Reading Methodology for Deaf Children
Supalla
knowledge to help with the reading process( Paul & Quigley, 1987; see Paul, 1994 for further discussion on the reading complications that arise for deaf children with English). In a typical classroom with deaf children in a school for the deaf, the print has been strictly limited to English. Yet these children know ASL, and thus written English is foreign and inaccessible.
With the provision of ASL text, deaf children integrate their knowledge with linguistic concepts, which is the most important principle for reading instruction. Reading then has the potential to become effective along a trajectory of teachable skills. Equally important is the prospect for deaf children to experience a transition to English literacy at the same time. Goldin- Meadow and Mayberry( 2001) proposed that an intermediary system be developed for deaf children so that they could map ASL onto English literacy for optimal learning outcomes. While the intermediary system idea is novel and intriguing, details on what it might look like are lacking. This paper intends to detail an innovative reading instruction approach called glossing. Glossing is identified in this paper as the intermediary system that was implemented in a charter school in Arizona. ASL text is part of this framework along with other tools and procedures.
This represents an important difference from hearing children, as they normally learn to read in just one language. If they had to learn another language, they would repeat the reading process in ways similar to the first language. This reinforces the idea that“[ second language or L2 ] proficiency is a vital prerequisite to efficient L2 reading,” a statement by the L2 reading theorist, Keiko Koda( 2005, p. 23). What this suggests is that deaf children must learn spoken English in order to read it effectively. This is clearly unfair due to their disability. It is clear that the established reading theories account for one language mapping only for monolingualism and bilingualism( e. g., Adams, 1990; Grabe, 2009; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Koda, 2005; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). As discussed in S. Supalla and Cripps( 2011), hearing children do not use one language to decode another language( based on current reading methodologies), but this is precisely what deaf children are required to do. Glossing, a cross-linguistic reading instruction approach, provides insights and methodological details for improving this situation.
A review of research literature on glossing will follow, emphasizing a variety of ASL reading behaviors that deaf children at the Arizona charter school modeled, and a comparison to what is known for spoken language reading. To help create a strong sense of background on signed language reading, the paper will begin with a discussion of efforts occurring in the early nineteenth century. Perhaps a surprise to many in the field of deaf education, signed language reading was actively pursued at that time. However, readers will learn that a different signed language reading model was pursued instead of glossing. Coverage of previous efforts will point to the strengths of glossing as a reading methodology for deaf children.
Early Attempts with Signed Language Reading
At the time of writing this paper, American deaf education has reached its 200-year mark, but the field has a longer history, considering that the world’ s first public school for the deaf was founded in Paris, France. This school served as a model for many nations worldwide, including the United States( Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989). At the Paris school for the deaf, the concept of signed language reading was first explored. However, the French educators were largely occupied with language issues before shifting their attention to reading issues. This is understandable as reading is contingent on language. The important question raised at the time was whether signing should approximate the structure of French or best stood as a distinctive language. When the school was opened, a signed version of French was developed and used with
SASLJ, Vol. 1, No. 1 – Fall / Winter 2017 36