The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language,
and Education
Volume 2


This page intentionally left blank


OXFORD

L I B R A RY

Editor-in-Chief

OF

PSYCHOLOGY

peter e. nathan

The Oxford Handbook
of Deaf Studies,
Language, and
Education
Volume 2
Edited by

Marc Marschark
Patricia Elizabeth Spencer

1
2010


1
Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s
objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of
Oxford University Press
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education/
Edited by Marc Marschark and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographic references and index.

ISBN 978-0-19-539003-2
1. Deaf—Social conditions. 2. Deaf—Education. 3. Deaf—Means of communication
4. Sign language. I. Marschark, Marc. II. Spencer, Patricia Elizabeth.
HV2380.O88 2003
362.4’2—dc21
2002010496
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper


SHORT CONTENTS

Oxford Library of Psychology
About the Editors
Contributors

Index

ix

xi

Table of Contents
Chapters

vii

xv

1–478


479

v


This page intentionally left blank


O X F O R D L I B R A R Y O F P S YC H O L O G Y

The Oxford Library of Psychology, a landmark series of handbooks, is published
by Oxford University Press, one of the world’s oldest and most highly respected
publishers, with a tradition of publishing significant books in psychology. The
ambitious goal of the Oxford Library of Psychology is nothing less than to span a
vibrant, wide-ranging field and, in so doing, to fill a clear market need.
Encompassing a comprehensive set of handbooks, organized hierarchically, the
Library incorporates volumes at different levels, each designed to meet a distinct
need. At one level are a set of handbooks designed broadly to survey the major
subfields of psychology; at another are numerous handbooks that cover important
current focal research and scholarly areas of psychology in depth and detail.
Planned as a reflection of the dynamism of psychology, the Library will grow and
expand as psychology itself develops, thereby highlighting significant new research
that will have an impact on the field. Adding to its accessibility and ease of use,
the Library will be published in print and, later, electronically.
The Library surveys psychology’s principal subfields with a set of handbooks
that capture the current status and future prospects of those major subdisciplines.
This initial set includes handbooks of social and personality psychology, clinical
psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology, educational psychology,
industrial and organizational psychology, cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, methods and measurements, history, neuropsychology, personality assessment, developmental psychology, and more. Each handbook undertakes to review

one of psychology’s major subdisciplines with breadth, comprehensiveness, and
exemplary scholarship. In addition to these broadly conceived volumes, the
Library also includes a large number of handbooks designed to explore in depth
more specialized areas of scholarship and research, such as stress, health and
coping, anxiety and related disorders, cognitive development, or child and adolescent assessment. In contrast to the broad coverage of the subfield handbooks, each
of these latter volumes focuses on an especially productive, more highly focused
line of scholarship and research. Whether at the broadest or most specific level,
however, all of the Library handbooks offer synthetic coverage that reviews and
evaluates the relevant past and present research and anticipates research in the
future. Each handbook in the Library includes introductory and concluding
chapters written by its editor to provide a roadmap to the handbook’s table of
contents and to offer informed anticipations of significant future developments
in that field.
An undertaking of this scope calls for handbook editors and chapter authors
who are established scholars in the areas about which they write. Many of the
vii


nation’s and world’s most productive and best-respected psychologists have
agreed to edit Library handbooks or write authoritative chapters in their areas of
expertise.
For whom has the Oxford Library of Psychology been written? Because of its
breadth, depth, and accessibility, the Library serves a diverse audience, including
graduate students in psychology and their faculty mentors, scholars, researchers,
and practitioners in psychology and related fields. Each will find in the Library the
information they seek on the subfield or focal area of psychology in which they
work or are interested.
Befitting its commitment to accessibility, each handbook includes a comprehensive index, as well as extensive references to help guide research. And because
the Library was designed from its inception as an online, as well as a print resource,
its structure and contents will be readily and rationally searchable online. Further,

once the Library is released online, the handbooks will be regularly and thoroughly updated.
In summary, the Oxford Library of Psychology will grow organically to provide a
thoroughly informed perspective on the field of psychology, one that reflects both
psychology’s dynamism and its increasing interdisciplinarity. Once published
electronically, the Library is also destined to become a uniquely valuable interactive tool, with extended search and browsing capabilities. As you begin to consult
this handbook, we sincerely hope you will share our enthusiasm for the more than
500-year tradition of Oxford University Press for excellence, innovation, and
quality, as exemplified by the Oxford Library of Psychology.
Peter E. Nathan
Editor-in-Chief
Oxford Library of Psychology

viii

oxford library of psychology


A B O U T T H E E D I TO R S

Marc Marschark
Marc Marschark, Ph.D., directs the Center for Education Research Partnerships
at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, a college of Rochester Institute
of Technology, where he founded and edits the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education. He has joint appointments at the Moray School of Education at the
University of Edinburgh and the School of Psychology at the University of
Aberdeen.

Patricia Elizabeth Spencer
Patricia Elizabeth Spencer, Ph.D., was a public school teacher and science textbook editor before joining Gallaudet University and serving as a diagnostic–
prescriptive classroom teacher, assessment center administrator, research scientist,

and professor in the Department of Social Work. After retiring from Gallaudet,
she has taught at Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, worked with an after-school program
for children at-risk for academic difficulties, and remains active as a writer and
speaker in the field of education and development of deaf and hard-of-hearing
children.

ix


This page intentionally left blank


CO N T R I B U TO R S

Esperanza Anaya
Speech Research Laboratory
Department of Psychological and
Brain Sciences
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana, USA
Shirin D. Antia
Department of Disability and
Psychoeducational Studies
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Sue Archbold
The Ear Foundation
Nottingham, UK
Mark Aronoff

Department of Linguistics
SUNY Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY
H-Dirksen L. Bauman
Department of ASL and Deaf
Studies
Gallaudet University
Washington, DC
Daphne Bavelier
Brain and Cognitive Sciences
Department
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
Christopher M. Conway
Department of Psychology
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Shani Dettman
Cochlear Implant Clinic
Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
East Melbourne, Australia
Richard Dowell
Cochlear Implant Clinic
Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
East Melbourne, Australia

Camille C. Dunn
Department of Otolaryngology
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA

Susan R. Easterbrooks
Department of Educational Psychology
and Special Education
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA
Lindsey Edwards
Cochlear Implant Programme
Great Ormond Street Hospital for
Children
London, UK
David J. Ertmer
Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Matthew L. Hall
Department of Psychology
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Margaret Harris
Department of Psychology
Oxford Brookes University
Oxford, UK
Shirley Henning
DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and
Neck Surgery
Indiana University School of Medicine
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Daan Hermans
Royal Dutch Kentalis, PonteM R&D

Sint-Michielsgestel, The Netherlands
Suneeti Nathani Iyer
Communication Sciences and Special
Education
The University of Georgia
Athens, GA
xi


Janet R. Jamieson
Department of Educational
& Counselling Psychology,
and Special Education
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC
Harry Knoors
Behavioral Science Institute
Radboud University Nijmegen
Royal Dutch Kentalis
Sint-Michielsgestel, The Netherlands
Monika Kordus
Department of Otolaryngology
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
Kathryn H. Kreimeyer
Department of Disability and
Psychoeducational Studies
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
William Kronenberger

Department of Psychiatry
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Services
Indiana University School of Medicine
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Greg Leigh
Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind
Children
The University of Newcastle
Newcastle, Australia
Irene W. Leigh
Department of Psychology
Gallaudet University
Washington, DC
John Luckner
School of Special Education
University of Northern Colorado
Greeley, CO
Beth Macpherson
Department of Otolaryngology
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
Kenneth Marciniak
Department of Otolaryngology
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA

xii

contributors


Marc Marschark
National Technical Institute for
the Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology (NY)
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, UK
Rachel I. Mayberry
Department of Linguistics & Center for
Research in Language
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Connie Mayer
Faculty of Education
York University
Toronto, ON
Irit Meir
Department of Hebrew Language
Department of Communication Sciences
and Disorders
The University of Haifa
Haifa, Israel
Donald F. Moores
Department of Exceptional Student and
Deaf Education
University of North Florida
Jacksonville, FL
Tova Most
School of Education and the Department
of Communication Disorders

Tel-Aviv University
Joseph J. Murray
Department of ASL and Deaf Studies
Gallaudet University
Washington, DC
Catherine Nelson
Department of Special Education
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
Anthony T. Newall
University of New South Wales
Randwick, Australia
John P. Newall
Sydney Children’s Hospital
Randwick
Department of Linguistics
Macquarie University
Sydney, Australia


Carol Padden
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Claudia M. Pagliaro
Department of Counseling,
Educational Psychology &
Special Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI

Ann Perreau
Department of Otolaryngology
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
David B. Pisoni
Speech Research Laboratory
Department of Psychological and Brain
Sciences
Bloomington, Indiana
DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and
Neck Surgery
Indiana University School of Medicine
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Albert Postma
Helmholtz Institute, Experimental
Psychology
Utrecht University
Utrecht, The Netherlands
Barbara Raimondo
Attorney
Washington Grove, MD
Susanne Reed
Department of Disability and
Psychoeducational Studies
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Cathy Rhoten
Western Pennsylvania School
for the Deaf

Pittsburgh, PA
Wendy Sandler
Department of English Language
and Literature
The University of Haifa
Haifa, Israel

Thomastine Sarchet
National Technical Institute
for the Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY
Patricia Elizabeth Spencer
PSpencer Consulting, LLC
Rockport, TX
Michael Stinson
Department of Research and Teacher
Education
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY
Arlene Stredler-Brown
Department of Speech-Language-Hearing
Sciences
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO
Richard S. Tyler
Department of Otolaryngology
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA

Jan van Dijk
Radboud University Nijmegen
Haaren, The Netherlands
Rick van Dijk
University of Applied Sciences
Institute for Sign Language and Deaf
Studies
Hemoltz Institute, Experimental
Psychology
Utrecht University
Utrecht, The Netherlands
Alexandra Wheeler
The Ear Foundation
Nottingham, UK
Alys Young
School of Nursing, Midwifery,
and Social Work
University of Manchester
Manchester, UK
Megan Zupan
New York School for the Deaf
White Plains, NY

contributors

xiii


This page intentionally left blank



CONTENTS

1. The Promises (?) of Deaf Education: From Research to
Practice and Back Again
1
Marc Marschark and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer

Part One

•

Educational Issues

2. The History of Language and Communication Issues in
Deaf Education
17
Donald F. Moores
3. Legal Advocacy for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing
Children in Education
31
Barbara Raimondo
4. Preparing Teachers of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
41
John Luckner
5. Effective Instruction for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: Teaching
Strategies, School Settings, and Student Characteristics
57
Harry Knoors and Daan Hermans
6. Supporting Students in General Education Classrooms

72
Shirin D. Antia, Kathryn H. Kreimeyer, and Susanne Reed
7. Current and Future Technologies in the Education of
Deaf Students
93
Michael Stinson

Part Two

•

Literacy and Curriculum Issues

8. Evidence-based Curricula and Practices That Support Development of
Reading Skills
111
Susan R. Easterbrooks
9. Will Cochlear Implants Close the Reading Achievement Gap
for Deaf Students?
127
Marc Marschark, Thomastine Sarchet, Cathy Rhoten, and Megan Zupan
10. The Demands of Writing and the Deaf Writer
144
Connie Mayer
11. Mathematics Instruction and Learning of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing
Students: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go?
156
Claudia M. Pagliaro
12. Deaf Children with Severe Multiple Disabilities: Etiologies,
Intervention, and Assessment

172
Rick van Dijk, Catherine Nelson, Albert Postma, and Jan van Dijk
xv


Part Three

•

Cultural, Social, and Psychological Issues

13. Reflections on Identity
195
Irene W. Leigh
14. Deaf Studies in the 21st Century: “Deaf-gain” and the Future
of Human Diversity
210
H-Dirksen L. Bauman and Joseph J. Murray
15. Cochlear Implants: Family and Young People’s Perspectives
226
Sue Archbold and Alexandra Wheeler
16. The Impact of Early Identification of Deafness on
Hearing Parents
241
Alys Young
17. How Does Speech Intelligibility Affect Self and Others’
Perceptions of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People?
251
Tova Most


Part Four

•

Language and Language Development

18. Emerging Sign Languages
267
Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden, and Mark Aronoff
19. Early Language Acquisition and Adult Language Ability: What Sign
Language Reveals About the Critical Period for Language
281
Rachel I. Mayberry
20. Communication Choices and Outcomes During the Early Years:
An Assessment and Evidence-based Approach
292
Arlene Stredler-Brown
21. Early Communication in Sign and Speech
316
Margaret Harris
22. Language Acquisition and Critical Periods for Children
Using Cochlear Implants
331
Shani Dettman and Richard Dowell

Part Five

•

Hearing and Speech Perception


23. Newborn Screening and Earlier Intervention with
Deaf Children: Issues for the Developing World
345
Greg Leigh, John P. Newall, and Anthony T. Newall
24. Prelinguistic Vocalizations in Infants and Toddlers with
Hearing Loss: Identifying and Stimulating
Auditory-guided Speech Development
360
David J. Ertmer and Suneeti Nathani Iyer
25. Children and Youth Who Are Hard of Hearing: Hearing Accessibility,
Acoustical Context, and Development
376
Janet R. Jamieson
26. Performance Outcomes for Adult Cochlear Implant Users
390
Camille C. Dunn, Ann Perreau, Kenneth Marciniak, Beth Macpherson,
Richard S. Tyler, and Monika Kordus

xvi

contents


Part Six

•

Cognitive Issues and Correlates of Deafness


27. Play and Theory of Mind: Indicators and Engines of Early
Cognitive Growth
407
Patricia Elizabeth Spencer
28. Learning Disabilities in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children
425
Lindsey Edwards
29. Executive Function, Cognitive Control, and Sequence Learning
in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants
439
David B. Pisoni, Christopher M. Conway, William Kronenberger,
Shirley Henning, and Esperanza Anaya
30. Working Memory, Deafness, and Sign Language
458
Matthew L. Hall and Daphne Bavelier
31. Paradigm Shifts, Difficult Truths, and an Increasing
Knowledge Base in Deaf Education
473
Patricia Elizabeth Spencer and Marc Marschark
Author Index
Subject Index

479
499

contents

xvii



This page intentionally left blank


C HA P TE R

1

The Promises (?) of Deaf Education: From
Research to Practice and Back Again

Marc Marschark and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer

Abstract
This chapter considers the promise of research in areas relevant to deaf children and adults—and a
variety of promises that too often have been broken. Its twin goals are (1) an attempt to gauge current
relations among research, theory, and educational practice and (2) to make explicit some of what we
know, what we don’t know, and what we only think we know about raising and educating deaf children.
Four primary domains of investigation are considered: early identification and intervention, language,
educational models, and basic research into cognitive processes. Much has been learned in each of these
domains, but there has been surprisingly little measurable impact on practice or academic outcomes.
In some areas, the research is not as definitive as is generally believed, and in others, results are not as
generalizable as they might appear. This situation, in part, derives from methodological limitations in
some of the relevant research, but some intuitively appealing claims in the field appear to be totally
lacking in empirical support. The chapter suggests that this field is at a threshold, thanks to recent
advances in technology, basic research, and educational innovation. Unless we can do a better job of
bridging the gap between research and practice, however, opportunities and possibilities will be lost.
Keywords: early identification, intervention, language development, educational placement,
evidence-based practice, learning

As far as we can tell, no one has ever written an article

or chapter entitled anything like “The Promises of
Deaf Education.” We have found similar titles on
works that have at least passing reference to deaf
studies, language, and education, including “The
Promise of Accessible Textbooks,” “The Promise of
Grants from Private Foundations,” “The Promise of
Culture,” and even “The Promise of Warmth and
Life to Come.” But why nothing about the promise
of deaf education? Is it because people are reluctant,
perhaps appropriately so, to make promises they
fear they cannot keep? Is it because so many implicit
promises in this field have been broken? With all
that we have learned from basic research concerning
language, learning, and cognition among deaf adults
and children, there has been surprisingly little
impact on practice in essentially any domain. Yet,
clear implications emerge from that work, or at least

testable hypotheses, which have the potential to
change people’s lives. Similarly, with perhaps the
exception of deaf students’ mathematics difficulties
(see Kelly, 2008; Nunes, Bryant, Burman, Bell,
Evans, Hallett, & Montgomery, 2008; Chapter 11,
this volume), it is rare when specific issues that arise
in practice are taken up by investigators in order to
explore their roots through basic research.
The preceding observations notwithstanding,
this book is not an education volume. It is a series
of chapters describing the state-of-the-art in several
disciplines related to deaf individuals, Deaf Studies,

language, and yes, education. Yet, a subtext runs
throughout most of the chapters, and throughout
much of the work in this diverse field, in which
research is more than just a means to theoretical ends.
For most investigators, anyway, there is hope that
their basic as well as applied research ultimately will
1


contribute to improving the lives of individuals who
have long faced barriers and challenges that directly
or indirectly are related to academic achievement (see
Chapter 2, this volume). Whether these are implicit
barriers to education resulting from relatively poor
literacy skills (see Chapter 8, this volume) or explicit
discrimination against individuals who cannot hear
or do not speak, it is only by understanding the
sources of those challenges that we can overcome
them (Detterman & Thompson, 1997).
Surely, significant advances have been made in
areas relating to deaf individuals and their education,
although it is hard to think of many before the
revolution created by Stokoe’s (1960/2005) putting
American Sign Language (ASL) into the realm of
language rather than gesture or manual English.
McCay Vernon, one of the pioneering heroes of this
field for his work on intelligence and in clinical
psychology with regard to deaf individuals, once
remarked that deaf people and deaf education owed
much to the psycholinguists who brought Stokoe’s

work from linguistics into psychology and education.
Add the contributions of Kathryn Meadow-Orlans,
who was the first to tie together sign language, child
development, and education, and two pictures emerge.
One is the centrality of language to the growth and
progress in all facets of this multidisciplinary field.
The second is the fact that most of these significant
advances have been made by people considered
“outsiders,” because they are neither deaf themselves
nor have deaf parents. From one perspective, the
presence of these outsiders is unavoidable, given the
barriers confronted by “insiders” (Ladd, 2003). From
another perspective, these people made breakthroughs
precisely because they used research as an objective
tool to better understand phenomena, in the hopes
that it would contribute to better lives for other
people. This is not charity, but leadership. And perhaps more importantly, they did not make promises
they could not keep.
Despite first appearances, this chapter is intended
neither as a criticism of research in the field nor as a
eulogy for any particular area of investigation.
Rather, it has two interrelated goals: First is a desire to
honestly gauge the current relations among research,
theory (including informal theory), and educational
practice—or at least to begin that process. Without
some periodic assessment of whether claims are being
validated by well-conducted research and assessment, it is impossible to know whether we are making
any progress in either basic science or in the academic attainment of deaf children—that is, whether
we are looking for answers in the right places and
2


the promis es (?) of deaf education

recognizing them when we find them. The continual
failure to objectively evaluate the promises inherent
in such claims, while accepting or rejecting them
based on philosophy or preference, is one of the
continuing embarrassments of our field.
The second but not unrelated goal of this chapter
is to begin to make explicit some of what we know,
what we don’t know, and what we think we know
(rightly or wrongly) about raising and educating
deaf children. For decades at least, parents and educators have looked to research to inform them about
best practice in these domains, yet the field is filled
with conflicting claims and beliefs, some of which
are without empirical merit. We are not so naïve as
to believe that we always can avoid such situations,
nor do we think that any panacea exists that will
eliminate barriers facing deaf individuals in educational and other settings. We do, however, believe
that barriers exist and that better understanding of
the cognitive, social, and linguistic correlates of
being deaf can help to eliminate those barriers, as
well as being interesting in their own right. Perhaps
shedding a bit of light on several of these issues will
help to indicate areas in which more research is
needed and others in which such investment may
not be warranted.
For the present purposes, it will suffice to consider four domains of investigation. The domains we
have selected relate to many of the chapters in this
volume and, not coincidentally, to ongoing debate

within the field. These four—early identification
and intervention, language, educational models, and
cognitive processes—are not intended to be either
comprehensive or mutually exclusive, but they are
sufficient to make the case we wish to articulate in
the limited space available.

The Promise of Early Identification
and Intervention
No single aspect of raising and educating deaf children has as much positive evidence and international
support as the importance of implementing universal
newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early intervention (see Calderon & Greenberg, 1997; Chapter
23, this volume). Early intervention can greatly ameliorate some of the barriers to learning faced by deaf
and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children—at least
during the early years of life. Moreover, because
UNHS can be conducted while newborns are still in
the birthing hospital, it can be done efficiently, effectively, and at low cost. So, who could complain?
As late as 1990, the average age for identification
of congenital hearing loss in the United States was


around 24 months (Culpepper, 2003). At that time,
identification efforts were primarily based on registries
or hospital-administered questionnaires designed to
identify infants who were at high risk for hearing
loss based on family history or events during pregnancy or birth. Families were asked to bring their
children back for hearing tests after having left the
birthing center or hospital. However, many infants
who were deemed at birth to be at high risk for
hearing loss were lost to the system when parents

failed to return for scheduled appointments for
follow-up testing (Mahoney & Eichwald, 1987).
This approach is estimated to have identified at most
half of the infants who actually had a congenital
hearing loss (Mauk, White, Mortensen, & Behrens,
1991). In the United Kingdom and Australia during
that time, hearing screening was usually conducted
at a well-baby check several months after birth,
when a health visitor watched for the infant’s reaction to sounds from an unseen source (Ching, Dillon,
Day, & Crowe, 2008). This “distraction test” did
not prove to be sufficiently reliable in identifying
infants with significant hearing loss, despite its long,
popular history.
More recently, technology for assessing hearing
has advanced sufficiently to allow definitive identification of hearing loss during the neonatal period,
and where neonatal hearing screening is conducted,
the average age of identification has dropped to the
early months of life—from 2 years to 2 months in
some countries. Gaps remain in identification
because parents still sometimes do not return for
follow-up testing and because some infants have progressive hearing losses that were not evident at birth.
The promise of universal identification remains, even
while the promise of its impact remains uncertain.
Some practitioners initially questioned whether
identification of hearing loss at such an early age
might interfere with development of positive parent–
infant emotional bonding (e.g., Gregory, 1999, 2001)
or whether potential advantages in development
would justify the effort required (Bess & Paradise,
1994). Both Pipp-Siegel et al. (2002) and MeadowOrlans and colleagues (2004), however, reported

finding no evidence that early identification created
any difficulty in early parent–child attachment, and
we know of no one who has. Grandori and Lutman
(1999) concluded that the risks of anxiety due to
early screening were acceptable, given evidence of
benefits to developmental outcomes, and parents
tend to agree (see Chapter 16, this volume; Young
& Tattersall, 2005). Yet, even with the feared negatives out of the way, it remains unclear whether early

identification has a significant positive impact in
this area.
One goal of early intervention is to ensure that
parents have positive expectations for their children’s
progress, but Young et al. (2005) and Stredler-Brown
(Chapter 20, this volume) have noted that professionals’ advice to parents also needs to be realistic.
Progress is being made in developing more effective
support for the development of young DHH children, but the heterogeneity of this population makes
it difficult to predict individual needs and strengths.
Nevertheless, research generally has found significant
developmental advantages for children following earlier compared to later diagnosis and intervention services. Yoshinaga-Itano and her colleagues (e.g., Mayne,
Yoshinaga-Itano, Sedey, & Carey, 2000; YoshinagaItano, Coulter, & Thompson, 2001; Yoshinaga-Itano,
Snyder, & Day, 1998), for example, have reported
several studies comparing a growing sample of
children whose hearing losses were identified early
with other children who were identified later. After
accounting for variables such as degree of hearing
loss, socioeconomic status, communication mode,
and cognitive development, they found that younger
ages of identification resulted in higher levels of
functioning. Identification and the start of intervention by 6 months of age, in particular, were

associated with beneficial effects on social-emotional
development and language development.
On the basis of the Yoshinaga-Itano and related
studies, it is now frequently reported that early
identification and intervention prior to 6 months of
age lead to “normal” levels of language development
by the time deaf children enter school. Yet, the average language level for children in the YoshinagaItano sample was still in the “low-average” range for
hearing children (around the 25th percentile;
Yoshinaga-Itano, 2006), despite the fact that they
were involved in one of the most advanced early
intervention programs in the world (the Colorado
Home Intervention Program or CHIP). Clearly,
other issues are involved and need to be identified.
Moeller (2000), for example, assessed language
development of a large sample of children with
significant hearing losses and found that those who
began receiving intervention by 11 months of age
acquired language significantly better than those
who started later. At 5 years of age, those children
were functioning in the low-average range compared to norms for hearing children; again, still
better than deaf children who did not receive early
intervention. Moeller also found that a measure of
parental involvement with the child and with the
marschark, spencer

3


child’s educational programming significantly
predicted language development levels (see also

DesJardin, 2006), and Calderon and Naidu (1999)
found that age of first intervention services predicted
deaf children’s receptive and expressive language, as
well as the frequency of mother–child interaction.
Most investigators, if queried now anyway, recognize that early identification and intervention are
important, but neither necessary nor sufficient to
guarantee deaf children developmental and educational outcomes commensurate with hearing peers.
To date, however, most investigations in this area,
out of necessity, have examined only relatively shortterm effects of early identification and intervention.
As children in the early cohorts progress through
school, other studies will examine longer-term outcomes and outcomes in other domains. We can
offer one caveat in that regard, based on an unpublished study conducted in collaboration with a
school for the deaf in the eastern United States. That
investigation initially looked at relationships among
whether a child had received early intervention services or not, which of several intervention programs
they had participated in, and academic outcomes.
Surprisingly, initial analyses indicated that children
who had received fewer intervention services performed better on early standardized testing. More
detailed analysis, however, revealed that the results
were better interpreted as indicating that children
who were more in need of intervention support due
to individual and family factors did not score as well
as children in less complicated situations. Reminder
to field: Our interpretations of experimental results
must be done carefully, considering the entire context and its participants.
At present, what little research there is comparing
development of children enrolled in different intervention programs tends not to focus on evaluating
specific aspects of child or parental interventions,
even though it is generally agreed that successful
early intervention needs to substantially include

parents and not involve only individual therapy
sessions with the child (Bodner-Johnson & SassLehrer, 2003; Sass-Lehrer & Bodner-Johnson,
2003). Rather, in keeping with the traditional obsession of the field, most researchers have focused on
identifying the effects of the specific approach to
communication and language that is used—that is,
whether strictly oral (auditory-spoken language), or
visual (sign language), or a combination of the two
approaches is followed (see Chapter 20, this volume).
For the current purposes, we will make only two
observations in that regard.
4

the promis es (?) of deaf education

First, regardless of language orientation, experiences that increase parents’ confidence and feelings
of competence in communicating with their deaf
child have positive effects on their interactions and
the child’s language development (DesJardin, 2006;
Meadow-Orlans et al., 2004). However, longerterm consequences of these factors apparently have
not been explored, even though such findings began
to emerge over 25 years ago (see Marschark, 1993,
Chapters 3 and 4). Second, a review by Calderon
and Greenberg (1997) indicated that, when early
intervention programming included exposure to
sign language, children tended to show better language, social, and academic outcomes through the
early school years. In part, that result likely is a consequence of sign language offering earlier effective
communication between adults and deaf children,
and there does not appear to have been any research
in the ensuing years showing anything different.
Nevertheless, as will be described in the next section, “the promise of language” is one that appears

not to have been kept, as neither deaf children of
deaf parents nor deaf children with hearing parents
who grow up with either a sign language orientation
or a spoken language orientation typically demonstrate academic achievement comparable to hearing
peers (for a review, see Marschark, 1993; Chapter 4,
this volume). And, again, until comprehensive,
longer-term studies on the outcomes of early intervention are conducted, it is uncertain whether the
early advantages documented by Calderon and
Greenberg are maintained.
Returning to the promise of early identification
and intervention, we currently know that some is
better than none, but it is difficult to know whether
some approaches and methods are better than others
without further information. Due to ethical and
practical issues, research into this issue is unlikely to
involve randomly assigning children to various
programs or different programs using the same
outcome measures. As a result, it appears that, for
the present, we have to be satisfied with the conclusion that deaf children and their families generally
benefit from early intervention, even if we have not
identified specifically which aspects are important
for which individuals. We also cannot conclude that
early identification and intervention are sufficient to
provide most deaf children with full equality in later
educational opportunities. Language at the 25th
percentile of “normal” is a vast improvement compared to findings from earlier studies (YoshinagaItano, 2006), but if research involving children with
cochlear implants is any indication (see following


section), early benefits observed during the early

school years may not be maintained in the later
school years (see Chapter 9, this volume).
At the very least, parents and practitioners need
to be reminded that early identification and intervention are only the beginning of the process of educating deaf children, not the end (see Chapter 25,
this volume). Just as the positive effects of early
identification appear to accrue only when they are
accompanied by early intervention (Hogan, Stokes,
White, Tyszkiewicz, & Woolgar, 2008), early intervention undoubtedly will need to be supplemented
by ongoing interventions in various domains. Leigh
and colleagues (Chapter 23, this volume) point out,
“The notion that children will develop their language
and communication, cognitive, and social skills
more effectively if intervention is commenced very
early is grounded in the premise that there is an optimal period for the development of certain cognitive
and linguistic abilities…” (see also Chapter 19, this
volume). We suggest that it might be more accurate
to say, in the plural, that there are optimal periods
for the development of certain cognitive, linguistic,
and academic abilities; not all of them occur during
the first years of life.

The Promise of Language
Whether the focus is on development, education, or
culture, the issue of language modality—sign or
speech—always rears its head in both theoretical
and practical discussions within this field. This
chapter is not the place to try review the literature
on language modality, nor do we believe that it
would be fruitful (but see Chapters 2 and 21, this
volume). Our point is quite simple: Despite all

claims to the contrary, neither sign language nor
spoken language has lived up to the promises of its
proponents when it comes to raising and educating
deaf children. There are, of course, many deaf children who thrive in one language setting or another,
even if neither sign nor speech alone has proven to
provide a sufficient basis to assure most deaf children
of academic success. “Success” here refers to performing academically at the level of hearing children,
and some observers claim that this criterion is not
appropriate (Ladd, 2003; Lane 1992). Nevertheless,
it is through academic achievements in the public
education system that children in most countries
acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed by various metrics relevant to them within
their own societies. One could argue that schools
intended primarily for hearing children are rife with
barriers for those who are deaf, but it has not yet

been demonstrated that schools or special programs
for deaf children, in general or any one in particular,
obtain significantly better results. But that is a
matter for the following section.
It is not necessary to look far to find evidence
that the requirement of spoken language for all deaf
children is inappropriate. Alexander Graham Bell
(1898/2005) articulated that conclusion when he
argued for oral education for “the semi-deaf ” and
the “the semi-mute,” presumably those with lesser
hearing losses. With regard to oral education for
deaf children, he wrote “I am not so sure” (2005,
p. 121) and acknowledged the use and utility of sign
language. Indeed, in terms of academic outcomes,

there simply is no evidence that deaf children who
utilize spoken language consistently achieve more
than those who utilize sign language. In the case of
children with cochlear implants, Marschark and
colleagues (Chapter 9, this volume) point out that
their academic achievement, on average, does exceed
that of deaf children without cochlear implants. The
use of spoken language (which still typically falls
below that of hearing children) as opposed to sign,
however, has not yet been indicated as a critical
factor in this relative success. Archbold and colleagues (2000), for example, found that 3 years after
cochlear implantation, children’s spoken language
skills were independent of whether they used sign or
speech prior to receiving their implant. Similarly,
both Moeller (2000) and Yoshinaga-Itano (2003)
reported that benefits to language development
from early intervention were independent of the
modality emphasized by the program in which children were enrolled.
With regard to older children, there does not
appear to be any evidence to indicate that, when
other factors are held constant, spoken language has
any advantage in facilitating either academic achievement or social-emotional development. Intuitively,
one might expect such outcomes, but it is difficult
to come up with any convincing explanation of why
this would be the case. In the absence of any demonstrated advantage for one kind of school setting
or another (see next section), one could not argue
that a child who acquires sufficient spoken language
to function in a regular school setting with hearing
peers necessarily has an academic advantage, and
several studies have indicated that those children are

at some social-emotional disadvantage (e.g., Kluwin
& Stinson, 1993; Chapter 13, this volume). Further,
at least one recent study has explicitly demonstrated
that spoken language production and receptive skills
fail to predict DHH students’ college readiness or
marschark, spencer

5