1. Decoding 2. Fluency 3. Vocabulary 4. Reading comprehension 5. Higher order thinking skills (HOTS)1For students who have access to linguistic information through listening, the team should also consider listening comprehension needs. Often students will demonstrate comprehension of what they have heard at a higher grade level while they continue to work on improving grade level reading comprehension skills.2 It is also important to look at the accommodations page of the IEP and document anything the team agrees will support the student. Following are some examples of possible accommodations that may be added to the IEP:
1. Directions interpreted, read out loud, simplified, or clarified 2. Questions and answer choices interpreted or read out loud 3. Pre- and Post-teaching of key concepts and vocabulary 4. Development of a student generated vocabulary book 5. Opportunity to use pictures to define vocabulary words 6. Text to speech captioning or audio booksFor all children, regardless of level of hearing loss, research has shown that “early cognitive and linguistic development predict later achievement.”3 The results of Betty Hart and Todd Risley’s 1995 study3 can be extremely effective in helping the IEP team members understand the importance of on-going and intensive attention to addressing all aspects of literacy. Hart and Risley studied children from 7 months to the age of 3 in order to determine how many words they were exposed to prior to entering school. This was not a special education study. Participants were divided by socio-economic status, and what was found was a 30 million word gap between the lowest socio-economic group and the highest socioeconomic group. Specifically, the higher socio-economic group were exposed to 45 million words, the middle socio-economic group heard 26 million words, and the children in the low socio-economic group heard 13 million words. These numbers resonate with educators who are not experts in teaching children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Additionally, these researchers followed up with approximately half of the families when their children were in 3rd grade. The results indicated that “measures of accomplishment at age three were highly indicative of performance at the ages of nine and ten on various vocabulary, language development, and reading comprehension measures.”4 For the IEP teams to understand the unique needs of our children with hearing loss, as well as the potential, we must continue to educate the educators. Teams should continuously gather actual data separate and apart from the grade reports. Parents and teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing can help to support the other IEP team members regarding the importance of closing this language gap for students with hearing loss. No matter which mode of communication the family has chosen, it is imperative that teams continue to address all levels of the foundations for reading, work to close the gaps, and provide meaningful access to language. Sample Goals:
- Vocabulary – Baseline: STUDENT displays some difficulty when listening in environments with background noise and/or multi-talker babble. STUDENT is able to demonstrate discrimination of close-set vocabulary and short passages in the presence of background noise with 65% accuracy. Goal: By DATE, STUDENT will be able to demonstrate discrimination of close-set vocabulary and short passages in an environment with background noise or multi-talker babble with 80% accuracy as measured by teacher charted data.
- Reading comprehension – Baseline: STUDENT is able to answer who was in the story with 70% accuracy. She is struggling to retell basic details about the story when prompted with 45% accuracy. Goal: By DATE, STUDENT will be able to answer basic who, what, when, and where questions about a story that has been read to her with 80% accuracy in 3 out of 4 trials as measured by teacher created assessments and work samples
- Higher order thinking skills (HOTS) – Baseline: After reading grade level passages, STUDENT is able to demonstrate mastery of basic WH questions with 80% accuracy. However, when asked to respond to questions that do not involve concrete details (ie: make predictions, inferences, and identify cause and effect, (s)he is only able to respond with 44% accuracy. Goal: By DATE, after independently reading a grade level passage, STUDENT will demonstrate an understanding of HOTS (ie: prediction, inference, and cause and effect) by responding to open-ended questions with 80% accuracy as measured by work samples and teacher charted data.
- 1. www.readingrockets.org/article/higher-order-thinking
- 2. https://www.theliteracybug.com/stages-of-literacy
- 3. NELP Report: Developing Early Literacy (2009). Summary from Reading Rockets.
- 4. The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3″ by. University of Kansas researchers Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley (2003). Summary
- Phonemic awareness: Reliant on ability to perform fine auditory discrimination, including high frequency hearing
- Phonics: Reliant on ability to clearly hear the sound/letter associations to be able to compare/contrast
- Vocabulary development: Reliant primarily on incidental learning and exposure through having been read to by family
- Reading fluency, including oral reading skills: Requires appropriate intonation, pronunciation, ‘instant’ phonics recognition, understanding of syntax and punctuation, knowledge of wide range of vocabulary, etc.
- Reading comprehension strategies: Relies on understanding story grammar, being able to take the perspectives of other (Theory of Mind), broad vocabulary, understanding of multiple meaning words, figurative language, idioms, etc.
- Reading comprehension difficulties of children with hearing loss may be poorer than predicted from word-reading skills. There is a need to examine BOTH the word reading and reading comprehension for stories that are within the child’s word-reading ability.
- Children with hearing loss may be especially poor at integrating their outside knowledge with information in the texts. They are likely to benefit from guidance when answering inference questions to help them use more efficient comprehension strategies and encourage them to incorporate different sources of information.
- Word meanings and the meaningful parts of words (morphology).
- How to infer word meanings from context and structure.
- How to untangle the complex syntax of sentences.
- How to interpret the cohesive links across a text.
- How to identify and interpret the organizational plan or structure of a text and how to use this organization as a memory aid.
- How to interpret an author’s tone.
- How to use (and not overuse) one’s knowledge to help make sense of a text.
- How to summarize text information effectively.
- How to monitor one’s comprehension — recognizing whether understanding is taking place and taking appropriate action if it is not.
- How to rehearse text information so that it is remembered/learned.
- How to interpret the graphic elements of texts (e.g., illustrations, charts, graphs, tables).
- To develop the reading stamina required for understanding longer texts.
- To recognize what a text says and what it does not.
- How to compare and combine information appropriately from multiple texts.
Good versus Poor Readers: Before, During, and After Reading2
|GOOD READERS||POOR READERS|
|-Use test features (e.g., headings, illustrations) to get a sense of what they will read and help themselves set a purpose for reading. -Set goals and ask questions that will help them be selective in the focus of their reading. -Consider what they already know about the topic. -Observe how text is organized, which prepares them to make connections between and among concepts.||-Begin reading without a purpose for reading. -Do not consider (or do not have) background knowledge about the topic. -Do not recognize how text is organized and therefore do not have a plan for how to approach reading it. -Lack motivation or interest in reading.|
|-Read fluently (quickly and accurately) and use word identification strategies to decode unfamiliar words. -Use strategies (i.e., context clues, prior knowledge) to figure out the meaning of vocabulary and concepts. -Recognize and use text structures to make connections between the meanings of sentences and/or concepts. -Ask and answer questions while they are reading. -Make predictions about what will happen next and evaluate their predictions as they read further. -May make mental images of what they are reading to help them visualize what they read. -Identify the main ideas as they read to determine what is important, what is supportive, and what is less important. -Monitor their reading by recognizing comprehension problems and using fix-up strategies to repair their understanding.||-Have difficulty decoding words, particularly multisyllable words, resulting in slow labored reading that detracts focus from comprehension. Laborious reading is also likely to result in frustration and a desire to just “get it done.” -Have limited vocabulary and lack strategies to figure out new words. -May not have background knowledge of the topic of the text, which impedes their ability to make connections between the text and what they already know. -Do not recognize text structures. -Move through the text, even if they do not understand what they have read. -May be easily distracted because they are not actively engaged with the text. -Are not aware when comprehension has broken down and/or lack strategies to repair comprehension problems when they do.|
|-Reflect on content that was read. -Summarize important points from the reading. -Draw inferences. -May go to other sources to clarify concepts they did not understand. -Believe success is a result of effort.||-Do not use strategies to reflect on reading. -Cannot summarize important points. -Do not seek out information to help them understand what they read. -Think success is a result of luck or some other external variable rather than strategic effort.|
- 1. Shanahan, T. (2017). If you really want higher test scores: Rethink reading comprehension instruction. Website link to blog.
- 2. Kyle, F.E., & Cain, K. (2015). A comparison of deaf and hearing children’s reading comprehension profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 35(2), 144-156. Link to PDF
- 3. Berkeley, S. & Barber, A.T. (2014). Maximizing Effectiveness of Reading Comprehension Instruction in Diverse Classroom. Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Baltimore, MD. Link to book source
- 4. Narr, R.A.F. (2006). Teaching phonological awareness with deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Teaching Exceptional Children, Mar/Apr, 53-58. Link to PDF
- 5. Antunez, B. (2002). English language learners and the five essential components of reading instruction. Website link to blog.
- 6. Koppenhaver, D.A. & Wollak, B.A. (2014). Morphemic decoding instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Reading Forum Yearbook, 34, 1-14.
- 7. Bow, C.P., Blamey, P.J., Paatsch, L.E., & Sarant, J.Z. (2004). The effects of phonological and morphological training on speech perception scores and grammatical judgments in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9,(3), 305-314. Link to abstract
- 8. Cannon, J.E. & Kirby, S. (2013). Grammar structures and d3eaf and hard of hearing students: A review of past performance and a report of new findings. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 292-310. Link to abstract
- 9. Dunaway, A. (2017). Content literacy in students with hearing loss: Vocabulary is key. Link to blog
- 10. New Mexico School for the Deaf. Educational Strategies that Work with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Link to PDF of PowerPoint presentation
- 1. Listening to a degraded signal (noise, distance, audio recordings, videos)
- 1. Following class discussion
- 2. Following and participating in a conversation with a partner or small group with other small groups also conversing
- 3. Understanding verbal directions without visual support in the presence of noise (i.e., playground, PE, assemblies)
- 4. Auditory comprehension when listening to a recording or computer voice
- 2. Social Communication
- 1. Independently initiating conversations with peers during unstructured times
- 2. Joining an existing conversation and maintaining topic not of their choosing
- 3. Explaining their hearing loss and/or accommodations to familiar/unfamiliar adults and/or peers
- 4. Communication repair when they are not understood
- 5. Asking for clarification when they do not understand their communication partner
- 3. Self-Advocacy
- 1. Care and maintenance of hearing assistance technology (i.e., hearing devices)
- 2. Consistent use of hearing assistance technology
- 3. Using appropriate language to report when hearing technology is not working, needs to be turned on, or needs to be muted
- 4. Understanding and asking for accommodations as appropriate for grade level (this can grow over time)
- 5. Independently asking for clarification of directions/assignments/discussions in an age appropriate manner
- Howey, Patrica (2016). Good Grades: Does My Child Still Need Special Instruction? https://www.wrightslaw.com/nltr/16/nl.0607.htm
- Tiredness in Deaf Children http://www.ndcs.org.uk/family_support/education_for_deaf_children/education_during_school_years/tiredness.html
- Johnson, C., DesGeroges, J., Seaver, L. (2013). Educational Advocacy for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: The Hands & Voices Guidebook. Chapter 3: A Question of Eligibility.
- Forest Grove School District v. T.A. www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.forest.grove.ta.pdf
- Anderson, K. L. (2014). Supporting Success for Children with Hearing Loss https://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/I-know-he-can-hear-me-handout-for-teachers.pdf
- Anderson, K. L. (2017). The Cascading Impact of Hearing Loss: https://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/The-Cascading-Impact-of-Hearing-Loss2.pdf
- Ironic criticisms (intended to rebuke; e.g., ‘You look fantastic’ said to someone who looks disheveled)
- Why is verbal irony so difficult for children with hearing loss?Ironic compliments (intended to praise; e.g., ‘You look horrible’ said to someone who looks stunning)
- Hyperbole (saying more than is intended; e.g., ‘Yeah, he’s the most talented person on the planet’ to communicate that someone’s talent is modest)
- Understatement (saying less than is intended; e.g., ‘You can tell he’s upset’ said about someone displaying rage to communicate that the discontent is obvious)
- Rhetorical questions (e.g., ‘How many times do I have to tell you to stop?’)
- Offerings (e.g., ‘Have another slice of cake’ to someone who has already eaten most of it)
- Over-polite requests (e.g., ‘Would you mind very much if I asked you to consider cleaning your room sometime this year?’ to a slovenly housemate)
- Speakers sometimes use an ‘ironic tone of voice’ (slow speaking rate, heavy stress, lower pitch) as a cue to irony. Visual cues can also signal irony (e.g., facial expression, body language).
- Irony can be delivered in a completely deadpan style (no vocal or facial/body cues)
- More general humor detection and appreciation
- Distinguishing irony from other forms of non-literal language (e.g., lies, proverbs, metaphor, idioms)
- Understanding emotional display rules (e.g., smiling when you receive a disappointing gift; showing amusement when you feel embarrassed)
- Understanding ‘self-conscious’ emotions (e.g., embarrassment, pride, guilt; these also require sophisticated metacognition)
- Social common knowledge (again, understanding what members of a society ‘just know’ and expect everyone else to know too: e.g., there are cat people and dog people; kids would rather eat ice cream than clean their rooms. Everyone just knows this ‘stuff’!)
- Sensitive, reliable, valid, and nationally-normed assessment of a broad range of Theory of Mind Competency areas (READ MORE)
- Electronically generated reports (EXAMPLE) which provide a list of likely developmentally appropriate treatment target for each client
- Access to the Theory of Mind Atlas: an educational resource that explains a broad range of Theory of Mind area (what it is, when it develops, and how it is disrupted in different clinical populations including HEARING LOSS). To register for free access to the Atlas, GO HERE.
- Downloadable Treatment Materials (see the Materials Room!) to address wide range of Theory of Mind targets
- 1. Peterson, C., Wellman, H.M., & Slaughter, V. (2012). The mind behind the message: advancing theory of mind scales for typically developing children and those with deafness, autism, or Asperger syndrome. Child Development, 83, 469–485
- 2. O’Reilly, K., Peterson, C., & Wellman, H. (2014). Sarcasm and advanced theory of mind understanding in children and adults with prelingual deafness. Developmental Psychology, 50(7), 1862-1877.
- 3. Gibbs, R. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor & Symbol, 15, 5-27.
- 4. Hancock, J. (2004). Verbal irony use in computer-mediated and face-to-face conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 447-463.
- 5. Peterson, C., O’Reilly, K., & Wellman, H. (2016). Deaf and hearing children’s development of theory of mind, peer popularity, and leadership during middle childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 149, 146-158.
- 6. Peterson, C., Slaughter, V., Moore, C., & Wellman, H. (2016). Peer social skills and theory of mind in children with autism, deafness, or typical development. Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 46-57.
- 7. Gregory, S., Bishop, J., & Sheldon, L. (1995). Deaf young people and their families. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 8. Banasik, N. (2013). Non-literal speech comprehension in preschool children: An example from a study on verbal irony. Psychology of Language and Communication, 17(3), 309-323).
- 9. Peterson, C., & Seigal, M. (1995). Deafness, conversation, and theory of mind. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 36(3), 459-474.
- 10. Richels, C., Bobzien, J., Raver, S., Schwartz, K., Hester, P., & Reed, L. (2014). Teaching emotion words using social stories and created experiences in a group instruction with preschoolers who are deaf of hard of hearing: An exploratory study. Deafness & Education International, 16(1), 37-58.
- 11. Wellman, H., & Peterson, C. (2013). Deafness, thought bubbles and theory-of-mind development. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2357-2367.
- 12. Hutchins, T., Prelock, P., & Bonazinga, L. (2016). Technical Manual for the Theory of Mind Inventory-2 (ToMI-2). Available at theoryofmindinventory.com