_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

June 29 2016 17:02
_______________________________________________________________

29 June 2016

ProQuest

Table of contents
1. Young deaf children's response to picture book reading in a preschool setting........................................... 1

29 June 2016

ii

ProQuest

Document 1 of 1

Young deaf children's response to picture book reading in a preschool setting

Author: Williams, Cheri L; McLean, Mari M
ProQuest document link
Full text: Headnote
The purpose of this study was to examine profoundly deaf children's responses to picture book reading in a
preschool setting and to compare those responses to the responses of hearing children as documented in the
research literature. Given their profound deafness, the children's language development was severely delayed,
and the researchers explored the deaf children's responses to literature in light of their language delay. The
primary data sources were videotapes of (1) the children's responses to the oral and signed reading of picture
books by the classroom teacher and (2) the children's exploration of picture books during free-choice reading
sessions in both the classroom and school libraries. Results of the study demonstrated both that, despite severe
language delay, the deaf children's responses to picture book reading events were very similar to hearing
children's responses, and that the deaf children were learning a great deal about what reading is and how it is
accomplished through these picture book reading events. The study suggests implications of response to
literature as a pedagogical approach for literacy learning and teaching in classrooms for children who are deaf.
For years now, both the educational community and the general population have believed that reading to young
children is beneficial. Early childhood and elementary school teachers regularly schedule classroom story time,
and for generations parents have read to their children at bedtime. Researchers have advocated these
practices and have contributed to the perception that they will support young children's literacy development. In
fact, as an aspect of young children's literacy experience, storybook reading has received more research
attention than any other (Sulzby &Teale, 1991).
With this focus on storybook reading, young children's response to picture books and stories has become a new
area of research. Early studies suggest that young children's responses to storybook reading reveal what
children understand about story and about written language as well as their efforts to construct meaning from
text. The research also suggests that context influences children's responses and that teachers can do a great
deal to foster young children's response to literature (Applebee, 1978; Cochran-Smith, 1984; Hickman, 1979,
1981; Kiefer, 1983; Morrow, 1988; Roser &Martinez, 1985).
Although a growing body of research has examined how young hearing children respond to and construct
meaning while listening to stories read aloud, very few studies have addressed young deaf children's response
to literature. Several researchers have explored picture book reading between deaf mothers and their deaf
children in the home (Andrews &Taylor, 1987; Lartz &Lestina, 1995), but these studies focused primarily on the
strategies mothers used to engage their children in shared reading events. Other researchers have explored
picture book reading in school settings (Ewoldt &Saulnier, 1995; Mather, 1987, 1989; Ramsey, 1996; Schick
&Gale, 1995), but, as with the home-based studies, these investigations have focused primarily on teachers'
strategies and/or the use of American Sign Language or English during picture book reading and storytelling.
None of these studies systematically examined the children's personal responses to picture books or stories
that were read.
The purpose of this study was to examine profoundly deaf children's response to picture book reading in a
preschool setting in order to document the range of responses deaf children demonstrate when they are given
opportunities to respond freely to stories read aloud. Given their profound deafness and the subsequent lack of
immersion in language during their early childhood years, the children's language development was severely
delayed. Thus, we explored their responses to literature in the context of their severe language delay. We
focused on (1) the children's responses to the oral and signed reading of picture books by the classroom
29 June 2016

Page 1 of 21

ProQuest

teacher, and (2) the children's responses to independent and social explorations of picture books during freechoice reading sessions in both the classroom and school libraries. We then compared the deaf children's
responses to the responses of hearing children as documented in the current research literature. We also
explored the procedures the classroom teacher used to facilitate the children's response. The study was part of
a larger, qualitative investigation of emergent literacy development in young children who were profoundly deaf
(Williams, 1994). The research literature on reader response theory and pedagogy provided a framework for the
analysis reported here; hence, we begin with an overview of the major tenets underlying this approach to literary
study.
Theoretical Framework
Reader response theory emphasizes the importance of the reader and the act of reading in literary
interpretation. The reader response theory most associated with current classroom practice is the transactional
theory described by Rosenblatt (1978). As Purves (1994) notes, this theory is commonly referred to as
"response to literature," a multiple-meaning term that "has come to describe, first, a way of understanding the
particular nature of reading stories, poems, plays, and other literary works; second, a series of research studies
that have examined what people have said or written during or after reading literary texts; and third, a
pedagogical approach to literature in the classroom" (p. 1043).
As a way of understanding the nature of reading, Rosenblatt's (1983) transactional theory (hereafter referred to
as response to literature) looks at reading as a transaction between a reader and a text. The meaning readers
derive from a text is the result of their prior experiences and knowledge, both worldly and textual, interacting
with the words of that text and the characters and events described by those words. Rosenblatt (1982) sums up
this transaction as "a two-way process, involving a reader and text at a particular time under particular
circumstances" (p. 268), emphasizing that both the reader and the text make a contribution to a particular and
unique construction of meaning that Rosenblatt (1978) named "the poem." Because meaning is constructed, it
is influenced by the conditions of the moment, so that a reader might read the same text again and construct a
slightly different meaning and have a slightly different reaction, or response, to the text at the time of the second
reading.
It is important to note that Rosenblatt's (1978) concept of the transaction does not equate with the response:
The response is the way the reader feels as a result of the transaction. Further, Rosenblatt believes that
responses range along a continuum, from the efferent to the aesthetic. Efferent response is more closely
associated with reading done primarily to gain information, such as textbook reading. Aesthetic response, a far
more emotional response than efferent, is associated with the reading of literature. It is the aesthetic response
that is the basis for the pedagogical practices linked to response to literature. Rarely, however, is any given
response purely efferent or aesthetic; it is often a combination of both types in differing degrees.
As a pedagogical approach, response to literature is ideally suited to holistic literacy approaches to teaching
and learning. The philosophy guiding such approaches emphasizes the individual learner's background
knowledge and experience for making connections in the classroom and sees the child as an active participant
in the construction of meaning. As Fish (1980) and Purves (1994) note, the establishment of a learning
community is considered an integral part of the construction of meaning because social expectations and
conventions strongly influence the ways in which the individual makes meaning.
Pedagogically, response to literature has been used and researched in high school classrooms for a number of
years. Indeed, Rosenblatt (1983) advocated a response-like approach to teaching literature in high school as
early as 1938. Response for older students involves reading a text, articulating a response to it (most commonly
through talk or writing), and, most importantly, sharing that response with others. It is the sharing of response
that can enhance students' self-knowledge and confidence, as well as help them to gain a greater appreciation
for the similarities and differences within a community (Beach &Hynds, 1991; Probst, 1988; Purves, Rogers,
&Soter, 1995). For meaningful sharing of response to take place, the teacher must be a skilled and sensitive
29 June 2016

Page 2 of 21

ProQuest

discussion leader who is able to probe, support, and validate students' efforts (Probst, 1988; Purves, 1994;
Rosenblatt, 1983).
Despite the interest in response to literature as a pedagogical practice for older students, young children's
response to literature received limited attention until Hickman's pioneering studies. In her initial investigation,
Hickman (1979) demonstrated the value of Rosenblatt's work to teachers and researchers of young children,
and she detailed how response to literature among children is both similar to and different from response
among adolescents and young adults.
Hickman (1981, p. 346) developed seven categories to classify the response activities occurring in the three
elementary classrooms that she studied. Briefly, Hickman described these categories as follows: (1) listening
behaviors, characterized by body stances, laughter and applause, exclamations, and joining in refrains; (2)
contact with books, including browsing, showing intent attention, and keeping books at hand; (3) acting on the
impulse to share, such as reading together and sharing discoveries; (4) oral responses, such as retelling,
storytelling, discussion statements, and free comments; (5) actions and drama, including echoing the action,
demonstrating meaning, dramatic play, and both child-initiated and teacher-initiated drama; (6) making things,
such as pictures and related art work, three-dimensional art and construction, and miscellaneous products (e.g.,
games, displays, collections, cookery); and (7) writing, including restating and summarizing, writing about
literature, using literary models deliberately, and using unrecognized models and sources. Using these seven
categories as a guiding frame, Hickman demonstrated the range of responses young children exhibit when they
are provided opportunities to respond freely to stories read aloud.
According to Hickman (1979, 1981), the social context significantly affects the type and quality of young
children's response to literature: Children must be given the opportunity to select books, and they must be
allowed to select from a variety of response modes. As with older students, the skill with which an adult
participant guides and facilitates young children's response sharing has also been shown by researchers to be
a crucial factor in the success of the response to literature pedagogy (Hickman, 1983; Hill, 1985; Roser
&Martinez, 1985). For very young children (those in preschool, kindergarten, or the primary grades), response
sharing is done in a number of ways, including physical movement, facial expression, spontaneous comments,
graphic display such as artwork, and writing. Hungerford (1993) found that acting out a story during play time
was another dimension of young children's response to literature.
While talking about books is the most common form of response to literature for very young children, response
often elicits, as Keenan (1993) found, some graphic display, including writing. The relationship between reading
and writing has been well researched (see Tierney &Shanahan, 1990) and has been shown to enhance
learning in a number of ways, most especially as a means of helping students to clarify and articulate their
responses to text. Keenan demonstrated that some texts prompt children to engage in authentic writing tasks,
such as letter writing. However, in many primary as well as intermediate and secondary classrooms, written
response often occurs within the context of journals (see Golden &Handloff,1993; Oberlin &Shugarman,1989;
Tashlik,1987). Whatever its form, writing is seen as a means to encourage and enhance students' thinking
about a text and to help them articulate that thinking, thus enhancing oral articulation (McKenzie, 1986;
Peterson &Eeds, 1990, Short &Pierce, 1990).
Studies of hearing children's response indicate that drawing and art projects created in response to picture
books are important avenues for children's response (Keenan, 1993; Kiefer, 1988; Kristo, 1993). In fact,
Hickman (1981) found that "making things" (e.g., pictures and related art work; three-dimensional art and
construction; games and displays) seemed to influence or mediate some children's development of response in
the verbal mode (p. 349). In a study of young children's developing sense of theme in response to literature,
Lehr (1988) found that when children were given time to draw a picture in response to a text, they were able to
analyze and generalize about stories, and, in particular, to generate a story's theme. The drawing activity
seemed to focus the children on the meaning of the story and acted as a catalyst for discussion. These studies
29 June 2016

Page 3 of 21

ProQuest

suggest that providing opportunities for children to draw and create art projects in response to books they have
read strengthens the response to literature pedagogy.
Whatever the mode of the response, the basic form of literature to which very young children respond is the
picture book. Kiefer (1993) refers to the picture book as "a unique art object, one that is a combination of image
and idea in a sequence of turning pages that can produce in the reader an effect that is greater than the sum of
the parts" (p. 267). As an art object, such meaningful encounters with picture books, like other works of art,
provide opportunities for an aesthetic experience (Marantz, 1977). The illustrations in picture books can often
evoke response in a different way than words can, and, as Kiefer (1988) explains, such experience gives
children "the opportunity to do more than comprehend" (p. 261). Moreover, when teachers broaden the
discourse for talking about picture books to help children examine both the communicative power of the
illustrations and the artist's choices in expressing meaning, children may connect in new and meaningful ways
to artists and illustrators, seeing them as real people in the world, people not unlike themselves.
As a philosophy of teaching, response to literature affirms the reader's contribution to and the uniqueness of the
literary experience, yet it recognizes the social origins and potential social effects of response. As a pedagogical
approach, response to literature calls for an instructional context that fosters the reader's response through the
use of a variety of literary texts and response modes. Response to literature provided the ideal conceptual
framework within which the data collected for this study could be analyzed and interpreted.
Research Questions
Given the value of response to literature pedagogy for supporting young hearing children's comprehension of
literature and their literacy learning, we wanted to explore its usefulness as an instructional tool in classrooms
for young deaf children. We were primarily interested in the ways young deaf children respond to picture books
and the procedures the classroom teacher used to foster the children's response. Consequently, we addressed
the following questions:
(1) What procedures does the classroom teacher use to facilitate and support the children's response?
(2) What forms of response do deaf children use when attending to stories read to them by their classroom
teacher and when reading picture books on their own or with classmates?
(3) Are deaf children's responses similar to or different from hearing children's responses as described in the
current research literature?
(4) Are the procedures the teacher used similar to or different from the procedures used by other teachers of
young deaf children?
To answer these questions, we used a qualitative approach to data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Methodology
Data for this study were taken from the data corpus collected for the larger investigation of emergent literacy
development (Williams, 1994) in which the principal researcher systematically observed for six months in three
classrooms of an urban preschool for children who were deaf or hard of hearing. In one of those three
classrooms, the teacher, Anna (a pseudonym), read children's picture books to her students several times each
day, and she permitted the children to read books of their own choosing during free-choice reading time in the
classroom and in the school's library. The analysis reported here is primarily based upon data collected in
Anna's classroom; however, the responses of children in the other two classrooms provided additional
information for the present analysis.
The five children in Anna's preschool classroom were all profoundly deaf and each had hearing parents. Given
the lack of immersion in meaningful language interaction during their early childhood years, the children's
language development was severely delayed. At the beginning of the study, the children's ages ranged from
four years, eleven months to five years, seven months (see Table 1). Children of this age are typically in
kindergarten, but given the deaf children's severe language delay, they were assigned to the preschool level
which focused on language acquisition and development. All five children used sign language as their primary
29 June 2016

Page 4 of 21

ProQuest

mode of communication, but spoken language, gestures, body movement, and facial expressions were very
common. The influence of both American Sign Language [ASL] and Pidgin Sign English [PSE] was evident in
the children's interaction with one another and with the teacher. Pidgin Sign English is a contact language in
which "people who typically would use ASL try to string their signs in English-like word order " (Luetke-Stahlman
&Luckner, 1991, p. 10). Thus, PSE may be referred to as "English-like signing" (Paul &Quigley, 1990), but it
does not always maintain a one-to-one correspondence with spoken English. For the most part, Anna interacted
with the children using Pidgin Sign English.
The primary data source used for this analysis was videotapes of 16 picture book reading events and freechoice reading sessions in Anna's classroom and the school library. These picture book reading events were
videotaped during the months of November through February, approximately once a week. Two of the 16
events were second readings of a story Anna had introduced earlier in the week, and it was evident from the
children's responses that some of the books Anna read were familiar to the children, most likely through book
sharing events at home or in previous preschool classes.
Secondary data sources included descriptive fieldnotes about the children's participation in reading events and
interviews with Anna about her perspectives on the children's responses to literature. Facsimile copies of the
children's drawing and writing were also collected in order to document any relationship between these products
and the children's experience with literature.

The first step in data analysis was the detailed transcription of each videotaped picture book reading event and
the free-choice reading sessions. This step was labor intensive in that it required careful transcription of all
signs, gestures, spoken language, and body movements that might eventually be coded as reader responses.
The video cassette recorder used during transcription was equipped with a wireless remote control that allowed
pausing for still-picture viewing during playback, frame-by-frame advancing in still mode, and slow motion
viewing with a speed of approximately 1/5 to 1/60 of normal speed, features that facilitated detailed
transcription.
Once the videotapes were transcribed into traditional orthography, we completed a systematic microanalysis of
the transcriptions to identify and describe the children's individual responses (see Erickson, 1992). A response
was defined as any behavior related to the children's experience with literature. When a response was
identified, it was given a descriptive code (e.g., applause; spontaneous comment; joins in refrain) and keyed
into an individual record in the Nashoba Systems Filemaker IV data-base program, which was used for
organization and manipulation purposes throughout data analysis. Each descriptive code used was added to a
chart titled "Codes Used to Describe Child Responses" so that consistent wording on the records would allow
searches and frequencyof-occurrence reviews within the data-base program. This microanalysis of the
transcriptions yielded a myriad of records, or instances, of each child's individual responses to the picture book
reading events.
Since one of our goals was to compare the deaf children's responses to the responses of hearing children, we

29 June 2016

Page 5 of 21

ProQuest

used Hickman's (1981) major categories (described earlier) as a guiding framework for our investigation (see
Table 2). Given that our children were deaf, we used the heading attending behaviors in place of Hickman's
listening behaviors and signed and spoken responses instead of oral responses. We organized individual
records on the basis of these categories of response (see Figure 1). Some categories included instances of
both spontaneous and teacherelicited responses.

This systematic approach to data analysis allowed thorough documentation of the patterns of response
observed within the group and made visible individual instances of infrequent responses. It also made evident
the similarities and differences between the deaf and hearing children's responses. Trustworthiness in data
collection and analysis was established through prolonged engagement in the preschool classroom,
triangulation of all data sources, and member checks with the classroom teacher (Lincoln &Guba, 1985).
The description and interpretation which follow are based upon the patterns of response documented during
data analysis. We begin with a description of the nature of picture book reading events in Anna's classroom.
The Context for Picture Book Reading Events
Anna played a key role in fostering the children's response. She read to the children several times a day, and
the climate for reading was warm and inviting. A lover of books herself, Anna stated that she wanted the
children to enjoy reading, and she chose picture books she believed the children would find interesting and
pleasurable. The preschool curriculum was organized around themes, and Anna featured picture books
reflecting those themes during shared reading events.
Formal reading and writing instruction was not a goal of the preschool curriculum. In fact, according to the
school administrator, all activities focused on supporting the children's language acquisition and vocabulary
development in order to prepare the children for formal literacy instruction in the primary grades. In a formal
interview Anna explained how she used children's picture books to accomplish the school's primary objective:
Excerpt from Interview with Anna, 2/4

29 June 2016

Page 6 of 21

ProQuest

I think reading to children is a natural way to teach language. The vocabulary I want is in those stories. I don't
"teach" the words, they come up in the story. They come up in the activity that we do afterwards. They come up
throughout the day, hopefully, in other situations that we set up.
Anna's format for book sharing
When Anna read to the children, she followed the printed text closely, but she did not read it verbatim. She
always discussed the picture books during the read aloud and after she finished reading. As she read, Anna
asked the children questions to monitor their comprehension. She drew attention to the illustrations, most often
to help the children make sense of the story She frequently made clarifying remarks about both the illustrations
and the text, a practice found in studies of picture book reading between deaf mothers and their deaf children in
the home (Andrews &Taylor, 1987; Lartz &Lestina, 1995). In fact, Lartz and Lestina indicate that deaf mothers
used this strategy more than any other, suggesting that the mothers considered it necessary for their child's
understanding of the story.

In addition to clarifying remarks, Anna frequently made life-to-text, text-to-life (Cochran-Smith, 1984), and textto-text connections. Life-totext interactions helped the children make sense of the books Anna read by relating
the characters and events in the book to people and similar events in the children's lives. In text-to-life
interactions, Anna most often used the information in picture books to help children make sense of, or prepare
for, events in their lives. Anna's text-to-text comments made connections between the picture book she was
presently reading and other literature she had read, as illustrated in the videotape analysis:
Anna is reading Sleepy Bear (Dabcovich, 1982). The double page has a picture of the bear watching the birds
flying away. The text reads, BIRDS ARE LEAVING. Anna reads the text and comments: "These are birds and
they are flying away to a place where it is warm. When it's cold-remember how we talked about how Round
Robin's friends all flew away? These birds are flying away too. They don't like the cold because they can't get
the food."
[VT 5, #4906,1/31]
29 June 2016

Page 7 of 21

ProQuest

Anna also engaged the children in "readiness for reading" (CochranSmith, 1984, pp. 120-121) interactions in
which she established herself as the reader and gained the children's attention ("It's my turn to talk now."; "You
need to sit on your bottom."; "Our rules say, `Pay attention."') While Anna sat on a small chair, the children sat
on the floor in a semicircle around her.
Because children who are deaf cannot look at the illustrations in books and simultaneously watch the adult who
is reading the printed text in sign language, Anna adopted a specific procedure for picture book reading. After a
brief introduction to the book, Anna instantiated a specific pattern of discourse that organized the shared
reading activity. She held up the book and opened to the page she was about to read, sometimes pointing
toward or touching the printed text. Then, she placed the book face down on her lap and signed the text, or,
more often, a rendition of it. Sometimes Anna used English-based signing, sometimes she used American Sign
Language (ASL), and sometimes she used a combination of both as she read. Anna made communication
choices based upon her assessment of the children's ongoing construction of meaning. Then, Anna picked up
the book and displayed the illustrations once again, often passing the book in front of the children, giving each
child sufficient time to examine the illustrations and, if they chose, to respond in a variety of ways. Anna's
procedure for picture book reading demonstrated her understanding of the children's need to watch her sign the
printed text and also see the illustrations.
Anna's procedure was similar to the one used by a Deaf teacher in Ramsey's (1996) investigation of the
relationship of ASL to deaf children's English literacy development. Ramsey found that the Deaf teacher first
read the text in picture books silently to herself (holding the book so that only she could see it), signed that
portion of the story in ASL, showed the illustrations to the children, and then discussed the text or responded to
the children's comments about it, thus making the telling of the story and the viewing of the picture distinct but
related activities. According to Ramsey this procedure resulted in a constant, deliberately-paced movement
between the printed text (translated into ASL) and the book's illustrations.
Free-choice reading
During free-choice reading time, the children selected books from the classroom library, where a low bookcase
assured the children access to books within their reach, or they went downstairs to the school's library, a large
room filled with hundreds of books and many children's magazines. Sometimes the children read alone; other
times they read in pairs or in a small group. Anna often placed the picture books she had read to the children in
the classroom library, and she regularly changed the collection so that the books corresponded to the theme
being studied each month. Anna displayed her enthusiasm for the new titles she introduced, and the children
shared her excitement as they selected these books during free-choice reading time.
As Anna witnessed the children's enjoyment of reading, and as she recognized its value for their language and
literacy development (Williams, 1995), she provided increased opportunities for the children to browse through,
read, and respond to books. Free-choice reading sessions occurred several times a week in the early months of
the investigation and more often during the later months of the study. Each classroom session was no longer
than 10 minutes and the library sessions lasted approximately 15 minutes.
The interrelationship between the climate Anna established for reading events and her specific procedure for
sharing picture books created a pedagogical context that facilitated, supported, and enhanced reader response.
The influence of this context on the children's response to literature was demonstrated through both the quality
and quantity of the children's verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
Learning to read
In addition to facilitating the children's response to literature, as Anna read and discussed books with the
children, she also immersed them in a variety of experiences that supported their emergent reading
development. Through daily picture book reading Anna demonstrated that reading is, first and foremost, a
comprehension process. Reading is making sense of text, constructing logical meaning. As she read to the
children, Anna modeled important book-reading behaviors (e.g., beginning at the front cover and reading to the
29 June 2016

Page 8 of 21

ProQuest

end; turning the pages one at a time; reading the left-hand page and then the right-hand page). She used
important literary terminology (e.g., letter; word; sentence; page; story), giving the children specific vocabulary
for talking about the forms of print. Andrews and Akamatsu (1993, p. 7) argue that the use of technical sign
vocabulary in classrooms for kindergarten and first grade deaf children is essential for promoting linguistic
awareness.
Anna demonstrated the symbiotic relationship between written language and signed and spoken language by
pointing to the printed text before she signed it. She also modeled a variety of sense-making strategies. For
example, she made explicit statements about using the illustrations in books to help make sense of the story
(e.g., "See . . . the pictures show what is happening in the story."; "The pictures go with the words."; "The
pictures give you a lot of clues."). She modeled the use of prediction ("What do you think is going to happen?")
and the strategy of confirming or correcting ("Were you right?"; "Good for you-you were right!"). Recent
research indicates that explicitly teaching deaf readers specific sense-making strategies supports their ability to
use those strategies independently and may lead to gains in reading development (Satchwell, 1993; see also
Andrews &Mason, 1991). Through daily booksharing discussions, the children also gained familiarity with story
conventions and story grammar, knowledge that supports children's development of comprehension and,
ultimately, independent reading.
The Children's Responses
The five children in Anna's classroom demonstrated numerous responses to literature during both whole-class
picture book reading events and free-choice reading time. In list form, these responses appear separate and
distinct; in the context of the reading event, however, these behaviors were often overlapping and integrated.
Attending Behaviors
Responses classified as attending behaviors were often nonverbal; however, this category also included verbal
imitations and repetitions. As Anna read to the children, they frequently responded with their bodies, scooting
closer to Anna's chair, moving from their bottoms to their knees for a better view, or rocking back and forth or
from side to side as they sat in the semicircle around her. Sometimes the children clapped their hands to
demonstrate their feelings, and they often laughed at humorous incidents or at the foolishness of characters'
actions. These physical movements seemed almost involuntary, which is consistent with Hickman's (1979)
finding that very young children are the only age group that frequently express response through such
movement.
A more deliberate response movement was demonstrated by Marta and Carita. For them, touching the book
was often prerequisite to talking about it. Both girls frequently leaned forward to touch the illustrations in picture
books before they shared their own personal responses or asked questions. Sometimes the children signed on
the illustration; that is, they touched the illustration with a sign that described the character or event. In her study
of a young deaf child's experiences with books, Maxwell (1984) also found that the child frequently signed on
the illustration, as if "she needed to say it on the picture" (p. 202).
When Anna read books that were familiar to the children or reread books she had previously introduced, the
children often spontaneously joined in on the refrain, demonstrating their full participation in the reading event
as illustrated in the following videotape analysis:
Anna is reading Five Little Monkeys (Christelow, 1989). She reads, "Mama called the doctor and the doctor said
. . ." and immediately the children chime in, ". . . No more monkeys jumping on the bed!" [VT 7, #4308, 2/20]
Similarly, the children frequently repeated or imitated the words Anna signed as she read, and they often
repeated her spontaneous comments. The following excerpts from videotape analyses reveal this pattern:
Anna is reading a Christmas story. As she reads, Andrew immediately imitates her signs as if to read along.
Anna: The doggie. . .
Andrew: Dog
Anna: . . .made a special gift. . .
29 June 2016

Page 9 of 21

ProQuest

Andrew: special
Anna: . . .for his friend. . .
Andrew: for friend
Anna: . . .the rabbit.
Andrew: rabbit.
[VT 2, # 1850, 11/281
Anna is reading Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (Viorst, 1972). She is on the page
where Alexander's schoolmates all have desserts in their lunch. Alexander's mother has not packed a dessert in
his lunch, and the illustration demonstrates his displeasure. After reading, Anna comments and then shows the
children the double-page illustration.
Anna: Alexander had a very bad day! (passes the book in front of the children)
Andrew: Bad.
Leona: Bad. (looks at both Andrew and Carita) Carita: Bad.
[VT 7, # 840, 1/6]
The children's various attending behaviors demonstrated their engagement in the picture book reading event.
Further, the spontaneous nature of these responses attested to the children's active construction of meaning.
Signed and Spoken Responses
The children responded in sign language and orally throughout Anna's picture book reading events and as they
interacted socially around picture books during free-choice reading time. As might be expected, signed and
spoken responses occurred in conjunction with other response behaviors. In contrast to the verbal attending
behaviors that were imitations or repetitions, responses in the signed and spoken category encompassed a
wide range of spontaneous comments and questions that demonstrated the children's emotional and intellectual
response to the ideas and feelings expressed in the picture books Anna read. The children made animal noises
at appropriate times ("meow"). They asked questions about the illustrations or events in the story. They often
described characters' feelings based upon both the text and the illustrations ("Butterfly sad. Sad, very."). They
predicted characters' future actions, they warned characters of impending danger ("No! No! Hurt!"), and they
cheered at outcomes that pleased them. Sometimes they provided reasons for a character's behavior, but more
often they judged the character's actions ("Bad bunny. Bad!"). The children's spontaneous responses often
revealed their personal thoughts, feelings, and understandings of the book being read, as in the following
videotape analysis: Anna is reading Are you my Mother? (Eastman, 1960) She is at the part in the story where
the bird is hatching from its egg.
Anna: And out came the baby bird!
Carita jumps up and touches the picture of the opened egg.
Andrew: Out, fall! (i.e., The bird fell out!)
Anna: No, he didn't fall out. The egg opened up and the baby bird came out [emphasizing came out in both her
sign and speech]. Andrew smiles as if he is relieved.
Anna is now reading the part of the story where the baby bird is searching for its mother.
Anna: . . . She saw a boat in the water, and she said, "Are you my mother?"
Andrew: No! Not thinking! (Andrew shakes his head at the bird's foolishness.)
Anna: You're right. He's not thinking. (Confirming AndreWs response.) Everyone laughs. [VT 5, #3039, 1/31]
Anna is reading Sleepy Bear (Dabcovich, 1982). She is at the part in the story where the bees are returning to
the forest. She reads the text, "BEES COME BACK."
Marta: Tomorrow bees come?
Anna: Well, in the story they are coming back, but we'll have to wait until the spring time for the bees to really
come back.
[VT 5, #5039, 1/31]
29 June 2016

Page 10 of 21

ProQuest

The children's spontaneous comments often provided teachable moments for Anna to introduce new concepts
and vocabulary. During a read-aloud of Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (Viorst,
1972), Andrew described the lonely Alexander as "one." In the double-page illustration, Alexander is standing
alone while his classmates are standing with their arms around their best friends. Anna explained that
Alexander was "alone," showing Andrew the difference between the sign for one and the sign for alone. When
Anna read a counting book to the children, Carita thought the number seven was a capital L. Anna explained
the difference between the numeral (7) and the letter (L) using the appropriate signs and printed text. When
Anna read Rooster's Off to See the World (Carle, 1972), Andrew questioned the sign Anna used for rooster,
insisting that she initialize the sign with an R handshape. Anna demonstrated several signs that are used for the
word rooster, explaining that "it can be signed in different ways."
In many of their spontaneous comments, the children related the action in stories to past events in their own
lives. For example, one December morning when Anna was reading a book in which a young boy writes a
Christmas wish list, Leona turned to Carita and said, "Me write. You?" (i.e., I write a list, do you?). Later in the
story, the young boy receives rollerskates for Christmas. Andrew immediately shared his own roller skating
mishap: "Roller skate, fall, bump head. Hurt!" These text-to-life connections were very common (Cochran-Smith,
1984). As well, sometimes the children made text-to-text connections between the books Anna read to them, as
in the following videotape analysis:
Anna is reading a story about a caterpillar who lives in a beautiful cocoon.
Marta: House same Cinderella house!
Anna: You're right! Cinderella's house looked like this.
Marta: Same Cinderella! (i.e., It's the same as Cinderella's!)
[VT 5, #528,1/31]
Included in this category were the children's answers to Anna's comprehension and discussion questions.
These "answers to teacher questions" (as they were coded) were signed and spoken responses, but they
lacked the personal nature of the children's spontaneous comments described above.
Action and Drama
Behaviors in the action and drama category were similar to attending behaviors in that the children used their
bodies to respond to the story being read. As Anna read The Snowman (Briggs, 1978), the children tiptoed
down the stairs with James, and they flew through the sky with the snowman. They shot nightmares with a gun
(There's a Nightmare in my Closet, Mayer, 1968), and they bumped their heads as they fell off their beds (Five
Little Monkeys, Christelow, 1989). They yawned and stretched and became sleepy bears ready to hibernate in
the winter (Sleepy Bear, Dabcovich, 1982). In addition to these kinds of acting behaviors, the children frequently
mimicked the facial expressions of characters in the illustrations.
Sometimes the children lacked words for the concepts they wished to communicate. In these instances, they
often dramatized or pantomimed their individual responses or their answers to Anna's questions rather than
struggling for words they did not know, as in the following videotape analysis:
Anna has just finished reading a Christmas story. There is a picture of a pair of roller skates on the back cover.
Anna points to the skates and asks, "What's this?"
Andrew and Leona jump up and pantomime roller skating across the classroom floor.
Anna nods and smiles as she affirms the children's response. Then, she calls the children back to the reading
area. She pronounces the word and shows the children the sign for roller skates. All the children imitate the sign
while saying the word.
[VT 2, #2150, 11/28]
Anna is reading The Snowman (Briggs, 1978). One of the illustrations includes a roll of toilet paper. Carita
points to the roll, then pantomimes pulling toilet paper off of a roll. Anna shows Carita the sign for toilet paper
and says the words several times. Carita imitates the sign and pronounces the words.
29 June 2016

Page 11 of 21

ProQuest

[VT3, #1669, 12/7]

Like many of the children's spontaneous comments, behaviors in the action and drama category also provided
teachable moments, and Anna used them to introduce new lexical items and concepts. Opportunities to discuss
words and word meanings occurred on a daily basis, supporting the children's language acquisition as well as
their literacy development (Burroughs, 1972; Chomsky, 1972; Moerk, 1985; Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan, Fischel,
DeBaryshe, Valdez-Menchaca, &Caulfield, 1988).
Contact with Books
The category contact with books was limited to instances of response in which a child individually read picture
books or children's magazines. These kinds of response were not social activities; they were individual
explorations of literature.
After reading a new picture book to the children, Anna often placed it in the classroom library. The children
sometimes argued over this book, wanting to read and reread it during free-choice reading sessions. The
children frequently sat alone during these sessions and browsed through books, sometimes perusing several
selections within a matter of minutes. However, they often demonstrated engagement with a particular text by
moving slowly through the book, intently studying the illustrations and "reading," as in the following videotape
analysis: (Free-choice reading time.) Carita is sitting on the floor with a book in her lap. She rocks back and
forth on her knees as she intently studies the illustrations. Then, she begins to sway her head from side to side
as she "reads" in sing-song fashion.
Andrew is carefully studying the illustrations in his book. As he turns each page, he labels items in the
illustrations. Although he signs and speaks aloud, his eyes never leave the book. He is speaking to himself,
transacting with the text.
[VT 7, #5554, 2/20]
On one occasion, Andrew's engagement with a picture book was so intense he seemed unaware of other
activities around him. As free-choice reading time came to an end, Anna signalled for the children's attention by
flicking the lights on and off. Andrew did not respond. The other children put their books away and left the room
with Anna as she requested. Andrew continued to read, seemingly unaware of what had just occurred. When he
finished his book, and moved to the shelf to return it, he realized that only he and the researcher (who was
videotaping) were in the room. With a queried look on his face, he asked, "Anna, where?"
Behaviors in this category revealed the children's interest in picture books and magazines and demonstrated
that they could independently transact with texts in meaningful ways. These behaviors also suggested that the
children viewed themselves as readers.
Acting on the Impulse to Share
The category acting on the impulse to share was defined by social interaction among the children in response to
a written text. Sometimes the children's individual transactions with books became social events as they shared
their literary discoveries. This most often occurred when a child wanted to show an illustration to a classmate. In
these instances, the children often tapped or poked one another to gain attention, or they moved closer to their
peers. As the children showed the illustration, they frequently pantomimed the action portrayed, as the following
excerpt reveals:
Carita and Leona are looking at a children's magazine which includes illustrations of a birthday party. Andrew is
watching the girls' interaction and he wants to see the picture. Moving toward the girls he signs, "See! See!"
(i.e., I want to see.) Andrew notices balloons in the picture. He asks Leona if she will give him a red balloon.
Leona says that when he comes to her birthday party, she will give him the red balloon. Carita begins to sing
and sign "Happy Birthday to you. ." Then, Leona dramatizes giving Andrew the red balloon he has asked for.
Leona hugs Carita after the song, as if to say 'thank you.'
[VT 1, #3445,11/12]
Sometimes the children read with one another by taking turns labeling the illustrations in the books they shared.
29 June 2016

Page 12 of 21

ProQuest

They also played teacher, imitating Anna's reading style and the way she requested their attention during
picture book reading events ("Pay attention!"; "Sit bottom." Watch me!").
There was much social interaction around books during free-choice reading time both in Anna's classroom and
in the school library. Picture books often engendered lengthy discussions among the children. They talked freely
with one another and with adults, sharing their discoveries and asking questions about the texts they read. The
responses classified as acting on the impulse to share often reflected the children's positive reactions to a
selection and their desire to have personal response affirmed by a classmate or teacher.
Making Things
On a few occasions after Anna read aloud to the children, she engaged them in either independent projects or
group projects that were a natural outgrowth of the story. For instance, after reading a Halloween book that
included a scarecrow, Anna and the children made a life-sized scarecrow for their classroom. On another
occasion, after reading several selections about birds, each child made a bird feeder (a coat hanger complete
with bread) to hang in the trees of the school yard. Although these activities were structured and teacherinitiated, they were a form of response, and they provided opportunity for further conversation and discussion
about the book Anna and the children had shared.
Writing
Anna did not engage the children in writing activities in response to literature on any days that the principal
researcher was present, and although we carefully examined the children's writing samples, we found no
instances of the children writing in direct response to the books Anna read. It is difficult to determine whether or
not the deaf children wrote in direct response to the literature they read during free-choice reading time. On
several occasions, the children read, both individually and in small groups, children's magazines about
birthdays and birthday parties. During free-choice writing time the children frequently wrote and drew pictures
on this topic. They also talked about it a great deal, especially when several of them celebrated their birthdays.
During these writing events the children did not refer to the magazines they had read but rather to the parties
they had recently attended or were soon to attend. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the children's writing was
unrelated to the magazine readings. The writing and drawing may have been a response to both the birthday
party experiences and the magazines the children read.
This description of the kinds of responses that the deaf students made clearly demonstrates that the deaf
children were very interested in picture books and storyreading. Their steady enthusiasm and excitement for
picture books was evident. They attended to stories read aloud, they transacted with books on an individual
level, and they interacted around books in socially constructed ways. The children's responses revealed their
individual and collective transactions with texts and what they were learning about the process of reading and
how it is accomplished. The children's language delay did not prevent them from responding to literature in
meaningful ways. For these five children, response to literature was a valuable instructional tool for supporting
the children's comprehension of literature and their language and literacy development.
Comparison to Hearing Children's Response
Because there are no published studies that systematically explore deaf children's personal response to picture
books and stories, we compared the deaf children's responses to those of hearing children documented in the
current literature. We began by comparing our findings to those of Hickman (1981) who examined the
responses of kindergarten and first grade children. In many ways, the responses of the deaf and hearing
children were similar, and they illustrate the importance of the instructional context in engendering response to
literature.
Both groups of children demonstrated attending or listening behaviors. Hickman (1981, p. 352) describes
listening responses that were very similar to the attending behaviors of the deaf children. For example, all of the
children responded to literature through laughter, applause, various body stances, and by joining in the reading
event on familiar refrains. In both groups, there were children for whom touching a book was almost prerequisite
29 June 2016

Page 13 of 21

ProQuest

to talking about it.

The oral responses of Hickman's (1981) children differed somewhat from the signed and spoken responses of
the deaf children. In particular, Hickman's children used retelling and storytelling as a form of response. There
were no instances of storytelling as a response mode in this investigation. There may have been instances of
retelling, as when Anna asked the children, "What happened next?" and they answered from their memory of
previous readings of the story. Since they were teacher-elicited, we coded these kinds of responses as
"answers to teacher questions" rather than "retelling." The "free comments" the hearing children made were
similar in kind to the deaf children's "spontaneous comments," particularly those responses that related events
in books to events in the children's lives (i.e., text-to-life interactions). Both groups of children appeared more
willing and, apparently, more able to discuss stories that were read more than once or that were familiar from
previous storybook reading experiences.
Both groups of children responded through action and drama. For example, both the hearing children and the
deaf children echoed the action in stories that were read. Hickman (1981) observed children "trying out the
sweeping motions of the Little Red Hen with imagined brooms" (p. 349) while the deaf children were observed
shooting nightmares with a gun. When they found it difficult to verbally communicate their responses, both the
hearing and the deaf children demonstrated meaning through bodily actions and pantomime. One interesting
difference between the hearing children's response in this category and the deaf children's response is that the
deaf children were not observed incorporating "bits and pieces of familiar stories" in their sociodramatic play in
the "play corner" (p. 350). There is one apparent reason for this difference: The deaf children did not choose the
sociodramatic play area on any days the researcher was present. Interestingly, almost without exception, the
deaf children chose the writing area during free-choice play time. It may be that the deaf children incorporated
story elements during their sociodramatic play on days when the researcher was not present. This seems likely,
since deaf children from the preschool were observed instantiating story actions and characters in their
sociodramatic play at home with siblings and parents (Williams, 1994).
Both the deaf and the hearing children responded to literature through personal contact with books and acting
on the impulse to share. All of the children browsed through books and demonstrated engagement or intent
attention to specific texts. Hickman (1981) noted that some children in her study made a special effort to keep
certain books within their reach. Although the deaf children frequently revisited favorite storybooks, the hearing
children's tendency to keep books at hand was not demonstrated by the deaf children, most likely because in
Anna's classroom picture books remained in the library at all times when they were not being read. Both groups
of children pursued and read books that their teachers had introduced and read aloud, and they played teacher
as they interacted socially around literature.
Hickman's (1981) children participated in more activities in which they made things (e.g., three-dimensional art)
than did the deaf children. As well, Anna's extension activities were much less elaborate than those found in the
Hickman study. Moreover, in Hickman's investigation, extension projects often led to or incorporated writing
activities. This was not the case in Anna's classroom where there was little emphasis on composition. Although
the deaf children had the opportunity to write each morning during free-choice writing time, they were not
observed writing in response to the picture books Anna read. Writing in response to literature was not modeled
for the deaf children as it was for the hearing children. This may be the primary reason for the lack of writing
among the deaf children's response behaviors. In a formal "member check" (Lincoln &Guba, 1985) interview at
the end of the study, Anna explained that she had not emphasized writing because she "didn't realize how much
the kids could do with written language ... or how important it was" (Williams, 1995, p. 62). Importantly,
however, after Anna read a draft of the research report, she stated that in future preschool classes she planned
to provide more opportunities for writing and for making connections between written language and signed
language.
The responses of the deaf children were also compared to the responses of first and second grade hearing
29 June 2016

Page 14 of 21

ProQuest

children in a study conducted by Kiefer (1983). Although the hearing children were older than the deaf children,
many of the children's responses were similar. For instance, the books that were read aloud by classroom
teachers were often chosen by the children, and repeated readings of favorite picture books were common to
both groups. The hearing children and the deaf children both discussed books with their classmates, often
sharing details of interest, and they asked questions of their teachers during whole-class reading activities. Both
groups of children talked about details in picture books that seemed relevant to their own experiences (text-tolife interactions), and they often connected new books with other books previously read (textto-text
connections).
Differences between the responses of children in Kiefer's (1983) study and the deaf children in this investigation
were primarily due to the hearing children's greater experience with literature and the influence of the
instructional context. For example, the first and second grade hearing children used specialized vocabulary in
their responses (e.g., title pages, dedication pages, end pages, media), and, like the children in Hickman's
(1981) investigation, their contact with picture books was reflected in the stories they wrote and in their art work
and extension projects. Anna did not talk about title, dedication, or end pages, and, as mentioned previously,
she did not model writing as a response mode. Further, she engaged the children in relatively few extension
activities in response to literature that was read.
These comparisons indicate that the deaf children's responses to literature were similar in kind to the hearing
children's responses, despite the deaf children's severe language delay. In fact, the differences noted in the
children's responses were often linked to the instructional context rather than to the children themselves. This
comparison suggests that response to literature pedagogy may be a valuable tool for supporting literacy
learning in young deaf children, as it is for hearing children.
Comparison of the Procedures Teachers Use to Foster Deaf Children's Response
Research on hearing children's response to literature documents the importance of the instructional context in
fostering response (CochranSmith, 1984; Hepler, 1982). In fact, Hickman (1979) explains that children's
responses are closely tied to the context in which they occur, and Kiefer (1983) indicates that the teacher plays
a central role in influencing children's response to literature. To identify specific pedagogical techniques that
appear to be particularly important in fostering young deaf children's response to literature, we compared
Anna's picture book reading procedures to those of other teachers of young deaf children documented in
studies by Ewoldt and Saulnier (1995) and Mather (1987,1989). Ewoldt and Saulnier videotaped eight teachers
and their preschool deaf students re-reading and reviewing a familiar storybook in order to "investigate the
dynamics of book sharing" (p. 4). The researchers specifically examined the strategies teachers used to engage
deaf children in the book reading events. Our comparison revealed several similarities and some differences in
the teachers' procedures.
Formats for Book Sharing
Because teachers cannot simultaneously hold a book open and use both hands to sign its text, formats for book
sharing are a particularly important issue. Ewoldt and Saulnier (1995) state that formats for book sharing varied
among the eight teachers in their study. One teacher displayed the book on an easel, which the researchers
believed was a successful strategy that enabled all of the children "to see the illustrations, the teacher's face,
and her signing" (p. 7). Like Anna, some of the teachers placed the book in their laps while they signed the
printed text, then showed the children the illustrations. Ewoldt and Saulnier believe that this format may be
disruptive to some children's acquisition of the whole text, since the narration is frequently interrupted.
Nevertheless, our data indicate that this was a successful technique. As Ramsey (1996) cogently argues, a
constant, deliberately-paced movement between the printed text and the illustrations is essential for the success
of this particular book reading procedure. Another teacher in the Ewoldt and Saulnier study used a flannel board
and cutouts of the story characters to be manipulated during the reading. The researchers believe that this
procedure also interrupted the story narration and "often contradicted the sense of the book" (p. 7). That is,
29 June 2016

Page 15 of 21

ProQuest

while cutout story characters remained in place on the flannel board, they wandered about in the storybook.
Communication Choices
The use of some American Sign Language (ASL) during storyreading appears to be an important element in
fostering young deaf children's response. As mentioned earlier, Anna negotiated between English signs and
ASL based upon her assessment of the children's comprehension of the text. She frequently used ASL to
explain what was happening in the story, particularly when English signs did not adequately code action or
meaning. Ewoldt and Saulnier (1995) also found that "switch[ing] between ASL and manual codes for English"
resulted in greater levels of interaction and more student involvement than did a verbatim reading of the text (p.
8). Similarly, in a comparison of ASL and English storytelling conditions, Schick and Gale (1995) found that
preschool deaf children "participated more and initiated more interactions during story conditions that were
either pure ASL or contained ASL signing" (p. 363).
Mather's (1989) analysis indicated that the use of specific features of ASL during storyreading was particularly
effective for one of the teachers. A native signer of ASL, the teacher used classifier predicates to depict actions
portrayed in the book's illustrations. Mather explains:
One picture shows the mother cat using her rolling pin to scold the kittens . . . The standard sign for the word
naughty entails the use of one index finger to scold, but the teacher does not use this sign. Instead, she uses an
instrumental classifier predicate, where her handshape signals holding onto the rolling pin and scolding at the
same time, to mean "naughty." (p. 178)
This teacher also used miniature signs, that is, she placed very small signs directly on the book's illustrations, a
technique that enables students to simultaneously see the picture and the sign. Further, the teacher adapted
her signs to recode the specific meaning portrayed in the pictures. For example, she invented a sign for
"snowcat" instead of using the standard sign for "snowman" because the character in the illustration had ears
and whiskers like a cat's. She also changed English words that showed sound-related concepts to signs that
showed visual concepts. Instead of fingerspelling meow, the teacher translated the word as cry, which Mather
believes was "more consistent with the intended meaning of the picture" (p. 185). By comparison, in situations
like these, Anna most often introduced students to the English sign for the vocabulary of the text and then used
ASL to elaborate on the word's meaning. This strategy seemed to be effective with her students.
Although most of the teachers in the Ewoldt and Saulnier (1995) investigation used simultaneous
communication as they read (i.e., they signed and spoke simultaneously), the researchers believe that this
caused communication problems because teachers occasionally said one thing while signing something
different or they signed incomplete messages, speaking the information they did not sign (p. 6). In contrast,
meticulous transcription indicated that Anna was able to sign the vast majority of the words she spoke and to
sign them correctly (see Williams, 1991). Other teachers in the preschool who used simultaneous
communication often signed incomplete and incorrect messages. Clearly, a teacher's proficiency with sign
language is an important issue in supporting deaf children's response to literature.
Eye Gaze
Teacher eye gaze also appears to be particularly important in fostering response among young deaf children.
Mather (1987) carefully examined two of the teachers' use of eye gaze and its relationship to turn-taking
behavior during storyreading. The teachers used an individual gaze (IGAZE) to gain and maintain the attention
of one child and a group gaze (G-GAZE) that encompassed all of the children. When the teachers used GGAZE, their eyes moved constantly across the group without pausing. Mather found that eye gaze was
particularly important in encouraging student involvement in the book sharing events.
Although we did not systematically investigate Anna's use of eye gaze, videotaped segments indicate that she
did, in fact, signal appropriate turn-taking behaviors through use of eye contact. In particular, Anna used the IGAZE when she directed a question at an individual child ("What's this?"), and a G-GAZE when she wanted the
children to respond simultaneously ("Is the bunny happy?"). Further, when she was ready to continue the
29 June 2016

Page 16 of 21

ProQuest

reading, Anna diverted her eyes from the children, effectively signalling the end of their speaking turn.
Making Connections
Hickman (1981) explains that a teacher's own response behavior is frequently "mirrored" (p. 16) in children's
comments and questions. Our analysis indicated that Anna's use of text-to-life and life-to-text comments during
book reading sessions engendered similar comments from the children. Few of the teachers in the Ewoldt and
Saulnier (1995) investigation used these strategies to help children relate events in a story to their own
experiences, leading the researchers to argue that doing so may have been an effective strategy "for getting
children involved" (p. 5). Interestingly, studies of picture book reading between deaf mothers and their deaf
children in the home also indicate that the text-to-life strategy is used infrequently (Andrews &Taylor, 1987;
Lartz &Lestina, 1995).
Another strategy Anna used that encouraged a great deal of participation and response from the children was
inviting them to make predictions about the story. Only two of the teachers in the Ewoldt and Saulnier (1995)
investigation used this technique, most likely because they were rereading a familiar book. In contrast, Anna
always invited the children to make predictions, even when she reread a familiar story. Use of the prediction
strategy during a rereading allowed the children to build selfconfidence since they could answer Anna's
questions correctly.
The procedures and techniques highlighted in this section appear to be useful in supporting young deaf
children's participation and response during storyreading. Further research is needed, however, to identify the
most effective strategies for fostering deaf children's response to literature.
Conclusion
Our analysis clearly demonstrated that for the five deaf children in this study, response to literature was a
valuable tool for supporting language and literacy development. Further research is needed to determine if
response to literature pedagogy may be a useful tool with other young deaf children as well. We need careful
analyses of the range of responses deaf children demonstrate as they attend to stories read aloud and as they
read picture books on their own and with classmates. Analyses of deaf children of different ages and varying
experiences with books would allow us to document developmental differences in their responses. The
booksharing procedures and techniques highlighted in this study appear to support young deaf children's
participation and response during storyreading, but further studies that systematically examine the range of
procedures teachers use to engage children in booksharing activities would help us identify the most effective
strategies for fostering deaf children's response to literature. We also need studies that examine the influence of
the instructional context and the socio-cultural milieu. We encourage researchers to engage in the kinds of
investigations that will help us determine the value of response to literature pedagogy for literacy instruction
among young deaf children.
References
References
References
Andrews, J. E, &Akamatsu, C. T. (1993). Building blocks for literacy: Getting the signs right. Perspectives in
Education and Deafness, 11(3), 5-9. Andrews, J. E, &Mason, J. M. (1991). Strategy usage among deaf and
hearing
readers. Exceptional Children, 57, 536-545.
Andrews, J. E, &Taylor, N. E. (1987). From sign to print: A case study of picture book "reading" between mother
and child. Sign Language Studies, 56, 261-274.
References
Applebee, A. N. (1978). The child's concept of story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beach, R., &Hynds, S. (1991). Research on response to literature. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 453-489). White Plains, NY: Longman. Briggs, R.
29 June 2016

Page 17 of 21

ProQuest

(1978). The snowman. New York: Random House. Burroughs, M. (1972). The stimulation of verbal behavior in
culturally disadvantaged three-year-olds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.
Carle, E. (1972). Rooster's off to see the world. Saxonville, MA: Picture Book Studio.
Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42,
1-33.
Christelow, E. (1989). Five little monkeys jumping on the bed. New York: Clarion. Cochran-Smith, M. (1984).
The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dabcovich, L. (1982). Sleepy bear. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Eastman, P. D. (1960). Are you my mother? New York: Random House. Erickson, E (1992). Ethnographic
microanalysis of interaction. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy, &J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative
research in education (pp. 201-225). New York: Academic Press.
References
Ewoldt, C. &Saulnier, K. (1995). When teachers and children share good books. Perspectives in Education and
Deafness, 13(3), 4-8.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Golden, J. M., &Handloff, E. (1993). Responding to literature through journal writing. In K. Holland, R.
Hungerford, &S. Ernst (Eds.), Journeying: Children responding to literature (pp. 175-186). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann. Hepler, S. I. (1982). Patterns of response to literature: A one-year study of a fifth and sixth grade
classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University Columbus, OH.
Hickman, J. (1979). Response to literature in a school environment, grades k - 5. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Hickman, J. (1981). A new perspective on response to
literature: Research in an elementary school setting. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 343-354.
Hickman, J. (1983). Everything considered: Response to literature in an elementary school setting. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 16(3), 8-13. Hill, S. E. (1985). Children's individual responses and
literature conferences in the elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 38, 382-386.
References
Hungerford, R. A. (1993). Star Wars and the world beyond. In K. Holland, R. Hungerford &S. Ernst (Eds.),
Journeying: Children responding to literature (pp. 27-42). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Keenan, J. W. (1993). The jolly postman comes to call: Primary writers' response to literature. In K. Holland, R.
Hungerford, &S. Ernst (Eds.), Journeying: Children responding to literature (pp. 72-88). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann. Kiefer, B. (1983). The responses of children in a combination first/second grade classroom to
picture books in a variety of artistic styles. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16(3),14-20.
Kiefer, B. (1988). Picture books as contexts for literary, aesthetic, and real world understandings. Language
Arts, 65, 260-271.
Kiefer, B. (1993). Children's responses to picture books: A developmental perspective. In K. Holland, R.
Hungerford, &S. Ernst (Eds.), Journeying: Children
References
responding to literature (pp. 267-283). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kristo, J. V. (1993). Reading aloud in a
primary classroom: Reaching and teaching young readers. In K. Holland, R. Hungerford, &S. Ernst (Eds.),
Journeying: Children responding to literature (pp. 54-71). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lartz, M. N., &Lestina,
L. J. (1995). Strategies deaf mothers use when reading to their young deaf or hard of hearing children.
American Annals of the Deaf, 140, 358-362.
Lehr, S. (1988). The child's developing sense of theme as a response to literature.
Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 337-357.
Lincoln, Y. S., &Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Luetke-Stahlman, B., &Luckner,
29 June 2016

Page 18 of 21

ProQuest

J. (1991). Effectively educating students with hear

ing impairments. New York: Longman.
Marantz, K. (October, 1977). The picture book as art object: A call for balanced reviewing. Wilson Library
Bulletin, 148-151.
Mather, S. A. (1987). Eye gaze and communication in a deaf classroom. Sign Language Studies, 54, 11-30
Mather, S. A. (1989). Visually oriented teaching strategies with deaf preschool children. In C. Lucas &C. Valli
(Eds.), The sociolinguistics of the deaf community (pp. 165-187). New York: Academic Press.
Maxwell, M. M. (1984). A deaf child's natural development of literacy. Sign Language Studies, 44, 191-224.
Mayer, M. (1968). There's a nightmare in my closet. New York: Penguin. McKenzie, M. (1986). Journeys into
literacy. Huddersfield, UK: Schofield &Sims, Ltd.
References
Moerk, E. L. (1985). Picture book reading by mothers and young children and its impact upon language
development. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 547-566. Morrow, L. M. (1988). Young children's responses to one-toone story readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 89-107. Oberlin, K. &Shugarman, S.
(1989). Implementing the reading workshop with middle school LD readers. Journal of Reading, 32, 682-687.
Paul, P., &Quigley, S. (1990). Education and deafness. New York: Longman. Peterson, R., &Eeds, M. (1990).
Grand conversations: Literature groups in action.
New York: Scholastic.
Probst, R. E. (1988). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in junior and senior high school. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Purves, A. C. (1994). Response to literature. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Encyclopedia of English Studies and
Language Arts, Volume 2 (pp. 1043-1045). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Purves, A. C., Rogers, T., &Soter, A. (1995). How porcupines make love III: Readers, texts, cultures in the
response-based literature classroom. New York: Longman. Ramsey, C. (1996). A deaf person in the classroom:
Using ASL to support deaf children's English literacy. In P. Higgins, &J. Hash, (Eds.), Understanding deafness
socially: Continuities in research and theory (2nd ed.) (pp. 96-112). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation
and response. Theory into Practice, 21, 268-277.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of
America.
References
Roser, N., &Martinez, M. (1985). Roles adults play in preschoolers' response to literature. Language Arts, 62,
485-490.
Satchwell, S. E. (1993). Does teaching reading strategies to deaf children help increase their reading levels?
ACEHI Journal, 19, 38-48. Schick, B., &Gale, E. (1995). Preschool deaf and hard of hearing students'
interactions during ASL and English storytelling. American Annals of the Deaf, 140, 363-370.
Short, K. G., &Pierce, K. M. (1990). Talking about books: Creating literate communities. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Sulzby, E., &Teale, W. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &P. D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 727-757). New York: Longman.
Tashlik, P. (1987). I hear voices: The text, the journal and me. In T. Fulwiler (Ed.), The journal book (pp. 171178). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Tierney, R. J., &Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing
relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &P D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 246280). New York: Longman.
References
29 June 2016

Page 19 of 21

ProQuest

Viorst, J. (1972). Alexander and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. New York: Atheneum.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C.,
&Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental
Psychology, 24, 552-559. Williams, C. L. (1991). The verbal language worlds and early childhood literacy
development of three profoundly deaf preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.
Williams, C. L. (1994). The language and literacy worlds of three profoundly deaf preschool children. Reading
Research Quarterly, 29, 124-155. Williams, C. L. (1995). Preschool teachers' theoretical and pedagogical
stances on the language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Implications for teacher
preparation and in-service programs. American Annals of the Deaf, 140, 56-64.
AuthorAffiliation
Cheri L. Williams University of Cincinnati Mari M. McLean
Columbus Public Schools
AuthorAffiliation
Authors' Note: The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier
version of this article and the classroom teacher, Anna, for her assistance in this study. This research was
supported, in part, by a grant to C. Williams from the Graduate Student Alumni Research Awards program at
the Ohio State University.
Publication title: Research in the Teaching of English
Volume: 31
Issue: 3
Pages: 337
Number of pages: 30
Publication year: 1997
Publication date: Oct 1997
Year: 1997
Publisher: National Council of Teachers of English Conference on College Composition and Communication
Place of publication: Urbana
Country of publication: United States
Publication subject: Education--Teaching Methods And Curriculum, Linguistics
ISSN: 0034527X
CODEN: RTEGAK
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: PERIODICAL
ProQuest document ID: 215353127
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/215353127?accountid=13155
Copyright: Copyright National Council of Teachers of English Conference on College Composition and
Communication Oct 1997

29 June 2016

Page 20 of 21

ProQuest

Last updated: 2015-05-30

Database: Research Library: Literature & Language

_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest

Copyright 2016 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

29 June 2016

Page 21 of 21

ProQuest