PHONOLOGICAL AWARENFSS - Deaf-Ed-Parent-Infant

VOLUME
1 47.
No.
3,
2002
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENFSS:
ONE KEY To THE READIVG PROFICIENCY
OF DEAF CHILDREN
case is made for the importance of children's development of phonological
awareness-whether they are hearing or deaf-if they are to reach their potential
as readers. Relevant terms are defined (i.e., phonologicalawareness, phonological
processes, and phonics) to assist the reader with the research review, which
covers (a) the typical stages irk the acquisition of phonological awareness and
(b) phonological awareness and deafness. Suggestions for phonological awareness
assessment are offered, along with the recommendation that the use of recently
developed formal and informal measures of phonological awareness might
facilitate the setting of goals and objectives when deaf educators or speechlanguage pathologists are evaluating the skills of deaf students and planning
instruction for these students. Such tools yield information about skills that have
been shown to correlate with literacy attainment and that are not commonly
addressed by deaf educators or speech-language pathologists serving deaf students.
Finally, research concerning thLe facilitation of phonological awareness and its
application is explained.
DIANE CO1RC ORAN NIELSEN ANI)
BAIBARA LUETKE-STAHLMAN
Nielsen is an associate
professor in the
Department of Teaching
and Leadership, University
of Kansas, Lawrence.
Luetke-Stahiman is a
national consultant in deaf
education and reading
education based in Elm
City, NC.
VOLUME 147, No. 3, 2002
If they are to participate in contemporary
society, it is critical that childrcn become
proficient readers, whether they are deaf or
hearing, monolingual or bilingual, developing normally or experiencing cognitive
or learning disabilities. Currently. most deaf
students are educated in public schools
(Moores, 1999) and are expected to comprehend and be critical readers of a variety
of text types (textbooks, materiAi from the
Internet, resource books, newsrriagazines,
etc.) and to demonstrate the same proficiency on achievement tests shown by their
hearing classmates. Such reading experiences prepare deaf students :o pursue
higher education and a multittude of careers, just as is true of their heating peers.
tJnfortunately, most deaf students historically plateau at the third- or fourth-grade
level in reading and writing achievement
(see reviews by Moores, 1996; Paul, 1998).
Concern about the reading achievement
of students in the United States and the
need for all children to get off to a good
start as readers is on the national educational agenda, and rightly so. The National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
commonly known as the `nation's report
card," evaluates the reading ability of thousands of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students
every few years, and sets high standards for
reading performance. The present time is
widely understood as an era in which the
ability to read and comprehend information is critical in all walks of life, so it is particularly disconcerting that a report of the
1998 NAEP findings indicated that only
31% of 4th graders, 33% of 8th graders, and
400%6 of 12th graders were reading at the
proficient level or higher. Proficient perfonnance is defined as "solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students
AMERICAN ANNAtS OFTHE DEAF
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS
reaching this level have demonstrated
competency over challenging subject
matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge
to real-world situations, and analytical
skills appropriate to the subject matter"
(:NAEP, 2001).
Similar NAEP findings in the past
decade lecd to the commission of national studies related to reading. In 1990
Marilyn Adams, hirecd to investigate
'what we know about basis processes
and instructional priorities in words and
letter identification and early reading"
(Adams, 1990, p. vi), concluded that the
acqtuisition of phonological awareness
and English-language proficiency is
essential if children are to be able to efficiently decipher words and to understand text withlout continual assistance.
Two additional national stuclies were
coumissioned, one focusing on preventing reacling difficulties (Snow, 13urns, &
Griffin, 1998) and the oduer on researchbased reading instruction (National
Reading Panel, 2000). A key finding
of all three of these extensive national
studies is that phonological awareness,
particularly phonemic or sound-level
awareness, plays an important role in
later reading achievement.
It is possible that the lack of phonological awareness is a contributing factor to the reported low levels of reading achievement of many deaf children.
Some teachers may reject this possibility, having had cleaf children in their
classes who appeared to readl as capably as their hearing peers in the early
primary grades because they could
recognize written words as wiholes or
hecause they used rudimentary phonological skills. However, after completing a longitudinal study of first graclers,
Perfetti, Beck, Bell, and H-Iughes (1987)
concluded that although children can
rely on their visual memory of letters
to `read" worcls initially, continuedl progress requires the development of
phonological awareness.
So while the ultimate goal of reading is comprehension, readers must
first "unlock" (or read) the words on
the printed page and then develop a
VOI-UME
147, No. 3, 2002
bank of words that they recognize
quickly and efficiently (Ehri, 1995).
Since English is an alphabetic language, readers must be able to map
sounds to the letters and the letter
sequences they represent. As the empirical evidence provided in the present article indicates, although deaf
stuclents may not hear sounds at all or
may not hear them clearly, they still
can and mutst develop phlonological
awareness if they are to reacd the soundbased printecl words an(l phrases of
English.
tlnlocking a word allows a child to
identify or read it. According to Peter
V. Paul (1998), a researchier ancl educator wiho is deaf himself, word identification, in wlhich a reader gradually
becomes awxare of' the concept, pronunciation, cue, or sign for an unknown worcl, "is the foundation of the
literacy process" (p. 34). There is a
wealth of research with hearing children on the phonological awareness/
word recognition connection (see reviews by Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow et al., 1998: Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Researchers
lhave foLund that students w ho have acquirecl phonological awareness (i.e.,
sensitivity to sound patterns of the language), be they hearing or deaf, have
an advantage in being ahle to identify unknown words. When the subskills ot' phonological awareness are
taught, the reading achievement of
childlren improves (see reviews by
Adams, 1990; Bryen & Gerber, 1987;
National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow
et al., 1998).
Many parents, teachers, and researchers involved in deaf education
may be skeptical that deaf children can
acquire phonological awareness. We
reviewed the literature to see if a causal
relationship between phoniological
awareness and reading achievement in
deaf reaclers was evidenced. We were
guicded in this task by the work of Keith
Stanovich (1986), a respected reading
researcher, whio suggested that several
types of eviclence must be obtained in
order to docuLment a causal relationship
between either a particular skill and
reading achievement, or between training in a particular skill and reading
achievement. Such evidence includes
longitudinal data demonstrating the
predlictive validity of the hypothesized
skill; data from contrasts of readers
of different skills and ages, matched
for reading achievement; and data
from studies demonstrating that training in critical skills improves reading
performance.
While the results of such research
with deaf students, particularly data
training and longitudinal data, are not
as amply available, we believe there
is sufficient evidence to warrant attention to phonological awareness instruction for deaf children. Therefore,
our purpose in the present article is to
review the literature on the relationship
between phonological awareness and
reading proficiency, and to make suggestions for assessing and facilitating
this proficiency. We focus on children
with hearing loss, acknowledging that
additional research would benefit the
parents and professionals who seek
ways to help deaf students become
proficient readers. Clearly supported by
the research, our position is that
phonological awareness is necessary,
but not sufficient, for the development
of reading proficiency.
Phonological Awareness
Snow et al. (1998) defined phonological awareness as "sensitivity to the
patterns of spoken language that recur
and can be manipulated without respect to the meaning [that word parts
or words] ordinarily convey" (p. 319).
The phonological aspects of language
as they relate empirically to independent word recognition also involve
the awareness of sound(s) at the syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme levels
(Goswami, 2000). Phonological awareness obviously is related to the phonology of English and training in speech
articulation, as studied by teachers of
the Deaf. The realization that such
skills can be developed in deaf children
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
's40
is more likely when Hanson's definition
of phonological units (1989) is considered. She defines them as ;meaningless
primitives that are not actually sounds,
but are related to movements articulated by the vocal tract of the speaker"
(p. 73).
When phonological awareness skills
are discussed at the "sound" level, they
are referred to as phonemic awareness
abilities. Phonemes are "smaller-thansyllable" speech sounds that roughly
correspond to individual letters (Adams,
1990, p. 65). For example, the word
cat is made up of three phonemes or
sounds, as is the word cake. Adams
added that it is neither the ability to
hear the cdifference between phonemes
nor the ability to clistinctly articulate
them that is significant. Instead, what
is important is the awareness that
phonemes exist as components, or "the
building blocks of a language," that can
be manipulatecl and, when combined,
form morphemies, the smallest meaningful units of language. (For example,
the word cat is made up of one morpheme ancl the word cats of two.)
Adams further reported that "developmentally, this awareness seems to depend upon the child's inclination or
encouragement to lend conscious attention to the sounds as distinct from
the meaning of words" (p. 65).
Phonemic awareness is a type of
metalinguistic awareness that involves
understanding that words are composed of individual, distinct sounds
that can be manipulated. Skills at this
level that relate to reading achievement
include matching words with the same
initial sound, and isolating, segmenting,
blending, deleting, and substituting
phonemes (jorm & Share, 1983; Share,
Jorm, MacLean, & Matthews, 1984). For
example, given the word ball, students
would be asked to say only the first
sound (/b/) [souncl isolation], or to say
all the sounds in the word (/b/ .../a/
.../1/) [sound segmentation]. Alternately, students might be given the separate souncls of a word (/b/ /a/ /1/) and
asked to blend them into the word
(bal/). More challenging phonemic ma-
VOLUME147,
VOLUME
147, No. 3, 2002
nipulations include saying a word such
as ballwithout the initial sound [letion]
or substituting the /t/ sound for the /b/
sound to create a new word, tall [substitution] (Yopp, 1988).
Phonological Processes
Three primary phonological processes
that relate to reading are phonics,
phonological recoding, and rhyming
(see review by LaSasso & Metzger,
1998). Each involves phonological representations that collectively have been
termed "inner speech" (Paul &Jackson,
1993) or "inner code" (Kleiman, 1975).
Kleiman wrote that inner code is "a
transformation of printed words into
any type of speech-basecl code, whether
it be articulatory, acoustic, auditory imagery, or a more abstract code" (p. 323).
Vygotsky (1934/1987) cescribed inner
cocle as "thought connected with words"
(p. 249), a concept othe-s have labeled
"phonological recoding" (Jorm & Share,
1983), "phonemic recoding" (Raynor
& I'ollatsek, 1989), "speech recoding"
(Kleiman, 1975), "silent speech" (Edfeldt,
1960), "subvocal speech' (Locke, 1970),
an(l "implicit speech" (Lepley, 1952).
Besner (1987) also described internal
phonological representa-ions, avoiding
the assumption that one has to hear and
speak to possess them.
B3addeley (1979) wrote that an internal code is essential in dlecoding
printed words and recording them in
memory, and in processing surface
grammar to derive deep structure. Likewise, Paul (1998) noted that the use
of a phonological code in short-term
memory is most efficient for sentence
comprehension because of the development of rapid, automo tic, and fluent
word-identification skills. The ability to
quickly identify words allows readers
to comprehend more text and to focus more energy on the comprehension task.
Results of a study by Conrad (1979)
indicated that use of an internal code
by (leaf students correlated with hearing level, intelligence, and reading
achievement.
o. 3, 2002
Phonics
Phonics is the understanding of how
sounds are mappe(l onto letters. While
decoding is "obviously a difficult task
for students with hearing loss" (Paul,
1998, p. 201), Leybaert (1993) found
that deaf students raised orally, as well
as those who signed, could acquire
knowledge of sound-to-grapheme relationships or phonics. Neither sign nor
fingerspelling were shown to interfere
with the development of phonological awareness (Bebko, 1998; Harris &
Beech, 1998; Lichtenstein, 1998; P.
Miller, 1997). It is thus evident that
signing and nonsigning deaf students
use phonic knowledge both to distinguish possible letter combinations from
implausible ones and to recognize
words. Investigations by researchers
such as Conracl (1979); Hanson, Liberman, and Shankweiler (1984); and
Quenin (1982) gave support to this
finding, which was later confirmed by
Gibbs (1989), Hanson (1989), Hanson
and Fowler (1987), Lichtenstein (1985),
Marschark (1993), and Tzeng (1993).
Recent studies involving deaf children
have demonstrated that students exposed to Cued Speech have phonic
abilities that more closely resemble
those of hearing peers than those of
deaf peers who are from noncueing
backgrounds or who are in situations
in which cueing is used only at school
(e.g., Leybaert & Charlier, 1996).
Phonological Recoding
Phonologicalrecoding is the translation
of letters and letter patterns as they are
produced in the mouth, palate, and
nasal area into sounds or kinesthetic
feelings (Tunmer, 1990). Lillo-Martin,
Hanson, and Smith (1992) found that
"working memory is more efficient
for reading when the processing involves phonological recoding" (p. 147).
Phonological recoding also is referred
to as phonological assembly and "depends on the ability to make letter-tosound or spelling-to-articulation transformations" (Marschark, 1993, p. 209).
Marschark suggestecl that readers wlho
A
ERICAN
ANNAL
OF THE
DEA
AMERICAN ANNALS OF1 HE IIOEAF
PHONOLOGICAL A WARENESS
are young or who are performing at below-average levels may need to store
phonological representations, such as
strings of letters or syllables, in working memory temporarily while phonologically assembling or sounding out
a worcl. That is, phonological abilities
enhance the working memory capacity
of deaf sttidents (see review by LaSasso
& Metzger, 1998). Other researchers
in deaf ecducation (e.g., Conrad, 1970),
1973; Hanson, 1986; Hanson et al.,
1984; J. L.ocke & V. Locke, 1971) have
fotund that working rmemory capacity is
a strong predictor of reading achievement for deaf readers, even stronger
than degree of hearing loss.
Paul and Jackson (1993) reviewedi
the research on phonological recodinig
and deafness and found that there is
increasing evidence that speechi recoding is important for reading coIIIprehension to access the meaning of
words (p. 137). They referred to phonological recoding variously as sutbvocalization" and 'the movements of
muscle and other bodly parts in the
vocal tract" (p. 137), and distinguislhecd
the process from those of phonological
coding, mental representations, and
auditory imaging of speech. Based on
a continual review of the literacy and
deafness research (e.g., Paul & Quigley,
1994), Paul (1998) suggested that instruction and practice should be provicded to children who can hear some
speech sounds, and should inclucle the
cliscrimination and identification of
sounds in relation to print.
The use of a speech-based code,
unlike the use of a sign code, is related
to reading achievement in most stuclies examining phonological recoding
abilities (e.g., Conrad, 1979; Hanson
et al., 1984; Lichtenstein, 1998; Wandel,
1989). Kelly (1995) found that deaf sttu-
dents benefit from instruction by general and special education teachers, as
well as by speech-language pathologists who emphasize speechreading
and expressive speech practices as
means of improving these students'
access to and use of speech-recoding
processing.
Rhyming
The ability to rhyme is also a wordlevel phonological awareness skill, and
many researchers have found the ability to rhlytne to be a predictor of reading achievement. Accordcing to Goswarmi
and Bryant, as reported by Copeland.
Winsor, ancl Osborn (1994), children
who are more sensitive to rhyme or
who are tatlght about rhymning are more
successful in reading (p. 35). In Nielsen
and [Aletke-Stahlmrian (2002), we reportecc that a deaf child we studied
f'romii preschool tlhrough elementary
sclhool was confused initially abo)ut
rhymling. She was of-ten overreliant on
visual cues (e.g., claiming that the word
Joot rhylmiecd with toot), btut later clevelopecl segmenting and blending abilities and Was able to use sound-symbol
correspondences to decodel unknown
worcls. Rhyminig is associated witlh
phionological awareness at the onsetritme level, and niany researchers have
founcl the ability to rhymiie to be a preclictor of reading achievement. Braclley
and 13ryant (1983) andl Bryant, MacClean, Bradley, and Crossland (1990)
found a causal link between rhyming
andl reading, and other sttudies (e.g.,
Goswami & Mead, 1992) foundl that
children relate rhytinig categories to
spelling categories as they begin to
read ancl spell.
Phonological Awareness:
The Link to Word
Recognition
1le developpment of understanding
antl the use of sound-to-print and printto-sound associations in spelling and
decodling new words was thoroughly
researched by Ehri (1980, 1991, 1995),
who described several stages of word
learning. She found that children first
develop awareness at the word level,
then at the syllable level, ancI finally
at the phloneme level.
Ehri (1980) and others (see review
by Adams, 1990) found that as preschoolers and kindergartners experience print, they build an understanding of the orthography of words and
begin to use this knowledge in conjunction with their knowledge of the
linguistic properties of words. Beginning readers make sound-to-print and
print-to-souncd connections and develop proficiency in unlocking tinknoxvn words (Juel, 1988; juel, Griffith,
& Gough, 1986; Juel & Mincden-Cupp,
1999). They typically learn the soundto-letter connections for dominant
sounds with single-letter matches (e.g.,
b, cd, and p). Shortly thereafter, beginning readers acquire an appreciation
for blends (e.g., bl) and digraphs (e.g.,
th, sh). as well as an understanding of
the multiple representations of vowel
sounds (e.g., ai, ae, ai). Bv the middle
to end of first grade, a stucdent wiho is
engaged in age-appropriate reading
tasks usually can spell simple shortvowel words. As childlren continue
learning to read, they refine their comprehension of how the souncls of spoken words are mapped on to letters
and letter combinations to create written worcds.
Adams (1990) explained that studlents who learn to read and write in
English must learn how the sounds of
spoken English map on to letters and
letter sequences within words. This
knowledge is referred to as the alphabetic ptinciple, and involves the acquisition of an explicit awareness that
vowels and letters from our alphabet
form syllables, which in turn form
words. However, the reading of English text is made difficult because each
sound of the spoken language is not
consistently represented by the same
letter or group of letters. In learning
to read an alphabetic script such as
English, children mtist devote conscious attention to the manipulation
of phonemes in words.
Thus, as both Reid (1983) and Adams
(1990) made clear, children must learn
that in English, in addition to basic
sound-to-letter knowledge, a given letter may function as a part of a group
(e.g., c, b, versus ch) and that individual letters and groups of letters may
have more than one sound, clepending
on the position and sounds of neigh-
L--VOI.UME 147, No. 3, 2002
AMERICAN ANNALS ODFTHE D1EAF
4o
:
boring letters (e.g., cap, cape, canal,
tail). The ability to "sound out" (segment and blend) in order to unlock unknown words is a critical word-recognition strategy and is clearly tied to
phonemic awareness. It is developed
by beginning reaclers, affects proficiencv in worct recognition, and continues to affect reading success as students move through the school years
(Foorman, Francis, S. Shaywitz, B. Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1997).
In addition, Ehri (1995) found that
beginning readers' progress accelerates
once they move beyond a focus on inclividual sound/letter matches and the
use of segmenting and blending as an
exclusive clecoding strategy, to a focus on words' orthographic features, or
'chunks.' This transition becomes evidtent when readers begin to discern
unknown worcls in text by making
analogies between one word and another: for example, 'If I know cat, this
must beflat." In this process, readers
use their short-term memory, ancd skills
of "word identification, classification,
sequencing, ancd association" (Paul,
1998, p. 199). One can simulate this
more efficient strategy for word recognition by considering that to read an
unfamiliar name of a medication, an
aclult does not "sound out" each letter
(e.g., /R/, /e/', /s/, /t/, //o/, //r/, /I/,/l)
but, rather, readIs "parts" of the word:
/Rest/, /or/, /il/. Two decades ago,
Quenin (1982) detected evidence of
this "chunking" strategy in profoundly
deaf readers. More recently, Transler,
Leybaert, and Gombert (1999) confirmed this finding.
There is a good chance that students
who do not possess phonological
awareness, a key to the development
of efficient word recognition skills, as
well as age-appropriate English vocabulary and grammar abilities, will experience difficulty with reading, writing, and spelling in the elementary
grades, especially with expository text
(Snow et al., 1998). This is in part because decoding facilitates comprehension and comprehension facilitates decoding (Adams, 1990).
VOUM
VOLUME
147, No. 3, 2002
A Review of Research on
Phonological Awareness and
Deafness
Ling, as reported by Waters and
Doehring (1990), arguedl that while
deaf children do not lave complete
access to auclitory information. they
seem able to use somc cues clerived
from speechreading, "reiidual hearing,
andl/or articulatory train ng to discover
the relationship between spelling and
sounds of English, and that this information could he used in reading individual words" (p. 331).
Similarly, Hanson (1991) explained
that although the development of
phonological awareness may be delayecl when children are deaf, it still resembles that of hearing peers (see also
Hanson & Fowler, 1987; 1P.Miller, 1997).
Hlowever, Dodd (1974, 1)80) cautioned
that cleaf students' phonological awareness is likely to be underspecified, because not all of the phonetic distinctions heard by a hearing student can be
perceived by a deaf studeont. In the following sections of the present article
we review much of the available reseai'ch on phonological awareness and
deafness, grouping it uncer three headings: general phonological awareness
research, phonological awareness and
hearing acuity, and phonological awareness and speech articulation ability.
General Phonological Awareness
Research.
"Deafness per se does not preclude the
development of phonological representation" (Leybaert & Charlier, 1996,
p. 235). As early as 1970, researchers
discovered a relationship between
phonological awareness and reading in
deaf children (Conrad, 1970; J. Locke &
V. Locke, 1971; Sallop, 1973). Almost a
dozen individual researchers or research teams documented empirically
that profoundly deaf children who read
better than other deaf readers have
phonological awareness (Bebko, 1998;
Campbell, 1992; Fleetwood & Metzger,
1998; Hanson, 1989; Harris & Beech,
1998; Kelly, 1996; Leybaert & Alegria,
1995; Leybaert & Charlier, 1996; Licht-
enstein, 1998; Marschark, 1993; Schaper
& Reitsma. 1993).
Extensive research reviews completecd by deaf educators, such as those
by King and Quigley (1985), Paul and
Jackson (1993), Mayer and Wells (1996),
and Paul (1998), as well as our own
more recent review (Nielsen & LuetkeStahlman. 2002), concluded that phonological awareness is an important factor to consider when planning reading
instruction for deaf students. Paul
(1998) thoroughly reviewed the available empirical evidence regarding reading and deafness, bilingualism, and
general education, and concluded that
development of both (a) phonological awareness and (b) proficiency in
comprehending and expressing English
vocabulary and grammar are required
if deaf children are to readl as well as
their hearing peers. Paul concluded that
deaf children shoulcl receive phonics
instruction.
PhonologicalAwareness and
HearingAcuity.
Stuclies by several researchers across
3 decades documented that the hearing
acuity of deaf readers correlates with
phonological awareness (Becker, as
cited in D. Wood & H. Wood, 1992;
Conrad, 1970, 1973, 1979; Hanson,
1991; Harris & Beech, 1998; Leybaert &
Alegria, 1995; P. Miller, 1997). Yet, the
aided hearing acuity of participating
subjects was seldom reported, and
was unanalyzed except in studies by
Luetke-Stahlman (1988), Moores et al.
(1987), and Moores and Sweet (1991).
Likewise, the effects of digital hearing
aids, cochlear implants, or FM systems
on the acquisition and use of phonological awareness have seldom been
analyzed.
PhonologicalAwareness and
Speech ArticulationAbility.
Waters and Doehring (1990) used two
simplified phonics tasks to tap phono-
17N.3.20AMRANANLOFTEDF
AMER[(--,AN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS
logical awareness and its relationship to
reading and deafness. One required
children to decicle if strings of letters
were plausible comrbinations; the other,
if words were real. The study showecl
that speech intelligibility and Englishlanguage skills correlated with reading
achievement. Phonological awareness
correlated with reading achievement in
studies by Conrad (1970), J. Locke and
V. Locke (1971), and Reynolds (1986).
However, Adams (1990) reviewecl the
reading research and determined that
simply teaching children to pronounce
words does not call enoughi attention
to the inclividual phonemes that constitute them. Yet, phonemes may receive sufficient attention in deaf edtication programs because most young
deaf children receive speech-articulation therapy, during which words are
often reducedl to series of phonemes
so that their pronunciation can be
practiced, and then blended together
again into the original word. Thus,
even if a (leaf student cannot hear
speech, that student might "learn about
ph)onology from motor events involving speech production" (1Hlanson, 1989,
p. 73), through visual and tactile explanations during speech therapy, or
from speechreading. Indeed, Marschark
(1993) found that speech articulation
and phonological awareness ahility
correlated with reading proficiency
when stuclents were deaf or hard of
hearing.
Other studies showing a correlation between phonological awareness
and speech articulation, speech movement, kinesthetic sensations, or speech
training were conducted in the 1980s
and 1990s (Campbell & Wright, 1988;
Hanson, 1986; Hanson & Fowler,
1987; Harris & Beech, 1998; Leybaert
& Alegria, 1995; P. Miller, 1997:). We
have suggested (Nielsen & LuetkeStahlman, 2002) that whien speechlanguage pathologists work with deaf
children, the skills that are practiced
will support reading development if
the words' spelling is written out and
discussed in conjunction witlh the
words' articulation.
Vo()UME 147, No. 3, 2002
The Assessment of Phonological
Awareness
blending to discern unknown words, a
skill that evinces the employment of
A reading program fora deaf sttident
shouldl be hased on assessed literacy
skills, including phonological awareness. When this occurs, knowlecdge
of' undeveloped or undercdeveloped
phonological awareness subskills for
a particular chilcl can be idlentified by
means of both formal and informal
evaluation tools. In this section of the
present article, we suggest several possible phonological awareness tests.
(See Nielsen and Luetke-Stahlmain,
2002, for suggestecl measures for evaluating otlher reading skills areas.)
If' educational teanm members expressed ain interest in knowing how
well a deaf studlelnt was ahle to manipulate plhonemes relative to other cleaf
studcents, they might elect to use a lormatl evaluation tool that had been standardizedl with deaf chilclren. Hlowever,
literacy measures such as the 'I'est of
Syntactic Abilities (QQuigley, Steinkamp,
Power, Montanelli, & jones, 1978) and
the Stanford AchievementTfest (adaptecl
version, Trybus & Karachmer, 1977),
a cotmnonly used instrument clesigned
for the testing of cleaf children, do not
include subtests for the evaluation of
phonological awareness. TI'herefore, we
recommend such standardized measures as the Phonological Awareness
Test (Robertson & Sattler, 1997), which
phonemic awareness.
Informal assessment also could be
includes subtests for segmentation,
blending, substitution, rhyming, isolation, and cdeletion-skills that have
been founcd to correlate empirically
with reacling. The word attack subtest
of the Woodcock Reading Mastery
Test, or WRM (Woodcock, 1998), is
popular among special edlucators, but
the measure is a decoding task, not a
phlonological awareness task. The word
attack subtest requires that children
pronounce nonsense words of one to
four syllables (e.g., dcee, whie, than't,
gaked, mnonglusta te-r). Not only is this
subtest not a measure of phonological awareness, but a deaf student with
poor speech intelligibility may be unable to pronounce the nonsense words
ancl yet be capable of segmenting and
used to address the questions asked by
edlucational team members. Adams,
Foormiian, Lundberg, and Beeler (1998),
Ericson and Juliebo (1998), and Zgonc
(2000) offer examples of products that
provide informal measures of phonological awareness skills.
Facilitating the Development of
Phonological Awareness
According to Paul (1998), word identification, in which a reader graclually
becomes aware of the concept, pronunciation, cue, or sign for an unknown word, "is the foundation of the
literacy process" (p. 34). Researchers
have found that stLdents whio have acquired phonological awareness have
an advantage in being able to unlock
unknown words. In addition, when
children are trained in the subskills of
phonological awareness, most attain
higher levels of reacling achievement
(see reviews by Bryen & Gerber, 1987:
National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow
et al., 1998).
Experimental, longitudinal, and case
studies have demonstrated that phonological awareness can be taught (Bradley
& Bryant, 1983; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman,
2002; Perfetti et al., 1987; Strassman,
1997). This was clearly the finding of
two recent meta-analyses of the phonemic training research (J. Miller, 1999;
National Reading Panel, 2000). Also,
Adams (1990) and Snow et al. (1998)
have advocated that if a child lacks
phonological awareness, it must be
taught to that child.
tJsing gamelike activities, Lundberg
et al. (1988) worked with preschool
children to stimulate them to attend to
the phonological structure of language.
Analysis of the effect of this training on
reading and spelling achievement in
grades 1 and 2 showed small but significant differences between trained
and untrained children on tasks in-
AMERIC-AN ANNALS OF TIHE DEAF
volving rhyming and worcd and syllable
manipulation. However, the effect of
phoneme segmentation ability on reading and spelling achievement through
second grade was "dramatic" (p. 263).
Luncdberg et al. concluded that explicit
instruction, particularly at the phoneme
level, "seems to he required" (p. 263) if
there is to be an impact on later reading and spelling achievement.
When providing training in phonemic awareness, Fox and Routh (as reported in Copeland et al., 1994) found
that both training and practice in segmenting ancd blending assisted kindergarten children on "tasks analogous to
reading" (p. 32). That is, "training of
only segmenting without blending is
insufficient" (p. 32). In addition, when
letters were included, sound-to-letter
manipulation was found to be more effective than sound manipulation alone
(Adams, 1990; Miller, 1999; National
Reading Panel, 2000). Finally, the key
finding of the National Reading Panel's
meta-analysis of 52 studies on phonemic awareness (2000) was that teaching
phonemic awareness 'helps many different students learn to read," including 'children from various SES [socioeconomic status] levels," 'beginners
who are low in PA [phonemic awareness] and thus at risk for developing
reading problems in the future," and
older disabled readers who have
already developed reading problems"
(p. 2-41). Paul (1998) agreed that, based
on repeated reviews of the literacy and
deafness research over the decades, instruction ancl practice involving the discrimination and identification of
sounds in relation to print should be
provided to deaf children.
The first explicit training in phonological awareness and phonics (sound/
letters associations) with deaf children
was probably conducted by Becker (as
cited in D. Wood & H. Wood, 1992).
Becker identified five children who
read below grade level. They were fitted with appropriate amplification and
given training at the phonemic level.
They subsequently improved in their
ability to identify sound/letter units, and
VOLUME
3. 2002
No. 147,
VOLUME
147,
No. 3, 2002
transferred this knowle(ige to the reading of single words ancl conected text.
Wandel (1989) found that Cued Speech
facilitated the acquisition of phonemic
awareness by making phonemes visually explicit. Her research showed that
there was no difference in the reading
scores of hearing and profoundly deaf
students exposed to Cued Speech as assessed by the Stanford Achievement
Test. Alegria, Dejean, Capouillez, and
Leybaert (1990) found that Cued Speech
assisted deaf students in decoding unknown words while reading. Both
Quenin (1982) and LaSasso and Metzger (1998) found that Cued Speech
manual cues facilitatec phonological
awareness.
Another system that makes phonemes explicit but also cues the sound/
letter match is Visual Phonics. This system is used with deaf children in the
model elementary schcol on the Gallaudet tUniversity campus in Washington, DC (Marshall, Nussbaum, & WaddySmith, 1999), the Illinois State School
for the Deaf, and in public school programs for deaf students in Arizona,
Kansas, and Texas (see, e.g., Zaccagnini
& Antia, 1993). Use of Cued Speech
and Visual Phonics occurs in classrooms in which students are orally educated, as well as those in which signs
are paired with speech (Marshall et al.,
1999; Zaccagnini & Antii, 1993). More
information and researcoI on both systems can be found on the Internet.
Marschark (1993) suggested that
phonological awareness training for
deaf students should be multidimensional, involving sound-to-grapheme
skills, articulation-to-spelling skills,
speechreading-to-spelling skills, and
the writing of grammatically correct
English words, phrases, and sentences.
Annual standardized da:a from a longitudinal study revealed that the reading ability of one deaf child improved
dramatically (i.e., to grade level) when
phonological awareness abilities, in
conjunction with English vocabulary
and grammatical language skills, were
taught from preschool to sixth grade
(Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman, 2002).
Suggestions for such activit. ies can be
found in Nielsen and Luetke--Stahlman
(2002) or can be adapted from resources typically used wh en in the
teaching of hearing childre n (Adams
et al., 1998; Ericson & Julie tbo, 1998;
Fitzpatrick, 1997; Zgonc, 20( 00).
Conclusion
On January 8, 2002, President George
W. Bush signed into law the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. In a press release issued that day Secretary of Education Rod Paige stated, "A year ago,
President Bush set out to improve
every public school in this country-to
ensure that students of all races, all
abilities, and all ages receive the education they need and deserve.... Today, with the stroke of his pen, President Bush changed the culture of
education in America and kept his
promise to leave no child behind" (U1.S.
Department of Education, 2002). The
act is clear in directing that all children
be taught using research-based methods. The research clearly calls for attention to the role of phonological
awareness in giving deaf children the
tools to break the code and to develop
efficient word-recognition strategies. It
is up to the profession to ensure that
no deaf child is left behind.
References
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking
and learning about print. Cambridge. MA:
MIT Press.
Adams, M.. Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., &Beeler,
T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young
children. A classroom curriculum. Baltimore:
Brookes.
Alegria, J., Dejean, K., Capouillez, J., & Levbaert, J. (1990). Role played by Cued Speebh
in the identification of written words encountered for the first time by cleaf chilclren.
Cued Speech journal, 4, 4-9.
Baddeley, A. t). (1979). Working memory and
reading. In P. A. Kolers, M. D. Wrolstad, &
H. Bouma (Eds.), Processing of visible language (Vol. 1, pp. 355-370). New York:
Plenum Press.
Bebko, J. (1998). Learning, language, memory,
and reading: The role of language automatization ancl its impact on complex cognitive
activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 3, 4-13.
Besner, D. (1987). Phonology, lexical access in
reading, and articulatory suppressions: A
critical review. QuarterlyJournalof Experimental Psychology 39, 467-478.
AMERICAN ANNALS GE THE DEAF
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
PHONOLOGICAL AwARENEss
Bradley, L., & Biyant, P. (1983). Categorizing
sotinc.s and learning to r-ead: A CatiUsal connection. Nature. 301, u19-4+21.
Bryant, P., MacClean, M., Blradlley, L., & C rossantiLi alliteration,
land, J. (199(0). Rhiymei
phonemie dletection, antI learning toI readl
DevelopinentalPsyVchology. 26, 4t29 438.
l)ryen, I). & Gerber, A. (1987). Mletalingutistic
abilities anti reading: A focincs oIn pIlionological awareness. journal of Reading. Writing.
anid L.earnintg D)isabilities lnternational J..
357-367
Campbell. R. (1992). Speech in the head?
Rhymiie skill. reatcling. antI immnediate m--emiol-y in the Dleaf. In 1). Rcisberg (EdI.), Auidito/i' iniager, (pp. 73-941. HIillsda:le, N:
ErIbatim.
Carmpbell, [Z., & Wr-ight. 1H. (1988). D)eafness,
Spelling, antI rhymiie: How spelling SUipplirts
xwritten wtrinr antI piCtLire rhlymiing tasks in
deaf clhilclren. journal of Experimental Psicitologv. 40, 771-788.
memiioryv
Short-term
(197601.
R.
Comnradl.
prolcesses in the D)eaf. rthJona1/P)
cbology. 61, 17'9-195.
Conrad, It. I 1973). Internal speeccl in the pit)
fOUtndly deaf clhiltl. Rhacher 1)/the D)ecf 71.
Conraid, B8./ 1979). The deaf school child: Laon
gutage anzdcogniith/ilnc,Ii)ctioni.London0: I Ia per
& Rzow.
Copelancl, K., Winsor, P., & Oshorn, J. I 1994).
Phonemiic awareness: A comnsidleratiotn of research anctI practice. In F. L.ehr & j. Clsborn
(Eds.), Reading. language. atid literacy Instrnictio)//jor the 21st century, (pp. 25 -44).
Hillsdlale, N,J: Erlbhaiim.
Dloddt, 11 ( 19"4. l. Te phonIological developnment
ofbhorn-dca/cbildrhen. U npuIihliled dloctoral
clisseniation, U niversiry of Londlon, London.
DOtitI, II. 1981)). 'r[he spelling .abilities (of pirlfouindly prefingUally cleaf ch-ildlren. In 1f..
Frith (EdI.) Cog,nitive processes~in spelling
(pp. 423-44i0). New York: Ac.aclemric Plress.
FEdfeldit, A. (1960). Silent speech anidsilenti reading. Chicago: UJniversity imfChiicago Plress.
EFhri. L. (1981). Thie developmient of onhlograiphic iniaizges. In t- . Fritli 3(Ed.), Cbgniitive
8
pro)cesse.s i/i spelling (pp. 11-33 ). New
York: Aca.Ieimic Plress.
E'hri, L. (1991). D)evcIopment oIf thle ability tim
read words: U pdate. In IB. Barr. M. Kami-il, P1
Mosenthal, & P1. 0). Pearson (EdIs.), H-andboiok if reading research (Voil. 2. pp. 32.3358). New Ymrk: Lomngman.
Ehri, L. (1995). Phases of clevelmpinent in lear-ning ii reacl wordls liy sight. journal of Research in Reading. 18, 11i6-125.
Ericson, L., &.Judiebo, M. F. (1998). The pbonological awareness handbimok for kindergarten and primany teachers. New ark, D)1:
International Readitig Association.
Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). Phonemiic awareness:
P'laying with solmunds to strengtben beginning
reading skills. Cy press, CA: Creatixve Teaching Plress.
Fleetwooid, F., & Metzger, M. (1998). Cued-claniguage structUre: An analysis of Cued Anenican English basedI on linguistic principles.
Silver Spring, M1D: Callitip.
Foorinan, B., Francis, D., Shaywvitz, S., Shayw itz,
B., & Fletcher, J. (1997). TFhe case for early
reading inter-ventions. In B. Blachiman (Ecd..i
Foundations of readling acquisitiosn anid
qyslexia: Implicationsfihr early intertention
(pp. 243-2640. Malhwah, NJ: ErlbaLim.
Gibbs, K. (1989). Inclivi(tlual differ-ences in
cognitive skills relaitedl to reacling ability in
the Deaf. Amierican Annails of the Deaf, 134,
VOLoME 147, No. 3, 2(102
G,oswami, IJ. (2000). Phlonoloigical and lexical
processes. In M. Kamril, P). Mosenthajl, P1. D.
Pearson, /1 R. B3arri (Ects.), Handbook of
reading research (VOL.3, pp. 251-267). Ma-Iwa.h, NI: Erlliaurm.
;(Iswxxjjinh. t1., & Mead, F. (1992). Onset and
na gies in r-eid fiig.
rimiie awareness aind nloI
Readling Research Quarter/v, 27, 152-162
Hal.nson, V. (1986).tAcess to spoken language
MI(clthe atIc tilsit iii ot) irtlioi raphic strUCOUIre: Uvidenice lr-oiii decaf readers. Quarterl)'
journal 11 uxeiuua Psycho~logy,'..8,
193-212.
Haniso n, V. (1989). P'honolok gy and reading: Evidence 'itoiii protoiondiv dleaf readers. In 1).
Shain kwe iler & 1. L.iberman (Ed(s.), P'honoIliuRt' and reading disabfiltv: Solv ing the readOig,poizzle,(pp. (19-89). Anni Ai hor, MIl: I Iniversitv hf Mil hig-ar P ress.
lii gicalI processing
Phnlo
Ila:nso n, V. (1991)
Braidv & 1)1 Shakw, ilecr
In
Snit
h(At Mrd.
Wxit
A
fleract'.
Ivlesin
(EIs.), l'oomia
~S.
161) 11Iillstkile, NJ: F~rlhaiuni
Hanson, V., & Foiwler. ( (1987). P'honologic.al
cliding, in wo r(I ieading: Ev idence fromi
hecaring zkinii de.il clI lege StUdentS. 301ii roal
ufA leimory aInd LaIguaqege .t).-319-330.
Hanoson, V ., L.iberman, L., & Shankweiler, I).
.ICiding by d112,f chiild l-en in
(198 0 . LlugniSl
relLitiol to hieginnring readinig sui.i.css.journal of/ 1Nxperiniciflal Child lPsvrbolmlIgv, .37.
378 -393
H arris. M., Y&Blecih. ji. (199)8). Implicit phorno
liogicait awxareness and carly readIing dclvepnntin prelringualt' (elef children.- /1111-nal n/1Deaf Studies caid 1)ea Edllcation,l.1
2015-216.
jorin, A., & Share. I). (1983). An (oxvitedl article:
PhionoloIgical recoding andi reid ing aCIlulSi41(2), 10)3ition. Applied lN('cholintguislics,
IC.7
Joiel, C. (1988). Learning to i-cadl and write: A
liongitutlinal study omf5 childlreni fromi first
of Ldiicath-rouigh foiitnh gratdes. jlItIrnal
80, 437 -447~.
lioua11 N.)'cholog(V,
JeLIC,C., Griffith, P., & Gough, I'. (1986). Acqgnisitiloi oIf literacv : A lomngitudinal study of
c.hilclreni in first antI secondl gradle.jI)trnal
o/l:itcaioua Psybolo)'. 8. 2 43-255.
juiti, C., & Minden (Cupp,C.. (1)999). Learning tio
read vo'Irds. Linguislic units anzd strategies
(CIechnic,il Repo rt No. 1-01)8). Anni Arbior,
MI: University iif Michigan, Center for the
Sttlxd ot Early Reading Atchievcrment.
1. 1995 I. Proiicessing OfI hlttIll)-tUp antd
Kellvy L
toip-cli wxn informat io n by skilletl anti average cleal, readers andt implitcation f-or whole
languiage insti-Lictioun. Lcp(IllChildren,
6. 318-334.
Kelly, L. (1996)~ Thel interac tioln (If synutactic
competence antI vocabtulary tLtiring readling
hy deaf stiutlents. joiurial of/Dleaf'Studies
andDIeafE'ducationt. I, 75-90.
King. C.., & Qtoigley, S. (1985). Reading anid
dea/iiess. Atistirn, TX: Pro-PcI.
Kleiiian, G. (1975). Speech recoctiing in reading.
Jomurmta /o Verbal Lear7nog anid V,erbal Behav'ior, 14. 329-339.
LaSasso, C., & Metzger-, M. (1998). Ani alternate
rouite for preparing dJeaf chiildren for hi-hi
programs: Th'le homle langtiage as LI antI
Ctiedi Speech for conveying tratditionally
spoken laingtuages. joturnal of Deaf Studie-s
a,nd D)eaftEducation. -3. 26i5-289.
Lepley, W. (1952). [Ihe panticipation of imyplicit
speechi in aicts (if writing. Amterican jorn al
l)fl 3 vchboloIgv' 6510, 597-599.
Leybaert. J. (199(3). Rea+ding in the Deaf: T'he roles
oif plionological coides. In M. Marschark &
M. Clark (Eds.), Psychologicalperspectires on
deafn7ess (pp. 269,-310). Hillsdale, NJ: ErIUlhati
L.eybaert_ j.. &Alegria. J. (1995). Spelling developmnent in deaf anctI heicring childlrei: Eviclence for cuse of morphological regularities
of- F~ietkcl. Reading and Writing, 7, 89-11)9.
Levbaert. j.. & Chtarlier, B. (1996). Vistial Speech
in thie heatd: 1 he effecCt Of CLuecl Speech in
rhyntiniig, renmemhering, andl spclling. jour234-238.
L.ichtenstein. F. (1985). D)eaf wosrk-ing imemiory
priocesses antI English languiage skills. In 1).
Martin IEEtI. , Cginguitiol, educationi, atnd
(lea/nes-s: D)irecliisn./br research amui iniD)C:
.Washington,
strioction (pp. 111
CalklUditt I fnixversitv Plress.
Ijitcruinstein, F . (1998~). The relationship hetween reading processes andl Englishi skills
of- lea'f college students. j/otrnal ?/' Deaf
Stu1dies and Dea/'Education..3,8(1-13)).
Lillix-Martin. D ., Hanisoni. V., & Smith, S. (1992).
Dleaf r-eadlers colllprchensioIn of relative
clause StrUCttdire. AppliedI P.a'jcbhongtiistics.
Litcke, J. I 1970). SUihV eal speechl andI speechi.
Ameic'lan Sfpeech and H-ea ring jIlIrnal,
Loceke. I.. & Locke, V. (19-71). Dleaf clhiltlren's
y iccol ing in a
l)i(ioiietic , vistial, antI catvl
Experinmengrapheme recall task. jurniol cif
142-1.46
(01 Pst,chology, 189,
Iluetke-Stafilniarn 1. (1988). Thle heriefit tof oral
Englislh-only as toiinparecl wxitl signedl inpuit
to hucaring-inipairedl stuidents. Vlb/a Review,
961(7) 3/19-361.
ILundherg, 1., Frost, J., & Pletersoni, 0. (1988).
Effects of an extensive programi for stinutLilating phonolo gical awareness in prescholi
clhiltlren. Rleading Research QuarterlY,. 2.3,
263-284..
Marsch;irk, M. (1993). PsY bological develcopnien"t of deaf' children. New Yrork: Oxfordi
U-niversity Plress.
Marshall, S., NLISShaLiin, ID., & Wacldly-Smitlh, B.
(1999). Kendall Sch-ool integrates literacy
skill dlevelopmient with aLudinary aind speech)
dcxvelopment. Perspeetiies in Education and
Deafiwivss 17(5), 48-50.
Mayer-, C., & W~ells, G. (1996). Can the linguiistic
interdependence theory support a hilingualhicuiltural mnodel of literacv etducation for
cleaf studtents?,1Journal of Deaf Studies and
Dea,/1Edtwation, 1, 93-1l(6.
Miller, J. (1999). Thbe ef,ihets of' training in
phonemic awarene5ss A nieta-analysis. Unipublished cloctoral dissertation, U niversity
oif Kansas. Lawrence.
Mitleler, P1. (1997), The effect oif co)mmtiinicatioln
nLodle on the dlevelopment of phhonemic
aiwareness in prelingually cleaf studtent,s.Journal of Spleech, Lantguage, anid hlearing Resewarch, 40, 1151-1 163.
Moores, D. (1996). Educating the Deaf Psychology, principles. and practices (ith edl..
lBoston: Houighton-Mifflin.
Moores, 1D. (1999). Many stories [Editorial].
Amierican Annals of the De-af, 144(3). 223.
Moores, ID.. Kiuwin, 'F., johnson. 1R.,Exxoldt, C.,
Cox, P., Blennerhiassett, L., Kelly. L., Sweet,
C., & Fieldls, L. (1987). Factors-p'redictiverif
literac~y in deaf adolescents wvith deaf parents: Factors- predictitve of literacY in dleaf
adolescents in T C'. programs~-Final report
(Project No. NIII-NINCD)S-83-19). Washingtorn, DC: U.S. D)epartment of Healthi and
HtIman Services.
Mloores, 1)., & Sweet. C. (1991). Factors predictive of school achievement. In D. Mooires &
K. Meadows-0flans (EcEs.), Educationaland
AMEFRACAN ANNA,S cii TH4E U)EA
developmental aspects of deafness (pp. 154201). Washington. DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
National Assessment of Educational Progress.
(2001). The NAEP reading achievement results. Retrieved April 10. 2002, from http://
nces.ed .gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achi
eve.asp
National Readling Panel. (2000). Teaching chil-
dren to read: An evidence-based assessment
oJ'the scientific research literatureon reading and its implicatioosfor reading instruction. Washington l)C: National InstitLIte of
Chiil llealtlh and HLuman lDevelopment.
Nielsen, D. C.. & Iuerke-Stailiman, B. (2002).
IThe benefit of assessiment-hased language
and ireading instruttion: IPerspectives from a
Case stuctdv. /ournal ofDeaJ.Studies andDeaf
Fducation 7 1149-186.
No Child l.eft 13elhind Act of 2001, Puh. L. No.
1(7-11(, lb StIt 14-i2 (2002).
Paul, 1P.(1998) literacY and deafness. 'be de-
velopment of' reading, writing, and literate
thoughlt 13oston: Allvn &Bacon.
Paul, P., & Jackson. 1>. (1993j. Thiward a psychology of deaJlnes5s. 7heoreticaland empiricalperspectives. Boston: Allyn & Blacon.
Paul, P. & Quiglev, S. (199). Language and
deafneis (2nd ecl.). San Dliego, CA: Singular.
Perfetti, C., Beck 1., 13ell, L., & Hughes. C.
(1987). 1'hone;nic knowledge and learning
to read ate reciprocal: A longitudinal study
of first-gradle children. Alerrill-P'almerQuarterly ,13,
283-319.
Quenin, C (1982). Tracking of connected discourse by deaf' college stu(lents who use
Cued Speech. t inpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, l.niversitv Park.
Quigley, S.. Steinkamp, M., Power, D., Montanelli, D., & Jones, 13. (1978). Test oJ'syntactic abilities. Beaverton, OR: Dormac.
Raynor, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology oJ reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Irentice Hiall.
Reid, 1. (1983). Into print: Reading and language
growth, In M. Donaldson, R. Grieve, & C.
Pratt (Eds.), Early childhood development
and education (pp. 151-165). New York:
Guildford Press.
Reynolds, R. (1986). Perforinance of deaf college stLudents on a criterion-referenced modified cloze test of reading comprehension.
American Annals of the l)eaJ; 131, 361-364.
Robertson, C., & Sattler, W. (1997). Tbe test of
phonological awvareness. East Moline, IL:
LinguiSystems.
Sallop, .M. (1973). Language acquisition: Pantomime and gesture to signed English. Sign
Languacge Stu dies, 3, 29-38.
Schaper. M., & Reitsma, P. 11993). '[he use of
speech-based recoding ir reading hy prelingually cleaf children. American Annals of
the Deaf 138, 46-54.
Share, D.j orm, A., MacLean, R., & Matthews. R.
(1984). Sources of individual differences in
reaiing acquisition. Journal of Educational
Psychology 6, 1309-1324.
Snow. C., Burms, N., & Griffin 1'. (1998). Prevent-
ing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, ]C: National Academy P'ress.
Stanovichl K. (1986). Cogniti',e process and the
reading problems of leaIning disabled children: Evaluating the assur ption of specificity.
In J. 'orgesen & B. 'Long (Eds.), Psychologi-
cal and educationalpe,spectiteeson learning
disabilities (pp. 87-131) New York: AcademnicIPress.
Strassman, 13. (1997). Metacognition and reading in children who are dleaf: A review of the
research. journal oJ IJeaJ Studies and Deaf
lEducation, 2, 140-149.
Transler, C., Leybaert, J., & G(ombert, .1 (1999).
Do dleaf chilcren use phonological syllables
as reading uLnits? journu!/ of DeaJ' Studies
and DeafFducation 4 124-143.
Trybus, R., & Karachmer, M. (1977). School
achievement scores of hearing impaired children: National clata on achievement status
and growth patterns. American Antnals of'the
Deaf 122, 62-69.
Tunmer, W. (199(1). The role :)f prediction skills
in beginning reading Net, Zealand journal
of L'ducationalStudies. 23, 95-11q.
Tzeng, S. J. (1993). Speech recoding, short-term
memory and reading ability in immature
readers with severe to profound hearing impairment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohiio State tJniversity, Columbus.
U.S. Department of Eciucation. (2002). No child
left hehincl [I'ress release]. Retrieved April
19, 20()2 from http: /Ao'v .ecd.gov/PressReleases./01-2002/,01082002.html
V'ellutino, F., &Scanlon, D. (1987). Phonological
coding, phonological awareness, and reading ahility: Evicdence from a longitudinal andI
experimental studv. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(3), 321-363.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thought and language (A.
KoZulin, Trans. andi Ed.). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).
Wandel, J. (1989); t1se of' interval speech in
reading by hearing and hearing-impaired
students in oral 7botal CommnuJnication, and
Cued Speech Programs. UJnpublished cLoctoral dissertation, Ieachlers College, ColuLibia Llniversity, New York.
Waters, G., &Doehring, I). (1990). Reacting acquisition in congenitallv deaf chiildren who
communicate orallv: Insights from an analysis of component reading language andi
memory skills. In T. Carr & B. Ley- (Eds.),
Reading and its development (pp. 323-368).
San Diego, CA: Acaclemic Press.
Wood. D., & Wood, H. (1992). Signed Englishl
in the classroom, III: What gets signed? First
Language. 12. 1-15.
Woodcock, R. (1998). 'loodcock reading mastery test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Yopp, H. (1988). The validity and reliability of
phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 159-177.
Zaccagnini, C., & Antia, S. (1993). Effects of
multisensory speech training and visual
phlonics on speech production of a hearingimpaired chilcl. Journal qf Comnmunication
Disorders,15(2), 3-8.
Zgonc, Y. (20(00). Sounds in action: Phonological anareness actit Ities and assessment.
Peterborough, Nil: Crystal Springs Books.
Eu
AMERICAN ANNALs OF THE DEAF
147, No. 3, 2002
VOLUME
VOLUME 147, No. 3, 2002
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
I
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Phonological Awareness: One Key to the Reading
Proficiency of Deaf Children
SOURCE: American Annals of the Deaf 147 no3 Jl 2002
WN: 0218204706002
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.caid.org/.
Copyright 1982-2003 The H.W. Wilson Company.
All rights reserved.