Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
How Deaf American Sign Language/English Bilingual
Children Become Proficient Readers: An Emic Perspective
Judith L.Mounty*, Concetta T.Pucci, Kristen C.Harmon
Gallaudet University
Received September 12, 2012; revisions received September 26, 2013; accepted September 27, 2013
A primary tenet underlying American Sign Language/
English bilingual education for deaf students is that early
access to a visual language, developed in conjunction with
language planning principles, provides a foundation for liter-
acy in English. The goal of this study is to obtain an emic per-
spective on bilingual deaf readers transitioning from learning
to read to reading to learn. Analysis of 12 interactive, semi-
structured interviews identified informal and formal teach-
ing and learning practices in ASL/English bilingual homes
and classrooms. These practices value, reinforce, and support
the bidirectional acquisition of both languages and provide a
strong foundation for literacy.
Relatively few empirical studies on reading and deaf
individuals have incorporated a sociocultural per-
spective related to literacy development in chil-
dren raised and educated bilingually in American
Sign Language (ASL) and English (Bailes, 2001;
Crume, 2013; Easterbrooks, 2005; Goldin-Meadow &
Mayberry, 2001; LaSasso & Mobley, 1997; Luckner,
Sebald, Cooney, Young, & Muir, 2005; Padden &
Ramsey, 2000). Rather, much of the focus has been
upon reading difficulties and the reasons and causes
of these problems (Paul, Wang, Trezek, & Luckner,
2009) and little of the research is focused upon what
skilled bilingual deaf students do when they read
(Andrews & Zmijewski, 1997; Easterbrooks, 2005).
The emic, or insiders perspective, of deaf parents and
educators of bilingual deaf children has been largely
absent in this research (Clark, 1998; Humphries,
2001; Pollio & Pollio, 1991). Notable exceptions in the
*Correspondence should be sent to Judith L. Mounty, Department of
Social Work, Gallaudet University, HMB S 334-B, 800 Florida Avenue,
NE, Washington, DC 20002 (e-mail: judith.mounty@gallaudet.edu).
The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
existing scholarship include the emic focus reflected
in Kuntzes (1998) work on literacy, language, and
deaf children; Lieberman, Hatrak, and Mayberrys
(2013) work on eye gaze and deaf parents interactions
with their young deaf children; and Crumes (2013)
exploration of teachers beliefs about and strategies for
promoting the equivalent of phonological awareness in
ASL with young deaf students.
An emic perspective can provide a holistic view
of the native processes of the bilingual language
acquisition, learning, use, and pedagogy that under-
girds English literacy. Despite a growing awareness of
the bilingual advantage for hearing and especially
for deaf children, the widespread adoption of a bilin-
gual approach in deaf education has been hampered
by a lack of understanding of the community- and
language-based principles available for ASL users in
accessing education and print, practices that are fos-
tered in a bilingual environment (Enns, 2006; Goldin-
Meadow & Mayberry, 2001; Grosjean, 2008; Hermans,
Ormel, & Knoors, 2010; Musselman, 2000; Snodden,
2008). Insights gained through qualitative research,
and specifically, the conscious exploration and inclu-
sion of emic perspectives, can and should be a vital part
of education planning, particularly in diverse, bilingual,
and bicultural settings (Dillon, 2005; Ercikan & Roth,
2006). Alternative epistemologies uncovered by quali-
tative research bring to light ways of being and know-
ing that have been historically overlooked or ignored
(Madill & Gough, 2008). Native users of languages
bring to the classroom setting specific cultural, linguis-
tic, and social knowledge and practices that contribute
doi:10.1093/deafed/ent050
Advance Access publication November 9, 2013
334 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:3 July 2014
strategies for teaching bilingual and bicultural chil-
dren. Importantly, these emic perspectives on language
use also bring to bear discursive practices that empower
students who are not language majority students, both
hearing and deaf (Freeman, 1994; Thumann-Prezioso,
2005). Through educational opportunities that pay
close attention to the development of linguistic and
social identities in both languages, language minority
students see themselves and others as equal citizens in
a linguistically and culturally diverse society (Freeman,
1994).
Additionally, in the scholarship on educational
practices, consideration of emic perspectives is seen
as an important component for preparing culturally
responsive educators; reflection on ones assumptions
and attitudes is especially important for educators who
teach children culturally different from themselves.
The recognition that culture has a profound impact on
education and learning and the need for educators to
be culturally competent and proficient has been estab-
lished in the literature (Banks & Banks, 2005; Gay,
2003; Sleeter & Grant, 2006). An ethnographically
informed approach to preservice teacher education
is potentially transformative in that teachers learn to
acknowledge, recognize, and suspend generalizations
based upon their own cultural center and experiences.
By learning about a culture through the consideration
of emic perspectives, teachers demonstrate a commit-
ment to understanding the development of literacy as
informed by cultural, linguistic, epistemological, and
political diversity (Lenski, Crumpler, Stallworth, &
Crawford, 2005, p.89).
In choosing an emic perspective, we postulated
that parents and teachers who have experienced first-
hand or at close range what it is like to learn to read
in an ASLEnglish bilingual environment would bring
new insights to the design of studies about reading and
bilingually reared and educated deaf children. Deaf
parents and caregivers, drawing on their own experi-
ences with learning to read, understand how to set up
a visually maximized environment for stimulating lan-
guage and literacy development with their deaf children
(Andrews & Zmijewski, 1997; Lieberman etal., 2013).
For example, deaf parents use a strategy called chain-
ing, which establishes and maintains eye contact with
the child while pointing to a picture or printed word,
then fingerspelling the word, and signing the concepts
associated with the picture or word (Humphries &
MacDougall, 19992000). Emic input in research thus
taps into the experiences and beliefs of members of the
culture or population being studied and can guide the
questions or hypotheses to be subsequently explored
(Lieberman etal., 2013; Morris, Leung, Ames, &
Lickel, 1999; Thumann-Prezioso, 2005).
A premise of bilingual education is that early
exposure to an accessible language is the key to devel-
oping native-like proficiency in any language, and a
solid first language foundation is also critical for the
successful acquisition of a second language (Garcia,
2009; Grosjean, 2008; Hakuta, 1990; Mayberry &
Lock, 2003). In the case of deaf children, this con-
cept is supported by studies that point to strong cor-
relations between ASL ability and English literacy skill
(Freel, Clark, Anderson, Gilbert, Musyoka, & Hauser,
2010; Hermans, Knoors, Ormel, & Verhoeven, 2008;
Hoffmeister, 2000; Hoffmeister, DeVillers, Engen, &
Topol, 1997; Mayberry & Chamberlain, 1994; Padden &
Ramsey, 1998; Singleton, Supalla, Litchfield, & Schley,
1998; Strong & Prinz, 1997, 2000). Furthermore, native
ASL users often demonstrate more proficient English
literacy abilities than deaf children who learn ASL later
in life (Mayberry, 2010; Snodden, 2008). These find-
ings suggest that for deaf children with early exposure
to both ASL and English, the more accessible language,
ASL, may promote development in the less accessible
language, that is, English.
However, it is unclear just what it is that fosters
English literacy in this population and what needs to
be replicated for other deaf children to achieve the
same ends. Is it an early language foundation, ASL
proficiency, engagement in learning activities that fos-
ter metalinguistic awareness, or some combination of
these factors? ASL/English bilingual education for
deaf students posits that early access to a visual lan-
guage, ASL, and an environment that equally embraces
both languages through the application of language
planning principles provides an optimal foundation for
literacy (Enns, 2006; Hermans etal., 2010; Regan &
Nover, 2010).
Importantly for our purposes in this study,
Cummins (2000) claims that transfer between lan-
guages is the process that allows bilingual individuals

to learn two languages. Cummins argues that the trans-
fer of conceptual knowledge and skills across languages
is based upon a common underlying proficiency, or
CUP, in which a bilingual persons proficiency in an
L1 and an L2 is interdependent. This theory of lin-
guistic interdependence (Cummins, 2007) supports
the notion of a bidirectional feedback loop so that deaf
children develop their metacognitive and metalinguis-
tic skills. Within this framework, children are encour-
aged to stretch beyond their present levels to increase
their skills in both languages. Enns (2006) notes that
this assumption of two languages that are linked
through CUP is significant for bilingual educational
programs for both hearing and deaf students, as expe-
rience in both languages promotes linguistic develop-
ment. However, Hermans etal. (2010) suggest that the
language acquisition scenarios presented by deaf and
hard-of-hearing children pose particular challenges to
Cummins Linguistic Interdependence Theory.
One possible complication is that Cummins pos-
its that there must be sufficient proficiency in L2
before an individual can draw from their L1 to further
develop their L2 skills. Because deaf children typically
have restricted access to the spoken form of their L2,
which is the language used for reading, CUP would
apply to conceptual knowledge and metalinguistic
and metacognitive processes but not necessarily to the
transfer of vocabulary and grammar. Yet, it is possible
to facilitate written language (L2) development for deaf
children by capitalizing on their signed language abili-
ties, thereby effecting a cultivated transfer (Hermans
etal., 2010, p.194). To facilitate such transfers, teach-
ers and parents can use chaining to make associations
between real-world objects or pictures, signs, finger-
spelled words, and print (Humphries & MacDougall,
19992000). Another example of cultivated transfer
would involve drawing on deaf childrens visual pho-
nological processes in ASL (e.g., vocabulary building
through the use of handshape games) to help them
understand the phonological patterns in English words
(Crume, 2013).
Given the research related to bilingual learning
(Enns, 2006), early visual language access (Mayberry
& Lock, 2003), and CUP (Hermans etal., 2010),
and drawing from a sociocultural perspective (Bailes,
2001), we ask here in this study what insights an emic
An Emic Perspective335
perspective can provide regarding the ways in which
deaf children become successful readers. Participants
in this study were teachers and parents who, using an
ASL/English bilingual approach, had fostered and
observed childrens progression to skilled reading
development. Agrounded theory method was used to
answer our research question.
Within this emic perspective and grounded
theory framework, we sought participants perspec-
tives on how deaf children develop the basic building
blocks necessary to be able to read to learn as expert
readers.
Research question. What are the strategies and indi-
cators associated with ASL/English bilingual deaf
childrens transition from learning to read to read-
ing to learn?
Method
Participants
We sought to identify deaf parents and teachers who
were bilingual in ASL and English and familiar with
the principles of bilingual education for deaf children
to provide an emic perspective on how deaf students
become proficient readers and arrive at the stage
where they are reading to learn. Asnowball sampling
technique was used to identity participants who were
parents and teachers of deaf students. Snowball sam-
pling is used with populations that are low incidence
or difficult to find. In this approach, the researchers
contact an individual member of the target population
and ask that person to help identify additional par-
ticipants (Rowland & Flint, 2004; Sadler, Lee, Lim, &
Fullerton, 2010). In this study, school administrators
affiliated with the Center for ASL/English Bilingual
Education and Research (CAEBER), headed by Dr.
Stephen Nover, now at Gallaudet University, were
asked to identify teachers trained in ASL/English
bilingual pedagogy and parents of students in these
programs who had recently made the transition to pro-
ficient reading.
Although our original intent was to obtain the per-
spectives of adults who grew up deaf as ASLEnglish
bilinguals, our sampling strategy resulted in a more
diverse group of participants. Atotal of 12 participants
were identified. Eleven participants were bilingual in
336 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:3 July 2014

ASL and English as adults. Eight grew up with both lan- purposes are similar and different for hearing
guages. Nine were deaf since infancy or childhood, and and deaf readers;
in one case, since adolescence. The remaining three par- Identification of characteristics of deaf skilled
ticipants were hearing; one was a Child of Deaf Adults readers;
(CODA), one was an interpreter with a deaf spouse and Description of the transition period from
two deaf children, and the third was a hearing mother learning to read to reading to learn; and
whose deaf child was a proficient reader (Table1). Beliefs about strategies, activities, and practices
that facilitate the development of reading profi-
Measures ciency in bilingual deaf children.
Video-recorded, semi-structured interviews with fol-
The questions are listed in Appendix A.Each interview
low-up questions were conducted in order to explore
required approximately one and one-half hours.
the following topics:

Participants knowledge, experience, and per-

spectives regarding ASL/English acquisition,
development, and use;
The relationship between ASL and English for a
bilingual deaf individual;
Views on the purpose of reading and how those
Procedure
Interviews were conducted via videophone to allow
virtual face-to-face communication. Each interview
was video recorded for later viewing, coding, and
transcription.

Table1 Participant characteristics

Personal language
Participant Hearing status Gender Parent Educator background
001 Deaf F * * Deaf parents, grew
up with both
languages
002 Hearing F * Learned ASL later
003 Deaf M * Learned ASL and
English at an early
age
004 Hearing F * Learned ASL later
005 Deaf M * Learned ASL later
006 Hard of hearing F * Learned ASL later
007 Hearing CODA M * * Deaf parents, grew
up with both
languages
008 Deaf F * Deaf parents, grew
up with both
languages
009 Deaf M * Learned ASL later
010 Deaf M * * Deaf parents, grew
up with both
languages
011 Later Deaf CODA F * Deaf parents, grew
up with both
languages
012 Deaf F * * Deaf parents, grew
up with both
languages
Notes. The educator category includes teachers who currently hold administrative roles in deaf schools. Participants who are in both the parent and the
educator columns were interviewed primarily from their perspective as parents. *Indicates that the characteristic applies to that participant.

The research team created written English summa-
ries of each interview. Additionally, each transcription
was reviewed by the participants to confirm the verac-
ity of the transcription as a part of the member-check-
ing process (Borum, 2007; Charmaz, 2006). Three of
the interviews were also transcribed by an Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf-certified interpreter, who is
also a CODA, using a sign-to-voice-to-script process.
The goal of this process was to see if additional themes
would be identified. As it turned out, there were no
differences between the two approaches, so the sum-
maries were determined to be reliable. The research
team identified themes and created a codebook. Some
themes were recoded to confirm the consistency of the
data. Initially, inter-rater reliability was 80%. After sev-
eral rounds of discussion, raters arrived at full consen-
sus on themes.
Using a constructivist grounded theory protocol
(Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006), videos and summa-
ries were analyzed to identify emerging themes. This
framework was selected because it is an approach used
especially in the field of education to generate theory on
the basis of information central to the lives of inform-
ants (Mills etal., 2006). Constructivist grounded
theory provides a framework for identifying emerg-
ing theoretical constructs from the participants rich
responses to the interview questions. Through a pro-
cess of constant comparison, the research team found
that a list of themes emerged early in the data collection
(Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009). Reading and review-
ing the summaries, the researchers highlighted recur-
ring concepts that were examined, discussed, merged,
and refined until consistency was attained. Prevalent
themes emerged after approximately seven interviews
and were used to code subsequent interviews.
Key themes were identified, further analyzed
through a series of discussions between members of the
research team, explored through discussions of relevant
scholarship, then merged and reconstructed to yield
four final themes.
Results
The resulting four themes provide emic perspec-
tives on how deaf children become proficient readers.
Theme 1 elaborates on the importance of both ASL
An Emic Perspective337
and English for deaf children; the bidirectional nature
of bilingual language development undergirds reading
proficiency. Theme 2 focuses on the ways in which a
rich print culture/visual environment supports devel-
opment of ASL and English. Theme 3 emphasizes
that parents and teachers use a variety of strategies/
techniques to promote ASL development and read-
ing proficiency. Theme 4 notes the importance of fin-
gerspelling for providing a bridge between ASL and
English. Examples are provided below to demonstrate
how each theme leads to print literacy and moves the
child from learning to read to reading to learn.
Theme 1:Both ASL and English Are Important
for Deaf Children, and the Bidirectional Nature
of Their Development Undergirds Reading
Proficiency
Participants believed that ASL and English both
contribute to deaf childrens language proficiency.
Generally, ASL was seen as being the first language and
English as the second language. However, participants
believed that each language supports the development
of the other. They felt that it was their responsibility to
provide a strong ASL foundation so that children can
acquire English. The participants noted that ASL con-
tinues to develop in conjunction with English literacy,
and they believed that instruction in both ASL and
English helps close the academic gap for deaf students.
Several participants indicated that for some children,
this process might include spoken English aswell.
This bidirectional relationship between the two
languages was also illuminated in participants descrip-
tions of children becoming skilled readers. One parent
described how her daughter initially did not seem to
comprehend what she read, but, over time, drew on her
ASL skills to make meaning of the written English text,
using strategies that allowed her to move back and forth
between the two languages. At first, the parentsaid:
[Participants daughter] was decoding, [but] she
didnt know what she was talking about. Then she
was decoding and was able to say what she was
talking about. And she moved into being able to
really understand in a holistic manner. Her trans-
lation skills are fantasticbridging, sign selection,
meaning.
338 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:3 July 2014
The mother continued to describe her child as at first
reading in a literal way, on a word-by-word basisa
long process. As the childs reading comprehension
increased, while retelling or discussing what she had
read in ASL, she would increasingly choose signs that
matched the meanings conveyed by words and phrases
in a given passage. The mother felt that her childs
reading ability and bilingual competence were reflected
in the bridging between two languages by means of
careful translation that stayed true to the meaning and
context.
A bidirectional feedback loop develops between
ASL and English, and this is reflected in students
gradually increasing automaticity in sign selection to fit
the meanings in written texts. This point is illustrated
by another participant describing proficient bilingual
deaf readers: They know automatically that Im read-
ing this word, and normally, somebody would put that
sign to it, but that doesnt work. This feedback loop is
bidirectional in that reading and writing English were
seen as helping to improve ASL skills.
Theme 2:APrint Culture/Visual Environment
Supports Development of ASL and English
Most participants specifically made reference to the
importance of providing a print-rich culture for ongo-
ing exposure to English. They maintained that con-
sistently displaying and demonstrating the value of a
print culture supported deaf childrens development of
both ASL and English. They believed that they must
encourage children to read for a variety of purposes
and [to] read a variety of materials. These practices
were thought to provide alternative pathways to read-
ing proficiency for deaf children who have less access to
incidental learning of English.
Participants saw print as a tool that connects a vis-
ual signed language to a spoken/written oral language.
One mother recounted how she set up books all around
the childs playpen, immersing her in print long before
the child was actually able to read and understand.
Parents recounted having reading materials around the
house, reading together, modeling/pointing and asso-
ciating ASL with print, and making sure that the TV
always displayed closed captioning. Moreover, one of
the participants noted that having a computer in the
home was essential because it helped the child prac-
tice typing English while writing emails or chatting
on Instant Messenger. Browsing the Internet on the
computer was seen as another strategy for developing
reading skills. Additionally, another participant noted
that computers help the child become an independ-
ent reader through the use of Internet dictionaries for
unknown vocabularywords.
This exposure to a print-oriented culture con-
tinued throughout a broad range of activities,
including daily bedtime stories, daily journals, and
reading newspapers, magazines, books, and comics.
Participants remembered long-term reading activi-
ties they engaged in and enjoyed as children and used
these with their own children. One deaf participant
recalled her earliest favorite memory as a four-year-
old child, when she and her mother would discuss
each item that arrived in the mail. This participant
implemented the same daily strategy with her son.
Another deaf participant, also a teacher, emphasized
that print must be available at all times so that deaf
children can apply what they read to their lives. Some
participants had experienced difficulty with English
literacy, and they noted that their parents did not read
much besides magazines and did not engage in activi-
ties such as with theirchild.
For participants, immersing the child in a print
environment also included reading the same books
repeatedly. Of special interest were Dr. Seuss books,
because of their use of visual representation of spelling
patterns in rhymes. One participant noted her strategy
for drawing the childs visual attention to common
spelling patterns in words through the use of finger-
spelling and visual strategies for words like house
and mouse, or fox and box. She also included
body language or facial expressions to emphasize parts
of thewords.
The importance of a print-rich environment has
implications beyond literacy development for the par-
ticipants. As one parent noted, Well, [the primary
purpose of] reading is to gain information. And then
number two, reading is for pleasure. Regardless of why
youre reading, all of those reasons lead to success in
life. It gives you access to everything and anything
If youre not a skilled reader, youre going to strug-
gle in life. Adeaf father of two deaf daughters who

are strong readers lamented his lifelong struggles in
learning to read and develop good English skills. He
believed that early exposure to ASL, which ultimately
became his primary language, would have helped him.
He and his wife had provided their children with early
access to both languages. Reading proficiency was seen
as a vital tool for success. Participants believed that
skilled deaf readers are equipped to compete with hear-
ing peers and achieve occupational and personal goals.
Ateacher in the study captured the essence of the criti-
cal role of reading in a deaf persons ability to succeed
in life with this comment: Reading is a lifeline for deaf
individuals.
Theme 3:Parents and Teachers Use a Variety
of Strategies and Techniques to Promote ASL
Development and Reading Proficiency
Participants strongly believed that there must be col-
laboration between home and school to support read-
ing development. They also emphasized that children
must have opportunities to interact with and observe
ASL/English bilingual adults in both settings.
Participants noted that teachers should engage
children in developing metalinguistic awareness of lan-
guage use as well as metacognitive exploration of the
content of the text. One teacher described applying
metacognitive strategies to guide students in decipher-
ing a words meaning from its context, asking questions
such as What is the authors purpose? Why does the
author write that way? One parent emphasized that
it is important that teachers be skilled at teaching deaf
children to read the whole context rather than word by
word. Other participants stressed the importance of
being able to discuss a range of developmentally appro-
priate topics with deaf children and provide elabora-
tion and detail in discussion.
Noting that there are individual differences in learn-
ing styles and individual patterns in language acquisi-
tion, all of the participants described using a variety
of strategies and techniques to support bidirectional
language development, fostering both ASL profi-
ciency and English literacy. Participants underscored
the importance of promoting development of what
is known as cognitive academic language proficiency
in both languages (Cummins, 2008). This included
An Emic Perspective339
development of metacognitive skills and metalinguis-
tic awareness. One participant drew on his students
ASL skills to help them learn how to decode English
words. He described using ASL handshapes to pro-
vide visual representations of spelling patterns asso-
ciated with English phonology, such as the _oo_ in
book, look, and cook, and engaging the stu-
dents in discussion about these patterns.
Another example is a deaf parents recounting
of how she would converse with her young daughter
while driving in the car. She would firmly insist that
the child not only sign in responses to her questions
but also fingerspell the English words. She believed
that this would help the child build English vocabulary
and foster awareness of how meaning is conveyed in
each language, nurturing the daughters development
of academic language proficiency.
A teacher explained that during the transition
period between learning to read and reading to learn,
it is important for students to learn how to recog-
nize and correct their mistakes in English and ASL.
Another teacher described providing explicit mode-
ling and constructive feedback to students about their
ASL and English. Several participants emphasized
the importance of having a systematic way to assess,
monitor, and track the acquisition, learning, and use
of both languages in order to support and challenge
each student.
Interestingly, one of the participants, whose par-
ents had used fingerspelling and spoken English with
him, but not sign language, reflected on how his hear-
ing parents had made the distinction between social
and academic English clear to him when he was grow-
ing up. When engaged in an informal or social conver-
sation, his mother would cue him when she switched
to a more formal register or function by actually saying
something like, This is formal language. Now, we are
talking formal and academic. This participants expe-
rience and reflection now informs his bilingual ASL/
English classroom practices.
Yet another teacher discussed his approach in help-
ing students build vocabulary in both languages:
We know that an ASL term can have multiple
meanings. This is something Iwant my stu-
dents to understand. The students who have a
340 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:3 July 2014
stronger foundational language are able to under-
stand it better. They are able to make an assess-
ment dependent on context to determine which
meaning is most appropriate. Students who
dont have enough of a foundation in a first lan-
guage will look at a single sign like OUTSIDE
and think that it means WENT. They are not
able to look at the context in which it occurs to
understand how the meaning would be applied.
One thing Ido is to make sure to expose them to
new vocabulary. What Ido is have them define a
termI ask them what does this sign mean? It
could mean, DESCRIBE or EXPLAIN. But they
dont have enough exposure to multiple-meaning
words. What Iam doing is providing an environ-
ment that is the same as hearing students. They
hear these terms over and over again in variable
context, and that happens less for deaf students;
especially if the teachers dont give them an
equivalent opportunity.
Another participants comment regarding her daugh-
ters reading development similarly suggests that this
process of mediating written text through discussion
in ASL helps deaf readers get beyond literal mean-
ings: The more exposure she has, the more comfort-
able she has become in terms of figurative language.
This underscores how fostering academic development
in both languages is seen as vital to attaining reading
proficiency.
Theme 4:Fingerspelling Provides a Bridge Between
ASL and English
Most participants felt that fingerspelling played a criti-
cal role in ASL and English acquisition, in reading
development, and in fostering ASL and English bilin-
gualism. They believed that babies should be exposed
to fingerspelling very early, long before they can be
expected to understand, just as hearing babies are
exposed to spoken language right from the start. One
parent described how she would be driving with her
young daughter in the back seat of the car and would
fingerspell in the rear-view mirror long before the child
could be expected to understand. Afew parents who
had not started fingerspelling with their own children
until later described how they noticed how it helped
foster reading development in other children and
wished they had started earlier. One participant noted
that fingerspelling helped her daughter write better.
For example, when she struggled to write the letter
d, she would fingerspell it while looking at her hand.
Then after understanding what the d looked like on
her hand, she would write it on thepaper.
These participants experiences show that children
benefit from fingerspelling to help them to recognize
vocabulary as they fingerspelled while reading. One
participant stated:
. . . fingerspelling, Ithink, made the transition to
writing faster . . . because, Ithink theyre used to
seeing how a word works and how English works in
a visual way . . . you can bridge, certainly, from print
to ASL, but you need the fingerspelling in between.
Its faster because of orthographic familiarity. Its
something you see over and over again. You see sen-
tence structure, the internal workings of words.
Another participant described how she would finger-
spell words while simultaneously pointing to them in
print. She would encourage her child to fingerspell the
words back to her while they were reading together. In
these ways, participants saw fingerspelling as serving
as an invaluable tool for bridging between ASL and
English.
Discussion
This qualitative study identified emic perspectives on
important factors related to the process of bilingual deaf
children becoming proficient readers. This set of find-
ings represents a departure from experimental research
focused on phonological encoding and word recognition,
which has tended to place emphasis on deaf childrens
reading problems. Findings here emphasize the critical
role of early meaningful communication; it is important
for deaf children and parents or caregivers to be able to
share experiences, discuss ideas, and engage in meta-
linguistic and metacognitive activities in both ASL and
English. Seeing parents read is as important for children
as is being read to by their parents. Deaf children who
acquire, learn, and use both ASL and English develop
literacy as bilingual beings. Each of their languages
influences the other through a common underlying

proficiency or CUP (Cummins, 2007) that undergirds
this process. The acquisition and learning of ASL and
English can be a bidirectional, mutually additive and sup-
portive process. Bilingual deaf childrens development of
literacy thus must be examined differently from the study
of monolingual children becoming proficient readers.
Participants characterized the transition from
learning to read to reading to learn as a break- spontaneously initiated discussions about things they
through for deaf children in becoming successful read-
ers. They discussed the differences between developing
readers and skilled readers. Developing readers, having
not yet developed effective word analysis or decoding
strategies, were observed to become easily frustrated.
For some children, this frustration sometimes led to a
resistance to reading. Several participants noted that
hard-of-hearing children at this stage would read aloud
and sound out words or phrases but were not able to
comprehend what they were reading. Developing read-
ers were described as bottom-up decoders. They often
choose signs that did not match the meaning of the
printed text. They were described as being tethered to
the text and unable to summarize or retell a passage
without frequently glancing at the text. As Simms,
Andrews, and Smith (2005) noted, reading word for
word, being a lower-level cognitive skill, interferes with
higher-level prose processing. In terms of higher levels
of cognition, developing readers were limited in their
capacity to elaborate, provide an opinion about what
they have read, or take a perspective different from that
of the author.
The first thing that the participants noticed about
a deaf child who has advanced to the reading to learn
stage is that they enjoy reading. When asked about
the characteristics of skilled deaf readers, a teacher
responded, Skilled readers often ask for more and
want to read more. Other participants described
skilled readers as being undaunted by challenging
material and willing to take risks and reach beyond
their comfort zone. At this stage, readers would use
effective word analysis and decoding strategies that
allowed them to engage in top-down and bottom-up
decoding processes simultaneously and automatically.
They use reading to access information across the cur-
riculum, in everyday life, and for entertainment; com-
fortably reading textbooks and other course materials;
using and understanding vocabulary across a range
An Emic Perspective341
of academic content areas. In the classroom, students
who had advanced to this stage would frequently rely
on print to get information rather than solely rely-
ing on the teachers explanations in ASL. In addition
to course materials, these readers were observed to
read and understand a wider variety of print media,
including newspapers, magazines, and novels. They
hadread.
As evidence of the bidirectionality of the language
development process in this population, these skilled
readers could effortlessly depart from the printed
material to discuss the content in academic ASL, with
sign selection, fingerspelling and delivery matching
meaning and discourse style of the written message.
Bilingual readers who had made this leap could criti-
cally analyze material or use figurative language with
equal comfort in both ASL and English. These bilin-
gual readers could code switch between ASL and
English when asked to engage in metacognitive activi-
ties. The feedback loop between ASL and English is
reflected in students gradually increasing automaticity
in sign selection to fit the meanings in written texts.
They also demonstrated the ability to use a variety of
writing forms and to proofread and correct grammati-
cal and discourse errors in their own written or signed
pieces.
Yet, it was difficult for participants to pinpoint a
specific time when this transition occurred. The pro-
cess was described by some as having a mysterious or
magical quality and one participant referred to it as a
Eureka! moment when they realized that the child
had become a proficient reader. However, when asked
to reflect back on a 6-month to 1-year time period prior
to the time the child was reading proficiently, they were
able to describe changes in behaviors related to reading
and signing, and in some cases, writing.
Some of the participants reflected on their own
personal experiences with this process. One deaf par-
ent remembered not being motivated to read as a child.
Her deaf father would constantly buy her new books
and provide her with opportunities to read. She stated
that one day, something changed inside her and she
suddenly felt as if a light bulb had turned on. Although
she could not describe what led up to this transforma-
tion, she became a voracious reader: the more she read
342 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:3 July 2014
and the more she wrote, the more her command of
English improved.
Deaf children cannot just learn to read without
knowing a language (Goldin-Meadow & Mayberry,
2001). This language foundation must include access
to the language they are reading. During the stage of
learning to read, children learn to recognize the pat-
terns of the letters, words, and sentences. Hearing chil-
dren recognize the patterns through sounds and the
relationships created by and with the sounds (words,
syllables, and phonemes) as they read. Similarly, it has
been argued that skilled deaf readers have found ways
to access the phonological system of English (Jackson &
Coltheart, 2001; Wang, Trezek, Luckner, & Paul, 2008).
Adams (1990), as cited in Padden and Ramsey (1998),
discusses that children must master two important tasks
in learning to read: the ability to name letters quickly
and accurately and the presence of phonemic awareness
(specifically, the ability to associate sounds with let-
ters) (p.32). Deaf children may be helped in the task
of decoding the meanings of words by sounding out
as they fingerspell, which seems to help them to rec-
ognize and comprehend the words. As one participant
claims, fingerspelling is a bridge between a sign and
learning a word, indicating that it is also a learning pro-
cess for deaf readers to become proficient in signing as
they learn toread.
Research has found that fingerspelling positively
correlates with stronger reading skills (Kelly, 1995;
Padden, 1991). Padden and Ramsey (1998) reported
that young deaf children can recognize fingerspelled
words before they can read print. Postulating that fin-
gerspellings role in reading therefore is most likely
that of exposing young deaf children to orthographic
regularities, they proposed that these orthographic reg-
ularities are then expanded to print. They also found
that deaf students who demonstrated skills in ASL,
as measured by the ASL tests, also performed well on
the fingerspelling test, indicating that as ASL skills
increase, fingerspelling skills are likely to increase as
well (p.34).
Padden and Ramsey (1998) found a significant cor-
relation between ASL proficiency and English reading
where fingerspelling and initialized signs are used to
provide a bridge to reading. Their participants with high
knowledge of both ASL and fingerspelling were found
to have the highest reading skills as well. Arecurring
theme in our data focuses on the role of fingerspelling
in deaf childrens acquisition of English. Participants
felt that when deaf children fingerspell to themselves, it
helps them to recognize printed words. Our participants
often referred to fingerspelling as a bridge between ASL
and English. This bridging mechanism is also seen as
allowing adults to provide deaf children with increased
exposure to and enhanced comfort in using figura-
tive language. Padden and Ramsey (1998) note that
fingerspelling, which derives from a representation of
English orthography, is frequently present in the lan-
guage environment of signing deaf children and thus
is a likely candidate for this function. Fingerspelling
helps deaf children with pattern recognition, which is
related to developing strategies for identifying and ana-
lyzing the meaning, associated with the phonological
(or grapheme) patterns in the English language. Crume
(2013) discussed the importance of early exposure to
fingerspelling, where he found that teachers used fin-
gerspelling strategies to foster ASL/English bilingual
development in preschool classes. Teachers in Crumes
study changed teaching strategies from letter of the
week to handshape of the week to build vocabulary.
They found that this use of ASL allowed their students
to benefit from their L2, which could then be extended
to comprehension of English.
Similarly, our participants intuitions and obser-
vations gave credence to the bidirectional language
development process that underlies reading success.
Their emic view provided a strengths perspective.
That is, focusing on what deaf readers can do, rather
than on what they cannot do, they identified strate-
gies that yield positive outcomes. These knowledge-
able insiders identified four themes, which have also
been found through experimental work. Research has
found that exposing deaf children to ASL early will
allow the brain to more easily become bilingual and
permit later academic success due to the develop-
ment of appropriate brain structures (Pnicaud etal.,
2013). In addition, research finds that all babies under
10months respond to ASL visual phonology (Krentz
& Corina, 2008; Kuhl & Rivera-Gaxiola, 2008), which
appears to facilitate their becoming bilingual (Petitto
& Kovelman, 2003) based on their accessing the statis-
tical regularities of linguisticinput.

Future Research
Focusing on an emic perspective highlights the value
placed on bilingual competence. As such, it can tell us
how ASL and English bilingual deaf and hearing adults
guide deaf children in the transition from learning to
read, to reading to learn through the use of two languages,
one signed and one (primarily) in print. Our participants
were attuned to the intricate relationship between ASL
and English in this process and often commented on the
bidirectional influence of each language on theother.
Future studies could assess students literacy
outcomes in light of their individual language back-
grounds as well as the bilingual practices in their
educational settings. The findings of this study might
inform research designs that measure students read-
ing and ASL proficiency over time while documenting
instructional approaches and home literacy practices.
Recommendations
Findings suggest factors that promote bilingual ASL
and English proficiency and support deaf students
in becoming strong, independent readers. The most
important of all is that all participants felt that ASL as a
language foundation is critical and it must be fully acces-
sible in both schools and homes. Recommendations
that emerged in the interviews include as follows.
Parents Recommendations for Parents and Teachers
Establishing a language-rich culture in the home:
Provide reading materials around the house such
as magazines, newspapers, letters, and books.
Use print to label and identify things. Give chil-
dren books of their own from an early age, long
before they are actually able to read. Immerse
the child in a visually enriched environment that
fosters connections between objects, pictures,
signs, and words.
Using fingerspelling as much as you can: Fingerspell
to connect words to objects around the house
and real-life experience. Expect your child to
fingerspell back in responses to your questions
to stimulate growth in the depth and breadth of
their vocabulary.
Investing time in reading: Set aside time each
day for your child to read material unrelated to
An Emic Perspective343
homework. Read with your child and have a dia-
logue about what you read. Try to make time to
go to the library at least once a week to focus on
reading. Read books, magazines, and newspapers
so that your children see you as a role model.
Teachers Recommendations for Teachers
Modeling many reading strategies and being consist-
ent: Use strategies such as chaining and sand-
wiching to connect both ASL and English. Guide
students in the signing and writing process by
having them draft signed or written pieces, con-
ferencing with them, and having them improve
upon their drafts after feedback. In a variation of
the language experience approach, students ASL
videos can be used to help them create written
pieces through the writing process, which in turn
can support continued reading development.
Challenging the students to read beyond their read-
ing level: Ask students to retell what they read
without glancing at the text. Have an open dia-
logue about what they read and engage them in
metalinguistic activity.
Implementing language planning: Provide lan-
guage planning in the deaf education field, at the
national, state, school, classroom, and individual
learner levels. This would include formal preK-
12 grade ASL curricula and assessment tools.
Funding
The National Science Foundation Science of Learning
Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning at
Gallaudet University (VL2; SBE-1041725).
Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were reported.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Stephen M.Nover for his early lead
on this project. The authors also thank M.Diane Clark
for her contributions, as well as Melissa Anderson,
Gizelle Gilbert, Heidi MacGlaughlin (Holmes), Juniper
(Cheri) Sussman, Robert Weinstock, and Erica Wilkins
for their involvement at various points in the study.
344 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:3 July 2014
References
Andrews, J. F., & Zmijewski, G. (1997). How parents
support home literacy with deaf children. Early
Child Development and Care, 127128, 131139.
doi:10.1080/0300443971270111
Bailes, C. (2001). Integrative ASL-English language arts:
Bridging parts to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1, 147
174. doi:10.1353/sls.2001.0002
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A.M. (Eds.). (2005). Multicultural edu-
cation: Issues and perspectives (5th Ed.). New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Borum, V. (2007). African American mothers with deaf children:
Awomanist conceptual framework. Families in Society, 88,
595604. doi:10.1606/10443894.3682
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: Apractical
guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Clark, M. D. (1998). A hitchhikers guide to holes and dark spots:
Some missing perspectives in the psychology of deafness.
In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.), Psychological per-
spectives on deafness (pp. 303330). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Crume, P. K. (2013). Teachers perceptions of promoting sign
language phonological awareness in an ASL/English bilin-
gual program. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
18, 464488. doi:10.1093/deafed/ent023
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual
children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,
Ltd.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strat-
egies in multilingual classrooms. The Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 10, 221240.
Cummins, J. (2008). BCIS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical
status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Literacy (Vol.
2, 2nd Ed., pp. 7183). New York, NY: Springer Science +
Business Media, LLC.
Dillon, D. R. (2005). There and back again: Qualitative research
in literacy education. Reading Research Quarterly, 40,
106110.
Easterbrooks, S. R. (2005). Review of the literature in literacy
development and instruction in students who are deaf and hard
of hearing. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
Enns, C. J. (2006). A language and literacy framework for bilin-
gual deaf education. Winnipeg, Canada: Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing
research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational
Researcher, 35, 1423. doi:10.3102/0013189X035005014
Freel, B. L., Clark, M. D., Anderson, M. L., Gilbert, G. L.,
Musyoka, M. M., & Hauser, P. C. (2010). Deaf individuals
bilingual abilities: American sign language proficiency, read-
ing skills, and family characteristics. Psychology, 2, 1823.
doi:10.4236/psych.2011.21003
Freeman, R. (1994). Language planning and identity planning: An
emergent understanding. ERIC Clearinghouse.
Garcia, O. (2009). Introducing bilingual education. In
O. Garcia (Ed.). Bilingual education in the 21st cen-
tury: Aglobal perspective (pp. 118). Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Gay, G. (2003). Becoming multicultural educators: Personal journey
toward professional agency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2001). How do profoundly
deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 16, 222229. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00022
Grosjean, F. (Ed.) (2008). The bilingualism and biculturalism
of the deaf. In Studying bilinguals (pp. 221237). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Hakuta, K. (1990). Language and cognition in bilingual children.
In A. Padilla, C. Valdez, & H. Fairchild (Eds.), Bilingual edu-
cation: Issues and strategies (pp. 4759). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2008).
The relationship between the reading and signing skills of
deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 518530. doi:10.1093/
deafed/enn009
Hermans, D., Ormel, E., & Knoors, H. (2010). On the relation
between the signing and reading skills of deaf bilinguals.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
13, 187199. doi:10.1080/13670050903474093
Hoffmeister, B. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and read-
ing comprehension in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain,
J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by
eye (pp. 143163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates.
Hoffmeister, R. J., DeVillers, P. A., Engen, E., & Topol, D.
(1997). English reading achievement and ASL skills in deaf
students. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University
Conference on Language Development (pp. 307318).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Humphries, T. (2001). The making of a word: Audism. A read-
ing submitted for a lecture at the Cultural and Language
Colloquium. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
Humphries, T., & MacDougall, F. (19992000). Chaining
and other links: Making connections between American
Sign Language and English in two types in school set-
tings. Visual Anthropology Review, 15, 8494. doi:10.1525/
var.2000.15.2.84
Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success
and failure: Toward an integrated cognitive psychology of atypi-
cal reading. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kelly, L. (1995). Fingerspelling interaction: Aset of deaf parents
and their deaf daughter. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in
deaf communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Krentz, U. C., & Corina, D. P. (2008). Preference for lan-
guage in early infancy: The human language bias is
not speech specific. Developmental Science, 11, 19.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00652.x.
Kuhl, P., & Rivera-Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of lan-
guage acquisition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 511
534. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051601.094321.

Kuntze, M. (1998). Literacy and deaf children: The language
question. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 115.
LaSasso, C. J., & Mobley, R. T. (1997). National survey of read-
ing instruction for deaf or hard-of-hearing students in the
U.S. Volta Review, 99, 3159.
Lenski, S. D., Crumpler, T. P., Stallworth, C., & Crawford, K. M.
(2005). Beyond awareness: Preparing culturally responsive
preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 85100.
Lieberman, A. M., Hatrak, M., & Mayberry, R. I. (2013).
Learning to look for language: Development of joint
attention in young deaf children. Language Learning and
Development, 117. doi:10.1080/15475441.2012.760381
Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young, J., III, & Muir,
S. G. (2005). An examination of the evidence-based literacy
research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 150,
443456. doi:10.1353/aad.2006.0008
Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place
in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13, 254271.
doi:10.1037/a001
Mayberry, R. I. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult lan-
guage ability: What sign language reveals about the critical
period for language. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.),
Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (Vol.
2, pp. 281291). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mayberry, R. I., & Chamberlain, C. (1994, November). How ya
gonna read da language if ya dun speak it? Reading develop-
ment in relation to sign language comprehension. Paper pre-
sented at the Boston University Conference on Language
Development, Boston, MA.
Mayberry, R. I., & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first
versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic
plasticity and epigenesis. Brain and Language, 87, 369384.
doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00137-8
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development
of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5, 110.
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views
from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights
about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 781796.
Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who cant hear learn to
read an alphabetic script? Areview of the literature on read-
ing and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
5, 931. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.1.9
Padden, C. (1991). The acquisition of fingerspelling in deaf children.
In P. Siple & S. Fischer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language
research: Psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf
children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 3046.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American sign language and read-
ing ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford,
& R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165
189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Paul, P.V., Wang, Y., Trezek, J. B., & Luckner, L. J. (2009). Phonology
is necessary, but not sufficient: Arejoinder. American Annals of
the Deaf, 154, 346356. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.1.9
An Emic Perspective345
Pnicaud, S., Klein, D., Zatorre, R. J., Chen, J., Witcher, P.,
Hyde, K., & Mayberry, R. I. (2013). Structural brain changes
linked to delayed first language acquisition in congenitally
deaf individuals. NeuroImage, 66, 4249. doi:10.1016/j.
neuroimage2012.09.076.
Petitto, L.-A., & Kovelman, I. (2003). The bilingual paradox:
How signing-speaking bilingual children help us to resolve
it and teach us about the brains mechanisms underlying all
language acquisition. Learning Languages, 8, 519.
Pollio, H. R., & Pollio, M. R. (1991). Some observations from
a different point of view. In D. Martin (Ed.), Advances in
cognition, education, and deafness (pp. 429442). Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Regan, T., & Nover, S. (2010, March). School-based language
planning for the 21st century. Paper presented at confer-
ence. Bilingualism as a resource: Ashared vision for educat-
ing deaf and hard of hearing learners, Washington, DC.
Rowland, A., & Flint, J. (2004). Snowball sampling. In M.
Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, and T. F. Liao (Eds.), The Sage
encyclopedia of social science research (Vol. 3, pp. 10431044).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sadler, G. R., Lee, H. C., Lim, R. S.H., & Fullerton, J.
(2010). Recruitment of hard-to-reach population sub-
groups via adaptations of the snowball sampling
strategy. Nursing and Health Sciences, 12, 369374.
doi:10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00541.x
Simms, L., Andrews, J. F., & Smith, A. K. (2005). A balanced
approach to literacy instruction for deaf signing students.
Balanced Reading Instruction, 12, 3954.
Singleton, J., Supalla, S., Litchfield, S., & Schley, S. (1998).
From sign to word: Considering modality constraints in
ASL/English bilingual education. Topics in Language
Disorders, 18, 1630.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2006). Making choices for multicul-
tural education: Five approaches to race, class and gender (5th
Ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Snodden, K. (2008, June). American sign language and early
intervention. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64,
581604. doi:10.3138/cmlr.64.4.581
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the relationship
between American Sign Language and English literacy.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 3746.
doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014308
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (2000). Is sign language skill related
to English literacy? In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford,
& Mayberry R. I. (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye
(pp. 131141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates.
Thumann-Prezioso, C. (2005). Deaf parents perspectives
on deaf education. Sign Language Studies, 5, 415440.
doi:10.1353/sls.2005.0020
Wang, Y., Trezek, J. B., Luckner, L. J., & Paul, P. V. (2008). The
role of phonology and phonologically related skills in read-
ing instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.
American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 396407. doi:10.1353/
aad.0.0061
346 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:3 July 2014

Appendix

Interview Questions

1. Please describe your background, training, expe-

rience, and perspective on bilingual acquisition,
development, and use of ASL and English.
2. What do you see as the role of each language,
ASL and English, in deaf childrens develop-
ment of literacy and oracy?
a.Ask about early language experiences using
ASL, parents use of ASL with very young
children, and so on.
b.Ask how parents and teachers use each lan-
guage with young children and school-aged
children to promote and facilitate language and
literacykeeping in mind the development of
signacy, literacy, and, where appropriate, oracy.
c.Explore what they think about how a bridge
is constructed between ASL and English,
include specifics related to use of fingerspelling
with and by younger children, and facilitating
access to graphology (print system).

3. What do you see as purposes for reading?

4. For students 810years old, what characteris-

tics, behaviors, skills, and functions are demon-
strated or performed by skilled readers? (provide
specific examples).
a. How are these students different from
unskilled readersintrinsic (intelligence,
cognitive style, attention/focus, interests,
ASL proficiency) and extrinsic (history of
exposure to ASL in school, home languages
and communication, early and later school/
instructional experiences, etc.) factors.
b.Ask about ability to use ASL for a range of
purposes in academic as well as social contexts
[retelling a story after watching someone else
tell it, narrating a story, leading a storysign-
ing (similar to read aloud) type activity,
presenting on an academic topic, debating/
discussing an issue with a partner or in a
group, etc.].
Copyright of Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education is the property of Oxford University
Press / USA 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.