Phonology, Phonologically Related Skills, and Reading for Deaf Students: Two Perspectives

The first two articles in this issue represent two quite different viewpoints on the development of reading proficiency in deaf students; they also highlight issues that require frank and open discussion and consideration as we search for more effective ways to provide deaf students appropriate tools for the acquisition of print literacy. For years there has been an undercurrent of disagreement about the teaching/ acquisition of literacy. In regular education the once dominant top-down whole language approach has been substantially replaced by a more elemental bottom-up approach that believes more concentration on phonemic awareness and phoneme-grapheme correspondence, at least at the beginning levels, is necessary for achieving fluency and proficiency in literacy. As most professionals are aware, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation strongly advocates such an approach.

For any number of reasons most deaf children are now taught through a regular education curriculum or a modification of one. This includes many children in center school programs that have modified their curricula to accommodate NCLB testing requirements. The obvious question arises as to the extent, if any, to which phonological-related skills are necessary for instruction of deaf students.

The impetus for the present exchange comes from an article, “The Role of Phonology and Phonologically Related Skills to Reading Instruction for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing” by Wang, Trezek, Luckner, and Paul (2008) that appeared in the American Annals of the Deaf. In order to have a fuller understanding of the exchanges in this issue, I strongly advise readers to review the original article first. In that article, operating under a “qualitative-similarity” hypothesis (the idea that reading for deaf students is quantitatively delayed but qualitatively similar), Wang, et al. argue that phonology is critical for learning about the alphabetic system for all students, including deaf students who may have limited or no access to it. They provide a literature review to support their position, along with supporting research with deaf students, typically involving visual phonics and direct instruction.

Allen, Clark, Guidice, Koo, Lieberman, Mayberry, and Miller respond in this issue of the Annals that phonology is not necessary for the acquisition of literacy in deaf children; phonology can be bypassed through alternate visual pathways. In their rejoinder in this issue of the Annals, Paul, Wang, Trebek, and Luckner respond to the criticism and reiterate their support for the need for phonologically related skills,

For one of the very few times in my career, I will refrain from offering my own opinion, at least for the present. I hope this is the beginning of an extended dialogue—or multilogue—on the development of print literacy in deaf children. Since, as noted before, we seem to be coming out of a period in which whole language instruction was dominant, we are in need of a new paradigm or paradigms. I would like to see a model—or models—of reading proficiency through visual learning bypassing phonology explicated and subject to examination in the very near future. The results of consideration of competing hypotheses, hopefully supported by research, could only be beneficial for deaf students.