Amy R. Lederberg Educational Psychology & Special Education Georgia State University

1. The Development of an Emergent Literacy Curriculum for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Amy R. Lederberg Educational Psychology & Special EducationGeorgia State University Presentation at IES Washington, DC June 2008

2. Three Year IES Development GrantResearch Team • Amy Lederberg, Educational Psychologist • Susan Easterbrooks, Deaf Educator/Teacher Educator • Carol Connor, Literacy Specialist, Speech Pathologist • Elizabeth Miller, Teacher of the Deaf, 16 years • Jessica Bergeron, Teacher of the Deaf, 5 years • Paul Alberto, SS Design Consultant

3. Overview • Year 1 • Developed framework • Standardized assessments in fall and spring to establish baseline • Single-subject study of phonics • Year 2 • Year-long implementation of curriculum by research-teacher in small groups (pull-out) • Replication of SS study of phonics • SS study of rhyming

4. Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children • Poor readers • Graduate at 4th grade reading level (median) • No specific curriculum for them except one based on “whole language principles” • New generation of children with more access to sound • Early identification (newborn screening) • Early Intervention • Cochlear implants and digital hearing aids

5. Year 1 Baseline • Assessment of language, literacy, speech perception skills of 50 deaf children in self-contained classrooms in large metro area at beginning and end of the year • Data confirmed children delayed in phonological awareness (especially rhyming), phonics, and vocabulary. • 75% of deaf/hard of hearing children were able to identify spoken words—target population for our curriculum

6. Guiding Principles of Curriculum Development Begin with research on what works for hearing children Adapt it to the special needs of deaf children Individualize to meet the needs of particular children

7. Intervention • One hour integrated lessons four days a week by research-teachers • Phonics: letter-sound correspondence • Vocabulary • Phonological Awareness: segmentation, initial sound, rhyming, and blending • Print Awareness • Fluency • Comprehension: narrative understanding

8. Phoneme-grapheme correspondences are taught by making a semantic connection through stories, pictures and extended language activities. Planning for the Language Activity Phonics: Day One

9. Phonics: Day Two Sounds are presented and practiced in isolation in a meaningful vocabulary-enriched language activity.

10. Phonics concepts are reinforced through recall of the language activity and phonological awareness activities. Recall Phonics: Day Three

11. Phonics: Day Four Letter –sound correspondence is reinforced through Phoneme Fun books on days 2 & 4. Students learn to combine learned phonemes to make key words.

12. Year 1: Study 1 *Study 1 used the stories and key words from Children’s Early Intervention (CEI) for Speech – Language – Reading (Tade, 1994). • Single case design to test the efficacy of phonics instruction using semantic association instructional strategy • Multiple baseline across content • 8 weeks long • Three (5,6, & 7 year olds) children at state school for the deaf (ASL in classroom) • Two 4 year olds at oral private preschool • All able to identify spoken words on the Early Speech Perception Test

13. What sound does this letter make? DV: Number correct of phoneme-grapheme associations produced from 3 exemplars Baseline Phase: Assessed 8 graphemes Intervention Phase (daily assessment): 3 trials of target phoneme and any previously taught phonemes until reached criterion (4 consecutive days at 100%) Probes (weekly): the same as baseline Maintenance Probes: probes continued to contain all graphemes m Phonics: Dependent Variable

14. m • 6 year old male from the State School for the Deaf, uses speech supported sign language to communicate; bilateral hearing aids, severe sensorineural hearing loss b t s p

15. Summary of Results- Study 1 • Baseline established children knew almost all (long) vowels prior to intervention; occasional consonant. • All children showed a strong functional relation for learning previously unknown correspondences (on average 5 graphemes) • All unknown phoneme-grapheme correspondences at 100% after an average of 4.5 sessions (range 1.6-7.2) • % of overlapping data (POD) averaged across children equaled 28% for the consonants

16. Study 2 • Same phonics instructional strategy; embedded in hour/day integrated curriculum • Five 4-year-olds at oral preschool, all with cochlear implants • All able to identify spoken words on the Early Speech Perception Test • Same assessments as study 1 but less frequently (Bi-weekly instructional assessment; probes every two weeks) • 6 week study; focused on 6 phonemes (included vowels and consonants)

17. 4.5 year old female, unaided PTA=110 (profound hearing loss), Cochlear implant m e b o t n

18. Summary of Results- Study 2 • Replicated Study 1 findings • All children reached 100% (3 out of 3) for unknown phoneme-grapheme correspondences after an average of 2.7 sessions (range = 2 to 4). • % of overlapping data (POD) for all 5 children averaged to 24% for the consonants • Incorporated assessment into fluency chart (after instruction)

19. Rhyming • Using Single Subject Design as a Guide to Lesson Development Mr. Fox & His Rhyming Box

20. Rhyming • Assessments indicated deaf children very poor at rhyming—more than half unable to identify rhymes • Rhyming age-appropriate skill for 4-year-olds so cognitively should be able to acquire

21. Rhyming: Design • Planned an ABC Design • A: Baseline • B: Exposure to nursery rhymes, fingerplays, and rhyming books • C: Explicit teaching • Multiple Baseline Across Participants

22. Rhyming DV: identify which of three pictured words rhymes with the target picture

23. Rhyming: Baseline A small group of two participants with cochlear implants.

24. Rhyming : Intervention One Nursery Rhyme Exposure • Students were engaged in nursery rhymes, songs and fingerplays and rhyming books on a daily basis with rhyming words pointed out by the teacher. Visual support was provided with pictures. Ex: “Listen, ‘sky’ and ‘eye’ rhyme.”

25. Rhyming: Intervention One Data Dates

26. Rhyming: Intervention Two • A: Baseline • B: Explicit instructions with visually-supported rhyming activities (principles used for other phonological awareness activities) • Students were given multiple opportunities to work with rhyming picture pairs in various activities during which rhymes and rimes were pointed out with explicit language. Ex: “wig” and “pig” rhyme. They have the same sounds at the end. “wig –ig, pig –ig.” Students were encouraged to repeat the rhymes. “Wig – pig, they rhyme.”

27. Rhyming: Intervention Two

28. “moon – spoon” “moon – spoon” “moon – snake” Rhyming : Intervention Three Families and Contrast with Auditory Emphasis • Prior knowledge of “go together” was built upon with the idea that we can “hear” words that go together. Students were then given opportunities to work with rhyme families and pairs with a strong emphasis on listening. Contrast was used to teach the concept of rhyme through many of the activities.

29. Rhyming: Intervention Three

30. Three more students in Interventions Two and Three. Sue and Mary made significant progress in the final intervention. Viki showed a slight improvement but was not greater than chance.

31. Rhyming Results • Ended with a pilot study that guided intervention • The final intervention phase was successful with four of the five participants each at a mean for the last three assessments above 90%. • An actual study using the last intervention is planned for the fall.

32. Challenges for using SS designs • Time for assessment vs. time for intervention • Integrated curriculum makes it difficult to precisely define IV