People
test hypotheses and then test them out in haphazard ways with limited data. The
danger of this approach is that we can become inappropriately confident about
our amateur research outcomes, reaching hasty and premature conjectures dressed
up as quasi-scientific conclusions. Sometimes we rely on the opinions or
knowledge of others. This is also problematic, as opinions may be based on
stereotypes passed down through the generations (Rolfe & Mac Naughton, 2010, p.15-16).
There has always
been a contentious debate between reading specialists about teaching reading
methodologies – phonics and whole language, or a balanced approach. “A phonics
approach focuses instruction on learning to associate printed letters and
combinations of letters with their corresponding sounds…The whole language
approach is based on the understanding that reading is finding the meaning in
written language” (Coordinated Campaign, n.d., para. 3 & 5). The balanced
approach takes more than one approach and is more individually tailored for
each student. If you read through the entire article, How Children Learn, you can see a general bias toward sounds.
One of the
reasons suggested for deaf students’ poor reading skills is because of their
hearing loss. Because they cannot hear and read phonetically, professionals,
therefore, believe that they would struggle with reading. They surmise that
deaf students cannot possibly read without the ability to hear. Thus, the focus
on restoring hearing becomes part of the early intervention services.
Historically,
there have had been successful deaf readers, and we have not really researched
how they become successful readers because of “stereotypes passed down through
the generations” (Rolfe & Mac Naughton, 2010, p.16).
As a child of
deaf parents, I grew up reading books at home, going to the library to borrow
books, and reading daily newspapers. My father told me that we subscribed to
three newspapers because they were substitutes for listening to the radio.
Dr. Nathalie Bélanger has devoted her professional research to learning
how people learn to read. In her recent paper, she has focused her research on the
strengths of deaf people’s reading skills – rather than on their reading
difficulties. She said, “Only then can we inform reading education for deaf
students” (in press).
Turns out that
her research suggest an early onset of word processing efficiency in young deaf
readers (Bélanger, 2015). She wrote a paper -- a culmination of her
previous research -- that is awaiting publication in the Current Directions in
Psychological Science.
“Adult deaf readers (skilled and less-skilled) appear to
bypass phonological codes in early word processing” (Bélanger, Baum &
Mayberry, 2012; Bélanger et al., 2013). “Based on these combined findings, we
proposed the notion of “word processing efficiency” for adult deaf readers. In other words, they process more information within
one fixation (larger span, longer forward saccades) and do so more efficiently
(no need to regress back as often, no need to refixate as often, more
skipping)” (Bélanger & Rayner, under revision).
Dr. Carol Padden (2005) wrote, “We tend to think of
fingerspelling as a simple manual system for representing the alphabet”
(para.1) and Padden (1998) elaborated how fingerspelling is linked to one of
the skills used in reading for signing students.
Will we change the professional paradigms about poor reading
skills of deaf students through such research?
“In an early paper, Wadsworth (1984)
argued strongly that those affected by research can and should do research: ‘Research
is a process legitimized in our society as producing knowledge and therefore
ought to be in the hands of those who want to use and benefit from it –
particularly when it is information about our own lives.’ (1984, p.iii)” (Rolfe & Mac Naughton, 2010, p.12).
References
Bélanger,
N. N., Mayberry, R.I., & Baum, S.R. (2012). Reading difficulties in adult
deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty! Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(3), 263-285.
Bélanger,
N. N., Mayberry, R. I. & Rayner, K. (2013). Orthographic and phonological
preview benefits: Parafoveal processing in skilled and less-skilled deaf
readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(11), 2237-2252.
Bélanger,
N. N., Slattery, T.J., Mayberry, R.I. & Rayner K. (2012). Skilled deaf
readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Psychological Science,
23(7), 816-823. .
Bélanger,
N. N. & Rayner, K. (under revision). What Eye Movements Reveal about Deaf
Readers. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Bélanger, N. N., Schotter, E., & Rayner, K.
(2015) Young deaf readers’ word processing
efficiency. Poster at http://raynerlab.ucsd.edu/files/2014/11/Belanger-Schotter-Rayner-Psychonomics-2014.pdf
Coordinated Campaign for Learning
Disabilities. (n.d.) How children learn.
LDonline.org. Retrieved May 2015 from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6253/
Padden, C. (2005) Learning to fingerspell twice: Young
signing children’s acquisition of fingerspelling. Advances in the Sign-Language Development of Deaf Children. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195180947.003.0008.
Padden, C. & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 30-46.
Rolfe, S.A., & Mac Naughton, G. (2010). Doing
early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice
(2nd ed.). Eds. Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe, S.A., & Siraj-Blatchford,
I. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
No comments:
Post a Comment