Time Engaged in Reading: A Critical Factor in Reading Achievement E. A. Limbrick, S. McNaughton, M. M. Clay American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 137, Number 4, October 1992, pp. 309-314 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0486
For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/385152/summary
Access provided by University of Sussex (21 Jul 2018 18:45 GMT)
Time Engaged in Reading A Critical Factor in Reading Achievement E. A. Limbrick, S. McNaughton, and M. M. Clay The reading achievement of deaf children may be low not only as a result of factors related to the hearing loss, such as a lag in language development Environmental factors such as die quantity and quality of reading instruction, for example, may also cause low reading achievement. This study looked at the amount of time spent reading and die types of teacher interactions during reading instruction in classrooms at a school for deaf children and associated satellite classes in New Zealand.
It was found that die deaf children spent very low levels of time engaged in reading and were subjected to teacher interactions diat may inhibit die development of meaning-based reading skills. The quantity and quality of reading instruction for deaf children may differ from that experienced by most hearing children in New Zealand.
Γ m explanations have generally been proposed for the differences in reading skills of deaf and hearing children. The first claims that a cognitive deficit underlies the lower achievement of deaf children. Although some deaf children do have neurological handicaps, little difference
reading performance. The high correlations were consistent with previous studies of young hearing and hearing-impaired children (Quigley, Power, & Steinkamp, 1977; Conrad, 1979; Griffiths, 1983; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; Willows & Ryan, 1986). The strong relationship between reading and language development, whether oral, written, or signed, is usually interpreted as causal. It is argued that development in a particular language influences the development of reading. However, it is equally feasible to conclude from correlational data that proficiency in reading facilitates language development. A more appropriate working hypothesis might be that the relationship between language and reading is bidirectional. Hearing children are able to acquire partial and full adult meanings of words from context (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984). Researchers using expository and narrative prose, silent reading, and reading to children have found that even limited exposure to a word can lead to a new label for an established concept or, at times, a new concept (Elley, 1988). Although it appears that no research literature has examined this thesis, case studies of deaf children support a bidirectional argument. It has been demonstrated that early intervention, using a combination of print, signs, and oral
can be demonstrated between deaf children and hearing children on nonverbal tests of intelligence when no other
handicaps are evident (Fürth, 1973). The second explanation argues that because the deaf have no, or limited, aural input, they do not have highly developed oral language skills and this limits their reading skills. In a recent longitudinal study of 45 children in New
Zealand, researchers examined the relationship between reading and total communication (Limbrick, 1988). They
found significant positive correlations (above 0.90) at all age levels between language proficiency (signed and oral) and Limbrick recently completed a doctoral thesis that examined the development of reading and language in severely and profoundly deaf children in a total communication environment in
New Zealand. McNaughton is a developmental psychologist in the Department of Education at Auckland University. Clay recently retired from the Department of Education, University of Auckland, and is vice president and president-elect of the International Reading Association.
Vol. 137, No. 4
AAD
309
Time Engaged in Reading
Table 1. Mean Percentages of Actual Time of Reading Instruction" Engaged in Reading Class Level
Class
abilities, or deficits, are compounded as the environment responds according to its expectations of the competency of the individual. Calling this phenomena the Matthew effect, from St. Matthew (xxv, 29), Stanovich claimed that people achieve at many different levels, because those with physical, social, or sensory impairments may attract environments
Junior
Middle
Senior
that do facilitate achievement. The environment thus be-
(n-17)
(n-9)
(n = 24)b
comes a secondary handicap for some. This may be true for the deaf child, whose early social environment is different from that of the hearing child. Unless directly engaged in communication, the deaf child is not exposed to surrounding interactions. Furthermore, according to previous literature (MacDonald & Blott, 1978), expectations of language and literacy competence may be low. For hearing children, environments that value literacy and in which they are read to have been shown frequently to foretell high progress in reading (Teale, 1984). No studies of preschool deaf children have examined differences in the
M
SD
M
SD
M
1 2
80.3 67.7
17.7
78.8
9.9
65.9
13.7
4.9
14.5 66.1 61.2 24.4
12.3 3.7 14.0 27.3
13.4
3 4 Mean Total Minutes
74.0 63.8 80.3
49.4 35.2
69.7 27.8
7.2 17.4 7.4 13.7
19.7
SD
aThe actual time of reading instruction was the average amount of time devoted to reading among all classes (39.89 minutes)
quantity of literacy experience, although some have looked
b All children in each classroom were observed. Five children in the senior classes were not included in the major study as they were just outside the age criteria for the study.
at types of interactions and found differences. Interactions during book sharing tend to be parent dominated, directive, and less focused on relating the text to the child's understanding of the world than other types of interaction (Mogford, Gregory, & Kaye, 1978). Once in school, the most powerful classroom predictor of reading progress for hearing children is time actually engaged in reading instruction (Allington, 1980, 1983; Clay, 1979). Dry and Earle (1988) suggested that deaf children may not spend as much time reading as do hearing children and that this may explain their low levels of reading achievement. However, the researchers produced no empirical evidence. Crandall and Albertini (1980) provided evidence
Table 2. Mean Percentages For Types of Teacher Interaction With Students, Across Classes
Class Level
Type of
Junior
Middle
Senior
(n= 17)
(n-9)
(n = 24)"
Interaction
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Instructing Discussing Correcting Reading Listening
31.8 34.5
22.8 14.2
19.0 33.0
2.8 26.0
18.5 21.4
11.4 3.5
6.4 6.0 21.3
2.8 6.1 8.6
9.0 9.5 29.5
26.0 6.4 4.9
17.2 4.6
7.1 10.3
38.6
13.1
of a relationship between time engaged in reading and achievement in written language for deaf children. Another factor in reading achievement for hearing children is the nature of teacher interactions (Barr, 1974; Clay, 1979). For example, instructional behavior can contribute to a student's comprehension of text. When teachers delay correction of errors instead of correcting them immediately,
a All children in each classroom were observed. Five children in the
self-correction by the reader increases (McNaughton, 1987).
senior classes were not included in the major study as they were just outside the age criteria for the study.
Self-correction rates in hearing readers have been shown to
be indicative of reading for meaning. Similar instructional language, improves their language development and reading
effects have not been demonstrated with deaf children. Data
(Twiss, 1983; Henderson, 1976). Thus, a third explanation for
are available, however, that show that type of teacher interaction affects both the quality and quantity of verbal language in deaf children (Wood, 1984).
low reading achievement in deaf children might be related to the quality and quantity of reading instruction they receive. Reading experiences may account for some of the characteristics of both language and reading achievement and thus the high correlations between reading and language. To investigate whether the quality and quantity of reading instruction contributes to low levels of reading achievement in deaf children, it is necessary to investigate the literacy environments of deaf and hearing children. Stanovich (1986)
In describing the Matthew effect, Stanovich (1986) explains that the instructional environments of high-progress hearing readers tend to have the more productive features described above, whereas the environments of low-progress readers tend to restrict progress. An important subquestion for deaf readers is whether the Matthew effect is responsible for differences within the deaf population as well as between
argued that differences in achievement can be the result of a "cumulative environmental lag." He claimed that early
310
the environments for deaf and hearing students.
A longitudinal study (Limbrick, 1988) was used to explore AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Time Engaged in Reading
Results
instructional environments. As an initial step, classroom data were analyzed for deaf children. No direct comparisons were made with children in hearing classrooms.
Format of Reading Lessons The teachers involved in the study were experienced
classroom teachers but their experience teaching deaf chil-
Method
dren varied. All of the teachers indicated that they used
meaning-based models to teach reading. This is a top-down
Subjects The sample consisted of 45 severely and profoundly deaf children aged 5 to 10 years. They were enrolled in 10 classrooms at a school for the deaf or attached as special units (resource classes) at a local primary school. The 10 teachers had all completed inservice courses on the educa-
holistic model, rather than a bottom-up sequential model
(which emphasizes mastery over components of reading). Thus, instructional practice, as reported by the classroom teachers, appeared to be in accord with the model of reading generally adopted by schools for hearing children in New
tion of the deaf.
Zealand (Dept. of Educ, 1985). The format of reading lessons varied, although in most
Procedure
classrooms it began with a shared reading activity, based on the children's experiences. Reading materials reflected a "natural language" emphasis, with children in a number of
Teacher Questionnaires. Teachers completed questionnaires on (1) the amount of time allocated to reading, (2) their beliefs and practice in reading instruction, (3) the
classrooms choosing books at appropriate levels from boxed collections. Follow-up tasks included a wide range of activities, some of which involved a reading component but a number of which clearly did not, such as playing a mouth organ.
format of instruction and materials used, and (4) their
classroom teacher experience. Classroom Observations. Video recordings were taken of the children in each classroom during periods allocated for
Time Spent Reading Time allocated to reading per day (X= 52.2 minutes, SD = 10.9) was consistent with that allocated in schools for
reading instruction. Each child in the classroom was observed for 45 seconds and the interactions recorded. This
process was repeated in each of the 10 classrooms. A total
hearing children (generally 60 minutes of formal reading
of 575 minutes of observations were recorded.
instruction). However, in none of the sessions observed was the time allocated to reading fully used. Across classrooms, the average amount of time actually devoted to reading instruction, measured from when the teacher and children started to engage in reading activities to the completion of activities, was 39.89 minutes (SD = 9.9) per reading lesson. Individual amounts of time engaged in reading based on
The video recordings were subsequently analyzed and the teacher interactions with the children under observation
described. The percentage of time that each child was engaged in reading or a reading-related activity was then calculated. To be coded as engaged in reading, the child had to be reading to the teacher, reading to himself or herself (silently or with speech and signs), or reading to another child. Reading-related activities consisted of completing activities such as cloze exercises, reading to answer questions, and rewriting a story just read. Several teacher-child interactions (e.g. instructing, correcting) were measured from the video recordings: the instructional focus of the reading lesson (e.g., modeling, prompting); the format of the reading lesson (e.g., the nature of the introduction, reading tasks, and follow-up activities);
the 45-second sample were aggregated for a class and the total expressed as a percentage of the actual time spent reading (X = 39.89 minutes) and not the time allocated for reading instruction (X= 52.2 minutes). It can be seen from the large standard deviations for some classrooms (Table 1) that time engaged in reading differed markedly among individual students. Similarly, considerable variation existed across classrooms. In one senior class, 80% of the actual time
and the mode of teacher communication (to infer the
estimates only, as it was not always possible to fully record the teachers' signing. Establishing High- and Low-Progress Groups. Studies of
was spent reading, whereas in one junior class less than 20% of the actual time was spent in reading. Variability was examined further by comparing the means for high- (n = 22) and low-progress (n = 23) readers within the classrooms using a t -test. High-progress readers spent significantly more time reading than did low-progress read-
hearing readers have shown that the instructional environ-
ers (high-progress, X= 74.5%; low progress, X= 41.2%; T=
ments of high- and low-progress readers differ. To examine possible differences in the instructional environments for
4.65, df= 44, Ï• < .001).
deaf readers making high progress with those making low
Teacher Interactions With Students
progress, the sample was divided into high- and low-
Teacher interactions with the students were analyzed at two levels: general interactions and specific instructions. Table 2 sets out the mean percentages for the following types of general interactions: instructing included giving instruc-
accuracy of the model of language the child was receiving). The results of the teacher communication mode were
progress subjects within each age group. The division was based on a median split of scores on a standardized reading assessment (Gates & MacGinitie, 1972). VoI. 137, No. 4
AAD
311
Time Engaged in Reading
word does it look like?"); and instructing the child to read
Table 3. Mean Percentages For Teacher Behaviors in Instructional Interactions, Corrections, and Feedback, Across Classes
simultaneously with the teacher. The timing of corrections and whether feedback was positive or negative were also examined.
Class Level
Type of Instruction
Junior
Middle
Senior
(n-17)
(n-9)
(n = 24)"
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
19.5 45.5 10.8 2.5
21.9 39.1 8.3
13.5 29.0 52.5 1.5
3.5 5.7 2.1
4.0
3.0 0.0
4.2
0.0
5.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Interactions
Models language Supplies word Meaning prompt Structural prompt Visual prompt Simultaneous
1.0 20.5
5.0
2.0 22.5
0.5
29.8 29.8 31.8 40.3 34.2 37.7
Table 3 shows that, despite emphasizing meaning-based approaches, in practice few teachers were attempting to alert children to meaning cues in the text. Teachers of the junior and senior classes were more likely to model the correct
language and immediately supply a word. The combined scores for these two nonmeaning-based strategies were higher than the scores for supplying meaning prompts. Analysis of the quickness of corrections showed that they were made immediately in almost 9 out of 10 occasions. Thus, neither time nor additional context were available for
the child to attempt an independent correction. Meaning prompts were used most frequently in the middle-level classrooms.
The high standard deviations, particularly for the junior
reading Corrections Immediate
and senior classes, indicate considerable variability in teacher 17.1 17.1
96.5
4.9
77.5 16.5
Delayed
85.8 14.5
3.5
4.9
22.5 16.4
Feedback Positive
59.8
29.2
82.5
4.9
Negative
40.2
29.2
17.5
4.9
72.7 18.9 27.3 18.9
instructional behaviors. For example, one teacher focused entirely on correcting language, yet another did not correct language once throughout the study. Similarly, one teacher supplied the words immediately in 84% of interactions, whereas another provided meaning prompts in 84% of interactions.
Overall, the frequencies of structural and visual prompts were low. In junior classes, only 2.5% of instructions were structural prompts, and in senior classes no visual prompts were recorded. Teachers either did not expect the students to respond to such cues or possibly found it difficult to alert them using such cues. For example, a teacher could ask a hearing reader "Does the word sound right?"—cueing the student to aural language patterns; but such prompting has no easy equivalent for signing readers. Visual prompts, however, may have been underused. Feedback to students was generally positive. Overall, approximately 70% of the comments made to the children
a All children in each classroom were observed. Five children in the
senior classes were not included in the major study as they were
just outside the age criteria for the study.
tions for management as well as for reading; discussing
referred to talking about the text prior to or subsequent to students reading the text; correcting referred to interrupting the child's reading to correct either a reading or language error; reading (only in the junior and middle classes) referred to reading with the class; and listening referred to listening to the child's reading or conversation. Most teacher interactions involved giving instructions, discussing the texts, or listening to the children's contributions. These behaviors occurred in different proportions according to the class level. Teachers of younger children spent more time instructing than did teachers of older children. This may be related to the time children have spent
were positive. Teacher Communication Mode
Again, variability was marked. In the junior classes three of the teachers used simultaneous signs and oral language almost 100% of the time, whereas another used mainly oral
language with key signs. Teachers of the senior classes varied even more. One used signs and oral language 75% of the time, whereas another used no simultaneous language.
in classrooms and the need to establish behavioral and
instructional routines for younger children. Teachers of
younger children spent more time discussing text and less time listening to the children's contributions.
Discussion
Interactions were also analyzed at a second level to determine the instructional focus during reading lessons. The following categories were coded: modeling correct language; supplying a word immediately after an error or unknown word; providing a meaning prompt (e.g., "Think about the story."); providing a structural prompt (e.g., "What word feels right?"); providing a visual prompt (e.g., "What
312
This study has offered an explanation for low reading achievement by deaf children that emphasizes the bidirectional influence of reading and language development. This
explanation involves the quantity and quality of reading instruction as well as language development. Our study did not directly compare reading instruction and time engaged AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Time Engaged in Reading
in reading between deaf and hearing students. However, the analyses of classroom observations suggested that the deaf children did not engage in reading as much as children do in hearing classrooms. Although the time allotted to reading instruction in these
torted in their environments. Signed English has the potential
to provide accurate models of standard English but, as a
hearing children in New Zealand, on average, the deaf children were actually engaged in reading for only 23.97
number of studies (Marmor & Pettito, 1979; Jeanes, 1988) including ours have suggested, teachers' (and parents') use of signed English is rarely accurate, complete, or even simultaneous with the oral language in use. Print operates as a model of standard English; therefore, deaf children who read more have greater exposure to models of accurate
minutes; this is 45.92% of the allotted instructional time. In
syntax, which may compensate for aural and visual language
New Zealand, studies of junior hearing classrooms have reported that children engage in reading for 80%-90% of the allotted time (Watson, 1980; McNaughton, 1983).
input deficits. In summary, we propose that some of the low reading achievement for deaf children is due to reluctance to accept that for them, as for hearing children, reading and language
classrooms was similar to that allotted in classrooms of
Case studies of three high- and three low-progress
have bidirectional influences. For the deaf child, early
children in our study supported the argument that more time spent reading leads to greater reading achievement. Several high-progress readers in the study read at levels consistent with average hearing readers of the same chronological age when reading natural-language text, whereas the levels of the low- progress readers were consistent with previous reports of reading achievement by deaf children (Limbrick, 1988). The high-progress readers were more likely to be in classrooms that spent great amounts of time reading and to select reading and reading-related activities. Reports of highprogress hearing children have demonstrated that they, too, engage in reading more often than do children making slower progress (Clay, 1979; Allington, 1977, 1980, 1983).
communication patterns are generally disrupted. Early literacy experiences, which for hearing children lead to later reading development, are minimal. This cumulative deficit is
compounded by insufficient time spent reading at school, reading instruction that is not based on a thorough knowledge of the reading process, and access to few resources to ameliorate the lag.
The Matthew effect noted by Stanovich (1986) may help explain low reading achievement for deaf children. It could also account for the paradox that, despite profound hearing loss, some deaf people demonstrate marked academic achievement. If so, there are important implications. First, and most important, deaf children must be given access to many modes of language, including print, as early as possible. Second, parents and teachers should be encouraged to read stories to deaf children and to introduce print early into their environment. Third, teachers of the deaf must
Indeed, Allington titled his 1977 paper, "If they don't read much, how they ever gonna get good?"1 Along with studies by Howarth, Wood, Griffith, and Howarth (1981) and Wood (1984) our study also found that time allocated to reading for deaf children frequently became time spent on language correction and modeling (see
be provided with greater resources and knowledge about the reading process. Fourth, if deaf children are to learn to
Table 2). The teachers' interactions suggest that despite a general belief in meaning-based instructional approaches, they do not have or apply contemporary theoretical knowl-
read by reading, as do hearing children, more reading time must be ensured at all school levels. Although such statements may seem obvious, it appears that, in some classrooms at least, less reading time is the reality. In New Zealand, a number of approaches have been demonstrated to increase the amount of time spent reading and to improve reading achievement for low-progress hearing readers. Peer tutoring, sustained silent reading, dialogue journals, and interactive writing using the computer all have the potential to increase the time engaged in meaningful reading for deaf as well as hearing children. Finally, regular and frequent one-on-one reading instruction should be a basic requirement in classrooms for the deaf. With a greater emphasis on the time spent reading and providing quality reading instruction, both reading and language development should benefit. And, as with the chicken and the egg, we will not know which came first.
edge of the reading process. In New Zealand, as in other countries (Quigley & King, 1985), teachers of the deaf do not receive substantial training in the teaching of reading. Hearing children in New Zealand who are at risk of lagging behind in reading have access to specialists either through Reading Recovery (Clay, 1987) or Resource Teachers of Reading. Neither of these is a regular feature of deaf children's reading instruction.
In addition, it appears deaf children are not generally exposed to models of standard English. Visual and aural
information derived from oral language is frequently dis1 The three high-progress readers in our study were all in richly communicative environments, with parents who interacted using
sign language and presch ools in which reading print h ad a high profile. For these children, it appeared, early literacy experiences formed a sound basis for the bidirectional influences of later
References
reading and language development. Similar experiences have
Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don't read much, how they ever
been reported for hearing children who reach high levels of
gonna get good? Journal of Reading, 21, 57-61.
achievement in reading (McNaughton, 1987; Teale, 1984).
Vol. 137, No. 4
AAD
313
Time Engaged in Reading
Allington, R. L. (1980). Poor readers don't get to read much in
Limbrick, E. A. (1988). The reading and language development of severely andprofoundly deaf children in a total communication environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
reading groups. Language Arts, 57, 872-876. Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83,
Auckland, New Zealand.
549-549.
MacDonald, J. D., & Blott, J. P. (1978). Environmental language intervention. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39, 244-
Barr, R. (1974). The effect of instruction on pupil's reading
356. Marmor, G., & Pettito, L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 555-82.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading com-
the classroom: How well is English grammar represented? Sign
prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521. Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior.
Language Studies, 23, 99-136. McNaughton, S. (1983). The development of independence in learning to read: Progress across age levels and classroom instruction. Research report 55/2/104, Department of Education, Wellington, New Zealand. McNaughton, S. (1987). Being skilled. London: Methuen. Mogford, K., Gregory, S., & Kaye, S. (1978). Picture book reading with mother: A comparison between hearing-impaired and hearing children at 18 and 20 months, fournal of British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, 3, 43-45. Nagy, W E., Herman, P A., & Anderson, R. A. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253. Quigley, S. P, & King, C. (1985)· Reading and deafness. San Diego: College Hill Press. Quigley, S. P, Power, D. J., & Steinkamp, M. (1977). The language
Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clay, M. M. (1987). Implementing reading recovery: Systematic adaptations to an education innovation. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22, 1. Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. London: Harper & Row. Crandall, K. E., & Albertini, T. E. (1980). An investigation of variables of instruction and their relation to rate of English language learning. American AnnaL· of the Deaf, 125(3). Department of Education. (1985)· Guideline to the Revised Ready to Read Publications. Wellington, New Zealand. Dry, E., & Earle P. T. (1988). Can Johnny have time to read? American AnnaL· of the Deaf 133 O)Elley, W. B. (1988). How do children learn new vocabulary? Reading Forum—New Zealand. New Zealand Reading Associa-
structures of deaf children. Volta Review, 79, 73-84.
tion, Auckland, New Zealand.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.
Fürth, H. G. (1973). Deafness and learning: A psychological approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 360-406.
Gates,A.,&MacGinitie, W.Q965,1972). Gates-MacGinitieReading
Teale, W. H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman, A. A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), A wakening to literacy (pp. 112-121). Exeter, U.K.:
Test Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Griffiths, A. J. (1983). The linguistic competence of deaf primary school children. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Nottingham, U.K. Henderson, J. M. (1976). Learning to read: A case study of a deaf child. American Annak of the Deaf, 121, 502-506. Howarth, S. P., Wood, D. J., Griffiths, A. J., & Howarth, C. I. (1981). A comparative study of the reading lessons of deaf and hearing primary school children. British Journal oj'EducationalPsychology, 51, 156-162. Jeanes, R. (1988). Total communication revisited. Paper presented to the Australasian Conference for Deaf Educators, Christchurch,
Heinemann Educational Books.
Twiss, D. (1983). Early language intervention in signing and reading for a young deaf child. Unpublished thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Watson, B. (1980). Teaching reading to new entrant children: An observational study. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Willows, D. M., & Ryan, E. B. (1986). The development of grammatical sensitivity and its relationship to early reading
achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (3), 253-266. Wood, D. J. (1984). Aspects of the linguistic competence of deaf children. British fournal of Audiology, 18, 23-30.
New Zealand.
Jenkins, J., Stein, M., & Wysocki. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 767-787.
314
AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/385152/summary
Access provided by University of Sussex (21 Jul 2018 18:45 GMT)
Time Engaged in Reading A Critical Factor in Reading Achievement E. A. Limbrick, S. McNaughton, and M. M. Clay The reading achievement of deaf children may be low not only as a result of factors related to the hearing loss, such as a lag in language development Environmental factors such as die quantity and quality of reading instruction, for example, may also cause low reading achievement. This study looked at the amount of time spent reading and die types of teacher interactions during reading instruction in classrooms at a school for deaf children and associated satellite classes in New Zealand.
It was found that die deaf children spent very low levels of time engaged in reading and were subjected to teacher interactions diat may inhibit die development of meaning-based reading skills. The quantity and quality of reading instruction for deaf children may differ from that experienced by most hearing children in New Zealand.
Γ m explanations have generally been proposed for the differences in reading skills of deaf and hearing children. The first claims that a cognitive deficit underlies the lower achievement of deaf children. Although some deaf children do have neurological handicaps, little difference
reading performance. The high correlations were consistent with previous studies of young hearing and hearing-impaired children (Quigley, Power, & Steinkamp, 1977; Conrad, 1979; Griffiths, 1983; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; Willows & Ryan, 1986). The strong relationship between reading and language development, whether oral, written, or signed, is usually interpreted as causal. It is argued that development in a particular language influences the development of reading. However, it is equally feasible to conclude from correlational data that proficiency in reading facilitates language development. A more appropriate working hypothesis might be that the relationship between language and reading is bidirectional. Hearing children are able to acquire partial and full adult meanings of words from context (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984). Researchers using expository and narrative prose, silent reading, and reading to children have found that even limited exposure to a word can lead to a new label for an established concept or, at times, a new concept (Elley, 1988). Although it appears that no research literature has examined this thesis, case studies of deaf children support a bidirectional argument. It has been demonstrated that early intervention, using a combination of print, signs, and oral
can be demonstrated between deaf children and hearing children on nonverbal tests of intelligence when no other
handicaps are evident (Fürth, 1973). The second explanation argues that because the deaf have no, or limited, aural input, they do not have highly developed oral language skills and this limits their reading skills. In a recent longitudinal study of 45 children in New
Zealand, researchers examined the relationship between reading and total communication (Limbrick, 1988). They
found significant positive correlations (above 0.90) at all age levels between language proficiency (signed and oral) and Limbrick recently completed a doctoral thesis that examined the development of reading and language in severely and profoundly deaf children in a total communication environment in
New Zealand. McNaughton is a developmental psychologist in the Department of Education at Auckland University. Clay recently retired from the Department of Education, University of Auckland, and is vice president and president-elect of the International Reading Association.
Vol. 137, No. 4
AAD
309
Time Engaged in Reading
Table 1. Mean Percentages of Actual Time of Reading Instruction" Engaged in Reading Class Level
Class
abilities, or deficits, are compounded as the environment responds according to its expectations of the competency of the individual. Calling this phenomena the Matthew effect, from St. Matthew (xxv, 29), Stanovich claimed that people achieve at many different levels, because those with physical, social, or sensory impairments may attract environments
Junior
Middle
Senior
that do facilitate achievement. The environment thus be-
(n-17)
(n-9)
(n = 24)b
comes a secondary handicap for some. This may be true for the deaf child, whose early social environment is different from that of the hearing child. Unless directly engaged in communication, the deaf child is not exposed to surrounding interactions. Furthermore, according to previous literature (MacDonald & Blott, 1978), expectations of language and literacy competence may be low. For hearing children, environments that value literacy and in which they are read to have been shown frequently to foretell high progress in reading (Teale, 1984). No studies of preschool deaf children have examined differences in the
M
SD
M
SD
M
1 2
80.3 67.7
17.7
78.8
9.9
65.9
13.7
4.9
14.5 66.1 61.2 24.4
12.3 3.7 14.0 27.3
13.4
3 4 Mean Total Minutes
74.0 63.8 80.3
49.4 35.2
69.7 27.8
7.2 17.4 7.4 13.7
19.7
SD
aThe actual time of reading instruction was the average amount of time devoted to reading among all classes (39.89 minutes)
quantity of literacy experience, although some have looked
b All children in each classroom were observed. Five children in the senior classes were not included in the major study as they were just outside the age criteria for the study.
at types of interactions and found differences. Interactions during book sharing tend to be parent dominated, directive, and less focused on relating the text to the child's understanding of the world than other types of interaction (Mogford, Gregory, & Kaye, 1978). Once in school, the most powerful classroom predictor of reading progress for hearing children is time actually engaged in reading instruction (Allington, 1980, 1983; Clay, 1979). Dry and Earle (1988) suggested that deaf children may not spend as much time reading as do hearing children and that this may explain their low levels of reading achievement. However, the researchers produced no empirical evidence. Crandall and Albertini (1980) provided evidence
Table 2. Mean Percentages For Types of Teacher Interaction With Students, Across Classes
Class Level
Type of
Junior
Middle
Senior
(n= 17)
(n-9)
(n = 24)"
Interaction
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Instructing Discussing Correcting Reading Listening
31.8 34.5
22.8 14.2
19.0 33.0
2.8 26.0
18.5 21.4
11.4 3.5
6.4 6.0 21.3
2.8 6.1 8.6
9.0 9.5 29.5
26.0 6.4 4.9
17.2 4.6
7.1 10.3
38.6
13.1
of a relationship between time engaged in reading and achievement in written language for deaf children. Another factor in reading achievement for hearing children is the nature of teacher interactions (Barr, 1974; Clay, 1979). For example, instructional behavior can contribute to a student's comprehension of text. When teachers delay correction of errors instead of correcting them immediately,
a All children in each classroom were observed. Five children in the
self-correction by the reader increases (McNaughton, 1987).
senior classes were not included in the major study as they were just outside the age criteria for the study.
Self-correction rates in hearing readers have been shown to
be indicative of reading for meaning. Similar instructional language, improves their language development and reading
effects have not been demonstrated with deaf children. Data
(Twiss, 1983; Henderson, 1976). Thus, a third explanation for
are available, however, that show that type of teacher interaction affects both the quality and quantity of verbal language in deaf children (Wood, 1984).
low reading achievement in deaf children might be related to the quality and quantity of reading instruction they receive. Reading experiences may account for some of the characteristics of both language and reading achievement and thus the high correlations between reading and language. To investigate whether the quality and quantity of reading instruction contributes to low levels of reading achievement in deaf children, it is necessary to investigate the literacy environments of deaf and hearing children. Stanovich (1986)
In describing the Matthew effect, Stanovich (1986) explains that the instructional environments of high-progress hearing readers tend to have the more productive features described above, whereas the environments of low-progress readers tend to restrict progress. An important subquestion for deaf readers is whether the Matthew effect is responsible for differences within the deaf population as well as between
argued that differences in achievement can be the result of a "cumulative environmental lag." He claimed that early
310
the environments for deaf and hearing students.
A longitudinal study (Limbrick, 1988) was used to explore AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Time Engaged in Reading
Results
instructional environments. As an initial step, classroom data were analyzed for deaf children. No direct comparisons were made with children in hearing classrooms.
Format of Reading Lessons The teachers involved in the study were experienced
classroom teachers but their experience teaching deaf chil-
Method
dren varied. All of the teachers indicated that they used
meaning-based models to teach reading. This is a top-down
Subjects The sample consisted of 45 severely and profoundly deaf children aged 5 to 10 years. They were enrolled in 10 classrooms at a school for the deaf or attached as special units (resource classes) at a local primary school. The 10 teachers had all completed inservice courses on the educa-
holistic model, rather than a bottom-up sequential model
(which emphasizes mastery over components of reading). Thus, instructional practice, as reported by the classroom teachers, appeared to be in accord with the model of reading generally adopted by schools for hearing children in New
tion of the deaf.
Zealand (Dept. of Educ, 1985). The format of reading lessons varied, although in most
Procedure
classrooms it began with a shared reading activity, based on the children's experiences. Reading materials reflected a "natural language" emphasis, with children in a number of
Teacher Questionnaires. Teachers completed questionnaires on (1) the amount of time allocated to reading, (2) their beliefs and practice in reading instruction, (3) the
classrooms choosing books at appropriate levels from boxed collections. Follow-up tasks included a wide range of activities, some of which involved a reading component but a number of which clearly did not, such as playing a mouth organ.
format of instruction and materials used, and (4) their
classroom teacher experience. Classroom Observations. Video recordings were taken of the children in each classroom during periods allocated for
Time Spent Reading Time allocated to reading per day (X= 52.2 minutes, SD = 10.9) was consistent with that allocated in schools for
reading instruction. Each child in the classroom was observed for 45 seconds and the interactions recorded. This
process was repeated in each of the 10 classrooms. A total
hearing children (generally 60 minutes of formal reading
of 575 minutes of observations were recorded.
instruction). However, in none of the sessions observed was the time allocated to reading fully used. Across classrooms, the average amount of time actually devoted to reading instruction, measured from when the teacher and children started to engage in reading activities to the completion of activities, was 39.89 minutes (SD = 9.9) per reading lesson. Individual amounts of time engaged in reading based on
The video recordings were subsequently analyzed and the teacher interactions with the children under observation
described. The percentage of time that each child was engaged in reading or a reading-related activity was then calculated. To be coded as engaged in reading, the child had to be reading to the teacher, reading to himself or herself (silently or with speech and signs), or reading to another child. Reading-related activities consisted of completing activities such as cloze exercises, reading to answer questions, and rewriting a story just read. Several teacher-child interactions (e.g. instructing, correcting) were measured from the video recordings: the instructional focus of the reading lesson (e.g., modeling, prompting); the format of the reading lesson (e.g., the nature of the introduction, reading tasks, and follow-up activities);
the 45-second sample were aggregated for a class and the total expressed as a percentage of the actual time spent reading (X = 39.89 minutes) and not the time allocated for reading instruction (X= 52.2 minutes). It can be seen from the large standard deviations for some classrooms (Table 1) that time engaged in reading differed markedly among individual students. Similarly, considerable variation existed across classrooms. In one senior class, 80% of the actual time
and the mode of teacher communication (to infer the
estimates only, as it was not always possible to fully record the teachers' signing. Establishing High- and Low-Progress Groups. Studies of
was spent reading, whereas in one junior class less than 20% of the actual time was spent in reading. Variability was examined further by comparing the means for high- (n = 22) and low-progress (n = 23) readers within the classrooms using a t -test. High-progress readers spent significantly more time reading than did low-progress read-
hearing readers have shown that the instructional environ-
ers (high-progress, X= 74.5%; low progress, X= 41.2%; T=
ments of high- and low-progress readers differ. To examine possible differences in the instructional environments for
4.65, df= 44, Ï• < .001).
deaf readers making high progress with those making low
Teacher Interactions With Students
progress, the sample was divided into high- and low-
Teacher interactions with the students were analyzed at two levels: general interactions and specific instructions. Table 2 sets out the mean percentages for the following types of general interactions: instructing included giving instruc-
accuracy of the model of language the child was receiving). The results of the teacher communication mode were
progress subjects within each age group. The division was based on a median split of scores on a standardized reading assessment (Gates & MacGinitie, 1972). VoI. 137, No. 4
AAD
311
Time Engaged in Reading
word does it look like?"); and instructing the child to read
Table 3. Mean Percentages For Teacher Behaviors in Instructional Interactions, Corrections, and Feedback, Across Classes
simultaneously with the teacher. The timing of corrections and whether feedback was positive or negative were also examined.
Class Level
Type of Instruction
Junior
Middle
Senior
(n-17)
(n-9)
(n = 24)"
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
19.5 45.5 10.8 2.5
21.9 39.1 8.3
13.5 29.0 52.5 1.5
3.5 5.7 2.1
4.0
3.0 0.0
4.2
0.0
5.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Interactions
Models language Supplies word Meaning prompt Structural prompt Visual prompt Simultaneous
1.0 20.5
5.0
2.0 22.5
0.5
29.8 29.8 31.8 40.3 34.2 37.7
Table 3 shows that, despite emphasizing meaning-based approaches, in practice few teachers were attempting to alert children to meaning cues in the text. Teachers of the junior and senior classes were more likely to model the correct
language and immediately supply a word. The combined scores for these two nonmeaning-based strategies were higher than the scores for supplying meaning prompts. Analysis of the quickness of corrections showed that they were made immediately in almost 9 out of 10 occasions. Thus, neither time nor additional context were available for
the child to attempt an independent correction. Meaning prompts were used most frequently in the middle-level classrooms.
The high standard deviations, particularly for the junior
reading Corrections Immediate
and senior classes, indicate considerable variability in teacher 17.1 17.1
96.5
4.9
77.5 16.5
Delayed
85.8 14.5
3.5
4.9
22.5 16.4
Feedback Positive
59.8
29.2
82.5
4.9
Negative
40.2
29.2
17.5
4.9
72.7 18.9 27.3 18.9
instructional behaviors. For example, one teacher focused entirely on correcting language, yet another did not correct language once throughout the study. Similarly, one teacher supplied the words immediately in 84% of interactions, whereas another provided meaning prompts in 84% of interactions.
Overall, the frequencies of structural and visual prompts were low. In junior classes, only 2.5% of instructions were structural prompts, and in senior classes no visual prompts were recorded. Teachers either did not expect the students to respond to such cues or possibly found it difficult to alert them using such cues. For example, a teacher could ask a hearing reader "Does the word sound right?"—cueing the student to aural language patterns; but such prompting has no easy equivalent for signing readers. Visual prompts, however, may have been underused. Feedback to students was generally positive. Overall, approximately 70% of the comments made to the children
a All children in each classroom were observed. Five children in the
senior classes were not included in the major study as they were
just outside the age criteria for the study.
tions for management as well as for reading; discussing
referred to talking about the text prior to or subsequent to students reading the text; correcting referred to interrupting the child's reading to correct either a reading or language error; reading (only in the junior and middle classes) referred to reading with the class; and listening referred to listening to the child's reading or conversation. Most teacher interactions involved giving instructions, discussing the texts, or listening to the children's contributions. These behaviors occurred in different proportions according to the class level. Teachers of younger children spent more time instructing than did teachers of older children. This may be related to the time children have spent
were positive. Teacher Communication Mode
Again, variability was marked. In the junior classes three of the teachers used simultaneous signs and oral language almost 100% of the time, whereas another used mainly oral
language with key signs. Teachers of the senior classes varied even more. One used signs and oral language 75% of the time, whereas another used no simultaneous language.
in classrooms and the need to establish behavioral and
instructional routines for younger children. Teachers of
younger children spent more time discussing text and less time listening to the children's contributions.
Discussion
Interactions were also analyzed at a second level to determine the instructional focus during reading lessons. The following categories were coded: modeling correct language; supplying a word immediately after an error or unknown word; providing a meaning prompt (e.g., "Think about the story."); providing a structural prompt (e.g., "What word feels right?"); providing a visual prompt (e.g., "What
312
This study has offered an explanation for low reading achievement by deaf children that emphasizes the bidirectional influence of reading and language development. This
explanation involves the quantity and quality of reading instruction as well as language development. Our study did not directly compare reading instruction and time engaged AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Time Engaged in Reading
in reading between deaf and hearing students. However, the analyses of classroom observations suggested that the deaf children did not engage in reading as much as children do in hearing classrooms. Although the time allotted to reading instruction in these
torted in their environments. Signed English has the potential
to provide accurate models of standard English but, as a
hearing children in New Zealand, on average, the deaf children were actually engaged in reading for only 23.97
number of studies (Marmor & Pettito, 1979; Jeanes, 1988) including ours have suggested, teachers' (and parents') use of signed English is rarely accurate, complete, or even simultaneous with the oral language in use. Print operates as a model of standard English; therefore, deaf children who read more have greater exposure to models of accurate
minutes; this is 45.92% of the allotted instructional time. In
syntax, which may compensate for aural and visual language
New Zealand, studies of junior hearing classrooms have reported that children engage in reading for 80%-90% of the allotted time (Watson, 1980; McNaughton, 1983).
input deficits. In summary, we propose that some of the low reading achievement for deaf children is due to reluctance to accept that for them, as for hearing children, reading and language
classrooms was similar to that allotted in classrooms of
Case studies of three high- and three low-progress
have bidirectional influences. For the deaf child, early
children in our study supported the argument that more time spent reading leads to greater reading achievement. Several high-progress readers in the study read at levels consistent with average hearing readers of the same chronological age when reading natural-language text, whereas the levels of the low- progress readers were consistent with previous reports of reading achievement by deaf children (Limbrick, 1988). The high-progress readers were more likely to be in classrooms that spent great amounts of time reading and to select reading and reading-related activities. Reports of highprogress hearing children have demonstrated that they, too, engage in reading more often than do children making slower progress (Clay, 1979; Allington, 1977, 1980, 1983).
communication patterns are generally disrupted. Early literacy experiences, which for hearing children lead to later reading development, are minimal. This cumulative deficit is
compounded by insufficient time spent reading at school, reading instruction that is not based on a thorough knowledge of the reading process, and access to few resources to ameliorate the lag.
The Matthew effect noted by Stanovich (1986) may help explain low reading achievement for deaf children. It could also account for the paradox that, despite profound hearing loss, some deaf people demonstrate marked academic achievement. If so, there are important implications. First, and most important, deaf children must be given access to many modes of language, including print, as early as possible. Second, parents and teachers should be encouraged to read stories to deaf children and to introduce print early into their environment. Third, teachers of the deaf must
Indeed, Allington titled his 1977 paper, "If they don't read much, how they ever gonna get good?"1 Along with studies by Howarth, Wood, Griffith, and Howarth (1981) and Wood (1984) our study also found that time allocated to reading for deaf children frequently became time spent on language correction and modeling (see
be provided with greater resources and knowledge about the reading process. Fourth, if deaf children are to learn to
Table 2). The teachers' interactions suggest that despite a general belief in meaning-based instructional approaches, they do not have or apply contemporary theoretical knowl-
read by reading, as do hearing children, more reading time must be ensured at all school levels. Although such statements may seem obvious, it appears that, in some classrooms at least, less reading time is the reality. In New Zealand, a number of approaches have been demonstrated to increase the amount of time spent reading and to improve reading achievement for low-progress hearing readers. Peer tutoring, sustained silent reading, dialogue journals, and interactive writing using the computer all have the potential to increase the time engaged in meaningful reading for deaf as well as hearing children. Finally, regular and frequent one-on-one reading instruction should be a basic requirement in classrooms for the deaf. With a greater emphasis on the time spent reading and providing quality reading instruction, both reading and language development should benefit. And, as with the chicken and the egg, we will not know which came first.
edge of the reading process. In New Zealand, as in other countries (Quigley & King, 1985), teachers of the deaf do not receive substantial training in the teaching of reading. Hearing children in New Zealand who are at risk of lagging behind in reading have access to specialists either through Reading Recovery (Clay, 1987) or Resource Teachers of Reading. Neither of these is a regular feature of deaf children's reading instruction.
In addition, it appears deaf children are not generally exposed to models of standard English. Visual and aural
information derived from oral language is frequently dis1 The three high-progress readers in our study were all in richly communicative environments, with parents who interacted using
sign language and presch ools in which reading print h ad a high profile. For these children, it appeared, early literacy experiences formed a sound basis for the bidirectional influences of later
References
reading and language development. Similar experiences have
Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don't read much, how they ever
been reported for hearing children who reach high levels of
gonna get good? Journal of Reading, 21, 57-61.
achievement in reading (McNaughton, 1987; Teale, 1984).
Vol. 137, No. 4
AAD
313
Time Engaged in Reading
Allington, R. L. (1980). Poor readers don't get to read much in
Limbrick, E. A. (1988). The reading and language development of severely andprofoundly deaf children in a total communication environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
reading groups. Language Arts, 57, 872-876. Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83,
Auckland, New Zealand.
549-549.
MacDonald, J. D., & Blott, J. P. (1978). Environmental language intervention. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39, 244-
Barr, R. (1974). The effect of instruction on pupil's reading
356. Marmor, G., & Pettito, L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 555-82.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading com-
the classroom: How well is English grammar represented? Sign
prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521. Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior.
Language Studies, 23, 99-136. McNaughton, S. (1983). The development of independence in learning to read: Progress across age levels and classroom instruction. Research report 55/2/104, Department of Education, Wellington, New Zealand. McNaughton, S. (1987). Being skilled. London: Methuen. Mogford, K., Gregory, S., & Kaye, S. (1978). Picture book reading with mother: A comparison between hearing-impaired and hearing children at 18 and 20 months, fournal of British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, 3, 43-45. Nagy, W E., Herman, P A., & Anderson, R. A. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253. Quigley, S. P, & King, C. (1985)· Reading and deafness. San Diego: College Hill Press. Quigley, S. P, Power, D. J., & Steinkamp, M. (1977). The language
Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clay, M. M. (1987). Implementing reading recovery: Systematic adaptations to an education innovation. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22, 1. Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. London: Harper & Row. Crandall, K. E., & Albertini, T. E. (1980). An investigation of variables of instruction and their relation to rate of English language learning. American AnnaL· of the Deaf, 125(3). Department of Education. (1985)· Guideline to the Revised Ready to Read Publications. Wellington, New Zealand. Dry, E., & Earle P. T. (1988). Can Johnny have time to read? American AnnaL· of the Deaf 133 O)Elley, W. B. (1988). How do children learn new vocabulary? Reading Forum—New Zealand. New Zealand Reading Associa-
structures of deaf children. Volta Review, 79, 73-84.
tion, Auckland, New Zealand.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.
Fürth, H. G. (1973). Deafness and learning: A psychological approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 360-406.
Gates,A.,&MacGinitie, W.Q965,1972). Gates-MacGinitieReading
Teale, W. H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman, A. A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), A wakening to literacy (pp. 112-121). Exeter, U.K.:
Test Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Griffiths, A. J. (1983). The linguistic competence of deaf primary school children. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Nottingham, U.K. Henderson, J. M. (1976). Learning to read: A case study of a deaf child. American Annak of the Deaf, 121, 502-506. Howarth, S. P., Wood, D. J., Griffiths, A. J., & Howarth, C. I. (1981). A comparative study of the reading lessons of deaf and hearing primary school children. British Journal oj'EducationalPsychology, 51, 156-162. Jeanes, R. (1988). Total communication revisited. Paper presented to the Australasian Conference for Deaf Educators, Christchurch,
Heinemann Educational Books.
Twiss, D. (1983). Early language intervention in signing and reading for a young deaf child. Unpublished thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Watson, B. (1980). Teaching reading to new entrant children: An observational study. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Willows, D. M., & Ryan, E. B. (1986). The development of grammatical sensitivity and its relationship to early reading
achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (3), 253-266. Wood, D. J. (1984). Aspects of the linguistic competence of deaf children. British fournal of Audiology, 18, 23-30.
New Zealand.
Jenkins, J., Stein, M., & Wysocki. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 767-787.
314
AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
