the due is in 12 hours

Issues in second language literacy education with learners who are deaf

Connie Mayer*

Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Deaf learners whose first language is American Sign Language face particular challenges and constraints in developing literacy in English as a second language. These constraints are interrogated and discussed in terms of their relationship to issues of language proficiency in both L1 and L2, and to models of second language literacy education. Suggestions are proposed as to ways in which these constraints might be addressed in designing future bilingual programs for deaf learners.

Keywords: deaf learners; challenges; literacy development; English as a second language

A fundamental shift in the education of deaf students since the late 1980s has been

the application of principles of bilingual education, and the incorporation of the view

that deaf students are second language learners. In this conceptualization, a natural

sign language is regarded as the first language of deaf children, with the majority

language of the hearing community being taught as the L2, often according to the

principles of teaching English as a second language (ESL) (Johnson, Liddell, and

Erting 1989; Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan 1996). In the context of Canada or the

USA, this L1 is usually presumed to be American Sign Language (ASL) with written

English serving as the L2.

Before going further, it is necessary to acknowledge that there are some concerns

with deeming English to be the target for second language literacy education for all

learners who are deaf. By definition, such an assertion presupposes that some prior

literacy exists in a first language, and on this basis, it is problematic on a number of

levels. A significant number of deaf learners come to school without any fully

developed L1 and rely on some bimodal system of gestures and speech for

communication. For these students, it is not accurate to categorize English as an

L2 when there is no identifiable L1. And in any case it could be further argued that,

even though they have not acquired the language, for many of these learners English

may indeed represent the L1 as this is the language to which they were first exposed.

This situation becomes even more complicated for those deaf children whose parents’

first language is neither English nor ASL, as these learners do not have access to

either language before entering school. And for at least some subset of children who

are deaf, for whom English is made accessible through some combination of

amplification, speech reading, listening, signing and print, it is accurate to claim that

*Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Vol. 12, No. 3, May 2009, 325�334

ISSN 1367-0050 print/ISSN 1747-7522 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13670050802153368

http://www.informaworld.com

English is truly the L1 as it is the language that these children have naturally

acquired, and they are relatively proficient in its use.

Given the complexity of these situations, it becomes clear that simply referring to

English as an L2 for most deaf learners does not take into account the range of

unique language learning situations that exist. Therefore in characterizing deaf

students as learners of English as a second language, it is important to be clear that

we are referring to those students who have acquired ASL as an L1 and are now

learning to read and write English as an L2.

The focus of this paper will be on examining the ways in which these students,

whose L1 is ASL, face issues which differ from hearing learners of English as a

second language, and on thinking about the pedagogical implications and ramifica-

tions of this claim. More particularly, in what ways are these learners distinct from

hearing L2 learners, and what are the issues that they face in developing text-based

literacy?

The current situation

The stated goal of a bilingual approach to the education of deaf students is well-

educated children, bilingual in ASL and English (Johnson, Liddell, and Erting 1989).

However, the situation for the deaf learner differs from that of hearing L2 learners in

that being bilingual refers only to proficiency in the written form of the L2:

proficiency in the oral form is not a stated goal. In other words competence in

English is determined primarily by the learner’s ability to read and write, not by the

ability to hear, speak, or speech-read English. What makes the situation even more

particular is the claim that this second language literacy can be achieved by using

ASL to explain aspects of English, and by limiting the use of the L2 to its print form

(Mayer and Akamatsu, 1999). In other words, the premise is that the secondary print

form of the language can be learned without manipulating the language in its

primary, face-to-face form (see Paul 1998, for a detailed discussion of this point).

However, it is the case that after more than a decade of bilingual programming

for deaf learners, there is no research evidence to support the claim that students in

bilingual programs are achieving levels of English literacy commensurate with

hearing age peers (Mayer and Akamatsu 2003). This is significant in that one of the

stated goals of bilingual programs is to achieve literacy levels commensurate with

that of hearing age peers (Grushkin 1998; Nelson 1998; Wilbur 2000). This would be

a considerable accomplishment given that one of the most robust research findings in

the field is that deaf students do not read as well as their hearing peers, with an

annual gain of only 0.3 grade level per year (Allen 1986) and with the typical 18�19- year-old student reading at a level commensurate with an average hearing eight-nine-

year-old (Marschark and Spencer 2003; Paul 1998; Traxler 2000).

This does not mirror the situation of hearing second language learners. While

there are issues with respect to differences in the length of time required to develop

conversational versus academic fluency in the L2 (see Bialystok 2001; Cummins

2000, for discussions of this point), the evidence does not indicate that most hearing

ESL learners struggle to achieve age-appropriate literacy levels in the same way as

their deaf counterparts do.

The current reality is that deaf learners continue to have significant problems

developing English literacy. The following are examples of questions posed by

326 C. Mayer

instructors of deaf students at the college level which serve to illustrate the ongoing

concerns:

I have on average over 20 deaf students that take classes at the community college. At least half of them, if not more, do not have ‘college level’ reading and writing skills because of their deafness and ASL being their first language. Placing them in our regular remedial English and reading classes are marginal in terms of success and leaves me wondering if ESL classes are a realistic option to consider.

This question is in regard to strengthening and improving the English and reading skills of the deaf students whose first language is ASL. For years, we have had the ASSET testing to determine the placement of deaf ASL students in remedial classes but I question if this is really helping the student � as opposed to placement in ESL courses. What is the experience for those of you that have had this concern? How do we best help deaf students improve reading and writing skills?

To think about how we can best address these concerns, it is necessary to first

consider the singular constraints that deaf learners face in developing second

language literacy.

Issues of language

The issues with respect to the development of L2 literacy for deaf learners have much

to do with the level and nature of the proficiencies that have been achieved in both

the first and second language. These proficiencies (or lack thereof) provide some

explanation for the generally poor literacy levels attained by deaf learners in bilingual

settings.

Proficiency in L2

For the purposes of this discussion, it is expedient to refer to the distinction

Cummins (1979, 1981a) makes between the development of basic interpersonal

communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)

in the learning of the L2. In keeping with Cummins’ (2000) characterization of these

distinctions, the terms conversational and academic proficiency will be used

interchangeably with the terms BICS and CALP throughout this text. In using these

terms, it must be acknowledged that there are criticisms with respect to making this

conversational/academic distinction (see Cummins 2000, 86�111, for a review of these critiques). However, for the purposes of the argument being made here, these

distinctions do provide a viable framework for discussing the relationship between

language proficiency and academic achievement, in a bilingual situation where access

to the different registers of language in both L1 and L2 is uniquely problematic.

For hearing L2 learners it is the BICS that are most readily achieved, often within

the space of two years, while upwards of five years may be required to achieve native-

like CALP (Collier 1987; Cummins, 1981b; Klesmer 1994). Mastery of BICS implies

conversational fluency and this ability affords L2 learners the means to carry on

conversations in familiar face-to-face situations and known contexts. BICS are

qualified by high-frequency words and core grammatical structures, and signal a level

of proficiency that native speakers usually realize by age five. The development of

BICS does not generally pose any consequential problem for most L2 learners, and

while it is not a guarantee of future academic success, these basic language

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 327

competencies provide a foundation for the subsequent development of CALP. Can

the same case be made for learners who are deaf ?

Although deaf students who have ASL as their L1 are designated as ESL learners,

exposure to English in some form would have occurred simultaneously with the

exposure to ASL, usually from an early age. At the very least, these students would

have had extensive and systematic exposure to English in educational settings. But

despite this continued exposure, these deaf learners do not develop conversational

proficiency in English in a primary face-to-face form in either speech or sign. By virtue of their hearing loss, deaf L2 learners do not have ready access to BICS in

English as these are encountered initially and primarily via an oral mode � an avenue that does not afford comprehensible input for a deaf learner. This would not be an

issue for most hearing learners. With similar exposure to the L2, most would have

acquired at least the BICS level of English (and probably much more) by the time

they reached college age.

Thus the fundamental and critical distinction between hearing and deaf L2

literacy learners rests on the differing levels of L2 conversational proficiency that have been acquired before they are required to use the L2 in more cognitively and

linguistically demanding situations. Deaf learners are attempting to develop the

secondary ability of literacy in an L2 when they have not yet acquired a basic

conversational knowledge of its lexicon, morphology, and syntax. In contrast,

hearing ESL students have acquired this knowledge by using English in its spoken

form before we require them to make extensive use of L2 print in academic settings.

Proficiency in L1

To accrue optimal benefits from a bilingual education, it is important that L2

learners are encouraged to continue to develop proficiency in the L1 (Cummins and

Schecter 2003). Typically, this would be a focus on academic proficiency as the

conversational abilities would have developed first and would already be quite secure.

There would be an emphasis on understanding complex oral and written language in

the L1 making use of more low frequency words, more complex syntax, and those

abstract expressions rarely used in everyday conversations. There would also be a

heavy stress on developing text-based literacy in L1 as there is much evidence to support a positive linguistic interdependence between reading and writing in L1 and

the subsequent development of these abilities in the L2 (Cummins 1991; Hornberger

1989).

For deaf learners whose L1 is ASL, two related points are relevant to a discussion

of developing CALP in the L1. The first is that ASL does not have any widely

accepted print form. Because students cannot learn to read and write in their L1,

there are none of these text-based literate proficiencies available for transfer from the

L1 to the L2. The second point follows from the first. Because CALP is so often framed in

terms of its relationship to text, there may be questions as to the nature of what

constitutes academic proficiencies in a language such as ASL which has no written

form. This is not to suggest that ASL cannot be used to take up conceptually

challenging material, but rather to propose that deaf learners are often not

challenged to use ASL in this way. This has much to do with the fact that the

majority of deaf children in bilingual programs have hearing parents who are not

highly skilled users of ASL, and are often not able to engage readily in discourse of

328 C. Mayer

any sort, let alone the sorts of discourse which promote critical and reflective

thinking. As well, educators in bilingual settings are usually not native users of ASL

and they may lack a strong command of the academic register of the language that

would be most effective for schooling.

Therefore, with respect to issues of language proficiency, the explanation for the

weak English literacy abilities of deaf students in bilingual programs rests on more

than the fact ASL is a visual�gestural language with no print form. While these issues of modality are relevant, they must be interrogated in ways that allow us to consider

how they impinge on the deaf learner’s ability to develop BICS in L2 and CALP in

L1.

Issues of pedagogy

There are pedagogical implications that flow from the arguments made with respect

to language proficiency in the previous section, and these can serve to inform our

understandings of what constitutes effective L2 literacy education for deaf learners.

They also help to explain why some educational approaches are inappropriate or

inadequate to meet the needs of deaf L2 learners. In the following section, two

particular pedagogical questions will be considered: Are ESL teaching strategies

appropriate for students who are deaf ? And are current models of literacy education

adequate in meeting the needs of deaf learners of English?

Deaf students as ESL learners

Well designed ESL programs � although, it should be noted that many are still grammar translation � provide opportunities for beginning students to use oral English in meaningful situations in order to address the dual goals of developing

communicative competence, and acquiring linguistic knowledge of the L2. Hearing

ESL students are then able to capitalize on their growing competence in the spoken

form of the L2 as the foundation for developing L2 literacy. Within a few years, they

usually have a fairly solid ability to use oral English (its lexicon, morphology, and

syntax) for conversational purposes, and the challenge is one of building on this base

to develop higher levels of text-based literacy. The deaf ESL learner lacks access to a

primary form of the L2, and therefore the design of typical ESL programs, with their

initial emphasis on conversational English, is not appropriate. Deaf students require

programs which address the fact that they often lack basic aspects of English which

other ESL students have ‘picked up’ via their ever-expanding knowledge of its spoken

form. For many deaf students this means that a much more systematic approach is

taken to the development of signed and/or spoken English (Leutke-Stahlman 1998).

It is also important to acknowledge that for many ESL students the development

of L2 literacy is buttressed by their literacy abilities in L1, and to some extent ASL

proficiency can provide this same support for deaf learners. ‘Despite the controversies

about the roles L1 and L2 play in a bilingual setting, there should be no controversy

over the fact that primary language instruction in a natural sign language (such as

ASL) can confer cognitive and academic benefits and lead to primary language

maintenance without blocking L2 literacy learning’ (Mayer and Akamatsu 2003,

144). But the process of becoming literate in English cannot be accomplished solely

through a reliance on this L2 knowledge and ‘in order to develop conversational and

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 329

academic L2 skills, learners must be exposed to sufficient L2 comprehensible input’

(Cummins 1988, 157).

This is the conundrum that educators encounter in planning programs for deaf

L2 learners. How can this condition for access to a sufficient quantity and quality of

comprehensible L2 input be met? Thus, while it may be appropriate to import

pedagogical principles from ESL programs designed for hearing learners into

program for deaf learners, these strategies will not be a very useful fit if concerns

with respect to comprehensible input are not taken into account.

Deaf students and models of literacy instruction

Cummins (2000) makes the argument that with L2 learners we tend to focus on

discrete language skills at the expense of activities which focus on CALP, and he

suggests that this provides at least some explanation for why these students remain

behind academically. He defines discrete skills as those which have to do with specific

phonological, literacy, and grammatical knowledge and which can be acquired via

direct instruction or engagement. Knowledge of letters, the sounds represented by

letters, and the decoding of written words into sounds would be some of the discrete

skills that could be acquired early in a school career. Others like knowledge of

punctuation, spelling conventions, and grammatical rules are acquired on an ongoing

basis. Typically, L2 learners acquire many of these discrete skills early in their

development, and it is worthwhile to note that there is a place for this knowledge in

developing literate proficiencies in the second language.

However, what is often lacking is the emphasis on using the L2 to engage with

linguistically and conceptually complex material � the kind of material which requires learners to engage in extensive reading of text and then incorporate this

information into their writing. Part of the explanation for why this use of L2 is not

emphasized is that it is not as amenable to direct instruction as is the teaching of

discrete language skills. In other words, it is relatively easier to teach and drill the use

of capital letters than it is to teach students how to support a claim with evidence.

Similar observations could be made with respect to deaf learners of English in

bilingual programs. Because the students are not able to readily and easily engage in

academic discourse, the pedagogical focus often tends toward the learning of discrete

language skills, the teaching of isolated bits of information, and the completion of

worksheets (Mayer, Akamatsu, and Stewart 2002). However there is a qualitative

difference between the two situations. Not only are deaf students focusing on discrete

skills which may not position them well for future academic success, but they are also

working on these skills in the absence of well-developed BICS in the L2. In other

words, learners are being introduced to discrete bits of linguistic information about

the L2, but they do not have enough spontaneous knowledge of the second language

in order to make sense of what has been taught. While the benefits of the direct

instruction of discrete language skills are limited for all ESL learners, they are doubly

limited in their efficacy for deaf learners who typically do not use the L2 for face-to-

face communication, except in print form via technologies such as text pagers and e-

mail. Use of these technologies has been shown to afford deaf individuals enhanced

opportunities for communication and independence, but to date there is no research

to demonstrate that the use of these technologies has a significant impact on the

development of English.

330 C. Mayer

Given that deaf learners in bilingual settings do not use the L2 for engaging in

classroom discourse, there is no point in making the argument that the oral form of

the L2 be used in literate ways in the classroom. With respect to using the L2 in more

linguistically and conceptually challenging situations, the deaf learner is expected to

rely on the written mode of the L2 for engaging academic activities. Yet this becomes

a circular discussion in that most deaf learners in bilingual situations do not read and

write well, and thus begs the question as to how they will use reading and writing as

the means to engage in literate discourse.

The argument is also made that literate discourse in L1 can stand in for literate

discourse in L2. But making this claim does not take into account that it is exposure

to the vocabulary and syntax of the L2 as it is realized in its academic, synoptic genre

that is fundamental to the development of this register of language use in the first

place (Mayer and Wells 1996). Even ‘highly efficient reading and writing ability in an

L1 do not make up altogether for lack of knowledge of L2’ (Hornberger 1989), and

there is no reason to think that deaf learners can bypass this L2 knowledge, and rely

exclusively on L1, as they aim to achieve literacy in L2. This lack of knowledge of the L2 has further pedagogical implications,

specifically with respect to the teaching of reading. Whole language versus phonics

debates aside, ‘what is beyond dispute is the crucial role that phonological awareness

plays in learning to read an alphabetic script’ (Bialystok 2001, 168). It is beyond the

scope of this paper to go into depth on this point, but it is important to recognize

that all L2 learners of English must establish some phonological awareness of the

second language, and sort out how this phonological information relates to the

written code (Mayer 2007). As Olson (1994) would suggest, literacy learners must

come to see and understand their oral language in terms of the text, and there is no

theoretical or research basis to suggest that deaf learners of English are exempt from

this requirement.

It is also telling that one exception in the repertoire of discrete skills which are

typically taught to deaf learners is that of sound�symbol relationships. This is hardly surprising given that these learners are deaf, but it still leaves educators with the

pedagogical problem of how to establish this necessary sense of phonological

awareness in the absence of hearing. Hearing ESL learners do not face this problem

as they do have access to the sound stream of English, and some may even be advantaged by being able to use phonological awareness skills developed in the L1 as

they learn to read in L2 (Bialystok 2001). In contrast, deaf children are taught letter

names and can recite the alphabet, but they typically lack the ability to make explicit

speech�print relationships. Yet the explicit teaching of how to make these relation- ships is not generally the focus of much pedagogical attention.

Overcoming the constraints

Before exploring what might be done to address the constraints facing deaf L2

learners, there is a need to acknowledge that some of the issues described here are

simply a case of ‘what is.’ It is the case that deaf learners, in bilingual programs or

not, have hearing losses. This shapes the reality of their language learning situation

and the impact is considerable when the target L2 is an auditory�oral language such as English. This makes acquisition of conversational proficiency in the L2

challenging, and creates subsequent challenges with regard to developing academic

proficiency and text-based literacy in the L2.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 331

Acknowledging these constraints is the necessary first step. That being said, the

challenge is to think about ways in which these constraints can be overcome, or at

least managed, so that deaf learners will experience higher levels of success in

developing L2 literacy. To this end, the following thoughts are put forward to prompt

further debate.

We cannot ignore the fact that L2 conversational proficiency undergirds L2

literacy learning. Attempting to learn to read and write in a second language, without

the lexical, grammatical, and syntactic knowledge that conversational proficiency

affords, is to operate in a linguistic vacuum. Therefore, we need to find ways to

engage deaf learners in meaningful face-to-face interactions in the L2. As these BICS

cannot be acquired effectively via print, alternate avenues must be explored in order

to make the L2 comprehensible and accessible for deaf learners. Possibilities include

the use of amplification (including cochlear implants), some form of manually coded

English, combinations of speech and sign, or contact language. While none of these

would afford the deaf L2 learner, the same access to BICS in L2 that the hearing

student has, they would serve to provide some access � access that is necessary to developing a language base in the L2.

Because we know that academic proficiencies in L1 support the development of

like abilities in the L2, it would be important to better understand what constitutes

these academic proficiencies in ASL, and how they can be used to support L2 literacy

learning. For instance, how will educators deal with the fact that there are often not

distinct ASL signs for the vocabulary items that typify the academic register of

English (Corson 1997)? This vocabulary knowledge is central to the development of

CALP and text-based literacy in the L2.

Related to these first two points is the issue of engaging learners in literate

discourse in both L1 and L2. A fundamental principle of effective classroom practice

is that it is through dialogue that children learn to make meaning and sense of the

world around them, to think, and to question and share ideas (Wells 2000). But it is

often difficult to involve deaf learners in this sort of discourse in either L1 or L2,

given the constraints they face in using either language as a tool for making meaning

and constructing knowledge (Mayer, Akamatsu, and Stewart 2002).

Research has indicated that developing phonological awareness via systematic phonics instruction ‘should be implemented as part of literacy programs to teach

beginning reading as well as to prevent and remediate reading difficulties’ (Ehri et al.

2001, 393). While there is certainly more to a balanced reading program than phonics

instruction, it is an area that cannot be overlooked simply because the learner is deaf.

Ehri et al. (2001) suggest that there is currently ‘much interest in whether systematic

phonics instruction is effective for children who are learning English as a second

language’ (433). It would be equally interesting to investigate this question with L2

literacy learners who are deaf, particularly since the preponderance of the evidence

reveals that deaf students who use a phonological code in working memory tend to be

better readers than deaf students who do not (Paul 2003). Accepting that it is

necessary, how can phonics instruction be realized in teaching reading to deaf L2

learners?

Given the fundamental differences between hearing and deaf ESL learners that

have already been described, it would be worth considering whether ESL programs

are appropriate placements for deaf L2 learners. It is interesting to note that at the

elementary and secondary school levels, deaf learners are designated as special

education students and teachers are required to write individual education plans for

332 C. Mayer

them. Yet at the college and university level, deaf students who lag behind in L2

literacy are often placed in ESL classes for the purposes of upgrading their English � even though these students may have already spent many years of schooling in

programs where English was one of the languages of instruction. This raises the

question as to what kinds of programs would best address the needs of deaf L2

learners at all levels, and challenges the notion that pedagogical approaches that are

effective for hearing learners can be applied to deaf education without carefully

considered modifications. Finally, to what extent are teachers of deaf students being familiarized with the

knowledge base that exists in both the field of bilingual education and of deaf

education, and with the strategies that have proven to be successful in certain

contexts? The implementation of any fundamental change rests with the practitioners

in the classroom and it is critical that they have a solid understanding of what they

are doing and why they are doing it. Only in this way can they effectively confront the

challenges that are inherent in teaching deaf students how to read and write in a

second language. And ultimately, it must be acknowledged that characterizing deaf L2 learners as

‘just like other learners except that they can’t hear,’ is facile and does little to inform

theory or practice in the field. The impact of hearing loss on the ability to develop

text-based literacy is profound and should not be underestimated. But a fuller

understanding of the challenges and constraints that these learners face will assist all

concerned to take on these challenges, but not be overwhelmed by them.

References

Allen, T. 1986. Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1983. In Deaf children in America, ed. A. Schildroth and M. Karchmer, 161�206. San Diego, CA: Little Brown.

Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Collier, V. 1987. Age and rate of acquisition of a second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly 21: 617�41.

Corson, D. 1997. The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning 47: 671� 718.

Cummins, J. 1979. Cognitive academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19: 121�9.

Cummins, J. 1981a. The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, ed. California State Department of Education, 3�49. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center California State University.

Cummins, J. 1981b. Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics 1: 132�49.

Cummins, J. 1988. Second language acquisition within bilingual education programs. In Issues in second language acquisition, ed. L. Beebe, 145�66. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Cummins, J. 1991. Language development and academic learning. In Language, culture and cognition, ed. L. Malave and G. Duquette, 266�83. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. 2000. Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J., and S. Schecter. 2003. School-based language policy in culturally diverse contexts. In Mulitlingual education in practice: Using diversity as a resource, ed. S. Schecter and J. Cummins, 1�16. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ehri, L., S. Nunes, S. Stahl, and D. Willows. 2001. Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71: 393�447.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 333

Grushkin, D. 1998. Why shouldn’t Sam read? Toward a new paradigm for literacy and the deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 3: 149�202.

Hornberger, N. 1989. Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research 59: 271�96. Johnson, R., S. Liddell, and C. Erting. 1989. Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving

access in deaf education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Klesmer, H. 1994. Assessment and teacher perceptions of ESL student achievement. English

Quarterly 26: 8�11. Lane, H., R. Hoffmeister, and B. Bahan. 1996. Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego,

CA: Dawn Sign Press. Leutke-Stahlman, B. 1998. Language issues in deaf education. Hillsboro, OR: Butte. Marschark, M., and P. Spencer. 2003. Epilogue: What we know, what we don’t know, and what

we should know. In Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, ed. M. Marschark and P. Spencer, 491�4. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mayer, C. 2007. What really matters in the early literacy development of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 12: 411�31.

Mayer, C., and C.T. Akamatsu. 1999. Billingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: Considering the claims. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educaiton 4: 1�8.

Mayer, C., and C.T. Akamatsu. 2003. Bilingualism and literacy. In Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, ed. M. Marschark and P. Spencer, 136�47. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mayer, C., C.T. Akamatsu, and D. Stewart. 2002. A model for effective practice: Dialogic inquiry with students who are deaf. Exceptional Children 68: 485�502.

Mayer, C., and G. Wells. 1996. Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a bilingual- bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1: 93�107.

Nelson, K. 1998. Toward a differentiated account of facilitators of literacy development and ASL in deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders 18: 73�88.

Olson, D. 1994. The world on paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paul, P. 1998. Literacy and deafness: The development of reading, writing, and literate thought.

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Paul, P. 2003. Processes and components of reading. In Oxford handbook of deaf studies,

language, and education, ed. M. Marschark and P. Spencer, 97�109. New York: Oxford University Press.

Traxler, C. 2000. The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed.: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 5: 337�48.

Wells, G. 2000. Dialogic inquiry in education. In Vygotskyian perspectives on literacy research, ed. C. Lee and P. Smagorinsky, 51�85. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilbur, R. 2000. The use of ASL to support the development of English and literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 5: 81�104.

334 C. Mayer