Literacy in The Homes of Deaf Children

03ECL5-1 Watson (JB/D) 10/2/05 1:38 pm Page 53
a rt i c l e
Literacy in the homes of

young deaf children: Journal of Early
Common and distinct features Childhood Literacy

Copyright 2005
sage publications
of spoken language and sign London, Thousand Oaks, CA

and New Delhi
vol 5(1) 5378
bilingual environments DOI: 10.1177/1468798405050594
RU T H S WA N W I C K University of Leeds, UK
L I N DA WAT S O N University of Birmingham, UK
Abstract The study of deaf childrens early literacy raises fundamental

issues about their access to language, experiences of early interaction
and literacy development. However, we currently understand very
little about how young deaf children develop literacy skills given their
exceptional linguistic circumstances. This review explores early
literacy practices in the homes of young deaf children to identify the
commonalities and differences apparent in spoken language and sign
bilingual homes. The introduction of the Newborn Hearing Screening
Programme (NHSP), which is currently taking place, aims to diagnose
congenital deafness in the first few weeks of life, followed by
immediate involvement of a team of professionals with the child and
family, including a teacher of the deaf. This provides a unique
opportunity to explore early literacy practices in homes, and identify
ways in which teachers and parents/carers can work collaboratively to
facilitate deaf childrens early literacy development.
Keywords deaf children; language and communication; literacy development; sign

bilingual homes; spoken language homes
Context
The focus of this article is young deaf childrens early literacy experiences.
The term deaf is used throughout the article to refer to a hearing loss
significant enough to impact upon a childs spoken language development.
This implies any level of hearing loss along the continuum from mild to
profound. The use of this generic term recognizes deafness as a disability
53
Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 5(1)
but also has resonances with the use of the capitalized Deaf, which empha-
sizes the sociocultural and linguistic aspects of deafness. This is considered
therefore to be an appropriate umbrella term that reflects the inclusive
nature of the study.
The different constructions of deafness lead to different practices with
regard to communication approach, which are relevant to this article. In the
UK, the definitions of models of deafness and distinctive approaches to
communication have been sharpened. Within a medical model of deafness,
there is an emphasis on compensating for the loss of hearing by the use of
technology (hearing aids or cochlear implants) and the aim is for the deaf
child to be enabled to use spoken language. This view of deafness has been
encouraged by four factors during the last approximately 15 years. First, the
use of cochlear implants with profoundly deaf children has increased
dramatically. From the first paediatric cochlear implant in the UK in 1989,
the majority of profoundly deaf children now receive a cochlear implant,
and at an increasingly young age (Nikolopoulos et al., 2000). The second
factor is the introduction of newborn hearing screening, which leads to
earlier diagnosis of deafness. Third, those children for whom a conventional
hearing aid is the most appropriate form of amplification are beginning to
benefit from the introduction of digital hearing aids. A fourth factor is the
increased understanding of how children acquire spoken language,
applying insights from the field of developmental linguistics. The term
traditionally used to describe attempts to foster the development of spoken
language in deaf children was oralism. However, other, more precise,
terms are currently in use. These can all be described as oral-aural or
auditory-oral, which stress the spoken aspects and the emphasis on the
use of hearing. The term auditory-verbal is common in the USA and
Australia but the term currently used in the UK is natural auralism
(Watson, 1998).
In contrast to this perspective, a linguistic and cultural model of deafness
promotes the recognition of deaf people as a minority group within society
with their own language (British Sign Language in the UK) and culture.
This model supports a strong shared identity and a positive view of
deafness, which is not driven by audiological distinctions. This view of
deafness is strongly upheld by the adult deaf community but also reflects
more recent and enlightened views of the wider society regarding deafness
and ethnicity. This model of deafness, alongside the growing research into
sign language linguistics and deaf studies, provides the context for
educational policy that promotes deaf childrens sense of deaf identity and
their use of sign language, as appropriate, as a preferred language. The
term used to describe this educational approach is sign bilingual which
54

wat s on & s wa n w i c k : l i t e r ac y o f yo u n g d e a f c h i l d r e n
communicates the parallels with other minority language groups but also
highlights the different use of a sign language and a spoken/written
language that deaf children will experience (Pickersgill, 1998; Swanwick,
2003). Within such an approach, deaf childrens audiological needs are still
addressed but within a context which considers access to sign language and
deaf role models from an early age to be fundamental to deaf childrens
linguistic and social and emotional development.
These are philosophical and political distinctions that have shaped
educational policy and research directions over the last 20 years. However,
in practice, this distinction between different constructions of deafness and
communication approaches is less precise. Some deaf children move
between different communication approaches, either varying within one
setting or from setting to setting. Thus, although the distinctions are clearly
delineated for the purposes of this article and to fit with current thinking
in the UK, the implications for practice are more broadly applicable and are
relevant to a much wider audience.
Introduction
Literacy is an essential prerequisite for deaf people to participate success-
fully in society. Email, text messaging and subtitled films all offer great
opportunities for deaf people since they depend on vision rather than
hearing, but they still require mastery of text-based literacy. However, to
date learning to read and write has often proved difficult for deaf people.
This fact has been well established in the literature where there is a con-
sensus that deaf readers lag behind their hearing peers in their reading
achievement. Research has consistently revealed low levels of literacy and
summaries of the research attest to this fact (e.g. Bamford and Saunders,
1991; Paul and Quigley, 1990; Quigley and Kretschmer, 1982). Gray
(1995: 23) asserted that most prelingually deaf children . . . never achieve
literacy, by which he meant that they do not learn to read and write
beyond what might be described as a basic level. Although there are some
examples of deaf pupils who have achieved higher levels of literacy, most
of these studies demonstrate success for particular groups of deaf children
rather than across the breadth of the population. For example, Lewis (1996)
provides evidence of the achievements of a cohort of deaf children using a
particular communication approach (natural auralism) whereas other
studies have demonstrated the achievements of deaf children of deaf parents
(Moores, 2001; Paul, 1998). These findings are usually small-scale case
studies that, although they have increased our understanding of the issues,
are not generalizable and the overall picture remains one of low standards
55

of literacy (Powers et al., 1998). Given this gloomy picture of literacy

achievements, a fertile area for research is to investigate the early stages of
literacy development in deaf children in different language environments
and draw out facilitative practices and implications for intervention or
support. This article reviews the research available into deafness and early
literacy and looks at the key issues and methodological implications that
emerge for further research.
The context of early support and intervention

The introduction of the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme (NHSP)
in the UK, which is currently taking place, makes research into the area of
early literacy development timely. The aim of NHSP is that congenital
deafness in babies should be identified during the first few weeks of life
followed by immediate involvement of a team of professionals with the
child and family, including a teacher of the deaf. Early support from a
teacher of the deaf provides the opportunity for deaf children to be
introduced to literacy from a young age and also the chance to research this
process. It is an opportunity for parents and teachers to work together,
utilizing each others particular areas of knowledge (the parents knowl-
edge of their own child and the teachers knowledge of the literacy
process). An aspect of early support and intervention for families with
young deaf children that is particular to the UK, is that support is offered
by teams of teachers of the deaf employed by Local Education Authorities
(i.e. funded by the government) and organized on a geographical basis.
Thus it is not the case that parents decide on a communication approach
for their child and then choose a centre to support them, as occurs in
some other countries, for example in the State of Colorado, USA (Young,
2001). Rather, teachers of the deaf must provide the support for the
communication approach selected by the family. This is a challenge for
teachers of the deaf. Until recently, it was common practice for teachers of
the deaf in a geographical area to favour a particular approach and
encourage families to adopt that communication approach with their deaf
child (Watson, Gregory, et al., 2004), but now that parents are expected to
make the decision, individual teachers of the deaf and local services for deaf
children must be able to support families across the whole spectrum of
communication approaches. While this may be particular to the UK, the
necessity to understand the differences across the whole spectrum of
communication approaches and the implications for support and inter-
vention offered to families is more widely applicable.
Research into early childhood literacy for hearing children is a recent
56

phenomenon (Gillen and Hall, 2003). However, most research into early
literacy considers children whose language and literacy development
follows a typical progression, allowing for some variation between
individuals. There is a need for research which encompasses children with
specific language impairments or delays (Woude and Barton, 2003) includ-
ing deaf children. We contend that there are some issues which are
specific to early literacy with deaf children. These relate to the nature of
communication with deaf children and to the implications of deafness for
the early stages of reading and writing. The concept of literacy as a multi-
modal practice, which comprises a wide range of semiotic behaviours, is
potentially a liberating and exciting way forward in work with young deaf
children. However, this use of the term has not yet been adopted within
the field of deaf education, or in special education more widely (Layton
and Miller, 2004). The debate within special education, particularly in
relation to children for whom establishing a primary means of com-
munication is a challenge, tends to centre on distinctions between
communication and literacy (Watson, Douglas et al., 2004). This has been
fuelled in the UK by the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy with
its literacy hour (Literacy Task Force, 1997). The requirement that all
children are included in the literacy hour, with its narrow definition of
literacy and emphasis on the teaching of skills such as phonics, has led to
much discussion regarding what constitutes literacy for these children
(Miller et al., 2003). We accept that literacy is a contested term, within both
mainstream and special educational settings. For the purposes of this
article, however, we have adopted a definition that is more restricted. There
are two reasons for this. First, the literature that we have reviewed has
assumed a narrow definition of literacy as reading and writing by which
they understand the practices of decoding and encoding print. Second, it
is practices around print that can present the greatest challenge for young
deaf children and their families. The idea of sharing a book with a deaf
child requires careful thought, as will be discussed and there are also
particular considerations in regard to encouraging deaf children to write,
which are related to their deafness. We have used the terms text making
and text-based literacy, employing them within the definition of literacy
given above. Thus we are considering interactions between deaf children
and their parents around print.
The importance of considering early text making and reading in the
context of the childs home life with its individual characteristics has
been recognized (e.g. Cairney, 2003; McNaughton, 1995; Pahl, 2002). We
consider that the case of deaf children demonstrates the necessity of
considering text-based literacy as part of the childs wider meaning
57

making, which arises in the context of their individual situation. Young

(2003) suggests in relation to deaf children, that research into early experi-
ence is meaningful only if the findings are examined within a specific
social/cultural context. This resonates with the concept that the sociocul-
tural context is important for all children (e.g. Baquedano-Lopez, 2003)
while acknowledging that there are particular considerations that obtain for
deaf children. In order to consider early literacy in the homes of deaf
children, we need first to discuss their distinct language environments and
then consider the implications of their early language experience for early
literacy.
Access to the language environment

A discussion of deaf childrens language environment has to be prefaced
with a recognition of the diverse and complex set of factors at work within
every family. For the purposes of this article, literacy will be viewed as one
aspect of young deaf childrens semiotic practice (Gillen and Hall 2003),
that is one of a variety of ways that deaf children make meaning. This line
of argument is congruent with that of Kress (1997) and Anning (2003).
Research into deafness and early development often suffers from a polar-
ized approach where oral/aural and sign bilingual issues are explored
separately (Gallaway and Young, 2003). This results in findings that are
either relevant only to specific groups of children or which are overgener-
alized but do not actually reflect the real diversity of the population as a
whole. We would argue that more can be learnt by looking at specific issues
across the continuum of communication approaches. Our goal is therefore
to be inclusive in our scope but specific in our examples to allow for the
identification of shared and distinct early literacy experiences. The general-
ized findings in the literature that some parents do experience difficulties
in facilitating early literacy activities with their deaf child need further
exploration. This review of the literature on parent and child interaction
around literacy events will encompass both spoken and sign language
environments. To address this continuum but highlight discrete practices,
we therefore make a distinction in this article between sign bilingual and
spoken language homes. This is in keeping with the explanation of the
context of the review presented at the beginning of the article.
What we mean by a sign bilingual home

We use the term sign bilingual to refer to families where British Sign
Language (BSL) and English are used in the home and where BSL is likely
58

to be the language of mediation for literacy activities. This encompasses
families where one or more parent may be deaf and also hearing families
who would describe themselves as bilingual and use BSL. Our focus is on
children in sign bilingual homes who are developing BSL as their first
language. For these children, spoken and written English is likely to be
developing alongside BSL and to be taught in school as a second language
(Knight and Swanwick, 2002). We contextualize the notion of sign bi-
lingual within Grosjeans (2001) wider definition of bilingual as this recog-
nizes the diversity between bilingual individuals while identifying the
unifying feature as the use of two or more languages in their everyday lives.
We thus use the term sign bilingual to include the diverse repertoire of
language skills that deaf and hearing individuals have who engage with sign
language and English in their everyday lives. There is obviously a
continuum of levels of skill and fluency in each language but a sign bi-
lingual individual is not expected to have native-like skills in both
languages. In looking at sign bilingual homes, our focus is on the everyday
use of two languages, whether the parents be deaf or hearing.
It is a reality for bilingual deaf children and adults that they are constantly
moving between two languages (BSL and English) and three modalities
(text, sign, speech) in their everyday lives. Certainly in sign bilingual school
settings there is evidence that children can move between their two
languages according to need and without confusion (Mahshie 1995;
Neuroth-Gimbrone and Logiodice, 1992; Swanwick 2001). Padden (1996:
100) refers to this as changing languages and changing channels. She
argues that our exploration of sign bilingual development should take this
into account. That is, that we should be looking at what deaf childrens early
manipulation of their languages and language modes can tell us about the
development of these interacting systems. The research into sign bilin-
gualism and literacy has tended so far to focus on ways in which sign
language can support literacy development (Swanwick, 2003). We agree
with Padden that a different focus, which is likely to give us a better under-
standing of the process, would be the early and simultaneous development
of the two different languages and the three modalities.
What we mean by a spoken language home

We use the term spoken language home to refer to a family where spoken
English is the preferred language of the home and therefore used by the
parents to mediate the literacy activities. This does not exclude families
where one or more parent may be deaf, as it is the language of the environ-
ment that is the central criterion.
59

The emphasis of communication in spoken language homes is on the

exchange of meaning. However, young deaf children in these homes are
expected to express and receive communication through the medium of
spoken language. In order to facilitate this, the children are encouraged to
make the maximum use of technology in the form of hearing aids and
other auditory equipment (for example, cochlear implants if appropriate)
to exploit their residual hearing (Watson, 1998). Thus any communicative
exchange will include a consideration of the listening environment along-
side the use of spoken language. Deaf children will vary in the degree to
which they require to use visual cues (lip-reading in particular) to supple-
ment their use of hearing, so for some children any conversational
exchange will include a consideration of the visual field as well. This can
mean that the initial stages of language development are acquired slowly,
over an extended period and early communication may be difficult to
establish (Webster, 1986). However, where deaf children are able to develop
good use of their residual hearing via hearing aids or a cochlear implant,
this can give them access to the sounds of spoken language, which can in
turn lead to intelligible speech and give access to phonological awareness
(Archbold and Nikolopoulos, 2003).
There are several approaches to promoting spoken language and they will
lead in turn to differences in the way in which early literacy is supported
with young deaf children. The approach to promoting spoken language
development most widely used in the UK is natural auralism (Watson,
1998) as described. Yet differences in practice can be found even with
natural auralism, with some teachers of the deaf using more eclectic
strategies and others adhering more closely to its basic tenets.
Included in this category of spoken language homes are homes where
signs are used in conjunction with spoken language. There are various sign
systems which have been developed to support spoken English and they are
often referred to using the umbrella term Manually Coded English (MCE)
(Pickersgill and Gregory, 1998). Most often in the UK this practice involves
the signing of key words at the same time as they are spoken, with the aim
of increasing access to spoken language. The approach may be referred to as
Sign Supported English (SSE) or Total Communication (TC). This use of the
term TC to describe an approach should be seen as distinct from a TC
philosophy which describes the practice of using whatever approach to
communication a particular deaf person prefers, along a continuum from
speech to BSL (Baker and Knight, 1998). The use of signs alongside spoken
language is very different from the use of BSL, which is a distinct language
with its own grammar and word order and which cannot therefore be used
in conjunction with spoken language. The defining feature that separates the
60

use of a natural sign language, such as BSL, from the use of a form of manually
coded English is the overall communication goal. All forms of MCE are aimed
at access to spoken English whereas BSL is used as a language in its own right.
Language and literacy

As we live in a literate society in which print abounds, deaf children, like
hearing children, will encounter print in the environment from a young
age. They will begin to gain some understanding of reading and writing,
although it may be very limited. Parents too are likely to provide some
informal experience of reading and writing. There are, however, particular
considerations and issues for deaf children around any encounter with
print. One issue is the interrelatedness of literacy development and
language development. Whereas for hearing children literacy development
usually follows in the wake of, and builds on, the development of a first
language for communication (Lewis, 1998), this cannot be assumed for
deaf children. For many deaf children, whatever mode of communication
is being used, the development of their first language, be that spoken or
signed language, will take place over an extended period of time. Thus
literacy learning, in terms of text making or text-based literacy, may
proceed in parallel with language development, a fact which has impli-
cations for both parents and teachers.
Early literacy
Having described the particular language environments of deaf children,
we will consider the issues that arise in relation to early literacy with deaf
children. Some of these relate specifically to their language environment,
while others relate more to their deafness. The fact that literacy incorpor-
ates a wide range of skills and knowledge, which is much broader than a
consideration of encoding and decoding text, is acknowledged, both in
relation to hearing children (e.g. Beard, 1990) and deaf children (e.g.
Watson, 1999) and has already been discussed.
We will consider the two groups described separately. Webster (1999)
follows a similar division between the two types of language setting. He
suggests that literacy practices used with deaf children developing spoken
language are based on those used with hearing children (what he terms
literacy same) and those used with sign bilingual deaf children use
different approaches from hearing children, which he terms literacy
different. While these terms make a useful starting point, they require
explanation if they are to be understood.
61

Early literacy in sign bilingual homes

One of the enduring questions in deaf education is how competence in
sign language can benefit the acquisition of literacy based on a spoken
language and yet, we know very little about early bilingual abilities of
young deaf children. Padden (1996) suggests that the angle of our focus
on early bilingual development is a barrier, which limits our research. She
proposes that instead of looking at the separate development of English and
American Sign Language (ASL) or BSL, we should approach bilingual
language acquisition as the development of interacting systems, each of
which has specific social uses (Padden, 1996: 103). This involves observ-
ing how fingerspelling and writing skills develop alongside BSL or ASL as
the children move between and across their languages in their everyday
lives. We would expect a focus on the very early experience of literacy to
further contribute to this understanding of bilingual language develop-
ment, by providing us with insight into specific examples of this interaction
and ways in which sign language supports literacy development. Certainly,
fingerspelling appears to have a key role in this process.
Role of fingerspelling in early literacy development

Fingerspelling involves the use of 26 handshapes that refer to each written
letter of the English alphabet. Fingerspelling is not BSL but it is used a lot
in BSL for a range of purposes (Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1999). Finger-
spelling is typically used to spell out words in English that have no BSL
equivalent but the use of fingerspelling also occurs in childrens early BSL
development, which is why it has become a point of interest in early
literacy research. Some research suggests that the early use of fingerspelling
might facilitate literacy development by providing a link between the
visual, gestural modality of sign language and the written from of a spoken
language (Erting et al., 2000; Padden and Ramsey, 2000). It has been
proposed that fingerspelling is a natural link or connection between the two
languages and therefore a vital component of an early sign bilingual literacy
experience (Padden, 1996).
Research into deaf childrens early fingerspelling has identified stages of
development that indicate that children use fingerspelling from about two
years of age as whole signs with internal movement rather than as a
sequence of distinct handshapes (Maxwell, 1984). This means that children
use a fingerspelling or part of a fingerspelling as a sign in its own right,
which has finger movement within it, but these movements are not yet seen
as corresponding to alphabetic letters. The important point about this is that
62

fingerspelling begins as an integral part of deaf childrens sign language
use, before they have alphabetic awareness. Early fingerspellers are not
therefore making a link with English but developing their own special
manual system with its own organizational properties which has links with
English alphabetic characters (Padden, 1996: 106). What is interesting
from an early literacy perspective is how and when deaf children do make
the connection between fingerspelling and English, and how parents
scaffold or facilitate this process.
How do bilingual parents use fingerspelling in early literacy

activities?
One explanation of how parents do this identifies, as the first step, atten-
tion to the relationship between the fingerspelling and the sign language
(e.g. ASL or BSL) rather than an immediate focus on the spoken/written
language (Blumenthal-Kelly, 1995; Padden, 1996). This might entail
presenting signs and their fingerspelling sequentially (sometimes called
sandwiching or chaining) or the use of initialized signs (such as for peoples
names) which children use early on in their sign language development,
before their English spelling starts to take off. We need to look at what
happens next to see how parents harness this early awareness of finger-
spelling to support their childrens literacy development. Research under-
taken into this over the last 10 years points to a number of strategies that
parents use to help children understand the relationship between finger-
spelling and written/spoken English. Evidence suggests that children are
taught from early on (around two years) to match the fingerspelt signs to
the corresponding printed letters (letter calling), using print in the
environment and through play activities (Akamatsu and Andrews, 1993:
Maxwell, 1984). More recently a study by Erting et al. (2000) found
instances of letter calling earlier than two years (1 year 8 months and 1
year 10 months). They also found that the connection made between
fingerspelling and text increased near the end of the third year when book
sharing becomes a more frequent activity. Book sharing provides oppor-
tunities for much more interaction involving fingerspelling, leading to
letters and whole words in print. Erting et al. (2000) conclude that finger-
spelling plays a central part in deaf parents mediation of English print for
their children.
By examining this scenario we can begin to appreciate that bilingual deaf
children are actually developing three modalities simultaneously (sign
language, fingerspelling and text) from a very early stage in their lives. Any
further study of early literacy practices and development must therefore
63

include a focus on fingerspelling as a central component of this aspect of

their early bilingual development.
Early interaction with print in sign bilingual homes

This preliminary focus on fingerspelling leads us naturally on to looking at
book sharing in bilingual homes, where there is a little more research into
parent practices and strategies. It is well documented that one of the most
important activities that parents can engage in to support their deaf childs
literacy development is reading aloud (e.g. Heath, 1982). We will refer to
this as book sharing as this broader term encompasses the range of book-
based activities that parents and their children might share in bilingual
homes. The outcomes of the research into parents book sharing approaches
seems to identify three different facilitative conditions which include: (1)
practical strategies, (2) style of interaction, and (3) climate/messages to the
children. There are a number of studies which identify practical strategies
that deaf mothers/carers use when engaging their children in a book
sharing activity. One of the most comprehensive breakdowns of these
strategies is provided by Lartz and Lestina (1995). They identified strategies
used by three deaf mothers while reading to their children aged three to
five years old. The six categories/strategies that all mothers used included:
1. sign placement (signing phrases on the book or with a book);
2. text paired with sign demonstration (pointing to text, elaborating with
ASL explanations, then pointing to text);
3. real world connection between text/picture and childs experience;
4. attention maintenance (tapping shoulder or lap, elbow nudging and
moving book);
5. facial tone and body posture demonstrating character changes;
6. non-manual signals as questions (nose-twitch, lowered and raised
eyebrows, and mouth movement).
Other studies have found similar types of strategies, although there are
some additions and elaboration such as the use of eye gaze and pointing to
maintain attention and the parents translation of the stories into ASL
(Akamatsu and Andrews, 1993). These practical strategies appear to
facilitate relaxed book sharing activities between deaf children and their
deaf parents. Individually these strategies seem straightforward and rather
obvious, but actually these intuitive behaviours that deaf parents are able,
probably mostly unconsciously, to deploy, are not likely to come naturally
to hearing parents of deaf children.
Alongside these practical strategies, it is also possible to identify features
64

of parentchild interaction in these bilingual settings, which further
promote successful book sharing episodes. An early study by Andrews and
Taylor (1987) looked at this in detail by examining the strategies used by
a deaf mother when reading a book to her three and a half year old son.
The mother was observed giving her son necessary support to respond
correctly to questions and discussions about ideas in the book. She rarely
responded to her son in a critical or negative manner and she held the
activity using many of the practical strategies mentioned above. Follow-up
studies into this seem to stress the contingent nature of the parents inter-
action. That is, their ability to follow the childs lead and develop the activity
from the childs interest thus assuming a less controlling role (Schleper,
1995; Van der Lem and Timmerman, 1990).
The third feature of these successful book-sharing episodes is the climate
of these activities, which is possibly a result of the attitudes of the parents.
This is perhaps the most significant feature, in that it brings all other
behaviours together, but also the most intangible one. What comes through
from the research is that successful examples of parentchild book sharing
take place in a positive and supportive environment with parents who
expect their child to become literate (Ewoldt, 1994; Schleper, 1995; White-
sell, 1991). The creation of this environment relies on the adults own
experiences and perceptions of deafness and reading, which is perhaps why
this is the most difficult feature of this activity for hearing parents to
replicate or learn. Erting (1992) explains this by examining the different ways
in which we see the deaf child. That is, how our expectations are shaped,
not only by our experience of deafness but also by our assumptions and
the set of beliefs that we might hold about deafness. Erting argues that it is
through the interactional framework provided by adults that children learn
to use language and are thus introduced to literacy events. Therefore parents
who hold a positive view of deafness, which centres on difference rather
than deficiency, are more likely to create a supportive environment for
social interaction thus paving the way for early literacy development. It is
argued that this approach to deafness, that is, to a view of the child as a
whole, as a competent learner but one who requires a visual environment
in which to thrive (Erting, 1992: 102), also raises expectations. Barriers to
success cease to be located within the child and the onus therefore shifts to
the adults to make literacy events accessible and meaningful.
Early literacy in spoken language homes

For deaf children in spoken language homes, the approach to promoting
literacy development will be similar to that used with young hearing
65

children, what Webster (1999: 9) describes as literacy same. Insights

gained from work with young hearing children are applied to young deaf
children. Thus reading is promoted via exposure to print-rich environ-
ments and deaf children are encouraged to uncover features of reading.
Adults will seek to foster the same features as were discussed in relation to
hearing children:
an understanding of how books work (e.g. how to identify the front,
the fact that the words and pictures both convey information);
knowledge of story grammar how stories typically begin, including
such phrases as once upon a time; the precipitating events; the
conclusion (Lewis, 1998);
the beginnings of understanding of phonics, in particular initial letters;
building an early vocabulary of single words, starting with familiar
objects and the names of significant people and animals in the childs
life;
relating the events in the book with the childs own life or wider
knowledge (RNID, 2001).
To facilitate this awareness and understanding around reading, adults are
likely to use books that are attractive to children; to make their own books
about events that are familiar to the child, frequently using photographs;
and to draw the childs attention to print in the environment or respond to
the childs questions about it (RNID, 2001).
Implementing these ideas with young deaf children can present chal-
lenges. While Webster refers to the process as literacy same, in recognition
of the attempt to follow the same pattern as for young hearing children, it
may be more helpful to think in terms of literacy similar (to hearing
children). The use of the term literacy same could suggest that for
educators or parents who are familiar with how hearing children learn to
read and write and the strategies that are thought to facilitate this process,
this knowledge can be transferred to deaf children in a straightforward
manner. However, this is the not the case for the fundamental reason that
language and literacy learning for deaf children who are learning spoken
language are so closely intertwined that attempts to separate the two can
become extremely difficult. Many deaf children develop their spoken
language over an extended period of time by comparison with hearing
children. This means that parents cannot map activities around print onto
an already established language base (Lewis, 1998).
A consideration of early literacy practices is bound to incorporate some
discussion of the approach to fostering spoken language development, as
this will determine to some extent the nature of texts used for reading and
66

book sharing and the strategies used to foster the early stages of writing.
Many young deaf children will be starting to read and write while their
spoken language development is still at a fairly early stage, and this has
implications for how adults support reading and writing with these
children, at home as well as at school (Lewis, 1998).
It is difficult to concentrate on reading and writing and use this as a basis
for extending the childs general world knowledge, vocabulary and knowl-
edge about books and stories, as one might do with hearing children, as
other considerations related to general language and listening development
need also to be considered. This can change the nature of the encounter
with print in quite far reaching ways. Take the basic example of sharing a
book with a young deaf child who is being brought up to use spoken
language. The first decision that arises is the choice of book. The first books
used with hearing children are often picture books, typically with one or
more pictures on a page, with the word alongside or underneath, although
this is not necessarily the case in every country and culture (Nikolajeva,
2003). Children aged 18 months to 2 years usually enjoy looking at these
books, going through them and naming the items and at a later stage the
child or adult begins to point to the printed word as they name the object.
The same activity with a young deaf child can become a very different
experience. A deaf child of the same age may know very few of the words
in the book. The activity then begins to include some language teaching as
the adult tells the child the word. So the printed word is not mapping onto
a word that is already in the childs repertoire of spoken language, but
represents a new word for the child, and the child is then being introduced
to the spoken and written forms simultaneously (Wood et al., 1986). To
complicate matters further, the adult will want to ensure that the child has
heard the word clearly, so they may want to repeat it several times. So the
adult may adopt a more directive style in the book sharing.
Depending on the childs ability to use their aided hearing, the adult may
want to encourage the child to listen, or to listen and watch, in which case
they will need to repeat the word while the child is watching their face so
the child can lip-read. This introduces the concept of divided attention
(Wood et al., 1986) in which the child must attend first to the printed word
(or picture) then to the adults face to grasp the spoken form of the word,
and then maybe back to the printed form. The adult then needs to manage
the childs attention and to recognize that whereas hearing children can
assimilate the spoken form and the written form simultaneously, a deaf
child may need to attend to them in sequence. If the child attempts to say
the word, then the adult may want to model aspects of the articulation
of the word. The simple act of sharing a picture book with a young child,
67

with the attendant physical closeness between adult and child and the
affective aspects that the situation invokes becomes much more complex.
It may have turned from a literacy activity to a language one. Bishop and
Gregory (1985) in their study of mothers and teachers looking at books
with deaf children concluded that book sharing can be a rich experience
for literacy and language learning. While this is not disputed, there is a
danger that children can lose the pleasurable aspects of book sharing as a
stress-free activity when child and adult enjoy each others company while
both engaging in sharing a book. If this enjoyment is not there, then the
deaf child may cease to want to engage in early literacy activities. We argue
that it is important for adults to preserve the enjoyment of literacy, which
will in turn foster more engagement.
Given the book sharing situation described, adults may find it difficult to
move on from the stage of sharing picture books to introducing storybooks
for fear that the young deaf child will not understand. They will then not
be exposed to stories and concepts of story, and neither will they be
exposed to the features of story grammar, the phrases that are commonly
associated with stories or to the opportunity to move beyond the text to
the childs experience or wider knowledge. They will then also miss out on
discussions of the meta-language that surrounds books and authors.
Thus there is a danger that the deficits in what they are exposed to can
accumulate. Woude and Barton (2003) studied interactional sequences in
shared book reading between parents and children with histories of
language delay and found a pattern of parents continuing to use support-
ive questions and comments when parents of children without history of
language delay had moved to independent questions and comments, which
can be seen as a similar argument.
One way that educators try to surmount some of these difficulties is to
make deaf childrens first books themselves, using the childs own experi-
ence as the starting point so that the child will understand the content
(RNID, 2001). With imagination, stories can be invented based around
actual events and using people known to the child as characters. There is a
danger that this can be limiting and fail to stretch the childs understand-
ing. By restricting vocabulary to what is familiar to the child, the child may
be denied additional information that would extend their learning. A
similar argument obtains in relation to the question of editing a published
text to make it more accessible to a deaf child. Perrera (1994) argued this
point more generally. Her contention was that in simplifying text we are in
danger of removing words or phrases that aid understanding. For example,
should the word canoe be replaced by boat on the strength that the child
knows boat but not canoe, then the child may imagine an ocean liner or a
68

sailing boat and this may make it harder for them to then grasp the point
of the story, which may rely on knowing about canoes.
Another question that arises in relation to creating texts for use with
deaf children relates to the linguistic structures that are used. Should the
childs own language be used, on the grounds that they will understand it
and realize that the written text and their own utterances are two ways of
expressing the same words, or is it more beneficial to the child to use
language structures that are in advance of those that the child uses
independently? This question is debated amongst educators of young oral
deaf children. Lewis (1998), writing as a proponent of a natural aural
approach, argues that:
early reading materials should not contain language or vocabulary too far in
advance of deaf childrens own linguistic competence, nor meanings too far
outside their experience. (Lewis 1998: 105)
She suggests that adults may recast the childs utterance in a more mature
form and, if the child then rephrases their own utterance to what the adult
says, the more mature form should be recorded for use in the shared
reading text. However, proponents of other oral approaches would argue
that reading words that are beyond the deaf childs own level of linguistic
development, in particular words that may not be acoustically salient such
as is can help to fix them in the childs mind (Van Uden, 1977).
Wood et al. (1986) investigated the nature of reading with oral deaf
children. They concluded that it was a different experience for deaf children
compared with hearing children. The reading process quickly became a
language lesson, with teachers interrupting childrens reading to teach the
meaning of individual words, to check comprehension and to correct
pronunciation so frequently that the result was that the children were not
reading quickly enough to be able to gain meaning from the text. Similar
issues can arise with younger children so that they fail to grasp the purpose
of reading or derive meaning from the book itself. Alongside the need for
adults to preserve the sense of enjoyment in any early literacy engagements
with young deaf children, which we have discussed, we suggest that they
also need to ensure that they maintain a balance between fostering early
literacy and language so that the meaning of literacy is not lost in attempts
to teach language.
Research into deaf childrens literacy has tended to concentrate on
reading rather than writing, with any writing being viewed as an indicator
of childrens level of language acquisition rather than as indicative of
childrens ability to write text. The stance taken typically involved compari-
son with hearing children and was concerned to demonstrate the deaf
69

childs deficits (a classic example is Myklebust, 1964). However, the

concept of emergent literacy brings with it the opportunity to explore the
texts produced by young deaf children for evidence of understanding of
writing strategies and concepts about print. Research into texts produced
by young hearing children has revealed that they formulate hypotheses
about print and experiment with them (Clay, 1967; Ferreiro and Teberosky,
1983; Teale and Sulzby, 1988). With this understanding, early educators
now look for evidence of stages of development in young childrens writing
and seek to foster them. Studies by Williams (1994) and Williams and
McLean (1997), for example, demonstrated that deaf children with very
restricted language development were able to gain understanding of how
books work and concepts about print in a similar way to young hearing
children. Watson (2000) studied early mark making (drawing and writing)
in a group of 13 deaf children who were being brought up in spoken
language homes over a 2-year period. The children were aged between
three and four years at the start of the study. Examples of their texts were
collected at six-monthly intervals from home and, where applicable, their
educational setting. Parents were asked to collect all examples they were able
to of childrens drawing and writing during a one-week period, in whatever
format. Similar to the findings of Pahl (2002), there were examples of
ephemera that would normally have been discarded, such as the marks
made by one child on a paying-in slip at a bank, made while her mother
was conducting her business with the teller. On examining the samples,
Watson found that the deaf children demonstrated a similar range of
writing strategies and concepts about print as documented for hearing
children. There were examples of mock writing; scribble text which
included some recognizable letters and numbers (Nicholls et al., 1989);
single letters used to represent words; minimum number of letters used to
represent a word (Ferreiro, 1984), to name a few. Since some of these
children were still in the early stages of language development by the end
of the study, she concluded that many of these early strategies are not
dependent on language and so are likely to develop spontaneously in
children in a literate society irrespective of their language level.
Parents of young deaf children in spoken language homes may want to
foster the beginnings of phonological awareness or letter-sound corre-
spondence. There has been particular emphasis on the use of phonics in
the UK in recent years with the introduction of the National Literacy
Strategy. Deaf childrens ability to use phonics has been a matter for debate.
Webster (1999) suggests that adults need to question the teachability of
phonics to deaf children. While it may be evident that deaf children whose
preferred mode of communication is BSL require to be taught word attack
70

skills that are visual, the situation with regard to deaf children being
brought up to use spoken language as their main means of communication
is less straightforward. With the advantages offered by modern technology
in the shape of the prescription of digital hearing aids or the use of cochlear
implants, some profoundly deaf young children are able to use phonics for
reading and writing in a similar manner to hearing children (Watson,
2002). However, this should not be assumed. Lewis (1998) contended that
in the early stages of learning to read, any phonic work should be restricted
to those sounds that are already established in the childs own repertoire.
Some deaf children in spoken language homes may have very little access
to the sounds of speech via their hearing aids and therefore find it difficult
to make connections between letters and sounds.
Where deaf childrens spoken language is developing more slowly,
literacy development is seen as developing in parallel to the development
of spoken language. Thus a multimodal view of literacy, with activities
around print viewed as one of many ways of making and exchanging
meaning, can be seen as a liberating way forward for young deaf children.
It can be concluded that it is possible to promote early literacy develop-
ment in young deaf children in spoken language homes in a similar
manner to that used with hearing children, but the complexities of the
situation and the need for thoughtful intervention should not be under-
estimated.
Discussion
Brooker (2002) discussed the fact that the children in her study all experi-
enced literacy events at home, although their nature varied. She argued
that some home experiences were more valuable to the children than
others when they entered school and suggested that educators need to
learn to uncover and work with childrens experience at home. The
limited research in relation to deaf children has also revealed that they
experience shared literacy events at home. Questions arise as to how
teachers of the deaf who are visiting deaf children at home from a very
early age can work with parents desire to engage their young deaf
children in literacy activities. The review has shown that there are prac-
tices that are similar in all homes with deaf children (although of course
each individual home literacy pattern will be distinct) and distinctive
practices for each language setting.
71

Similarities and commonalities across the language

continuum
In both language environments shared literacy events do take place
from an early age and parents make attempts to develop interest and
skills in early reading and writing.
In both settings the children are likely to be meeting the printed version
of words that they are not familiar with through auditory experience.
In both environments parents may deploy specific practical strategies
to ensure that the activity is meaningful, such as positioning (both
themselves and the child).
In both environments parents communication approach and strategies
are contingent on the need of the child (spoken or sign language).
Divided attention has to be managed in both settings (i.e. between book
and signer or book and speakers face).
Distinctions
In the sign language environment fingerspelling plays a strong part in
the activities but this does not exclude the use of speech.
In the spoken language environment children may be introduced to
new spoken and written forms simultaneously whereas in the sign
bilingual environment translation between BSL and English is an
integral part of the activities.
In the sign language environment sign language is used to mediate the
literacy activity (e.g. discuss the book or talk about pictures).
Parents in spoken language environment may experience difficulties
expanding on the activity in relating the books to the childs own
experience because of the childs spoken language skills.
Deaf children in spoken language homes may be able to use phonics in
relation to reading and writing, whereas in sign language homes the
focus will be on visual representations of words or letters.
Methodological implications for future research

Further research that develops our understanding of how deaf and hearing
parents share literacy events with their deaf children in the home is urgently
needed and this review provides pointers for the methodological design of
such a study. The level and amount of current information available suggests
a grounded theory study which would enable the generation of a set of
categories for describing and analysing these everyday literacy events shared
72

by deaf children and their parents. The data analysis would necessarily
involve qualitative approaches, which allow for a holistic overview of the
events in focus.
Given what we have learnt about the diverse communication needs and
preferences of deaf children and their families, the empirical work will need
to take full account of each childs home environment when considering
early literacy practices. This conforms to findings by Nutbrown and
Hannon (2003). The methodology would therefore need to encompass
sign bilingual and spoken language families.
We also argue that a fuller picture of deaf childrens early literacy
experiences needs to include the views of parents and teachers and,
where possible, the voice of the child. Research data from these different
perspectives would allow for the claim made in relation to parents of deaf
children that most of the parents had not been given advice on effective
literacy encounters by professionals (Heineman-Gosschalk and Webster,
2003: 31) to be explored in greater depth. A case study approach that
includes interviews with visiting teachers of the deaf would be the most
appropriate method for this. To gain full insight into how spoken English
and sign language are used in the interaction around literacy events, data
will be need to be collected (by a bilingual researcher in some cases)
which demonstrates the full range of organization, interaction and
linguistic strategies that parents deploy in book-sharing and early writing
activities. Alongside this, information about literacy events that are
specific to each family will need to be described. This implies the
involvement of deaf and hearing researchers who are able to communi-
cate and interact effectively with deaf and hearing parents and their
young children.
Finally, a future study would need to address the validity issues that
surround a study of two essentially individual and subjective experiences
of parenting and deafness. Awareness would be needed of the epistemo-
logical issues related to the methodology, that is, the extent to which the
research team bring their own knowledge of these experiences to bear on
the design and execution of the project. Both deaf and hearing ways of
knowing about deafness, parenting and early literacy would be essential to
the trustworthiness of the project as a whole. Because the nature of the
project is qualitative, the interpretation of the data would rely on a valid
analysis framework that incorporates both a deaf and a hearing perspective.
This shared linguistic and cultural knowledge would then be reflected in
the cross-cultural analysis and presentation of the findings that could then
be deemed trustworthy and credible.
73

Conclusion
With the introduction of the NHSP and much earlier diagnosis of
deafness, teachers of the deaf are likely to become involved with families
of deaf children when the child is only a few weeks of age in many more
instances than has hitherto been the case. Information gained from an
empirical study of literacy in the homes of young deaf children will help
to shape the nature of the intervention and support offered to parents to
facilitate enjoyable and successful early literacy events with their young
deaf children. The examples taken from young deaf children provide
encouragement and demonstrate a need for caution. Our research
evidence has shown that young children in a literate society will enjoy
sharing books, start to engage with print and begin to produce their own
texts. Efforts to harness this interest and exploit it for the development of
literacy must not interfere with the enjoyment factor or they risk deter-
ring children from engaging with print and exploring its many possi-
bilities for themselves.
Finally, it is hoped that this exploration of young deaf childrens home
literacy will provoke questions and support methodological development
for related studies with different groups of children. There will certainly be
some parallels with bilingual hearing children and also with other children
with specific linguistic needs. Moreover, the study of this area of deaf
childrens development provides a unique insight into the role and nature
of language in the home and ways in which individual families make their
communication meaningful and successful. Access to language cannot be
taken for granted for deaf children and so this area of research brings into
focus the creativity and resilience of the language learning and meaning
making process.
References
Akamatsu, C.T. and Andrews, J.F. (1993) It takes Two to be Literate: Literacy Inter-
actions between Parent and Child, Sign Language Studies 81: 33360.
Andrews, J.F. and Taylor, N.E. (1987) From Sign to Print: A Study of Picture Book
Reading between Mother and Child, Sign Language Studies 56: 26174.
Anning, A. (2003) Pathways to the Graphicacy Club, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy
3(1): 535.
Archbold, S. and Nikolopoulos, T. (2003) Multidisciplinary Working Practice:
Examples of Research into Outcomes from Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, in
C. Gallaway and A. Young (eds) Deafness and Education in the UK: Research Perspectives,
pp. 15373. London: Whurr.
Baker, R. and Knight, P. (1998) Total Communication: Current Policy and Practice,
in S. Gregory, P. Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds) Issues in Deaf
Education, pp. 7787. London: David Fulton.
74

Bamford, J. and Saunders, E. (1991) Hearing Impairment, Auditory Perception and Language
Disability, 2nd edn. London: Whurr.
Baquedano-Lopez, P. (2003) Language, Literacy and Community, in N. Hall, J. Larson
and J. Marsh (eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, pp. 6674. London: Sage.
Beard, R. (1990) Developing Reading 313, 2nd edn. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Bishop, J. and Gregory, S. (1985) Mothers and Teachers Looking at Books with Deaf
Children, Child Language Teaching and Therapy 1(2): 14961.
Blumenthal-Kelly, A. (1995) Fingerspelling Interaction: A Set of Deaf Parents and their
Deaf Daughter, in C. Lucas (ed.) Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, pp. 6273.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Brooker, L. (2002) Five on the First of December! What can we Learn from Case
Studies of Early Childhood Literacy?, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 2(3): 291313.
Cairney, T.H. (2003) Literacy within Family Life, in N. Hall, J. Larson and J. Marsh
(eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, pp. 8598. London: Sage.
Clay, M.M. (1967) The Reading Behaviours of Five-year-old Children: A Research
Report, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 2: 1131.
Erting, C. (1992) Deafness and Literacy: Why Cant Sam Read?, Sign Language Studies 75:
97111.
Erting, C., Thumann-Prezioso, C. and Sonnenstrahl-Benedict, B. (2000) Bilingualism
in a Deaf Family: Fingerspelling in Early Childhood, in P.E. Spencer, C. Erting and
M. Marschark (eds) The Deaf Child in the Family and at School, pp. 34154. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ewoldt, C. (1994) Booksharing: Teachers and Parents Reading to Deaf Children, in
A.D. Flurkey and R.J. Meyer (eds) Under the Whole Language Umbrella: Many Cultures, Many
Voices, pp. 33142. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Ferreiro, E. (1984) The Underlying Logic of Literacy Development, in H. Goelman,
A.A. Oberg and F. Smith (eds) Awakening to Literacy, pp. 15473. Exeter: Heinemann
Educational.
Ferreiro, E. and Teberosky, A. (1983) Literacy Before Schooling. London: Heinemann.
Gallaway, C. and Young, A., eds (2003) Deafness and Education in the UK: Research Perspectives.
London: Whurr.
Gillen, J. and Hall, N. (2003) The Emergence of Early Childhood Literacy, in N. Hall,
J. Larson and J. Marsh (eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, pp. 312. London: Sage.
Gray, C.D. (1995) Helping Deaf Children towards Literacy during their Primary School
Years: Which Skills should we be Fostering?, Journal of the British Association of Teachers of
the Deaf 19(2): 2237.
Grosjean, F. (2001) The Right of the Deaf Child to Grow Up Bilingual, Sign Language
Studies 1(2): 11014.
Heath, S.B. (1982) What no Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and
School, Language and Society 2(1): 4976.
Heinemann-Gosschalk, R. and Webster, A. (2003) Literacy and the Role of Parents of
Deaf Children, Deafness and Education International 5(1): 2038.
Knight, P. and Swanwick, R. (2002) Working with Deaf Pupils: Sign Bilingual Policy into Practice.
London: Fulton.
Kress, G. (1997) Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London: Routledge.
Lartz, M.N. and Lestina, L.J. (1995) Strategies Deaf Mothers Use when Reading to
their Young Deaf or Hard of Hearing Children, American Annals of the Deaf 140(4):
35862.
75

Layton, L. and Miller, C. (2004) Interpretations of Literacy, Cambridge Journal of Education

34(1): 5163.
Lewis, S. (1996) The Reading Achievements of a Group of Severely and Profoundly
Hearing-impaired School Leavers Educated within a Natural Aural Approach, Journal
of the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf 20(1): 17.
Lewis, S. (1998) Reading and Writing within an Oral Approach, in S. Gregory, P.
Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds) Issues in Deaf Education,
pp. 10110. London: David Fulton.
Literacy Task Force (1997) The Implementation of the National Literacy Strategy. London:
DfEE.
McNaughton, S. (1995) The Patterns of Emergent Literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahshie, S.N. (1995) Educating Deaf Children Bilingually. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University.
Maxwell, M. (1984) A Deaf Childs Natural Development of Literacy, Sign-Language
Studies 44: 191224.
Miller, C., Lacey, P. and Layton, L. (2003) Including Children with Special Educational
Needs in the Literacy Hour: A Continuing Challenge, British Journal of Special Education
30(1): 1320.
Moores, D.F. (2001) Educating the Deaf:Psychology,Principles and Practices, 5th edn. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Myklebust, H.R. (1964) The Psychology of Deafness, 2nd edn. New York: Grune and
Stratton.
Neuroth-Gimbrone, C. and Logiodice, C.M. (1992) A Co-operative Bilingual Language
Programme for Deaf Adolescents, Sign Language Studies 74: 7991.
Nicholls, J., Bauers, A., Pettitt, D., Redgwell, D., Seaman, E. and Watson, G. (1989) Begin-
ning Writing. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Nikolajeva, M. (2003) Verbal and Visual Literacy: The Role of Picturebooks in the
Reading Experience of Young Children, in N. Hall, J. Larson and J. Marsh (eds)
Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, pp. 23548. London: Sage.
Nikolopoulos, T.P., Wells, P. and Archbold, S. (2000) Using Listening Progress Profile
(LIP) to Assess Early Functional Performance in Young Implanted Children, Deafness
and Education International 2(3): 1428.
Nutbrown, C. and Hannon, C. (2003) Childrens Perspectives on Family Literacy:
Methodological Issues, Findings and Implications for Practice, Journal of Early Child-
hood Literacy 3(2): 11545.
Padden, C. (1996) Early Bilingual Lives of Deaf Children, in I. Parasnis (ed.) Cultural
and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience, pp. 99116. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Padden, C. and Ramsey, C. (2000) American Sign Language and Reading Ability in
Deaf Children, in C. Chamberlain, J. Morford and R. Mayberry (eds) Language Acqui-
sition by Eye, pp. 16589. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pahl, K. (2002) Ephemera, Mess and Miscellaneous Piles: Texts and Practices in
Families, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 2(2): 14566.
Paul, P.V. (1998) Literacy and Deafness: The Development of Reading, Writing and Literate Thought.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Paul, P.V. and Quigley, S.P. (1990) Education and Deafness. New York: Longman.
Perrera, K. (1994) Childrens Writing and Reading. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pickersgill, M. (1998) Bilingualism: Current Policy and Practice, in S. Gregory,
76

P. Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds) Issues in Deaf Education,
pp. 8898. London: David Fulton.
Pickersgill, M. and Gregory, S. (1998) Sign Bilingualism:A Model. London: Adept Publications.
Powers, S., Gregory, S. and Thoutenhoofd, E.D. (1998) The Educational Achievements
of Deaf Children: A Literature Review, DfEE Research Report RR65. Suffolk: DfEE
Publications.
Quigley, S. and Kretschmer, R.E. (1982) The Education of Deaf Children: Issues, Theory and
Practice. London: Edward Arnold.
RNID (2001) Promoting Literacy in Deaf Pupils. London: RNID.
Schleper, D.R. (1995) Reading to Deaf Children: Learning from Deaf Adults, Perspec-
tives in Education and Deafness 13(4): 48.
Sutton-Spence, R. and Woll, B. (1999) The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swanwick, R. (2001) The Demands of a Sign Context for Bilingual Teachers and
Learners: An Observation of Language Use and Learning Experiences, Deafness and
Education International 3(2): 6279.
Swanwick, R. (2003) Sign Bilingual Deaf Childrens Writing Strategies, in C. Gallaway
and A. Young (eds) Deafness and Education in the UK: Research Perspectives, pp. 13650.
London: Whurr.
Teale, W.H. and Sulzby, E., eds (1988) Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Van der Lem, T. and Timmerman, D. (1990) Joint Picture Book Reading in Signs: An
Interaction Process between Parent and Child, in S. Prillwitz and T. Vollhaber (eds)
Sign Language Research and Application: Proceedings on the International Congress, pp. 7790.
Amsterdam: Signum Press.
Van Uden, A. (1977) A World of Language for Deaf Children. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Watson, L.M. (1998) Oralism: Current Policy and Practice, in S. Gregory, P. Knight,
W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds) Issues in Deaf Education, pp. 6976.
London: David Fulton.
Watson, L.M. (1999) Literacy and Deafness: The Challenge Continues, Deafness and
Education International 1(2): 96107.
Watson, L.M. (2000) The early writing of Hearing-impaired Children: From Scribble
to Sentences, unpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Human Communication and
Deafness, University of Manchester.
Watson, L.M. (2002) The Literacy Development of Children with Cochlear Implants
at Age Seven, Deafness and Education International 4(2): 8498.
Watson, L., Douglas, G., Hodges, L. and McLinden, M. (2004) Current Conceptions
of Literacy: Insights from Work with Children and Older Learners with Sensory
Needs, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 4(2): 8290.
Watson, L., Gregory, S., McCracken, W. and Powers, S. (2004) Issues Around Support-
ing Families with Young Deaf Children, in D. Power and G. Leigh (eds) Educating the
Deaf: Across the Curriculum, Across the World, pp. 12537. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Webster, A. (1986) Deafness, Development and Literacy. London: Methuen.
Webster, A. (1999) Literacy Interventions with Pupils with Hearing Impairments. London: DfES.
Whitesell, K.M. (1991) Reading between the Lines: How One Deaf Teacher Demon-
strates the Reading Process, unpublished PhD thesis, College of Education,
University of Cincinnati.
77

Williams, C.L. (1994) The Language and Literacy Worlds of Three Profoundly Deaf
Pre-school Children, Reading Research Quarterly 29(2): 12455.
Williams, C.L. and McLean, M.M. (1997) Young Deaf Childrens Response to Picture
Book Reading in a Pre-school Setting, Research in the Teaching of English 31(3): 33766.
Wood, D., Wood, H., Griffiths, A. and Howarth, I. (1986) Teaching and Talking with Deaf
Children. Chichester: Wiley.
Woude, J.V. and Barton, E. (2003) Interactional Sequences in Shared Book-reading
between Parents and Children with Histories of Language Delay, Journal of Early Child-
hood Literacy 3(3): 24973.
Young, A. (2001) The Implementation of Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS): Lessons from
Developments in the USA. London: RNID.
Young, A. (2003) Parenting and Deaf Children: A Psycho-social Literature Review. London: NDCS.
Correspondence to:
linda watson, School of Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15
2TT, UK. [email: l.m.watson@bham.ac.uk]
78

Literacy in The Homes of Deaf Children

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Literacy in The Homes of Deaf Children

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

03ECL5-1 Watson (JB/D) 10/2/05 1:38 pm Page 53

Literacy in the homes of

Common and distinct features Childhood Literacy

of spoken language and sign London, Thousand Oaks, CA

bilingual environments DOI: 10.1177/1468798405050594

Abstract The study of deaf childrens early literacy raises fundamental

Keywords deaf children; language and communication; literacy development; sign

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

of literacy (Powers et al., 1998). Given this gloomy picture of literacy

The context of early support and intervention

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

making, which arises in the context of their individual situation. Young

Access to the language environment

What we mean by a sign bilingual home

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

What we mean by a spoken language home

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

The emphasis of communication in spoken language homes is on the

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Language and literacy

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Early literacy in sign bilingual homes

Role of fingerspelling in early literacy development

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

How do bilingual parents use fingerspelling in early literacy

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

include a focus on fingerspelling as a central component of this aspect of

Early interaction with print in sign bilingual homes

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Early literacy in spoken language homes

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

children, what Webster (1999: 9) describes as literacy same. Insights

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

childs deficits (a classic example is Myklebust, 1964). However, the

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Similarities and commonalities across the language

Methodological implications for future research

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Layton, L. and Miller, C. (2004) Interpretations of Literacy, Cambridge Journal of Education

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Downloaded from ecl.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV on September 11, 2016

Potrebbero piacerti anche