Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications
Literacy is such a large part of most children’s lives that it is natural for them to view it as important. Children in a literate society grow up surrounded by print. They see it displayed in their homes, schools, and communities, and they observe it being used by adults in those environments. Thus, it is not surprising the children in this study viewed literacy events as significant and made great efforts to engage in those events.
In fact, literacy was so important to the children that they found opportunities to interact with and through literacy even when the opportunities did not appear to exist or were not easily accessible. They created their own opportunities in the classroom to use literacy to serve social and personal functions, to make decisions about their learning, to engage in serious, adult-like work, and to connect their school and home lives. The children created these opportunities in an environment that enabled literacy learning to occur as a gradual and continuous process. Literacy was not taught to the children; rarely did literacy instruction occur. Rather, throughout the study, the children observed demonstrations of literacy, engaged in literacy events through social interaction, and actively explored various forms of literacy. It was in these ways that the children learned about literacy, and, thus, became literate within their school setting.
Significance of Findings
What is the significance of the findings from the current research for theories of literacy learning? On first glance, to someone knowledgeable of the research on emergent literacy, the findings might seem unremarkable and, in fact, expected. And, indeed, they would be right given prior research on literacy development of hearing children. In the past decade, researchers have documented that literacy serves important functions for hearing children (e.g., Cochran-Smith, 1984; Crowell et al., 1986; Goodman, 1986; Milz, 1985; Neuman & Roskos, 1988; Smith, 1981; Teale, 1986). The findings from the current study provide supportive evidence that young children with limited oral or sign language learn a great deal about the functions of literacy in a school setting. Thus, this research, like previous studies by Conway (1985), Ewoldt (1985, 1987, in press), and Maxwell (1983, 1984), while studying a special population (i.e., the hearing-impaired), adds strength to an existing theory of emergent literacy; namely, that children discover at an early age that literacy is functional.
Another important finding is that children learn these functions of literacy without direct instruction. Children learn that literacy is functional as they observe and interact with adults in everyday literacy events (Smith, 1984; Taylor, 1983; Teale, 1982). This is just how the hearing-impaired children in the current study developed this concept. Their room was littered with functional signs: attendance chart (i.e., Happy Faces chart), name tags on coat hooks, snack helper chart, and so on. Their teacher, Cathy, constantly used literacy in functional ways. She wrote notes to parents, used books as reference sources (e.g., to teach a new song or to explain a concept), and shared experiences with the children through written language. As I observed the children I wrote field notes and this, too, provided a demonstration of functional literacy. Formal literacy instruction did not occur often; rather, the children developed concepts about literacy through daily social interactions with literate adults.
Another finding from research on emergent literacy of hearing children that also was observed in the current study is that children are active participants in their literacy learning (Goodman, 1986; Harste et al., 1984; Smith, 1984). The hearing-impaired children in this study took an active role in their literacy learning in at least two ways. First, they seriously and intensely worked at constructing meaning from print and print-related materials. Cracking the code of written language was a major goal for each of the children. Second, they made decisions about their literacy learning—what they would learn, when they would learn, and how they would learn. In other words, their literacy learning was deliberate and intentional. This finding is similar to what Harste et al. (1984) found in studies of hearing children and Ewoldt (1985) found in studies of hearing-impaired children.
Ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds were not factors in the children’s literacy development. This supports findings from studies of emergent literacy of hearing children from varied backgrounds (e.g., Harste et al., 1984; Morgan, 1987; Teale, 1986). The only factor for the children in the current study that did seem to make a difference in their literacy learning may have been age and maturity or, more likely, what Harste et al. (1984) refer to as “availability and opportunity to engage in written language events” (p. 42). The children who made the least progress and seemed less knowledgeable about certain literacy events, particularly writing and spelling or fingerspelling, were Jon and Darrell. These two boys were the youngest in the classes, but also the ones frequently absent from school. In addition, they were the only children in the study who had no prior schooling. Thus, the findings from this study seem to indicate that Harste et al. (1984) may be correct when they state that “experience is the operational factor in this pair [age and experience]. Experience makes the evolution of literacy predictable” (p. 23).
The findings from the current research support findings from prior research on emergent literacy of hearing children, and, thus, part of their power is that they add to an existing body of knowledge. But what makes the findings from this study unique? What new knowledge do they add to the body of research on literacy learning? Several things. First, the environment of the classroom in which the study was conducted was a typical preschool setting (Robinson, 1990; Wiseman & Robeck, 1983). Literacy centers were not present, writing tools were not always easily accessible, stories were not read to the children as part of their daily routine. Yet, the children found or created opportunities to interact in literacy events. Although much is written about creating ideal literacy environments for young children (e.g., Morrow, 1989), and few researchers or educators would deny the benefits of such environments, it appears, at least from the findings from this study, that opportunities for literacy learning exist in most environments and children will seek out those opportunities.
Second, few of the children in this study had developed extensive use of oral or sign language prior to schooling. But their knowledge of written language was extensive. The question raised by this finding is an important one: What is the role of oral language in learning to read or write? Other researchers studying literacy learning of hearing-impaired children have also raised this question (Hirsh-Pasek & Treiman, 1982; Maxwell, 1984). The body of research on emergent literacy of hearing children does not provide a clear and concise theory on the role of oral language in literacy learning. For some researchers, the roles of oral and written language are reciprocal:
Certainly, children’s oral language proficiency is related to their growth in reading and to the ways in which they write… However, we also must recognize that reading experiences influence oral language (e.g., reading books to children enhances vocabulary), and writing actually improves children’s reading skills … For young children, the language arts mutually reinforce one another in development. (Teale & Sulzby, 1989, p. 4)
Indeed, this may have been the case in the current research for as the children developed proficiency with literacy their oral and sign language abilities grew.
In several studies of hearing children in the early stages of literacy learning, Dyson (1982, 1983, 1986) found that oral language is used by young children not as the focus of their drawings and writings, but, rather, as a way to embody their graphics with meaning. “Rather than trying to encode speech into graphics, the children typically made meaningful graphics about which they could talk” (Dyson, 1982, p. 362). The hearing-impaired children in the current study were not observed doing this with either oral or sign language. Rather, they used writing as a way to give meaning to their drawings and they used both their drawings and writings to give meaning to their limited oral and sign language.
Oral language was not a key element in their literacy development, yet these hearing-impaired children made gains in literacy knowledge comparable to those made by hearing children. This finding indicates that researchers are correct when they state that proficiency in oral language is not a prerequisite for learning to read and write (Baghban, 1984; Goodman, 1986; Sulzby, 1986). Indeed, it is more likely that varied communication systems (i.e., speaking, listening, signing, fingerspelling, reading, and writing) occur simultaneously and each is supported by growth in the others.
How do the findings from the current study support prior research findings on emergent literacy of hearing-impaired children? The intensity and seriousness with which the hearing-impaired children in the current study approached literacy events has been documented by other researchers studying literacy development of hearing-impaired children (Maxwell, 1983, 1984; Soderbergh, 1976). For instance, Soderbergh (1976) noted that:
The hearing impaired and deaf children have been inspired to an intense linguistic activity through reading. They ask their parents to write down words that are difficult for them to grasp in the spoken language and they inquire about the meaning of written words that are new to them. All of them also try to write. (p. 276)
The current research also supports the finding from prior research that young hearing-impaired children, like hearing children, develop knowledge, including knowledge about literacy, in a social context (Conway, 1985; Ewoldt, 1985; Selmi & Rueda, 1990). Furthermore, within this social context, they discover that literacy can fulfill a multitude of personal and social functions.
What new knowledge about literacy learning and deafness can be gained from the findings? First, the most significant conclusion from the findings for the field of deafness relates to the children’s entry into the hearing world. One of the most devastating effects of hearing loss is the isolation that results for children born to hearing parents. These children grow up in a home where they do not share a first language with their parents—the parents’ first language is oral language, but the children’s first language is a visual, gestural system (Goldin-Meadow, 1985, Goldin-Meadow & Morford, 1985; Mohay, 1982). Entry into the hearing world of their parents, relatives, and peers is often a difficult and long struggle, especially for hearing-impaired children who do not seem to gain any control over oral language (e.g., David or Jeffrey). However, in the current study, the children discovered a way to be a part of the hearing world on their own terms. Literacy provided the means for the children to learn about the hearing world and, more importantly, it was a way for them to function socially in that world and, thus, combat the overwhelming isolation effects of their hearing losses.
Second, these findings can offer a new view of language development for educators of the hearing-impaired. If written language is so important for hearing-impaired children that they use it to communicate with others, should it be considered an alternative to oral or sign language communication? The children in the current study often used reading and writing as forms of communication, particularly when they lacked oral or sign language knowledge to express their intended messages. Over the course of the year, the children used written language more and more as a dominant form of communication. Several other researchers have studied the role of written language as a primary form of communication for hearing-impaired children and have suggested that written language might serve as an alternative to oral or sign language as well as an impetus for the development of other forms of communication (Brannon & Livingston, 1986; Maxwell, 1985; Soderbergh, 1976, 1985). For example, in a study of young deaf children, Soderbergh (1985) found that:
…teaching the deaf child to read…is chosen for the child’s face-to-face-interaction, and that this teaching of reading will also enrich the child’s total language capacity, whatever mode of communication he is using. (p. 78)
Third, perhaps early exposure and access to literacy can provide a key to conceptual learning for hearing-impaired children. In a study of deaf readers, Ewoldt (1981) questioned whether deaf children use reading as a tool through which they discover and develop new concepts. Findings from that research indicate that deaf readers can acquire conceptual knowledge through reading. The findings from the current study appear to support Ewoldt’s findings, but they go a step further: The preschool hearing-impaired children acquired new concepts not just through reading but also through writing, drawing, fingerspelling, and spelling. Literacy, thus, helped strengthen the children’s conceptual learning. Although language is not essential for thought, expressing thoughts through language, whether oral, sign, or written, aids in deepening and intensifying understanding of concepts (Searfoss & Readence, 1985).
Fourth, mode of communication did not seem to be a salient factor in the children’s development of literacy. No major differences were observed in the literacy learning of the two groups of children (i.e., oral and total communication). In fact, the only difference noted was in requests made to adults to read aloud. The children in the oral class asked adults to read to them while the children in the total communication class seemed to enjoy reading by themselves or to each other. However, when adults read to the total communication children, their enjoyment and enthusiasm paralleled that of the oral children. What do these findings say about modes of communication, particularly oral and Signed English? Are the discussions, debates, and philosophical stances on oralism versus Signed English mute points? The findings from the current research indicate they might be just that.
Implications for Instruction
Hearing-impaired children historically score poorly on literacy measures by the time they reach fourth grade (Ewoldt, 1981; Maxwell, 1985). Why might this be true? Certainly, poor or inadequate tests might be at fault. But, perhaps, instructional methods are responsible. The hearing-impaired children in this study did not appear to lag behind hearing peers. Although they were not immersed in an environment replete with literacy, they found ample opportunities to engage in literacy events. If hearing-impaired children could receive early education in literacy-rich environments their growth should parallel that of hearing children. Preschools and kindergartens with literate play areas, easy access to books and writing materials, demonstrations of literacy by adults, frequent experiences with stories, and a climate where risk-taking is encouraged would help hearing-impaired children develop literacy at an early age and reverse the trend of later school failure.
Another instructional implication of the current findings relates to the issue of mainstreaming. In social settings with hearing children, hearing-impaired children might learn more about written language than they would in a self-contained hearing-impaired classroom. If their only avenue to communication is written language, perhaps they would make even greater efforts to communicate and interact through this mode. In the current study, the two children who seemed to have the most advanced and sophisticated knowledge of literacy, Janine and Michael, also attended preschools for hearing children. From the data available it would be difficult to determine if the mainstreamed settings could account for the differences observed in Janine’s and Michael’s knowledge, but it raises the question of the effects of different social settings on literacy development of hearing-impaired children.
Implications for Research
Since this study followed the children for only one year and in one setting, several questions arise that would lend themselves to longer or expanded studies. For example, in this study no differences were found based on the modes of communication used by the children. Over time, would differences appear in literacy development for hearing-impaired children enrolled in oral or total communication programs? What is literacy learning like for hearing-impaired children enrolled in residential schools for the deaf where they are immersed in American Sign Language? What about preschool hearing-impaired children enrolled in programs with hearing children? How do they function and communicate in those settings? What is the effect of an integrated setting on the literacy development of both the hearing and hearing-impaired children?