Visual Phonics choosen over Cued Speech for speech

[owen06]

Once again, I am not arguing it's possible effectivness, I am simply saying that with the information provided in the piece, you cannot make broad statements regarding it.

1. It has not been published. Most of the other articles on the website have been published and you are provided that information. This article lacks the information or any way to access it because it has not been published.

2. Nowhere in the piece, does it say that Visual Phonics was chosen over Cued Speech. It simply says that it is similar to CS but differs and goes on to explain the differences.

3. flip- in other posts you have suggested people switch over to Visual Phonics yet at the same time you say that it lacks research to prove it's effectiveness. Why would you suggest something that may or may not work with very little evidence to support it?

4. The case study is on four children with down's, not deaf children.

Once again, I'm not arguing the possible effectivness of the tool, I am simply pointing out that the way the article has been presented here is misleading.

Thanks

 

[jillio]

Woosley, M.L., Satterfield, S. & Roberson, L. (2006). Visual phonics: An English code buster? American Annals of the Deaf. 51(4). pp454-457.

Here's one that can be accessed.

 

[owen06]

Thank you, that was really interesting. My argument still hold true though. That article was not a research paper or a case study. I am interested to see where the research will go. The few studies that have been done, have been unable to successfully correlate visual phonics specifically with speech improvement.

From the article jillio provided:

"Their data correlated positively with improved speech production in the student; however, the speech improvement could not be correlated with the intervention of Visual Phonics."

and

"The z scores gathered from the students who received the treatment package were nearly three standard deviations higher than the scores of the comparison group. Since Visual Phonics was part of a treatment package, teasing out the direct effects of Visual Phonics is impossible."



Still, this looks very promising.


Thanks

 

[jillio]

Thank you, that was really interesting. My argument still hold true though. That article was not a research paper or a case study. I am interested to see where the research will go. The few studies that have been done, have been unable to successfully correlate visual phonics specifically with speech improvement.

From the article jillio provided:

"Their data correlated positively with improved speech production in the student; however, the speech improvement could not be correlated with the intervention of Visual Phonics."

and

"The z scores gathered from the students who received the treatment package were nearly three standard deviations higher than the scores of the comparison group. Since Visual Phonics was part of a treatment package, teasing out the direct effects of Visual Phonics is impossible."



Still, this looks very promising.


Thanks

YW. I'm glad you found the article interesting. While this was not a research report, it was a literature review, which is based on the compilation of previous research in the field.

Actually, flip and I have been looking at phonetic approaches not as a tool to speech production, but to increased literacy scores.

 

[Boult]

Thank you, that was really interesting. My argument still hold true though. That article was not a research paper or a case study. I am interested to see where the research will go. The few studies that have been done, have been unable to successfully correlate visual phonics specifically with speech improvement.

From the article jillio provided:

"Their data correlated positively with improved speech production in the student; however, the speech improvement could not be correlated with the intervention of Visual Phonics."

and

"The z scores gathered from the students who received the treatment package were nearly three standard deviations higher than the scores of the comparison group. Since Visual Phonics was part of a treatment package, teasing out the direct effects of Visual Phonics is impossible."



Still, this looks very promising.


Thanks

owen, not sure if you have seen this already;

Visual Phonics (see bottom for list of links)

may I recommend searching Google's Scholar search feature
here's link to jump there quick;
visual phonics - Google Scholar

regard...

 

[flip]

Once again, I am not arguing it's possible effectivness, I am simply saying that with the information provided in the piece, you cannot make broad statements regarding it.

1. It has not been published. Most of the other articles on the website have been published and you are provided that information. This article lacks the information or any way to access it because it has not been published.

I did not make broad statements based on this article. I presented this article to make people aware about Visual Phonics. See the other articles from Jillio and the link Boult provided(thanks both of you!) or talk with people.

2. Nowhere in the piece, does it say that Visual Phonics was chosen over Cued Speech. It simply says that it is similar to CS but differs and goes on to explain the differences.

It's a fact people choose Visual Phonics over NCSA Cued Speech. Some people find NCSA Cued Speech annoying because NCSA advocate Cued Speech as a communication system. This fact is not explicit stated in this article, but this article is a part of that pattern. Cued Speech is primary used in oral deaf ed.

3. flip- in other posts you have suggested people switch over to Visual Phonics yet at the same time you say that it lacks research to prove it's effectiveness. Why would you suggest something that may or may not work with very little evidence to support it?

Because I belive I have an open mind as long it does not hurt people or risk depriving deaf people of language. If people want to expirment with visual phonemics, Visual Phonics is a neutral and newer tool. Visual Phonics also lacks this hostile attitude toward ASL that is openly stated by Cued Speech.

4. The case study is on four children with down's, not deaf children.

Yes, I am talking about Visual Phonics, not deaf children.

Once again, I'm not arguing the possible effectivness of the tool, I am simply pointing out that the way the article has been presented here is misleading.

You say here you do not argue the possible effectivness of the tool, while you wrote this in a post here: "The few studies that have been done, have been unable to successfully correlate visual phonics specifically with speech improvement.". Your agenda here is a bit confusing to me.

Hope you enage in the other debates here, and maybe learn some ASL, the natural choice, far more fun than Visual Phonics or Cued Speech

Thanks

My pleasure.

 

[jillio]

I did not make broad statements based on this article. I presented this article to make people aware about Visual Phonics. See the other articles from Jillio and the link Boult provided(thanks both of you!) or talk with people.It's a fact people choose Visual Phonics over NCSA Cued Speech. Some people find NCSA Cued Speech annoying because NCSA advocate Cued Speech as a communication system. This fact is not explicit stated in this article, but this article is a part of that pattern. Cued Speech is primary used in oral deaf ed.Because I belive I have an open mind as long it does not hurt people or risk depriving deaf people of language. If people want to expirment with visual phonemics, Visual Phonics is a neutral and newer tool. Visual Phonics also lacks this hostile attitude toward ASL that is openly stated by Cued Speech.Yes, I am talking about Visual Phonics, not deaf children. You say here you do not argue the possible effectivness of the tool, while you wrote this in a post here: "The few studies that have been done, have been unable to successfully correlate visual phonics specifically with speech improvement.". Your agenda here is a bit confusing to me.

Hope you enage in the other debates here, and maybe learn some ASL, the natural choice, far more fun than Visual Phonics or Cued SpeechMy pleasure.

As always, you are quite welcome.

 

[owen06]

I did not make broad statements based on this article. I presented this article to make people aware about Visual Phonics. See the other articles from Jillio and the link Boult provided(thanks both of you!) or talk with people.

Yes, thanks for the links Boult and Jillio, I really found them interesting. I apologise, I wasn't meaning you (flip) specifically made general statements. I was using "you" as a general term, meaning that people shouldn't be too quick to switch to it (from whatever method they are using) or add it to their "tool box"

It's a fact people choose Visual Phonics over NCSA Cued Speech. Some people find NCSA Cued Speech annoying because NCSA advocate Cued Speech as a communication system. This fact is not explicit stated in this article, but this article is a part of that pattern. Cued Speech is primary used in oral deaf ed.

It says in many of the articles that Visual Phonics was not chosen over Cued Speech because although they employ similar techiniques, they were not designed to accomplish the same thing. Since they aren't meant to do the same thing, how can one be chosen over the other?

Eg. "Although there are several similarities between the two systems, there are differences that distinguish the two systems from each another. First, Visual Phonics uses hand cues and written symbols to represent individual phonemes, whereas Cued Speech uses hand shapes in different placements near the mouth to represent syllables rather than individual phonemes. Second, the hand cues in the Visual Phonics system were designed to provide users with information about speech production, whereas those in Cued Speech were not. For example, the Visual Phonics hand cue for the /m/ sound is produced by holding a flat, closed hand horizontally near the mouth and moving the hand forward in a waving motion to represent the vibrating nature of this phoneme. Finally, Visual Phonics is to be utilized as only as a phoneme representation system whereas Cued Speech is intended to be used as a communication system (Cornett,2000; Waddy-Smith & Wilson, 2003)."

Trezek & Wang (2006) Implications of utilizing a phonics-based reading curriculum with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 202-213.

Because I belive I have an open mind as long it does not hurt people or risk depriving deaf people of language. If people want to expirment with visual phonemics, Visual Phonics is a neutral and newer tool. Visual Phonics also lacks this hostile attitude toward ASL that is openly stated by Cued Speech.

I am only asking...since there has not been research (although it looks promising) that has been able to correlate Visual Phonics with speech imporvement wouldn't it be plausible to say that it could potentially be harmful?

Yes, I am talking about Visual Phonics, not deaf children.

Granted, the other links to studies provided by Boult included deaf or HOH children. I just thought that the article originally posted was misleading since it was posted on a deaf forum.

You say here you do not argue the possible effectivness of the tool, while you wrote this in a post here: "The few studies that have been done, have been unable to successfully correlate visual phonics specifically with speech improvement.". Your agenda here is a bit confusing to me.

I'm not sure what you find confusing. I'm saying that Visual Phonics may very well be effective, however, the research done has been unable to tease out the effects of Visual Phonics specifically. Does that help?

Eg. "Findings indicate that these students were able to use phonological information to make rhyme judgments and to decode; however, no relationship between performance on reading ability and length of time in literacy instruction with visual phonics was found"

Friedman Narr, R.A. (2008). Phonological awareness and decoding in Deaf/Hard of Hearing students who use visual phonics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. (Sorry, I don't have time to find the volume and page numbers but it is the first link that Boult provided)

Hope you enage in the other debates here, and maybe learn some ASL, the natural choice, far more fun than Visual Phonics or Cued SpeechMy pleasure.

I actually do know some ASL (though I'm not fluent in it). My mom is fluent in it though.

Thanks.

 

[jillio]

Well, Owen06, I do not see that Visual Phonics would actually be harmful in the development of literacy skills. What I do see as harmful, however, is a system such as CS, that was originally designed to remove the abiguity from lipreading and to improve literacy skills being used as a full language communication method.

 

[flip]

I actually do know some ASL (though I'm not fluent in it). My mom is fluent in it though.

Thanks.

Thanks for more information on Visual Phonics, and for expanding this thread with more information on that system. It's great to see you becoming interested in Visual Phonics, and hope this thread can be a resource for those interested in facilicating their children with Visual Phonics, down, hearing, deaf or whatever.

 

[owen06]

Well, Owen06, I do not see that Visual Phonics would actually be harmful in the development of literacy skills. What I do see as harmful, however, is a system such as CS, that was originally designed to remove the abiguity from lipreading and to improve literacy skills being used as a full language communication method.

Perhaps, but there is no research proving that it is effective either. Is there research showing that Cued Speech being used as a communication mode is harmful? I did a quick search, and found an article from the International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology that suggested that Cued Speech was successful in speech production- though these children had a cochlear implant.

"Children receiving cued-speech education had higher scores by 3 years postimplantation than children receiving either auditory–oral or sign-language modes of communication."

Vieu, A., Mondain, M., Blanchard, K., Sillon, M., Reuillard-Artieres, F., Tobey, E., Uziel, A., & Piron, J.P. (1998) Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic structure of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 44, 15-22.

What do you think?

Wow, it's kind of difficult to cite correctly on here. Hopefully everyone can still understand it.

Thanks

 

[jillio]

Perhaps, but there is no research proving that it is effective either. Is there research showing that Cued Speech being used as a communication mode is harmful? I did a quick search, and found an article from the International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology that suggested that Cued Speech was successful in speech production- though these children had a cochlear implant.

"Children receiving cued-speech education had higher scores by 3 years postimplantation than children receiving either auditory–oral or sign-language modes of communication."

Vieu, A., Mondain, M., Blanchard, K., Sillon, M., Reuillard-Artieres, F., Tobey, E., Uziel, A., & Piron, J.P. (1998) Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic structure of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 44, 15-22.

What do you think?

Wow, it's kind of difficult to cite correctly on here. Hopefully everyone can still understand it.

Thanks

There is no research showing that Visual Phonics is harmful, either.

We must keep in mind that speech production is not equal to language acquisition. Just because one can reproduce the phonetic structure of a word does not mean that one is able to access and use that word . Speech production, speech reception, and whole language acquisition are 3 separate issues. Being able to reproduce speech is not a guarantee that one can receive speech, and being able to reproduce and receive speech is not a guarantee that one has acquired the ability to utilize langauge as a native speaker. That is where the issues of literacy come in.

There is, however, reams of research that indicates an oralonly environment is detrimental to the language aquisition of deaf children.

 

[flip]

Perhaps, but there is no research proving that it is effective either. Is there research showing that Cued Speech being used as a communication mode is harmful? I did a quick search, and found an article from the International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology that suggested that Cued Speech was successful in speech production- though these children had a cochlear implant.

"Children receiving cued-speech education had higher scores by 3 years postimplantation than children receiving either auditory–oral or sign-language modes of communication."

Vieu, A., Mondain, M., Blanchard, K., Sillon, M., Reuillard-Artieres, F., Tobey, E., Uziel, A., & Piron, J.P. (1998) Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic structure of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 44, 15-22.

What do you think?

Wow, it's kind of difficult to cite correctly on here. Hopefully everyone can still understand it.

Thanks

Lo.. er, owen06, Visual Phonics are used for speech and literacy by state of the art audiologists(speech) and special educators(litteracy problems) at elementary school at Gallaudet. Call them if you truly are interested in why they ditched Cued Speech, in favor of Visual Phonics.

If you find out, I would be happy if you could post the reply here

 

[owen06]

I was under the impression that CS was designed to be used as a communication tool and the increased literacy scores that have resulted from it has been an unforceen bonus. I haven't seen anything yet saying that CS is to be stricly used in an oral-only environment, nor do I believe an oral-only program is the way to go. In fact I found this:

"some educators do support the use of Cued Speech for students who use signbased communication."

and

"Because Cued Speech is used as a communication system, students are exposed to the cues regularly throughout their school day and often at home.
Students learn about the phonological information inherent in spoken English as they learn spoken language. They internalize the phonological information(and externalize it through speaking) and use it while reading."

Friedman Narr (2006). Teaching phonological awareness with deaf and hard of hearing students.Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 53-58.


jillio-

We must keep in mind that speech production is not equal to language acquisition. Just because one can reproduce the phonetic structure of a word does not mean that one is able to access and use that word . Speech production, speech reception, and whole language acquisition are 3 separate issues. Being able to reproduce speech is not a guarantee that one can receive speech, and being able to reproduce and receive speech is not a guarantee that one has acquired the ability to utilize langauge as a native speaker. That is where the issues of literacy come in.

I totally agree with you. Where I'm not following you is where CS failing in this. Even in the information that Boult posted, they refer to empirical evidence that has shown that CS is an effective literacy tool.

"There is strong research that indicates students who are educated using Cued Speech read and spell on levels similar to their hearing peers (Leybaert & Alegria, 2003)."

and

"Strong research that demonstrates students who are DHH and have been in Cued Speech programs tend to have better reading and spelling skills than their non-cuing peers."

Friedman Narr (2006). Teaching phonological awareness with deaf and hard of hearing students.Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 53-58.

Any thoughts??

Thanks

 

[flip]

Any thoughts??

Thanks

Yes, NCSA Cued Speech is far too importunate. Visual Phonics is a relief in comparison.

 

[jillio]

I was under the impression that CS was designed to be used as a communication tool and the increased literacy scores that have resulted from it has been an unforceen bonus. I haven't seen anything yet saying that CS is to be stricly used in an oral-only environment, nor do I believe an oral-only program is the way to go. In fact I found this:

"some educators do support the use of Cued Speech for students who use signbased communication."

and

"Because Cued Speech is used as a communication system, students are exposed to the cues regularly throughout their school day and often at home.
Students learn about the phonological information inherent in spoken English as they learn spoken language. They internalize the phonological information(and externalize it through speaking) and use it while reading."

Friedman Narr (2006). Teaching phonological awareness with deaf and hard of hearing students.Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 53-58.


jillio-

I totally agree with you. Where I'm not following you is where CS failing in this. Even in the information that Boult posted, they refer to empirical evidence that has shown that CS is an effective literacy tool.

"There is strong research that indicates students who are educated using Cued Speech read and spell on levels similar to their hearing peers (Leybaert & Alegria, 2003)."

and

"Strong research that demonstrates students who are DHH and have been in Cued Speech programs tend to have better reading and spelling skills than their non-cuing peers."

Friedman Narr (2006). Teaching phonological awareness with deaf and hard of hearing students.Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 53-58.

Any thoughts??

Thanks

No, CS was not developed as a communication system. It has been adulterated in more recent years. It was origninally developed as a teaching tool to increase literacy scores. You might want to check out some of the earlier comments by Dr. Cornett, who in fact, devised the system. The oringinal intent was to assist in removing the ambiguity of speech reading.

Cuing students have better scores as compared to whom? That is the question that needs to be asked. Compared to oral only non-cuing students? I would suggest that would hold true because of the added visual component. But how do they compare to students who are bilingual? Research has supported over and over that the highest achieving students are those that are exposed to both sign and speech. Why? Because they are utilizing a whole langue approach. There are volumes of research out there that indicates that spelling is not so much a phonological function (due tothe fact that English is extremely inconsistent phonologically), but one of top down cognitive processing. Words are not recognized as phonological parts, but as a whole comprised of specific letters that make up a particular shape that is recognized visually as a whole. Likewise, the reading tests need to be based on comprehension, not on word recognition for the increase in scores to be taken as valid in increasing literacy. It has been supported through numerous research designs that the deaf are indeed superior to the hearing in visual word and pattern recognition skills.

To increase literacy, one needs to increase not just word recognition, or spelling skills, but whole language. It is the difference between a skills based approach and a whole language approach. Being able to pronounce a word, or to spell a word is not very useful if one cannot use that word conceptually. That is the primary issue that CS fails to address.

While it can be a useful teaching tool, it has been around for 40 years and has not shown to impact the literacy skills of deaf students. It is recently making a resurgence due to the move toward oralism (AGAIN)!

The fact of the matter is, there are several avenues to reading and the phonological approach is but one. Even hearing students do not all function well with this approach. By the same token, there are some deaf students who do, but they are not the majority.

 

[rockdrummer]

Here are a couple of articles I found on the topic.

Is Visual Phonics Better Than Cued Speech?
Last year February I had an opportunity to attend a workshop on visual phonics presented by people from Gallaudet University. It was fascinating and the presenters, Bettie Waddy-Smith (a former colleague of mine) and Genie Chisholm, were fluent users of ASL. It was also an eye-opening experience for me as a Deaf professional.

Cued Speech is different. It is not language. It is a communication system. With Deaf adult cuers around the corner who suggested that we be open-minded, I would assume that we will need to wait for some 20-30 years till these "visual phonics" children become respectable adult professionals to tell whether it's better than cued speech. Or different from it.
Source:Ka'lalau's Korner: Is Visual Phonics Better Than Cued Speech?

Cued Speech and Visual Phonics: How Do They Differ?

Visual Phonics and Cued Speech are different in both structure and intent. In Cued Speech, sounds are represented by a combination of designated handshapes and positions in conjunction with mouth movements. As defined by the National Cued Speech Association (2000), Cued Speech is a sound-based visual communication system. In English, it requires eight handshapes in four different locations in combination with the natural mouth movements of speech, to visually differentiate the sounds of spoken language (National Cued Speech Association).

Visual Phonics differentiates each sound by representing it with a different handshape and movement that mimic how the sound is produced. It is a tool to assist in decoding and producing the sounds in the English language. It was not designed to be used in conjunction with spoken conversation. The goal is to clarify the sound symbol relationship between spoken English and print.

Visual Phonics allows deaf students to ask questions similar to those of their hearing peers.
The deaf student asks: The hearing student asks:
What am I seeing? What am I hearing?
What is my mouth doing? What am I saying?
What is the Visual Phonics hand cue? What is the sound?
What is the letter? What is the letter?

Visual Phonics can be used with deaf students who use any communication methodology. It can be used as needed to help with pronunciation during speaking or decoding during reading. As the child internalizes the English sound/symbol code, use of Visual Phonics fades.
Source: See that Sound--KidsWorld Deaf Net E-Doc--Gallaudet's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center

 

[jillio]

Thanks for the links, RD. The second explains very well how Visual Phonics can be used in conjuction with a whole language approach to increase literacy.

 

[owen06]

flip-

Originally Posted by Loml

Actually I was the one who asked the question. I don't really understand your answer though. Care to elaborate please?

 

[owen06]

No, CS was not developed as a communication system. It has been adulterated in more recent years. It was origninally developed as a teaching tool to increase literacy scores. You might want to check out some of the earlier comments by Dr. Cornett, who in fact, devised the system. The oringinal intent was to assist in removing the ambiguity of speech reading.

I believe you that the original intent was not for communication. So was it meant to increase literacy scores, remove ambiguity of speech reading or both? All of the recent information I have read on CS has stated that it is being used as a communication tool. Especially when it's compared to Visual Phonics, that is the main distinction that is made.

Cuing students have better scores as compared to whom? That is the question that needs to be asked. Compared to oral only non-cuing students?

I believe the quotes I used said compared to non-cueing peers. To me, peers would mean that they have had the same opportunites (or lack of) with the exception of the exposure to cueing. The previous quotes also said that the cueing students were on par with hearing students. You would have to go back and read the studies that they referenced to get the specifics on the participant base. Sorry, I don't have time to do that right now.

I would suggest that would hold true because of the added visual component. But how do they compare to students who are bilingual? Research has supported over and over that the highest achieving students are those that are exposed to both sign and speech. Why? Because they are utilizing a whole langue approach.

I didn't think I questioned the success of the whole language approach. I have read some of the research supporting the use of cueing combined with signing. Actually, I think I quoted that sentence as well.

There are volumes of research out there that indicates that spelling is not so much a phonological function (due tothe fact that English is extremely inconsistent phonologically), but one of top down cognitive processing. Words are not recognized as phonological parts, but as a whole comprised of specific letters that make up a particular shape that is recognized visually as a whole.

I didn't think I was talking specifically about spelling, but literacy as a whole. I'll have to go back and read my posts to see if I said that.

The top-down cognitive processing is just one of a few models of reading processing.

"Bottom-up approaches to reading instruction (Gough, 1972; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974) are generated from text-based models that emphasize graphic information and sound-letter correspondences on the printed page more that the reader's background knowledge. Top-down approaches (Goodman, 1976; Kolers, 1972), in contrast, are generated from reader-based madels that emphasize what the reader brings to the reading situation as opposed to what is on the printed page. In interactive approaches (Carpenter & Just, 1981; Rumelhart, 1977; Stanovich, 1980) good readers are viewed as integrating information from the text with their own knowledge to construct meaning. (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). To that end, readers sometimes apply top-down strategies, while at other times, they apply bottom up strategies."

LasSasso, C.J., & Metzger, M.A. (1998) An alternative route for preparing deaf children for bibi programs: The home language as l1 and cued speech for conveying traditionally spoken languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 265-289.

I hope we are talking about the same top-down processing.

Likewise, the reading tests need to be based on comprehension, not on word recognition for the increase in scores to be taken as valid in increasing literacy. It has been supported through numerous research designs that the deaf are indeed superior to the hearing in visual word and pattern recognition skills.

To increase literacy, one needs to increase not just word recognition, or spelling skills, but whole language. It is the difference between a skills based approach and a whole language approach. Being able to pronounce a word, or to spell a word is not very useful if one cannot use that word conceptually. That is the primary issue that CS fails to address.

"Phonological information is viewed as being central to the reading process." (Reference same paper as above). Systems like Visual Phonics and Cued Speech provide this phonological information, so I fail to see how increasing word recognition would not lead to increased literacy.

I never claimed that a skills based approach was the way to go.

As far as reading comprehansion is concerned, I found a study by Wandel (1989). He examined 120 deaf and hearing subjects from oral, TC , or CS backgrounds who were matched for hearing loss, and years in the manual mode (signing or cueing). The hearing control group was matched with deaf subjects for age, general cognitive ability, gender, and parent education level. One of the measures was the Reading Comprehension subtest of the SAT.

Findings: In comparison to hearing peers, deaf subjects, as a group, scored significantly lower SAT reading comprehension scores than hearing peers; however, reading comprehansion scores of profoundly deaf subjects who used CS were higher than those of other groups of deaf subjects and comparable to those of the hearing comparison group.

So although it doesn't look like CS adresses concepts, I think the research above shows that it does (on some level, somehow).

While it can be a useful teaching tool, it has been around for 40 years and has not shown to impact the literacy skills of deaf students. It is recently making a resurgence due to the move toward oralism (AGAIN)!

I don't really see how it is related to oralism. To me, oralism doesn't include any visual input of language. To me, it looks like a HUGE component of CS is visual, so even though it is representing an oral language it is not oralism (in my definition).

The fact of the matter is, there are several avenues to reading and the phonological approach is but one. Even hearing students do not all function well with this approach. By the same token, there are some deaf students who do, but they are not the majority.

I am curious to look at the other avenues, if you would be so kind to provide me with some research to start with I would greatly appreciate it. For literacy, if the majority of deaf students do not respond to a phonological approach to reading, what approach do they respond well to?