Reading Strategies Used by School-Age Children With Hearing Loss - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Reading Strategies Used by School-Age Children With Hearing Loss

Monica C.

Kleekamp

, M.S., CCC-SLP

Fontbonne

University Professional Forum:

Serving Children Who Are D/HH in Inclusive

Settings

May 5

th

,

2017

Monica

Kleekamp

has no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose.

Disclosure

Children who are deaf/hard of hearing demonstrate delayed reading abilities4th

grade reading level

(

Albertini

& Mayer, 2010; Mayer, 2007)Belief: Lower reading abilities correlate with impoverished phonological awarenessEducational instructionphonemic awarenessVocabulary knowledge; stronger predictor (Kyle & Harris, 2006; 2011).

I. Introduction

Approaches to reading:A. Skills-basedBreakdown of a whole into parts

(Beatty & Care, 2009)

Emphasis on what text looks and sounds like

Word

LevelText Comprehension B. Holistic/whole languageMultilayered circle with semantics at the center (Y. Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005).

Active meaning-making process between reader and text

All language cuing systems support meaning

I. Introduction

Research questions:1. What reading strategies can readers identify?

2. To what extent does each reader utilize the

graphophonic

, syntactic and semantic language cuing systems while reading?

3. Which reading strategies do readers select and use during the reading process? I. Introduction

Research questions:4. What are the narrative comprehension and retelling abilities of each reader?

5. How do readers identify the impact deviations from the text have on comprehension?

I. Introduction

Participants6 readers (3 boys, 3 girls), ages 11-14Severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss

Used listening and spoken language

All bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users except 1 (bi-modal: 1 CI, 1 hearing aid)

Primary language was English

Hearing loss resulting from nonsyndromic etiologiesNo diagnoses of intellectual disabilityII. Method

ProcedureA. Burke Reading Interview

(Burke, 1987)

11-question interview

How readers view the reading process and themselves as readers

II. Method

ProcedureB. Reading Miscue Analysis (Goodman, 1973)

Purpose: to understand the reader’s reading process

Participant reads out loud

Miscues=deviations from the text that are not viewed as errors

Oral reading abilities, linguistic knowledge and reading strategiesAnalyzes language cuing systems:Graphophonic, syntactic, semanticMiscues coded by level of acceptability Observation of natural reading strategies:Initiation, sampling, selecting, prediction, confirmation/disconfirmation, integration, termination

In-depth reader profile

II. Method

ProcedureC. Retelling/Narrative Analysis

Logical-Temporal Structure of Narratives

(

Lahey

, 1988; Apel & Masterson, 1998)Additive chains, temporal chains, simple causal chains, multiple causal chainsD. Retrospective Miscue Analysis (K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, Marek, 1986)

Purpose: assist readers in becoming aware of own strengths to revalue reader

Miscues selected and analyzed

II. Method

A. Burke Reading Interview:Proficient reading



word

-by-word process

Unaware of strengths Overreliance on graphic/sound informationSkill-based approach

III. Results/Discussion

III. Results/Discussion

B.

Reading Miscue Analysis

1. Language Cuing Systems

III. Results/Discussion

B.

Reading Miscue Analysis

1. Language Cuing Systems

III. Results/Discussion

B.

Reading Miscue Analysis

1. Language Cuing Systems

III. Results/Discussion

B.

Reading Miscue Analysis

1. Language Cuing Systems

B. Reading Miscue Analysis 2. Natural Reading StrategiesPredictions; no confirmation/disconfirmation

Termination by one reader

Consistent with profile of non-proficient reader

Fail to self-correct when predictions were:

Not syntactically/semantically acceptableNot confirmed by subsequent text information

III. Results/Discussion

C. Narrative/Retelling Abilities4 readers: Additive chains

Temporal chains

2 readers:

Simple causal chains

III. Results/Discussion

D. Retrospective Miscue AnalysisSubset of 3 readersAll readers:

Difficulty explaining miscues

Identified

nonwords

; high miscueProfile of non-proficient readerUnable to identify own strengthsUnaware when miscues indicate reading for meaning

III. Results/Discussion

Larger sample size with more diverse participants Re-evaluation of readers following instruction

Ongoing retrospective miscue analysis

IV. Further Research

Albertini, J., & Mayer, C. (2010). Using miscue analysis to assess comprehension in deaf college readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

, 16(1), 35-46.

Apel

, K. & Masterson, J. (1998).

Assessment and treatment of narrative skills: What’s the story. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.Beatty, L., & Care, E. (2009). Learning from their miscues: Differences across reading ability and text difficulty. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(3), 226-244.Fry Readability Formula. (2014). Retrieved September 15, 2013, from Early Childhood Education: http://www.hope.edu/academic/education/wessman/2block/assignments/ frygraph.htmGoodman, K. (1996).

On Reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of reading.

Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann and Scholastic Canada Ltd.

Goodman, Y. M., &

Marek

, A. M. (1996).

Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading.

Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., & Burke, C. L. (2005).

Reading miscue inventory.

Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

Kyle, F. E., & Harris, M. (2006). Concurrent correlates and predictors of reading and spelling achievement in deaf and hearing school children.

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

, 11(3), 273-288.

Kyle, F. E., & Harris, M. (2011). Longitudinal patterns of emerging literacy in beginning deaf and hearing readers.

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

, 16(3), 289-304.

Lahey

, M. (1988).

Language disorders and language development.

NY: Macmillan Pub. Co.

Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early literacy development of deaf children.

Joural

of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

, 12(4), 411-431.

V. References

Monica Kleekamp

E-mail: monica.kleekamp@gmail.com

VI: Contact Information