Explore the vast range of titles available.

Forty-one children with severe-profound prelingual hearing loss were assessed on single word reading, reading comprehension, English vocabulary, phonological awareness and speechreading at three time points, 1 year apart (T1–T3). Their progress was compared with that of a group of hearing children of similar nonverbal IQ, initially reading at the same level. Single word reading improved at each assessment point for the deaf children but there was no growth in reading comprehension from T2 to T3. There were no differences between children with cochlear implants and those with hearing aids on either reading measure but orally educated children had higher scores than children who signed in the classroom. English vocabulary and speechreading were the most consistent longitudinal predictors of reading for the deaf children. Phonological awareness was the most consistent longitudinal predictor for the hearing group and also a concurrent predictor of reading at T3 for both groups. There were many more significant correlations among the various measures for the deaf children than the hearing at both T1 and T3, suggesting that skills underpinning reading, including phonological awareness and vocabulary, are more closely related for deaf children. Implications of these findings for of deaf children’s literacy are explored.

Purpose: Diagnoses, assessments, and treatments, as well as social and language interventions, can be effective in identifying and interpreting specific linguistic features that present special challenges to the language abilities of individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This article reports on a study analyzing complex sentences and morphosyntactic error production by Arabic-speaking adolescents who are hearing and DHH. Method: A total of 124 adolescents participated, all native speakers of Arabic in Grades 6-10 (63 hearing and 61 DHH). The participants were asked to provide an oral narrative about a dangerous experience. Results: Both groups produced a low mean percentage of complex sentences out of the total number of clauses. However, adolescents who are DHH produced significantly fewer complex sentences and more morphosyntactic errors when compared with their hearing peers. The most common errors produced by both groups were clause errors including omission of subject or predicate and errors in word order. Determiner errors were produced significantly more often by adolescents who are DHH. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to investigate morphosyntactic aspects of complex sentences and morphosyntactic errors produced by Arabic-speaking adolescents who are hearing and DHH. This study therefore has significance for further research on language development among Arabic speakers and on definitions of vulnerable linguistic aspects in DHH.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches proposed to children with severe-to-profound prelinguistic deafness on the hearing, speech, and language skills development. Method: Databases (PubMed, CINHAL, PsycInfo, Cochrane, ERIC, and EMBASE) were searched with relevant key words (children, deafness, rehabilitation approach, auditory, speech, and language). Studies published between 2000 and 2017 were included. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and the level of evidence was evaluated with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Every step of the selection and analysis was made by 2 independent judges. Results: Of 1,739 articles listed in different databases, 38 met the inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. The majority of included articles present a relatively low level of evidence. Rehabilitation approaches that do not include signs appear more frequently associated with a better auditory, speech, and language development, except for receptive language, than approaches that included any form of signs. Conclusion: More robust studies are needed to decide on the approach to prioritize with severe-to-profound deaf children.

Oral deaf children and hearing children with dyslexia both experience literacy challenges, although their reasons differ. The authors explored the problems underlying poor literacy in each group and drew implications for reading interventions. Data were collected using standardized literacy and phonological measures from 69 severe-to-profoundly prelingually deaf children ages 10 and 11 years, all communicating with spoken language, and compared with equivalent data from 20 hearing children with a history of dyslexia matched on reading ability. Children were given a large battery of tasks assessing word and nonword reading, spelling, vocabulary, and reading-related skills, including letter sound knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automated naming, and verbal short-term memory. Striking similarities were observed for word reading, nonword reading, and spelling across groups, and associations between the measures and reading-related skills were similar. However, differences between the two groups emerged in the strength of association between literacy and vocabulary. Regression analyses confirmed vocabulary as a key predictor of literacy in the oral deaf group. These results suggest that not only children with a history of dyslexia but also oral deaf children who struggle with reading should receive specialist literacy support. Reading interventions for oral deaf children should target phonological and language skills within a fully integrated approach.

Scott, Dostal, and Lane-Outlaw challenge findings and conclusions from a literature review by Mayer and Trezek regarding the literacy achievement of deaf children who are educated in schools and programs that espouse bilingual ASL/English instruction. Mayer and Trezek’s article appeared in the Winter 2020 American Annals of the Deaf. In addition to responding to Mayer and Trezek’s findings and conclusions, Scott et al. outline factors they consider important for all researchers and practitioners who generate and consume knowledge regarding bi- and multilingual deaf education. Specifically, they recommend careful attention to and inclusion of individual- and school-level variables, use of appropriate comparison groups, and valuing of information acquired through various methodologies (both quantitative and qualitative). These recommendations are made in the spirit of improving the state of knowledge and the production and consumption of research that informs policy and practice in bi- and multilingual deaf education.

Thanks to the use of previously unpublished sources, this research examines the IstitutoSordomute Povere di Bologna, which celebrates its one hundred and seventy-ninth birthday this year, to analyse about its management and organisational aspects, as well as its pedagogical and didactic issues. By retracing the traces of its history, preserved in its archives, it is possible to put in evidence the socio-educational farsightedness with which it was conceived a structure that was able to mark a very important turning point in the Bolognese territory, introducing methods and approaches aimed at providing education, instruction and religious training to young deaf girls belonging to poor families from 6 to 14 years of age, saving them from social isolation, illiteracy and the dangers inherent in their destitute condition.

We are grateful to the following oral programs across the United States that identified participants and either submitted test results or facilitated our conducting the necessary testing: Auditory/Oral School of New York (Brooklyn, NY), Beth Israel Medical Center (New York, NY), Bolesta Center (Tampa, FL), Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22, Hearing Support Program (Doylestown, PA), Buffalo Hearing and Speech Center (Buffalo, NY), Concord Area Special Education Collaborative Speech, Hearing, Language Impaired Program (Concord, MA), Children's Choice for Hearing and Talking, CCHAT Center (Sacramento, CA), Charlotte Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Associates (Charlotte, NC), Child's Voice (Chicago, IL), Central Institute for the Deaf (St. Louis, MO), Clarke School East (Canton, MA), Clarke Jacksonville Auditory/Oral Center (Jacksonville, FL), The Clarke School for the Deaf (Northampton, MA), Clarke Pennsylvania Auditory/Oral Center (Bryn Mawr, PA), DePaul School for Hearing and Speech (Pittsburgh, PA), Desert Voices Oral Learning Center (Phoenix, AZ), Echo Horizon School (Culver City, CA), HEAR in New Hampshire (Hooksett, NH), Hearing Impaired Program (HIP) of Bergen County Special Services (Midland Park, NJ), John Tracy Clinic (Los Angeles, CA), June A. Reynolds, Inc., Auditory-Verbal Inclusion Program for Hearing Impaired Children (Beverly, MA), Jean Weingarten Peninsula Oral School for the Deaf (Redwood City, CA), Listen and Learn (San Jose, CA), Listen and Talk (Seattle, WA), Magnolia Speech School (Jackson, MS), Moog Center for Deaf Education (St. Louis, MO), The Moog School (Columbia, MO), Northern Voices (Roseville, MN), Ohio Valley Voices (Loveland, OH), Omaha Hearing School (Omaha, NE), Oralingua School for the Hearing Impaired (Whittier, CA), Orange County Auditory-Oral Program for the Hearing Impaired (Orlando, FL), St. Joseph's Institute for the Deaf (St. Louis, MO), St. Joseph's Institute for the Deaf at Carle (Urbana, IL), St. Joseph's Institute for the Deaf (Kansas City, KS), Summit Speech School (New Providence, NJ), Sunshine Cottage School for Deaf Children (San Antonio, TX), Tucker Maxon Oral School (Portland, OR), The Hearing Impaired Program of the School District of Waukesha (Waukesha, WI). We also thank the parents who granted permission for their child's results to be included in this database. Statistical analyses were conducted by Dr. Michael J. Strube, Psychology Department, Washington University (St. Louis, MO). These data were presented in April 2007 at the 11th Cochlear Implant Conference (Charlotte, NC). No conflicts of interest were reported. Correspondence should be sent to Ann Geers, 167 Rocky Knob Road, Clyde, NC 28721 (e-mail: ageers@earthlink.net).

Improving educational outcomes for d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh) students has long been a focus of d/Dhh education. This article reviews historical efforts to improve outcomes through specialized curriculum and instruction and explores the instructional needs of current d/Dhh students in light of the field’s evolving landscape. Evidence for historical and current curricula developed specifically for d/Dhh students, particularly in the areas of language and literacy, is systematically reviewed. While many of these curricula were developed for use in specialized classrooms and schools for the deaf, most d/Dhh learners are now educated in mainstream settings using the spoken language(s) of their local communities. The instructional needs of this growing population of d/Dhh students, including the need for systematic, evidence-based instruction in reading, are discussed. Finally, the current and future roles of teachers of the deaf in facilitating effective instruction for d/Dhh learners are explored.

The last sixty years have been a time of tumultuous change in the American deaf community. Two deaf figures who made a great difference during this period were Frank Bowe and Jack Gannon, who passed away in 2007 and 2022, respectively. Bowe was a prominent disability rights leader, helping to secure more rights for deaf and all disabled Americans, while Gannon helped to advance appreciation of deaf signing communities with his advocacy and several influential studies of deaf people who sign. Although they both lived in the second half of the twentieth century and knew each other, they had quite different lives, mostly because Bowe did not attend a school for deaf students or learn sign language until he was an adult, while Gannon grew up in the deaf community. Their memoirs offer a valuable way for us to investigate the details of recent deaf experience. The books illuminate not only Bowe and Gannon’s work to make the world a more just place for deaf people, but also the pressure they both experienced to adopt oralism, the importance of parents and educational placement, the liberating nature of sign language, and the move from deaf schools to educational mainstreaming. The memoirs also give differing perspectives on signing deaf people’s complicated relationship with concepts of disability, suggesting a way forward.

Mayer and Trezek offer a rejoinder to an article by Scott, Dostal, and Lane-Outlaw in which Scott et al. challenge the findings and conclusions of a literature review by Mayer and Trezek published in the Winter 2020 American Annals of the Deaf. Both the rejoinder and the article by Scott et al. appear in the Annals’ Spring 2021 issue. Mayer and Trezek reiterate the rationale and aims of their review, as well as the process for conducting it, emphasizing the need for empirical evidence to inform policy and practice in deaf education. They also address observations made in terms of (a) factors to be considered when generating or consuming research and (b) the nature of the search procedures that are used. Mayer and Trezek conclude by restating the findings of their review and the implications of these findings for the field moving forward.