The Reading of Deaf Arabic Children in Israel
Saved in:
| Title: | The Reading of Deaf Arabic Children in Israel |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Haneen Wattad, Salim Abu-Rabia, Sara Haddad-Shehadeh |
| Source: | American Annals of the Deaf. 2024 169(1):12-39. |
| Availability: | Gallaudet University Press. 800 Florida Avenue NE, Denison House, Washington, DC 20002-3695. Tel: 202-651-5488; Fax: 202-651-5489; Web site: https://gupress.gallaudet.edu/Journals/American-Annals-of-the-Deaf |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 28 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Deafness, Arabic, Arabs, Reading Skills, Reading Processes, Reading Strategies, Reading Research, Foreign Countries, Short Term Memory, Reading Tests, Reading Comprehension, Adolescents |
| Geographic Terms: | Israel |
| DOI: | 10.1353/aad.2024.a931187 |
| ISSN: | 0002-726X 1543-0375 |
| Abstract: | Studies on the reading acquisition of deaf children investigate the similarities and differences in the reading process between these readers and typical hearing readers. There is no consensus on the nature of the reading process among deaf readers, whether they use the same reading processing strategies as typical readers or depend on other strategies to close the gap. The present study aimed to test the types of strategies used to process written words by deaf Arabic readers with prelingual deafness, compared to their hearing peers, and to test the effectiveness of deaf readers' use of these strategies. Three experimental paradigms were tested. The findings indicated that deaf Arabic readers rely on essentially similar processing strategies to those used by hearing readers. However, deaf Arabic readers employ these strategies with significantly less effectiveness. The results are discussed in light of international data. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1429471 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEO_DNRi-XYhm7bZlN5ehHlAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA1Azch1z1h1vx0IfQIBEICBm7joC0pGEZf10PC1vIX6mozcJWytu0KyLa8OoivKGwmgpxXWEPgnk0SLqx1ypUHeKraR6YKI2yTuJCz4zMrj1FgQhD5l-0NPhgzUtxWzBlM7Dvl00AbNn-bC5nrZLEaJrgR2vuKiVUezGmGYetPXU-aw8KTRDxPKqYlbl_pqEgBQXzMjfVSWy81ro7bpAsHEC0fY_yKtvuMFlK5i Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0178338898;aod01apr.24;2024Jul12.06:41;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178338898-1">The Reading of Deaf Arabic Children in Israel </title> <p>Keywords: processing written words; prelingual deafness; Arabic reading</p> <p>One of the populations that exhibit difficulties acquiring reading and reading comprehension skills is the deaf population. Due to their hearing deficit, deaf students encounter difficulties when acquiring the spoken language, which is the basis for acquiring fluent reading. Their pronunciation is usually impaired, and they often do not master the rules of syntax and semantic aspects that impart the full meaning to the message. It is claimed that deaf readers have difficulties acquiring both writing and reading.</p> <p>The aim of the present study was to investigate how, compared to typical readers, deaf readers who use sign language recognize written words, and to test how the strategies used by each group influence the performance of different tasks, such as categorization, retention, and learning. Another aim was to test the extent to which these strategies were related to the communication method used by the deaf participants, whose preferred language was sign, compared to hearing peers.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-2">Theoretical Background</hd> <p>Reports in the literature indicate that reading comprehension involves two categories of knowledge: the prior knowledge the reader brings to the reading process, which is a very strong predictor of reading comprehension; and cognitive strategies used by the reader before, during, and after reading. Prior knowledge comprises four domains: vocabulary, syntax, background, and text structure ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref2">38</reflink>]; Liberman, 2011; Mayberry et al. 2016; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref3">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref4">81</reflink>]). Numerous studies indicate that reading difficulties are caused mainly by impaired phonological encoding in the word recognition process related to phonological awareness, morphological awareness, alphabetic mapping, phonological encoding, and verbal memory and retrieval ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref6">90</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref7">91</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-3">Theories of Reading Written Words</hd> <p>The Self-Learning Theory views phonological processing of writing as an essential step toward skilled reading ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref8">83</reflink>]). The theory has been tested by different researchers ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref10">79</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref11">84</reflink>]), who concluded that the development of orthographic knowledge is mediated by phonological ability.</p> <p>Another theory ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref14">86</reflink>]) assumes two ways of recognizing the written word. One breaks down the word into phonological units that constitute the basis for recognizing words in the phonological lexicon, while the other connects the letters sequence of the written word into a mental orthographic representation that mediates recognition of their meaning.</p> <p>Research on different alphabetic orthographies has indicated that the acquisition of reading requires phonological and morphological awareness, and that training in phonological and morphological awareness results in significant gains in word-level reading and spelling performance ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref15">85</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref16">37</reflink>] have suggested that morphology serves as a "binding agent" that relates semantics, orthography, and phonology to one another and facilitates the integration of the mental representations of words. For a review of phonological and morphological awareness and reading, see [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref18">87</reflink>].</p> <p>These theories also apply to the achievement of automatic and eloquent correct reading in the Arabic language. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref19">9</reflink>] concluded that four essential processors are involved in the reading process: a graphophonological processor, an orthographic processor, a semantic processor, and a contextual processor. According to Adams, all four processors must be synchronized for the achievement of an optimal reading process.</p> <p>In conclusion, research has consistently demonstrated that the acquisition of word spelling and reading in various alphabetic orthographies relies on the development of fundamental linguistic awareness skills, with particular emphasis on phonological and morphological awareness. These skills play a crucial role in the decoding and comprehension of written words, highlighting their significance for successful literacy development ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref25">63</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref26">79</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-4">Reading Among Deaf Readers</hd> <p>Reading is considered a difficult task for children with prelingual deafness (i.e. those who became deaf prior to acquiring spoken language). These children may have limited knowledge of the spoken form of the language in which they read ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref28">59</reflink>]). They lack auditory experiences, which prevents them from developing effective phonemic awareness. This may explain why they have difficulty with reading acquisition ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref31">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several factors appear to cause impaired reading among deaf readers. Among them are impaired phonological awareness, limited world knowledge, poor vocabulary, and impaired understanding of language syntax rules ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref34">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref36">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref39">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref40">58</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref41">70</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-5">Phonological Encoding Strategies for Written Words Among Deaf Readers</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>] claimed that the reading ability of the deaf reader depends on three major variables: the degree of reliance on "internal speech" (phonological encoding), the severity of hearing loss, and intelligence. Conrad reached the conclusion that in the absence of internal speech, the reading level of deaf readers will remain significantly lower than that of hearing peers, regardless of their level of intelligence or degree of hearing loss. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>] similarly noted the significance of internal speech, demonstrating a positive correlation between general reading and writing abilities, as well as between working memory capacity and the speech index.</p> <p>Other researchers ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref45">64</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref46">70</reflink>]) have also assumed that the ability of deaf readers to use phonological information for reading determines their reading, speech comprehension, and lipreading skills. These researchers agree that deaf readers may use context to support their reading comprehension. This assumption is contrary to the findings of a series of studies by Paul Miller ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref48">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref49">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref51">56</reflink>]) that indicated that despite the impaired phonological ability of prelingually deaf readers, their ability to judge and categorize the research words was similar to that of age-matched hearing readers, and that prelingually deaf readers are not sensitive to the phonological characteristics of written words. In contrast, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>] suggested that deaf children's level of reading achievement can be predicted by degree of hearing loss, speechreading proficiency, and capacity to generate words for a set of presented objects (i.e. productive vocabulary).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-6">Deaf Readers and Their Use of Phonological Encoding</hd> <p>Studies on the development and teaching of reading have indicated that deaf readers, particularly the more skilled ones, may have access to phonological information ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref54">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref55">81</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>] tried to explain the ineffective use of phonological information among deaf readers. They assumed that when deaf children acquire phonological information, they find that this skill is not as helpful to them as it is to hearing readers, since the words are not familiar to them.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref57">59</reflink>] raised several reservations about the claim that phonology has special importance for the development of skilled reading among the deaf. She said that this assertion was based on studies of deaf children and adults, and that only a few were performed on deaf emergent readers, a limitation that necessitated further studies on pre-reading requirements and those requirements that are an outcome of reading ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref58">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>] mentioned two phonological codes that can serve two functions: an articulatory loop, which serves for reinforcing linguistic information by rehearsal but does not seem to be effective in maintaining information in working memory, and a function that supplies efficient storage in working memory and is useful in cases in which retaining word-order information is necessary. Lichtenstein's study indicated that the latter code for storage in working memory is as effective for word-order retention among deaf readers as it is among hearing peers. However, for most deaf participants, the speech codes and signs could not hold linguistic information to the same extent as the phonological code among hearing participants. Phonological encoding among deaf readers is apparently inefficient, and these readers may use additional strategies for encoding written words.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-7">Nonphonological Encoding Strategies for Written Words Among Deaf Readers</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>] compared the performance of deaf children in two age groups, 7–8 and 13–14 years, whose usual communication method was Total Communication (a method in which all possible means of improving communication between deaf people and between deaf and hearing people are used). This method includes the use of hearing technology, hearing and reading practice, and the development of speech and sign language ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref61">71</reflink>]). Harris and Moreno's findings indicated that as a group, deaf readers do not use phonological encoding to the same extent as hearing peers. The researchers concluded that the orthographic knowledge of the deaf increases when they learn to read more words, or that it may motivate the process of learning to read. Similar results were found by [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>], who tested whether spelling skills can be achieved without phonology. They found that deaf students spell words by relying on orthographic knowledge created as a result of generalizations that occur following repeated exposure to letter patterns or letter sequences. A similar conclusion was reached by [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref64">88</reflink>], these researchers concluding that deaf readers with low levels of speech understanding develop orthographic sensitivity to letter-order frequency, which determines the syllabic boundaries, and that deaf readers apparently use direct activation of word meaning based on orthographic processing.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-8">Encoding Strategies and Working Memory</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>] emphasized the role of phonological processes in the storage of written words in short-term memory. According to his model, readers store written information in short-term memory in the form of phonological cues, with retention supported by a phonological loop. This loop maintains information through rehearsal of the remembered elements. An additional subsystem contributing to short-term memory is the visuospatial sketchpad, which supports the retention of visual characteristics of stimuli by creating and manipulating repeated visuospatial imagery.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref66">93</reflink>] tested the impact of interference by visual stimuli on the performance of working memory among a group of hearing students and a group of deaf students who used sign language. The researchers found that visual information did not impair recall of written words among the hearing students, whereas among the deaf students, visual nonlinguistic shapes created significant interference that undermined recall of the target words. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>] claimed that the deaf can use signs as a temporary retention code, but do not use signs for processing (encoding) written words, as claimed by [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref68">82</reflink>].</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref69">54</reflink>] indicated that prelingually deaf students who use sign language encode the words for temporary retention in working memory using a code that reflects their mother tongue. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>] tested the type of memory strategies used for temporary storage of written words among typical, dyslexic, and deaf readers who used sign language, had prelingual deafness, and were the children of deaf parents. She found that typical readers rely on phonological encoding strategies and dyslexic readers rely on visual encoding strategies, whereas deaf readers rely on sign encoding strategies.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref71">89</reflink>] tested deaf children with prelingual deafness and deaf parents, whose first language was sign language. The participants were asked to judge the syntactical correctness of four types of sentences; there was a certain similarity between sentences of each type. The results showed that they used a sign code.</p> <p>In conclusion, the deaf may encode written information using nonphonological encoding strategies in order to compensate for their impaired phonological encoding ability.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-9">Reading in Arabic</hd> <p>Deaf children from the Arab sector may encounter dual hardships when beginning to read and write, a difficulty stemming from their linguistic deficit and from the complexity of the Arabic language.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>] described the division of Arabic into two forms. One is diglossia, literary Arabic (Standard Modern Arabic, STA), which is used for formal communication and for writing throughout the Arab world. The other is spoken Arabic (SPA), which is a local dialect and does not have a written form. SPA is the natural language of all Arabic speakers, whereas the literary language is learned in school. Although there is a subgroup of common words, the two forms differ phonologically, morphologically, and syntactically. STA consists of 28 consonants and six vowel phonemes. All words in STA must begin with a single consonant followed by a vowel. SPA vernaculars usually consist of a smaller set of consonants and a larger set of vowels, and allow complex onsets ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref73">75</reflink>]). Furthermore, the shape of a specific letter changes according to its position in the word: a form at the beginning of the word, another form in the middle of the word and a third form at the end of the word. See, for example, the letter</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>in the beginning</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>, in the middle</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>, and in the end</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>. There are also other diacritical marks (dots) which represent phonological characteristics (short vowels,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>). Texts through which the beginning Arabic reader acquires reading are dotted, but at a later stage the dotting is removed and the script ceases to fully represent the phonology of the words. Dotted Arabic is thus considered a transparent orthography, while nondotted Arabic is regarded as a deep orthography ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref74">7</reflink>]). Another phenomenon worth noting is that there are several letters that are similar in sound; in these instances, the auditory differentiation between them is weakened:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>, and at the end of the word</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>(a-h). People have difficulty choosing the appropriate letter when writing a word that contains one letter from a pair of these letters, due to the similarity in sound.</p> <p>This diglossia and the distance between SPA and STA are factors that affect the quality of Arabic reading acquisition, and pose difficulties for children trying to make judgments about correct pronunciation. This difficulty affects their phonological and morphological awareness ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref76">72</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref77">78</reflink>]), and leads to reading acquisition difficulties ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref81">80</reflink>]). Furthermore, identifying the shapes of the letters that change according to their position in the word, as well as identifying the diacritical marks that are found below, in, and above the letters, is critical to the process of identifying a word when one is reading in the Arabic language, which requires cognitive effort ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>]). For more information on Arabic diglossia, see [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref83">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref84">73</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref85">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref86">76</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref87">77</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-10">The General Rationale of the Present Research</hd> <p>There is no consensus regarding the nature of the reading process. There are those who claim that phonological processing of writing is necessary for acquiring a high level of reading ability ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref88">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref89">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref91">70</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref92">83</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref93">84</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref94">90</reflink>]). Others claim that typical reading ability can develop even in the absence of satisfactory phonological ability and that deaf readers rely on additional encoding strategies ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref95">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref96">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref97">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref98">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref100">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref101">56</reflink>]). The aim of the present study was to create new knowledge on the nature of the reading process in general, and the process among deaf readers in particular. Two groups of Arabic-speaking readers were therefore tested: a group with prelingual deafness and a group of hearing age–matched readers. Three research paradigms were used:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. a paradigm that tested categorization of real and pseudohomophonic words</item> <p></p> <item> 2. a paradigm that tested sensitivity to different types of similarities (phonological, orthographic, visual, signs) during serial recall of words</item> <p></p> <item> 3. a paradigm that tested sensitivity to different types of similarities (phonological, orthographic, visual, signs) during performance of a learning task</item> </ulist> <p>These paradigms relied on previous studies that explored the effects of morphological and phonological knowledge on reading, as well as the role of syntactic knowledge, language enrichment, and vocabulary in reading comprehension (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref102">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref103">79</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref104">80</reflink>]). Hypotheses involving phonological decoding deficits, structural knowledge deficits, and prior knowledge deficits among prelingually deaf individuals have been proposed to explain their reading difficulties, potentially acting in combination (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref105">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref106">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref107">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref108">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref109">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref110">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-11">Research Questions</hd> <p>The present study considered two research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. How do Arabic-speaking deaf and hearing readers process written words?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. How do the encoding strategies used by Arabic-speaking deaf and hearing readers influence the effectiveness of the processing of written words?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178338898-12">Research Hypotheses</hd> <p>All hypotheses are formulated with reference to the theory that assumes that phonological encoding is essential for fluent reading:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Deaf readers will process written words using a different strategy from the one used by their hearing peers. Hearing readers will be sensitive to manipulations of phonological information, whereas deaf readers will be sensitive to manipulations of signs information.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Hearing readers will perform at a higher level than their deaf peers in the various experimental tasks: categorization of real and pseudo words, serial recall of words with different types of similarities, performance of a learning task with different types of similarities.</item> </ulist> <p>Note: All words used in the present study were presented in nondotted Arabic script, in light of the fact that the participants were old enough to read newspapers, bulletins, and textbooks.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-13">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178338898-14">Participants</hd> <p>All participants took part in all experimental paradigms. They were tested individually, and the instructions were also given in sign language. (The sign language includes the spelling system used by the Arabic-speaking deaf, which is actually borrowed from the Israeli Hebrew sign language.)</p> <p>The participants included two experimental groups of speakers of Arabic as their first language: a group of prelingually deaf participants and a group of age-matched hearing readers. (All deaf participants wore hearing aids, with no cochlear implants.) Due to the low incidence of children with congenital deafness born to hearing parents who prefer to communicate in sign language, there was difficulty locating participants in one age group or in a narrow age range. The research group therefore included a wide age range (7th–12th grade), and the same age range was chosen for the hearing control group. Only readers with a typical intelligence level were included in the sample. All participants had typical vision and no learning disability, as reported by their teachers. The sample was a convenience sample.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-15">Deaf Participants</hd> <p>The deaf participants were sampled from special classes for the deaf where sign language served as the teaching language. The classes were in high schools in the north of Israel. This group included 20 students (13 girls, 7 boys) with an average age of 15 years, 9 months (SD = 1.30). All had a hearing deficit of at least 80 dB in their good ear. Only children who declared that sign language was their preferred language were included. Demographic data on the deaf participants' hearing status were collected during the study, including the type of communication they used at home.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-16">Hearing Participants</hd> <p>Like the deaf participants, the hearing participants were chosen from a high school. They were matched to the deaf participants according to chronological age and gender. The hearing group also included 20 participants (13 girls, 7 boys); their mean age was 16 years, 2 months (SD = 1.35).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-17">Reading Comprehension Test</hd> <p>Basic reading comprehension was tested with the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), which was translated from Hebrew into Arabic for administration to Arabic speakers. The test contains 36 simple sentences and dependent clauses. A question and possible answers were written below each sentence. The participants were asked to read the sentences and answers, and to choose one answer. The instructions to the deaf participants were given in sign language. One practice sheet was prepared with which the experimenter helped the participant understand the task. After the practice, the participant was asked to solve the test alone. The number of sentences answered correctly was the measure of this test.</p> <p>A one-way ANOVA was done to compare the performance of the two research groups (deaf/hearing) on the reading comprehension test. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. A significant difference was found between the two groups, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref112">38</reflink>) = 234, p &lt;.001, η =.86.</p> <p>The reading comprehension test was administered to test the basic level of understanding of simple and complex sentences. The findings were supported by those of similar studies on deaf students ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref113">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref114">59</reflink>]) indicating low, guessing-level performance among deaf readers.</p> <p>Graph: Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations: Final Scores on the Scholastic Assessment Test</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-18">Experimental Paradigm 1: Categorization of Real and Pseudohomophonic Words</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178338898-19">A. Basic Motor Skills and Decision-Making Speed</hd> <p>The purpose of Experimental Paradigm 1 was to evaluate the capacity of deaf readers to use their phonological skills to recognize written words and to determine whether orthographic knowledge could compensate for a deficiency in typical phonological ability. This approach was taken in response to the argument that the development of orthographic knowledge is contingent upon the presence of normal phonological capability ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref115">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref116">83</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref117">84</reflink>]). The paradigm we used in this experiment required the participants to categorize real words and pseudohomophones of those words. The assumption was that the identification of real words for a catalog is possible through both phonological knowledge and orthographic knowledge. In contradistinction, the cataloging of pseudo-homophones requires reliance on phonological coding because pseudohomophones have no orthographic representations. The participants were asked to categorize real words and pseudohomophones for these words. The hypothesis for this experiment was that the level of effectiveness of the reading strategy used by deaf participants for categorization of real and pseudohomophonic words would be lower than that shown by hearing participants.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-20">Instrument and Procedure</hd> <p>The basic motor skills task tested the motor activity used for performing the categorization experimental paradigm. The task consisted of 50 empty squares arranged in five rows, 10 squares in each row, on an A4 sheet: an array identical to that used for the categorization task. The participant was asked to mark the squares ✓ or ✗ alternately, as quickly as possible, from the first box to the last. Each participant's execution speed was measured, and the number of errors was recorded. For practice, an additional page was prepared with two rows of empty squares.</p> <p>The decision-making speed task tested the basic speed of decision-making by comparing numbers, a stimulus that was well known to both groups. The procedure was similar to that for the categorization task. The assignment consisted of 50 squares arranged in five rows, 10 grids in each row, on an A4 sheet of paper. In each slot with digits, the participants were asked to judge the identity of this pair of numbers as quickly as possible, by marking ✓ when the two digits were the same (e.g. 2\2) and marking ✗ when they were not (e.g. 9\5). The speed of execution and the number of errors per participant were recorded. For practice, an additional page was prepared with two rows of squares containing numbers, a format similar to the experimental condition.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-21">Results</hd> <p>Comparison between the basic measures of the two research groups was performed with a one-way ANOVA. Analyses were carried out for performance time and number of errors. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>Graph: Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations: Performance Speed and Basic Measures (Time in Seconds)</p> <p>A difference in performance speed was observed in the two basic measures for the two research groups: in motor speed, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref118">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref119">38</reflink>) = 11.90, p &lt;.01, and in the speed at which number pairs were judged, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref120">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref121">38</reflink>) = 12.15, p &lt;.01. Table 2 shows that the deaf group had longer performance times. A MANOVA post hoc analysis was performed in order to determine whether this difference was due to motor speed or to a unique contribution stemming from judgment speed. Group served as the between-subject variable and type of task as the within-subject variable. No interaction was found between group (deaf, hearing) and type of speed (speed only, speed of judging). It was concluded that the differences generally stemmed from the reduced motor speed of the deaf participants and not from their decision-making speed.</p> <p>A Pearson correlation was carried out between performance times in the two baseline measures: motor speed and basic decision-making speed. A positive correlation at a significance level of p &lt;.01 was found between performance times on both measures for both groups: hearing group, r =.68, deaf group, r =.60. A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the number of errors in the two basic measures of the two groups. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3. No difference was found between the deaf and the hearing groups in the number of errors in both the motor speed task and in the speed of judging number pairs.</p> <p>Graph: Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations: Number of Errors in the Basic Measures</p> <p>A difference was found in the performance times of the two groups in the two baseline measures, but no interaction was found between group and type of word. It can be concluded that the differences stemmed from the reduced speed of the deaf participants and not from a difference in decision-making speed. There were no differences between the groups in the number of errors, which indicated that there was no difference at the decision-making level, and that it was possible to compare the two groups. However, it will be necessary to address the differences in the motor speed of the groups when interpreting their performance in the experiment that tested their ability to categorize real and pseudohomophonic words.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-22">B. Categorization of Real and Pseudohomophonic Words</hd> <p>Paradigm 1, Categorization of Real and Pseudohomophonic Words, included two experimental conditions: a condition in which the stimuli were real words, and a condition in which the stimuli were pseudohomophones of the real words (pseudowords that sounded like real words when read aloud). Ten categories were chosen: colors, fruits, vegetables, birds, clothes, vehicles, kitchen utensils, animals, shapes, and furniture. These categories were chosen because they are common and are taught by the time students complete third grade. The experimental condition based on the real words was always tested first. A 2-minute break was given between the two conditions. Two measures were tested: performance time and performance accuracy:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Categorization of real words: In this test, we presented 50 squares on an A4 page, with a word inside each square and the name of a category above it. The participants were asked to decide whether or not the word belonged to the category above it, and mark their decision with ✓ or ✗. Under the conditions of this experiment, there were 25 slots where the word and the category name had a categorical relationship and 25 slots where the word did not belong to the category placed above it. For example, the participants marked ✓ when the word</item> </ulist> <p>Graph</p> <p>[dufdaa, frog] appeared with the category animals and marked ✗ when the word frog did not appear with the category animals. The distribution of pairs on the page was random.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 2. Categorization of pseudohomophonic words: In this condition the experimental page was similar to the experimental page of the real-word categorization task, except that the words the participants were asked to categorize were pseudohomophones of the words used as stimuli in the first condition.</item> </ulist> <p>All participants were tested individually in a quiet place inside their school. For the deaf participants, the explanation and instructions were given orally and in sign language to ensure full understanding.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-23">Performance Time</hd> <p>Performance time for categorization was tested by generalized linear model (GLM) multivariate analysis. Group (hearing, deaf) was the between-subject variable and the lexical status of the stimulus (real/pseudohomophonic words) was the within-subject variable. Mean performance times and standard deviations are presented in Table 4.</p> <p>A significant difference was found between the two research groups in the speed of categorization of the stimuli, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref123">38</reflink>) = 34.62, p &lt;.001, η =.48. The effect stemming from the lexical status of the</p> <p>Graph: Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations: Performance Times (in Seconds), Real and Pseudohomophonic Words</p> <p>Graph: Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations: Number of Errors in the Categorization of Real and Pseudohomophonic Words (Time in Seconds)</p> <p>stimuli (real/pseudohomophonic) was significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref125">38</reflink>) = 5.76, p &lt;.05. No interaction was found between lexical status and group. Both research groups were influenced similarly by the lexical status.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-24">Categorization Accuracy</hd> <p>Comparison of the categorization accuracy between the research groups in the number of errors made in the two categorization tasks was based on GLM multivariate analysis. Means of erroneous categorizations and standard deviations are presented in Table 5. A significant difference between groups was found in the number of categorization errors, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref126">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref127">38</reflink>) = 24.92, p &lt;.001, η =.40.</p> <p>The effect of lexical status (real/pseudohomophonic) was significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref128">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref129">38</reflink>) = 12.31, p &lt;.01. No interaction was found between group and lexical status. A Pearson correlation was performed on the performance times and number of errors in the two categorization tasks for clarification of the correlation between the judgment speeds of real and pseudohomophonic words. A positive correlation between speed of judgment in the two categorization tasks (r =.87, p &lt;.01) and between correctness of the judgment in the two categorization tasks (r =.60, p &lt;.01) was found among the hearing participants. No correlation between speed of judgment in the two categorization tasks was found among the deaf participants. However, a positive correlation was found between the correctness of judgment in the two categorization tasks (r =.76, p &lt;.01).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-25">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178338898-26">Basic Measures</hd> <p>The basic measures were tested in order to examine whether the two groups (deaf and hearing) could be compared on their motor speed and lexical judgment ability, both of which are integral to performing the categorization tasks. The hypothesis was that if there is no difference in the performance of the two groups on the basic measures, then their basic judgment ability is similar. This hypothesis was only partially confirmed. No difference between the groups was found in the number of errors on the two basic tasks. However, the performance time of the deaf group was longer than that of the hearing group in both basic tasks. This finding contradicts results found by [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref130">28</reflink>], who did not find significant differences in the performance of the two basic measures, and both research groups (deaf and hearing) made very few errors. An in-depth analysis of our data indicated that the differences in performance times stemmed from the motor speed of the two groups and not from their judgment ability. It can be concluded that performance will have to be analyzed with reference to the lower level of motor ability of the deaf participants.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-27">Categorization of Real and Pseudohomophonic Words</hd> <p>We hypothesized that deaf readers would process written words using a different strategy from that used by their hearing peers, due to a hearing deficit from early childhood, which, according to the Phonological Reading Theory ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref131">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref132">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref133">70</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref134">83</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref135">84</reflink>]), would make it more difficult for them to categorize pseudohomophones. We assumed that the ability of the deaf readers to develop orthographic knowledge was impaired, because according to the Phonological Reading Theory, this knowledge develops with reference to phonological ability.</p> <p>The findings partially support these hypotheses. The deaf readers' ability to categorize pseudohomophonic words was significantly less than that of the hearing readers. This weakness was expressed in the speed and the accuracy of categorization. These findings support reading theories that view phonological encoding as an essential factor in the processing of written words ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref136">73</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref137">83</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref138">84</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, there is no evidence suggesting that the reading strategies of deaf readers differed from those of hearing readers. This conclusion is drawn from the observation that the number of errors made by deaf readers when categorizing pseudohomophones was significantly lower than expected, if it is assumed that they had employed a phonological strategy. A phonological approach would have been indicated by a guessing-level success rate, as pseudohomophonic words can only be accurately categorized through phonological cues. This conclusion is reasonable, in light of the fact that the lexical status of the stimuli (real/pseudohomophonic words) had a similar effect on the two groups. This would not have been likely if word processing for this categorization had been done by means of a different strategy (signs, orthographic processing), which among the deaf participants should have resulted in a larger gap in accuracy of judgment in the two categorization tasks and should have been expressed in a significant interaction between the lexical status of the stimuli and the group. Since no such interaction was found, it may be assumed that both the deaf and the hearing readers relied on similar strategies for processing the words, although these strategies were not effective to the same extent for both groups, as can be seen from the differences between them in accuracy and speed.</p> <p>Comparison of the participants on the basic measures (motor speed/basic judgment task) indicated that the deaf participants had a lower motor ability than their hearing peers. It is possible that the differences in categorization speed found in this experiment reflect, at least partially, basic differences in the motor ability of the deaf participants, and not necessarily differences in the speed at which they categorized real and pseudohomophonic words. However, the findings indicate that some between-group differences did not originate from the differences in motor speed. Table 2 shows that the deaf participants were approximately 7 seconds slower than the hearing participants in performing the basic tasks, whereas the gap between the groups in the categorization of real and pseudohomophonic words was double that (see Table 4).</p> <p>It can be concluded that the variance between the groups cannot be explained solely by differences in motor speed, but that this difference reflects other challenges that create inefficiency in obtaining access to types of knowledge (phonological, orthographic) necessary for performance of these tasks. It is possible that these types of knowledge are less established among deaf readers due to their ongoing hearing deficit, which prevents development of normal phonological representations, or due to insufficient experience with words at the spoken and written levels. This possibility is particularly probable among readers who learn and read in a state of diglossia, in which the relation between experience in the spoken language and the written language is small, such that the one does not effectively support the other. If this is the case, it would explain why no such inferiority in judgment of real words was found among Hebrew-speaking deaf readers compared to their hearing peers ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref139">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-28">Experimental Paradigm 2: Serial Recall of Written Words</hd> <p>The findings of the categorization experiment indicate that deaf readers rely on strategies for processing writing that are similar to strategies used by hearing readers. However, these strategies are less effective for deaf readers, which may have implications for their ability to retain words temporarily in working memory. Moreover, even if the categorization experiment suggested that the two research groups employed essentially similar strategies, we cannot definitively ascertain the precise nature of these strategies. It is possible, especially for the categorization of real words, that the deaf participants relied on sign language for mediating the categorization of stimuli, a possibility that cannot be refuted on the basis of the first experiment.</p> <p>The second experiment, which required serial retention of written words, was performed in order to deepen our understanding of how deaf and hearing readers encode written words for processing and to clarify how a difference in encoding may influence their processing. The assumption was that the participants' sensitivity to the specific distractors would reveal the nature of the processing strategies they used to encode written words and the consequences of these strategies for their ability to retain these words in working memory.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-29">Method</hd> <p>Six target words were presented on a computer screen, and the participants were asked to recognize the target words and number them according to the presentation order within a matrix that included the words. The matrix included 16 words, of which six were target words and three were specific distractors with a certain similarity to three of the target words. Similarity conditions included phonological, visual, orthographic, and signs. There was also a control list with no similarity between the words.</p> <p>It was assumed that the participants' sensitivity to the specific distractors would expose the nature of the processing strategies they use to encode written words. It was hypothesized that deaf and hearing readers would use different encoding strategies for retaining written words in working memory. Deaf readers would recall fewer words and have greater difficulty maintaining the order of word presentation. Furthermore, the nature of the encoding strategies on which the two groups relied for temporary retention of written words would be reflected in their sensitivity to similarities between target words and specific distractors.</p> <p>The experimental paradigm tested the type of memory strategy used by prelingually deaf participants for temporary retention of written words under five different conditions: phonological (designed to test reliance on a phonologic memory strategy), orthographic (designed to test reliance on an orthographic memory strategy), visual (designed to test reliance on a visual memory strategy), signs (designed to test reliance on a memory strategy based on sign language), and control.</p> <p>The paradigm was an expansion of the one used by [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref140">54</reflink>] to study encoding strategies among deaf and dyslexic Hebrew-speaking readers. In the present study, the paradigm was adapted to study retention strategies among Arabic speakers, with the added orthographic condition. All words occurred frequently in literary Arabic. No homographies between words were included. All words in all lists had matching signs in sign language.</p> <p>Each condition included five word lists, with six words per list. The words in each list were presented on a computer screen, one after the other. Recall of the words in each list was tested with a 4×4 matrix that included 16 words in each experimental condition. The matrix included the six target words and 10 nonpresented words that served as distractors. Of the 10 distractors, three were specific distractors that were similar to three of the target words in only one dimension (phonological, orthographic, visual, sign). The other distractors had no similarity to the target words. The three specific distractors were placed next to the matching target word. The other distractors were distributed randomly.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-30">The Experimental Stimuli</hd> <p>To create the five lists in each experimental condition, 15 word pairs were prepared that shared a specific similarity. One of the words in each pair was used as a target word, while the other was used as a distractor. Three pairs of words with a specific similarity were included in each list of a particular condition. Three words out of all the distractors in each matrix had a specific similarity to the target words, while being completely unrelated to the other words in the matrix. A description of the types of distractors in the different experimental conditions follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. In the phonological condition, a specific distraction was made through pairs of rhyming words. In order to prevent the rhyme between the target word and the corresponding distractor from being reflected at the orthographic level, words were used where the rhyme at the writing level would be represented by homophonic graphemes (different letters with the same sound).</item> <p></p> <item> 2. In the orthographic condition, a specific diversion was made through pairs of words with orthographic similarity. That is, pairs of words were used in which most of the letters were the same in both words, but the order of the letters was different in each word.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. In the visual condition, a specific diversion was made using pairs of words that were visually but not orthographically similar. That is, we used words in which this similarity was created using letters with a similar visual form (e.g. shikh-shabah</item> </ulist> <p>Graph</p> <p>), and not by using the same letters.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 4. In the signs condition, a specific deviation was made through the use of words whose corresponding signs were similar (minimal pairs, a kind of rhyming in sign language). That is, these signs are similar in two out of three parameters considered as the basic lip components of sign language (the shape of the palm, the movement of the hand, and the placement of the sign in relation to the signer's body), similarly to the phonemes in a bee language.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. No distractors were included in the control list conditions. That is, all the distractors were different from the target words phonologically, orthographically, and visually, as well as in terms of their corresponding signs.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178338898-31">Procedure</hd> <p>A laptop computer was used to present the lists of words (the target words). The participants were told that a list of words would be displayed on the computer screen that they would have to identify in a table (matrix) and number according to the order in which they appeared on the screen.</p> <p>The target words appeared on the computer one after the other, in a frame in the center of the screen. Each word appeared for 1 second, and the interval between words was half a second. The sign ###### appeared before presentation of the first word in the list. Presentation of the target words began when the participant indicated readiness for the experiment to begin. After presentation of the last word in the list, the sign ***** appeared as a signal for the participant to start marking the target words with numbers according to the order in which he or she saw them. No time limit was placed on the participant. Testing of the five experimental conditions was done in five blocks, with five experimental lists in each block. Between every two blocks, the participants were asked to perform one of the parts of the learning experiment. The blocks were rotated across participants in order to neutralize the effect of training and fatigue.</p> <p>Four conditions pertaining to the retention of words by the participants were tested in this experiment: number of regular errors, number of specific errors, number of correctly recalled items, and correctness of the order of recall.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-32">Erroneous Recognition of Target Words</hd> <p>We first compared the number of recall errors made by the groups under the different conditions using a one-way ANOVA in order to determine the extent to which recall of the target words was influenced by distractors, and whether this effect differed between the groups. A difference between groups was found only for the visual condition, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref141">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref142">38</reflink>) = 12.14, p &lt;.001, where the deaf participants made more errors than the hearing participants (see Table 6). It should be noted that no significant difference was found between the groups in the control condition, deaf = 3.80 (3.82), hearing = 2.50 (2.19). We performed a series of analyses to clarify whether the source of the recall errors was in the regular or the specific distractors.</p> <p>Graph: Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations: Regular and Specific Errors Under the Different Experimental Conditions</p> <p>GLM multivariate analysis was performed to compare the number of regular and specific errors. Group (deaf/hearing) was the between-subject variable, and type of error (regular/specific) and the experimental condition (phonological, orthographic, visual, sign similarity) were the within-subject variables. There were no specific distractors in the control condition, and it was not included in the above analysis. The means and standard deviations of this analysis are presented in Table 6.</p> <p>The group effect was significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref143">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref144">38</reflink>) = 6.82, p &lt;.05, η =.15, as was the effect stemming from the experimental conditions, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref145">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref146">38</reflink>) = 20.25, p &lt;.001, η =.35. The type of error effect was also significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref147">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref148">38</reflink>) = 52.16, p &lt;.001, η =.58. The number of errors stemming from specific distractors was larger than the number stemming from regular distractors.</p> <p>An interaction was found between experimental condition and group, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref149">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref150">38</reflink>) = 6.21, p &lt;.01, η =.14, as well as between type of error and group, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref151">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref152">38</reflink>) = 4.20, p &lt;.05, η =.10. Specific visual distractors had a greater effect on deaf participants than on hearing participants. This was also true to a certain extent for the effect of orthographic distractors. The remaining interactions were nonsignificant.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-33">Recall</hd> <p>Word recall in the serial retention task was analyzed by GLM multivariate analysis. Group (deaf/hearing) served as the between-subject variable and experimental condition (phonological, orthographic, visual, signs, control) as the within-subject variable. The means and standard deviations of this analysis are presented in Table 7.</p> <p>The group effect was significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref153">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref154">38</reflink>) = 5.62, p &lt;.05, η =.13. A one-way post hoc analysis that compared the groups separately for each experimental condition was performed to clarify specific</p> <p>Graph: Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations: Number of Words Recalled in the Different Lists</p> <p>Graph: Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations: Accuracy of Recall Under the Different Experimental Conditions</p> <p>differences between the groups. The deaf group performed at a lower level than the hearing group only under the visual condition, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref155">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref156">38</reflink>) = 12.62, p &lt;.001. The experimental condition effect was significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref157">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref158">38</reflink>) = 11.69, p &lt;.001, η =.24. No group x experimental condition interaction was found. A post hoc analysis was performed to clarify the source of the experimental condition effect, based on a series of paired t tests for comparing between the number of recalls under the different conditions. Excluding the orthographical condition, the recall under the visual condition was less than in the other experimental conditions: phonological, t(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref159">40</reflink>) = 2.60, p &lt;.05; signs, t(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref160">40</reflink>) = 4.54, p &lt;.01; control, t(<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref161">40</reflink>) = 2.62, p &lt;.05.</p> <p>The accuracy of recall of the order of word presentation was tested by a GLM multivariate analysis. Group was the between-subject variable and experimental condition was the intrasubject variable. The means and standard deviations of the analysis are presented in Table 8.</p> <p>A significant difference was found between the two groups in the correctness of recall of the order of word presentation, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref162">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref163">38</reflink>) = 53.54, p &lt;.001, η =.59. No effect was found for types of similarity. The different experimental conditions did not have different effects on the participants' success in recalling the order of word presentation. There was also no interaction between the main effects. The deaf readers were weaker in recalling the order under all experimental conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-34">Discussion</hd> <p>In the present experiment, we tested the type and effectiveness of the encoding strategies used by deaf and hearing readers to temporarily retain written words. The first hypothesis was that deaf and hearing readers would use different encoding strategies for retaining written words in their working memory. This hypothesis was partially supported. The deaf participants apparently used a retention strategy that reflected the visual properties of the written words, as seen from their increased sensitivity to visual distractors. For the hearing participants, there was no decisive evidence that unequivocally exposed the nature of their encoding strategy for retaining written words.</p> <p>There is extensive evidence of the use of phonological encoding among hearing readers ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref164">60</reflink>]). It is possible that the absence of explicit evidence of phonological encoding among the hearing group reflects reading characteristics among Arabic readers. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref165">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref166">6</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref167">80</reflink>] have indicated that reading in Arabic involves not only phonological encoding skills but also, due to the language's orthographic complexity, visuo-orthographic and morphological skills. This would explain why the readers in the present study did not exhibit preferences for a specific retention code.</p> <p>The second hypothesis in the present experiment was that deaf readers would recall fewer words and would have more difficulty retaining the order of word presentation than hearing readers. This hypothesis was partially confirmed. The recall ability of the deaf participants was not actually inferior, as could be expected on the basis of hearing readers' superior phonological encoding ability ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref168">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref169">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref170">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref171">70</reflink>]). On the contrary, except in the visual condition, deaf readers did not exhibit impaired recall ability, despite the fact that the deaf group apparently did not rely on a phonological code for recalling the target words. We therefore conclude that phonological encoding is perhaps not essential for the actual retention of written words in working memory.</p> <p>Contrary to the recall amount, on which the deaf group did not perform less well than the hearing participants, their ability to recall the order of target word presentation was rather impaired. This was true both in general and for each specific experimental condition. This finding is in line with those reported by [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref172">54</reflink>], who tested the serial retention ability of deaf readers in Hebrew. A possible explanation for this poorer performance is supported by [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref173">12</reflink>] working memory model, in which the visuospatial sketchpad has a disadvantage because it retains visual information by simultaneously refreshing its characteristics.</p> <p>The deaf participants apparently encoded the target words visually. It is possible that they could not exploit the articulatory loop for retaining the order of the words. Such a failure would explain why their ability to retain the order of the word presentation was significantly less than that of their hearing peers under all experimental conditions. This also indicates that their reliance on the visuospatial sketchpad did not afford sufficient compensation for their inability to use the articulatory loop.</p> <p>Fluent reading not only requires efficient recognition of written words but also retention of the order in which they were recognized in the sentence. The finding that the deaf participants relied on a visual encoding strategy that apparently made it difficult for them to recall the order of the words may explain why deaf readers consistently exhibit highly impaired reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref174">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref175">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref176">59</reflink>]), a finding that was supported in the present study.</p> <p>Contrary to the findings of the first experiment, the present experiment enabled a look into the nature of the encoding strategies used by deaf and hearing readers. Deaf participants seemed to rely on a visual encoding strategy for temporary retention of written words in working memory, which made it difficult for them to retain serial information in their working memory and indirectly affected their reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-35">Experimental Paradigm 3: The Learning Task</hd> <p>The learning task experiment tested the different encoding strategies employed by the two research groups by means of a different approach: The participants were asked to learn the relation between a word and a number and to write the numbers beneath the matching words as fast as possible. The experiment included four conditions that created a specific similarity (phonological, visual, orthographic, signs) between the target words for which the participants needed to learn the relation to specific numbers. It was assumed that such a specific similarity would make it difficult to learn the relation between target words and matching numbers. Such interference was expected to be revealed only when a working memory code sensitive to this type of similarity was being used. The effect of creating a similarity between the target words was tested against a control list where there was no specific similarity between the target words.</p> <p>This experiment creates a greater load on working memory than the previous experiment, because the participant needs to learn the relation between a word and a matching number and transfer it to permanent memory in order to increase the effectiveness of the learning process. It was hypothesized that deaf and hearing participants would rely on different processing strategies for learning new information. It was further hypothesized that the learning ability of the deaf participants would be at a lower level than that of the hearing participants.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-36">Method</hd> <p>The learning task experiment was based on [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref177">50</reflink>] paradigm, which was developed to clarify the nature of encoding strategies on which hearing and prelingually deaf readers rely for processing written words, and for testing the effectiveness of these strategies in the context of learning new information. The experiment included five conditions, each with a specific similarity between adjacent word pairs on the scale, similarly to the serial recall of words task (Experimental Paradigm 2): phonological, visual, orthographic, signs, control. The experimental paradigm included 40 words. In each condition, the participant was asked to learn the relation between eight words and numbers from 1 to 8. Creation of the stimulus of the words with the specific similarity in each condition was similar to the creation of the words in Experimental Paradigm 2.</p> <p>Four word pairs with a specific similarity appeared at the head of the learning page, where the words in each pair were possessive compounds. A number from 1 to 8 appeared beneath each word, in a random manner (see Experimental Paradigm 2). The words were dispersed randomly within the sets, and the participants were asked to write the number that was matched to each word below the word. They were asked to learn the relation between the number (from 1 to 8) and a word in Arabic, and to rapidly allocate each word to its matching number.</p> <p>In the task itself, the eight words were randomly scattered within arrays and the participants were asked to write the number associated with each word below it. They were asked to learn the relationship between a digit (from 1 to 8) and a word in Arabic and use this knowledge to quickly assign each word to its corresponding digit.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-37">Procedure</hd> <p>The experimenter explained what was required of the participant. The experimenter then revealed the practice sheet and asked the participant to write down appropriate digits for the matching words. After the experimenter made sure that the participant understood what was required, he explained that he was now going to begin the actual experiment. The experimenter started the stopwatch as soon as the participant began to write down the number under the first word. After 3 minutes, the participant was stopped. The experimental conditions were rotated across the participants in order to neutralize the effects of training and fatigue.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-38">Results</hd> <p>It was assumed that the number of correct matches between the target words and the matching numbers was evidence of the participants' learning ability. Therefore, in order to compare between the research groups, a measure of learning ability was calculated as a first step, by subtracting the number of errors from the output (in cases in which the correct number was matched to the word).</p> <p>Learning ability was tested by a GLM multivariate analysis. Group (deaf/hearing) was the between-subject variable and experimental condition (phonological, orthographic, visual, signs similarity, or control) was the within-subject variable. The means and standard deviations of learning ability are presented in Table 9.</p> <p>The analysis shows a significant difference between the groups regarding their learning ability, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref178">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref179">38</reflink>) = 10.17, p &lt;.01, η =.21, and a strong effect of the condition, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref180">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref181">38</reflink>) = 246.88, p &lt;.001, η =.87. A significant interaction was found between group and condition.</p> <p>A series of post hoc analyses were performed to better clarify differences in learning ability between the groups and how they were expressed under the different experimental conditions. All analyses yielded significance at p &lt;.05. The first one-way analysis compared the groups in each condition separately. The deaf group performed at a lower level than the hearing group in all conditions except the signs.</p> <p>Another analysis was performed to compare learning ability under the different experimental conditions compared to the control condition. This analysis was based on a series of paired t tests. The deaf participants showed a lower level of</p> <p>Graph: Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations: Learning Ability Under the Different Experimental Conditions</p> <p>learning ability in the phonological, visual, and orthographic conditions, compared to the control condition. The same was found for the hearing participants. Contrary to expectations, the learning ability of the deaf group in the signs condition was higher than in the control condition, whereas among the hearing participants there was no significant difference in learning ability between the signs and control conditions.</p> <p>A series of Pearson correlations were performed for each group separately, in order to clarify the correlation between the learning ability and the different conditions. The groups' performance was significantly correlated with the different learning conditions: deaf, r =.55–.85, p &lt;.01, hearing, r =.63–.90, p &lt;.01.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-39">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of Experimental Paradigm 3 was to test the type and effectiveness of the memory code on which deaf and hearing readers relied for learning new information. The first hypothesis posed in the experiment was that deaf and hearing participants would use different processing strategies for learning the relation between target words and numbers. This hypothesis was not supported. Phonological, visual, and orthographic similarity had a negative effect on learning ability (see Table 9). It can be concluded that these two groups relied on an essentially similar working memory code to perform the learning tasks. This memory code apparently represented a combination of the visual, phonological, and orthographic characteristics of the written words. This finding is in line with the word processing model of [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref182">35</reflink>], which claims that written words are processed simultaneously in two channels, a phonological channel and a channel based on orthographic knowledge. Since these two channels obligate visual processing of the written words, it is no wonder that the participants also exhibited sensitivity to this dimension when asked to learn the relation between the target words and the matching numerals.</p> <p>For the hearing participants, the control and signs conditions created similar conditions for learning because they could not discover a sign similarity for the target words, since they did not know sign language. However, for the deaf participants, the lack of sensitivity to the similarity between the signs that matched the target words was surprising, since they knew sign language and even declared that it was their preferred language. This finding is interesting in light of the fact that a similar experiment that tested the sensitivity of deaf readers to sign similarity in Hebrew showed that these readers were very sensitive to this linguistic dimension ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref183">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is important to stress a crucial difference between Miller's experiment and the present one: in the former, all participants were deaf children of deaf parents who were exposed to sign language from early childhood, whereas in the present study the deaf participants were all children of hearing parents who apparently acquired sign language at a later stage. Therefore, even though they preferred sign language as their spoken language, they may not have internalized it at the level of a mother tongue and did not support the mediation of written words in working memory. This may explain why their performance was not influenced by the signs similarity that existed in some of the target words under the signs condition.</p> <p>The second hypothesis was that the performance ability of the deaf participants in learning the relation between written words and numbers would be less than that of the hearing participants. This hypothesis was only partially supported. The deaf participants were not inferior in learning under the signs experimental condition. This is surprising, since under this condition their disadvantage should have been the most prominent, due to an expected interference created by the signs' similarity. The fact that this disadvantage was not found provides further support for the claim that sign language could not mediate their processing of written words.</p> <p>However, we cannot ignore the fact that under most conditions, the deaf participants exhibited lower levels of learning ability than their hearing peers. Assuming that both groups used the same working memory code for learning, which can be concluded because their learning ability was influenced similarly by the different types of distractors, it can be concluded that the deaf participants differed from their hearing peers mainly in the effectiveness of using a particular memory code, and not in the reliance on a different code. This conclusion is in agreement with a similar conclusion derived from the experiment that tested serial recall ability, in which the difference between the two groups was mainly in the effectiveness with which they performed the tasks and not in the strategies they used.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-40">General Discussion and Conclusions</hd> <p>The general aim of the present study was to test the types of strategies for processing written words used by readers with prelingual deafness compared to their hearing peers, and to test the effectiveness of the use of these strategies. Data were collected from three experiments: an experiment that tested the participants' ability to categorize real and pseudohomophonic words, an experiment that tested serial recall of written words, and an experiment that tested the ability to learn new information. The findings indicate that deaf Arabic-speaking readers relied on essentially similar processing strategies to those used by hearing readers. However, they used these strategies with significantly less effectiveness. These findings are supported by the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis (QSH) developed by Paul and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref184">66</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref185">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref186">69</reflink>]), which posits that the acquisition of phonemic language and reading by deaf and hard of hearing children is developmentally or qualitatively similar to that of typical (nondisabled) language and literacy learners, but occurs at a slower pace.</p> <p>This inferiority reflects the effects of a severe hearing deficit from early childhood on the development of strategies for processing written words. This effect is not only at the lexical level. It appears to be expressed in retention and in the ability to learn new information. Each of these challenges, separately and together, are expected to affect the reading comprehension level.</p> <p>It is not surprising that testing of the reading comprehension of the deaf participants in the present study indicated a severe impairment in understanding written texts. This finding is expected to have far-reaching consequences. Deaf people have no effective way to learn about the world via hearing, and the lack of a fluent reading ability as a compensatory channel places them at risk of failing to achieve social, professional, and intellectual inclusion.</p> <p>Our findings corroborate and strengthen the conclusions drawn from previous studies ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref187">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref188">47</reflink>]) that vocabulary wealth is a very strong predictor of reading comprehension. This explains the observed impact of vocabulary disadvantage on reading comprehension among deaf and hard of hearing people. It is therefore very important to work on enriching this population's vocabulary in a customized manner and to rely on different channels for helping them improve their reading and reading comprehension. Furthermore, sign language, which is a linguistic system of its own, may compensate for challenges facing deaf people as a result of impairments in the auditory channel. This was implied in studies that consistently showed that deaf children for whom sign language is their mother tongue perform at a higher level than deaf children who live in homes where they are not exposed to this language in early life.</p> <p>In the present study, the deaf participants were unable to recruit their knowledge of sign language for serial recall and learning. This finding is contrary to those of studies in which deaf people were found to use sign language in order to support reading and learning processes ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref189">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref190">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref191">59</reflink>]). It is reasonable to suggest that this failure was due to the fact that in the present study, sign language—despite being the preferred language of the deaf participants—did not adequately substitute for spoken language in supporting retention and learning processes. It should be noted that there is no Arabic sign language in Israel, and the sign language used by Arabic speakers is actually derived from Israeli Sign Language and is not well adapted to the Arabic language. It is important to emphasize that many words in the written Arabic language are different from those of the spoken language (see diglossia), and this is not taken into account in Israeli Sign Language, which was used by the participants. This may partially explain the fact that the deaf participants in this study did not benefit from using sign language, which may have affected how they applied their skills in the experiments.</p> <p>Contrary to the findings of a long series of studies (for a review, see [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref192">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref193">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref194">92</reflink>]) that show that the failure of the deaf reader in processing writing is not at the lexical level, in the first experiment of the present study the deaf readers showed less ability to categorize real words than the hearing readers. One explanation for this unusual finding may be related to the complex orthography of the Arabic language. A large part of the letters in Arabic have different forms according to their position in the word. Others are difficult to differentiate because of a very great visual similarity. This complexity may pose difficulties for the development of orthographic knowledge, especially among weak deaf readers who read few texts that could help them acquire such knowledge. Another possibility is that reading acquisition in Arabic is particularly difficult due to the diglossia ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref195">6</reflink>]), in that the spoken language does not fully support acquisition of the written language because of the small overlap between them at all levels.</p> <p>Most of the research carried out to explain the gap between deaf and hard of hearing readers' achievements and those of hearing readers has focused on the characteristics of the reader. Only a small portion of the research has compared the hearing population with the hearing impaired population in regard to the parameters of phonological awareness, working memory, and vocabulary. Few studies (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref196">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref197">46</reflink>]) have dealt with the difference between hearing and deaf readers on specific tasks or components of the test or task that were examined in the present study.</p> <p>Our findings have several implications for reading theories that are also supported by the QSH and assume that if a particular discipline has a structure, then an internal logical conceptual framework exists. In addition, the content of the discipline contains levels of difficulty due to the demand for comprehension or for understanding of the main points (see discussion in [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref198">69</reflink>]). This means that in the present study, prelingual deafness did not, in principle, prevent the development of reading strategies that recruit phonological and orthographic knowledge for recognizing written words. Furthermore, the participants' performance, especially in the first experiment, showed that the development of orthographic knowledge is not highly dependent on the development of phonological knowledge. This obligates reading theories to include mechanisms for the development of orthographic knowledge that are not dependent on phonological ability. Some of the reading difficulties experienced by deaf readers appear to be related to the type of orthography in which they read. This is strongly related to the uniqueness and richness of the Arabic language.</p> <p>Intervention programs aimed at improving the reading skills of deaf readers of Arabic should take into account all factors associated with reading and reading comprehension, as highlighted in our findings. It is important to devise teaching methods that utilize various channels, including orthography, phonology, and linguistic enrichment, through diverse techniques. Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge the uniqueness and complexity of the Arabic language, particularly in relation to the mismatched sign system used with this population.</p> <p>Taking the recommendations based on the QSH into account can prove highly beneficial. The QSH suggests that individuals understand and interpret the mental states of others by comparing them to their own experiences. By recognizing the distinct characteristics of the Arabic language and tailoring teaching methods accordingly, we can enhance reading comprehension and engagement among individuals within this population.</p> <p>Future research will have to consider which of the reading problems of deaf students stem from deafness itself and which stem from the orthographic characteristics of their language.</p> <hd id="AN0178338898-41">Limitations and Recommendations for Continuation of the Research</hd> <p>The present study focused on deaf children who declared that sign language was their preferred language. However, due to a lack of suitable tests, it was impossible to test their mastery of this language. Furthermore, the deaf participants, due to their low prevalence in the population, lived in different and sometimes distant demographic areas, and this may have limited the representativeness of the study population. The sign language used by the participants in some of these areas may not have been standard, but rather have developed locally with adoption of characteristics of Israeli Sign Language. In future research it would be helpful to control for both the participants' mastery of sign language and the extent of standardization of the signs they used, in order to be able to take these factors into account when interpreting the findings.</p> <p>Selection of the participants was based on the testimony of their teachers that they did not have dyslexia, without performing formal assessments.</p> <p>The parents' mastery of sign language was not tested, and we did not know with certainty to what extent they could serve as linguistic models for their deaf children. In order to overcome this problem, it would be interesting to repeat the present study with Arabic-speaking deaf participants from homes where the parents were also deaf and communicated with their children in sign language. Such participants were not included in the present study, in which all participants had hearing parents.</p> <p>The present study has learning implications for ways of teaching reading and writing in Arabic to deaf students. The findings indicate that both deaf and hearing participants relied on more than one strategy when processing written words. It is important for teachers to recognize this fact and base reading instruction on multiple strategies and not solely on one strategy.</p> <ref id="AN0178338898-42"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref62" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aaron, P. G., Keetay, V., Boyd, M., Palmatier, S., &amp; Wacks, J. (1998). Spelling without phonology: A study of deaf and hearing children. Reading and Writing, 10(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007917929226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref82" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 14(1), 39–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref75" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S. (2002). Reading in a rooted-based-morphology language: The case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 299–309. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/1467-9817.00177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref165" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S. (2004a). Morphological structure in visual word recognition: The case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00235.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S. (2004b). Reading and spelling error analysis of native Arabic dyslexic readers. Reading and Writing, 17(7–8), 651–689. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s11145-004-2657-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref78" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., Kedan, E. S., &amp; Wattad, H. (2022). The influence of diglossia on syntactic proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic among regular and struggling readers. Creative Education, 13(1), 252–282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref74" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., &amp; Taha, H. Y. (2005). Reading in Arabic orthography: Characteristics, research findings, and assessment. In R. M. Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (1st ed., pp. 321–338). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824719</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., &amp; Wattad, H. (2022). The lexical status of verbs among typical and dyslexic native Arabic readers: a developmental model. Annals of Dyslexia, 72(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00243-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref19" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alasim, K. (2020). Understanding factors that affect the prior knowledge of deaf and hard of hearing students and their relation to reading comprehension. Deafness and Education International, 22(3), 232–250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Almusawi, H. M. S. S. (2014). The role of phonology, morphology and dialect in reading Arabic among hearing and deaf children [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford]. ResearchGate. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35576.26886">http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35576.26886</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beech, R. J., &amp; Harris, M. (1997). The prelingually deaf young reader: A case of reliance on direct lexical access? Journal of Research in Reading, 20(2), 105–121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bergeron, J. P., Lederberg, A. R., Easterbrooks, S. R., Miller, E. M., &amp; Connor, C. M. (2009). Building the alphabetic principle in young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 109, 87–119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., McBride-Chang, C., Nagy, W., &amp; Nunes, T. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cawthon, S. (2011). Test item linguistic complexity and assessments for deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(3), 255–269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charlier, B. L., &amp; Leybaert, J. (2000). The rhyming skills of deaf children educated with phonetically augmented speechreading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 53(2), 349–375.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, M. D., Gilbert, G., &amp; Anderson, M. L. (2011). Morphological knowledge and decoding skills of deaf readers. Psychology, 2(2), 109–116. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.22018">http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.22018</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, M. D., Hauser, P. C., Miller, P., Kargin, T., Rathmann, C., Guldenoglu, B., et al. (2016). The importance of early sign language acquisition for deaf readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 127–151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. Harper &amp; Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., &amp; Share, D. L. (2002). Orthographic learning during reading: Examining the role of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 185–199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, L. G., Traficante, D., &amp; Wilson, M. A. (2019). Word morphology and written language acquisition: Insights from typical and atypical development in different orthographies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, C. L., &amp; Snowling, J. M. (2005). Developmental variations in word recognition. In C. A. Stone, R. E. Silliman, J. B. Ehren, &amp; K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 433–460). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eviatar, Z., &amp; Ibrahim, R. (2000). Bilingual is as bilingual does: Metalinguistic abilities of Arabic-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 451–471.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eviatar, Z., &amp; Ibrahim, R. (2014). Why is it hard to read Arabic? In E. Saiegh-Haddad &amp; M. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy (pp. 77–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8545-7_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firth, U. (2017). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. Patterson, J. C. Marshall, &amp; M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 301–330). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315108346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71–99. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.71</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabai-Sasson, L. (2002). The involvement of phonological processes in reading [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Haifa (Israel).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldin-Meadow, S., &amp; Mayberry, R. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 221–228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, A. P., &amp; Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2), 183–208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U., &amp; Bryant, P. E. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanson, V. L., &amp; Lichtenstein, E. H. (1990). Short-term memory coding by deaf signers: The Primary Language Coding Hypothesis reconsidered. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 211–224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, M., &amp; Moreno, C. (2004). Deaf children's use of phonological coding: Evidence from reading, spelling, and working memory. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(3), 253–268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holt, J. A. (1994). Classroom attributes and achievement test scores for deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of Deaf, 139(4), 430–437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, N. E., &amp; Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure: Toward an integrated cognitive psychology of atypical reading. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kargin, T., Guldenoglu, B., Miller, P., Hauser, P., Rathman, C., Kubus, O., &amp; Spurgeon, E. (2012). Differences in word processing skills of deaf and hearing individuals reading in different orthographies. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24(1), 65–83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. R., &amp; Bowers, P. N. (2017). Morphological instruction and literacy: Binding phonological, orthographic, and semantic features of words. In R. Parrila, K. Cain, &amp; D. Compton (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 437–462). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.15.24kir</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(Suppl. 1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuperman, A. (2003). The coding strategies of verbal information in the working memory of regular readers, dyslexic readers, and deaf readers [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Haifa (Israel).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyle, F., &amp; 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), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enj037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyle, F., &amp; Harris, M. (2010). Predictors of reading development in deaf children: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(3), 229–243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyle, J. (1980). Reading development of deaf children. Journal of Research in Reading, 3, 86–97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Layes, S., Lalonde, R., Mecheri, S., &amp; Rebaï, M. (2015). Phonological and cognitive reading related skills as predictors of word reading and reading comprehension among Arabic dyslexic children. Psychology, 6(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.61003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lichtenstein, E. (1998). The relationships between reading processes and English skills of deaf college students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3(2), 80–134. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, K., Maybery, M., &amp; Fletcher, J. (1996). The short-term memory of profoundly deaf people for words, signs, and abstract spatial stimuli. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 105–119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lollis, J., &amp; LaSasso, C. (2009). The appropriateness of the NC state-mandated reading competency test for deaf students as a criterion for high school graduation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(1), 76–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayberry, R., del Giudice, A., &amp; Lieberman, A. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 164–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meniado, J. C. (2016). Metacognitive reading strategies, motivation, and reading comprehension performance of Saudi EFL students. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 117–129. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p117">http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p117</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2000). Syntactic and semantic processing in deaf and hearing readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2004a). Processing of written word and nonword visual information by individuals with prelingual deafness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 990–1000. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/073)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2004b). Processing of written words by individuals with prelingual deafness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 979–989. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/072)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2004c). The word decoding strategies of Hebrew readers with and without hearing impairments: Some insight from an associative learning task. Reading and Writing, 17, 823–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-004-2656-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2005). What the processing of real words and pseudohomophones can tell us about the development of orthographic knowledge in prelingually deafened individuals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enj001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2006). What the visual word recognition skills of prelingually deafened readers tell about their reading comprehension problems. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18, 91–121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2007a). The role of phonology in the word decoding skills of poor readers: Evidence from individuals with prelingual deafness or diagnosed dyslexia. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 385–408.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2007b). The role of spoken and sign language in the retention of written words by prelingually deafened native signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 184–208. doi:10.1093/deafed/enl031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. (2010). Phonological, orthographic, and syntactic awareness and their relation to reading comprehension in prelingually deaf individuals: What can we learn from skilled readers? Journal of Development and Physical Disabilities, 22, 549–580.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P., Kargin, T., Guldenoglu, B., Rathmann, C., Kubus, O., Hauser, P., &amp; Spurgeon, E. (2012). Factors distinguishing skilled and less skilled deaf readers: Evidence from four orthographies. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(4), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who can't hear learn to read an alphabetic script? A review of the literature on reading and deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 9–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel &amp; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence–based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 1–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, D. C., &amp; Luetke-Stahlman, B. (2002). Phonological awareness: One key to the reading proficiency of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(3), 11–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., &amp; Bryant, P. (2009). Children's reading and spelling: Beyond the first steps. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., Burman, D., Evans, D., &amp; Bell, D. (2010). Writing a language that you can't hear. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, &amp; P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 127–146). Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203858462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, A. C., &amp; Caramazza, A. (2004). Orthographic structure and deaf spelling errors: Syllables, letter frequency, and speech. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(3), 385–417. doi:10.1080/02724980343000396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, P. V. (2021). The Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis: A commentary. Human Research in Rehabilitation, 11(2), 56–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, P. V., &amp; Lee, C. (2010). The Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 456–462. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, P. V., Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., &amp; Luckner, J. L. (2009). Phonology is necessary, but not sufficient: A rejoinder. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(4), 346–356. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, P. V., Williams, C., &amp; Wang, Y. (2013). Deaf students and the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis: Understanding language and literacy development. Gallaudet University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., &amp; Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 32–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plaut, A. (1994), Hearing impaired students: Challenges in education and teaching (in Hebrew). Ach.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2005). Correlates of reading fluency in Arabic: Diglossic and orthographic factors. Reading and Writing, 18(6), 559–582.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2017). Learning to read in Arabic. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems: An international handbook (pp. 127–154). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2018). MAWRID: A model of Arabic word reading in development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(5), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417720460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2020). The impact of linguistic distance on dyslexia in dialect speakers: The case of Arabic diglossia. In J. Washington, D. Compton, &amp; P. McCardle (Eds.), Dyslexia: Revisiting etiology, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 90–101). Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E., &amp; Ghawi-Dakwar, O. (2017). Impact of diglossia on word and non-word repetition among language impaired and typically developing Arabic native speaking children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E., &amp; Joshi, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E., Levin, I., Hende, N., &amp; Ziv, M. (2011). The linguistic affiliation constraint and phoneme recognition in diglossic Arabic. Journal of Child Language, 38(2), 297–315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E., &amp; Taha, H. (2017). The role of morphological and phonological awareness in the early development of word spelling and reading in typically developing and disabled Arabic readers. Dyslexia, 23(4), 345–371.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., &amp; Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2018). Development and relationships between phonological awareness, morphological awareness and word reading in spoken and standard Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 356. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schirmer, B. R., &amp; McGough, S. M. (2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 83–117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shand, M. A. (1982). Sign based short-term coding of American Sign Language signs and printed English words by congenitally deaf signers. Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90002-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 179–196. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95–129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taha, H., &amp; Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2016). The role of phonological versus morphological skills in the development of Arabic spelling: An intervention study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 507–535.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taouk, M., &amp; Coltheart, M. (2004). The cognitive processes involved in learning to read Arabic. Reading and Writing, 17(1–2), 27–57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tibi, S., &amp; Kirby, J. R. (2017). Morphological awareness: Construct and predictive validity in Arabic. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(5), 1019–1043.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Transler, C., Gombert, J. E., &amp; Leybaert, J. (2001). Phonological decoding in severely and profoundly deaf children: Similarity judgment between written pseudowords. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(1), 61–82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman, R., &amp; Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983). Silent reading: Insights from second-generation deaf readers. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 39–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vellutino, F., Fletcher, J., Snowling, M., &amp; Scanlon, D. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wattad, H., &amp; Abu-Rabia, S. (2020). The advantage of morphological awareness among normal and dyslexic native Arabic readers: A literature review. Reading Psychology, 41(3), 130–156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wauters, L. N., Van Bon, W. H. J., &amp; Telling, A. E. J. M. (2006). The reading comprehension of Dutch deaf children. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 49–76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, M., &amp; Emmorey, K. (2003). The effect of irrelevant visual input on working memory for sign language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 97–103. doi:10.1093/deafed/eng010</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Haneen Wattad; Salim Abu-Rabia and Sara Haddad-Shehadeh</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Wattad is a lecturer in the Department of Special Education, Faculty of Education, Al-Qasemi College, Baqa, Israel. Abu-Rabia is a professor in the Department of Special Education and Haddad-Shehadeh is pursuing a master of arts degree in the Department of Education, both in the Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref197"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1429471 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Reading of Deaf Arabic Children in Israel – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haneen+Wattad%22">Haneen Wattad</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salim+Abu-Rabia%22">Salim Abu-Rabia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sara+Haddad-Shehadeh%22">Sara Haddad-Shehadeh</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22American+Annals+of+the+Deaf%22"><i>American Annals of the Deaf</i></searchLink>. 2024 169(1):12-39. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Gallaudet University Press. 800 Florida Avenue NE, Denison House, Washington, DC 20002-3695. Tel: 202-651-5488; Fax: 202-651-5489; Web site: https://gupress.gallaudet.edu/Journals/American-Annals-of-the-Deaf – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 28 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deafness%22">Deafness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arabic%22">Arabic</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arabs%22">Arabs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Processes%22">Reading Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Research%22">Reading Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Short+Term+Memory%22">Short Term Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Tests%22">Reading Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1353/aad.2024.a931187 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0002-726X<br />1543-0375 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Studies on the reading acquisition of deaf children investigate the similarities and differences in the reading process between these readers and typical hearing readers. There is no consensus on the nature of the reading process among deaf readers, whether they use the same reading processing strategies as typical readers or depend on other strategies to close the gap. The present study aimed to test the types of strategies used to process written words by deaf Arabic readers with prelingual deafness, compared to their hearing peers, and to test the effectiveness of deaf readers' use of these strategies. Three experimental paradigms were tested. The findings indicated that deaf Arabic readers rely on essentially similar processing strategies to those used by hearing readers. However, deaf Arabic readers employ these strategies with significantly less effectiveness. The results are discussed in light of international data. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1429471 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1429471 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1353/aad.2024.a931187 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 28 StartPage: 12 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Deafness Type: general – SubjectFull: Arabic Type: general – SubjectFull: Arabs Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Short Term Memory Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Tests Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension Type: general – SubjectFull: Adolescents Type: general – SubjectFull: Israel Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Reading of Deaf Arabic Children in Israel Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Haneen Wattad – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Salim Abu-Rabia – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sara Haddad-Shehadeh IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0002-726X – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1543-0375 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 169 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: American Annals of the Deaf Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
