehension and word recognition skills. Three deaf children enrolled in a hearing mainstreamed class participated in the intervention program. A native Deaf teacher signed 16 commercial Chinese storybooks in TSL for eight weeks. The children performed TSL summary, TSL story retelling, narratives, and word recognition sign language-print mapping activities. Positive gains were documented using pre- and post-test measures on word recognition test before and after the reading intervention program.
Swanwick (2017) described how teachers used translanguaging to promote dialogue in three case studies in a mainstreamed classroom in England. During teacher-talk, the teacher utilized bimodal strategies (i.e., speech and sign) depending on the learners’ communication and language needs. These conversations provided the learners with opportunities for incidental learning through peer conversations using British Sign Language (BSL) and English. The teachers were able to scaffold content learning and language constructions using the sign language-print strategy of translanguaging (Swanwick, 2017). By not rigidly separating the languages (speech and sign), Swanwick claimed that the teachers were better able to improve classroom dialogues.
Andrews et al. (2017) studied shared storybook activities between teachers and learners in grade K to third grade classrooms with 25 young, signing deaf children ages 4 to 9 for one year. They found that teachers used purposeful concurrent usage (PCU), translation (free or literal), codeswitching, expansion, and chaining strategies in shared book reading lessons. PCU refers to the teacher changing from ASL to English, and vice versa, depending on the purpose of the concept covered in the lesson. Expansion is the use of more than one sign to explain a meaning of a sign or a word. Chaining refers to the use of gestures, pictures, fingerspelling, signs, and writing to introduce or emphasize a particular concept (cf. Humphries & MacDougall, 1999). Easy-to-read, picture and phrase storybooks were presented in both ASL and English during 20 weekly storytime sessions that included a Deaf individual signing the story. The children used fingerspelling and signs to spell, translate, recognize words, recite the story, and write the story. They employed translation, PCU, codeswitching, expansion, and chaining in the reading process. The children took pre- and post-tests, standardized tests, and early reading tasks. Andrews et al. (2017) found positive gains in letter knowledge, word recognition, and story knowledge over the year.
Wolsey, Clark, and Andrews (2018) used a quasi-experimental pre- and post-test design with an experimental and control group to test the efficacy of a ten-week ASL and English bilingual Shared Book Reading (SBR) intervention program based on McCormick and Mason (1990) with ASL translations (Andrews et al., 2017). The experimental group received the SBR program and the control group did not. The SBR intervention program includes picture books on daily activities, events, and holidays; feature drawings of children from different ethnic backgrounds; and high-frequency vocabulary, phrases, and sentences. Native Deaf signers translated the storybooks into ASL on DVDs. In the six-step SBR intervention, the learners first watched the DVDs. They retell the stories, compare with their personal experiences, select a favorite picture, draw and label the pictures with written English, and explain the meaning of the drawings and writings in sign language. Teachers used the strategies of PCU, chaining, and ASL expansions to teach story concepts and words in each step. The teachers discussed each picture with the child and documented their intent in written English. An example of visual phonology strategy was noted when one child wrote the letters BB 55 on paper, then signed BOY SAD to the teacher. (The ASL handshapes for BB 55 are similar to the ASL handshapes for the signs of BOY and SAD). Results from measures of ASL receptive skills, passage comprehension skills, and written language phonological awareness showed positive effects on measures of receptive ASL skills, book reading, and drawings in both languages in the experimental group than the control group. The drawings demonstrated the visual phonology skills of the children to transfer their sign language to print. There was no relationship between auditory phonology skills and English word identification skills.
Another study documented sign language-print strategies with a 20-year-old Deaf immigrant man from Mexico who had only basic communication skills in Mexican Sign Language (Lengua de Senas Mexican, or LSM), gestures, ASL, Spanish, and English (Granda & Stoudt, 2017). A Deaf teacher and the Deaf immigrant learner met for 18 sessions in six weeks. The Deaf teacher used sign language-print strategies during the paired-reading sessions with three picture books that were selected for its culturally relevant themes and increasing levels of syntactical complexities. The Deaf teacher first read each of the three picture books in different sessions, beginning with books with the simplest level of syntactical complexity, and gave them to the learner to read and sign. He gave corrective feedback to the learner during each session. The teacher used strategies such as chaining, codeswitching, ASL expansions, and repeated readings. By the end of the six-week session, the young Deaf man was able to independently read the three picture books.
Gietz, Andrews, and Clark (n.d.) tested a visual phonology strategy in a story reading intervention using ASL stories that are written in handshape rhymes in place of print letters. Four profoundly and prelingual deaf beginning readers, aged six to eight and reading at first grade level and below, in a public school self-contained classroom participated in the group storytime intervention. They read and retold the stories using fingerspelling and signs. They were assessed whether the visual phonology strategy foster print vocabulary development. They were given pre- and post-tests on print word recognition. Test results showed significant improvement in children’s print vocabulary scores, suggesting that the visual phonology strategy helped the signing deaf beginning readers enhance print word recognition skills and vocabulary knowledge.
Fingerspelling consists of handshapes in sign language to represent letters of the written alphabet, and can be chunked together as lexical items in sign language. Studies of young deaf readers have shown positive associations between fingerspelling ability, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Andrews & Mason, 1986; Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007; Herbold, 2008; Stone et al., 2015). Fingerspelling provided deaf children with a phonological means to decode print, and it is often paired with mouthing (see Baker, 2010). Deaf children were reported to chunk fingerspelled letters into sequences that do not always follow the syllable structure of the written language. For instance, Harris (2011) observed that deaf children segment ELE-PH-ANT into three chunks rather than dividing the word as EL-E-PHANT.
As smartphones, smart-tablets, and software authoring systems became “user-friendly” and accessible, multimedia and digital e-books are being created that combine sign language movies, pictures, and animation with written language. Gentry, Chin, & Moulton (2005) tested multimedia products and found that when children read the text and pictures in e-books and discuss in sign language, they performed better on reading comprehension measures than reading text alone. Augmented reality apps (Parton, 2015) and eBook designs provide additional reading experiences for vocabulary support where words are linked to sign language videos that show its definitions (Herzig & Malzkuhn, 2015; Stone, 2014). Children’s stories translated into ASL are available through YouTube, Facebook, and other social media. They are largely used as resources to aid the children to develop reading skills rather than sign language skills. The multimedia that include resources for both reading and sign language skill developments are under development (Stone, 2014).
The Reading-Thinking-Signing (RTS) strategy is developed by one of the chapter authors, Simms, and proffered here to encapsulate many of the sign language-print strategies that were identified in the above studies. Simms focuses on ASL and printed English. The RTS is exemplified in the below demonstration of the reading of the English sentence, The cat runs up the tree, which is glossed in ASL as CAT RUN UP TREE.
Teacher: Models RTS by thinking aloud.
1.Reads silently, fingerscans each sentence.
2.Thinks silently and asks what happened in the sentence?
3.Signs or makes a drawing of what is understood.
Learner: Visually attends to teacher.
During reading lesson:
Teacher:
1.Encourages children to avoid signing word for word.
2.Shows children how to fingerscan as they read silently.
3.Shows children how to draw a picture showing the meaning of the sentence.
1.Reads problem silently, fingerscans each sentence.
2.Thinks and asks question: What is the cat doing?
3.Signs back to the teacher what he/she understands.
After reading lesson:
Teacher:
1.Provides ongoing feedback on children’s three steps, monitoring the children’s errors.
2.Gives mini-lessons on comprehension of story ideas, vocabulary, sentence structures, that children had difficulty reading.
Learner:
1.Shows his/her drawing.
2.Signs, draws, writes own sentences.
3.Creates a digital multimedia PowerPoint of new sentences with drawings, photographs, signing, and writing.
The learner is shown how to read a portion of the text silently, think or reflect about its meaning, then sign the meaning in order to check for comprehension rather than signing each individual word. The above teaching strategy draws upon visual strategies such as circling, underlining, note writing, drawing, translation to sign language, fingerspelling key words, PCU, codeswitching, expansions, and chaining, and involves the use of technology such as PowerPoints, signing videos, and the multimedia.
Controlled empirical studies are needed to test the efficacy of using sign language to support the process of reading print. They should include classroom intervention studies using the shared book reading paradigm to assess the deaf learners’ experiences with reading, not just decoding and identifying words. Case studies using grounded theory should be conducted to understand how successful Deaf adult, youth, and young readers use their sign language to mediate print and develop reading skills.
Practical strategies that have been tested in classrooms, clinics, and research laboratories, and shown to enhance reading comprehension in learners, would need to be distributed to teachers who teach reading to deaf learners. E-books and software programs that include sign language and written language can be delivered to deaf learners across different languages and countries. In a survey conducted by the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), 93 countries reported that “the quality of education for deaf people is low and the illiteracy rate is high” (Haualand & Allen, 2009: 6). Promoting deaf learners’ print literacy skills is a valued educational goal worldwide. The sign language-print strategies described in the above can be a key contributor to higher print literacy skills in the signing deaf learners.
Akamatsu, C.T., & Andrews, J.F. (1993). It takes two to be literate: Literacy interactions between parent and child. Sign Language Studies, 81 (1), 333–60.
Allen, T.E., Letteri, A., Choi, S.H., & Dang, D. (2014). Early visual language exposure and emergent literacy in preschool deaf children: Findings from a national longitudinal study. American Annals of the Deaf, 159 (4), 346–58.
Allen, T.E. (2015). ASL skills, fingerspelling ability, home communication context and early alphabetic knowledge of preschool-aged deaf children. Sign Language Studies, 15 (3), 233–65.
Andrews, J.F. (2012). Reading to deaf children who sign: A response to Williams (2012) and suggestions for future research. American Annals of the Deaf, 157 (3), 307–19.
Andrews, J.F., Byrne, A., & Clark, M.D. (2015). Deaf scholars on reading: A historical review of 40 years of dissertation research (1973–2013): Implications for research and practice. American Annals of the Deaf, 159 (5), 393–418.
Andrews, J., Hamilton, B., Misener-Dunn, K., & Clark, M.D. (2016). Early reading for young deaf and hard of hearing children: Alternative frameworks. Psychology, 7 (4), 510–22.
Andrews, J., Liu, H., Liu, C., Gentry, M. & Smith, Z. (2017). Increasing early reading skills in young deaf children using shared book reading: A feasibility study. Early Child Development and Care, 187 (3–4), 583–99.
Andrews, J.F., & Mason, J.M. (1986). How do deaf children learn about prereading? American Annals of the Deaf, 131 (3), 210–17.
Andrews, J.F., & Rusher, M. (2010). Codeswitching techniques: Evidence-based instructional practices for the ASL/English bilingual classroom. American Annals of the Deaf, 155 (4), 407–24.
Andrews, J.F., Winograd, P., & DeVille, G. (1994). Deaf children reading fables: Using ASL summaries to improve reading comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 139 (3), 378–86.
Andrews, J.F., & Zmijewski, G. (1997). How parents support home literacy with deaf children. Early Child Development and Care, 127 (1), 131–9.
Bailes, C. (2001). Integrative ASL-English language arts: Bridging paths to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1 (2), 147–74.
Baker, S. (2010). The importance of fingerspelling for reading. Visual Language and Visual Learning Science of Learning Center (Research Brief No. 1). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Brueggemann, B.J. (2004). Literacy and Deaf People: Cultural and Contextual Perspectives. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Theorizing about the relation between American Sign Language and reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (eds.). Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 221–59). New York: Psychology Press.
Clark, M.D., Hauser, P.C., Miller, P., Kargin, T., Rathmann, C., Guldenoglu, B., Kubus, O., Spurgeon, E., & Israel, E. (2016). The importance of early sign language acquisition for deaf readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32 (2), 127–51.
Convertino, C., Borgna, G., Marschark, M., & Durkin, A. (2014). Word and world knowledge among deaf learners with and without cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19 (4), 471–83.
Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications.
Croker, G., Jones, M., & Pratt, M. (1966). The New Language Stories and Drills. Brattleboro, VT: Vermont, Publishing Co.
Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of Education, 163 (1), 16–29.
Cummins, J. (2007). The relationship between American Sign Language proficiency and English academic development: A review of the research. Retrieved August 10, 2019 from: www2.hihm.no/minoritet/KonfOkt06/ASL%20Lit%20Review%Nov%202006.rtf
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (2014). Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Dubuisson, C., Parisot, A.M., & Vercaigne-Menard, A. (2008). Bilingualism and deafness: Correlations between deaf learners’ ability to use space in Quebec Sign Language and their reading comprehension in French. In C. Plaza-Pust & E. Morales-Lopez (eds.). Sign Bilingualism: Language Development, Interaction, and Maintenance in Sign Language Contact Situations (pp. 51–71). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with Multilingual Learners: Learning from Classroom Moments. New York: Routledge.
Gentry, M., Chin, K., & Moulton, R. (2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials When used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149 (5), 394–403.
Gietz, M.R., Andrews, J.F., & Clark, M.D. (n.d.). ASL stories with handshape rhyme: An intervention to support English vocabulary development for young deaf readers. Paper submitted for publication.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Granda, L., & Stoudt, P. (2017). I absorbed the teacher’s mind, mannerisms and storytelling skills and transformed them inside myself to retell the story perfectly using ASL: A case study of Juan. In K. Christensen (ed.), Educating Deaf Learners in a Multicultural World (pp. 335–72). San Diego: DawnSign Press.
Haptonstall-Nykaza, T.S., & Schick, B. (2007). The transition from fingerspelling to English print: Facilitating English decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12 (2), 172–83.
Harris, R. (2011). A Case Study of Extended Discourse in an ASL/English Bilingual Preschool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
Haualand, H., & Allen, C. (2009). Deaf people and human rights. World Federation of the Deaf and the Swedish National Association of the Deaf. Retrieved August 17, 2019 from: www.rasit.org/files/Deaf-People-and-Human-Rights-Report.pdf
Herbold, J.D. (2008). Emergent Literacy Development: Case Studies of Four Deaf ASL-English Bilinguals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson.
Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). The relationship between the reading and signing skills of deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13 (4), 518–30.
Herzig, M., & Malzkuhn, M. (2015). Bilingual storybook apps: An interactive reading experience for children. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 16, 40–4.
Hoffman, D., Wolsey, J.L., Andrews, J., & Clark, D. (2017). Translanguaging supports reading with deaf adult bilinguals: A qualitative approach. The Qualitative Report, 22 (7), 1925–44.
Hoffmeister, R.J. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and reading comprehension in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 143–63). New York: Psychology Press.
Hoffmeister, R.J., & Caldwell-Harris, C.L. (2014). Acquiring English as a second language via print: The task for deaf children. Cognition, 132 (2), 229–42.
Holcomb, T.K. (2010). Deaf epistemology: The deaf way of knowing. American Annals of the Deaf, 154 (5), 471–8.
Holmer, E., Heimann, M., & Rudner, M. (2016). Evidence of an association between sign language phonological awareness and word reading in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 48, 145–59.
Hoover, W.A., & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2 (2), 127–60.
Hrastinski, I., & Wilbur, R.B. (2016). Academic achievement of deaf and hard-of-hearing learners in an ASL/English bilingual program. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21 (2), 156–70.
Humphries, T. (2016, February 13). Beyond Bilingual Education: Transformational Deaf Education. Stage presentation at the 42nd annual meeting of the Association for College Educators-Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (ACE-DHH), New York.
Humphries, T., & MacDougall, F. (1999). “Chaining” and other links: Making connections between American Sign Language and English in two types of school settings. Visual Anthropology Review, 15 (2), 84–94.
Jones, G. (2013). A Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic Analysis of Deaf Reading Practices in China: Case Studies Using Teacher Interviews and Classroom Observations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kubus, O., Villwock, A., Morford, J.P., & Rathmann, C. (2015). Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (4), 831–54.
Liu, H., & Liu, C. (n.d.). Chinese literacy: Factors, outcomes and practices for Deaf learners in Taiwan. In Q. Wang & J.F. Andrews (eds.). Multiple Paths to Become Literate: International Perspectives in Deaf Education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Chapter manuscript submitted for publication.
MacSweeney, M., Waters, D., Brammer, M. J., Woll, B., & Goswami, U. (2008). Phonological processing in deaf signers and the impact of age of first language acquisition. Neuroimage, 40 (3), 1369–79.
Mason, J.M. & staff of Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois (1984). A Schema theoretic view of the reading process as a basis for comprehension instruction. In G. Duffy, L. Roehler, & J. Mason (eds.). Comprehension Instruction: Perspectives and Suggestions (pp. 26–38). New York: Longman.
Mayberry, R.I., & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain and Language, 87 (3), 369–84.
Mayberry, R.I., Del Giudice, A.A., & Lieberman, A.M. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16 (2), 164–88.
Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a bilingual bicultural model of literacy education for deaf learners?. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1 (2), 93–107.
McCormick, C., & Mason, J. M. (1990). Little Books. Chicago, IL: Scott Foresman.
McQuarrie, L., & Parrila, R. (2014). Literacy and linguistic development in bilingual deaf children: Implications of the “and” for phonological processing. American Annals of the Deaf, 159 (4), 372–84.
McQuarrie, L., & Abbott, M. (2013). Bilingual deaf learners’ phonological awareness in ASL and reading skills in English. Sign Language Studies, 14 (1), 80–100.
Mitchener, R.E., & Karchmer, M.A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing learners in the U.S. Sign Language Studies, 4 (2), 138–63.
Moores, D.F. (2010). The history of language and communication issues in deaf education. In M. Marschark, & P. Spender (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education (Vol 2) (pp. 17–30). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mounty, J.L., Pucci, C.T., & Harmon, K.C. (2013). How deaf American sign language/English bilingual children become proficient readers: An emic perspective. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19 (3), 333–46.
Niederberger, N. (2008). Does the knowledge of a natural sign language facilitate deaf children’s learning to read and write. In C. Plaza-Pust, & E. Morales-Lopez (eds.), Sign Bilingualism: Language Development, Interaction, and Maintenance in Sign Language Contact Situations (pp. 29–50). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nover, S.M., Andrews, J.F., Baker, S., Everhart, V., & Bradford, M. (2002). Staff Development in ASL/English Bilingual Instruction for Deaf Learners: Evaluation and Impact Study. (USDLC Star Schools Project Report 5). Sante Fe, NM: New Mexico School for the Deaf.
Nussbaum, D.B., Scott, S., & Simms, L.E. (2012). The” why” and” how” of an ASL/English bimodal bilingual program. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 13, 14–19.
Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Cross-language effects in written word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (2), 288–303.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. Language acquisition by eye. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (eds.). Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 65–89). New York: Psychology Press.
Padden, C. (2006). Learning to fingerspell twice: Young signing children’s acquisition of fingerspelling. In B. Schick, M. Marshark, & P. Spencer (eds.). Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children (pp. 189–201). New York: Oxford University Press.
Parton, B. (2015). Leveraging augmented reality apps to create enhanced learning environments for deaf learner. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 12 (6), 21–28.
Paul, P.V. (2009). Language and Deafness. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Petitto, L.A., Langdon, C., Stone, A., Andriola, D., Kartheiser, G., & Cochran, C. (2016). Visual sign phonology: Insights into human reading and language from a natural soundless phonology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 7 (6), 366–81.
Piñar, P., Dussias, P.E., & Morford, J.P. (2011). Deaf readers as bilinguals: An examination of deaf readers’ print comprehension in light of current advances in bilingualism and second language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5 (10), 691–704.
Riehl, C. (2005). Codeswitching in bilinguals: Impacts of mental processes and language awareness. In J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K., Rolstad & J. MacSwan (eds). Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1945–60). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (2000). Is American Sign language skill related to English literacy. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (eds.) Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 131–41). New York: Psychology Press.
Schirmer, B.R., & McGough, S.M. (2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review of Educational Research, 75 (1), 83–117.
Scott, J.A., & Hoffmeister, R.J. (2017). American Sign Language and academic English: Factors influencing the reading of bilingual secondary school deaf and hard of hearing learners. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22 (1), 59–71.
Simms, L., Andrews, J.F., & Smith, A. (2005). A balanced approach to literacy instruction for deaf signing learners. Balanced Reading Instruction, 12, 39–53.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984). Why aren’t all children in the Nordic countries bilingual? Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 5 (3–4), 301–15.
Stone, A. (2014). New directions in ASL-English bilingual e-books. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11 (3), 186–206.
Stone, A., Kartheiser, G., Hauser, P. C., Petitto, L. A., & Allen, T.E. (2015). Fingerspelling as a novel gateway into reading fluency in deaf bilinguals. PloS One, 10 (10), e0139610.
Swanwick, R. (2017). Translanguaging, learning and teaching in deaf education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14 (3), 233–49.
Taylor, B.M., Anderson, R.C., Au, K.H., & Raphael, T.E. (2000). Discretion in the translation of research to policy: A case from beginning reading. Educational Researcher, 29 (6), 16–26.
Tracey, D.H., & Morrow, L.M. (2017). Lenses on Reading: An Introduction to Theories and Models. New York: Guilford Publications.
Vacca, J.A.L., Vacca, R.T., Gove, M.K., Burkey, L.C., Lenhart, L.C., McKeon, C.A. (2012). Reading and Learning to Read (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Wolsey, J.L.A., Clark, M.D., & Andrews, J.F. (2018). ASL and English bilingual shared book reading: An exploratory intervention for signing deaf children. Bilingual Research Journal, 41 (3), 1–17.
Yang, J.H. (2006). Deaf Teachers in China: Their Perceptions Regarding Their Roles and the Barriers They Face. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.