Golos, D. B., & Moses, A. M. (2013).
Developing preschool deaf children's language and literacy learning from an
educational media series. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(4), 411-425.
DEVELOPING PRESCHOOL DEAF CHILDREN'S
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY LEARNING FROM
AN EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SERIES
DEBBIE B . GOLOS AND
ANNIE M . MOSES
GOLOS IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF DEAF
EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIVE
DISORDERS AND DEAF EDUCATION, UTAH
STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN. MOSES IS AN
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EARLY CHILDHOOD,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND ALLIED
STUDIES, JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, OH.
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
iTH THE INCREASE in research on multiliteracies comes greater inter-
est in exploring multiple pathways of learning for deaf children. Educa-
tional media have been increasingly examined as a tool for facilitating
the development of deaf children's language and literacy skills. The
authors investigated whether preschool deaf children (A'^ = 31) acquired
targeted American Sign Language and literacy skills after viewing one
video from an educational video series in ASL. Descriptive statistics
were gathered and a split-plot ANOVA was conducted to determine
whether targeted literacy scores increased from pretest to posttest and
whether scores varied by baseline ASL skills. A significant improvement
was found in the skills targeted in the video, which occurred regardless
of the level of baseline ASL skills. The findings support the claim that
learning ASL and literacy skills through educational media may benefit
deaf children with varied levels of exposure to ASL.
Keywords: emergent literacy, deaf, Corina & Singleton, 2009; Hoffmeister,
preschool, ASL, educational media, 2000; Morford & Mayberry, 2000; Rath-
visual learning man, Wolfgang, & Morgan, 2007). With
the increasing amount and range of
There has been growing acknowledg- technology in the classroom, educators
ment of the use of multimedia with can also use instructional strategies,
deafi children (e.g., Golos & Moses, materials, and assessments that pro-
2011; Loeterman, Paul, & Donahue, mote learning through a medium that
2002; Mueller & Hurtig, 2010), with incorporates a variety of modalities.
some researchers focusing on investi- While there is still much to learn about
gating and promoting learning through the development of language and liter-
multiple sources and modes of com- acy in deaf children, emerging evi-
munication. Evidence also suggests dence suggests that there are multiple
that presenting information through a pathways to growth in this domain.
visual language^ such as American Sign Access to multiple ways of presenting
Language (ASL) allows deaf children to knowledge and skills related to lan-
develop in various skills areas, such as guage and literacy is critical, particu-
language, literacy, and cognition (e.g.. larly during early childhood (Clark,
AMERICAN ANNAJLS OF THE DEAF
DEAF CHILDREN LEARNING FROM EDUCATIONAL MEDLA.
Gilbert, & Anderson, 2011; Kyle &
Harris, 2010; Mayer, 2007; New London
Group, 1996).
Children learn a great deal about lit-
eracy prior to formally learning to
read. Learning concepts such as the
meaning of new words and aspects of
a story (e.g., characters, setting, and
main events) can be learned prior to
the acquisition of formal reading skills.
However, if development in this area is
to be facilitated, children must be
exposed to fluent language models
from birth. Those who are not exposed
to a fluent language model often begin
preschool with gaps in their language
and literacy skills (Freel et al., 2011;
Mayberry 2007; Mayberry, del Guidice,
& Lieberman, 2011; Mayer 2007).
Some have argued that the delays in
language and literacy already in place
by the time that child reaches first
grade (see, e.g.. Chamberlain & May-
berry, 2008; Mayberry, 2010; Mayer,
2007) are a key reason why the average
deaf child graduates from high school
reading at the fourth-grade level
(Traxler, 2000). When they go to school,
many deaf children are still learning
language at the same time that their
hearing peers are learning through lan-
guage (Freel et al., 2011; Paul, 2009).
These delays often lead to problems
with literacy throughout schooling
(Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2008; Mayer,
2007). Even with the advent of new-
born hearing screening and an increase
in the availability of amplification de-
vices, some researchers suggest that
deaf children are still at risk (e.g., Nit-
trouer, Caldwell, Lowenstein, Tarr, &
HoUoman, 2012). This places great sig-
nificance on early language and literacy
exposure (Mayberry, 2007; Mayer, 2007;
Paul & Wang, 2012; Williams, 2004).
With the introduction of more
advanced technologies and a wider
range of media products, a small body
of work has begun to examine the role
of media in promoting deaf children's
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
language and literacy skills. These
recent studies have found that media,
especially those that are educationally
oriented, can have a positive impact
on literacy and language skills, includ-
ing educational media presented dur-
ing the early childhood years and in
American Sign Language (ASL) for deaf
children (e.g., Golos, 2010a, 2010b;
Golos & Moses, 2011; Loeterman et al.,
2002). For example, deaf children who
have been exposed to educational
media in ASL have been found to
demonstrate an increase in targeted
vocabulary in both ASL and printed
English (Golos, 2006; Golos & Moses,
2011). Although there are differing
opinions on the best routes to lan-
guage and literacy development for
deaf children, the focus of the present
study is on continuing the line of
research that has demonstrated the
benefits of early exposure to ASL (e.g..
Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Corina
& Singleton, 2009; Freel et al., 2011;
Mayberry, 2007) through educational
media (Golos & Moses, 2011).
Theoretical Frameworks
for Literacy Development
Educational resources aiming to affect
language and literacy skills of young
children, including deaf children, must
take into account the range of skills
constituting literacy (e.g., print aware-
ness, vocabulary, comprehension) that
emerge over time and that predict suc-
cess in literacy in the long run (i.e.,
emergent literacy skills). In addition,
those working to increase children's
acquisition of skills in this domain
should consider the range of modes
often tapped in screen mediaand the
variety of texts that literate individuals
use and produce (i.e., multiliteracies).
Emergent Literacy
The emergent literacy perspective
posits that language and literacy skills
develop from a child's earliest years.
and simultaneously rather than
sequentially (e.g., Sulzby & Teale, 1991;
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). For
example, children can learn about
print concepts at the same time that
they are being exposed to print,
through, for instance, seeing or hear-
ing a book read aloud. Whereas previ-
ous notions of literacy argued that very
young children should not be intro-
duced to reading and writing until age
6.5 years (see Durkin, 1966, for discus-
sion on the topic of reading readiness),
the focus of the emergent literacy per-
spective is on children's language and
literacy experiences that occur prior to
formal schooling and that contribute
to their ability to read and write con-
ventionally as they grow.
Language and literacy skills mutually
reinforce each other and should both
be introduced into children's lives as
soon as possible (Lonigan, Farver,
Phillips, & Clancy-Menchetti, 2011;
Sulzby & Teale, 1991; Whitehurst &
Lonigan, 2001). This can be done
through a variety of face-to-face activi-
ties (e.g., read-alouds, dramatic play,
direct instruction), environments (e.g.,
child care, preschool and early elemen-
tary classrooms, homes, community
sites), and "old" and "new" media tools
(e.g., books, computers, television and
videos). Improving the quality and
quantity of language and literacy expe-
riences and materials in the home and
in early education settings is critical for
all children. For deaf children, who are
at risk for language and literacy failure,
a greater quantity and higher quality of
language and literacy experiences are
imperative if they are to experience
early literacy development and later
literacy success (Mayer, 2007; Mussel-
man, 2000; Williams, 2004).
Emergent Literacy and
Deaf Children
Educators and researchers concerned
with deaf children may agree that early
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAE
exposure to language and literacy is
critical, yet tbere are different perspec-
tives on how best to promote develop-
ment in tbese areas. Some researcbers
bave investigated tbe connection be-
tween sound-based language exposure
and early literacy development, and
found benefits (e.g., Kyle & Harris,
2010). Otbers bave examined tbe con-
nection between sign language (bere,
ASL) and English print exposure and
also found benefits to early literacy
development (e.g., Cbamberlain &
Mayberry, 2000). Altbougb questions
remain about bow exactly deaf cbil-
dren learn to read, as well as tbe role
pbonological awareness plays (Kyle &
Harris, 2010; Mayer, 2007; McQuarrie
& PariUa, 2009; Musselman, 2000; Paul,
Wang, Trezek, & Luckner, 2009; Wang,
Trezek, Luckner, & Paul, 2008), many
agree tbat early exposure to language,
vocabulary, and comprebension skills
is critical for deaf cbildren wbo are
considered at risk in regard to later lit-
eracy acbievement (Allen et al, 2009;
Clark, Gilbert, & Anderson, 2011; East-
erbrooks & Huston, 2008; Freel et al.,
2011; Kyle & Harris, 2006; Mayberry et
al., 2011; Miller & Clark, 2011; Nit-
trouer et al, 2012; Paul, 1996, 2003).
Wben looking specifically at tbe use
of ASL as means of fostering early lit-
eracy skills in young deaf cbildren,
researcbers bave found tbat early
exposure to ASL and ASL abiUty posi-
tively relate to early literacy skills (e.g.,
Cbamberiain & Mayberry, 2000; Freel
et al., 2011; Mayberry, 2007). Evidence
from the work of Cbamberlain and
Mayberry (2000, 2008) and Hoffmeis-
ter (2000), among otbers (e.g., Clark
et al., 2011; Corina & Singleton, 2009;
Mayberry 2007, 2010; Prinz & Strong,
1998), suggests tbat many deaf cbil-
dren wbo bave early exposure to ASL
develop literacy skills on par witb
tbose of bearing peers on an array of
literacy outcomes, including perform-
ance on vocabulary tasks, reading com-
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
prebension, and language functioning.
For example, Prinz and Strong (1998)
found a significant positive correlation
between ASL skills and Englisb literacy
scores (e.g., on measures of compre-
bension, vocabulary, Englisb syntax,
and written narrative) after testing 155
deaf cbildren between tbe ages of 8
and 15 years. Additional, more recent
evidence bas continued to sbow a
positive correlation between ASL skills
and reading comprebension scores,
wherein ASL skills or bilingual abilities
in ASL and printed Englisb explained
up to 68% of tbe variance in reading
comprebension scores for botb cbil-
dren and adults between tbe ages of 4
and 62 years (Allen et al., 2009; Freel et
al., 2011, Mayberry et al, 2011).
One route to language and literacy is
tbrough face-to-face, or live, interac-
tions. The studies previously men-
tioned investigated exposure to ASL
and outcomes for language and literacy
skills involved in tbese types of inter-
actions. However, anotber route is
tbrougb media, wbicb can include a
range of modalities (e.g., auditory, sign,
print) tbat can infiuence cbildren's lan-
guage and literacy development.
Multiliteracies
In recent years, some bave argued for
a broader notion of literacy, called
"multiliteracies," wbicb incorporates
multiple languages, cultures, and media
(New London Group, 1996). Tbe belief
is tbat literacy instruction and experi-
ences will only be effective if tbey
expand on a traditional definition to
include tbe varying and multiple liter-
acy-related and linguistic competen-
cies tbat students bring to scbool. In
sbort, tbe New London Group (1996)
argues tbat literacy instruction needs
to build upon students' knowledge of
nonconventional, as well as conven-
tional, texts witbin a sociocultural
framework. Second, it needs to incor-
porate tbe variety of screen media tbat
include written and expressive/recep-
tive communication (i.e., television,
videos, computers) and witb wbicb
cbildren (and adults) interact regularly.
Studies examining educational
media (e.g., Fiscb, 2004; Moses, 2008)
indicate tbe great potential of tbe use
of multiple modes tbat can support
cbildren's learning, and decades of
empirical work bas sbown tbat educa-
tional media can bave a positive impact
on bearing cbildren's literacy and lan-
guage development, including code-
related (e.g., word recognition, letter
recognition) and comprebension-
related skills (e.g., vocabulary, knowl-
edge of story elements). Anderson and
Lorcb (1983) and otber researcbers
bave found tbat viewers' own experi-
ences and background knowledge play
a role in wbetber and bow tbey attend
to and comprebend screen media.
Altbougb based on studies of bearing
cbildren, tbis evidence implies tbat
deaf cbildren need to pay attention to
and understand wbat tbey see in order
to actively learn.
Paul and Wang (2012) agree that the
concept of literacy must be extended
to incorporate multimodal formats,
sucb as tbose included in tecbnology.
Tbey emphasize tbe importance of
developing "literate tbougbt," wbicb
tbey define as "tbe ability to access
captured, decontextualized forms of
information" (p. 305). By using tbis
ability, cbildren can interact witb tbe
"captured" information in ways not
possible during "live" interactions.
One example of tbis is using sign lan-
guage in video or DVD format (Paul &
Wang 2006a, 2006b, 2012); a cbild or
adult can use tbis medium to pause,
discuss, and revisit content presented
on screen in order to better under-
stand new information.
Educational materials developed in
ASL for tbe deaf population sbould
build upon deaf learners' linguistic
(e.g., ASL) and cultural (e.g.. Deaf)
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
DEAF CHILDREN LEARNING FROM EDUCATIONAL MEDIA
backgrounds as well as employ multi-
ple modes of communication (e.g.,
pictures, ASL, print, gesture) and
research-based visual strategies. All of
these considerations can be incorpo-
rated into technological formats (e.g.,
DVDs). Multiple modes of communica-
tion in captured format should not
only grab children's attention but also
should include content at an appropri-
ate level so that they can connect with,
understand, and learn from what they
see. An expanded view of literacy,
which incorporates multiple modes
of literacy, aims to meet the needs of
the individual learner (New London
Group, 1996), in this case the deaf
learner, and specifically deaf learners
whose parents support exposure
to ASL.
Review of the Literature
on Media, Literacy, and
Deaf Learners
Research has only begun to reveal how
media may provide deaf children with
support in language and literacy acqui-
sition, in addition to support during
face-to-face interactions. Yet the evi-
dence that does exist is promising,
and further work is needed to exam-
ine how and why educational media
can benefit young deaf children and
can do so through various modes of
communication. The present study
focuses specifically on how this can be
achieved through educational media
in ASL.
Media's Effects on Learning
As previously mentioned, research on
children and media highlights the
importance of children's attention to
the screen as well as their ability to
comprehend what they see. With an
appropriate level of attention and com-
prehension, viewers can actively learn
from media, particularly educational
media (Bickman, Wright, & Huston,
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
2001). Children's viewing of educa-
tional programming has been linked
to positive literacy outcomes during
the preschool years (Wright et al,
2001) as well as to positive attitudes
toward reading, good reading habits,
and reading achievement in adoles-
cence (Anderson, Huston, Schmitt,
Linebarger, & Wright, 2001). More
specifically, spending time with educa-
tional media does not relate to less
time spent engaging in other impor-
tant activities such as reading, interact-
ing with others, and playing (Huston,
Wright, Marquis, & Green, 1999). The
same has not been found with noned-
ucational programming, in that nega-
tive or no effects have been found in
the short or long term. Educational
media that capture and maintain chil-
dren's attentionthrough formal fea-
tures (i.e., pacing, visual and sound
effects)as well as present content at
an appropriate level facilitate chil-
dren's understanding and learning,
including their acquisition of language
and literacy
Media's Effects on Literacy
and Language Development
In general, media have the ability to
incorporate a range of modes of com-
munication as well as make important
connections between those modes,
and these different modes can convey
new information and skills related to
literacy. Eor example, the meaning of a
new word can be shown through char-
acters' physical actions and facial
expressions, can be spoken, can be
conveyed through pictures or print
on screen, or can be communicated
through sign language. Neuman (1995,
2009) and others have argued that
using multiple modes to represent
the same information is more benefi-
cial to learners than relying on only
one mode.
Of the work that has been done
on educational programs, researchers
have found that literacy-oriented edu-
cational programs can positively and
significantly affect certain language and
literacy skills. Positive effectsboth
short- and long-term (Anderson et al.,
2001)have been found for skills crit-
ical to comprehending texts, such as
vocabulary knowledge and familiarity
with story elements. (Eor a summary
of research, see Fisch, 2004; Moses,
2008; and Uchikoshi, 2009). Such
results have been found when children
have viewed programming on their
own (Huston et al., 1999), with adult
mediation (e.g., Linebarger, 2009), and
at home or in a classroom (e.g., St. Clair
& Schwetz, 2003). Programs that have
a sound curriculum and refiect current
research benefit young (hearing) view-
ers by increasing their vocabulary, con-
cepts of print, development of oral
language, letter recognition, knowl-
edge of story elements, and more
(Fisch, 2004). For example, with regard
to narrative skills acquisition as a result
of viewing educational programming,
311 preschool children were randomly
assigned to one of three conditions:
viewing educational programming
that involved a narrative format, view-
ing educational programming that
involved an expository format, or a no-
treatment condition. Participants in
the two viewing conditions watched
the selected programs multiple times.
To evaluate sequencing skills, children
were given three pictures (already
seen in literacy workbooks) and asked
to put them in correct order and tell
the story Children were also asked
five comprehension questions to eval-
uate narrative comprehension. Results
showed an increase in both story
knowledge and narrative skills, but
only for participants who viewed
educational programming that in-
volved a narrative format (Linebarger
& Piotrowski, 2009).
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
Deaf Children's Learning
From Educational Media
Recent evidence also supports the
potential of educational media to facil-
itate deaf children's language and liter-
acy skills (e.g., Loeterman et al, 2002;
Mueller & Hurtig, 2010). For example,
in the Cornerstones study, research-
based literacy units were developed
for deaf and hard of hearing children
to accompany episodes o Between the
Lions that were interpreted into sign
language. Eight teachers administered
a unit to 32 deaf children in grades K-5
that included exposure to the signed
versions oBetween the Lions episodes
for 2 hours a day for 6-8 days. Targeted
skills included both vocabulary and
story grammar; however, vocabulary
skills were the only aspect measured.
Deaf children's vocabulary was en-
hanced with exposure to video(s) that
provided signed support within the
videos (Loeterman et al, 2002), and
the greatest gains were found for chil-
dren between the ages of 7 and 9 years
who were on a first-grade reading
level. The scores of children ages 9 and
above displayed an average 50%
increase from pretest to posttest. An
additional study involving 4 deaf chil-
dren between the ages of 2 and 5
years, indicated that videos in signed
language that were incorporated dur-
ing shared reading led to increased
vocabulary for those children (Mueller
& Hurtig, 2010). Although they are
derived from a small body of work,
these results suggest that deaf chil-
dren, like hearing children, can gain
vocabulary knowledge through educa-
tionally oriented media.
The positive infiuence of educa-
tional media has also been found in
studies of older deaf children who
engaged with multimedia materials,
particularly multimedia storytelling
(Andrews & Jordan, 1998; Ju, 2009;
Snoddon, 2010). For example, when
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
deaf 9-to-18-year-olds viewed multime-
dia stories on CD-ROM with print and
pictures, they had a significantly higher
level of story knowledge (measured
through story retellings) than those
deaf children who viewed the stories
in print only (Gentry Chinn, & Moul-
ton, 2005). Although the researchers
noted that a significant difference was
not found when sign language was
added to the stories viewed on CD-
ROM, this may have been due to the
fact that the signing was computer
generated. The studies cited here
again highlight that multimedia mate-
rials can have a positive impact on
deaf children at various ages and on
another important skill (i.e., knowl-
edge of story elements).
Although research examining edu-
cational media in ASL and preschool
deaf children's literacy learning is lim-
ited, very recent studies have shown
positive effects of an interactive educa-
tional video in ASL (with no sound).
Golos (2006, 2010a, 2010b) examined
whether 25 preschool deaf children
visually attended to, engaged with, and
learned from an adventure-based edu-
cational video in ASL. The video incor-
porated research-based strategies to
elicit attention and engagement as well
as research-based strategies used by
Deaf adults to foster ASL skills and
literacy development (in written En-
glish) in deaf children (Erting, Thu-
mann-Prezioso, & Bendict, 2000; Gale
& Schick, 2009; Maxwell, 1988; Pad-
den, 1991). Results indicated that deaf
preschoolers attended to the 40-
minute video an average of 84% of the
time and learned the vocabulary words
targeted in the video, with statistically
significant gains found from pretest to
posttest. Participants also engaged in a
multitude of literacy behaviors during
their viewings of the video, including
sequencing, predicting, signing, fin-
gerspelling targeted vocabulary, and
attending to text printed on the
screen. These behaviors increased
after the participants had watched the
video multiple times. (For example,
there was an increase of 25 signed tar-
geted vocabulary per child after the
third viewing.) This was the case for
all of the participants, regardless of the
type of program they attended (i.e..
Total Communication, oral, ASL-Eng-
lish). As in the studies mentioned ear-
lier, educational videos seem effective
in promoting vocabulary knowledge in
deaf children. However, educational
videos for deaf preschoolers have not
been evaluated with regard to chil-
dren's previous exposure to ASL or the
videos' impact on a broader range of
key early language and literacy skills,
including knowledge of stoiy elements.
Strategies That Facilitate
Deaf Children's Learning
From Educational Media
When the strategies that facilitate deaf
children's language and literacy skills
are being considered, effective strate-
gies can be implemented during face-
to-face interactions as well as in
interactions recorded on video and
other media. For instance, adults' use
of strategies to interact with deaf chil-
dren during shared reading can be
applied to media interactions, such as
in technology-enhanced shared read-
ings. Use of e-books, for instance, was
found to lead to greater time spent in
shared reading activities and increased
sign vocabulary acquisition (Meuller
& Hurtig, 2010). Effective strategies
culled from face-to-face interactions
include showing ASL and English print
at the same time, using "sandwiching"
and/or "chaining" when signing a
word, pointing to the English print, fin-
gerspelling the word and signing it
again (Akamatsu & Andrews, 1993; Ert-
ing, 2001; Erting & Pfau, 1997; Padden
& Ramsey 1998). Additional strategies
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
DEAF CHILDREN LEARNING FROM EDUCATIONAL MEDIA
Deaf adults use during "live" activities
include facial expression, role-play,
and group and individual eye gaze
(Blumenthal-Kelly, 1995; Erting, 2001;
Erting & Pfau, 1997; Mather, 1989).
Recent efforts have involved the
implementation of effective face-to-
face strategies in recorded inter-
actions, with the specific goal of
improving young deaf children's lan-
guage and literacy skills (Golos, 2006,
2010a, 2010b; Golos & Moses, 2011).
Along with educational goals, the
development of educational media in
ASL and subsequent studies has been
framed by theories of emergent liter-
acy and multiliteracies and has inte-
grated research-based strategies that
promote deaf children's vocabulary
skills and literacy-related behaviors
during viewing. As a result of these
efforts, initial studies found that these
same strategies can be used in educa-
tional media with positive results
(Golos, 2006, 2010a, 2010b; Golos &
Moses, 2011). However, questions
remained about the effects of educa-
tional media on preschool deaf chil-
dren's acquisition of a broader range of
early literacy skills.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was
to investigate the extent to which deaf
children who are exposed to ASL in
the home and/or school gain the spe-
cific language and literacy skills tar-
geted in an educational DVD series
created for deaf preschool-aged chil-
dren. Two research questions guided
the study:
1. Does viewing an educational
video in ASL positively impact
deaf preschoolers' acquisition of
vocabulary words in ASL and
printed English as well as story
elements (identifying and
sequencing of main events and
identifying main characters and
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
setting) targeted within the
video?
2. Does the impact of the video
vary by children's baseline ASL
skills?
A quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest
design was used to address the two
research questions.
Method
Participants
Participants in the present study
included a convenience sample of 3-to-
6-year-old deaf students (A'^ = 31) and
their teachers (N = 7). The teachers
and their students were recruited from
preschool programs for the deaf and
hard of hearing in the United States
and Canada that incorporated ASL in
some way into the classroom. The set-
tings were residential, self-contained,
and day programs. While 37 children
were initially recruited and had
parental consent to participate, due to
the hearing status of 2 of the children
(i.e., hearing with Deaf parents) and
missing data for 4 participants, the final
participant pool for this investigation
was 31, of whom 16 were boys and 15
were girls. All seven of the participat-
ing teachers were female. According to
the surveys completed by parents of
the participants, there were 6 partici-
pants each who were ages 3, 4, and 5
years old, and 7 participants who were
6 years old. (Parents did not report an
age for 6 participants.)
Parents also reported on hearing
status, use and type of amplification,
age at identification, the age at which
the child began to sign, and the num-
ber of signs known by the child at the
time of the present study.
With regard to hearing status, 2 chil-
dren were reported to have a mild
hearing loss, 1 child was reported to
have mild to moderate hearing loss, 2
were reported to have moderate hear-
ing loss, 4 were reported as having
moderate to severe hearing loss, 2
were reported as having severe hear-
ing loss, 1 was reported as having
severe to profound hearing loss, and
11 were reported as having profound
hearing loss. (Hearing status was not
reported for 8 participants.)
Six of the 31 children had cochlear
implants, 16 used hearing aids, and 5
were reported to use no amplifica-
tion. Parents of 4 participants did not
complete the item on mode of ampli-
fication.
Fifteen children had been identified
at birth as having some degree of hear-
ing loss, 5 had been identified between
the ages of 1 and 3 years, and 3 had
been identified at or above age 3.
(Information on age of identification
was not provided for 8 children.)
With regard to the age at which chil-
dren began to sign, the average was
2.4 years (SD = 1.2 years). Five partic-
ipants had begun to sign by their first
birthday, 13 between their first and
third birthdays, and 5 between their
third and fourth birthdays.
At the time of the present study, 7
children were reported to know 0-100
words, 4 were reported to know
101-400 words, and 4 were reported
to know 401 words or more. (Informa-
tion on 16 children was not provided.)
Finally, parents who completed the
survey reported on the type of com-
munication they (as the parent) used
at home. Two reported using ASL (n
= 2), 2 oral communication, and 19 a
combination of ASL and oral. (Infor-
mation on 8 children was not pro-
vided.) Parents varied in their
(self-reported) years of signing, rang-
ing from less than 1 year (n = 7) to
1-2 years (n = 5) to more than 2
years of signing (n = S). (Information
was not provided by the parents of 11
children.) While not all parents used
ASL in the home, all children were
exposed to ASL in the classroom to
some extent.
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
Materials
The videos used in the present study
came from an original educational
media series called Peter's Picture,
available on DVD (only), that features
characters who go on themed-based
adventures. Each video has the same
structure, with the only differences
being the focal theme and the vocabu-
lary words surrounding that theme.
One of the videos in the series (Golos,
2005) had been previously evaluated
for its effectiveness in capturing and
maintaining the visual attention of deaf
children ages 3-6 years (Golos, 2006,
2010a, 2010b), and its physical demon-
strations of engagement related to the
literacy and ASL content (e.g., signing
and fingerspelling, along with charac-
ters, commenting and asking ques-
tions about the content of the video;
see above under "Review of the Litera-
ture"). Extant evidence demonstrated
that deaf children at this age could
attend to, comprehend, and learn
from a video of this length and struc-
ture. The videos in the present study
had similar length, structure, charac-
ters, and curriculum.
Three videos were used in the pres-
ent study, each running approximately
40 minutes in ASL (with no sound) and
targeting key early ASL and literacy
skills (i.e., vocabulary, letter recogni-
tion, concepts of print, comprehen-
sion, and grammatical features of ASL).
During every live-action video in the
Peter's Picture series, the main charac-
ter (a Deaf adult) and his sidekick (a
hearing raccoon) take four deaf chil-
dren on a trip; in this study, trips
included visits to a pizza parlor, a
library, and a country backyard. Prior to
the trip, the main character discusses
what they will see, including objects
that represent each target vocabulary
words (e.g., library card, librarian).
Upon returning, they sequence pic-
tures of events that took place during
their trip and create a storybook that
VoLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
reflects the trip. Each video concludes
with the main character signing the
newly created storybook aloud.
Ten vocabulary words are incorpo-
rated into each video, with five empha-
sized for instruction, as recommended
by researchers (Caldern, 2005), and
each word is related to a theme, as pre-
viously mentioned. Vocabulary and
other targeted skills are repeatedly
presented in both ASL and printed
English, and several strategies are
employed to increase learning, as
highlighted earlier (i.e., showing ASL
and English at the same time, asking
viewers to sign along with the charac-
ters, etc.). (For a further description of
the structure of each video, see Golos
& Moses, 2011).
Measures
Participants were assessed at two time
pointsprior to viewing one of the
videos (pretest) and after watching the
video on two occasions (posttest).
Pretest assessments included a meas-
ure of participants' general ASL skills
by means of the ASL Receptive Skills
Test (Enns, Zimmer, Broszeit, & Rabu,
2013) and a researcher-developed
assessment that measured the skills
targeted in the videos, ihc Peter's Pic-
ture Assessment Tool (PPAT), which is
specific to the video series. During the
posttest time point, participants com-
pleted the PPAT for a second time.
Baseline ASL Receptive Skills
The ASL Receptive Skills Test was used
in the present study to obtain a base-
line measure of the children's ASL
receptive skills. The test is video based
to ensure the consistency of instruc-
tions and test items signed by a native
ASL signer. There are three practice
sentences and 45 test items, which
assess the following grammatical areas:
number/distribution, noun/verb dis-
tinctions, spatial verbs, classifiers, role
shift, and conditionals. Participants
4)
were asked to indicate their answer by
pointing to one of four pictures on the
screen.
Prior to taking the assessment, chil-
dren are given an expressive/receptive
vocabulary "screener" in which 20 com-
mon vocabulary picture cards are used.
This portion of the assessment is
administered "live"; that is, the admin-
istrator shows a participant each of the
20 picture cards individually, and asks
the child to provide the sign that corre-
sponds to the picture card. If the child
cannot produce a sign (expressive
vocabulary) for any particular card, the
cards are shuffled. Then, the adminis-
trator places four cards (including the
target card), signs the target vocabu-
lary word, and asks the child to point to
the correct picture (receptive vocabu-
lary). If a child misses 5 or more out of
the 20 words (total, including recep-
tive vocabulary words), that child does
not go on to the main, video-based part
of the test.
This assessment has undergone two
rounds of pilot testing (as reported in
Enns & Herman, 2011) to adapt and
revise the already standardized and
normed British Sign Language: Recep-
tive Skills Test (Herman, Holmes &
Woll, 1999), and it is currently being
normed for deaf children (as indicated
in Enns & Herman, 2011).
Assessment of Targeted
(Program-Specific) ASL
and Early Literacy Skills
Participants also completed an assess-
ment we had developed, the Peter's
Picture Assessment TooL The PPAT is
also a video-based assessment, in
which a (filmed) Deaf adult fluent
in ASL introduces and administers
instructions and each item in ASL on
the video. With respect to the targeted
skills, the PPAT assesses vocabulary
words and knowledge of story ele-
ments (including sequencing main
events and identifying events, plot, set-
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAE
DEAF CHILDREN LEARNING FROM EDUCATIONAL MEDIA
ting, and characters) that are explicitly
introduced and repeated in the video
series. With respect to target vocabu-
lary knowledge, the assessment tool
was designed to be structured similarly
to other standardized language meas-
ures (e.g., Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test; L. M. Dunn & D. M. Dunn, 2007),
and includes items that measure partic-
ipants' understanding of the targeted
vocabulary words in the modalities of
(a) sign to picture (10 items), (b) fin-
gerspelling to picture (10 items), (c)
sign to print (10 items), and (d) finger-
spelling to print (10 items). A practice
question is included for each of the
vocabulaiy subtests. When children
are completing each vocabulary item,
the (filmed) Deaf adult asks them to
choose from one of four pictures to
identify the picture that matches the
signed (and fingerspelled) concept.
The four choice are (a) a picture that
shows the target vocabulary word
{e.g., pizza, signed "ZZa"), (b) a pic-
ture that shows an item that is signed
similarly to the targeted concept (e.g.,
snake), (c) a picture that shows an
object that looks similar to the tar-
geted concept (e.g., pie), and (d) a pic-
ture that shows a distracter item (e.g.,
a drink in a glass). The vocabulaiy sub-
test has a total possible score of 40,
and each participant's score on this
subtest was included by summing the
number of correct answers across the
four sections that measured target
vocabulary (sign to picture, finger-
spelling to picture, sign to print, and
ngerspelling to print).
The second part of the PPAT involves
asking participants questions about ele-
ments of the story that they viewed in
the video. This subtest includes four
items, for which children choose one
correct picture from a total of four pic-
tures, and the items focus on children's
recognition of main characters (e.g.,
"Which one of these pictures is [main
character's name] ?") and key plot ele-
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
ments (e.g., "What happened when
[sidekick character] left the door open
and the chicken escaped?"). The story
elements subtest has a total possible
score of 4. Each participant's score for
this subtest was calculated by summing
the number of correct answers across
the four items.
In the final part of the PPAT, children
are asked to correctly sequence events
that occur in the video using five lami-
nated picture cards, each representing
a different main event from the story
(similar to the pictures presented in the
sequencing portion of the video). The
sequencing subtest has a total possible
score of 5 (1 point for each picture
being placed in the correct order). Par-
ticipants were scored on the number of
pictures they chose in the correct "posi-
tion" (what happened first, second,
third, fourth, and fifth in the story), and
the total number of correct answers was
summed for their sequencing subtest
scores.
Calculating the PPAT Total Score
The total PPAT score, which included
all vocabulary, story elements, and
sequencing items, was calculated for
data analysis. Because the subtest
scores varied in the possible range (i.e.,
40 possible points for the vocabulary
subtest, 4 possible points for story ele-
ments subtest, etc.), each participant's
subtotal scores were weighted, using
percent correct scores, in order to cal-
culate the PPAT total score. That is, a
participant's total score for the vocab-
ified accordingly
ulary subtest was divided by 40 to cal-
culate a percentage correct vocabulary
subtest score; the total score for the
story elements subtest was divided by
4; the total score for the sequencing
subtest was divided by 5. Then, all of
the percentage correct subtest scores
were summed together to calculate a
weighted PPAT total score for each par-
ticipant. The weighted PPAT total score
for each participant was then used to
examine statistical differences between
pretest and posttest scores.
Reliability and Validity
of the PPAT
The PPAT was specifically created to
study the impact of the video sedes on
deaf viewers. That is, it aims to assess
the ASL and early literacy skills specif-
ically targeted in the video (i.e., pro-
gram-specific skills). The instrument
was not created to measure general-
ized (i.e., more comprehensive) ASL
or early literacy skills, such as those
that might be measured by a standard-
ized assessment of early literacy for
deaf children. Because deaf children
have varied and often limited expres-
sive skills, the PPAT was developed as
a receptive measure and designed to
align with measures previously used to
evaluate the effects of educational
media on narrative skills. Eor example,
in previous studies (e.g., Linebarger &
Piotrowski, 2009), children were asked
fewer than 10 total questions on
sequencing and story knowledge. The
PPAT has 9 questions for these areas.
The PPAT was reviewed by experts in
the field, including ASL development
and preschool curriculum specialists,
with respect to the constructs meas-
ured (vocabulary and story elements),
the content addressed across the
items, and the procedures through
which participants' vocabulary knowl-
edge and knowledge of story elements
were obtained. Feedback was taken
into account, and measures were mod-
In addition, the PPAT was piloted on
six deaf and hard of hearing preschool
children and their parents in the
home. At pretest and posttest, parents
administered a version of the PPAT that
was not video-recorded, and parents
and their child viewed the videos three
times within 1 week. At the end of the
week, parents participated in inter-
views and completed surveys to pro-
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
vide feedback on the clarity and appro-
priateness of the test items as well as
the clarity and ease of administration
procedures. The measure was modi-
fied on the basis of this feedback; for
example, several parents commented
that some of the pictures were too
small or unclear. These pictures were
replaced and the images made bigger
and clearer. In addition, to ensure con-
sistency across test administrations,
the instrument was adapted into a
DVD version. The current PPAT (in
DVD format) includes the instructions,
practice items, and test items signed
by a Deaf adult fluent in ASL, whose
signing was recorded and played back
on a computer monitor during admin-
istration of the PPAT.
Finally, statistics were calculated to
examine (a) concurrent validity and
(b) internal consistency of the PPAT. A
correlation analysis was conducted
between participants' scores on the
PPAT (pretest) and on the ASL Recep-
tive Skills Test (pretest) to address
concurrent validity The correlation
coefficient was significant at .79 (p <
.001), which indicates a strong rela-
tionship between scores on the two
instruments. In addition, a Cronbach's
alpha statistic was calculated to ex-
amine the internal consistency of the
PPAT. The alpha coefficient reached
"good" consistency for PPAT at pretest
(a = .840) as well as posttest (a = .885).
Parent Survey
In addition to the child measures, a
parent or guardian of each participant
was asked to complete a questionnaire
that provided demographic informa-
tion (i.e., child's age, parent's level of
education) as well as information
about the child's hearing status and
the mode of communication used in
the home (i.e., degree of hearing loss;
age at identification; parent's, or par-
ents', signing skills; parental hearing
status; early intervention; and chil-
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
dren's exposure to ASL). The parent
also completed items about the child's
television and video viewing habits
(average number of hours of viewing
per day, favorite programs, etc.).
Procedure
After gaining teacher and parent per-
missions, and after the completed
parent questionnaires were received,
participating teachers as well as
research assistants attended a 1-hour
information session to learn about the
background and purpose of the proj-
ect. The lead researcher demonstrated
how to show one of the videos to par-
ticipating children. Other than show
the video in its entirety on two occa-
sions, teachers and research assistants
were instructed not to mediate the
viewing experience, that is, not to
encourage children to interact during
the viewings and not to focus or expand
upon the video content before, during,
or after the viewings. (For results of a
study involving teacher mediation of
the videos, see Golos & Moses, 2011).
The teachers and research assistants
also learned how to administer the ASL
Receptive Skills Test and the PPAT.
One week prior to viewing the
video, the teachers or a member of the
research team assessed participating
children individually on the ASL Recep-
tive Skills Test. Then, the day before
the first video viewing, the teacher or
a researcher administered the PPAT to
participants individually
During the viewing session, teach-
ers showed one video to groups of
three to five participating children in a
space separated from nonparticipating
children. They explained that the par-
ticipants would be watching a video
and that normal classroom behavioral
rules should be followed. Participants
watched one of the videos twice in 1
week. Two of the videos in the series
were viewed by two groups, and one
video was viewed by three groups. At
the conclusion of the second viewing,
the PPAT was administered for a sec-
ond time, with the same procedure
used as in the pretest administration.
Data Analysis Plan
Data were entered in Microsoft Excel
and then imported into SPSS 18 so that
descriptive and inferential statistics
could be generated. Data were first
analyzed descriptively to provide
measures of central tendency (means)
and spread (range, standard devia-
tions) of the main variables (see
Results and Table 1) and to enable
examination of demographic and back-
ground characteristics of participants
(reported earlier and in Results). Then,
a 2 (time: pretest, posttest) x 2 (ASL
baseline groups: low/medium, high)
split-plot ANOVA was conducted, with
the dependent variable being the
weighted PPAT total scores, to address
both research questions. First, the
main effect of the analysis addressed
the first research question, which
could be summarized as "Do partici-
pants' pretest PPAT total scores differ
significant from their posttest PPAT
total scores?" Second, the interaction
effect addressed the second research
question, that is, whether participants'
initial ASL skill level interacted with
their PPAT total scores (e.g., did partic-
ipants who scored low/medium on the
ASL Receptive Skills Test significantly
differ from pretest to posttest as com-
pared to participants who scored high
on the ASL Receptive Skills Test?). In
order to determine initial ASL skill
level, participants were categorized
into groups by their score on the ASL
Receptive Skills Test, which was com-
pleted at pretest. When they were sep-
arated into three approximately equal
groups (low = 10, medium = 9, and
high = 11; recall that one participant
did not complete the ASL Receptive
Skills Test), no significant difference
was found between the low and
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
DEAF CHILDREN LEARNING FROM EDUCATIONAL MEDLA.
medium groups with regard to the
total PPAT scores at pretest, t(17) =
-.056,p = .956, or at posttest, (17) =
-.001, p - .999. However, significant
differences were found between the
low and high groups at pretest, ;(19) =
-2.98,p = .008, and posttest, (19) =
-2.358, p = .029, as well as the
medium and high groups at those time
points: pretest, i(18) = -2.761, p =
.013, and posttest, t(18) = -5.019,p =
.007. Therefore, the between-subjects
variable for the split-plot ANOVA
involved comparing two groups:
low/medium (scoring between 0 and
11 correct on the ASL Receptive Skills
Test, n = 19) and high (scoring be-
tween 12 and 29 correct on the ASL
Receptive Skills Test, n =11). Table 1
includes the ranges, mean scores, and
standard deviations at pretest and
posttest for the two ASL baseline
groups.
Results
Results from the split-plot ANOVA
showed a significant main effect: The
participants' pretest weighted PPAT
total score significantly differed from
their posttest weighted PPAT total
score, i?(l, 28) = 23.32, j5 < .001, Tip^
= .454. Mean scores indicated that the
average weighted posttest score (M =
.51, SD = .33) was higher than the
average weighted pretest score (M =
.90, SD = .60). (See Figure 1 for a dis-
play of the means and confidence
intervals at pretest and posttest.)
As mentioned above in the discus-
sion of the data analysis plan, partici-
pants were categorized by their score
on the ASL Receptive Skills Test
(low/medium vs. high). The split-plot
ANOVA revealed no significant interac-
tion between baseline ASL scores and
weighted PPAT total scores, F(l, 28) =
1.61, p = .215, Tip^ = .054 (note the
small and unequal subsample size).
Figure 2 displays the weighted pretest
and posttest PPAT total mean scores
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
Table 1
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations at Pretest and Posttest on (Weighted) PPAT
Total Scores for Participants Scoring Low/Medium or High (A/= 30) on the ASL
Receptive Skills Test
ASL level Administration time point M SD Range (minimum, maximum)
Low/mediumj Pretest 0.38 0.22 0.68 (.05, .73)
(n=19) Posttest 0.70 0 55 2.25 (0.05, 2 30)
High Pretest 0.75 0.34 1.15(0.30, 1.45)
(1=11) Posttest 1.31 0.49 1.63(0.53,2.15)
Notes. PPAT = Peter's Picture Assessment Tool ASL = American Sign Language.
for the low/medium and the high ASL key early literacy and ASL skills. Based
skills groups (see Figure 2). on prior research related to media
effects on hearing as well as young
Discussion deaf children, it was expected that
Early exposure to language and literacy even a small level of exposure would
is critical for all children, but particu- have a positive impact on the targeted
larly for deaf children who are at risk of skills of deaf preschoolers.
literacy failure. A variety of interven- Vocabulary, for example, is a critical
tions have been created to increase the skill for literacy development and suc-
language and literacy skills of this pop- cess. Previous research indicates that
ulation, and certain strategies have deaf preschoolers can learn five tar-
been found to be effective. In the pres- geted vocabulary words in both ASL
ent study, the Peter's Picture educa- and printed English after viewing one
tional media series was used to target video from the educational series used
Figure 1
Means and Confidence Intervals (CIs) for Participants' Pretest and Posttest Scores
(Total) on the Peter's P/cfure Assessment Tool (PPAT)
1.2-
0.8-
o.a-
0.4-
0.2-
PretertPPAT Posttest PPAT
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
Figure 2
Pretest and Posttest (Weighted) PPAT Total Mean Scores by ASL (Baseline) Skill
Level (Low/Medium, High)
1.2S-'
0.7SH
0.SO-
Q.2S-
Pretest
Time Point
Notes. PPAT = Peter's Picture Assessment Tool. ASL = American Sign Language.
in the present investigation (Golos,
2006; Golos, & Moses, 2011). Results
from the present study provide addi-
tional evidence that deaf preschoolers
can learn other vocabulary words and
recognize and demonstrate target
words in a range of modesin pictures,
fingerspelling, and signing, as well as in
print. However, prior to this study, litfle
was known about the series' impact on
literacy skills other than vocabulary, and
the question remained whether videos
that use research-based strategies could
enhance aspects of deaf preschoolers'
knowledge of story elements in addi-
tion to vocabulary knowledge.
The videos used in the present
study targeted a number of compo-
nents related to understanding a story
(i.e., characters, settings, story events,
and sequencing). Knowledge of tar-
geted story elements was assessed
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
ASL Skill Level
Low/Medium
Posttest
before and after viewing, and results
showed a significant increase from
pretest to posttest. The fact that, on
average, children were able to identify
key characters, settings, and story
events, and to sequence main events
in the correct order, indicates that they
understood the storyline of the se-
lected video.
To the best of our knowledge, the
present study is the first to show evi-
dence of media having a positive effect
on aspects of preschool deaf children's
literacy skills other than vocabulary.
Although it has long been known that
comprehension skills are crucial for lit-
eracy development, only in the last few
decades have steps been taken to facil-
itate the development of comprehen-
sion skills at the preschool level. It is
critical that early childhood educators
facilitate the development of compre-
hension skills, and educational videos
may provide an additional medium to
support strategies already used in the
classroom.
Although previous research sug-
gests that children learn after viewing
educational media regardless of the
communication modality used in
school programs (Golos, 2006, 2010a,
2010b; Golos & Moses, 2011), the pres-
ent study is the first that specifically
measured children's baseline ASL
skills. Although there was great vari-
ability in scores on the PPAT (range,
standard deviation), this is not surpris-
ing given the high variability of scores
on the ASL Receptive Skills Test (i.e.,
participants' baseline ASL skiU level),
and it was important to consider this
variation when examining learning
from the video (see research question
2 and analysis). It is also not surprising
that children with higher baseline ASL
skills scored higher on the PPAT than
children with lower baseline skills. At
present it remains unknown how
adding sound to the video could affect
learning, yet it is interesting that all of
the children were able to learn tar-
geted skills in a format without sound
and did so regardless of their baseline
ASL skills.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of the present study is
that the measures did not include use
of a standardized early literacy instru-
ment before and after viewing of a
video. As a result, the study's results
cannot be generalized beyond the
skills targeted in the videos and
measured with the PPAT. Furthermore,
there are additional skills that are
incorporated both within and across
each video that have not yet been
measured (i.e., letter recognition, con-
cepts of print, and grammatical con-
structions in ASL). A future step could
be to expand the PPAT to include
assessment of these additional skills in
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
DEAF CHILDREN LEARNING FROM EDUCATIONAL MEDL\
addition to examination of the transfer
of learning to a standardized early liter-
acy assessment.
Related to the measurements, both
the PPAT and the ASL Receptive Skills
Test used a video format, which allowed
for consistency across administrations
(i.e., all items were presented by the
onscreen Deaf adult fiuent in ASL).
The only responsibility the teacher or
member of the research team had
when administering the assessments
was to document the participants'
responses to each item on a prepared
scoring sheet. Although they were
videotaped and viewed by the re-
searchers, there was no formal check
for the two items within the PPAT story
elements subtest for interrater reliabil-
ity. That is, the onscreen adult asked
for a signed response from the child
and responses ranged from one word
to one short sentence. Questions
regarding scoring on these two items
(i.e., whether a participant received a
"1," correct, or "0," incorrect) were
referred to us before final scoring was
recorded and entered.
Another set of limitations relates to
the present study's design. A pretest/
posttest design provided the ability to
compare participants' changes in scores
as a result of viewing the stimulus (two
viewings of the video); however, the
study did not include a control condi-
tion to compare viewing participants
to similar nonviewing participants.
This limits the generalizability of the
results. In addition, results from this
study show benefits from viewing one
video on two occasions in a 1-week
period. Therefore, another limitation is
that the effects of viewing a video more
than a handful of times and/or over a
longer period of time are unknown.
Also, although each teacher and mem-
ber of the research team was trained on
how to structure each viewing session
with participants and used the same set
of directions to introduce and show the
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
video, there was no formal check of
fidelity of the implementation.
With regard to the skills assessed in
the present study, there are also skills
embedded across videos that children
might learn with greater exposure. For
example, in addition to the five tar-
geted theme-related vocabulary
words, five additional literacy-related
words are incorporated into each
video (tide, sentence, word, page,
story). Finally, although participants
made significant improvements in the
short term (approximately 1 week),
the design of the present investigation
cannot speak to whether participants
retained the targeted skills after the
experiment concluded (i.e., there was
no check for longer-term maintenance
of learning) or whether they could
learn skills from exposure to multiple
videos from the series, as opposed to
just one. Future researchers should
consider continuing this line of exper-
imental work with the inclusion of a
control group and/or delayed posttests
of the targeted skills.
Implications and Directions
for Future Research
The results of the present study pro-
vide a number of potential avenues for
future research. While the study's
results relate only to deaf children who
have had at least some exposure to
ASL, participants varied in hearing loss
and use of amplification yet generally
learned the targeted skills and do so
through visual strategies used in the
videos (rather than sound-based
strategies). It would be informative to
examine the benefits of the educa-
tional video series with and without
sound using a larger randomized sam-
ple of children who utilize amplifica-
tion devices (e.g., cochlear implants)
in comparison to those who do not
use them. Participants in this study
generally learned the targeted skills,
doing so through visual, rather than
sound-based, strategies used in the
videos. Future studies could also ana-
lyze the impact of viewing this educa-
tional video series with and without
sound on additional literacy skills, such
as letter recognition, concepts of print,
and emergent writing, and include a
more in-depth examination of finger-
spelling as a bridge to English and as a
decoding tool. Such research would
produce much-needed information on
strategies to facilitate the development
of deaf children's early literacy skills. If
a growing body of evidence continues
to support the use of multimedia
learning with deaf children, this could
have a direct effect on literacy instruc-
tion for this population.
Recent studies have also shown that
children may learn more when teach-
ers scaffold their knowledge by en-
couraging interacdon with language
and literacy elements during educa-
tional media encounters (e.g., Golos &
Moses, 2011; Linebarger, 2009). Based
on that research, it is anticipated that
the growth of these skills will increase
if teachers integrate viewing into the
classroom over an extended period
and are provided with materials to sup-
plement learning during and between
viewings. To extend this line of future
research, it would also be worth
exploring whether and how the strate-
gies that are embedded within the
video series connect with and carry
over into teachers' daily lesson plans.
Informal data from participating teach-
ers' comments during previous studies
(e.g., Golos & Moses, 2011) indicate
the potential to further increase lan-
guage and literacy learning by applying
strategies demonstrated in the videos.
Even if program-specific words, for
instance, may not directly connect
with classroom lessons or units, im-
plementing the media series may
encourage teachers to use some of
the same strategies (e.g., chaining) to
target other vocabulary words and
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
early literacy skills (e.g., during read-
alouds).
Conclusion
Cbildren, bearing and deaf, are living
in a world rieb witb multimedia tecb-
nology, and tbe potential exists to use
tbis tecbnology to facilitate tbe devel-
opment of language and literacy skills
of young deaf cbildren, wbo are at risk
for later reading failure. Witb tbis
potential comes a need for caution
and empirical evidence: Multimedia
resources for deaf cbildren sbould be
designed to incorporate multiple
researcb-based visual strategies and
sbould be educational and of bigb
quality. Multimedia tbat provide fluent
language models, bave a sound cur-
riculum witb appropriate and targeted
goals and objectives, and tbat employ
researcb-based strategies bave tbe
greatest potential to bave a positive
impact on cbildren. However, tbey
sbould be used to supplement ratber
tban replace face-to-face interactions.
Tbe video series we bave discussed in
tbe present article provides one model
for interventions to increase tbe emerg-
ing literacy and ASL skills of deaf
prescboolers, regardless of tbeir initial
ASL skills. It also provides additional
support for tbe argument tbat deaf cbil-
dren can make important gains wben
exposed to ASL and researcb-based
visual strategies tbrougb researcb-
tested educational media programs,
and tbat tbese media materials can con-
tribute to a ricber literacy and language
environment in the classroom and at
bome.
Researcbers bave bigbligbted tbe
importance of developing effective
curricula and curricular materials for
deaf cbildren, botb for tbose wbo do
and tbose wbo do not bave access to
sound (e.g., Easterbrooks & Huston,
2008). Multimedia materials are one
resource teacbers can use in tbe class-
room to facilitate early literacy skills.
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
and bave tbe potential tofilla gap in
tbe landscape of curricular materials
for teacbers of tbe deaf For deaf cbil-
dren witb bearing parents, wbo may
not bave access to incidental learning
opportunities and/or fiuent language
models, tbe results of tbe present
study suggest that certain early liter-
acy skills, including vocabulary and
knowledge of story elements, may be
learned from engaging witb multi-
media materials. Although tbese skills
are important for future literacy suc-
cess, tbey are not tbe only skills witbin
tbe realm of literacy development.
Witb evidence tbat media can be an
effective tool for prescbool deaf cbil-
dren, results sucb as tbose of tbe pres-
ent study bave tbe potential to open
doors for future studies examining
additional components of language
and literacy.
Notes
1. In tbe present article, we use deaf
to refer to anyone witb bearing loss
(including people wbo are bard of
bearing) and Deaf to refer to someone
wbo is considered to be part of tbe
Deaf community.
2. Also, we use tbe term w'^w/Zan-
guage to refer to sign languages used
tbrougbout tbe worid; in tbe present
article, we focus on ASL, however.
Tberefore, our use of tbe term does
not include visual codes of language
(e.g.. Cued Speecb) or pbonology
(e.g.. Visual Pbonics).
References
Akamatsu, C. T., & Andrews, J. F. (1993). It takes
two to be literate: Literacy interactions
between parent and child. Sign Language
Studies, 81, 333-360.
Allen, T. E., Clark, M. D., del Giudice, A, Koo, D.,
Lieberman, A., Mayberry, R., et al. (2009).
Phonology and reading: A response to Wang,
Trezek, Luckner, and Paul. American Annals
of the Deaf, 154{4), 338-345.
Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C , Schmitt, K.,
Linebarger, D. L., & Wright, J. C. (2001). Eady
childhood television viewing and adolescent
behavior: The recontact study Monographs
of the Societyfor Research in Child Develop-
ment, 66(1, Serial No. 264).
Anderson, D. R., & Lorch, E. P (1983). Looking
at television: Action or reaction? InJ. Bryant
& D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Children^s under-
standing of television: Research on atten-
tion and comprehension (pp. 1-33). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Andrews, J., Jordan, D. (1998). Multimedia sto-
ries for deaf children. Teaching Exceptional
Children,30{5), 28-33.
Bickham, D. S., Wright, J. C , & Huston, A. C.
(2001). Attention, comprehension, and the
educational influence of television. In D. G.
Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of
children and media (pp. 101-119). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blumenthal-Kelly,A. (1995). Fingerspelling inter-
action: A set of deaf parents and their deaf
daughter. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics
in Deaf communities (pp. 62-73). Washing-
ton, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Caldern, M. (2005, October). Developing lan-
guage, literacy, and content knowledge for
English language learners. Paper presented
at the Hispanic Achievement Conference,
Raleigh, NC.
Chambedain, C, & Mayberry, R. (2000). Theoriz-
ing about the relationship between American
Sign Language and reading. In C. Chamber-
lain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Lan-
guage acquisition by eye (pp. 221-260).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chamberlain, C, & Mayberry, R. (2008). ASL syn-
tactic and narrative comprehension in
skilled and less skilled adult readers: Bilin-
gual-bimodal evidence for the linguistic
basis of reading. Applied Psycholinguistics,
29, 368-388.
Clark, M. D., Gilbert, G. L., & Anderson, M. L.
(2011). Morphological knowledge and
decoding skills of deaf readers. Psychology,
2,109-116.
Corina, D., & Singleton, J. (2009). Develop-
mental social cognitive neuroscience:
Insights from deafness. Child Development,
80{4), 952-967. doi:10.1111/i.1467-8624.2009
.01310.x
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). PPVT-4 man-
ual. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Easterbrooks, S., & Huston, S. (2008). Signed
reading fluency of students who are deaf/
hard of hesi'mg. Journal ofDeaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 13{1), 37-54. doi:10.1093/
deafed/enmO3O
Enns, C , & Herman, R. (2011). Adapting the
Assessing British Sign Language Develop-
ment: Receptive Skills Tesi into American
Sign Language.yowrwa/ of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 16{3), 362-374. doi:10.1093/
deafed/enrO04
Enns, C , Zimmer, K., Broszeit, C , & Rabu, S.
(2013). Assessing ASL development: Recep-
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
DEAF CHILDREN LEARNING FROM EDUCATIONAL MEDIA
tive Skills Test. Winnipeg, Canada: Northern
Signs Research.
Erting, L. (2001). Book sharing the Deaf way: An
ethnographic study in a bilingual preschool
for deaf children. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62(12), 4031A.
Erting, L., & Pfau, J. (1997). Becoming bilingual:
Facilitating English literacy development
using ASL in preschool [Sharing Ideas series].
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Pre-
College National Mission Programs.
Erting, C, Thumann-Prezioso, C, & Benedict,
B. (2000). Bilingualism in a Deaf family: Fin-
gerspelling in early childhood. In P Spencer,
C. Erting, & M. Marschark (Eds.), The deaf
child in the family and at school Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eisch, S. M. (2004). Children'sleamingfivm edu-
cational television. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Freel, B. L. Clark, M. D., Anderson, M. L., Gilbert,
G., Musyoka, M. M., & Huser, P C. (2011).
Deaf inclividuals' bilingual abilities: American
Sign Language proficiency, reading skills, and
family characteristics. Psychology, 2, 18-23.
doi:10.4236/psych.2011.21003
Gale, E., & Schick, B. (2009). Symbol-infused joint
attention and language use in mothers with
deaf and hearing toddlers. American Annals
of the Deaf 153(5), 484-503. doi:10.1353/
aad.0.0066
Gentry, M., Chinn, K., & Moulton, R. (2005).
Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials
when u.sed with children who are deaf. Amer-
ican Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403.
doi:10.1353/aad.2005.0012
Golos, D. (2005). Peter's picture: Our trip to the
farm. Boulder, CO: Signing Sun.
Golos, D. (2006). Using instructional videos
in American Sign Language as a tool to
facilitate the development of emergent liter-
acy skills in deaf and hard of hearing pre-
school children (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. 3239427)
Golos, D. (2010a). Deaf children's engagement
in an educational video in American Sign
Language. American Annals of the Deaf
155(i), 360-368.
Golos, D. (2010b). Literacy behaviors of deaf
preschoolers during video viewing. Sign Lan-
guage Studies, 11(1), 76-99.
Golos, D. B., & Moses, A. M. (2011). How teacher
mediation during video viewing facilitates lit-
eracy behaviors. Sign Language Studies,
12(1), 98-118.
Herman, R., Holmes, S., & WoU, B. (1999). Av^ess-
ing British Sign Language development:
Receptive Skills Test. Coleford, England: Eor-
est Bookshop.
Hoffmeister, R. J. (2000). A piece of the puzzle:
ASL and reading comprehension in Deaf chil-
dren. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R.
Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by
eye (pp. 143-163). Mahwah, NJ: Hdbaum.
Huston, A. C, Wright, J. C, Marquis, J., & Green,
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
S. B. (1999). How children spend their time.
Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 912-925.
Ju, J. M. (2009). The effects of multimedia stories
of deaf or hard-of-hearing celebrities on the
reading comprehension and English words
learning of Taiwanese students with hearing
impairment. Asian Journal of Management
and Humanity Sciences, 4(2-3), 91-105.
Kyle, E E., & Harris, M. (2006). Concurrent cor-
relates and predictors of reading and spelling
achievement in deaf and hearing school chil-
dren.Joumal ofDeaf Studies and Deaf Edu-
cation, 11, 273-288.
Kyle, E E., & Harris, M. (2010). Predictors of
reading development in deaf children: A
3-year longitudinal study, foumal of Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 107(i), 229-243.
Linebarger, D. (2009). Evaluation of the
Between the lions Mississippi literacy initia-
tive. Retrieved from Public Broadcasting Ser-
vice website: http://pbskids.org/read/files/
BTL_Mississippi_April2009.pdf
Linebarger, D., & Piotrowski,J. T. (2009). TV as
storyteller: How exposure to television nar-
ratives impacts at-risk preschoolers' story
knowledge and narrative skills. British
foumal of Developmental Psychology,
27(1), 47-69.
Loeterman, M., Paul, P, & Donahue, S. (2002,
Eebruar)'). Reading and deaf children. Read-
ing Online, 5(6). Retrieved from http://www
.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HR
EE=loeterman/index.html
Lonigan, C.J., Farver,J. M., Phillips, B., &Clancy-
Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting the devel-
opment of preschool children's emergent
literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a
literacy-focused curriculum and two profes-
sional development models. Reading and
Writing Quarterly: An Interdisciplinary
foumal, 24, 305-337. doi:10.1007/slll45
-009-9214-6
Mather, S. (1989). Visually oriented teaching
strategies with Deaf preschool children. In C.
Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the Deaf
community (pp. 165-187). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Maxwell, M. (1988). The alphabetic principle of
ngerspelling. Sign Language Studies, 61,
377^04.
Mayberry, R. (2007). When timing is everything:
Age of first-language acquisition effects on
second-language learning. Applied Psy-
cholinguistics, 28, 537-549. doi:10.1017/
S0142716407070294
Mayberry, R. (2010). Eady language acquisition
and adult language ability: What sign lan-
guage reveals about the critical period for
language. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, lan-
guage, andeducation (Vol. 2, pp. 281-291).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mayberry, R. L, del Guidice, A. A., & Lieberman,
A. M. (2011). Reading achievement in rela-
tion to phonological coding and awareness
in deaf readers: A meta-analysis./owr/ of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 16(2),
164-188. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq049
Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early
literacy development of deaf children./oMr-
nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
/2(4), 411-431.
McQuarrie, L., & Parilla, R. (2009). Phonological
representations in deaf children: Rethinking
the "functional equivalence" hypothesis.
foumal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa-
tion, 14(2), 137-154. doi:10.1093/deafed/
ennO25
Miller, P, & Clark, D. (2011). Phonemic aware-
ness is not necessary to become a skilled
deaf reader, foumal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 23(5), 459^76. doi: 10
.1007/S10882-011-9246-0
Morford, J. P, & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). A reexam-
ination of "Early Exposure" and its implica-
tions for language acquisition by eye. In C.
Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry
(Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp.
111-128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moses, A. M. (2008). Impacts of television view-
ing on young children's literacy develop-
ment in the USA: A review of the literature.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1),
67-102.
Mueller, V, & Hurtig, R. (2010). Technology-
enhanced shared reading with deaf and
hard-of-hearing children: The role of a fluent
signing narrator, foumal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education,15(l), 72-101. doi:10
.1093/deafed/enp023
Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who
can't hear learn to read an alphabetic script?
A review of the literature on reading and
deafness./owm/ of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 5(1), 9-31. doi:10.1093/deafed/
5.1.9
Neuman, S. (1995). Literacy in the television
age: The myth of the TV effect. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Neuman, S. (2009). The case for multimedia pre-
sentations in learning: A theory of synergy. In
A. Bus & S. Neuman (Eds.),Multimedia and
literacy development: Improving achieve-
ment for young learners (pp. 4456). New
York, NY: Routledge.
New Ix)ndon Group. (1996). A pedagogy of mul-
tiliteracies: Designing social futures. Har-
vard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Nittrouer, S., Caldwell, A., Lowenstein,J. H., Tarr,
E., & HoUoman, C. (2012). Emergent literacy
in kindergartners with cochlear implants.
Ear and Hearing, 33(), 683-697. Retrieved
from Wolters Kluwer website: http://dx.doi
.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318258c98e
Padden, C. (1991). The acquisition of finger-
spelling by deaf children. In P Siple & S.
Fischer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign
language research: Vol. 2. Psychology
(pp. 191-210). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
Padden, C., & Ramsey C. (1998). Reading ability
in signing Deaf children. Topics in Lan-
guage Disorders, 18(4), 30-46. doi:10.1097/
00011363-199818040-00005
Paul, P. (1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge
and dewiness. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, i ( l ) , 3-15.
Paul, P (2003). Processes and components of
reading. In M. Marschark & P Spencer (Eds.),
Handbook of deaf students, language, and
education (pp. 97-109). New York, NY
Oxford University Press.
Paul, P (2009). Language and deafness (4th
ed.). Sudbuiy, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Paul, P, & Wang, Y (2006a). Literate thought and
deafness: A call for a new perspective and
line of research on literacy. Punjab Univer-
sityfoumal of Special Education [Pakistan],
2(1), 28-37.
Paul, P, & Wang, Y (2006b). Literate thought and
multiple literacies. Theory Into Practice,
45(4), 304-310. doi:10.1207/sl5430421tip
4504_3
Paul, P, & Wang, Y, (2012). Literate thought:
Understanding comprehension and liter-
acy. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Paul, P, Wang, Y, Txezek, B., & Luckner,J. (2009).
Phonology is necessaiy, but not sufficient. A
VOLUME 158, No. 4, 2013
rejoinder. American Annals of the Deaf,
154(4), 346-356.
Prinz, P, & Strong, M. (1998). ASL proficiency and
English literacy within a bilingual deaf educa-
tion model of instruction. Topics in Lan-
guage Disorders, 18(4), 47-60. doi:10.1097/
00011363-199818040-00006
Rathmann, C, Wolfgang, M., & Morgan, G.
(2007). Narrative structure and narrative
development in deaf children. Z)efwe.ssanrf
Education International, 9(4), 187-196.
Snoddon, K. (2010). Technology as a learning
tool for ASL literacy. Sign Language Studies
10(2), 197-213. doi:10.1353/sls.0.0039
St. Clair, J., & Schwetz, L. R. (2005). Between the
Lions as a classroom tool. The Reading
Teacher, 56(7), 656-(559.
Sulzby, E., & Teale, W (1991). Emergent literacy. In
R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P Mosenthal, & P D. Pear-
son (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. 2, pp. 727-758). New York, NY Longman.
Ttaxler, C. B. (2000). Measuring up to perform-
ance standards in reading and mathematics:
Achievement of selected deaf and hard-of-
hearing students in the national norming of
the ninth edition Stanford Achievement Test.
foumal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
5(4), 337-348. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.4.337
Uchikoshi, Y (2009). Effects of television on lan-
guage and literacy development. In A. G. Bus
& S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and lit-
eracy development: Improving achieve-
ment for young learners (pp. 182-195). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Wang, Y, Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J., & Paul, P V
(2008). The role of phonology and phono-
logically related skills in reading instruction
for students who are deaf or hard of hear-
ing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(4),
396-407.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emer-
gent literacy: Development from pre-readers
to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickensen
(Eds.), Handbook of early literaq,' research
(pp. 11-29). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Williams, C. (2004). Emergent literacy of deaf
chiidren. foumal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 9(4), 352-365. doi:10.1093/
deafed/enhO45
Wright, J. C, Huston, A. C, Murphy, K. C, St.
Peters, M., Pinon, M., Scantlin, R., et al.
(2001). The relations of early television view-
ing to school readiness and vocabulary of
children from low-income families: The Early
Window Project. Child Development,
1347-1366.
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
Copyright of American Annals of the Deaf is the property of American Annals of the Deaf
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.