1. Reading Strategies Used by School-Age Children With Hearing Loss
Monica C. Kleekamp, M.S., CCC-SLP
Fontbonne University Professional Forum:
Serving Children Who Are D/HH in Inclusive Settings
May 5th, 2017

2. Disclosure
Monica Kleekamp has no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose.

3. I. Introduction
Children who are deaf/hard of hearing demonstrate delayed reading abilities
4th grade reading level (Albertini & Mayer, 2010; Mayer, 2007)
Belief: Lower reading abilities correlate with impoverished phonological awareness
Educational instructionphonemic awareness
Vocabulary knowledge; stronger predictor (Kyle & Harris, 2006; 2011).

4. I. Introduction Approaches to reading: A. Skills-based
Breakdown of a whole into parts (Beatty & Care, 2009)
Emphasis on what text looks and sounds like
Word LevelText Comprehension
B. Holistic/whole language
Multilayered circle with semantics at the center (Y. Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005).
Active meaning-making process between reader and text
All language cuing systems support meaning

5. I. Introduction Research questions:
1. What reading strategies can readers identify?
2. To what extent does each reader utilize the graphophonic, syntactic and semantic language cuing systems while reading?
3. Which reading strategies do readers select and use during the reading process?

6. I. Introduction Research questions:
4. What are the narrative comprehension and retelling abilities of each reader?
5. How do readers identify the impact deviations from the text have on comprehension? 

7. II. Method Participants 6 readers (3 boys, 3 girls), ages 11-14
Severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss
Used listening and spoken language
All bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users except 1 (bi-modal: 1 CI, 1 hearing aid)
Primary language was English
Hearing loss resulting from nonsyndromic etiologies
No diagnoses of intellectual disability

8. II. Method Procedure A. Burke Reading Interview (Burke, 1987)
11-question interview
How readers view the reading process and themselves as readers

9. II. Method Procedure B. Reading Miscue Analysis (Goodman, 1973)
Purpose: to understand the reader’s reading process
Participant reads out loud
Miscues=deviations from the text that are not viewed as errors
Oral reading abilities, linguistic knowledge and reading strategies
Analyzes language cuing systems:
Graphophonic, syntactic, semantic
Miscues coded by level of acceptability
Observation of natural reading strategies:
Initiation, sampling, selecting, prediction, confirmation/disconfirmation, integration, termination
In-depth reader profile

10. II. Method Procedure C. Retelling/Narrative Analysis
Logical-Temporal Structure of Narratives (Lahey, 1988; Apel & Masterson, 1998)
Additive chains, temporal chains, simple causal chains, multiple causal chains
D. Retrospective Miscue Analysis (K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, Marek, 1986)
Purpose: assist readers in becoming aware of own strengths to revalue reader
Miscues selected and analyzed

11. III. Results/Discussion
A. Burke Reading Interview:
Proficient readingword-by-word process
Unaware of strengths
Overreliance on graphic/sound information
Skill-based approach

12. III. Results/Discussion
B. Reading Miscue Analysis
1. Language Cuing Systems

13. III. Results/Discussion
B. Reading Miscue Analysis
1. Language Cuing Systems

14. III. Results/Discussion
B. Reading Miscue Analysis
1. Language Cuing Systems

15. III. Results/Discussion
B. Reading Miscue Analysis
1. Language Cuing Systems

16. III. Results/Discussion
B. Reading Miscue Analysis
2. Natural Reading Strategies
Predictions; no confirmation/disconfirmation
Termination by one reader
Consistent with profile of non-proficient reader
Fail to self-correct when predictions were:
Not syntactically/semantically acceptable
Not confirmed by subsequent text information

17. III. Results/Discussion
C. Narrative/Retelling Abilities
4 readers:
Additive chains
Temporal chains
2 readers:
Simple causal chains

18. III. Results/Discussion
D. Retrospective Miscue Analysis
Subset of 3 readers
All readers:
Difficulty explaining miscues
Identified nonwords; high miscue
Profile of non-proficient reader
Unable to identify own strengths
Unaware when miscues indicate reading for meaning

19. IV. Further Research Larger sample size with more diverse participants
Re-evaluation of readers following instruction
Ongoing retrospective miscue analysis

20. V. References
Albertini, J., & Mayer, C. (2010). Using miscue analysis to assess comprehension in deaf college readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(1),
Apel, K. & Masterson, J. (1998). Assessment and treatment of narrative skills: What’s the story. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Beatty, L., & Care, E. (2009). Learning from their miscues: Differences across reading ability and text difficulty. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(3),
Fry Readability Formula. (2014). Retrieved September 15, 2013, from Early Childhood Education: frygraph.htm
Goodman, K. (1996). On Reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of reading. Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann and Scholastic Canada Ltd.
Goodman, Y. M., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.
Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., & Burke, C. L. (2005). Reading miscue inventory. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.
Kyle, F. E., & Harris, M. (2006). Concurrent correlates and predictors of reading and spelling achievement in deaf and hearing school children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3),
Kyle, F. E., & Harris, M. (2011). Longitudinal patterns of emerging literacy in beginning deaf and hearing readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(3),
Lahey, M. (1988). Language disorders and language development. NY: Macmillan Pub. Co.
Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early literacy development of deaf children. Joural of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(4),

21. E-mail: monica.kleekamp@gmail.com
VI: Contact Information
Monica Kleekamp