International Journal of D isability, D evelopm ent and Education, V ol. 48, N o.

4, 2001

The Emergent Language and Literacy

Experiences of Three Deaf Preschoolers
BARBARA GIOIA*
Reading Department, State University of New York at Albany, 1400 Washington
Avenue, Albany NY 12222, USA

ABSTRACT This is a multiple case study of literacy acquisition in three deaf preschoolers
aged 3 and 4 years. Data are drawn from a year long study of each child in a program for
deaf and hard of hearing students. The primary focus of the project was to document the
ways in which these students interacted with and around storybooks. Of special interest was
the relationship between language development and the children’s emergent literacy experi-
ences.

Introduction
Young children commonly enter school with extensive of knowledge about language
and print (Clay, 1991; Harste, Woodward, & Burke 1984; Senechal, LeFevre,
Thomas, & Daley 1998; Sulzby & Teale, 1987). This knowledge is shaped in a
variety of ways by their sociocultural experiences with text (Dyson, 1993; Heath,
1982). Children’s engagement with print has a positive impact on both linguistic
and cognitive development (Chomsky, 1972; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991;
Elley, 1989; Stanovich, 1992). Although the focus of these studies has been broad
and the methods of data gathering have been varied, one key Ž nding has been
prevalent throughout most of this work: parents are their children’s Ž rst teachers
about the functions of print and the value of literate learning. Furthermore, parents
foster these understandings as they engage in ongoing, increasingly complex conver-
sations with their children in a common native language.
Vygotsky (1978) highlights the signiŽ cance of the mediating function of language,
and hence the importance of the “common native language” environment. For
hearing families, the common language requirement is transparent, since the child is
naturally acquiring the same language. In the United States, however, 90% of deaf
children are born to hearing parents (Allen, 1986; Lederberg & Mobley, 1990;
Meadow, 1980). As such, parents and children do not share a common native
language as the parents’ language is oral and the child’s is visual–gestural.
Whereas the hearing child is immersed in an accessible language from the moment
of birth, the deaf child often arrives in a relative communication vacuum. Unfortu-
nately, hearing loss often goes undetected for several months into the child’s Ž rst

* begioia@hotmail.com

ISSN 1034-912X (print)/ISSN 1465-346X (online)/01/040411-18 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/10349120120094293
412 B. Gioia

year and although parents may begin to suspect a problem exists, they may be
uncertain of the cause. When a hearing loss is Ž nally conŽ rmed, parents are often
given contradictory advice about possible interventions (Gioia, 1997; Meadow,
1980). To further complicate matters, hearing parents of deaf children must con-
sider which language and/or communication mode they will share with their child.
Furthermore, hearing parents of deaf children typically need to learn a new language
before they can share it with their child. If they choose manual communication, they
will need to locate classes, possibly decide between a variety of sign language
models, and then take on the daunting challenge of acquiring  uency in a second
language.
Learning to sign presents signiŽ cant challenges for many parents. For example, if
parents are able to locate a sign language class within a commutable distance, they
must then assume the initiative to rehearse this new mode of communication in a
somewhat artiŽ cial setting. That is, just as oral language learners expand their
expressive skills through interactions with other oral language interlocuters, so too,
does one develop competency with sign. Motivation and intentionality play key roles
in the extent to which a family becomes a signing community because, in short, it
is easier to communicate in one’s native language. As a result, enrolment in a special
education program is often the deaf child’s Ž rst opportunity to interact with others
in a visual language (Shigaki, 1987).
The primary purpose of this collaborative study was to document the emergent
language and literacy experiences of three deaf children within their preschool
program during the course of one school year. The ethnographic stance of this
project allowed us to examine the complexities of the children’s interactions with
one another and their teacher, Lanie, and identify the ways in which the quality of
these exchanges affected learning outcomes.
At the end of the study we were astounded to Ž nd that, despite extraordinary
factors that set them apart, many parallels exist between the ways in which deaf and
hearing children participate in and beneŽ t from literate endeavours. We also learned
that very slight changes in classroom practices could yield substantial improvement
in engagement and learning outcomes. Finally, we learned that the children were
our best teachers about all of this when we remembered to follow their lead.

Background
When children have similar access to similar experiences, developmental patterns
are comparable. Typically, hearing children of hearing parents and deaf children of
deaf parents who are immersed in language from the moment of birth demonstrate
language acquisition patterns, including milestones and their sequence in a surpris-
ingly similar manner. For example, signing deaf children (of deaf parents) and their
hearing agemates (of hearing parents) are at the “one-word stage” by their Ž rst
birthday, and during the second half of the second year, communicate in two-word
phrases (Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1990; Meier, 1991).
When children have neither similar experiences, nor equivalent access to those
experiences, as in the case of deaf children of hearing parents, qualitative differences
are likely to be seen across multiple domains of development. Indeed, very young
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 413

deaf children of hearing parents begin to demonstrate delays in language acquisition

that tend to persist throughout their development (Lederberg, 1993). Studies that
compare the achievements—social, linguistic, cognitive, and academic—of deaf
children of deaf parents with the achievements of deaf children of hearing parents
support this observation (Lederberg, 1993; Marschark & Clark, 1993).
Choice of communication mode during instruction represents one of the most
controversial and complex issues in deaf education (Musselman, Wilson, & Lindsay,
1989). Options in the United States include American Sign Language (ASL), Sign
Exact English (SEE) and Pidgin Sign English (PSE), among others. ASL is a
separate and distinct language, structurally complete, and considered the native
language of the Deaf. In contrast, SEE is a “translation” of standard English,
matching each word of speech with a signed representation, with sufŽ xes such as -ed
and -ing denoted in the signing. PSE incorporates some aspects of ASL, such as the
use of conceptual signs, but generally follows English word order, although some
articles of speech such as “the” and “an” may be eliminated during conversation.
“Conceptual signs” are gestures that express more than a single word and re ect a
complete idea. For example, the statement that “I am going to the store” can be
signed in various ways. In SEE, a discrete sign represents each word, and the sufŽ x
-ing is denoted. In PSE, one would sign, “Me (go to) store.” (“Go to” is a single
conceptual ASL sign.) In ASL, one might sign “Store [point to indicate location of
store] me.”
There are those who advocate teaching deaf children to “maximize their use of
residual hearing and speechread the spoken English” of their conversation partners
(Williams, 1994). To these advocates, deaf children must focus on the development
of their oral and auditory language skills so that they will be able to Ž t into the
majority culture. To other educators, children with hearing loss should be immersed
in (ASL), and their deafness should not be viewed as a disability, but as membership
within the Deaf Community, with its own language and culture. From yet another
perspective, advocates for Total Communication assert that deaf children are
entitled to have access to all forms of communication—oral, auditory, manual,
written—in order to maximise their language competence (Greenberg, Calderon, &
Kusche, 1984; Meadow, 1980).
Unlike the Oral and ASL models, Total Communication (TC) does not address
the issue of culture. TC focuses on the functional aspects of deafness and language
learning and does not specify which sign code or sign language should be used, a
factor that has been noted for causing confusions and difŽ culties in language acquisi-
tion (Ewoldt & Saulnier, 1991; Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982; Williams, 1994).
Signing and voicing simultaneously during primary instruction, with ASL employed
as an “intervention tool” to provide comprehensive explanations, has been proposed
as an effective model of instruction (Stewart, Bonkowski, & Bennett, 1990).

Method
Employing case study methodology (Flinders & Mills, 1993; Hubbard & Power,
1993; Yin, 1989) three children with varying degrees of hearing loss were observed
414 B. Gioia

two days per week, from October through June, while they attended their preschool
program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students. This format was especially relevant
for the exploration of the sociocultural aspects of emergent language and literacy of
Deaf children, about which very little has been documented.
Data included Ž eld notes, audiotapes of initial and follow-up interviews with the
children, the parents, and the teacher of the Deaf (Lanie), audio- and videotapes,
and photographs of the children while they were engaged in literacy activities, audio-
and videotaped home visits, original and photocopy versions of the children’s
drawn/written responses to storybooks, results of informal inventories, and individ-
ual “book chats” with the children. Finally, ofŽ cial educational/evaluation docu-
ments were accessed in order to fully understand the histories of the children. In
addition, parents intermittently recorded their storybook sharing experiences at
home in a log format, including comments such as who chose the book, the purpose
of sharing a particular story (if any), and/or any noteworthy responses.
Data analysis began during the data collection process and continued throughout.
Field notes and audio- and videotapes were transcribed and re ective comments
were recorded. Data were sorted into several categories, including book knowledge,
booksharing conversations, responses (drawn/written) to booksharing, family liter-
acy practices in general, and booksharing in particular, and affective responses to
literacy activities.
Data analysis was undertaken with a grounded theory approach, using the con-
stant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Hubbard & Power, 1993).
Triangulation was achieved by obtaining multiple data sources over an extended
period of time and in multiple settings/conditions (Mathison, 1988). Peer debrieŽ ng
and member checks were completed in an ongoing manner. Detailed case studies
that focused on the language and literacy experiences of each of the children were
derived from the patterns that emerged from the data.

The Preschool: The Research Context

The preschool program met daily for 3 hours in a primary school. The program is
part of an educational cooperative that provides special education classes and other
supplemental support services to participating school districts. The class consists of
children from diverse communities, including rural, suburban and urban, with
socioeconomic backgrounds ranging from af uent to signiŽ cant economic impover-
ishment.
An overriding objective of the program is to expand the communication skills of
deaf and hard of hearing preschoolers. Because the students in this program
demonstrate hearing loss from mild to profound, it is felt that a Total Communi-
cation curriculum more readily accommodates their diverse needs. While some ASL
was used during storybook sharing, it was customary for adults and children to sign
and voice simultaneously (primarily using PSE) during all interactions. The staff
instituted this practice so that no one, neither a deaf individual nor a hearing person
who may not be  uent in sign, would be excluded from conversation.
Class-size  uctuated during the year of this study. The school year opened with
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 415

TABLE I. Background information on students

Robin Nikki Sally

Age at beginning/end 4 years, 4 months/ 4 years, 5 months/ 2 years, 11 months/3

of study 5 years, 1 month 5 years, 2 months years, 8 months

Hearing loss Left: profound Left: moderate-severe Left: severe-profound

(category) Right: moderate Right: borderline/mild Right: profound

AmpliŽ cation at Phonic ear/personal Phonic ear/personal Phonic ear/personal

school/home hearing aides hearing aides hearing aides

Child’s primary mode ASL/PSE Voice Voice/PSE

of communication

Parents’ use of sign Foster mother: ASL or Voice Parents: primarily

Total Communication voice, some signa

Siblings (all have Foster siblings: 1 half-brother 1 brother (older)

normal hearing) 1 brother, 1 sister, (younger)
both older

Community Rural Urban Suburban

Level of parent University High School Grade University

education (10)

a
Sally’s grandmother, who babysat her everyday, took sign classes and was building her sign
vocabulary. She always voiced as she signed, and made certain she had Sally’s focused attention.

six children in the program, expanded to 10, and then ended with seven. The needs
of the children varied, but all demonstrated substantial language delays. One student
was both deaf and blind. As the class size and needs of the children changed, so did
the level of staff support. Classroom staff included a full-time teacher of the Deaf
(Lanie), a full-time deaf educational assistant, a (part-time) certiŽ ed sign language
interpreter, two part-time speech therapists, and a part-time social worker.

The Children
The children of this study are Robin, Nikki, and Sally. (All names of students and
staff are pseudonyms.) At the outset of this project, Nikki and Robin were 4 years
old and in their Ž nal year at the preschool. Sally, a year younger, would remain for
an additional year. The children’s hearing loss ranged from relatively mild to
profound. Despite considerable diversity in their background histories, two factors
were consistent—all three children were born to hearing parents, and all three
students demonstrated receptive vocabularies of fewer than 25 words on the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) in October (see
Table I).
416 B. Gioia

Robin’s Story
Robin was born while his mother was in the custody of the state’s Division of Youth.
He was placed in foster care aged 4 months, due to allegations of neglect and abuse.
By the time he was 2.5 years old, Robin was in his Ž fth foster home.
Robin was almost 2 years old when his hearing loss was diagnosed. As is common,
the documented degree of hearing loss has varied from the original assessment,
“bilateral loss within the ‘severe’ range” to more recently, a “profound” loss in one
ear and a “moderate” loss in the other. While etiology and time of onset are
unknown, it is believed to be congenital. Robin was not Ž tted with hearing aides
until almost a year after the loss was diagnosed and he was not exposed to any sign
language until shortly before entering the preschool, because none of his former
caregivers knew even basic signs.
Three months before we began this study, Robin’s home life took a turn for the
better. A teacher of the Deaf, who was also a certiŽ ed American Sign Language
Interpreter, took Robin in as a foster child. For the Ž rst time in his life, Robin was
immersed in an environment in which he had access to a visual language. When we
began this study, Robin’s receptive vocabulary on the PPVT (Dunn & Dunn, 1981)
amounted to 22 words.

Nikki’s Story
Nikki’s mother, Diane, was 21 years old when she went to a local hospital emer-
gency room for “bad stomach cramps.” The doctors discovered that Diane was
pregnant, in labour, and the baby was in trouble. Nikki came into this world via
emergency cesarean section, 12 weeks premature, weighing only 2 pounds 6 ounces
(1,077 gm). Because she was not yet ready to function on her own, Nikki was
airlifted from the small town hospital in which she was born to a larger regional
medical facility, where she spent her Ž rst 8 weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit.
A screening completed at 2 months of age raised the Ž rst suspicion of a hearing
loss, but according to Diane, “The doctors weren’t convinced … They were waiting
to see if her hearing would develop … but it didn’t.” Diane, however, believed that
Nikki’s hearing was seriously impaired. Her descriptions of early mother–child
interactions still re ect her frustration as she wrestled with her concerns and the
doctors’ lack of responsiveness. Diane described communicating with Nikki by
“talking in a real loud voice, yelling, and making sure she was looking at me.”
Despite these efforts, she believes that Nikki really did not hear anything until she
was Ž nally Ž tted with hearing aides between 18 and 24 months. According to a
hearing test completed shortly before the beginning of this project, Nikki demon-
strates a severe loss in her right ear and a mild loss in the left. In essence, this means
that without hearing aides, Nikki is unable to hear speech and her access to most
environmental sounds is severely limited.
Almost 6 months before the beginning of the study Nikki came to the preschool
for an intake evaluation. She had just celebrated her fourth birthday and she spoke
only about a dozen words; as a result, on standardised measures of development, her
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 417

scores were comparable to those of a child half her chronological age according to
evaluations completed with the Ski-Hi Language Development Scale (Watkins,
1979) and the Developmental ProŽ le II (Alpern, Boll & Shearer, 1984).
During the interval between the intake evaluation and the beginning of our study,
Nikki attended a 6-week summer session in July and August and then continued into
the new school year, which began in September. She was often absent, sometimes
due to illness, but on other days, for unknown reasons. When the school year
opened Nikki was typically quiet but attentive during class activities. She smiled
often, responded to direction, but used very little language—sign or voice—unless
absolutely required to do so. When Nikki’s receptive vocabulary was assessed
towards the end of the preschool year, she demonstrated a slight increase in the
number of words she understood, earning a raw score of 21 (Dunn & Dunn, 1981).

Sally’s Story
Compared with her classmates, Sally has enjoyed a privileged beginning. Unlike
Nikki, she has relative Ž nancial security, and is part of an intact family, complete
with close-knit extended family members. Her grandmother, June, provides daycare
for Sally.
Although there was no family history of deafness and the etiology of Sally’s
deafness has never been determined Sally’s mother, Beth, suspects that a mild illness
suffered early in her pregnancy is the cause of Sally’s severe-to-profound hearing
loss. Sally’s family has not only accepted her hearing loss, they seem to have
embraced it. Indeed, Sally’s parents, grandparents, and other family members began
taking sign language classes shortly after the hearing loss was conŽ rmed. Despite
their efforts and Sally’s enrolment in the preschool program for almost a year before
this study, her receptive vocabulary was assessed at 21 words (Dunn & Dunn, 1981)
when we began our work together. Her limited progress with language was one
reason that Lanie placed Sally in the class for older preschool students.
As we worked along side Robin, Nikki, and Sally, we learned that despite limited
Ž nancial resources, emotional upheaval, and/or nontraditional family settings,
school could be a place for success and growth. We also learned that the histories
that each child brought to school did not exclude anyone from engaging in produc-
tive, enriching literacy learning events.

Classroom Practices
As a collaborative project, Lanie and I hoped to pool our respective expertise to
create enhanced emergent language and literacy experiences for the children. While
I had deŽ nite ideas about directions I would like to explore, I valued Lanie’s
knowledge of deafness and knew we would need to work within parameters she
found comfortable. As the issue of storybook sharing was central to the study, we
had a number of conversations about effective classroom practices.
Before our collaboration, Lanie stated that her main goal in storybook sharing is
to foster an “appreciation of the reading experience.” She felt strongly that without
418 B. Gioia

this, the children would not even attend to the book and its story. She also noted
that she modiŽ ed her method of sharing, based on her assumptions about the
individual child’s “readiness.” For some, just sitting together with other children
and “having someone interact with them with print, with pictures in a meaningful
way … [would lead them] to seek out books on their own.”
Lanie said she shared books by looking at the pictures and talking about them
with the children. She said she often tried to tie the storybooks to classroom themes
or to experiences the students might have in common. Lanie found that by linking
the current book with others the children had already read and to their real life
experiences, the children gained more, a conclusion which is supported by other
researchers (Clay, 1991). She also saw the value of highlighting new vocabulary.
Lanie explained that by providing this support, concept development and the growth
of “basic” language were more likely to occur.
When Lanie and I were planning the study, we decided to institute daily story-
book sharing, a marked departure from her prior practice. In previous years, the
decision to read on a daily basis was mediated by Lanie’s estimation of whether or
not the children were capable of gaining from the experience. For this study I asked
Lanie, and she agreed, to refrain from making those kinds of discriminations and,
instead, we would engage all of the children in a vast array of storybook experiences.
If for some reason Lanie was unavailable for storytime, other classroom staff would
take over.
The matter of paraphrasing vs reading the text verbatim became a pivotal issue
early in this project. It was conventional wisdom among local teachers of the Deaf
that simplifying story text was more likely to engage students than reading word-for-
word. Lanie felt that by streamlining the story, the children’s interest was more likely
to be sustained and as a result, they would understand more.
One day in mid-October, Lanie shared The Elves and the Shoemaker (Caldone,
1984) during Morning Circle. She introduced the story with the aid of an elf puppet,
as she explained that the story was about a man who made shoes and some elves
who helped him. Patty, the deaf educational assistant, then held the book while
Lanie began to tell the story. She occasionally used “book language” but she did not
read the actual text. Instead, she asked the children questions about the pictures and
the story, supporting their efforts by repeating and expanding on their responses; in
some ways copying the style many parents use during earliest storybook sharing with
very young children (Rogers, 1993; Teale, 1981).
Lanie did not refer to the text at all. Nor did she tell the children that the print
was the source of the story. While the children had been engaged with the story
telling and appeared to understand it, I wondered what they had learned about
books during this experience.
In a follow-up conversation, I mentioned that the children had seemed to really
enjoy the story, to which she agreed. I then asked her if she read much of the actual
text. She explained that this was “a dilemma” for her because she was not sure how
much the students “would understand if [she] stuck to the print.” She worried that
the vocabulary might be too hard for them. She said she was not sure which was the
best way to go. I mentioned that I had read an article that pointed out that by not
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 419

sticking to the story, the children were being exposed to less rich language (Stewart
et al., 1990). Lanie seemed thoughtful and said it was something interesting to
consider. She did not seem overly concerned, but she later asked for clariŽ cation and
additional details, which gave me the impression that she was weighing the issue
carefully. I had the sense that she was receptive but not necessarily decided which
way to go. In light of the research that suggests that interactions with and around
storybooks provide hearing children with meaningful exposure to rich vocabulary
and almost endless opportunities for language learning (Cunningham & Stanovich,
1991; Stanovich, 1992), I requested that Lanie experiment and read the stories
verbatim. Lanie agreed to this “on a trial basis.”
During my next visit, Lanie read Robert Kalan’s (1981) Jump, Frog, Jump. This
time, she read the text verbatim and even invited the children to “read” as she
pointed to the repetitious pattern, a refrain of the title. Lanie showed each child
individually how to read along as she pointed, supporting her or his response. After
each child’s turn, Lanie exclaimed, “Good reading!” The children beamed with
delight at this new activity, eagerly volunteering to be the next to read. Lanie also
seemed very pleased by the children’s enthusiasm. Throughout the rest of the year
Lanie read stories as they were written and eventually the remainder of the staff
members did as well.

Language Learning and Storybook Sharing

Language and literacy learning appear to develop concurrently and in a mutually
supportive manner as children engage in social interactions (Martinez & Teale,
1993; Snow & Ninio, 1986; Sulzby & Teale, 1991). Storybook sharing provides a
powerful language and literacy learning milieu. As a result, it was my goal to explore
the efŽ cacy of storybook sharing as a language intervention model with deaf
children.
For deaf children, the language and/or communication mode that is employed
during these interactions mediates the quality and accessibility of these events. For
example, when a story is shared in ASL, the teacher will be unable to demonstrate
the connection between print and sign or the constancy of written language (An-
drews & Gonzales, 1991; Andrews & Mason, 1986a, 1986b). In contrast, it is
possible to make a voice/sign/print match with SEE and some of the other sign
systems, even though they are considered incomplete models of a language. The
importance of this match does not discount the value of ASL; but it does suggest the
utility of a bridge between sign and print. The use of a signing system that can be
mapped onto print in some ways parallels the behaviour of teachers in hearing
classes when they step out of normal speech to “stretch” the sounds of words in
order to socialise students’ attention to the voice-print connection. From Clay’s
work with hearing children, we know that the child’s grasp of this concept is critical
to becoming an independent reader (1991, 1993a, 1993b).
The signing abilities of teachers of the Deaf have been indicted for being less than
expert and causing confusions during teacher-child interactions (Ewoldt & Saulnier,
1991), however, in the present study this did not appear to be the case. Lanie
420 B. Gioia

appeared effortless in her signing; she reported that she thought and even dreamt in
sign. As I watched her interact with adult members of the Deaf community as well
as with the children in her classroom, it was evident that she was able to communi-
cate with relative ease, code switching as the situation required. And although she
would not claim to be as  uent as a native signer, Lanie’s choice to share storybooks
in Total Communication was not driven by limited manual language skills, but by
a number of other issues.
First, Lanie voiced while she signed because it was the custom of this program.
Secondly, the diversity of the children’s hearing loss mandates the provision of
accessible languages/communication models for students at both ends of the hearing
spectrum, especially because the preschool was their primary source of language
enriching experiences. Lanie also felt that the use of both voice and sign encouraged
the children to attend to both sources of information, an important consideration as
they moved between the deaf and hearing worlds. It was not that Lanie believed in
oral language supremacy, but neither did she embrace the notion of ASL supremacy.
That is, Lanie came to believe that the children required proŽ ciency in either oral
or sign language in order to beneŽ t from engagement in emergent literacy endeav-
ours.
Lanie believed that her deaf students would acquire language and literacy under-
standings through engagement in the social interactions that surrounded storybook
sharing activities (Andrews & Gonzales, 1991; Brannon & Livingston, 1986; Sulzby
& Teale, 1987). Like others, she did not believe that becoming competent in ASL
would hamper the child’s ability to learn about written language (Mason & Ewoldt,
1996), but neither did she feel that knowledge of written English would diminish the
possibility or potential of the children to become effective users of ASL (Brannon &
Livingston, 1986). As others have noted
… acquisition of written English is especially critical for deaf children as
their speech and hearing skills more often than not are of limited use when
communicating with hearing persons … since not all hearing people who
deaf children interact with understand their sign language, literacy is even
more important. (Andrews & Gonzales, 1991, p. 17)
While Lanie recognised its limitations, she also saw value in using PSE during
literacy instruction because it gave the children access to elements of both ASL and
English. In addition, as others have found, the use of Total Communication allowed
Lanie to more easily demonstrate the sign/voice/print connection (Stewart et al.,
1990; Williams, 1991). Following the text as written also led her to sign in what
amounts to a “literate register.” This parallels the observation that hearing children
have access to more complex language structure and varied vocabulary through
lapreading than is typically available through conversation with adults and other
children (Chomsky, 1972; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Stanovich, 1992). In addition,
literate English has different features from spoken English.
Code switching, moving between Nikki’s oral world and Sally’s sign world, did
not appear to be a problem for Robin, who was provided with as diverse a language
environment as likely to be found: fully oral for his Ž rst four years, ASL at home
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 421

during our study year, and Total Communication at school. No one told him (or
needed to tell him) that Nikki relied mostly on her residual hearing or that Sally had
almost no access to oral language; indeed, Lanie and the staff used sign and voice
throughout all interactions at the preschool. She conveyed to the children that she
valued all language use, but she also placed a considerable emphasis on the use of
multiple systems.
Lanie trusted the children to work with language to meet their needs. It appeared
that because of the supportive and respectful interactions that Lanie used, Robin
Ž gured out what to do in order to communicate with his friends, and Nikki and Sally
were not far behind. Nikki, who did not have the same level of need to rely on sign
to communicate her needs, often used at least some sign when playing with Robin
and Sally. Sally, whose speech was the least intelligible, tried to use her voice when
“speaking” with Nikki, although she did not always do so with Robin. In addition
to the overall (language) beneŽ ts offered by the text of storybooks, the social
interaction that Lanie fostered during story time helped all three children learn
about choosing the most accessible means of communication when interacting with
others.

Literacy Learning and Engagement with Storybooks

Through engagement in storybook sharing, the children learned to weave important
literacy knowledge with language learning. When Lanie made speciŽ c reference to
the text, pointing out new or unusual words, the children began to incorporate them
into their vocabularies. Others have also found beneŽ cial effects of discussion of new
words during storybook sharing events (Cochran-Smith, 1984; Elley, 1989). These
conversations, rather than didactic instruction, appear to facilitate vocabulary acqui-
sition as well as improved understanding of the story being shared (Dickinson &
Smith, 1994).
As the children participated in interactive storybook sharing, many of the lapread-
ing traditions enjoyed by most children were evident (Klesius & GrifŽ th, 1996;
Sulzby & Teale, 1987; Taylor, 1983, Taylor & Strickland, 1986). Although she set
a standard for “how to [behaviourally] listen to a story,” Lanie responded to
spontaneous comments about pictures and plot in a conversational manner, and she
asked questions designed to elicit the children’s interest and engagement (Barren-
tine, 1996; Cochran-Smith, 1984; Klesius & GrifŽ th, 1996; Williams,1991). She
sought predictions and responded with references to the book. She extended and
expanded on their comments, maximising the language learning opportunities
inherent in storybook sharing (Rogers, 1993; Teale, 1981). Lanie also helped the
children make connections between the stories and their lives, and learn the
difference between fact and Ž ction. She accepted the children’s points of view as
valid and her interactions were marked by a fundamental respect for their interpret-
ation. In short, she engaged the children in an on-going process of negotiation of
meaning (Snow & Ninio, 1986; Wells, 1987). Lanie’s low-key support enriched the
children’s learning, while not disenfranchising them from their role of story in-
terpreter (Barrentine, 1996; Klesius & GrifŽ th, 1996).
422 B. Gioia

Lanie often Ž ngerspelled new or unfamiliar words and then showed the children
the corresponding (ASL) sign. According to Hirsh-Pasek (1987), Ž ngerspelling is
positively correlated with literacy success. Use of Ž ngerspelling provides deaf readers
with

… an internal system that directly relates to the alphabet … [it] provides

them not only some insight into the English phonological system repre-
sented in print, but also with a way to relate one portion of their own
language (ASL) with printed text. … attention to Ž ngerspelling can assist
readers in word identiŽ cation and may be related to more general reading
achievement. (Hirsh-Pasek, p. 471)

In a manner somewhat similar to her use of literacy terms, Lanie’s salient discus-
sions with the children about signing and written/oral language provided them with
the opportunity to develop a metalinguistic awareness, a way in which to think about
language and communication models (Hirsh-Pasek, 1987).
Fingerspelling also appeared to help the children gain greater access to the
textures of oral/written language. For example, Lanie found it useful to explain that
some words are “silly words” or “playful words” and that they may not have a sign
translation. When she talked to the children about words like “squishy” and “slimy”
the children seemed to understand, dissolving into giggles and spontaneously
engaging in [sign] language play with one another.
Lanie also made it a priority to include the jargon terms used to describe books,
terms with which the children had no familiarity when we conducted our initial
assessment. She included explanations of “author” and “title” during book intro-
ductions and talked with the children about the difference between an author and an
illustrator. Lanie often prefaced a page of text with, “Here are the words of the
story …” or “The print says …” When books became familiar, she would ask, “Who
can point to the word …?” She described her actions as she engaged in booksharing
behaviours, demonstrating what a page was as she made her way through the story,
commenting, “Let’s turn the page, now …” The use of these terms seemed to
empower the children in a number of ways: it gave them a way to talk about what
they were doing, as well as providing them with a way to think about the efforts of
others (Andrews & Akamatsu, 1993).
A glimpse at Lanie sharing of The Snowy Day (Keats, 1963) illustrates the ways
in which she engaged the children in interactive storybook sharing and supported
their learning. She signed and voiced all of her comments as well as those of the
children. Lanie did this to ensure that everyone in the group could “hear” each
person’s comment—in whatever mode was most accessible. (Underlined portion is
actual text; coding comments are in italics.)

Lanie: Here is the title of the book again. (“jargon” word) The Snowy
Day. One winter morning, Peter woke up and looked out the
window. Snow had fallen during the night. It covered everything
as far as he could see.
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 423

Student: Same! [pointing out the window]

Lanie: That’s right … The same. There’s snow outside and there’s snow
here … [pointing to picture]. (expanding on child’s comment, high-
lighting connections to real life)
Lanie continues: After breakfast he put on his snowsuit and ran outside. The snow
was piled up very high along the street to make a path for walking.
See? Someone came and shoveled all the snow on either side so
people could walk. (drawing children’s attention to illustration to
support comprehension) … And he found something sticking out of
the snow that made a new track. It was a stick. A stick that was
just right for smacking a snow-covered tree. Do you see what he
is doing? If Peter hits the tree, what will happen to the snow?
Anybody know? What will happen to the snow? Bang! Bang! Bang!
Snow stays? (Inviting predictions, supporting comprehension and en-
gagement, scaffolding understanding by expanding on information in
picture and story)
Robin: [shakes head no]
Lanie: No, Robin is shaking his head. (Validating student’s response) What
do you think, Sally? Robin says [it] will fall. (Encouraging interac-
tion with peer and construction of shared meaning) Let’s see … Patty
is showing you the pictures … Let’s see what happened to Peter.
Oh, oh, … Down fell the snow—plop!—on top of Peter’s head. So
what happened? Nikki, what happened to the snow? (Ensuring
comprehension, linking illustrations and text)
Nikki: It fell.
Lanie: Where did it fall? It fell on stick? (Questioning to engage the child
and ensure comprehension)
Nikki: No!
Lanie: Snow fell where?
Nikki: Head.
Lanie: On Peter’s head … Good! (Expansion of child’s comment, conŽ rming
her “read” of the picture)

This excerpt is representative of Lanie’s give-and-take conversational manner that

allowed for supported peer interactions and provided the children with a venue in
which to explore topics and issues beyond their immediate lives. It gave these
children of diverse backgrounds and abilities a common ground in which to engage
in language and literate learning.
The effectiveness of this model was evidenced in many ways. The children
demonstrated enormous increases in their knowledge about print and applied this
during their own storybook reading. By the end of the year, all three used terms such
as “page” and “title” and could identify the front and back of a book. They all
pointed to the text as they moved their Ž ngers under the words in a left to right
pattern. They incorporated book language when they engaged in retellings or
“pretend” reading, pointing out characters and describing key points of action. Even
424 B. Gioia

more importantly, they had learned about stories and the enchantment they had to
offer (Clay, 1991; Harste et al., 1984; Heath, 1982; Holdaway, 1976; Snow &
Ninio, 1986; Taylor & Strickland, 1986).
In Vygotsky’s terms (1978), Lanie’s conversations with the children provided
them with scaffolding support to build a stronger connection between the language
worlds of sign, print, and perhaps even oral/speech. She helped the children become
socialised to the language of literate endeavours by engaging them in conversation,
and she encouraged them to share their interpretations with their peers. The
storybooks, in all their colour and texture, engaged the children in language learning
that might otherwise have been unavailable and gave them new ways to think about
their lives.

Family Practices and School Literacy Learning

During initial interviews with the parents, it was evident that Robin’s and Sally’s
families had well-established literacy practices that ranged from reading books and
magazines to writing research papers for college. Nikki’s mother, while expressing
less interest and enthusiasm for print-related activities, indicated that she was able
to take care of her daily print needs. Despite the differences in their uses of and
attitudes about print, the parents had one thing in common: none had been able to
develop satisfactory (in their terms) shared reading rituals with their deaf children.
The parents’ limited participation in storybook sharing was due to feelings of
inability rather than lack of interest, and they had backed off from these experiences
because they saw them as fruitless efforts. However, like family literacy researcher
Gadsen (1995), we recognised that the families could bring a wealth of knowledge
to our program and we asked for their input in matters such as what was working
and which books seemed especially engaging.
While we encouraged the parents to read more with their children and even
provided materials to do this, in the end, it was the children who took the lead to
improve the quality of their home literacy practices. That is, as the children
internalised the storybook sharing rituals they had learned at preschool, they acted
as emissaries, taking home what they had come to value, teaching their parents how
to share a book with a deaf child.
At the end of the preschool year, when they were videotaped reading with their
families, the children demonstrated control of the booksharing in a number of
ways. They chose the books, the setting, the positioning (on the parent’s lap, beside
them on the couch, or facing the parent), and they took over the role of setting
the pace, turning the pages, and so forth. Sally corrected the placement of her
grandmother’s hands for certain signs, Robin made predictions about the story, and
Nikki periodically commented on the characters and plot, which her mother re-
peated and expanded upon. All the families told us the children initiated storybook
sharing on a much more frequent and regular basis, and that they read on their own
when the parents were unavailable, demonstrating just how capable they had
become.
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 425

Final Thoughts
Although the tests that measure the literacy of deaf children may produce under-
estimates of actual functioning (Ewoldt, 1987), the fact that so many deaf adults
have extremely limited communication abilities in any mode—oral, sign or
written (Gregory 1995)—argues for further exploration of how to maximise the
opportunities that deaf children have to become literate. Indeed, we found in
this study that relatively small changes in instructional practices can make substan-
tial differences in terms of outcome. Recall that at the beginning of the study
these children had total vocabularies of up to 25 words (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). Only
8 months later, they were speaking and signing in Ž ve, six, and seven word
sentences.
While these children made remarkable progress as they acquired language and
literacy knowledge comparable to that of the average hearing child, we do not know
if this early boost will be sustained. Neither do we know what it might take to
expand their accomplishments. To learn the answers to these questions, long-term
follow-up is required.
Storybook sharing and the activities devised to extend the interactions around
storybooks provided meaningful and supportive contexts in which the children could
learn about and experiment with language. That they took this language into other
aspects of their lives demonstrates the remarkable impact that storybooks had on
their communication abilities as well as their literacy learning. In studying the
impact of improvements in literacy instruction with deaf children, we should not
limit our interest to their concepts about print and their ability to process print.
Aside from everything else that Nikki, Sally, and Robin gained through the daily
storybook sharing, the children learned that storybooks were magical and engaging
and that they were portals to other worlds. And, perhaps most importantly, they
learned to feel as if they were members of the literacy club, an especially important
outcome for deaf children whose early lives are so often characterised as socially and
linguistically isolated (Erting, 1985; Gregory, 1995; Lederberg & Mobley, 1990). As
Frank Smith (1992) observes:

… readers keep company with the authors of what they read and also with
the characters in the stories that they read. Reading enables many people—
including many children—to escape their solitude. Readers are never alone.
(p. 438)

Author Note
This study was guided by three gifted and insightful researchers: Peter H. Johnston,
Anne McGill-Franzen, and Carolyn Ewoldt. My deep thanks for their assistance and
patience during data collection and analysis. Profound thanks to my collaborator,
Lanie, and the children and their families, who welcomed me into their world and
shared their stories.
426 B. Gioia

References
ALLEN, T. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and
1983. In S. KARCHMER (Ed.), Deaf children in America (pp. 161–206). Boston: Little, Brown.
ALPERN, G.D., BOLL, T.J. & SHEARER, M.S. (1984) Developmental ProŽ le II. Los Angeles, CA:
Western Psychological Services.
ANDREWS, J. & AKAMATSU, C.T. (1993). Building blocks for literacy. Perspectives, 11(3), 5–9.
ANDREWS, J. & GONZALES, K. (1991). Free writing of deaf children in kindergarten. Sign Language
Studies, 74, 63–78.
ANDREWS, J. & MASON, J. (1986a). How do deaf children learn about prereading? American Annals
of the Deaf, 131, 210–217.
ANDREWS, J. & MASON, J. (1986b). Childhood deafness and the acquisition of print concepts. In
D.B. YADEN & S. TEMPLETON (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy (pp. 277–
290). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
BARRENTINE, S.J. (1996). Engaging with reading through interactive read-alouds. The Reading
Teacher, 50, 36–43.
BRANNON, L. & LIVINGSTON, S. (1986). An alternative view of education for deaf children: Part II.
American Annals of the Deaf, 131, 229–230.
CALDONE, P. (1984). The elves and the shoemaker. New York: Houghton Mif in.
CHOMSKY, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational
Review, 42, 1–33.
CLAY, M.M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
mann.
CLAY, M.M. (1993a). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
CLAY, M.M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
COCHRAN-SMITH, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
CUNNINGHAM, A. & STANOVICH, K. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in
children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 83, 264–274.
DICKINSON , D. & SMITH, M. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on
low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29,
105–122.
DUNN, L.M. & DUNN, L.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
DYSON, A.H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. New York:
Teachers College Press.
ELLEY, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24,
174–187.
ERTING , C. (1992). Deafness and literacy: Why can’t Sam read? Sign Language Studies, 75,
97–112.
EWOLDT, C. (1987). Reading tests and the deaf reader. Perspectives for Teachers of the Hearing
Impaired, 5(4), 21–24.
EWOLDT, C. & SAULNIER, K. (1991). Engaging in literacy: A longitudinal study with three to seven year
old deaf participants. Research Report. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Research Institute.
EWOLDT, C. & SAULNIER, K. (1995). When teachers and children share good books. Perspectives in
Education and Deafness, 13(3), 4–8.
FLINDERS, D. & MILLS, G. (Eds.) (1993). Theory and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives
from the Ž eld. New York: Teachers College Press.
G ADSEN, V.L. (1995). Representations of literacy: Parents’ images in two cultural communities. In
L.M. MORROW (Ed.), Family literacy connections in schools and communities (pp. 287–303).
New Brunswick, NJ: International Reading Association.
 Emergent Language of Deaf Preschoolers 427

G IOIA, B. (1997). “Once upon a time: …”: A collaborative study of the emergent language and literacy
experiences of three deaf preschoolers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of
New York at Albany, Albany, NY.
G LASER, B. & STRAUSS, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
G OLDIN- MEADOW, S. & MYLANDER, C. (1990). Beyond the input given: The child’s role in the
acquisition of language. Language, 66, 323–355.
G REENBERG, M.T., CALDERON, R. & KUSCHE, C. (1984). Early intervention using simultaneous
communication with deaf infants: The effect on communication development. Child Devel-
opment, 55, 607–616.
G REGORY, S. (1995). Deaf young people and their parents: Perspectives on education. Australian
Journal of Education of the Deaf, 1(1), 28–33.
HARSTE, J., WOODWARD, V.A. & BURKE, C.L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
HEATH, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language
in Society, 11, 49–76.
HIRSH-PASEK, K. (1987). The metalinguistics of Ž ngerspelling: An alternative way to increase
reading vocabulary in congenitally deaf readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 455–474.
HOLDAWAY, D. (1986). The structure of natural learning as a basis for literacy instruction. In M.
SAMPSON (Ed.), The pursuit of literacy: Early reading and writing (pp. 56–72). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
HUBBARD, R.S. & POWER, B.M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher-re-
searchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
KALAN, R. (1981). Jump frog jump. New York: Wm. Morrow.
KEATS, E.J. (1963). The snowy day. New York: The Viking Press.
KLESIUS, J.P. & G RIFFITH, P.L. (1996). Interactive storybook reading for at-risk learners. The
Reading Teacher, 49, 552–560.
LEDERBERG, A.R. (1993). The impact of deafness on mother-child and peer relationships. In M.
MARSCHARK & M.D. CLARK (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness (pp. 93–119).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
LEDERBERG, A.R. & MOBLEY, C.E. (1990). The effect of hearing impairment on the quality of
attachment and mother–child interaction. Child Development, 61, 1596–1604.
MARCHARK, M. & CLARK, M.D. (Eds.) Psychological perspectives on deafness. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
MARTINEZ, M. & TEALE, W. (1993). Teacher storybook reading style: A comparison of six
teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 175–199.
MASON, D. & EWOLDT , C. (1996). Whole language and deaf bilingual-bicultural education—Nat-
urally! American Annals of the Deaf, 141, 293–298.
MATHISON , S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, 13–17.
MEADOW, K. (1980). Deafness and child development. Los Angeles, CA: University of California
Press.
MEIER, R.P. (1991). Language acquisition by deaf children. American Scientist, 79, 60–70.
MUSSELMAN, C.R., WILSON, A.K. & LINDSAY , P.H. (1989). Factors affecting the placement of
preschool-aged children. American Annals of the Deaf, 134, 9–13.
QUIGLEY, S.P. & KRETSCHMER, R.E. (1982). The education of deaf children. Baltimore: University
Park Press.
ROGERS, D. (1993). Bedtime reading 5 Language learning. Perspectives in Education and Deafness,
11(3), 19–21.
SENECHAL, M., LEFEVRE, J., THOMAS, E. & DALEY, K. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy
experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly,
33, 6–116.
SHIGAKI, I.S. (1987). Language and the transmission of values: Implications from Japanese day
care. In B. FILLION, C. HEDLEY & E. DIMARTINO (Eds.), Home and school: Early language and
reading (pp. 111–121). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
428 B. Gioia

SMITH, F. (1992). Learning to read: The never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 432–441.
SNOW, C.E. & NINIO, A. (1986). The contracts of literacy: What children learn from learning to
read books. In W.H. TEALE & E. SULZBY (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading
(pp. 116–138). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
STANOVICH, K.E. (1992). Are we overselling literacy? In C. TEMPLE & P. COLLINS (Eds.), Stories
and readers: New perspectives on literature in the classroom (pp. 209–231). Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
STEWART, D., BONKOWSKI, N. & BENNETT, D. (1990). Considerations and implications when reading
stories to young Deaf children. Occasional Paper No. 113. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University, College of Education, Institute for Research on Teaching.
SULZBY, E. & TEALE, W.H. (1987). Young children’s storybook reading: Longitudinal study of parent–
child interaction and children’s independent functioning. Final Report. Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor/The Spencer Foundation.
SULZBY, E. & TEALE, W. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. BARR, M.L. KAMIL, P.B. ROSENTHAL &
P.D. PEARSON (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 727–757). New York:
Longman.
TAYLOR, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
TAYLOR, D., & STRICKLAND, D. (1986). Family literacy: Myths and magic. In M. SAMPSON (Ed.),
The pursuit of literacy: Early reading and writing (pp. 30–48). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Co.
TEALE, W. (1981). Parents reading to their children: What we know and need to know. Language
Arts, 58(8), 902–911.
VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
WATKINS, S. (1979). The SKI*HI Language Development Scale: Assessment of language skills for
hearing impaired children from infancy to Ž ve years of age. Logan, UT: HOPE, Inc.
WEBSTER, A. (1986). Deafness, development, and literacy. London: Metheun.
WELLS, G. (1987). The negotiation of meaning: Talking and learning at home and at school. In
B. FILLION , C. HEDLEY & E. DIMARTINO (Eds.), Home and school: Early language and reading
(pp. 3–25). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
WILLIAMS, C. (1991). The verbal language worlds and early childhood literacy development of three
profoundly deaf preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
WILLIAMS, C. (1994). The language and literacy worlds of three profoundly deaf preschool
children. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(2), 125–155.
YIN, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Copyright of International Journal of Disability, Development & Education is the property of Routledge 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.