_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

June 29 2016 16:52
_______________________________________________________________

29 June 2016

ProQuest

Table of contents
1. DEVELOPING PRESCHOOL DEAF CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE AND LITERACY LEARNING FROM AN
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SERIES....................................................................................................................

29 June 2016

ii

ProQuest

Document 1 of 1

DEVELOPING PRESCHOOL DEAF CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE AND LITERACY LEARNING FROM

AN EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SERIES
Author: Golos, Debbie B; Moses, Annie M
ProQuest document link
Abstract: WITH THE INCREASE in research on multiliteracies comes greater interest in exploring multiple
pathways of learning for deaf children. Educational media have been increasingly examined as a tool for
facilitating the development of deaf children's language and literacy skills. The authors investigated whether
preschool deaf children (N = 31) acquired targeted American Sign Language and literacy skills after viewing one
video from an educational video series in ASL. Descriptive statistics were gathered and a split-plot ANOVA was
conducted to determine whether targeted literacy scores increased from pretest to posttest and whether scores
varied by baseline ASL skills. A significant improvement was found in the skills targeted in the video, which
occurred regardless of the level of baseline ASL skills. The findings support the claim that learning ASL and
literacy skills through educational media may benefit deaf children with varied levels of exposure to ASL.
[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Full text: Headnote
WITH THE INCREASE in research on multiliteracies comes greater interest in exploring multiple pathways of
learning for deaf children. Educational media have been increasingly examined as a tool for facilitating the
development of deaf children's language and literacy skills. The authors investigated whether preschool deaf
children (N = 31) acquired targeted American Sign Language and literacy skills after viewing one video from an
educational video series in ASL. Descriptive statistics were gathered and a split-plot ANOVA was conducted to
determine whether targeted literacy scores increased from pretest to posttest and whether scores varied by
baseline ASL skills. A significant improvement was found in the skills targeted in the video, which occurred
regardless of the level of baseline ASL skills. The findings support the claim that learning ASL and literacy skills
through educational media may benefit deaf children with varied levels of exposure to ASL.
Keywords: emergent literacy, deaf, preschool, ASL, educational media, visual learning
There has been growing acknowledgment of the use of multimedia with deaf1 children (e.g., Golos &Moses,
2011; Loeterman, Paul, &Donahue, 2002; Mueller &Hurtig, 2010), with some researchers focusing on
investigating and promoting learning through multiple sources and modes of communication. Evidence also
suggests that presenting information through a visual language2 such as American Sign Language (ASL) allows
deaf children to develop in various skills areas, such as language, literacy, and cognition (e.g., Corina
&Singleton, 2009; Hoffmeister, 2000; Morford &Mayberry, 2000; Rathman, Wolfgang, &Morgan, 2007). With the
increasing amount and range of technology in the classroom, educators can also use instructional strategies,
materials, and assessments that promote learning through a medium that incorporates a variety of modalities.
While there is still much to learn about the development of language and literacy in deaf children, emerging
evidence suggests that there are multiple pathways to growth in this domain. Access to multiple ways of
presenting knowledge and skills related to language and literacy is critical, particularly during early childhood
(Clark, Gilbert, &Anderson, 2011; Kyle &Harris, 2010; Mayer, 2007; New London Group, 1996).
Children learn a great deal about literacy prior to formally learning to read. Learning concepts such as the
meaning of new words and aspects of a story (e.g., characters, setting, and main events) can be learned prior
to the acquisition of formal reading skills. However, if development in this area is to be facilitated, children must
be exposed to fluent language models from birth. Those who are not exposed to a fluent language model often
begin preschool with gaps in their language and literacy skills (Freel et ah, 2011; Mayberry 2007; Mayberry, del
Guidice, &Lieberman, 2011; Mayer 2007). Some have argued that the delays in language and literacy already in
29 June 2016

Page 1 of 19

ProQuest

place by the time that child reaches first grade (see, e.g., Chamberlain &Mayberry, 2008; Mayberry, 2010;
Mayer, 2007) are a key reason why the average deaf child graduates from high school reading at the fourthgrade level (Traxler, 2000). When they go to school, many deaf children are still learning language at the same
time that their hearing peers are learning through language (Freel et al., 2011; Paul, 2009). These delays often
lead to problems with literacy throughout schooling (Chamberlain &Mayberry, 2008; Mayer, 2007). Even with
the advent of newborn hearing screening and an increase in the availability of amplification devices, some
researchers suggest that deaf children are still at risk (e.g., Nittrouer, Caldwell, Lowenstein, Tarr, &Holloman,
2012). This places great significance on early language and literacy exposure (Mayberry, 2007; Mayer, 2007;
Paul &Wang, 2012; Williams, 2004).
With the introduction of more advanced technologies and a wider range of media products, a small body of work
has begun to examine the role of media in promoting deaf children's language and literacy skills. These recent
studies have found that media, especially those that are educationally oriented, can have a positive impact on
literacy and language skills, including educational media presented during the early childhood years and in
American Sign Language (ASL) for deaf children (e.g., Golos, 2010a, 2010b; Golos &Moses, 2011; Loeterman
et al., 2002). For example, deaf children who have been exposed to educational media in ASL have been found
to demonstrate an increase in targeted vocabulary in both ASL and printed English (Golos, 2006; Golos
&Moses, 2011). Although there are differing opinions on the best routes to language and literacy development
for deaf children, the focus of the present study is on continuing the line of research that has demonstrated the
benefits of early exposure to ASL (e.g., Chamberlain &Mayberry, 2000; Corina &Singleton, 2009; Freel et al.,
2011; Mayberry, 2007) through educational media (Golos &Moses, 2011).
Theoretical Frameworks for Literacy Development
Educational resources aiming to affect language and literacy skills of young children, including deaf children,
must take into account the range of skills constituting literacy (e.g., print awareness, vocabulary,
comprehension) that emerge over time and that predict success in literacy in the long run (i.e., emergent literacy
skills). In addition, those working to increase children's acquisition of skills in this domain should consider the
range of modes- often tapped in screen media-and the variety of texts that literate individuals use and produce
(i.e., multiliteracies).
Emergent Literacy
The emergent literacy perspective posits that language and literacy skills develop from a child's earliest years,
and simultaneously rather than sequentially (e.g., Sulzby &Teale, 1991; Whitehurst &Lonigan, 2001). For
example, children can learn about print concepts at the same time that they are being exposed to print, through,
for instance, seeing or hearing a book read aloud. Whereas previous notions of literacy argued that very young
children should not be introduced to reading and writing until age 6.5 years (see Durkin, 1966, for discussion on
the topic of reading readiness), the focus of the emergent literacy perspective is on children's language and
literacy experiences that occur prior to formal schooling and that contribute to their ability to read and write
conventionally as they grow.
Language and literacy skills mutually reinforce each other and should both be introduced into children's lives as
soon as possible (Lonigan, Farver, Phillips, &Clancy-Menchetti, 2011; Sulzby &Teale, 1991; Whitehurst
&Lonigan, 2001). This can be done through a variety of face-to-face activities (e.g., read-alouds, dramatic play,
direct instruction), environments (e.g., child care, preschool and early elementary classrooms, homes,
community sites), and "old" and "new" media tools (e.g., books, computers, television and videos). Improving
the quality and quantity of language and literacy experiences and materials in the home and in early education
settings is critical for all children. For deaf children, who are at risk for language and literacy failure, a greater
quantity and higher quality of language and literacy experiences are imperative if they are to experience early
literacy development and later literacy success (Mayer, 2007; Musselman, 2000; Williams, 2004).
Emergent Literacy and Deaf Children
29 June 2016

Page 2 of 19

ProQuest

Educators and researchers concerned with deaf children may agree that early exposure to language and
literacy is critical, yet there are different perspectives on how best to promote development in these areas.
Some researchers have investigated the connection be - tween sound-based language exposure and early
literacy development, and found benefits (e.g., Kyle &Harris, 2010). Others have examined the connection
between sign language (here, ASL) and English print exposure and also found benefits to early literacy
development (e.g., Chamberlain &Mayberry, 2000). Although questions remain about how exactly deaf children
learn to read, as well as the role phonological awareness plays (Kyle &Harris, 2010; Mayer, 2007; McQuarrie
&Parilla, 2009; Musselman, 2000; Paul, Wang, Trezek, &Luckner, 2009; Wang, Trezek, Luckner, &Paul, 2008),
many agree that early exposure to language, vocabulary, and comprehension skills is critical for deaf children
who are considered at risk in regard to later literacy achievement (Allen et al., 2009; Clark, Gilbert, &Anderson,
2011; Easterbrooks &Huston, 2008; Freel et al., 2011; Kyle &Harris, 2006; Mayberry et al., 2011; Miller &Clark,
2011; Nittrouer et al., 2012; Paul, 1996, 2003).
When looking specifically at the use of ASL as means of fostering early literacy skills in young deaf children,
researchers have found that early exposure to ASL and ASL ability positively relate to early literacy skills (e.g.,
Chamberlain &Mayberry, 2000; Freel et al., 2011; Mayberry, 2007). Evidence from the work of Chamberlain and
Mayberry (2000, 2008) and Hoffmeister (2000), among others (e.g., Clark et al., 2011; Corina &Singleton, 2009;
Mayberry 2007, 2010; Prinz &Strong, 1998), suggests that many deaf children who have early exposure to ASL
develop literacy skills on par with those of hearing peers on an array of literacy outcomes, including
performance on vocabulary tasks, reading comprehension, and language functioning. For example, Prinz and
Strong (1998) found a significant positive correlation between ASL skills and English literacy scores (e.g., on
measures of comprehension, vocabulary, English syntax, and written narrative) after testing 155 deaf children
between the ages of 8 and 15 years. Additional, more recent evidence has continued to show a positive
correlation between ASL skills and reading comprehension scores, wherein ASL skills or bilingual abilities in
ASL and printed English explained up to 68% of the variance in reading comprehension scores for both children
and adults between the ages of 4 and 62 years (Allen et al., 2009; Freel et al., 2011, Mayberry et al., 2011).
One route to language and literacy is through face-to-face, or live, interactions. The studies previously
mentioned investigated exposure to ASL and outcomes for language and literacy skills involved in these types
of interactions. However, another route is through media, which can include a range of modalities (e.g.,
auditory, sign, print) that can influence children's language and literacy development.
Multiliteracies
In recent years, some have argued for a broader notion of literacy, called "multiliteracies," which incorporates
multiple languages, cultures, and media (New London Group, 1996). The belief is that literacy instruction and
experiences will only be effective if they expand on a traditional definition to include the varying and multiple
literacy-related and linguistic competencies that students bring to school. In short, the New London Group
(1996) argues that literacy instruction needs to build upon students' knowledge of nonconventional, as well as
conventional, texts within a sociocultural framework. Second, it needs to incorporate the variety of screen media
that include written and expressive/receptive communication (i.e., television, videos, computers) and with which
children (and adults) interact regularly.
Studies examining educational media (e.g., Fisch, 2004; Moses, 2008) indicate the great potential of the use of
multiple modes that can support children's learning, and decades of empirical work has shown that educational
media can have a positive impact on hearing children's literacy and language development, including
coderelated (e.g., word recognition, letter recognition) and comprehensionrelated skills (e.g., vocabulary,
knowledge of story elements). Anderson and Lorch (1983) and other researchers have found that viewers' own
experiences and background knowledge play a role in whether and how they attend to and comprehend screen
media. Although based on studies of hearing children, this evidence implies that deaf children need to pay
attention to and understand what they see in order to actively learn.
29 June 2016

Page 3 of 19

ProQuest

Paul and Wang (2012) agree that the concept of literacy must be extended to incorporate multimodal formats,
such as those included in technology. They emphasize the importance of developing "literate thought," which
they define as "the ability to access captured, decontextualized forms of information" (p. 305). By using this
ability, children can interact with the "captured" information in ways not possible during "live" interactions. One
example of this is using sign language in video or DVD format (Paul &Wang 2006a, 2006b, 2012); a child or
adult can use this medium to pause, discuss, and revisit content presented on screen in order to better
understand new information.
Educational materials developed in ASL for the deaf population should build upon deaf learners' linguistic (e.g.,
ASL) and cultural (e.g., Deaf) backgrounds as well as employ multiple modes of communication (e.g., pictures,
ASL, print, gesture) and research-based visual strategies. All of these considerations can be incorporated into
technological formats (e.g., DVDs). Multiple modes of communication in captured format should not only grab
children's attention but also should include content at an appropriate level so that they can connect with,
understand, and learn from what they see. An expanded view of literacy, which incorporates multiple modes of
literacy, aims to meet the needs of the individual learner (New London Group, 1996), in this case the deaf
learner, and specifically deaf learners whose parents support exposure to ASL.
Review of the Literature on Media, Literacy, and Deaf Learners
Research has only begun to reveal how media may provide deaf children with support in language and literacy
acquisition, in addition to support during face-to-face interactions. Yet the evidence that does exist is promising,
and further work is needed to examine how and why educational media can benefit young deaf children and
can do so through various modes of communication. The present study focuses specifically on how this can be
achieved through educational media in ASL.
Media's Effects on Learning
As previously mentioned, research on children and media highlights the importance of children's attention to the
screen as well as their ability to comprehend what they see. With an appropriate level of attention and
comprehension, viewers can actively learn from media, particularly educational media (Bickman, Wright,
&Huston, 2001). Children's viewing of educational programming has been linked to positive literacy outcomes
during the preschool years (Wright et al., 2001) as well as to positive attitudes toward reading, good reading
habits, and reading achievement in adolescence (Anderson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, &Wright, 2001). More
specifically, spending time with educational media does not relate to less time spent engaging in other important
activities such as reading, interacting with others, and playing (Huston, Wright, Marquis, &Green, 1999). The
same has not been found with noneducational programming, in that negative or no effects have been found in
the short or long term. Educational media that capture and maintain children's attention-through formal features
(i.e., pacing, visual and sound effects)-as well as present content at an appropriate level facilitate children's
understanding and learning, including their acquisition of language and literacy.
Media's Effects on Literacy and Language Development
In general, media have the ability to incorporate a range of modes of communication as well as make important
connections between those modes, and these different modes can convey new information and skills related to
literacy. For example, the meaning of a new word can be shown through characters' physical actions and facial
expressions, can be spoken, can be conveyed through pictures or print on screen, or can be communicated
through sign language. Neuman (1995, 2009) and others have argued that using multiple modes to represent
the same information is more beneficial to learners than relying on only one mode.
Of the work that has been done on educational programs, researchers have found that literacy-oriented
educational programs can positively and significantly affect certain language and literacy skills. Positive effectsboth short- and long-term (Anderson et al., 2001)-have been found for skills critical to comprehending texts,
such as vocabulary knowledge and familiarity with story elements. (For a summary of research, see Fisch,
2004; Moses, 2008; and Uchikoshi, 2009). Such results have been found when children have viewed
29 June 2016

Page 4 of 19

ProQuest

programming on their own (Huston et al., 1999), with adult mediation (e.g., Linebarger, 2009), and at home or in
a classroom (e.g., St. Clair &Schwetz, 2003). Programs that have a sound curriculum and reflect current
research benefit young (hearing) viewers by increasing their vocabulary, concepts of print, development of oral
language, letter recognition, knowledge of story elements, and more (Fisch, 2004). For example, with regard to
narrative skills acquisition as a result of viewing educational programming, 311 preschool children were
randomly assigned to one of three conditions: viewing educational programming that involved a narrative
format, viewing educational programming that involved an expository format, or a notreatment condition.
Participants in the two viewing conditions watched the selected programs multiple times. To evaluate
sequencing skills, children were given three pictures (already seen in literacy workbooks) and asked to put them
in correct order and tell the story. Children were also asked five comprehension questions to evaluate narrative
comprehension. Results showed an increase in both story knowledge and narrative skills, but only for
participants who viewed educational programming that involved a narrative format (Linebarger &Piotrowski,
2009).
Deaf Children's Learning From Educational Media
Recent evidence also supports the potential of educational media to facilitate deaf children's language and
literacy skills (e.g., Loeterman et al., 2002; Mueller &Hurtig, 2010). For example, in the Cornerstones study,
researchbased literacy units were developed for deaf and hard of hearing children to accompany episodes of
Between the Lions that were interpreted into sign language. Eight teachers administered a unit to 32 deaf
children in grades K-5 that included exposure to the signed versions of Between the Lions episodes for 2 hours
a day for 6-8 days. Targeted skills included both vocabulary and story grammar; however, vocabulary skills
were the only aspect measured. Deaf children's vocabulary was enhanced with exposure to video(s) that
provided signed support within the videos (Loeterman et al., 2002), and the greatest gains were found for
children between the ages of 7 and 9 years who were on a first-grade reading level. The scores of children ages
9 and above displayed an average 50% increase from pretest to posttest. An additional study, involving 4 deaf
children between the ages of 2 and 5 years, indicated that videos in signed language that were incorporated
during shared reading led to increased vocabulary for those children (Mueller &Hurtig, 2010). Although they are
derived from a small body of work, these results suggest that deaf children, like hearing children, can gain
vocabulary knowledge through educationally oriented media.
The positive influence of educational media has also been found in studies of older deaf children who engaged
with multimedia materials, particularly multimedia storytelling (Andrews &Jordan, 1998; Ju, 2009; Snoddon,
2010). For example, when deaf 9-to-l8-year-olds viewed multimedia stories on CD-ROM with print and pictures,
they had a significantly higher level of story knowledge (measured through story retellings) than those deaf
children who viewed the stories in print only (Gentry, Chinn, &Moulton, 2005). Although the researchers noted
that a significant difference was not found when sign language was added to the stories viewed on CDROM,
this may have been due to the fact that the signing was computer generated. The studies cited here again
highlight that multimedia materials can have a positive impact on deaf children at various ages and on another
important skill (i.e., knowledge of story elements).
Although research examining educational media in ASL and preschool deaf children's literacy learning is
limited, very recent studies have shown positive effects of an interactive educational video in ASL (with no
sound). Golos (2006, 2010a, 2010b) examined whether 25 preschool deaf children visually attended to,
engaged with, and learned from an ad venture-based educational video in ASL. The video incorporated
research-based strategies to elicit attention and engagement as well as research-based strategies used by Deaf
adults to foster ASL skills and literacy development (in written English) in deaf children (Erting, ThumannPrezioso, &Bendict, 2000; Gale &Schick, 2009; Maxwell, 1988; Padden, 1991). Results indicated that deaf
preschoolers attended to the 40minute video an average of 84% of the time and learned the vocabulary words
targeted in the video, with statistically significant gains found from pretest to posttest. Participants also engaged
29 June 2016

Page 5 of 19

ProQuest

in a multitude of literacy behaviors during their viewings of the video, including sequencing, predicting, signing,
fingerspelling targeted vocabulary, and attending to text printed on the screen. These behaviors increased after
the participants had watched the video multiple times. (For example, there was an increase of 25 signed
targeted vocabulary per child after the third viewing.) This was the case for all of the participants, regardless of
the type of program they attended (i.e., Total Communication, oral, ASL-English). As in the studies mentioned
earlier, educational videos seem effective in promoting vocabulary knowledge in deaf children. However,
educational videos for deaf preschoolers have not been evaluated with regard to children's previous exposure
to ASL or the videos' impact on a broader range of key early language and literacy skills, including knowledge of
story elements.
Strategies That Facilitate Deaf Children's Learning From Educational Media
When the strategies that facilitate deaf children's language and literacy skills are being considered, effective
strategies can be implemented during faceto-face interactions as well as in interactions recorded on video and
other media. For instance, adults' use of strategies to interact with deaf children during shared reading can be
applied to media interactions, such as in technology-enhanced shared readings. Use of e-books, for instance,
was found to lead to greater time spent in shared reading activities and increased sign vocabulary acquisition
(Meuller &Hurtig, 2010). Effective strategies culled from face-to-face interactions include showing ASL and
English print at the same time, using "sandwiching" and/or "chaining" when signing a word, pointing to the
English print, fingerspelling the word and signing it again (Akamatsu &Andrews, 1993; Erting, 2001; Erting
&Pfau, 1997; Padden &Ramsey, 1998). Additional strategies Deaf adults use during "live" activities include
facial expression, role-play, and group and individual eye gaze (Blumenthal-Kelly, 1995; Erting, 2001; Erting
&Pfau, 1997; Mather, 1989).
Recent efforts have involved the implementation of effective face-toface strategies in recorded interactions, with
the specific goal of improving young deaf children's language and literacy skills (Golos, 2006, 2010a, 2010b;
Golos &Moses, 2011). Along with educational goals, the development of educational media in ASL and
subsequent studies has been framed by theories of emergent literacy and multiliteracies and has integrated
research-based strategies that promote deaf children's vocabulary skills and literacy-related behaviors during
viewing. As a result of these efforts, initial studies found that these same strategies can be used in educational
media with positive results (Golos, 2006, 2010a, 2010b; Golos &Moses, 2011). However, questions remained
about the effects of educational media on preschool deaf children's acquisition of a broader range of early
literacy skills.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the extent to which deaf children who are exposed to ASL
in the home and/or school gain the specific language and literacy skills targeted in an educational DVD series
created for deaf preschool-aged children. Two research questions guided the study:
1. Does viewing an educational video in ASL positively impact deaf preschoolers' acquisition of vocabulary
words in ASL and printed English as well as story elements (identifying and sequencing of main events and
identifying main characters and setting) targeted within the video?
2. Does the impact of the video vary by children's baseline ASL skills?
A quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design was used to address the two research questions.
Method
Participants
Participants in the present study included a convenience sample of3-to6-year-old deaf students (N =31) and
their teachers (TV = 7). The teachers and their students were recruited from preschool programs for the deaf
and hard of hearing in the United States and Canada that incorporated ASL in some way into the classroom.
The settings were residential, self-contained, and day programs. While 37 children were initially recruited and
had parental consent to participate, due to the hearing status of 2 of the children (i.e., hearing with Deaf
29 June 2016

Page 6 of 19

ProQuest

parents) and missing data for 4 participants, the final participant pool for this investigation was 31, of whom 16
were boys and 15 were girls. All seven of the participating teachers were female. According to the surveys
completed by parents of the participants, there were 6 participants each who were ages 3, 4, and 5 years old,
and 7 participants who were 6 years old. (Parents did not report an age for 6 participants.)
Parents also reported on hearing status, use and type of amplification, age at identification, the age at which the
child began to sign, and the number of signs known by the child at the time of the present study.
With regard to hearing status, 2 children were reported to have a mild hearing loss, 1 child was reported to have
mild to moderate hearing loss, 2 were reported to have moderate hearing loss, 4 were reported as having
moderate to severe hearing loss, 2 were reported as having severe hearing loss, 1 was reported as having
severe to profound hearing loss, and 11 were reported as having profound hearing loss. (Hearing status was
not reported for 8 participants.)
Six of the 31 children had cochlear implants, 16 used hearing aids, and 5 were reported to use no amplification.
Parents of 4 participants did not complete the item on mode of amplification.
Fifteen children had been identified at birth as having some degree of hearing loss, 5 had been identified
between the ages of 1 and 3 years, and 3 had been identified at or above age 3. (Information on age of
identification was not provided for 8 children.)
With regard to the age at which children began to sign, the average was 2.4 years (SD = 1.2 years). Five
participants had begun to sign by their first birthday, 13 between their first and third birthdays, and 5 between
their third and fourth birthdays.
At the time of the present study, 7 children were reported to know 0-100 words, 4 were reported to know 101400 words, and 4 were reported to know 401 words or more. (Information on 16 children was not provided.)
Finally, parents who completed the survey reported on the type of communication they (as the parent) used at
home. Two reported using ASL (n = 2), 2 oral communication, and 19 a combination of ASL and oral.
(Information on 8 children was not provided.) Parents varied in their (self-reported) years of signing, ranging
from less than 1 year (n = 7) to 1-2 years (n = 5) to more than 2 years of signing (n = 8). (Information was not
provided by the parents of 11 children.) While not all parents used ASL in the home, all children were exposed
to ASL in the classroom to some extent.
Materials
The videos used in the present study came from an original educational media series called Peter's Picture,
available on DVD (only), that features characters who go on themed-based adventures. Each video has the
same structure, with the only differences being the focal theme and the vocabulary words surrounding that
theme. One of the videos in the series (Golos, 2005) had been previously evaluated for its effectiveness in
capturing and maintaining the visual attention of deaf children ages 3-6 years (Golos, 2006, 2010a, 2010b), and
its physical demonstrations of engagement related to the literacy and ASL content (e.g., signing and
fingerspelling, along with characters, commenting and asking questions about the content of the video; see
above under "Review of the Literature"). Extant evidence demonstrated that deaf children at this age could
attend to, comprehend, and learn from a video of this length and structure. The videos in the present study had
similar length, structure, characters, and curriculum.
Three videos were used in the present study, each running approximately 40 minutes in ASL (with no sound)
and targeting key early ASL and literacy skills (i.e., vocabulary, letter recognition, concepts of print,
comprehension, and grammatical features of ASL). During every live-action video in the Peter's Picture series,
the main character (a Deaf adult) and his sidekick (a hearing raccoon) take four deaf children on a trip; in this
study, trips included visits to a pizza parlor, a library, and a country backyard. Prior to the trip, the main
character discusses what they will see, including objects that represent each target vocabulary words (e.g.,
library card, librarian). Upon returning, they sequence pictures of events that took place during their trip and
create a storybook that reflects the trip. Each video concludes with the main character signing the newly created
29 June 2016

Page 7 of 19

ProQuest

storybook aloud.
Ten vocabulary words are incorporated into each video, with five emphasized for instruction, as recommended
by researchers (Caldern, 2005), and each word is related to a theme, as previously mentioned. Vocabulary
and other targeted skills are repeatedly presented in both ASL and printed English, and several strategies are
employed to increase learning, as highlighted earlier (i.e., showing ASL and English at the same time, asking
viewers to sign along with the characters, etc.). (For a further description of the structure of each video, see
Golos &Moses, 2011).
Measures
Participants were assessed at two time points-prior to viewing one of the videos (pretest) and after watching the
video on two occasions (posttest). Pretest assessments included a measure of participants' general ASL skills
by means of the ASL Receptive Skills Test (Enns, Zimmer, Broszeit, &Rabu, 2013) and a researcher-developed
assessment that measured the skills targeted in the videos, the Peter's Picture Assessment Tool (PPAT), which
is specific to the video series. During the posttest time point, participants completed the PPAT for a second
time.
Baseline ASL Receptive Skills
The ASL Receptive Skills Test was used in the present study to obtain a baseline measure of the children's ASL
receptive skills. The test is video based to ensure the consistency of instructions and test items signed by a
native ASL signer. There are three practice sentences and 45 test items, which assess the following
grammatical areas: number/distribution, noun/verb distinctions, spatial verbs, classifiers, role shift, and
conditionals. Participants were asked to indicate their answer by pointing to one of four pictures on the screen.
Prior to taking the assessment, children are given an expressive/receptive vocabulary "screener" in which 20
common vocabulary picture cards are used. This portion of the assessment is administered "live"; that is, the
administrator shows a participant each of the 20 picture cards individually, and asks the child to provide the sign
that corresponds to the picture card. If the child cannot produce a sign (expressive vocabulary) for any particular
card, the cards are shuffled. Then, the administrator places four cards (including the target card), signs the
target vocabulary word, and asks the child to point to the correct picture (receptive vocabulary) . If a child
misses 5 or more out of the 20 words (total, including receptive vocabulary words), that child does not go on to
the main, video-based part of the test.
This assessment has undergone two rounds of pilot testing (as reported in Enns &Herman, 2011) to adapt and
revise the already standardized and normed British Sign Language: Receptive Skills Test (Herman, Holmes
&Woll, 1999), and it is currently being normed for deaf children (as indicated in Enns &Herman, 2011).
Assessment of Targeted (Program-Specific) ASL and Early Literacy Skills
Participants also completed an assessment we had developed, the Peter's Picture Assessment Tool. The PPAT
is also a video-based assessment, in which a (filmed) Deaf adult fluent in ASL introduces and administers
instructions and each item in ASL on the video. With respect to the targeted skills, the PPAT assesses
vocabulary words and knowledge of story elements (including sequencing main events and identifying events,
plot, set- ting, and characters) that are explicitly introduced and repeated in the video series. With respect to
target vocabulary knowledge, the assessment tool was designed to be structured similarly to other standardized
language measures (e.g., Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; L. M. Dunn &D. M. Dunn, 2007), and includes
items that measure participants' understanding of the targeted vocabulary words in the modalities of (a) sign to
picture (10 items), (b) fingerspelling to picture (10 items), (c) sign to print (10 items), and (d) fingerspelling to
print (10 items). A practice question is included for each of the vocabulary subtests. When children are
completing each vocabulary item, the (filmed) Deaf adult asks them to choose from one of four pictures to
identify the picture that matches the signed (and fingerspelled) concept. The four choice are (a) a picture that
shows the target vocabulary word (e.gpizza, signed "ZZa"), (b) a picture that shows an item that is signed
similarly to the targeted concept (e.g., snake), (c) a picture that shows an object that looks similar to the
29 June 2016

Page 8 of 19

ProQuest

targeted concept (e.g., pie), and (d) a picture that shows a distracter item (e.g., a drink in a glass). The
vocabulary subtest has a total possible score of 40, and each participant's score on this subtest was included by
summing the number of correct answers across the four sections that measured target vocabulary (sign to
picture, fingerspelling to picture, sign to print, and fingerspelling to print).
The second part of the PPAT involves asking participants questions about elements of the story that they
viewed in the video. This subtest includes four items, for which children choose one correct picture from a total
of four pictures, and the items focus on children's recognition of main characters (e.g., "Which one of these
pictures is [main character's name]?") and key plot elements (e.g., "What happened when [sidekick character]
left the door open and the chicken escaped?"). The story elements subtest has a total possible score of 4. Each
participant's score for this subtest was calculated by summing the number of correct answers across the four
items.
In the final part of the PPAT, children are asked to correctly sequence events that occur in the video using five
laminated picture cards, each representing a different main event from the story (similar to the pictures
presented in the sequencing portion of the video). The sequencing subtest has a total possible score of 5 (1
point for each picture being placed in the correct order). Participants were scored on the number of pictures
they chose in the correct "position" (what happened first, second, third, fourth, and fifth in the story), and the
total number of correct answers was summed for their sequencing subtest scores.
Calculating the PPAT Total Score
The total PPAT score, which included all vocabulary, story elements, and sequencing items, was calculated for
data analysis. Because the subtest scores varied in the possible range (i.e., 40 possible points for the
vocabulary subtest, 4 possible points for story elements subtest, etc.), each participant's subtotal scores were
weighted, using percent correct scores, in order to calculate the PPAT total score. That is, a participant's total
score for the vocabulary subtest was divided by 40 to calculate a percentage correct vocabulary subtest score;
the total score for the story elements subtest was divided by 4; the total score for the sequencing subtest was
divided by 5. Then, all of the percentage correct subtest scores were summed together to calculate a weighted
PPAT total score for each participant. The weighted PPAT total score for each participant was then used to
examine statistical differences between pretest and posttest scores.
Reliability and Validity of the PPAT
The PPAT was specifically created to study the impact of the video series on deaf viewers. That is, it aims to
assess the ASL and early literacy skills specifically targeted in the video (i.e., program-specific skills). The
instrument was not created to measure generalized (i.e., more comprehensive) ASL or early literacy skills, such
as those that might be measured by a standardized assessment of early literacy for deaf children. Because deaf
children have varied and often limited expressive skills, the PPAT was developed as a receptive measure and
designed to align with measures previously used to evaluate the effects of educational media on narrative skills.
For example, in previous studies (e.g., Linebarger &Piotrowski, 2009), children were asked fewer than 10 total
questions on sequencing and story knowledge. The PPAT has 9 questions for these areas. The PPAT was
reviewed by experts in the field, including ASL development and preschool curriculum specialists, with respect
to the constructs measured (vocabulary and story elements), the content addressed across the items, and the
procedures through which participants' vocabulary knowledge and knowledge of story elements were obtained.
Feedback was taken into account, and measures were modified accordingly.
In addition, the PPAT was piloted on six deaf and hard of hearing preschool children and their parents in the
home. At pretest and posttest, parents administered a version of the PPAT that was not video-recorded, and
parents and their child viewed the videos three times within 1 week. At the end of the week, parents participated
in interviews and completed surveys to pro- vide feedback on the clarity and appropriateness of the test items
as well as the clarity and ease of administration procedures. The measure was modified on the basis of this
feedback; for example, several parents commented that some of the pictures were too small or unclear. These
29 June 2016

Page 9 of 19

ProQuest

pictures were replaced and the images made bigger and clearer. In addition, to ensure consistency across test
administrations, the instrument was adapted into a DVD version. The current PPAT (in DVD format) includes
the instructions, practice items, and test items signed by a Deaf adult fluent in ASL, whose signing was
recorded and played back on a computer monitor during administration of the PPAT.
Finally, statistics were calculated to examine (a) concurrent validity and (b) internal consistency of the PPAT. A
correlation analysis was conducted between participants' scores on the PPAT (pretest) and on the ASL
Receptive Skills Test (pretest) to address concurrent validity. The correlation coefficient was significant at .79 (p
<.001), which indicates a strong relationship between scores on the two instruments. In addition, a Cronbach's
alpha statistic was calculated to examine the internal consistency of the PPAT. The alpha coefficient reached
"good" consistency for PPAT at pretest (a = .840) as well as posttest (a = .885).
Parent Survey
In addition to the child measures, a parent or guardian of each participant was asked to complete a
questionnaire that provided demographic information (i.e., child's age, parent's level of education) as well as
information about the child's hearing status and the mode of communication used in the home (i.e., degree of
hearing loss; age at identification; parent's, or parents', signing skills; parental hearing status; early intervention;
and children's exposure to ASL). The parent also completed items about the child's television and video viewing
habits (average number of hours of viewing per day, favorite programs, etc.).
Procedure
After gaining teacher and parent permissions, and after the completed parent questionnaires were received,
participating teachers as well as research assistants attended a 1-hour information session to learn about the
background and purpose of the project. The lead researcher demonstrated how to show one of the videos to
participating children. Other than show the video in its entirety on two occasions, teachers and research
assistants were instructed not to mediate the viewing experience, that is, not to encourage children to interact
during the viewings and not to focus or expand upon the video content before, during, or after the viewings. (For
results of a study involving teacher mediation of the videos, see Golos &Moses, 2011). The teachers and
research assistants also learned how to administer the ASL Receptive Skills Test and the PPAT.
One week prior to viewing the video, the teachers or a member of the research team assessed participating
children individually on the ASL Receptive Skills Test. Then, the day before the first video viewing, the teacher
or a researcher administered the PPAT to participants individually.
During the viewing session, teachers showed one video to groups of three to five participating children in a
space separated from nonparticipating children. They explained that the participants would be watching a video
and that normal classroom behavioral rules should be followed. Participants watched one of the videos twice in
1 week. Two of the videos in the series were viewed by two groups, and one video was viewed by three groups.
At the conclusion of the second viewing, the PPAT was administered for a second time, with the same
procedure used as in the pretest administration.
Data Analysis Plan
Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and then imported into SPSS 18 so that descriptive and inferential
statistics could be generated. Data were first analyzed descriptively to provide measures of central tendency
(means) and spread (range, standard deviations) of the main variables (see Results and Table 1) and to enable
examination of demographic and background characteristics of participants (reported earlier and in Results).
Then, a 2 (time: pretest, posttest) x 2 (ASL baseline groups: low/medium, high) split-plot ANOVA was
conducted, with the dependent variable being the weighted PPAT total scores, to address both research
questions. First, the main effect of the analysis addressed the first research question, which could be
summarized as "Do participants' pretest PPAT total scores differ significant from their posttest PPAT total
scores?" Second, the interaction effect addressed the second research question, that is, whether participants'
initial ASL skill level interacted with their PPAT total scores (e.g., did participants who scored low/medium on
29 June 2016

Page 10 of 19

ProQuest

the ASL Receptive Skills Test significantly differ from pretest to posttest as compared to participants who scored
high on the ASL Receptive Skills Test?). In order to determine initial ASL skill level, participants were
categorized into groups by their score on the ASL Receptive Skills Test, which was completed at pretest. When
they were separated into three approximately equal groups (low = 10, medium = 9, and high = 11; recall that
one participant did not complete the ASL Receptive Skills Test), no significant difference was found between the
low and medium groups with regard to the total PPAT scores at pretest, 1(17) = -.056, p = .956, or at posttest,
1(17) = -.001, p = .999. However, significant differences were found between the low and high groups at pretest,
1(19) = -2.98,p = .008, and posttest, 1(19) = -2.358, p = .029, as well as the medium and high groups at those
time points: pretest, 1(18) = -2.761, p = .013, and posttest, 1(18) = -3.019,p = .007. Therefore, the betweensubjects variable for the split-plot ANOVA involved comparing two groups: low/medium (scoring between 0 and
11 correct on the ASL Receptive Skills Test, n = 19) and high (scoring between 12 and 29 correct on the ASL
Receptive Skills Test, n =11). Table 1 includes the ranges, mean scores, and standard deviations at pretest and
posttest for the two ASL baseline groups.
Results
Results from the split-plot ANOVA showed a significant main effect: The participants' pretest weighted PPAT
total score significantly differed from their posttest weighted PPAT total score, F(l, 28) = 23.32,p <.001, ^p2 =
.454. Mean scores indicated that the average weighted posttest score (M = .51, SD = .33) was higher than the
average weighted pretest score (M = .90, SD = .60). (See Figure 1 for a display of the means and confidence
intervals at pretest and posttest.)
As mentioned above in the discussion of the data analysis plan, participants were categorized by their score on
the ASL Receptive Skills Test (low/medium vs. high). The split-plot ANOVA revealed no significant interaction
between baseline ASL scores and weighted PPAT total scores, F(1, 28) = 1.61, p = .215, Tip2 = .054 (note the
small and unequal subsample size). Figure 2 displays the weighted pretest and posttest PPAT total mean
scores for the low/medium and the high ASL skills groups (see Figure 2).
Discussion
Early exposure to language and literacy is critical for all children, but particularly for deaf children who are at risk
of literacy failure. A variety of interventions have been created to increase the language and literacy skills of this
population, and certain strategies have been found tobe effective. In the present study, the Peter's Picture
educational media series was used to target key early literacy and ASL skills. Based on prior research related to
media effects on hearing as well as young deaf children, it was expected that even a small level of exposure
would have a positive impact on the targeted skills of deaf preschoolers.
Vocabulary, for example, is a critical skill for literacy development and success. Previous research indicates that
deaf preschoolers can learn five targeted vocabulary words in both ASL and printed English after viewing one
video from the educational series used in the present investigation (Golos, 2006; Golos, &Moses, 2011).
Results from the present study provide additional evidence that deaf preschoolers can learn other vocabulary
words and recognize and demonstrate target words in a range of modes-in pictures, fingerspelling, and signing,
as well as in print. However, prior to this study, little was known about the series' impact on literacy skills other
than vocabulary, and the question remained whether videos that use research-based strategies could enhance
aspects of deaf preschoolers' knowledge of story elements in addition to vocabulary knowledge.
The videos used in the present study targeted a number of components related to understanding a story (i.e.,
characters, settings, story events, and sequencing). Knowledge of targeted story elements was assessed
before and after viewing, and results showed a significant increase from pretest to posttest. The fact that, on
average, children were able to identify key characters, settings, and story events, and to sequence main events
in the correct order, indicates that they understood the storyline of the selected video.
To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to show evidence of media having a positive effect
on aspects of preschool deaf children's literacy skills other than vocabulary. Although it has long been known
29 June 2016

Page 11 of 19

ProQuest

that comprehension skills are crucial for literacy development, only in the last few decades have steps been
taken to facilitate the development of comprehension skills at the preschool level. It is critical that early
childhood educators facilitate the development of comprehension skills, and educational videos may provide an
additional medium to support strategies already used in the classroom.
Although previous research suggests that children learn after viewing educational media regardless of the
communication modality used in school programs (Golos, 2006, 2010a, 2010b; Golos &Moses, 2011), the
present study is the first that specifically measured children's baseline ASL skills. Although there was great
variability in scores on the PPAT (range, standard deviation), this is not surprising given the high variability of
scores on the ASL Receptive Skills Test (i.e., participants' baseline ASL skill level), and it was important to
consider this variation when examining learning from the video (see research question 2 and analysis). It is also
not surprising that children with higher baseline ASL skills scored higher on the PPAT than children with lower
baseline skills. At present it remains unknown how adding sound to the video could affect learning, yet it is
interesting that all of the children were able to learn targeted skills in a format without sound and did so
regardless of their baseline ASL skills.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of the present study is that the measures did not include use of a standardized early literacy
instrument before and after viewing of a video. As a result, the study's results cannot be generalized beyond the
skills targeted in the videos and measured with the PPAT. Furthermore, there are additional skills that are
incorporated both within and across each video that have not yet been measured (i.e., letter recognition,
concepts of print, and grammatical constructions in ASL). A future step could be to expand the PPAT to include
assessment of these additional skills in addition to examination of the transfer of learning to a standardized
early literacy assessment.
Related to the measurements, both the PPAT and the ASL Receptive Skills Test used a video format, which
allowed for consistency across administrations (i.e., all items were presented by the onscreen Deaf adult fluent
in ASL). The only responsibility the teacher or member of the research team had when administering the
assessments was to document the participants' responses to each item on a prepared scoring sheet. Although
they were videotaped and viewed by the researchers, there was no formal check for the two items within the
PPAT story elements subtest for interrater reliability. That is, the onscreen adult asked for a signed response
from the child and responses ranged from one word to one short sentence. Questions regarding scoring on
these two items (i.e., whether a participant received a "1," correct, or "0," incorrect) were referred to us before
final scoring was recorded and entered.
Another set of limitations relates to the present study's design. A pretest/ posttest design provided the ability to
compare participants' changes in scores as a result of viewing the stimulus (two viewings of the video);
however, the study did not include a control condition to compare viewing participants to similar nonviewing
participants. This limits the generalizability of the results. In addition, results from this study show benefits from
viewing one video on two occasions in a 1-week period. Therefore, another limitation is that the effects of
viewing a video more than a handful of times and/or over a longer period of time are unknown. Also, although
each teacher and member of the research team was trained on how to structure each viewing session with
participants and used the same set of directions to introduce and show the video, there was no formal check of
fidelity of the implementation.
With regard to the skills assessed in the present study, there are also skills embedded across videos that
children might learn with greater exposure. For example, in addition to the five targeted theme-related
vocabulary words, five additional literacy-related words are incorporated into each video (title, sentence, word,
page, story). Finally, although participants made significant improvements in the short term (approximately 1
week), the design of the present investigation cannot speak to whether participants retained the targeted skills
after the experiment concluded (i.e., there was no check for longer-term maintenance of learning) or whether
29 June 2016

Page 12 of 19

ProQuest

they could learn skills from exposure to multiple videos from the series, as opposed to just one. Future
researchers should consider continuing this line of experimental work with the inclusion of a control group
and/or delayed posttests of the targeted skills.
Implications and Directions for Future Research
The results of the present study provide a number of potential avenues for future research. While the study's
results relate only to deaf children who have had at least some exposure to ASL, participants varied in hearing
loss and use of amplification yet generally learned the targeted skills and do so through visual strategies used in
the videos (rather than sound-based strategies). It would be informative to examine the benefits of the
educational video series with and without sound using a larger randomized sample of children who utilize
amplification devices (e.g., cochlear implants) in comparison to those who do not use them. Participants in this
study generally learned the targeted skills, doing so through visual, rather than sound-based, strategies used in
the videos. Future studies could also analyze the impact of viewing this educational video series with and
without sound on additional literacy skills, such as letter recognition, concepts of print, and emergent writing,
and include a more in-depth examination of fingerspelling as a bridge to English and as a decoding tool. Such
research would produce much-needed information on strategies to facilitate the development of deaf children's
early literacy skills. If a growing body of evidence continues to support the use of multimedia learning with deaf
children, this could have a direct effect on literacy instruction for this population.
Recent studies have also shown that children may learn more when teachers scaffold their knowledge by
encouraging interaction with language and literacy elements during educational media encounters (e.g., Golos
&Moses, 2011; Linebarger, 2009). Based on that research, it is anticipated that the growth of these skills will
increase if teachers integrate viewing into the classroom over an extended period and are provided with
materials to supplement learning during and between viewings. To extend this line of future research, it would
also be worth exploring whether and how the strategies that are embedded within the video series connect with
and carry over into teachers' daily lesson plans. Informal data from participating teachers' comments during
previous studies (e.g., Golos &Moses, 2011) indicate the potential to further increase language and literacy
learning by applying strategies demonstrated in the videos. Even if program-specific words, for instance, may
not directly connect with classroom lessons or units, implementing the media series may encourage teachers to
use some of the same strategies (e.g., chaining) to target other vocabulary words and early literacy skills (e.g.,
during readalouds).
Conclusion
Children, hearing and deaf, are living in a world rich with multimedia technology, and the potential exists to use
this technology to facilitate the development of language and literacy skills of young deaf children, who are at
risk for later reading failure. With this potential comes a need for caution and empirical evidence: Multimedia
resources for deaf children should be designed to incorporate multiple research-based visual strategies and
should be educational and of high quality. Multimedia that provide fluent language models, have a sound
curriculum with appropriate and targeted goals and objectives, and that employ research-based strategies have
the greatest potential to have a positive impact on children. However, they should be used to supplement rather
than replace face-to-face interactions. The video series we have discussed in the present article provides one
model for interventions to increase the emerging literacy and ASL skills of deaf preschoolers, regardless of their
initial ASL skills. It also provides additional support for the argument that deaf children can make important
gains when exposed to ASL and research-based visual strategies through researchtested educational media
programs, and that these media materials can contribute to a richer literacy and language environment in the
classroom and at home.
Researchers have highlighted the importance of developing effective curricula and curricular materials for deaf
children, both for those who do and those who do not have access to sound (e.g., Easterbrooks &Huston,
2008). Multimedia materials are one resource teachers can use in the classroom to facilitate early literacy skills,
29 June 2016

Page 13 of 19

ProQuest

and have the potential to fill a gap in the landscape of curricular materials for teachers of the deaf. For deaf
children with hearing parents, who may not have access to incidental learning opportunities and/or fluent
language models, the results of the present study suggest that certain early literacy skills, including vocabulary
and knowledge of story elements, may be learned from engaging with multimedia materials. Although these
skills are important for future literacy success, they are not the only skills within the realm of literacy
development. With evidence that media can be an effective tool for preschool deaf children, results such as
those of the present study have the potential to open doors for future studies examining additional components
of language and literacy.
Footnote
Notes
1. In the present article, we use deaf to refer to anyone with hearing loss (including people who are hard of
hearing) and Deaf to refer to someone who is considered to be part of the Deaf community.
2. Also, we use the term visual language to refer to sign languages used throughout the world; in the present
article, we focus on ASL, however. Therefore, our use of the term does not include visual codes of language
(e.g., Cued Speech) or phonology (e.g., Visual Phonics).
References
References
Akamatsu, C. T., &Andrews, J. F. (1993). It takes two to be literate: Literacy interactions between parent and
child. Sign Language Studies, 81,333-360.
Allen, T. E., Clark, M. D., del Giudice, A., Koo, D., Lieberman, A., Mayberry, R., et al. (2009). Phonology and
reading: A response to Wang, Trezek, Luckner, and Paul. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(4), 338-345.
Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K., Linebarger, D. L., &Wright, J. C. (2001). Early childhood television
viewing and adolescent behavior: The recontact study Monographs of the Societyfor Research in Child
Development, 66(1, Serial No. 264).
Anderson, D. R., &Lorch, E. P (1983). Looking at television: Action or reaction? In J. Bryant &D. R. Anderson
(Eds.), Children's understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 1-33). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Andrews, J., &Jordan, D. (1998). Multimedia stories for deaf children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(5), 2833.
Bickham, D. S., Wright, J. C., &Huston, A. C. (2001). Attention, comprehension, and the educational influence
of television. In D. G. Singer &J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and media (pp. 101-119). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blumenthal-Kelly, A. (1995). Fingerspelling interaction: A set of deaf parents and their deaf daughter. In C.
Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf communities (pp. 62-73). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Caldern, M. (2005, October). Developing language, literacy, and content knowledge for English language
learners. Paper presented at the Hispanic Achievement Conference, Raleigh, NC.
Chamberlain, C., &Mayberry, R. (2000). Theorizing about the relationship between American Sign Language
and reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, &R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 221-260).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chamberlain, C., &Mayberry, R. (2008). ASL syntactic and narrative comprehension in skilled and less skilled
adult readers: Bilingual-bimodal evidence for the linguistic basis of reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 368388.
Clark, M. D., Gilbert, G. L, &Anderson, M. L. (2011). Morphological knowledge and decoding skills of deaf
readers. Psychology, 2, 109-116.
Corina, D., &Singleton, J. (2009). Developmental social cognitive neuroscience: Insights from deafness. Child
Development, 80(4), 952-967. doi:10.1111Al467-8624.2009 .01310.x
29 June 2016

Page 14 of 19

ProQuest

Dunn, L. M., &Dunn, D. M. (2007).PPVT-4manual. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Easterbrooks, S., &Huston, S. (2008). Signed reading fluency of students who are deaf/ hard of hearing .Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(f), 37-54. doi:10.1093/ deafed/enm030
Enns, C., &Herman, R. (2011). Adapting the Assessing British Sign Language Development: Receptive Skills
Test into American Sign Languag e. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 76(3), 362-374. doi:10.1093/
deafed/enr004
Enns, C., Zimmer, K., Broszeit, C., &Rabu, S. (2013). Assessing ASL development: Recep- live Skills Test.
Winnipeg, Canada: Northern Signs Research.
Erting, L. (2001). Book sharing the Deaf way: An ethnographic study in a bilingual preschool for deaf children.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12), 4031A.
Erting, L.,& Pfau,J. (1997). Becoming bilingual: Facilitating English literacy development using ASL in preschool
[Sharing Ideas series]. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University PreCollege National Mission Programs.
Erting, C., Thumann-Prezioso, C., &Benedict, B. (2000). Bilingualism in a Deaf family: Fingerspelling in early
childhood. In P Spencer, C. Erting, &M. Marschark (Eds.), The deaf child in the family and at school. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Fisch, S. M. (2004). Children's learning from educational television. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Freel, B. L. Clark, M. D., Anderson, M. L, Gilbert, G., Musyoka, M. M., &Hauser, P C. (2011). Deaf individuals'
bilingual abilities: American Sign Language proficiency, reading skills, and family characteristics. Psychology, 2,
18-23. doi:10.4236/psych.2011.21003
Gale, E., &Schick, B. (2009). Symbol-infused joint attention and language use in mothers with deaf and hearing
toddlers. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(5), 484-503. doi:10.1353/ aad.0.0066
Gentry, M., Chinn, K., &Moulton, R. (2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with
children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403. doi:10.1353/aad.2005.0012
Golos, D. (2005). Peter's picture: Our trip to the farm. Boulder, CO: Signing Sun.
Golos, D. (2006). Using instructional videos in American Sign Language as a tool to facilitate the development
of emergent literacy skills in deaf and hard of hearing preschool children (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3239427)
Golos, D. (2010a). Deaf children's engagement in an educational video in American Sign Language. American
Annals of the Deaf 155(3), 360-368.
Golos, D. (2010b). Literacy behaviors of deaf preschoolers during video viewing. Sign Language Studies, 11(1),
76-99Golos,
D. B., &Moses, A. M. (2011). How teacher mediation during video viewing facilitates literacy behaviors. Sign
Language Studies, 12(1), 98-118.
Herman, R., Holmes, S., &Woll, B. (1999). Assessing British Sign Language development: Receptive Skills
Test. Coleford, England: Forest Bookshop.
Hoffmeister, R. J. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and reading comprehension in Deaf children. In C.
Chamberlain, J. Morford, &R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 143-163). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Huston, A. C., Wright, J. C., Marquis, J., &Green, S. B. (1999). How children spend their time. Developmental
Psychology, 35(4), 912-925.
Ju,J. M. (2009). The effects of multimedia stories of deaf or hard-of-hearing celebrities on the reading
comprehension and English words learning of Taiwanese students with hearing impairment. Asian Journal of
Management and Humanity Sciences, 4(2-3), 91-105.
Kyle, F. E., &Harris, M. (2006). Concurrent correlates and predictors of reading and spelling achievement in
deaf and hearing school children .Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 273-288.
29 June 2016

Page 15 of 19

ProQuest

Kyle, F. E., &Harris, M. (2010). Predictors of reading development in deaf children: A 3-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(3), 229-243.
Linebarger, D. (2009). Evaluation of the Between the Lions Mississippi literacy initiative. Retrieved from Public
Broadcasting Service website: http://pbskids.org/read/files/ BTL_Mississippi_April2009.pdf
Linebarger, D., &Piotrowski, J. T. (2009). TV as storyteller: How exposure to television narratives impacts at-risk
preschoolers' story knowledge and narrative skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 47-69.
Loeterman, M., Paul, R, &Donahue, S. (2002, February). Reading and deaf children. Reading Online, 5(6).
Retrieved from http://www .readingonline.org/articles/art_index.aspPHR EF=loeterman/index.html
Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Phillips, B., &ClancyMenchetti, J. (2011). Promoting the development of preschool
children's emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two
professional development models. Reading and Writing Quarterly: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 305-337.
doi:10.1007/slll45 -009-9214-6
Mather, S. (1989). Visually oriented teaching strategies with Deaf preschool children. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The
sociolinguistics of the Deaf community (pp. 165-187). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Maxwell, M. (1988). The alphabetic principle of fingerspelling. Sign Language Studies, 61, 377-404.
Mayberry, R. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language
learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537-549. doi:10.1017/ S0142716407070294
Mayberry, R. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult language ability: What sign language reveals about
the critical period for language. In M. Marschark &R Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies,
language, and education (Vol. 2, pp. 281-291). New York, NY: Oxford University Presa
Mayberry, R. I., del Guidice, A. A., &Lieberman, A M. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological
coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 16(2),
164-188. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq049
Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early literacy development of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 12(4), 411-431.
McQuarrie, L., &Parilla, R. (2009). Phonological representations in deaf children: Rethinking the "functional
equivalence" hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2), 137-154. doi:10.1093/deafed/
enn025
Miller, R, &Clark, D. (2011). Phonemic awareness is not necessary to become a skilled deaf reader. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23(5), 459-476. dohlO .1007/S10882-011-9246-0
Morford, J. R, &Mayberry, R. I. (2000). A reexamination of "Early Exposure" and its implications for language
acquisition by eye. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, &R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 111128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moses, A M. (2008). Impacts of television viewing on young children's literacy development in the USA: A
review of the literature. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(1), 67-102.
Mueller, V, &Hurtig, R. (2010). Technologyenhanced shared reading with deaf and hard-of-hearing children:
The role of a fluent signing narrator. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(1), 72-101. dohlO
,1093/deafed/enp023
Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who can't hear learn to read an alphabetic script? A review of the
literature on reading and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 9-31. doi:10.1093/deafed/
5.1.9
Neuman, S. (1995). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
Neuman, S. (2009). The case for multimedia presentations in learning: A theory of synergy In A Bus &S.
Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 44-56).
New York, NY: Routledge.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational
29 June 2016

Page 16 of 19

ProQuest

Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Nittrouer, S., Caldwell, A.,Lowenstein, J. H., Tarr, E., &Holloman, C. (2012). Emergent literacy in kindergartners
with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing 33(6), 683-697. Retrieved from Wolters Kluwer website: http://dx.doi
,org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318258c98e
Padden, C. (1991). The acquisition of fingerspelling by deaf children. In R Siple &S. Fischer (Eds.), Theoretical
issues in sign language research: Vol. 2. Psychology (pp. 191-210). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Padden, C., &Ramsey C. (1998). Reading ability in signing Deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(A),
30-46. doi: 10.1097/ 00011363-199818040-00005
Paul, R (1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
1(1), 3-15.
Paul, R (2003). Processes and components of reading. In M. Marschark &R Spencer (Eds.), Handbook of deaf
students, language, and education (pp. 97-109). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Paul, R (2009). Language and deafness (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones &Bartlett.
Paul, R, &Wang, Y (2006a). Literate thought and deafness: A call for a new perspective and line of research on
literacy. Punjab University Journal of Special Education [Pakistan], 2(1), 28-37.
Paul, R, &Wang, Y (2006b). Literate thought and multiple literacies. Theory Into Practice, 45(A), 304-310.
doi:10.1207/sl5430421tip 4504_3
Paul, R, &Wang, Y, (2012). Literate thought: Understanding comprehension and literacy. Sudbury, MA: Jones
&Bartlett.
Paul, R, Wang, Y, Trezek, B., &Luckner, J. (2009). Phonology is necessary, but not sufficient. A rejoinder.
American Annals of the Deaf, 154(A), 346-356.
Prinz, R, &Strong, M. (1998). ASL proficiency and English literacy within a bilingual deaf education model of
instruction, lpics in Language Disorders, 18(A), A7-60. doi: 10.1097/ 00011363-199818040-00006
Rathmann, C., Wolfgang, M., &Morgan, G. (2007). Narrative structure and narrative development in deaf
children. Deafness and Education International, 9(A), 187-196.
Snoddon, K. (2010). Technology as a learning tool for ASL literacy. Sign Language Studies 10(2), 197-213. doi:
10.1353/sls.0.0039
St. Clair,J., &Schwetz, L. R. (2003). Between the Lions as a classroom tool. The Reading Teacher, 56(7), 656659.
Sulzby, E., &Teale, W (1991). Emergent literacy In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, R Mosenthal, &R D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 727-758). New York, NY: Longman.
Tfaxler, C. B. (2000). Measuring up to performance standards in reading and mathematics: Achievement of
selected deaf and hard-ofhearing students in the national norming of the ninth edition Stanford Achievement
Test. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(A), 337-348. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.4.337
Uchikoshi, Y (2009). Effects of television on language and literacy development. In A. G. Bus &S. B. Neuman
(Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 182-195). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Wang, Y, Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J., &Paul, R Y (2008). The role of phonology and phonotogically related skills
in reading instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(A), 396407.
Whitehurst, G. J., &Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from pre-readers to readers. In S. B.
Neuman &D. K Dickensen (Eds J, Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11-29). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Williams, C. (2004). Emergent literacy of deaf children .Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(A), 352365. doi: 10.1093/ deafed/enh045
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Murphy, K. C., St. Peters, M., Pinon, M., Scantlin, R., et al. (2001). The relations of
29 June 2016

Page 17 of 19

ProQuest

early television viewing to school readiness and vocabulary of children from low-income families: The Early
Window Project. Child Development, 72(5), 1347-1366.
AuthorAffiliation
Debbie B. Golos and Annie M. Moses
Golos is an assistant professor of deaf education, Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf
Education, Utah State University, Logan. Moses is an ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EARLY CHILDHOOD,
Department of Education and Allied Studies, John Carroll University, University Heights, OH.
Subject: Deafness; Sign language; Studies; Children & youth; Literacy; Reading;
MeSH: Analysis of Variance, Child, Child Behavior, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Curriculum, Humans,
Multimedia, Task Performance & Analysis, Video Recording, Visual Perception, Child Language (major),
Deafness -- psychology (major), Early Intervention (Education) -- methods (major), Education of Hearing
Disabled -- methods (major), Learning (major), Persons With Hearing Impairments -- psychology (major), Sign
Language (major)
Publication title: American Annals of the Deaf
Volume: 158
Issue: 4
Pages: 411-25
Number of pages: 15
Publication year: 2013
Publication date: Fall 2013
Year: 2013
Publisher: American Annals of the Deaf
Place of publication: Washington
Country of publication: United States
Publication subject: Education--Special Education And Rehabilitation, Handicapped--Hearing Impaired
ISSN: 0002726X
CODEN: ANDFAL
Source type: Trade Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature, Journal Article
Document feature: Tables Graphs References
Accession number: 24724306
ProQuest document ID: 1465064147
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1465064147?accountid=13155
Copyright: Copyright American Annals of the Deaf Fall 2013
Last updated: 2014-05-17
Database: Research Library: Literature & Language

29 June 2016

Page 18 of 19

ProQuest

_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest

Copyright 2016 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

29 June 2016

Page 19 of 19

ProQuest