Building the Evidence-Base of Effective Reading Strategies to Use With Deaf English-Language Learners

Abstract

Nearly 25% of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students come from homes where a language other than English is used and are known as English-Language Learners (ELLs). Evidence-based practices used to teach students who are DHH ELLs are imperative. To build an evidence-base, successful strategies must be examined across multiple researchers, sites, and participants. This research is a replication of an effective reading strategy; teaching vocabulary using repeated preteaching sessions paired with viewing American Sign Language books on DVD. Five participants with severe to profound hearing loss participated in this multiple-baseline design (ABC) across three sets of five vocabulary words study. Results indicated that after three sessions of preteaching and viewing the DVD, the majority of participants signed correctly 90% to 100% of the targeted vocabulary. Maintenance data were collected 1 to 5 weeks following the intervention. Implications for practitioners and researchers are discussed.

Keywords

deaf and hard of hearing English-language learners literacy strategies evidence-based research replication single-case design

Evidence-based strategies proven to increase the literacy skills of students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) are critically needed for teachers of the DHH to be more effective in instruction. Evidence-based strategies evolve from evidence-based research. Over 10 years ago, the National Research Council (2002) and the U.S. federal government, via The No Child Left behind Act (NCLB, 2002), defined evidence-based research as studies that include experimental control, replication of results through multiple studies, generalizability of results, rigorous peer-reviewed research dissemination and confluence of results among the studies. More recently, What Works Clearinghouse hired a panel of researchers (Kratochwill et al., 2010) to define evidence-based research when using Single-Case Design (SCD) research design. The panel recommended that research has met the criteria when it has undergone the following: (a) three different research teams in different geographical sites have replicated the study’s design and research question, (b) the research has been disseminated in at least five peer reviewed journal articles, and (c) the studies included at least 20 combined participants across the teams and publications (Horner et al., 2005; Kratochwill et al., 2010). Unfortunately, an examination of reading intervention research over the past 40 years in the field of deafness revealed only 22 empirically designed research studies, none of which were replications of the same intervention (Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young, & Muir, 2005/2006). To build an evidence-base of effective strategies, replication of the existing empirical-based interventions is essential (Banner & Wang, 2011; Horner et al., 2005; Luckner & Handley, 2008; Luckner et al., 2005/2006).

Delayed literacy skills for students who are DHH have remained a problem in deaf education for more than 50 years (Babbidge, 1965; Commission On the Education for the Deaf, 1988; National Agenda Steering and Advisory Committee, 2005). Furthermore, the majority of professionals in the field are quick to recite that the average reading rate of a student who is DHH graduating from high school is currently at a fourth grade level (Traxler, 2000). We know there is work to be accomplished; yet researchers are slow to replicate research-based intervention studies of promising strategies.

Vocabulary Instruction

Incidental exposure to vocabulary through repeated storybook reading is an effective strategy because students may acquire new words in an interesting, context-based format that they can relate to (Justice, 2002; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Although this has been proven to be an effective strategy for typically developing hearing children, the results may differ when used with a different population of learners (Justice, 2002).

The importance of teachers and parents reading to children is also a well-documented practice, with dialogic reading and repeated reading strategies. Dialogic reading consists of interactive shared picture-book reading where the adult and the child switch roles to give the child an opportunity to become the storyteller, while the adult acts as the active listener and questioner (Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel, 1999; Wasik & Bond, 2001; What Works Clearinghouse, 2006). Vocabulary recognition increases after participating in repeated readings with targeted, repeated vocabulary in each story (Fung, Chow, & McBride-Chang, 2005; Justice, 2002; Penno et al., 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). When vocabulary words are explained within the context of the repeated readings, vocabulary acquisition also increases significantly (Penno et al., 2002). Building a second language, if the first language is impoverished, is a challenge for English-language learners (ELLs; Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006; Cummins, 1984). Reduced exposure to vocabulary contributes to lack of world knowledge, especially for DHH (Paul, 1996; Winsor, 2007). Intensive instruction to increase their vocabulary is essential but generalizing what works best with native English speakers is not always best practice (Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005). Creative strategies that include imagery must be investigated to increase the breadth and depth of ELL’s vocabulary knowledge (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Avila & Sadoski, 1996).

Cannon and Guardino (2012) conducted a synthetic literature review of intervention research from 2000 to 2012, which met the evidence-based research criteria described above and addressed standards outlined by the National Reading Panel (NRP; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) as essential instructional practices needed to teach reading: alphabetic principle, phonemic awareness, comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary. Additional parameters of the review included participants who were both ELLs with disabilities, or students who were ELL and DHH (DHH ELL). The results revealed only one intervention study with students who are ELLs and have disabilities (August & Shanahan, 2006) and only one study with students who are DHH ELLs (Cannon, Fredrick, & Easterbrooks, 2010) that met evidence-based criteria. Educators of the deaf are limited by the lack of strategies they can use with their DHH ELL students because of the dearth of strategies proven to be effective (Gerner de Garcia, 1995). To build evidence-based practices, replication research of the existing best-practice strategies currently in use with students who are DHH ELLs is imperative.

Therefore, this article is the first replication of an empirically designed reading intervention for students who are DHH ELLs. By replicating the original study (Cannon et al., 2010), we hope to begin the systematic process necessary to examine whether the current intervention meets the criteria for an evidence-based practice. In addition, our replication study utilized suggestions from the original study and followed Horner et al. (2005) and Kratochwill et al. (2010) recommendations for replication research, thus providing additional information to increase the validity and fidelity of this study.

Premise of the Original Study

Students who are DHH ELLs must learn English, maintain their native home language, and may struggle to learn a third language, American Sign Language (ASL). Cannon and colleagues (2010) determined that using books read in ASL on DVDs in conjunction with preteaching vocabulary is an effective strategy to increase the vocabulary base of students who are DHH ELLs. The premise for using the ASL DVD books was that incidental vocabulary acquisition typically occurs during shared storybook reading with a signing role model (Marschark, Convertino, & LaRock, 2006). The books read in ASL provided the participants with an ASL role model and focused on functional math vocabulary that participants may have difficulty learning experientially.

Cannon and colleagues (2010) taught vocabulary words to four fifth-grade DHH ELL participants by preteaching targeted vocabulary selected from expository math books signed in ASL on DVDs. The intervention, preteaching the vocabulary and viewing the books in ASL on DVD, was conducted over three phases: The first phase was baseline data collection. During this phase, participants were shown five flashcards with the printed vocabulary words and asked to sign each word. In the intervention phase participants experienced repeated viewings of the DVDs. Participants were pre- and post-tested to determine whether viewing alone would help them learn the vocabulary. During the intervention phase, repeated viewings of the DVD alone did not increase the participants’ knowledge of the targeted vocabulary words. Therefore, during the second intervention phase, preteaching the vocabulary words prior to viewing the DVD was utilized using three steps: (a) show the word in print and ASL, (b) define and give an example and a nonexample, and (c) show where the word appears in the text. The results showed that all participants improved their knowledge of the target vocabulary words during the second intervention phase. The most significant results were realized after the participants received three consecutive sessions of preteaching and viewing of the targeted vocabulary on DVD.

The results of this study have important implications for teachers of students who are DHH, especially those who are working with DHH ELLs. We can deduce that preteaching vocabulary is a promising strategy to use with this population, knowing it has been a best practice with both general and special education populations (Easterbrooks & Stoner, 2006). However, since we lack replication of this intervention with different researchers in varying locations and with a range of participants, we are unable to assert yet that this strategy is evidence based. Luckner and colleagues (2005/2006) sounded the call to researchers in deaf education to follow the recommendations of the National Research Council (2002) and the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2003) and replicate studies to strengthen the research base in this field. The following study responds to this call by demonstrating a systematic replication of the Cannon and colleagues (2010) study conducted with a different team of researchers in a different geographical location, with older students, and with an added component of parent participation. This study also attempts to answer the same research question:

What effect does watching DVDs of math expository books, as read through ASL, have on the receptive and expressive vocabulary of participants who are DHH ELLs?

Method

Participants

A convenience sample of five DHH students with severe to profound hearing loss participated in this study. The participants were recruited from a local state school for the Deaf and were enrolled in an English as a Second Language program. Parent and participant consent was established prior to beginning the intervention. Table 1 shows the demographic data for each participant (pseudonyms were assigned for confidentiality purposes). Two of the five students seemed to prefer speech to American Sign Language. Three of the five students had a basic understanding of their spoken native language. The students all received English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) services from a certified teacher of the deaf who is also certified in World Languages (Spanish, K–12) and holds two endorsements: reading and ESOL. The participants’ teacher reported that at the start of the study, they were reading below a second-grade reading level. No assessment information was collected to verify this report.

Table 1.

Demographic Information.

						Hearing levels
Participant	Age	Grade	Age of identification	Length of time in the United States	Ethnicity	Left	Right	Assistive technology
Sebastiano	14	7th	10 months	7 months	Italian	Severe to Profound	Profound	Cochlear Implant (CI)
Lorenzo	19	12th	9 months	4 years	Hispanic	Not measurable	Severe-profound	Cochlear Implant (CI)
Sofia	22	Postgrad	2 years	5 years	Hispanic	Profound	Profound	None
Isabela	16	12th	12 months	5 years	Hispanic	Profound	Moderate to severe	1 Hearing Aid (HA)
Miguel	20	Postgrad	2.5 years	7 years	Hispanic	Moderate to severe	Profound	None

Setting

This study took place at a residential school for the deaf located in the Southeastern region of the United States. All phases of the intervention took place in the ESOL classroom where the teacher used ASL as the primary mode of instruction. Students came to the ESOL classroom in the morning when they arrived at school. The intervention took place during the first 30 min of the school day.

Research Design

The research design utilized was a multiple-baseline design (ABC) across three sets of five vocabulary words with at least three data points per phase using mastery criteria to advance between phases and tiers (Horner et al., 2005). Phase A consisted of baseline data collection. Baseline data were collected on three different days during a 1-week period. Baseline was established for all tiers when participants signed less than two words correctly across three consecutive sessions. Phase B was the intervention phase and all procedures were conducted during one 20-min session three times per week. During Phase B, the targeted vocabulary were pre-taught, followed by showing the book read in ASL on DVD, which contained the target vocabulary words. After the participants received the intervention, they were individually post-tested on the same five targeted vocabulary words used during the baseline phase. Participants experienced three preteaching and repeated viewings of the DVD sessions. Phase-change criterion for Phase B was established when participants signed at least two words correctly across three sessions. Phases A and B were repeated across three books for a three-tier multiple-baseline design. Once a participant reached mastery of one set of vocabulary words in Phase B (intervention), intervention began for the next set of vocabulary words. Phase C was the final phase of the study, maintenance. During the maintenance phase, the participants were post-tested on the targeted vocabulary 1 to 5 weeks after the intervention phase ended to determine the participants’ ability to retain the vocabulary.

Independent and Dependent Variables

The independent variables were the preteaching and viewing the math expository books read in ASL on DVD. Preteaching consisted of showing the participants the vocabulary word in print and ASL, giving a definition with both an example and a nonexample, and pointing to the vocabulary word in the book. The dependent variable was the number of vocabulary words signed correctly in ASL during post-testing

Materials

An iPad was used during all phases of the study. Two sets of “flashcards” were developed using the slideshow feature on Keynote (Apple, 2012). The first set of flashcards used for baseline (Phase A) and maintenance (Phase C) data collection contained the target vocabulary word centered on the slide with a plain white background. The second set of “flashcards” used for preteaching during the intervention (Phase B) contained the vocabulary in the top center of a slide, followed by the sentence from the book below the targeted vocabulary word, and a picture of an example and a nonexample under the sentence containing the targeted vocabulary. See Table 2 for a list of the targeted words selected from each of the three books with a description of the pictures used for examples and nonexamples. The iPad was connected to a projector, so participants could easily see the slides and the researcher, simultaneously.

Table 2.

Targeted Vocabulary Words.

Title	Targeted vocabulary	Example	Nonexample
Numbers every day	Measure	Ruler	Scale
	Weight	Scale	Ruler
	Pound	One pound of meat on a scale	Feather on a scale
	Pair	A pair of gloves	One glove
	Dozen	A dozen eggs	Six eggs
The Money Book	Cost	Food on store shelf with price labels	Cash with a red circle and slash through it
	Dime	Dime	Pennies
	Quarter	Quarter	Dollars
	Count	Girl counting stacks of coins	Coins in messy pile with pencils, bands, and paper clips
	Earn	Two hands, one giving money to the other	Girl opening wallet with no money in it
Its Time!	Guess	Man covering eyes and pointing to book	Girl raising her hand in class with books on desk
	Rises	Sunrise	Yellow and orange sunset
	Ground	Dirt	Sky with clouds
	Meal	Appetizer, salad, soup, and water	A piece of chocolate cake
	Clock	A clock	A television

The same three emergent literacy books used by Cannon et al. (2010), published by Newbridge Educational Publishing (Northborough, Massachusetts), were utilized in this study. All of the books are math themed books and were chosen because they are emergent literacy books with high frequency vocabulary. The books used were presented to the participants in the following order: Numbers Every Day, The Money Book, and It’s Time! Each book was accompanied by a DVD of the book signed in ASL, available via the Accessible Materials Project (“AMP,” n.d.). During Phase B, the intervention phase, a computer and projector were used to show the DVD to the whole groups. During Phase C, maintenance, the slides on the iPads were used to individually test the participants on the targeted vocabulary.

Procedures

This study followed procedures similar to Cannon et al. (2010) with the exclusion of the repeated viewings without preteaching (Phase B in the original study) plus two additional features: a maintenance phase and a parent participation component. The procedures of both studies can be compared by reviewing Table 3. In summary, prior to beginning baseline data collection, participants were shown slides of 15 to 20 words selected from each book on the iPad. The participants were asked to produce the sign for each of the words. Based on the words missed by all five participants, and relevancy of the vocabulary word to daily life, five targeted vocabulary words were selected for each book. For example, the word “clock” was chosen over “shadows” because “clock” is a high frequency word with more applicability to daily living skills.

Table 3.

Procedural Comparison of Studies.

Present study	Cannon, Fredrick, and Easterbrooks (2010)
Pre-baseline—target word selection	Pre-baseline—target word selection
Participants were individually shown 15–20 “flashcards” (slides) on the iPad The researcher recorded which words were signed correctly This process was repeated for Books 2 and 3 Five targeted words were selected from each book based on student errors	Participants were individually shown 15–20 vocabulary slides on the iPad The researcher recorded which words were signed correctly This process was repeated for Books 2 and 3 Five targeted words were selected from each book based on student errors
Phase A: baseline	Phase A: baseline
Participants were pre-tested individually using slides on the iPad This process was completed 3 times within a week span	Participants were pre-tested individually using slides of the targeted vocabulary This process was completed 3 times within a week span
Phase B: intervention phase	Phase B: intervention phase-DVDs only
Participants were pre-tested on the five target vocabulary Participants were pre-taught the vocabulary Participants watched the stories in ASL on DVD Participants were post-tested individually	Participants watched three repeated viewings of the stories in ASL on DVD Participants were post-tested individually
Phase C: maintenance	Phase C: preteaching + DVD
2 and 3 weeks following the intervention, the participants were tested individually using the three sets of five vocabulary slides	Because participant gains were not evident with the DVDs alone, preteaching was introduced prior to viewing the DVDs Participants were pre-taught the vocabulary Participants watched the stories in ASL on DVD Participants were post-tested individually
Parent participation component
Participants were given the ASL stories on DVDs and DVD players to watch with their families. One month following the study, families were given a survey to complete

After the targeted words were selected, baseline data collection began by testing the participants three times during a 1-week period on the five vocabulary words in Book 1. After baseline collection was completed, Phase B, intervention began. During the intervention phase, as a whole group, the participants were pre-taught the vocabulary before watching the DVD. This varies from the original study because Cannon and colleagues (2010) determined that only showing the DVDs without preteaching the vocabulary did not yield significant results. Therefore, we eliminated the DVD-only phase from the current study.

The intervention phase consisted of preteaching the vocabulary using slides on an iPad, similar to a digital flashcard. During the intervention phase, the third author, a graduate research assistant (GRA), conducted the following procedures for each targeted vocabulary word: (a) the participants were shown a slide displaying the word, (b) the sign for the word was demonstrated, (c) the participants were shown a slide displaying a sentence from the book that contained the targeted word plus an example and nonexample for the word via pictures on the slide (see Table 2), and (d) the participants were shown the location of the word in the text of the story. This procedure was repeated for all five targeted vocabulary words. Participants were not required to respond to the GRA, although many students copied the signs after the GRA introduced the vocabulary sign. Within each session, following preteaching of the vocabulary, the participants then watched the DVD of the book signed in ASL, and were then immediately post-tested individually on the target vocabulary words by showing the slide for each word and asking them to produce the corresponding sign in ASL. This procedure was repeated for all three books by the GRA.

Maintenance data were collected 1 to 5 weeks after the final post-test for each book (see notes in Figures 1 –5). Maintenance data collection was staggered to compare participant’s ability to retain the vocabulary at various points of time following the completion of the intervention for each book. For example, Book 1 maintenance data were collected 3 and 5 weeks after the final session of the intervention was completed, whereas Book 2 maintenance data were collected 2 and 4 weeks following the final session. Finally, Book 3 maintenance data were collected 1 and 3 weeks after the final session. The GRA collected Weeks 1 and 2 of maintenance data, while the first author collected the data for the subsequent weeks.

Figure 1.

Participant 1—Sebastiano.

Figure 2.

Participant 2— Lorenzo.

Figure 3.

Participant 3— Sofia.

Figure 4.

Participant 4—Isabela.

Figure 5.

Participant 5—Miguel.

Participants were given the ASL books on DVDs and DVD players to watch with their families on a weekly basis. Participants practiced using the DVDs and players prior to taking them home to ensure proper instruction and usage with family members. Following the study, families were given a survey with a self-addressed envelope to complete.

Reliability and Fidelity

Interrater reliability and procedural fidelity were conducted to measure each outcome variable systematically by more than one researcher for at least 20% of the data points in each phase with at least 80% to 90% average agreement (Kratochwill et al., 2010). The GRA followed the procedural fidelity checklist (Cannon et al., 2010) for each phase conducted in this study. Interrater reliability was calculated for 7 out of 24 (29%) sessions, once during each tier of Phase A (3 sessions), Phase B (3 sessions), and once during maintenance phase using point-by-point agreement, yielding 100% accuracy during each session observed. Interrater data consisted of a second researcher sitting within close proximity of the participant, so the main data collector and the interrater could both see the participant signing and the word on the slide, but could not see each other’s data collection form.

Procedural fidelity was collected during Phases A, B, and C. To establish fidelity, a second researcher observed baseline, intervention, and maintenance procedures and used a checklist (Cannon et al., 2010) to ensure fidelity of procedures and documentation. Procedural fidelity was calculated once during each tier of Phase A (3 sessions), Phase B (3 sessions), and once during maintenance phase for a total 7 out of 24 (29%) of sessions using point-by-point agreement and which yielded 100% accuracy during each session observed.

Social validity

To determine the social validity of the intervention, the teacher and parents were asked to complete a six-question survey 1 month following the intervention. The survey included questions such as: Did you find the intervention impacted your students/child use of the targeted vocabulary? Do you plan to use the ASL DVDs in the future? How likely are you to use this reading strategy with your student/child? and Would you recommend this strategy to other teachers/parents? The questionnaire was given to the teacher and parents to determine the acceptability of the intervention.

Results

Results of the current study are presented in Figures 1 to 5 in graphs displaying the number of targeted vocabulary signed correctly for each book by each participant during baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases. Data were visually analyzed for a change in mean levels across all phases for each book, for each participant. Range and mean for all phases are reported.

Sebastiano

Figure 1 presents Sebastiano’s data. Sebastiano’s baseline was established after three consecutive sessions of scoring 0 (range = 0, M = 0) on his ability to sign the targeted vocabulary selected from Book 1. Once preteaching began, Sebastiano was able to sign three to four words correctly (range = 3–4, M = 3.33). Sebastiano correctly signed three of the five targeted vocabulary after the first and second preteaching sessions, and within the third session was able to sign four of the five words correctly. Maintenance for Book 1 was completed 3 and 5 weeks following the final post-test during the intervention phase. For both maintenance sessions, Sebastiano was only able to recall two of the five targeted vocabulary (range = 2, M = 2).

Baseline for Book 2 was established after three consecutive sessions of 0 words signed correctly (range of 0, mean of 0). After the first preteaching session, Sebastiano was only able to sign one word correctly. However, after the second and third preteaching session, Sebastiano signed all five words correctly (range = 1–5, M = 3.6). Maintenance data for Book 2 were collected 2 and 4 weeks following the last intervention session. Sebastiano was able to recall all five words correctly during both these sessions (range = 5, M = 5).

Baseline for Book 3 was established after Sebastiano scored 0 across three consecutive sessions of baseline. In Phase B, Sebastiano signed four to five words correctly during all three intervention sessions (range = 4–5, M = 4.6). Maintenance data for Book 3 were collected 1 and 5 weeks after the intervention. Sebastiano signed five out of five words correctly 1 week after the intervention phase. However, 5 weeks after the intervention, he was only able to recall four of the words correctly (range = 4–5, M = 4.5).

Lorenzo

Figure 2 presents Lorenzo’s data. Lorenzo’s baseline was established after three consecutive sessions of scoring 0 (range = 0, M = 0), for Book 1. Once the intervention began, Lorenzo gradually signed more words correctly (1, 3, and 5) by the end of the third session (range = 1–5, M = 3). Maintenance for Book 1 was completed 3 and 5 weeks following the intervention phase. Three weeks after the intervention phase was complete, Lorenzo was able to sign one of the five targeted vocabulary, whereas 5 weeks after the intervention he was unable to sign any of the targeted words (range = 0–1, mean = .5).

Baseline for Book 2 was established after two consecutive sessions of 0 and the last session with two of five words signed correctly (range = 0–2, M = 0.6). During Phase B, Lorenzo was able to sign four to five words correctly (range = 4–5, M = 4.6). Maintenance data were collected 2 and 4 weeks following the last intervention session. Lorenzo was able to sign four and five words correctly during both these sessions, respectively (range = 4–5, M = 4.5).

Baseline for Book 3 was established after Lorenzo received one score of 0. Lorenzo was absent for two of the three Phase A sessions. Lorenzo signed three to five words correctly during Phase B (range = 3–5, M = 3.6). Maintenance data for Book 3 were collected 1 and 3 weeks after the final intervention session. Lorenzo signed five out of five words correctly only 1 week after the intervention ended, and four out of the five words correctly 3 weeks after the intervention (range = 4–5, M = 4.5).

Sofia

Figure 3 presents Sofia’s data. Sofia’s baseline was established after two sessions with a score of 1 out of 5 and an outlying score of 3 (range = 1–3, M = 1.6). Once preteaching began, Sofia was able to sign four to five words correctly (range = 4–5, M = 4.33). Sofia correctly signed four of the five targeted vocabulary after the first and second preteaching sessions, and within the third session was able to sign five of the five words correctly. Maintenance for Book 1 was completed 3 and 5 weeks following the intervention phase. Sofia was able to recall three and four of the five targeted vocabulary, respectively (range = 3–4, M = 3.5).

Baseline for Book 2 was established after two consecutive sessions of 0 and one session of two words signed correctly (range = 0–2, M = 0.66). Over the course of the three intervention sessions, Sofia signed four to five of the targeted vocabulary correctly (range = 4–5, M = 4.6). Maintenance data for Book 2 were collected 2 and 4 weeks following the last intervention session. Sofia was able to recall four to five out of the total five words correctly during the second and fourth maintenance week, respectively (range = 4–5, M = 4.5).

For Book 3, baseline was established after Sofia scored 1 out of 5 words correctly across two consecutive sessions (range = 1, M = 1). Sofia was absent for one of the three baseline sessions. During the intervention phase, Sofia signed four to five words correctly during all three intervention sessions (range = 4–5, M = 4.3). Maintenance data for Book 3 were collected 1 and 3 weeks after the intervention had been completed. Sofia was able to sign five out of five words correctly for both maintenance sessions (range = 5, M = 5).

Isabela

Figure 4 presents Isabela’s data. Isabela’s baseline was established after three consecutive sessions zero out of five words correctly for Book 1 (range = 0, M = 0). During Phase B, Isabela received a score of zero out of five words signed correctly. However, after the second and third intervention session, Isabela was able to sign four and five words correctly, respectively (range = 0–5, M = 3). Maintenance for Book 1 was completed 3 and 5 weeks following the final intervention phase. Isabela was able to sign two of the five targeted vocabulary correctly for both sessions (range = 2, M = 2).

Baseline for Book 2 was established after three consecutive sessions of 1 (range = 1, M = 1). During the intervention phase, Isabela signed four to five of the targeted vocabulary correctly (range = 4–5, M = 4.6). Maintenance data for Book 2 were collected 2 and 4 weeks following the last intervention session. During both maintenance sessions, Isabela signed a total of five out of five words correctly (range = 5, M = 5).

Baseline for Book 3 was established after Isabela signed zero out of five words correctly for the first two sessions, and one out of five words for the third baseline session (range = 0–1, M = 0.5). Isabela signed four to five words correctly during all three intervention sessions (range = 4–5, M = 4.6). Maintenance data for Book 3 were collected 1 and 3 weeks after the intervention had been completed. Isabela was able to sign five out of five words correctly for both maintenance sessions (range = 5, M = 5).

Miguel

Figure 5 presents Miguel’s data. Miguel’s baseline was established after three consecutive sessions of scoring 0 (range = 0, M = 0); he was unable to sign any of the targeted vocabulary from Book 1. Once the intervention began, Miguel gradually signed more words correctly, one, three, and four, by the end of the third session (range = 1 to 4, M = 2.6). Maintenance for Book 1 was completed 3 and 5 weeks following the intervention phase. For both maintenance sessions, Miguel was unable to recall any of the five targeted vocabulary (range = 0, M = 0).

Baseline for Book 2 was established after three consecutive sessions of identifying zero out of five targeted words correctly (range = 0, M = 0). During the beginning of Phase B, Miguel was still unable to sign any of the five words correctly. However, after the third intervention session, Miguel signed three of the five words correctly (range = 0–3, M = 1). Maintenance data for Book 2 were collected 2 and 4 weeks following the last intervention session. Miguel was unable to recall any of the five words correctly during both these sessions (range = 0, M = 0).

Baseline for Book 3 was established after Miguel received scores of 1 across three consecutive sessions. During the intervention phase, Miguel was able to sign three to four words correctly during all three intervention sessions (range = 3–4, M = 3.3). Maintenance data for Book 3 were collected 1 and 3 weeks after the final intervention session. Miguel signed two out of five words during both the maintenance phase sessions (range = 2, M = 2).

Social Validity

Of the six surveys that were distributed to the five parents and one teacher, only the teacher survey was returned. The teacher reported that she felt that the participants at a “very low level of language learned the vocabulary words which were repeated in the DVD.” She also noted that she was somewhat to very likely to use the reading intervention in her classroom in the future. The teacher also stated that she would recommend this intervention to use with other students, “especially the lower level students. They are the ones who really enjoyed the video/book series.”

Although none of the parents returned the survey, when the researchers asked the participants about watching the DVDs with their parents, students commented, “My father said he was too busy but I watch it with my cousin. My little cousin like it a lot.” And, “I watched it with my brother and sister and they pick up some new signs.”

Discussion

This replication study evaluated the effectiveness of using repeated readings of books read in ASL on DVD to increase the vocabulary base of DHH ELLs. A functional relation between the participants’ vocabulary base after receiving the intervention is evident when examining the increase in means between phases and the replication across three tiers of the multiple-baseline design. These findings are similar to the original study (Cannon et al., 2010).

Implications for Practitioners

Practitioners that implement this intervention should expect that (a) some students will need more repetition than others, (b) some vocabulary words are more difficult to learn, (c) repeated viewings of the targeted vocabulary should be done throughout the day via various subject matters and learning strategies, and (d) this intervention is fairly quick and easy to implement. The following section will elaborate on each of these research findings.

Level of repetition

Participants appeared to exhibit varied performance regarding the number of repeated intervention sessions, regardless of their preferred mode of communication. Many of the participants recalled 80% to 100% of the vocabulary words after one or two intervention sessions, but other participants required three exposures for recall, such as Miguel and Lorenzo. Thus, concluding that DHH ELL students vary in the frequency of exposures necessary to retain vocabulary words based on varying levels of prior knowledge, age, and experiences. This was a concern in the original study (Cannon et al., 2010), because participants received double the repeated viewing, of the DVD (6 times vs. 3 times) and yielded similar results.

Practitioners must be aware that some students struggle with recollection of vocabulary because of disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities, dyslexia), known or unknown. Miguel’s teachers suspected that he had a language processing disorder making it extremely difficult for Miguel to retain signs even when he had repeated exposure to the words and several opportunities when the vocabulary was linked to print. Cannon et al. (2010) also found that students varied in their ability to recall the vocabulary, even after six exposures (three exposures without the use of preteaching plus three exposures with preteaching). Easterbrooks and Baker (2002) recommend as a best practice that practitioners provide students with at least three repeated exposures, which is supported by the collective data of both studies.

Intuition might tell us that the longer time between exposure to a vocabulary word and post-test, the less likely a participant is to recall the ASL sign correctly. Upon review of the results, however, the data show that some vocabulary was more difficult for participants to recall and retain, regardless of length of time. Although we do not have conclusive evidence as to why this occurred, we speculate two possibilities: First, vocabulary that was more abstract and less iconic may have been more difficult for participants to recall regardless of post-testing time. For example, in Book 2, when post-testing occurred 4 weeks after the intervention, four of the five participants recalled and signed all five of the vocabulary (cost, dime, quarter, count, earn) correctly. Yet, for Book 1, only 3 weeks after intervention, the targeted vocabulary (measure, weigh, pound, pair, dozen) were extremely difficult for participants to recall and sign correctly (range = 0–3, M = 1.6). Second, perhaps the fact that these vocabulary are represented in ASL by opaque signs without an explicit connection to the referent, unlike transparent and translucent signs that contain more iconic and recognizable elements, affected retention (Easterbrooks & Baker, 2002; Meier, 1991).

Level of difficulty

Book 1 contained words such as “dozen” and “pound.” The signs for these words are much more abstract than vocabulary in the other two books. The signs that we accepted as correct for the purpose of this study were the signs as they appeared in the story signed in ASL from the DVD. Thus, the correct sign for “dozen” was “fs-D-O-Z” and the correct sign for “pound” was “fs-L-B-S.” For dozen, some of the participants signed “eggs” and showed the eggs as if they were in a carton. Some of the students signed “12.” While these signs were conceptually accurate, for the purpose of this study, we did not include these answers as correct, as they exhibit the participants understanding of the concept and the printed word but imply that they did not infer the accurate sign from the ASL story.

Level of exposure

The results showed that after the third preteaching of the vocabulary and viewing of the story in ASL, the majority of the participants were able to recall 100% of the five targeted words. Practitioners, who wish to implement this intervention, can purchase the books through Newbridge Educational Publishing (Northborough, Massachusetts), and obtain the ASL stories on DVD from the Accessible Materials Project (“AMP,” n.d.). There are over 100 stories and books available covering multiple content and core academic areas. The authors recommend practitioners integrate preteaching and repeated exposure of targeted vocabulary across all academic subject areas and through various avenues. For example, although the vocabulary from this study was gleaned from books with math themes, the targeted words could also be used during science and social studies (i.e., measure, meal, earn). Various avenues of instruction may also help students retain new vocabulary by asking them to fingerspell the words, create a skit using the words, or draw their own example and nonexample of the words.

Ease of administration

This intervention is very practical and quick for practitioners to implement in the classroom with any type of vocabulary at varying grade levels. On a daily basis, this intervention took 15 to 20 min to preteach the vocabulary, watch the story in ASL on DVD, and post-test the participants. Practitioners may wish to increase the number of targeted words from 5 to 10, thus allowing for additional time for the intervention. In total, the current study was completed in 8 weeks because of adding the maintenance phase; whereas the original study only took 6 weeks. Both studies took minimal time considering the length of intervention on a daily basis as well as participant gains in vocabulary knowledge.

Implications for Researchers

Future researchers may want to consider adding the component of fingerspelling during the preteaching component of the intervention phase. Fingerspelling the vocabulary word can help the students form more of a connection between the sign and the printed word. Presenting vocabulary in a multisensory format has shown to be beneficial for both DHH and ELL students (August & Shanahan, 2006; Barrera, Liu, Thurlow, & Chamberlain, 2006; Schirmer & McGough, 2005; Spencer & Marschark, 2010). This additional component is based on an adaptation of the strategy of “Chaining” (Padden & Ramsey, 2000), and could include adding fingerspelling. Preteaching using chaining and multimedia tools has been recommended for DHH ELLs to increase their vocabulary comprehension (Cannon & Guardino, 2012).

Future research could investigate whether the preteaching technique assists in comprehension of vocabulary found in subject area textbooks, as well as fiction novels. Comprehension of the vocabulary words was not a component of this study, yet is highly relevant to the literacy development of students who are DHH ELLs.

Replication research

Evidence-based strategies are critically needed in the field of deaf education to increase the literacy skills of DHH ELLs through effective instruction. This was a replication of a previous study (Cannon et al., 2010) in an attempt to determine if this intervention has the potential to be an evidence-based practice with DHH ELLs. The study would need to be replicated at least once more to become recognized and accepted as an effective evidence-based practice as outlined by Kratochwill and colleagues (2010). Furthermore, the previous study included participants in the middle school years, whereas the present study includes high school and transition students (see Table 1). Future researchers should consider testing yet another age of participants, elementary students, to further generalize the results to a broader population.

Limitations

Limitations of this study, related to SCD, include the small sample size and lack of comparison group of DHH students who are not recent immigrants and ELLs, or hearing ELL students.

Although social validity data were collected from the teacher, none of the parents returned the survey. The impact of intervention on family members is difficult to ascertain, thus posing another limitation to the study. Researchers and practitioners must address how we can better involve families to be active participants in their child’s learning and in research interventions that are a potential benefit to the entire family. Potential solutions may include providing parents with online tutorial/instructions of how to implement the intervention at home, provide families with small incentives to encourage continued participation in the study, and allot additional rewards for students who return evidence of parent participation (e.g. signature that they viewed the DVD with their child). In addition, perhaps parent interviews would have been more effective than the surveys sent home because parents would not have to complete the questions on their own, but rather over the phone or via videophone or webcam.

Conclusion

In conclusion, effective vocabulary instruction and retention for DHH ELLs is essential and the current study investigated an intervention that combines preteaching with viewing a book read in ASL on DVD. We attempted to answer the following research question: What effect does watching DVDs of math expository books, as read through ASL, have on the receptive and expressive vocabulary of participants who are DHH ELLs? A functional relation between the participants’ vocabulary recognition and the intervention was found and therefore the results of this study add to the research base on vocabulary instruction and begin the process of compiling evidence-based interventions to address the diverse and complex needs of DHH ELLs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Faculty Scholarship Grant from the University of North Florida.

References

Accessible Materials Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/AccessibleMaterialsProject

Apple. (2012). Keynote productivity software (Version 1.6) [Computer Software]. Cupertino, CA: Author.

August

Carlo

Dressler

Snow

(2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57.

August

Shanahan

(Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Avila

Sadoski

(1996). Exploring new applications of the keyword method to acquire English vocabulary. Language Learning, 46, 379–395.

Babbidge

H. D.

(1965). Education of the deaf: A report to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by his Advisory Committee on the education of the deaf. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Banner

Wang

. (2011). An analysis of the reading strategies used by adult and student deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 2–23. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq027

Barrera

Liu

Thurlow

Chamberlain

(2006). Use of chunking and questioning aloud to improve the reading comprehension of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 17). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED495907

Boudreault

Mayberry

(2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–635.

10.

Cannon

J. E.

Fredrick

L. D.

Easterbrooks

S. R.

(2010). Vocabulary instruction through books read in American Sign Language for English-language learners with hearing loss. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31, 98–112. doi:10.1177/1525740109332832

11.

Cannon

J. E.

Guardino

(2012). Literacy strategies for deaf/hard of hearing ELLs: Where do we begin? Deafness & Education International, 14(2), 78–99. doi:10.1179/1557069X12Y.0000000006

12.

Commission on the Education for the Deaf. (1988, February). Toward equality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

13.

Cummins

(1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.

14.

Easterbrooks

S. R.

Baker

S. B.

(2002). Language learning in children who are deaf and hard of hearing: Multiple pathways. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

15.

Easterbrooks

S. R.

Stoner

(2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in the written language of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27, 95–109. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/proedcw/cdq/2006/00000027/00000002/art00004 doi: 10.1177/15257401060270020701

16.

Fung

P. C.

Chow

B. W. Y.

McBride-Chang

(2005). The impact of a dialogic reading program on deaf and hard-of-hearing kindergarten and early primary school-aged students in Hong Kong. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 82–95.

17.

Gerner de Garcia

(1995). ESL applications for Hispanic deaf students. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 457–467.

18.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

Wolery

(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179.

19.

Justice

(2002). Word exposure conditions and preschoolers’ novel word learning during shared storybook reading. Reading Psychology, 23, 87–106.

20.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf

21.

Lonigan

C. J.

Anthony

J. L.

Bloomfield

B. G.

Dyer

S. M.

Samwel

C. S.

(1999). Effects of two shared-reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 306–322.

22.

Luckner

J. L.

Handley

C. M.

(2008). A summary of the reading comprehension research undertaken with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 6–36.

23.

Luckner

J. L.

Sebald

A. M.

Cooney

Young

Muir

S. G.

(2005/2006). An examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 443–456. doi:10.1353/aad.2006.0008

24.

Marschark

Convertino

LaRock

(2006). Optimizing academic performance of deaf students: Access, opportunities, and outcomes. In Moores

D. F.

Martin

D. S.

(Eds.), Deaf learners: New developments in curriculum and instruction (pp. 179–200). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

25.

Meier

(1991, January/February). Language acquisition by deaf children. American Scientist, 79, 60–70.

26.

National Agenda Steering and Advisory Committee. (2005, April). National agenda: Moving forward on achieving educational equality for deaf and hard of hearing students. Available from http://www.ndepnow.org/

27.

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user-friendly guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

28.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

29.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education ( Shavelson

R. J.

Towne

, Eds.; Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

30.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).

31.

Padden

Ramsey

(2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In Chamberlain

Morford

J. P.

Mayberry

R. I.

(Eds.), Language acquisition (pp. 165–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

32.

Paul

(1996). Reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1,3–15.

33.

Penno

Wilkinson

Moore

(2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23–33.

34.

Robbins

Ehri

L. C.

(1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 54–64.

35.

Schirmer

B. R.

McGough

S. M.

(2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–117. doi:10.3102/00346543075001083

36.

Spencer

P. E.

Marschark

(2010). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

37.

Traxler

C. B.

(2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337–348. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.4.337

38.

Vaughn

Mathes

P. G.

Linan-Thompson

Francis

D. J.

(2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 58–67.

39.

Wasik

B. A.

Bond

M. A.

(2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243–250.

40.

Winsor

(2007). Bridging the language barrier in mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 101, 372–378.