18663-AAD159.
4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 359
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2014). Is reading different for deaf individuals? Reexamining the role of phonology.
American Annals of the Deaf, 159(4), 359371.
IS READING DIFFERENT FOR DEAF INDIVIDUALS?
REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF PHONOLOGY
A
CONNIE MAYER AND
BEVERLY J. TREZEK
MAYER IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, FACULTY
OFEDUCATION, YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO,
CANADA. TREZEK IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, DEPAUL UNIVERSITY,
CHICAGO, IL.
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
Q UA RT E R C E N T U R Y A G O , Hanson (1989) asked, Is reading different for
deaf individuals? (p. 85). Appealing to evidence available at the time,
she argued that skilled deaf readers, like their hearing counterparts,
relied on their knowledge of English structure, including phonological
information. This perspective on the role phonology plays in the read-
ing process for deaf learners continues to generate much debate in the
field, and little consensus exists on whether it is a necessary aspect of
learning to read for this population. The present article revisits this
question in terms of what is known about phonology and reading in typ-
ically developing learners, and in light of two reviews of the research
from the field of deafness. The authors conclude that there is stronger
empirical evidence for the argument for a relationship between phonol-
ogy and reading in the population of deaf readers than for the counter-
argument.
Keywords: deafness, reading, edge of English structure, including
phonology, literacy, language phonological information.
In terms of the focus of the present
In the present article, we revisit a ques- issue of the American Annals of the
tion Hanson (1989) posed a quarter- Deaf, we will reframe this question
century years ago: Is reading different in terms of the qualitative similarity
for deaf individuals? (p. 85). Hanson hypothesis (Paul, Wang, & Williams,
suggested that the answer to this ques- 2013), concentrating on the role of
tion appears to be both yes and no, and phonology in learning to readan
she indicated that even though deaf1 issue that continues to be hotly debated
readers may bring a different set of in the field (Allen et al., 2009; Paul,
skills and knowledge to the task of Wang, Trezek, & Luckner, 2009; Wang,
learning to read, the task itself does not Trezek, Luckner, & Paul, 2008). Our
change. Appealing to the evidence view is that the knowledge and skills
available at the time, Hanson argued required to become a proficient reader
that skilled deaf readers, like their hear- do not differ as a consequence of hear-
ing counterparts, relied on their knowl- ing loss. In other words, learning to
359
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 360
REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF PHONOLOGY
read for deaf learners is not different,
but developmentally similar, in terms
of what needs to be learned (Mayer &
Trezek, 2011, in press; Trezek, Wang, &
Paul, 2010). These requisites are broadly
defined as language-related abilities
(e.g., knowledge and use of the struc-
tures of English, including phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, and
pragmatics) and code-related skills (e.g.,
print principles, phonological skills, the
alphabetic principle). While there may
be qualitative differences with respect
to how deaf learners gain control of the
requisites, and it may be that instruction
needs to be differentiated to support
development, we believe that the abili-
ties and skills are not different and can-
not be bypassed. In this respect, the
situation of the deaf student does not
differ substantially from that of other
learners who face challenges in learn-
ing to read (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1996;
McGuinness, 2004; Snow, Burns, & Grif-
fin, 1998; Stanovich, 1988).
In reexamining the issue of the role
that phonology plays in learning to
read, we will focus on the following
questions:
1. How have the processes of read-
ing and learning to read been
conceptualized for deaf children
(i.e., theories of language learn-
ing, literacy development, bilin-
gualism), and to what extent do
these conceptualizations align
with what is known about hear-
ing readers?
2. How has the role of phonology
been interpreted?
3. What is the available research evi-
dence to support these interpre-
tations, and to what extent does
the evidence support them?
We will conclude with a discussion of
pedagogical and research implications
in the current context of earlier identi-
360
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
fication of hearing loss and advances in
hearing technologies.
The Model of Reading
Development
The model of reading development we
are appealing to is drawn from the
work of Chall (1996) and Mayer and
Wells (1996), in which a strong empha-
sis is placed on the role that language
plays in the development of literacy.
We further ground our argument in the
extensive body of research evidence
indicating that a broadly conceived
notion of language skills, encompass-
ing vocabulary, syntax, discourse, and
phonology, is fundamental to early and
long-term literacy success (see Dickin-
son, McCabe, & Essex, 2006, for an in-
depth discussion); the interdependent
relationships between language and
reading that have been well docu-
mented for hearing learners (Bishop
& Snowling, 2004; Catts, 1997; Catts &
Kamhi, 2005; Dickinson, Golnikoff, &
Hirsch-Pasek, 2010; Scarborough, 2001);
and the evidence suggesting that chil-
dren with stronger language capabili-
ties tend to be more successful at the
onset of formal literacy instruction
(see Stanovich, 1986). As such, we
propose a model that weds reading
development to the development of
face-to-face language (spoken, signed,
or some combination), and argue that
learning to read is dependent on this
language foundation (see Mayer, 2007,
2009; Mayer & Trezek, 2011, in press).
It is also important to emphasize
that, for the purpose of learning to
read, children must have an age-appro-
priate level of proficiency in the same
language that is to be read and writ-
ten. While it is certainly the case that
any language, regardless of modality,
can serve equally well as a language for
communication and cognitive devel-
opment, in terms of literacy learning it
is essential that learners be able to
communicate and think in the same
language used in the text they will be
learning to read and write (Mayer &
Wells, 1996). In the case of bilingual
learners, proficiency in a first language
(L1) can be supportive of learning the
second (L2), in that there is some
cross-linguistic transfer, especially
between the written forms of L1 and
L2. However, knowledge of the L1
alone is not sufficient for learning to
read and write in L2; developing profi-
ciency in the face-to-face form of the
L2 is also necessary and cannot be
bypassed (see Bialystok, 2004, 2011,
and Cummins, 2000, for in-depth dis-
cussions).
With respect to this issue, Cummins
(2000) expressed concerns that
notions of transfer based on a model of
linguistic interdependence have been
misinterpreted as they relate to the
development of L2 literacy. Cummins
cited the assertion of Bernhardt and
Kamil (1995) that
in order to read in a second language,
a level of second-language linguistic
ability must be achieved . . . . Firm
first-language reading skills could not
help readers compensate when read-
ing in a second language. A lack of
second-language linguistic knowl-
edge ultimately short-circuited the
first-language reading knowledge (as
cited in Cummings, p. 177).
In other words, L1 literacy, even when
it is well developed, is not sufficient
for the development of literacy in L2
a threshold level of proficiency in the
L2 is required, representing a neces-
sary condition for any transfer to be
realized. This has proved to be the
case for hearing learners (Hornberger,
1989), and we would argue that there
is no research evidence to suggest that
it does not hold true for deaf learners
as well (Mayer, 1999, 2009; Mayer &
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 361
Akamatsu, 2011; Mayer & Leigh, 2010;
Mayer & Trezek, in press). What this
means in practice is that it is not pos-
sible to circumvent the development
of proficiency in L2 (e.g., communica-
tive competence in a face-to-face form
of English) in order to learn to read it.
In returning the focus to the spe-
cific issue of phonology, we would
argue that for all learners who struggle
with literacy development, there is
consensus that a core difficulty in
learning to read manifests itself as a
deficiency within the language system
and, in particular, a deficiency in mas-
tering phonological awareness skills
(Pugh, Sandak, Frost, Moore, & Mencl,
2006, p. 65). Research has consistently
indicated that the development of
phonological awareness and phonics
via systematic instruction should be
employed as part of literacy programs
for teaching beginning reading as well
as preventing and remediating reading
difficulties, and that it also needs to be
a focus in planning programs for chil-
dren who are learning English as a
second language (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, &
Willows, 2001). We would also argue
that this focus on phonological aware-
ness and systematic phonics instruc-
tion also applies in the case of deaf L2
learners, particularly as the preponder-
ance of the evidence suggests that deaf
students using a phonological code in
working memory tend to be better
readers than those who do not (see
Paul, 2003).
It is also important to emphasize
that although educators tend to isolate
phonological abilities as discrete skills
to be taught in the literacy learning
process, developing phonological sen-
sitivity is an aspect of acquiring a lan-
guage in the first place. It is only for
the purposes of learning to read that
these phonological aspects need to be
made explicit; in the process, the
implicit phonological knowledge (e.g.,
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
sensitivity to rhyme, syllable recogni-
tion) that has already been established
while acquiring the language is ex-
ploited. When viewed in this way, lan-
guage provides the foundation not
only for the morphosyntactic and
semantic understandings needed for
learning to read, but also for the devel-
opment of phonological awareness and
other code-related abilities (Whitehurst
& Lonigan, 1998; see also Dickinson,
McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Fein-
berg, & Poe, 2003, for a review).
In taking this perspective, we are not
arguing against distinguishing between
the code- and language-related aspects
of reading instruction, as we have made
use of this distinction in our own work
(e.g., Mayer & Trezek, 2011, in press).
However, we want to emphasize that
in some sense this is an arbitrary dis-
tinction, as the phonological, code-
related aspects of learning to read have
their roots in language. In acquiring
the language, children are also ac-
quiring the phonological understand-
ings that serve as the basis for the
subsequent, explicit teaching of the
phonological skills that are necessary
for learning to read. In other words,
we are suggesting that language is the
foundation for all aspects of learning
to readeven those that researchers
and educators have typically termed
code-related. To be clear, we are not sug-
gesting that systematic attention to
developing skills such as phonemic
awareness (i.e., the ability to identify and
manipulate the individual phonemes
within words through the air without
the aid of print) and an understanding
of the alphabetic principle (i.e., the
relationship between graphemes and
phonemes) is not critical, only that this
pedagogical focus builds on the un-
derstandings that have already been
developed via the language acquisition
process.
In light of this argument, it is note-
worthy that in the National Early Liter-
acy Panel (NELP) meta-analysis (2008),
oral language (i.e., ability to compre-
hend and produce spoken language,
including vocabulary and grammar)
was identified as only moderately
correlated with later measures of con-
ventional literacy (e.g., decoding, com-
prehension, spelling, writing). While
this may be taken as a view counter to
our claim, we would suggest that this
finding must be interpreted in terms of
the broader context of learning to read
in which code-related abilities (e.g.,
phonological awareness, phonemic
awareness, and word-reading skills)
and language-related (e.g., semantic
and syntactic) abilities assume rela-
tively greater significance at different
stages in the developmental trajectory
(see Dickinson et al., 2010, and Storch
& Whitehurst, 2002, for discussions).
Specifically, the association between
language and reading development
appears to weaken in the early primary
years, when the focus shifts to making
sense of the code, only to strengthen
again in the later grades. In other
words, code-related phonological skills
account for more of the variance in per-
formance at the beginning stages of
learning to read than they do in the
later years. Nevertheless, even in these
early years, the explicit teaching of
these code-related, phonological skills
rests on the implicit phonological
knowledge that has developed in the
process of acquiring the language.
The Role of Phonology
A Clarification of Terminology
Before we go into detail on the role of
phonology in learning to read, it is
important that the terminology associ-
ated with the construct of phonology
be clarified, as we would suggest that
inconsistencies in the use of terms has
muddied discussions of phonologys
place in the acquisition of reading in
361
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 362
REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF PHONOLOGY
the literature on both hearing and deaf
learners. Phonological awareness is
most often viewed as an umbrella term
that encompasses the range of abilities
related to detecting and manipulating
the sound structures of oral lan-
guagefor example, recognizing and
working with syllables, rhymes, and
individual phonemes or sounds of the
language (Bryant, MacLean, Bradley, &
Crossland, 1990; Burgess, 2006; NELP,
2008; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte,
1994). However, this term has also
been used to refer specifically to the
manipulation of individual phonemes
(e.g., Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertel-
son, 1979), a construct that others
have termed phonemic awareness
(e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000;
Phillips & Torgesen, 2006). Arguments
for a single conceptualization and
global definition of phonological
awareness that includes several abili-
ties regardless of their linguistic com-
plexity have also been mooted (e.g.,
Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Stahl &
Murray, 1994), while it has also been
recommended that the term phono-
logical sensitivity be used to refer to
the array of abilities and skills associ-
ated with manipulation of the sound
structures of oral language (e.g.,
Stanovich, 1992). In their meta-analysis
of achievement in deaf readers, May-
berry, del Giudice, and Lieberman
(2011) used the term phonological
coding and awareness (PCA) to
encompass the full range of phonolog-
ical abilities, while in the review by P.
Miller and Clark (2011), a range of
terms, including phonemic awareness
(which appears in the title of their arti-
cle), phonological awareness, and
phonological decoding, were used.
We would argue that the most
salient distinction to be made is
between characterizations of phonol-
ogy as a conceptual understanding and
as a skill. Phillips and Torgensen (2006)
effectively captured this difference in
362
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
their description of phonemic aware-
ness as a conceptual understanding of
language that also behaves like a skill.
Inherent in this explanation is the
notion that a conceptual understand-
ing of phonology involves childrens
ability to recognize that words can be
segmented into parts, and that parts of
language can be combined to form
words. This understanding in turn
establishes the base for developing the
specific skills (e.g., phoneme isolation,
blending, segmenting) necessary to
detect and manipulate increasingly
complex linguistic elements. There-
fore, for the sake of clarity, we would
argue for the use of the term phono-
logical awareness to refer to supra-
phoneme awareness tasks that involve
detection or manipulation of larger
linguistic units (Lonigan, 2006, p. 81)
such as syllables, onsets, and rhymes,
and the term phonemic awareness to
describe the explicit understanding
that words are composed of segments
of sound smaller than a syllable, as well
as knowledge, or awareness, of the
distinctive features of individual
phonemes themselves (Phillips &
Torgesen, 2006, p. 102). In the present
article, we will use the term phonolog-
ical sensitivity when referring to the
overarching category that includes
both phonological and phonemic
awareness (see Mayer & Trezek, in
press, for an in-depth discussion).
In making the case for the role of
phonological sensitivity in learning to
read, we draw on the evidence from
research on typically developing learn-
ers in which the importance of these
constructs to the development of
conventional literacy is supported by
studies documenting the causal role
between these abilities and skills and
the development of literacy in alpha-
betic languages such as English (e.g.,
Ball & Blachman, 1988; NELP, 2008;
Wagner et al., 1994). In addition to
phonological memory and phonologi-
cal access to the lexical store, phono-
logical sensitivity has been strongly
related to subsequent word-decoding
skills, with stable individual differences
demonstrated beginning in preschool
(e.g., Burgess & Lonigan, 1998; Loni-
gan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Wag-
ner, Torgesen, Laughton, Simmons, &
Roshotte, 1993; Wagner et al., 1994,
1997). Measures of phonological sen-
sitivity administered in preschool reli-
ably predict childrens subsequent
phonological sensitivity abilities (Bryant
et al., 1990; Burgess, 2006; Burgess &
Lonigan, 1998) and later word-decod-
ing skills (Burgess, 2002, 2006), even
after controlling for variance attributa-
ble to age, letter knowledge, and oral
language abilities.
The overwhelming majority of
researchers agree that these constructs
are associated with the development
of reading skills (e.g., Adams, 1994;
Braze, McRoberts, & McDounough,
2011; Chall, 1996; NELP, 2008; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Storch & White-
hurst, 2002). While historically there
have been divergent views as to the
role phonology plays in learning to
read, often as part of the discourse
associated with the Reading Wars
debate that dominated the latter half
of the 20th century (Chall, 1967; see
Stanovich, 2000, for discussion), we
contend that the current, widely
accepted, prevailing view supports
instructional approaches that combine
the strengths of whole language (e.g.,
use of authentic text, focus on compre-
hension) and phonics instruction, and
in doing so, create an approach that is
more than a sum of its parts (Pressley,
2005, p. 1).
The well-documented association
between phonology and the develop-
ment of reading skills is underpinned
by the beginning readers need to
understand the systematic relationship
underlying the mapping of phonemes
onto graphemes. More specifically, if a
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 363
sequence of phonemes cannot be
identified in the spoken language, the
basis for representing spoken words
as a sequence of corresponding
graphemes will remain inaccessible.
While there is debate with respect to
aspects of this role (e.g., the direction
of the causal relationship between the
variables, the level of phonological
structure that must be accessed), the
overall agreement is that phonological
sensitivity is central to learning to read.
A consideration of studies of strug-
gling readers lends further support to
the claim that phonological sensitivity
plays a key role in the development of
early and later conventional reading
skills, as deficits in these abilities have
been consistently documented for
most learners in this group (see, e.g.,
Stanovich, 1988; Wagner et al., 1994,
1997). Additionally, delays in both
phonological sensitivity and lexical
knowledge (e.g., vocabulary), referred
to as a double deficit, have been doc-
umented for many poor readers (e.g.,
Stanovich & Siegel, 1994), underscor-
ing the ongoing role that language
plays in the process of learning to read.
Some debate exists as to the pre-
dictive reliability and significance of
various types of phonological abilities.
For example, arguments are made that
some phonemic awareness skills such
as phoneme blending and segmenting
are more highly associated with later
reading achievement (Hatcher &
Hulme, 1999; Hulme, 2002; Hulme et
al., 2002; Hulme, Muter, & Snowling,
1998; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Tay-
lor, 1997; Nation & Hulme, 1997) than
abilities such as rhyming. Others sug-
gest that rhyming may just be contribut-
ing differently to the developmental
process (e.g., Bryant, 1998; Goswami
& Bryant, 1990). A growing body of
research evidence supports the posi-
tion that phonological sensitivity
should be considered a unitary con-
struct (Burgess, 2006, p. 91), and that
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
all phonological tasks, regardless of lin-
guistic complexity (e.g., onset and
rhyme, phoneme level), reflect the
same fundamental abilities (e.g.,
Anthony et al., 2002; Schatschneider,
Francis, Foorman, Fletcher, & Mehta,
1999; Wagner et al., 1997). While there
may be debate as to the relative impor-
tance of various aspects of phonologi-
cal sensitivity in the process of learning
to read, there is no disagreement that
they do play a central role.
Research Evidence
Despite the growing agreement among
researchers in the field of reading, the
consensus regarding phonological
sensitivity has not been consistently
extended to deaf readers, and there
continues to be disagreement on
whether it is necessary for learning to
read for this population of students.
Arguments are made that deaf indi-
viduals can bypass phonology and
become proficient readersa position als and that other factors, most notably
that stands in stark contrast to the con-
clusions that can be drawn from the
extensive body of literature and
research evidence from studies of the
broader population indicating that
these abilities and skills (i.e., phono-
logical and phonemic awareness) are
necessary to the process. We will con-
sider these claims and the evidence
presented to support them by examin-
ing two recent reviews of the literature
that have addressed this issue (i.e.,
Mayberry et al., 2011; Miller & Clark,
2011), with a specific focus on the
extent to which this research evidence
indicates that deaf students have
learned to read in the absence of
phonological sensitivity. In other words,
does the evidence support the claim
that deaf individuals are different in
how they learn to read?
Literature Review 1
Mayberry et al. (2011) included 57
studies in their detailed meta-analysis,
25 of which also measured the partic-
ipants reading ability and calculated a
statistic assessing the degree of rela-
tion between PCA and reading (p.
169). In only 21 of these studies was
some information provided regarding
participants reading abilities either as
part of the description of background
characteristics or as part of the exper-
imental study itself (p. 177). While
the authors acknowledged that their
conclusion was drawn from a limited
set of studies (p. 181), it is on this
basis that they reported that overall
PCA predicted 11% of the variance in
reading proficiency in deaf partici-
pants. Although not specifically identi-
fied, in the 7 studies in which it was
measured, language ability predicted
35% of the variance in reading profi-
ciency. Following from this analysis,
Mayberry et al. argued that PCA skills
are a low to moderate predictor of
reading achievement in deaf individu-
language ability, have a greater influ-
ence on reading development.
However, we would suggest that
the evidence upon which this claim is
made is less than robust. In the first
place, as Mayberry et al. (2011) them-
selves noted, even for hearing learn-
ers only 12% of the variance in word
identification skills was accounted for
by phonological awareness in a quan-
titative meta-analysis of the effects of
phonological awareness training on
reading (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999).
That said, this finding did not lead Bus
and van IJzendoorn to suggest that
phonological sensitivity does not play
an important role in learning to read
for hearing childrenrather, they con-
cluded that it is an important but not
sufficient condition for early reading
development. Therefore, the finding
that 11% of the variance in the studies
of deaf readers could be accounted for
by phonological sensitivity seems con-
sistent with what has been found in
363
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 364
REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF PHONOLOGY
hearing learners, and thus leads to the
conclusion that deaf readers may not
be different in this regard, with phono-
logical sensitivity playing a similar role.
A second point is the fact that the
meta-analysis by Mayberry et al. (2011),
in contrast to that of Bus and van IJzen-
doorn (1999), included studies of the
effect of phonological sensitivity across
a wide segment of the age range (i.e.,
mean ages from 5 to 37 years), with
only 4 investigations focusing exclu-
sively on early readersthat is, those
through the age of 8 years (Colin, Mag-
nan, Ecalle, & Leybaert, 2007; Harris, &
Beech, 1998; Harris & Moreno, 2006;
Kyle & Harris, 2006), when phonolog-
ical, code-related abilities are most crit-
ical. As we have already noted, it is well
documented in the literature that the
effect of phonological processing skills
is evidenced most strongly in the early
stages of learning to read, with oral
language skills having little or no direct
influence on development in first and
second grade (Storch & Whitehurst,
2002).
This is not to suggest that language-
related abilities do not also play a role
during this period, but to highlight the
fact that phonological abilities account
for more of the variance in the begin-
ning than in the later phases of devel-
opment (see also Frost, Madsbjerg,
Niederse, Olofsson, & Srensen,
2005). That said, it is problematic that
there are so few studies in the review
by Mayberry et al. (2011) that investi-
gate reading development during the
period when phonological sensitivity
has the most influence on learning to
read, as even in the hearing popula-
tion the impact of phonological sensi-
tivity lessens in more mature readers
(Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
Furthermore, it is typically only
struggling hearing readers who con-
tinue to face challenges as a conse-
quence of deficits in phonological
sensitivity beyond the early years (see,
364
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
e.g., Stanovich, 1988; Wagner et al.,
1994, 1997), the implication being that
proficient readers have mastered these
phonological, code-related abilities,
with variance in this group being
attributed to language, not code-
related abilities. Therefore, if we may
return to the previous point, it could
be argued that given the wide age
range considered in the meta-analysis
by Mayberry et al. (2011), 11% of the
variance being attributed to phonolog-
ical sensitivity indicates that many of
the older deaf readers were continuing
to struggle in this regard, a situation
that may account for their poor read-
ing performance.
Perhaps most concerning is the fact
that there is no strong evidence in
this meta-analysis that deaf individuals
were able to become proficient (i.e.,
age-appropriate, at grade level) read-
ers without control of phonological
sensitivity. Although calculated and dis-
cussed (see Mayberry et al., 2011, p.
177), mean reading levels were not
reported for the 25 studies; therefore,
it is not clear how many deaf readers
were actually functioning at an age-
appropriate level in the absence of
phonological abilities. For example, of
the 29 participants aged 4.4 to 13.5
years in one study, only 6 were reading
at grade level and the overall mean
reading level for the group was at the
preprimer to first-grade level (Izzo,
2002). Of the 2 strongest readers, 1
also had the highest phonemic aware-
ness score, and the oldest student in
the study (13.5 years) was reading at a
fifth-grade levelwell below expecta-
tions for his age. Therefore, although
it is suggested that these findings sup-
port the premise that phonemic
awareness may neither facilitate nor be
necessary for reading development of
readers who are deaf (Izzo, 2002,
p. 26), we would submit that this claim
is not warranted based on the data pre-
sented and that there is no compelling
evidence that most of these children
had learned to read. This begs the
question of whether it is actually
deficits in phonological sensitivity that
account for this poor performance.
Literature Review 2
In their review of the research, Miller
and Clark (2011) did not provide inclu-
sion criteria for study selection, or an
analysis/summary chart of the included
studies. However, in our reading of
their article we identified three studies
that were not included in the Mayberry
et al. (2011) meta-analysis that focused
specifically on phonological sensitivity
and reading performance, and that
incorporated a measure of reading
comprehension (McQuarrie & Parrila,
2009; P. Miller, 2009, 2010). A review of
these study findings is provided below.
Based on their findings, McQuarrie
and Parrila (2009) concluded that a
lack of phonological sensitivity was evi-
dent in the performance of both poor
and good readers (as cited in P. Miller
& Clark, 2011, p. 466). In their study,
these researchers focused on 52 deaf
students equally divided in number
between two age groups, 8-to-13-year-
olds and 14-to-19-year-olds. Scores
from the paragraph meaning subtest
of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-
HI) and the 82-item reading com-
prehension subtest of the Peabody
Individual Achievement TestRevised
(PIAT-R) were used as measures of
reading comprehension, and findings
related to the ability to make syllable-,
rhyme-, and phoneme-level judgments
were also reported. It is worth noting
that 31 of the 52 participants (i.e., 60%)
had a reading age of less than 9 years,
and only 21 read better than a 9-year-
old. These results and the age ranges
of the cohort indicate that the major-
ity of participants in McQuarrie and
Parrilas study did not read at an age-
appropriate level, and it is not clear
how many participants who lacked
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 365
phonological sensitivity were profi-
cient readers. Therefore, it is not
apparent how these findings provide
compelling support for the view that
phonological sensitivity is not neces-
sary for learning to read when the
majority of the participants were not
proficient readers.
Participants in a study conducted by
Miller (2010) included hearing (n =
85) and deaf (n = 83) cohorts from
primary school, high school, and uni-
versity settings, and involved the
administration of two measuresone
to assess phonemic and orthographic
awareness and one to assess reading
comprehension. The reading compre-
hension task was not a standardized
measure, but rather a test that con-
sisted of 36 sentences (mean length =
6.97 words; range = 412) using only
very basic vocabulary (i.e., only words
with available signs in Signed Hebrew)
to prevent lexical knowledge from
becoming a potential discriminator
between participant groups. Half of
these sentences were semantically
plausible and half semantically implau-
sible, with comprehension assessed by
having participants circle a response
to a short question from two or three
options. In summarizing his findings,
Miller suggested that the failure of the
deaf individuals to develop sensitivity
to the phonological properties of
words may not underlie their reading
difficulties, arguing that this weakness
seems to reflect a processing deficit
at the supra-lexical (sentence) level
where the final meaning of single
words is elaborated by its integration
based upon syntactic (structural)
knowledge (p. 1). However, it was
also found that, overall, deaf individu-
als at all levels exhibited markedly
poorer reading comprehension, with
these scores being moderately but sig-
nificantly correlated with phonemic
awareness, a finding that suggests that
those deaf individuals with increased
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
phonological sensitivity tended to be
better readers. In light of this finding,
and given the nature of the reading
comprehension measure that was
used, it is not clear how many of the
deaf participants in the study were
able to read at an age-appropriate
level in the absence of phonological
abilities.
The same measure of reading com-
prehension is referenced in another
study by Miller (2009), in which he
investigated the word-reading strate-
gies of 59 hearing and 31 orally edu-
cated, prelingually deaf high school
and postgraduate students. While the
main focus of the study was on reading
words in isolation, Miller did relate
these findings to the reading compre-
hension measure, suggesting that the
evidence fails to support a theory
assigning phonological decoding a crit-
ical role in reading comprehension
(p. 359). However, it is important to
point out that these deaf participants
exhibited drastically impoverished
phonological sensitivity and reading
comprehension (relative to the test
measure and a hearing control group),
and it is not clear how the lack of dif-
ference found between the hearing
and deaf cohorts on the word-reading
task relates to reading comprehension.
In other words, it seems that although
the hearing and deaf participants were
using similar strategies for word read-
ing, the members of the hearing
cohort were better readers and had
stronger phonological abilities.
As Miller (2009) acknowledged,
given that all participants had many
years of reading experience, and the
word pairs used in the word-reading
task in his study were mainly high-fre-
quency words, it might be reasonable
to assume that the principle strategy
used was orthographic (i.e., whole
word recognition), which would
explain why phonological sensitivity
was not indicative of the participants
performance and did not predict their
reading comprehension. We would
agree with the author in this observa-
tion, and further point out that no
direct evidence was presented that the
deaf participants who did not have
control of phonological abilities were
proficient readers.
Perspectives on the
Literature Reviews
Based on this examination of the
research evidence from the reviews by
Mayberry et al. (2011) and Miller and
Clark (2011), we suggest that there is
not a strong empirical basis for claim-
ing that phonology does not play a
role in reading for deaf individuals.
Rather, there is stronger theoretical
and empirical evidence to support the
argument for a relationship between
phonology and reading in the popula-
tion of deaf readers than for the coun-
terargument. In addition to the older
studies that are often cited in support
of our assertion (e.g., Beech & Harris,
1997; Conrad, 1964; Hanson, 1982,
1990; Hanson & Fowler, 1987; Han-
son, Goodell, & Perfetti, 1991; Han-
son & Lichtenstein, 1990), we point to
some of the more recent work that
has investigated phonological sensi-
tivity as an aspect of early reading
development in deaf childrenthe
stage at which this issue is most
salient (e.g., Ambrose, Fey, & Eisen-
berg, 2012; Beech & Harris, 1997;
Colin, Leybaert, Ecalle, & Magnan,
2013; Cupples, Ching, Crowe, Day, &
Seeto, 2014; Dillon, de Jong, & Pisoni,
2012; Easterbrooks, Lederberg, E. M.
Miller, Bergeron, & Connor, 2008;
Fagan, Pisoni, Horn, & Dillon, 2007;
Geers, 2003; Harris & Beech, 1998;
Kyle & Harris, 2011; Spencer &
Tomblin, 2009; Transler & Reitsma,
2011; Vermeulen, Van Bon, Schreuder,
Knoors, & Snik, 2007). Collective find-
ings of these investigations suggest
the following:
365
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 366
REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF PHONOLOGY
1. Deaf participants have control of
phonological sensitivity, although
they may score lower than their
hearing peers on some measures
(e.g., rhyming, reading of pseudo-
words).
2. Phonological abilities among
young deaf children correlate
with other measures of early
literacy (e.g., vocabulary, word
identification, passage compre-
hension), as well as gains in read-
ing, in a manner similar to that
shown by hearing readers of the
same age.
3. The developmental reading tra-
jectory of deaf learners appears
to diverge after the second
year of reading instruction in
the absence of phonological
sensitivity.
4. Familiarity with a natural sign
language (e.g., British Sign Lan-
guage), including fingerspelling,
was not found to correlate with
gains in reading.
5. Early exposure to a communi-
cation system that makes the
phonological aspects of the
language accessible (i.e., Cued
Speech) results in age-appropri-
ate skill development in the
areas of phonological awareness,
reading, and spelling, although
not necessarily vocabulary.
In one of the most recent studies (Cup-
ples et al., 2014), it was found that, after
numerous variables were controlled for
(e.g., receptive vocabulary, nonverbal
cognitive ability, and a range of demo-
graphic variables, including gender,
degree of hearing loss, communication
mode, type of sensory device, age at
fitting of sensory devices, and level
of maternal education), phonological
awareness made a significant, inde-
pendent contribution to deaf chil-
drens early reading ability.
366
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
Conclusion
In considering the implications of our
examination of the phonology debate
on research and practice, we return to
the title of this article and the ques-
tion we posed: Is reading different for
deaf individuals? Informed by the evi-
dence-based arguments we have pre-
sented here, our response to this
question is a definitive no. What this
means for us in terms of practice is that
instruction, including assessment,
needs to be differentiated (e.g., via
accommodations) rather than differ-
ent, and be based on the identified
strengths or weakness of the individual
learner (e.g., have a relative focus on
code- or language-related abilities),
and not on the premise that deaf read-
ers do not need to master the same re-
quisites as all other English literacy
learners (Mayer & Trezek, in press). We
would apply this model to the full
range of deaf learners we teach
whether their first language is English
or ASL, whether they use spoken
or signed language (or both), and
whether or not they use hearing tech-
nologies, including cochlear implants,
recognizing that, despite the signifi-
cant positive shifts in literacy out-
comes for many children using
improved hearing technologies, some
children in this group continue to face
challenges in learning to read (Arch-
bold & Mayer, 2011; Marschark, Sar-
chet, Rhoten, & Zupan, 2010). To
elaborate on our position, we will con-
clude by providing our perspectives on
three issues that we believe warrant
further discussion as a consequence
of this claim: (a) the utility of the
debate, (b) pedagogical implications,
and (c) directions for future research.
Utility of the Debate
We suggest that, historically, an inordi-
nate amount of time and attention has
been expended to suggest that among
all groups of learners, deaf individuals
are unique in that they can become
proficient readers in the absence of
phonological understandings (Allen
et al., 2009; Miller & Clark, 2011;
Moores, 2001). An aspect of this
debate is the pitting of language-
related abilities against code-related,
phonological skills to determine which
deserves pride of place as the most
important factor in learning to read
(see e.g., discussions about what
accounts for the most variance in out-
comes). This seems to us to be a
debate without warrant. Even the
staunchest supporter of the role that
phonological sensitivity plays in learn-
ing to read would acknowledge that
reading fundamentally rests on a
language foundation. As we described
above under The Model of Reading
Development, phonology is an
aspect of language acquisition in the
first place, and it is the implicit
phonological awareness that develops
in the language acquisition process
that provides the platform for the
explicit teaching of the phonological
skills necessary for learning to read. It
is these phonological skills that allow
the reader to make the connections
between through-the-air language
and the print on the pagepar -
ticularly in alphabetic languages such
as English (i.e., languages that, per
the alphabetic principle, employ
phoneme and grapheme correspon-
dences).
Our key point is that phonology is a
necessary aspect of learning to read,
most especially in the early years,
when the primary focus is on learning
to decode. We recognize that, in and
of itself, phonology is not sufficient
to allow for comprehension (i.e.,
decoding in the absence of language);
however, in the absence of the devel-
opment of phonological sensitivity
abilities and the ability to decode with
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 367
ease and automaticity, comprehension
is not possible. What is abundantly
clear from the theoretical and empiri-
cal evidence from hearing learners is
that phonological abilities are central
to this decoding process, and we
would contend that there is no robust
body of parallel evidence to support
the view that this does not also hold
true for deaf readers. As we explicated
in our discussion above, there are no
data to indicate that significant num-
bers of deaf individuals become profi-
cient readers without developing
phonological abilities, and we could
identify no study that examined this
issue directly (i.e., using standardized
measures of reading and phonology
and examining reading outcomes rela-
tive to age norms).
We suggest that this phonology
debate has persisted in the light of
such a weak evidence base as a conse-
quence of the communication dis-
putes that continue to dog our field
(i.e., spoken vs. signed language, oral-
ism vs. manualism), with the pro-
phonology camp being associated with
a spoken-language, anti-sign perspec-
tive. In part, such a view is understand-
able, as mastering the phonological
requisites of learning to read would
seem to be tied to sound and being
able to listen and speak, and thus
would be most obviously linked to an
oralist model of deaf education. Such
an interpretation seems to preclude
the teaching of phonology in educa-
tional settings that employ some form
of signed communication (e.g., sign
bilingual programs).
However, this is an unfortunate
(and inaccurate) construal of the
issue. While it is true that those who
adopt the view that learning to read is
a qualitatively or developmentally
similar process (i.e., the view that
phonology is necessary) do empha-
size control of spoken language as
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
being the most expedient route for
learning to decode, they also suggest
that this proficiency may also be
achieved through other modalities
(i.e., via a visual communication sys-
tem such as Cued Speech or a visual-
tactile tool such as Visual Phonics)
that stand in for phonological repre-
sentations and realize the same out-
comes (i.e., mastery of sound-symbol
correspondences).
Pedagogical Implications
It has been suggested that all learners
require specific instruction in order to
develop an understanding of the
alphabetic principle (i.e., the existence
of relationships between phonemes
and graphemes), as the relevant skills
do not generally develop sponta-
neously (see Braze et al., 2011); we
would suggest that this situation also
holds true for deaf children. This is an
issue that has been largely ignored by
those who challenge a phonological
perspective (e.g., Allen et al., 2009;
Miller & Clark, 2011), and it may be the
case that some deaf children do not
use phonological strategies because
they have never been taught how to do
so. For example, several researchers
have suggested that direct and explicit
instruction is required (e.g., Bergeron,
Lederberg, Easterbrooks, E. M. Miller,
& Connor, 2009; Syverud, Guardino,
& Selznick, 2009), and that a visual-tac-
tile tool such as Visual Phonics can be
employed to augment this type of
instruction (e.g., Beal-Alvarez, Leder-
berg, & Easterbrooks, 2012; Guardino,
Syverud, Joyner, Nicols, & King, 2011;
Smith & Wang, 2010; Trezek & Han-
cock, 2013; Trezek & Malmgren, 2005;
Trezek & Wang, 2006; Trezek, Wang,
Woods, Gampp, & Paul, 2007; Wang,
Spychala, Harris, & Oetting, 2013). The
evidence from these investigations
indicates that many deaf participants
were able to develop knowledge of the
alphabetic principle with little or no
reliance on audition or speech.
With a relatively strong body of
research evidence regarding the acqui-
sition of the alphabetic principle firmly
in place, we suggest that questions of
pedagogy can now shift toward a focus
on more nuanced questions regarding
phonological sensitivity instruction
and achievement. For example, since
most studies to date have focused
almost exclusively on the development
of the alphabetic principle, it is difficult
to surmise whether the deaf children
in these investigations had acquired
phonological and/or phonemic aware-
ness abilities, the skills that research
evidence indicates are important pre-
requisites for hearing learners. We
therefore recommend that pedagogi-
cal attention be given to developing
phonological sensitivity abilities prior
to, or in conjunction with, instruction
in the alphabetic principle, and to
assessing the results of these efforts.
Directions for Future
Research
In light of the information we have
provided in the present article, we
advocate a research agenda that
focuses not on how deaf readers are
differentas we do not think that they
areat least when it comes to a con-
sideration of the code- and language-
related knowledge and skills that are
necessary for learning to read, but,
rather, on how the process of learning
to read is manifested differently in deaf
learners. In this respect, we agree with
the conclusion of McQuarrie and
Parrila (2009) that it is time to focus
research efforts on a more detailed
investigation of what critical evidence
must be available in the input signal to
support deaf learners in the process of
lexical elaboration and, in turn, the
construction of rich and robust word
representations (p. 151).
367
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 368
REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF PHONOLOGY
Specifically, we suggest an in-depth
examination of the relationship be-
tween code- and language-related abil-
ities in the development of both early
and conventional reading skills as well
as an exploration of the reciprocity
between reading and writing abilities.
We also recommend that researchers
garner insights from the literature on
hearing children, particularly on those
who are struggling readers, to design a
wide range of investigations aimed at
addressing similar research questions
germane to these types of investiga-
tions. Exploring the longitudinal impact
of phonologically based interventions
on the conventional literacy outcomes
of deaf children, particularly those out-
comes associated with the domain of
reading comprehension, would also
serve to better inform both research
and practice, and perhaps bring some
closure to the question of whether, and
to what extent, phonology matters in
reading for deaf learners.
A Note on Terminology
In the present article, we use the term
deaf to refer to any individual identified
with a hearing loss, from mild to pro-
found, irrespective of the use of ampli-
fication. For instance, for the purposes
of the article, individuals with cochlear
implants are regarded as deaf. We are
not making a distinction between deaf
and Deaf, as we do not consider
this difference germane to our view
of the development of reading.The
Authors.
References
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking
and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT. Press.
Adams, M. (1994). Phonics and beginning read-
ing instruction. In F. Lehr & J. Osborn (Eds.),
Reading, language, and literacy: Instruc-
tion for the 21st century (pp. 323). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allen, T., Clark, M. D., del Giudice, A., Koo, D.,
Lieberman, A., Mayberry, R., & Miller, P.
(2009). Phonology and reading: A response
368
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
to Wang, Trezek, Luckner, and Paul. Ameri-
can Annals of the Deaf, 154, 338345.
Ambrose, S. E., Fey, M. E., & Eisenberg, L. S.
(2012). Phonological awareness and print
knowledge of preschool children with
cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Lan-
guage, and Hearing Research, 55(3),
811823. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-
0086)
Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The na-
ture of phonological sensitivity: Converging
evidence from four studies of preschool and
early-grade school children. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 96, 4355.
Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R.,
Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Cantor, B. G.
(2002). Structure of preschool phonological
sensitivity: Overlapping sensitivity to rhyme,
words, syllables, and phonemes. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 6592.
Archbold, S., & Mayer, C. (2012). Deaf educa-
tion: The impact of cochlear implantation?
Deafness Education International 14(1),
215.
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1988). Phonological
segmentation training: Effects of reading
readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 208225.
Beal-Alvarez, J., Lederberg, A. R., & Easterbrooks,
S. R. (2012). Grapheme-phoneme acquisi-
tion of deaf preschoolers. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 17, 3960.
doi:10.1093/deafed/enr030
Beech, J. R., & Harris, M. (1997). The prelin-
gually deaf reader: A case of reliance on
direct lexical access? Journal of Research in
Reading, 20, 105121.
Bergeron, J., Lederberg, A. R., Easterbrooks, S.
R., Miller, E. M., & Connor, C. (2009). Build-
ing the alphabetic principle in young chil-
dren who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta
Review, 109, 87119.
Bialystok, E. (2004). The impact of bilingualism
on language and literacy development. In T.
K. Bhata & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The hand-
book of bilingualism (pp. 577601). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Bialystok, E. (2011). Language proficiency and its
implications for monolingual and bilingual
children. In A. Y. Durgunnogablu & C. Gold-
enberg (Eds.), Language and literacy devel-
opment in bilingual settings (pp. 121138).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Devel-
opmental dyslexia and specific language
impairment: Same or different? Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 130, 858888.
Braze, D., McRoberts, G. W., & McDounough, C.
(2011). Early precursors of reading-relevant
phonological skills. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze,
& C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual
differences in reading: Theory and evi-
dence (pp. 2343). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.
Bryant, P. (1998). Sensitivity to onset and rhyme
does predict young childrens reading: A
comment on Muter, Hulme, Snowling, and
Taylor (1997). Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 71, 2937. doi:10.1006/
jecp.1998.2455
Bryant, P., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Cross-
land, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration,
phoneme detection, and learning to read.
Developmental Psychology, 26, 429438.
Burgess, S. R. (2002). The influence of speech
perception, oral language ability, the home
literacy environment, and pre-reading
knowledge on the growth of phonological
sensitivity: A 1-year longitudinal investiga-
tion. Reading and Writing: An Interdiscipli-
nary Journal, 15, 709737.
Burgess, S. R. (2006). The development of
phonological sensitivity. In D. K. Dickinson &
S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early lit-
eracy research (Vol. 2, pp. 90100). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Bidirec-
tional relations of phonological sensitivity
and pre-reading abilities: Evidence from a
preschool sample. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 70, 117141.
Bus, A. G., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999).
Phonological awareness and early reading: A
meta-analysis of experimental training stud-
ies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
403414.
Catts, H. W. (1997). The early identification of lan-
guage-based reading disabilities. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28,
8689.
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2005). The connec-
tions between language and reading dis-
abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great
debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading develop-
ment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Colin, S., Leybaert, J., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A.
(2013). The development of word recog-
nition, sentence comprehension, word
spelling, and vocabulary in children with deaf-
ness: A longitudinal study. Research in Devel-
opmental Disabilities, 34(5), 17811793.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.02.001
Colin, S., Magnan, A., Ecalle, J., & Leybaert, J.
(2007). Relation between deaf childrens
phonological skills in kindergarten and word
recognition performance in first grade. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48,
139146.
Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustic confusion in imme-
diate memory. British Journal of Psychology,
55, 7584.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and ped-
agogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cupples, L., Ching, T., Crowe, K., Day, J., & Seeto,
M. (2014). Predictors of early reading skill in
5-year-old children with hearing loss who use
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 369
spoken language. Reading Research Quar-
terly 49, 85104. doi:10.1002/rrq.60
Dickinson, D., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K.
(2010). Speaking out for language: Why lan-
guage is central for learning development.
Educational Researcher, 29, 305310.
Dickinson, D., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L.,
Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Poe, M. D. (2003).
The comprehensive language approach to
early literacy: The interrelationships among
vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and
print knowledge among preschool-aged chil-
dren. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 465481.
Dickinson, D., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. (2006). A
window of opportunity we must open to all:
The case for preschool with high-quality sup-
port for language and literacy. In D. Dickin-
son & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early
literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 1128). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dillon, C. M., de Jong, K., Pisoni, D. B. (2012).
Phonological awareness, reading skills, and
vocabulary knowledge in children who use
cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 17, 205226.
doi:10.1093/deafed/enr043
Easterbrooks, S. R., Lederberg, A. R., Miller, E.
M., Bergeron, J. P., & Connor, C. M. (2008).
Emergent literacy skills during early child-
hood in children with hearing loss: Strengths
and weaknesses. Volta Review, 108, 91114.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S., & Willows, D.
(2001). Systematic phonics instruction
helps students learn to read: Evidence from
the National Reading Panels meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 71, 393
447.
Fagan, M. K., Pisoni, D. B., Horn, D. L., & Dillon,
C. M. (2007). Neuropsychological correlates
of vocabulary, reading, and working memory
in deaf children with cochlear implants. Jour-
nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12,
461471.
Frost, J., Madsbjerg, S., Niederse, J., Olofsson,
A., & Srensen, P. M. (2005). Semantic and
phonological skills in predicting reading
development: From 3 to 16 years age.
Dyslexia, 11(2), 7992.
Geers, A. (2003). Predictors of reading skill
development in children with early cochlear
implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24, 59S68S.
Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. E. (1990). Phonologi-
cal skills and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Guardino, C., Syverud, S. M., Joyner, A., Nicols,
H., & King, S. (2011). Further evidence of
the effectiveness of phonological instruction
with oral-deaf readers. American Annals of
the Deaf, 155, 562568. doi:10.1353/aad/
2011.0002
Hanson, V. (1982). Short-term memory recall by
deaf signers of American Sign Language:
Implications for order recall. Journal of
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Mem-
ory, and Cognition, 8, 572583.
Hanson, V. (1989). Phonology and reading: Evi-
dence from profoundly deaf readers. In D.
Shankweiler & I. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology
and reading disability: Solving the reading
puzzle (pp. 6989). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Hanson, V. (1990). Recall of order formation by
deaf signers: Phonetic coding in temporal
order recall. Memory and Cognition, 18,
604610.
Hanson, V., & Fowler, C. (1987). Phonological
coding in word reading: Evidence from deaf
and hearing readers. Memory and Cogni-
tion, 15, 199207.
Hanson, V., Goodell, E. W., & Perfetti, C. A.
(1991). Tongue-twister effects in the silent
reading of hearing and deaf college students.
Journal of Memory and Language, 30,
319330.
Hanson, V., & Lichtenstein, E. (1990). Short-term
memory coding by deaf signers: The primary
language coding hypothesis reconsidered.
Cognitive Psychology, 22, 211224.
Harris, M., & Beech, J. R. (1998). Implicit phono-
logical awareness and early reading develop-
ment in prelingually deaf children. Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3,
205216.
Harris, M., & Moreno, C. (2006). Speechreading
and learning to read: A comparison of 8-year-
old profoundly deaf children with good and
poor reading abilities. Journal of Deaf Stud-
ies and Deaf Education, 11, 189201.
Hatcher, P. J., & Hulme, C. (1999). Phonemes,
rhymes, and intelligence as predictors of chil-
drens responsiveness to remedial reading
instruction: Evidence from a longitudinal
intervention study. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 72, 130153. doi:10.1006/
jecp.1998.2480
Hornberger, N. (1989). Continua of biliteracy.
Review of Educational Research, 59,
271296.
Hulme, C. (2002). Phonemes, rimes, and the
mechanisms of early reading development.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
82, 5864. doi:10.1006/jecp.2002.2674
Hulme, C., Hatcher, P. J., Nation, K., Brown, A.,
Adams, J., & Stuart, G. (2002). Phoneme
awareness is a better predictor of early read-
ing skill than onset-rime awareness. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 228.
Hulme, C., Muter, V., & Snowling, M. J. (1998).
Segmentation does predict early progress in
learning to read better than rhyme: A reply
to Bryant. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 71, 3944. doi:10.1006/jecp
.1998.2456
Izzo, A. (2002). Phonemic awareness and read-
ing ability: An investigation with young read-
ers who are deaf. American Annals of the
Deaf, 147, 1828.
Kyle, F. E., & Harris, M. (2006). Concurrent cor-
relates and predictors of reading and spelling
achievement in deaf and hearing school chil-
dren. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Edu-
cation, 11, 273288.
Kyle, F. E., & Harris, M. (2011). Longitudinal pat-
terns of emerging literacy in beginning deaf
and hearing readers. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 16, 289304.
Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Conceptualizing phono-
logical processing skills in pre-readers. In D.
K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Hand-
book of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp.
7789). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L.
(2000). Development of emergent literacy
and early reading skills in preschool chil-
dren: Evidence from a latent-variable longi-
tudinal study. Developmental Psychology,
36, 596613.
Marschark, M., Sarchet, T., Rhoten, C., & Zupan,
M. (2010). Will cochlear implants close the
reading achievement gap for deaf students?
In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford
handbook of deaf studies, language, and
education (Vol. 2, pp. 127143). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Mayberry, R., del Guidice, A., & Lieberman, A.
(2011). Reading achievement in relation to
phonological coding and awareness in deaf
readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 164188.
doi:10.1093/deafed/enq049
Mayer, C. (1999). Shaping at the point of utter-
ance: An investigation of the composing proc-
esses of the deaf student writer. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 3749.
Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early
literacy development of deaf children. Jour-
nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12,
411431. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm020
Mayer, C. (2009). Issues in second-language lit-
eracy education with learners who are deaf.
International Journal of Bilingual Educa-
tion and Bilingualism, 12(3), 325334.
Mayer, C., & Akamatsu, C. T. (2011). Bilingualism
and literacy. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies,
language, and education (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.,
pp. 144155). New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Mayer, C., & Leigh, G. (2010). The changing con-
text for sign bilingual education programs:
Issues in language and the development of
literacy. International Journal of Bilin-
gualism and Bilingual Education, 13(2),
175186.
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2011). New (?) answers
to old questions: Literacy development in
D/HH learners. In D. F. Moores (Ed.), Part-
ners in education: Issues and trends from
the 21st International Congress on the Edu-
cation of the Deaf (pp. 6274). Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press.
369
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 370
REEXAMINING THE ROLE OF PHONOLOGY
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (in press). Early liter-
acy development in deaf children. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic
interdependence theory support a bilingual
model of literacy education for deaf stu-
dents? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 1, 93107.
McGuinness, D. (2004). Early reading instruc-
tion: What science really tells us about how
to teach reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McQuarrie, L., & Parrila, R. (2009). Phonological
representations in deaf children: Rethinking
the functional equivalence hypothesis.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa-
tion, 14, 137154.
Miller, P. (2009). The nature and efficiency of the
word-reading strategies of prelingually deaf-
ened native signers. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 14, 344361.
Miller, P. (2010). Phonological, orthographic, and
syntactic awareness and their relation to
reading comprehension in prelingually deaf
individuals: What can we learn from skilled
readers? Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 22, 549580.
Miller, P., & Clark, M. D. (2011). Phonemic aware-
ness is not necessary to become a skilled deaf
reader. Journal of Developmental and Phys-
ical Disabilities, 23, 459476. doi:10.1007/
s10882-011-9246-0
Moores, D. (2001). Sign and phonology. Ameri-
can Annals of the Deaf, 146, 34.
Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P.
(1979). Does awareness of speech as a
sequence of phones arise spontaneously?
Cognition, 7, 323331.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S.
(1997). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts
early progress in learning to read. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 65,
370396. doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.2365
Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic seg-
mentation, not onset-rime segmentation,
predicts early reading and spelling skills.
Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 154167.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.32.2.2
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing
early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National
Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from http://
lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09
.pdf
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching children
to read: An evidence-based assessment of
the scientific research literature on reading
and its implications for reading instruc-
tion. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Liter-
acy at EDPubs.
Paul, P. (2003). Processes and components of
reading. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.),
Handbook of deaf studies, language, and
education (pp. 97109). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
370
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
Paul, P., Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., & Luckner, J. L.
(2009). Phonology is necessary, but not suf-
ficient: A rejoinder. American Annals of the
Deaf, 154, 346356.
Paul, P., Wang, Y., & Williams, C. (2013). Deaf stu-
dents and the qualitative similarity hypoth-
esis: Understanding language and literacy
development. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Phillips, B. M., & Torgesen, J. K. (2006). Phone-
mic awareness and reading: Beyond the
growth of initial reading accuracy. In D. K.
Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Hand-
book of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp.
101112). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pressley, M. (2005). Reading instruction that
works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pugh, K. R., Sandak, R., Frost, S. J., Moore, D. L.,
& Mencl, W. E. (2006). Neurobiological inves-
tigations of skilled and impaired reading. In
D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.),
Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2,
pp. 6474). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early lan-
guage and literacy to later reading (dis)abili-
ties: Evidence, theory, and practice. In D. K.
Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Hand-
book of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp.
97110). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schatschneider, C., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B. R.,
Fletcher, J. M., & Mehta, P. (1999). The
dimensionality of phonological awareness:
An application of item response theory. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 91, 439449.
Smith, A., & Wang, Y. (2010). The impact of
Visual Phonics on the phonological aware-
ness and speech production of a student
who is deaf: A case study. American Annals
of the Deaf, 155, 124130.
Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Prevent-
ing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Spencer, L. J., & Tomblin, J. B. (2009). Evaluating
phonological processing skills in children
with prelingual deafness who use cochlear
implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 14, 121. doi:10.1093/deafed/
enn013
Stahl, S. A., & Murray, B. A. (1994). Defining
phonological awareness and its relationship
to early reading. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 86, 221234.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in read-
ing: Some consequences of individual differ-
ences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21, 360407.
Stanovich, K. E. (1988). The right and wrong
places to look for the cognitive locus of read-
ing disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 38,
154157. doi:10.1007/BF02648254
Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the
causes and consequences of individual differ-
ences in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough,
L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading
acquisition (pp. 307342). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in under-
standing reading: Scientific foundations
and new frontiers. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Pheno-
typic performance profile of children with
reading disabilities: A regression-based test
of the phonological-core variable-difference
model. Journal of Educational Psychology,
38, 934947.
Storch, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2002). Oral lan-
guage and code-related precursors to read-
ing: Evidence from a longitudinal structural
model. Developmental Psychology, 38,
934947.
Syverud, S. M., Guardino, C., & Selznick, D. N.
(2009). Teaching phonological skills to a
deaf first grader: A promising strategy. Amer-
ican Annals of the Deaf, 154, 382388.
doi:10.1353/aad.0.0113
Transler, C., & Reitsma, P. (2011). Phonological
coding in reading of deaf children: Pseudo-
homophone effects in lexical decision.
British Journal of Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 23(4), 525542.
Trezek, B. J., & Hancock, G. R. (2013). Imple-
menting instruction in the alphabetic princi-
ple within a sign bilingual setting. Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18,
391408. doi:10.1093/deafed/ent016
Trezek, B. J., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). The
efficacy of utilizing a phonics treatment
package with middle school deaf and hard-
of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Stud-
ies and Deaf Education, 10, 257271.
doi:10.1093/deafed/eni028
Trezek, B. J., & Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of uti-
lizing a phonics-based reading curriculum
with children who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
10, 202213. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj031
Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., & Paul, P. (2010). Reading
and deafness: Theory, research, and prac-
tice. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning.
Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., Woods, D. G., Gampp,
T. L., & Paul, P. (2007). Using Visual Phonics
to supplement beginning reading instruc-
tion for students who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 12, 373384. doi:10.1093/deafed/
enm014
Vermeulen, A. M., Van Bon, W., Schreuder, R.,
Knoors, H., & Snik, A. (2007). Reading com-
prehension of deaf children with cochlear
implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 12, 283302.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Laughton, P., Sim-
mons, K., & Roshotte, C. A. (1993). The
development of young readers phonological
processing abilities. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 120.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A.
(1994). Development of reading-related
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
18663-AAD159.4_Fall2014 11/6/14 3:32 PM Page 371
phonological processing abilities: New evi-
dence of bidirectional causality from a latent-
variable longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 7387.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A.,
Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., et al.
(1997). Changing relations between phono-
logical processing abilities and word-level
reading as children develop from beginning
VOLUME 159, NO. 4, 2014
to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 468479.
Wang, Y., Spychala, H., Harris, R. S., & Oetting, T.
L. (2013). The effectiveness of a phonics-
based early intervention for deaf and hard
of hearing preschool children and its possi-
ble impact on reading skills in elementary
school: A case study. American Annals of the
Deaf, 158, 107120.
Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J. L., & 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,
396407.
Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (1998). Child
development and emergent literacy. Child
Development, 68, 848872.
371
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.