|
|
|
|
Reading Results so far One of the major concerns for educators has been the achievements of all children in reading. It has always been seen as the key to the child’s access to society. It is also related to learning and that is the fundamental objective of education. For deaf children, the learning of readings even more important. So what are the results on reading? Again the most thorough study of this was carried out by Conrad(1979) - it is probably still valid despite some claims otherwise. The results are now well known. He reported them more positively than they actually were. Fifty percent of deaf children who have a profound loss are unable to read at the base level of a test of comprehension. This result applies at the end of their schooling and is not improved when they leave school (Kyle and Pullen, 1984). Those children who are partially hearing have reading ages which are higher - about 50% over 11 years of age in reading. But the general picture is of very poor reading skill. Claimed results by Lewis (1996 in the UK are that deaf children in the aural method, have progressed in reading since Conrad’s time, and are reading much better. However, the work is critiqued in a thorough review by Powers et al (1998) and there is some doubt as to the representative ness of the sample in comparison to Conrad’s study of 460 deaf children. Most studies on reading report considerable deficits for deaf children. We can see the same result in the USA. The results from Wolk and Schildroth(1986) show that although reading seems to improve at the beginning, it gradually tails off. Figure 1 is adapted from the results of Kyle(1980). It is designed to show the pattern and is not meant to be exact. However, the point is simple although deaf children may start out ahead of hearing children in reading, they are soon overtaken and then go further and further behind. Reading comprehension does not develop at all. A more recent review by Powers, Gregory and Thoutenhoofd (1998) concludes that there is no evidence for improvement in reading performance over the last 20 years - despite the claims of studies reported by Lewis(1996) and others who promote a oral or natural aural approach. As Webster (1999) points out in the same context of a review of Deaf reading, the oralist argument has been bolstered by new technologies in hearing aids, cochlear implants and educational practices in mainstreaming (thus making it harder to determine nationally, who well Deaf children read). It seems clear that the children not only fail in spoken language but are unable to master the key to information - reading. Why? Sometimes we believe the answer to these sort of questions to be complicated. It is true that there are some deaf children who seem to overcome all obstacles and do learn to read at an acceptable standard. However, there are a number of simple factors at fault. First, instruction is in English - spoken and written. This is the very language with which the child has difficulty and so it is not surprising that the child does not read well. Second, the reading materials are often presented as tasks in speech. The child has to read aloud the text. Interestingly, this produces a problem in recall and does not help the deaf child as it seems to help the hearing child. Third, hearing children seem to use a different code in their reading. This code comes from the memory process. |
Back to MLEDC
homepage |
