A N A C T I O N R E S E A R C H P R O J E C T

A D R I E N N E J . L O R M E `

E D U C AT I O N 7 2 0 1

FA L L 2 0 1 0 A N D S P R I N G 2 0 11

P R E S E N TAT I O N D AT E 5 / 5 / 11

Implementing Literacy Instruction for Students with Hearing Disabilities

Table of Contents

• Abstract• Introduction• Statement of the Problem• Literature Review• Statement of the Hypothesis• Methods• Experimental Design• Threats to Internal and External Validity• Results• Discussion & Implications

Introduction

• Students with hearing disabilities struggle to read and write mainly because of their inability to phonetically break down a written word.

Statement of the Problem

• Three schools for the deaf in Massachusetts use different communication approaches and each incorporates phonics in different ways. The purpose of this research is to prove that all three communication approaches must have phonics instruction in order to increase students reading abilities.

Review of the Literature• Phonics

– Pros: The reason for low reading levels among hearing impaired students is: limited access to the phonological code

((Bergeron, Lederberg, Easterbrooks, Miller, & Connor, 2009; Corcoran-Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman, 2002 Hermans, Knoors, Ormel & Verhoeven, 2007; Luckner, Cooney, Young & Goodwin,

2005)

– Cons: Students fall behind in reading because they are not given adequate time to comprehend the material.

(Donne & Zigmond, 2008)

• Total Communication- Pros: Increases interaction with spoken language and therefore allows students to better

comprehend how a word is used in a sentence. (Allman, 2002; Caccamise, Ayers, & Finch 1997; Mayer, 2007)

– Cons: Signers/speakers alter their messages to accommodate signing or speaking and therefore messages and comprehension become jumbled.

(Cerney, 2007)

• BI/BI-Pros: Helps students find and embrace their identity within the Deaf Culture. (Chaleff and Ritter, 2001; Evans, 2004)

- Cons: ASL and English do not share a phonological system that is remotely similar on many levels (Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007)

• Oral/Auditory Approach

-Pros: Society communicates largely through spoken language. (Gatty, 1996)

-Cons: Children with hearing impairments have incomplete access to sound and have difficulty learning spoken language naturally. Thus, only deaf children born into families that use a native sign language will develop language naturally.(Easterbrooks & Baker, 2002)

Statement of the Hypothesis

H1: Hearing impaired students in the first grade, will benefit from a more structuralized phonic instruction that allows them to use a variety of strategies which will help with vocabulary growth and comprehension. H2:Hearing impaired first grade students who use an Oral-Auditory Approach will have better reading abilities and skills than first grade students’ using an ASL or a Total Communication Approach.

MethodsParticipants: The action research will be conducted in three first grade classes in three different schools in Massachusetts. There are six students in (X1), seven students in (X2) and seven students in (X3).

Instruments: Reading logs, Phonological Awareness Tests, surveys and Developmental Reading Assessments.

The researcher will give each group the same Phonological Awareness Test and Developmental Reading Assessments to determine if there is a correlation between the two.

(X1) students :

1. Uses a strong phonic program in their reading instructions.

2. Is taught to read solely by using an Oral-Auditory Approach

3. Phonics is taught everyday.

(X2):

4. Uses a Total Communication Approach

5. Phonics is taught twice a week.

(X3):

6. Uses ASL

7. Phonics is not taught.

Procedure

• Students received the DRA in October 2010• Surveys were given in February/March 2011• Students were given a reading log for February

2011• Students were retested for the DRA in March

2011• Students were given a Phonological

Awareness Test in April 2011

Research Design

Pre-experimentalStatic-Group Comparison Symbolic Design: X1O

X2o

X3oGroups are not randomly assigned.

Threats to Internal Validity Threats to External Validity ValidityHistory Some participants may not give honest

answers to the proposed survey questions.

Parents might sign off on the Reading Logs without recording the accurate amount of time spent reading.

Instrumentation Researcher created surveys which

might create bias. The collection of data may be

compromised by teachers and interpreters who do not sign the researcher’s questions/lessons accurately.

Mortality Some participants may leave the

classroom, the school or might not want to participate anymore

Selection-Maturation Interaction Students vary in the communication

approach, hearing loss, assistive devices and education.

Ecological inclement weather might effect how students behave or their moods.

Generalizable Conditions results could be completely different depending on students time of studying, if their assistive devices are working or not, and if they heard the question asked.

Specificity of Variables Some students may interact differently with the researcher.

Experimenter Effects There may be some personal bias due to previous interactions with some students. There may be bias in relation to age, race and gender.

Hawthorne Effect Participants may modify their responses because they know they are being observed.

Data: Developmental Reading Assessments

March/April 2011 DRA Level

October 2010- DRA Levels

Student Group X1 Group X2 Group X3 Student A 2 1 1 Student B 2 1 2 Student C 1 2 1 Student D 1 2 2 Student E 2 1 1 Student F 2 1 1 Student G *Only six

students 1 1

Student Group X1 Group X2 Group X3 Student A 4 2 1 Student B 4 2 2 Student C 3 2 1 Student D 3 2 1 Student E 3 2 1 Student F 2 1 2 Student G *Only six

students 1 2

October 2010 Results- All three groups were found to be reading on a kindergarten level.March/April 2011 Results-Group (X1) was reading on a first grade level. Group (X2) and Group (X3) continued to read on a kindergarten level.

Reading Logs

• The researcher graphed the average each group read per week.

• Group (X1) and (X2) spent more time reading then group (X3).

• Students in all three groups increased the amount of time they spent reading each week.

Data: Phonological Awareness TestPAT-APRIL 2011 Results

PAT Explanations: The highest score that can be achieved is 300

• (X1) had higher PAT scores then the other two groups.

• The scores in (X1) ranged between 200-300.

• The range of scores in (X2) was between 100 and 270.

• The scores in (X3) ranged between 100-200.

Student Group X1 Group X2 Group X3 Student A 295 270 175 Student B 285 242 230 Student C 280 239 190 Student D 253 256 205 Student E 261 230 200 Student F 230 160 223 Student G *There are

only six students in this group.

227 210

Mean 267.3 232 204.7 Standard Deviation

SD= 23.9 SD=35 SD=18.8

DRA vs. PAT Scores

The researcher found that there was a positive correlation between reading levels and students phonological test scores. (X1) rxy was .9(X2) rxy was .7(X3) rxy was .8

Discussion

• Phonics Instruction has a strong correlation with students reading abilities.

(Hermans, Knoors, Ormel & Verhoeven, 2007; Luckner, Cooney, Young & Goodwin, 2005)

The action research results supports the theorists ideologies:

- Group (X1) practiced phonics every day and outperformed Group (X2) and (X3). Group (X1) had higher DRA Levels and PAT Scores.

Implications

• Researcher presumes that there is a link between phonics and students reading abilities.

HOWEVER…The researcher was unable to determine which Communication Approach was better for students. More research is needed.

References

Allman, T.M. (2002). Patterns of spelling in young deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(4), 46-64.

 

Bergeron, J.P., Lederberg, A.R., Easterbrooks, S.R., Miller, E.M., & Connor, C.M. (2009). Building the Alphabetic Principle in young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Volta Review, 109(2-3), 87-119.

 

Caccamise, F., Ayers, R., & Finch, K. (1997). Signs and manual communication systems: selection, standardization and development. American Annals of the Deaf, 123(7), 90-105.

 

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J (Eds.). (2007). Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

 

Cannon, J., Fredrick, L. D., & Easterbrooks, S..(2010). Vocabulary instruction through books read in American sign language for English-language learners with hearing loss. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(2), 98-110.

 

Cerney, J. (2007). Deaf education in America: Voices of children from inclusion settings. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

 

Chaleff, C & Ritter, M. (2001). The use of miscue analysis with deaf readers. The Reading Teacher, 55(2), 190-200. Corcoran-Nielsen, D., & Luetke-Stahlman, B. (2002). Phonological Awareness: One key to the reading proficiency of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf 147(3), 11-19.

 

Donne, V., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Engagement during reading instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in public schools . American Annals of the Deaf, 153(3), 294-303.

 

Evans, C. (2004). Literacy development in deaf students: Case studies in bilingual teaching and learning. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(1), 17-30.

 

Gravel, J & O’Gara, J. (2003). Communication options for children with hearing loss. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research, 9 (1), 243-251.

References

Haptonstall-Nykaza, T & Schick, B. (2007). The transition from fingerspelling to English print: Facilitating English decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 172-183.

 

Harris, M & Moreno, C. (2006). Speech reading and learning to read: A comparison of 8-year-old profoundly deaf children with good and poor reading ability. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 189-201.

 

Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven. (2007). Modeling reading behavior in deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(2), 155-174.

 

Howell, J., & Luckner, J. (2003). Helping one deaf student develop content literacy skills: An action research report. Communications Disorders Quarterly 25(1), 23-27.

 

Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. (2010). NCLB, IDEA, and Deaf Children. Retrieved November 24, 2010 from http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Clerc_Center/Information_and_Resources/Info_to_Go/Laws/NCLB_and_IDEA.html

 

Ling, D. (1988). Foundations of spoken language for hearing-impaired children. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf.

 

Luckner, J., Sebald, A., Cooney, J, Young III, J., & Goodwin, S. (2005). An examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(5), 443-455.

 

Lynn, W., Satterield, S.T., & Roberson, L. (2006). Visual phonics: An English code buster? American Annals of the Deaf, 151(4), 452-457.

 

Lynas, W. (2005). Controversies in the education of deaf children. Current Paediatrics, 15, 200-2006.

 

Marschark, M., Sapere, P., & Convertino, C. (2009). Are deaf students’ reading challenges really about reading? American Annals of the Deaf, 154(4), 357-370.

 

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

 

Miller, P. (2005). Reading comprehension and its relation to the quality of functional hearing: Evidence from readers with different functional hearing abilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(3), 305-323.

References

Montgomery, J. (2008). David Krupke: What exactly is visual phonics? Communication Disorders Quarterly 29(3), 177-182.  Narr., R. (2008). Phonological Awareness and decoding on deaf/hard-of-hearing students who use visual phonics. Journal of Deaf

Studies and Deaf Education 13)3, 405-416. 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. Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, (Eds.). (1989). Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle. Unknown, MI: The University

of Michigan Press.  Slavin, R. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.  Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the relationship between American Sign Language and English literacy. Journal of Deaf

Studies and Deaf Education, 2(1), 37-46.  Swanwick, R., & Watson, L. (2007). Parents sharing books with young deaf children in spoken English and in BSL: The common and

diverse features of different language settings. Journal of the Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3), 385- 405. Swisher, M. (1989). The language-learning situation of deaf students. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 239-257. Walworth, M., Moores, D., & O’Rourke, T. (1992). A free hand: Enfranchising the education of deaf children. Springfield Springs, MD: T.J.

Publishers.  Williams, C. (2004). Emergent literacy of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(4), 352-364.