In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

245 9 Conclusion: Reflections and Directions All intelligent thoughts have already been thought; what is necessary is only to try to think them again. —Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe The qualitative similarity hypothesis (QSH) is not a novel construct—whether it (as well as other developmental similarity models) qualifies as one of the “intelligent thoughts” that should be reexamined is left to the judgment of our readers and the community of researchers and theorists invested in exploring the development of English language and English literacy. To minimize misinterpretations and to obtain an adequate understanding of the QSH, we emphasize that there are macro and micro subconstructs, which should be discussed and investigated separately as well as in unison. In this chapter, we summarize the salient tenets of the QSH with respect to the development of English language and literacy, particularly in d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh) children and adolescents and in other children who are labeled as struggling readers and writers. We highlight the theoretical background of the QSH and relate this to the constructs of disciplinary structure (or knowledge) and critical period. Then, we proceed with the research and educational implications for developing English language and literacy skills. Much of this synthesis is based on the information that has been presented in Chapters 1 to 7. With this springboard, we respond to the gist of several selective remarks in the essays of the reactants in Chapter 8. Areas of agreement are reflective of the complexity and viability of the QSH and the need for further research within the micro and macro components. We argue that the points of disagreement or dissensions are mostly due to a lingering misunderstanding of some of our assertions, as noted also in one of the reactants’ essays (Mokhtari & Reichard, Chapter 8). However, a few of the dissensions are also due to differences emerging from epistemological and metaphysical underpinnings, as per our interpretations of selected statements from 246 Chapter 9 the other reactant’s essay (Bloome, Chapter 8). These different world views or mental frameworks—if not addressed carefully—can lead to unproductive debates and limited progress in the understanding, development, and improvement of English for all children (e.g., Noddings, 2007; Pring, 2004; Ritzer, 2001). In the last section of this chapter, we proffer directions for further research on the merits of the QSH in light of research on other similar constructs (e.g., Stanovich’s developmental lag hypothesis [e.g., 1988]). Despite the caveats inherent in the degraded input hypotheses associated with the use of English signing and cochlear implants (e.g., LaSasso, Crain, & Leybaert, 2010; Leybaert & LaSasso, 2010), we agree with Mayer and Leigh (2010) that future researchers and scholars need to work with an evolving cohort of d/Dhh children and adolescents who possess demographics that are quite different from those of the previous cohorts due to advancements in technology (i.e., early detection and amplification) and early intervention programs. With respect to further research, this range of demographics in the new cohort of d/Dhh students will influence the contents of debates on the meanings of the word d/Deaf (e.g., Paul & Moores, 2010, 2012a) and cause the line of demarcation between deaf and hard of hearing to become blurry and, possibly, indistinguishable. In addition, there will be controversial and varying interpretations of the question “Can it be a good thing to be deaf?” (e.g., Cooper, 2012), especially when comparing the achievement levels associated with English language and literacy of d/Dhh students to those of peers who are typical learners. Of course, as we argued in Chapter 7, these assertions will become clear only if investigators employ sophisticated operational sample descriptions (within reason!) and research designs that take into account the multifaceted components of English language and English literacy. In essence, it should be possible to develop effective or evidence-based practices, most likely on the individual level, with guidance from research findings on the group level. In our view, effective practices are dependent on the viability of the development of individual profiles. REFLECTIONS ON THE QUALITATIVE SIMILARITY HYPOTHESIS It is no simple feat to evaluate the merits of the QSH—which is no different from the controversies associated with the assessments of other complex constructs, some of which might have a slippery or ill-structured nature (e.g., Flavell, 1985; Paul, & Moores, 2010, 2012a; see also the discussions for reading constructs in Cartwright, 2009; Paris & Hamilton, 2009). In fact, complex constructs are always difficult...

Share