Reading and Deafness: State of the Evidence and Implications for Research and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, persistently low achievement levels have led scholars to question whether reading skill development is different for deaf readers. Research findings suggest that in order for deaf students to become proficient readers, they must master the same fundamental abilities that are well established for hearing learners, regardless of the degree of hearing loss or communication modality used (e.g., spoken or signed). The simple view of reading (SVR), which hypothesizes the critical role both language abilities and phonological skills play in development of reading comprehension, provides a model for understanding the reading process for a wide range of students and has the potential to shed light on the challenges deaf students have historically experienced in achieving age-appropriate outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to review the components of the SVR and use this conceptual model as the basis for exploring and discussing both historical and current research evidence in reading and deafness, with a particular focus on phonological skills. Recommendations for future research and practice based on the existing body of literature will also be provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".