View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

ISL-Signing Mothers' Practices for Boosting Hearing-Signing Children's Engagement in Shared Reading

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: ISL-Signing Mothers' Practices for Boosting Hearing-Signing Children's Engagement in Shared Reading
Language: English
Authors: Orit Fuks
Source: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2024 29(2):217-229.
Availability: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Deafness, Sign Language, Total Communication, Mothers, Parent Child Relationship, Reading Aloud to Others, Infants, Toddlers, Longitudinal Studies, Case Studies
Geographic Terms: Israel
DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enad060
ISSN: 1081-4159
1465-7325
Abstract: This longitudinal multiple-case study research focused on the scaffolding strategies that two Israeli deaf mothers use to boost their young hearing children's engagement in reading interactions. Despite being significant to language learning, few studies have examined the dialogic reading practices of deaf-signing mothers. The study shows that until the age of 22 months, the mothers shared picture books with their children. Between the ages of 12 to 24 months, the mothers used mostly low-demand cognitive prompts and responsive utterances. Between the ages of 24 to 36 months, they used more high-demand prompts (including open-ended questions) and expanded their responses. In line with previous studies, this research demonstrated that the Israeli deaf mothers used the books as a foundation for storytelling and reading conversations. The shared reading provided the mothers with opportunities to model the construction of ISL narratives and language functional behaviors, such as asking questions, describing things or expanding on the text.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1434370
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG55NCRDRm8RGuassmxsN44AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL62zFvsL00KalsFWQIBEICBminjQae5KvvVbewHakrDWYxnyZUz7eJE7dyH6NW2u64pwpiywjbWrDzNFxfl3jyubWy9jzCQ_I5khDGjjl5CVZyifPEMb7RYsDL4wEts2_xTCdhmqf9zwm3r1jGfw4xzazCzthSg9Yza4wj7y_qeyMP-VWsOX4D0yMueNY91w7WhVIzPuqMzU_XdgKyYeldLpzZJ4R6NTeG8_tE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176131221;big01apr.24;2024Mar21.07:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176131221-1">ISL-signing mothers' practices for boosting hearing-signing children's engagement in shared reading </title> <p>This longitudinal multiple-case study research focused on the scaffolding strategies that two Israeli deaf mothers use to boost their young hearing children's engagement in reading interactions. Despite being significant to language learning, few studies have examined the dialogic reading practices of deaf-signing mothers. The study shows that until the age of 22 months, the mothers shared picture books with their children. Between the ages of 12 to 24 months, the mothers used mostly low-demand cognitive prompts and responsive utterances. Between the ages of 24 to 36 months, they used more high-demand prompts (including open-ended questions) and expanded their responses. In line with previous studies, this research demonstrated that the Israeli deaf mothers used the books as a foundation for storytelling and reading conversations. The shared reading provided the mothers with opportunities to model the construction of ISL narratives and language functional behaviors, such as asking questions, describing things or expanding on the text.</p> <p>Shared book reading typically refers to an act of an adult sharing a book with a child/group of children ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref1">39</reflink>]). In shared book reading, the adult may simply read the text to the child or use diverse strategies to create a conversation about the book ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref2">30</reflink>]). The utterances that extend beyond reading the text are referred to as extra-textual talk ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]) or dialogic reading ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>A large body of research has shown that shared book reading supports a range of early language and cognitive skills, while stressing the important role of parents' boosting behaviors in this interaction. There are far fewer studies about shared book reading in deaf families that use sign language for communication, despite the difference in language modality. The few studies which have been conducted focused on families using American Sign Language (ASL) (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]) or British Sign Language (BSL) (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref6">49</reflink>]). Even fewer studies have examined deaf parents' behaviors in shared book reading interactions with infants and toddlers. The aim of the present longitudinal case study, therefore, was to explore the developmental path in Israeli deaf mothers' use of communicative strategies to boost their hearing children's engagement in shared book reading from the early stages of Israeli Sign Language (ISL) acquisition. The results of the study will enable further discussion of the similarities and differences in the communicative behavior of deaf ISL-signing mothers and deaf mothers from different cultural communities.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-2">Shared Book Reading in Hearing Families</hd> <p>Shared book reading provides a good context for learning language, as the child and adult jointly engage in reading a book ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]). The mutual interest of child and adult in an object or event, such as book reading, has been linked to positive language outcomes in preschoolers ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>]). A large body of research has shown that interactive shared book reading supports a range of early language and cognitive skills ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]) including vocabulary acquisition (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]), narrative skills (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref14">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]), grammatical development (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref17">57</reflink>]), future literacy abilities such as print awareness ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]) and understanding socio-cognitive themes ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Shared book reading interactions also provide the opportunity for the child and adult to engage in dialogue. The utterances that extend beyond reading the text encourages the child to produce and practice language, as well as providing an opportunity for the adult to model functional language behaviors, such as asking questions, giving descriptions or expansions ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>] showed that child-directed speech in situations of shared book reading contains significantly more grammatically rich utterances than child-directed speech produced during toy play. The study showed that during shared book reading, the adults used varied techniques to encourage their hearing child to be actively engaged when listening to a story ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref22">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref23">56</reflink>]). Adults may use techniques such as responses to the child's comments and communicative actions, or expand the child's responses ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]). Responses, such as acknowledgement, praise or imitations of a child's utterance frequently used with infants are considered less cognitively demanding than expansion responses ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hearing adults may also use prompts, such as open or closed questions, to boost their hearing children's participation in the shared book reading episodes. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>] argued that prompts enhance engagement during shared book reading, since they involve verbal exchanges between the adult and children that can demonstrate novel and advanced vocabulary and utterances with increased linguistic complexity, compared to everyday exchanges between adults and children. Indeed, the study showed that using prompts, during shared book reading, facilitated vocabulary and oral language skills of hearing children at risk of having language difficulties, as well as of typically-developing peers ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref28">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref29">56</reflink>] specified several prompts that hearing adults use during interactive shared book reading: completion statements or questions that prompt the child to fill in the blank; recall questions requiring the child to remember previous events in the story; open-ended prompts that encourage a multi-word response from the child; WH- who, what, when, etc. questions; and distancing questions requiring the child to relate the book's content to their own experiences.</p> <p>Completion or WH- prompts, such as, "Who is it?"/"Where is the...?" are considered lower cognitive demands, which, during shared book reading, mostly focus on literal information, such as labelling ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]). These prompts are more frequently used in shared book reading interactions with hearing infants. Open-ended prompts (e.g. Why do you think the children ran away?) or distancing prompts (e.g. What does our dog do when you go to kindergarten?) demand a higher level of cognition and more complex styles of questioning ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]). High-demand prompts require a degree of distancing from the book, and may relate aspects of the story to children's personal experiences ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>]). Different prompts also elicit varying amounts of verbal language ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]). For example, closed prompts typically elicit a specific response of one or two words compared to open-ended prompts, which stimulate a longer reply ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Re-reading the same book was found to be another effective strategy to increase hearing children's engagement during shared book interactions. Children tend to take on the role of the reader when they read familiar books with their parent and this role-playing calls for opportunities to practice and expand vocabulary. Children's vocabulary can be also enhanced when they encounter a new word multiple times through repeated exposure to a book ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref36">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>The literature has reported that hearing parents are sensitive to the linguistic and cognitive abilities of their children at different ages and amend their style of shared book reading interaction accordingly ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref40">28</reflink>]). Specifically, it was found that parents mostly choose wordless picture books when interacting with infants, and focus on labeling and making comments about pictures when reading to them ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]). The labeling activity during the time of rapid language learning between eight and 36 months of age was found to be positively related to word learning ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>] argued that picture books not only increase hearing children's exposure to vocabulary, but their exposure to concepts, as well, that are rarely used in conversations (e.g. a jungle animal).</p> <p>Hearing parents tend to choose more complex books with text when reading to infants older than 18 months ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]). They ask more open-ended and distance questions and extend the conversations about the events described in pictures and in the text ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref45">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref46">27</reflink>]). With the increasing linguistic competence of the child, hearing parents also replace the labeling activity into a "testing and feedback" activity. That is, they may ask more questions that test the child's understanding of the narrative sequence or questions about the child's attitudes toward the various characters and their actions ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref47">33</reflink>], p. 556).</p> <p>To summarize, rich interactions between adult and child during shared book reading activity provide the opportunity for the adult to model language enhancing behaviors, such as prompts, types of responses, descriptions and expansions, while producing more varied vocabulary and complex sentence structures. The communicative behavior of the parent during shared book reading has been found to positively relate to the boosting of vocabulary development. Moreover, it aids hearing children's conversational skills, reading comprehension and literacy.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-3">Shared Book Reading in Signing Families</hd> <p>Deaf children may be raised in a home in which sign language is used as the primary means of communication, or alternatively in homes in which spoken language is used for communication. Consequently, the early shared book reading interactions will be influenced by the different types of language environment in which the children are raised ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref48">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research focused on signing families identified several practical reading strategies that deaf parents use when they engage with their preschool deaf children (ages 3.5–6 years) in a shared book reading activity. These strategies include signing phrases on/near the book to facilitate the deaf child's grasp of the connection between actions and characters, elaborating text with sign language (i.e. text paired with sign demonstration), implementing various tactics to establish joint attention such as tapping on the deaf child's shoulder or lap and moving the book, using facial expression and role shift, i.e. changing body posture and gaze, for demonstrating characters' changes ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>] compared two groups of parents during a shared book reading interaction with their deaf children (ages 3–5 years): in one group five deaf parents and one hearing parent used British Sign Language (BSL) and in the second group six hearing parents used spoken English. The researchers reported that the activities undertaken by the two groups differed from one another. As a result, the eventual outcomes and shared meanings also differed. Specifically, the researchers observed that the signing pairs tended to sit side by side, close to one another, for ease of signing and eye contact.</p> <p>The mothers in the signing group used the book as the basis for a conversation around the story. They did not refer to the text, apart from drawing attention to the title, but were careful to convey the whole story and use it to promote their deaf child's BSL and confidence as a communicator. The deaf children in the spoken language pairs, by contrast, frequently sat on the hearing mother's lap, which according to the researchers aided listening. The hearing mothers in the spoken language group focused more on the text of the book, usually reading it verbatim. They were keen to draw attention to features of print: only occasionally did they use the book for a wider conversation ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref53">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study further showed that deaf adults frequently enter into dialogue with their deaf children about the illustrations in the book and add information from the pictures to the story ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref57">46</reflink>]). Thus, for instance, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref58">46</reflink>] reported that in her study, deaf adult native signers in ASL added to their narrative information described in the illustration, but not in the English text (e.g. the bear's actions and postures), and that this strategy made certain details more explicit. The deaf adults also added information and interpretation about the mood and morals of the characters in the story. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref59">46</reflink>] noted that for young deaf children, aged from three to four, these strategies facilitated world knowledge and literacy learning.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>] reported that the deaf mothers in her study made English text explicit in different ways during share book reading. For example, the deaf mothers used chaining to link English text to the same word expressed in sign language. Namely, they first provided a sign for the English word then they fingerspelled the word and pointed to the word in the text. They also provided an English definition, interpreted English word sounds and followed the English text through ASL. The mothers in the study also encouraged their deaf children (ages 3–5 years) to identify a name-sign for the most important characters in the book and they shifted their bodies or hands in order to demonstrate a change in character. Some of the deaf mothers in Berke's study were teachers of deaf children. Hence, according to the author, they may have used pedagogical methods which are typically used at school to facilitate deaf children's spoken language acquisition.</p> <p>Overall, up until now, most studies have focused on shared book reading interactions in deaf families using ASL or BSL, but few studies exist in the area. The literature about shared book reading in other signing communities is very scarce. It is possible, therefore, that some of the observed reading strategies that the deaf parents employed during the shared book reading, such as chaining, are cultural and language specific. In ISL, for instance, as opposed to ASL, fingerspelling is far less common in discourse and thus may not be used by Israeli deaf mothers in shared book reading. Therefore, more cross-cultural and cross sign-linguistic studies are needed in order to generalize the findings reported above.</p> <p>Moreover, though there are indications that deaf mothers tend to build stories and develop conversation around the text, rather than simply translate it into sign language, these strategies might be also cultural specific. Book reading conversations are not universal ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref61">13</reflink>]). Even within the speaking communities, in some cultures and speaking families, the text itself is dominant and conversation consists primarily of getting children to repeat the text verbatim ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref64">54</reflink>]). To date, no study has analyzed the type of prompts that deaf mothers use during the shared book reading to increase their children's involvement in reading conversations.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>] reported that questions represented approximately 15% of all strategies that a hard-of hearing mother used during shared book reading with her 3.5-year-old deaf child. However, their research did not focus specifically on prompts; therefore, they did not analyze the type of questions the mother addressed to her child during the reading interactions.</p> <p>Even fewer studies have followed the deaf mothers' prompting behaviors during the reading activity over time. Most studies have focused on shared book reading between deaf mothers and preschool deaf children (between ages 3 to 5 years). Hence, questions about the types of prompts the deaf mothers use with younger children (i.e. infants and toddlers) during shared book reading have not been fully investigated. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref66">58</reflink>] indeed argued that more in-depth and longitudinal case studies are needed about the home contexts in which the development of literacy of deaf children emerges. According to [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>], following the developmental path of shared book reading interactions in signing families can provide significant insights for educators concerning how to better utilize books to scaffold deaf children's sign language development, as well as narrative and discourse abilities. It could also help guide hearing parents of deaf children about how to better use books for promoting book reading conversation and language skills.</p> <p>Therefore, the aim of present research was to apply a longitudinal case study methodology in order to characterize two Israeli deaf mothers' communicative behaviors during book reading activity with their young, hearing children (between the ages of 12 months to 3 years). The results of this study, as noted above, could further deepen our understanding about similarities and differences in the communicative behavior of deaf mothers from different cultural communities.</p> <p>Deaf mothers of hearing children were recruited for the current study as many of the babies who are identified as deaf in Israel are in an ongoing process of being fitted with hearing aids/cochlear implants already in the first year of their lives and are participating in auditory-verbal therapy programs from infancy. The deaf/hearing parents are guided in the educational settings, how to encourage their deaf babies to use the spoken language at home as well. In this context it is therefore difficult to locate families who are available or suitable for a longitudinal developmental study dealing with the acquisition of ISL.</p> <p>The deaf mothers who participated in the current study are native ISL signers and their older hearing children acquired ISL through natural family interactions. Hence, the communicative behavior of the deaf ISL-signing mothers during the shared book reading interactions with their younger hearing infants along the study period was natural, confident and meaningful.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176131221-5">Participants</hd> <p>Two deaf mother-hearing child dyads (a girl, Y, and a boy, Z) were the participants in this study. The hearing infants were 12 months old at the beginning of the current study and 36 months old by the end of study. At time of the study, Z's mother had two older hearing daughters and Y's mother had one older hearing son. Both mothers come from a middle-class background.</p> <p>The deaf mothers were native signers of ISL and used it as their main language of communication. Y's mother only used ISL when addressing her child, while Z's mother used code-blended utterances, i.e. signed forms + words, in interaction with Z, and, in most cases, had phonation in the words. However, her speech comprehensibility was relatively low. Both mothers considered themselves active members of the deaf community in Israel. The other parents are also deaf and have used ISL as their primary language since they were very young. Therefore, the primary language for communication in both deaf families is ISL. The deaf mothers were informed that the study was focusing on early deaf mother-infant interactions. They were instructed to communicate naturally with the children. During the recorded sessions, both Y's and Z's parents encouraged their infants to use ISL.</p> <p>The two hearing infants' exposure to Hebrew occurred in two contexts: during time spent at a hearing daycare center and during daily routine interactions with their hearing brothers and sisters. Z's older sister was 12 years old when the study started, but Y's older brother was much younger—three years old. Therefore, it can be speculated that Y had much more exposure to sign language than to spoken input, while Z had equal exposure to both languages.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-6">Procedure</hd> <p>This longitudinal study, which lasted for 26 months, used exploratory-descriptive multiple-case study methodology (Yin, 2012) that analyzed the boosting engagement strategies that two deaf mothers applied over time, during shared book reading with their young children (between the ages of 12 months to 3 years). Case study methodology is widely recognized in social and linguistic studies, especially when in-depth explanations of social behavior are sought ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref68">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>The two dyads were video-recorded in natural shared book reading interactions in their homes, as part of a broader study that followed the young children's bi-lingual acquisition of ISL and Hebrew. During the naturalistic play sessions, the deaf mothers used a set of their own child's age-appropriate toys: stuffed animals, baby dolls, a ball, dice, and a book. Observations were undertaken every two weeks for 30 minutes each time. In each observed month, the two video-recorded sessions conducted in that month were combined and analyzed. For the present study, once every two months, the communicative input of the deaf mothers during the shared book reading episode was transcribed and coded, using ELAN ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref69">59</reflink>]). In order to examine developmental change in the communicative behavior of the deaf mothers during shared book reading activity with their hearing children throughout the study period, all the shared book reading sessions were grouped into two timeframes, according to the children's age:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Age 12 to 22 months—the shared book reading sessions during 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 months were grouped together. Both infants were at the beginning of the early syntax development period of ISL at age 22 months.</item> <p></p> <item> Age 2 to 3 years—the shared book reading sessions during 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 months were grouped together.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176131221-7">Categories of Analysis</hd> <p>For each shared book reading episode, I noted the type of book that the deaf mother and her child were reading (i.e. a wordless picture book or a book with text). The mothers' utterances that consisted of one or more signs/words in the shared book reading episodes were sorted into four main categories:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Narrative utterances –the deaf mothers' independent utterances that were part of the story they read or told and which were neither prompts nor responsive utterances. More specifically, the category of narratives contains all the narration utterances, free wording, storytelling utterances and extra-textual comment-utterances of the deaf mothers that referred to specific episodes in the story or their relation to the child's own experiences (e.g. YOU ALSO LIKE HOT TEA—you also like hot tea).</item> <p></p> <item> Responsiveness—all the deaf mothers' extra-textual utterances that responded to children's questions or actions, expanded, repeated, or gave feedback to the child's productions.</item> <p></p> <item> Prompts—three broad prompt categories were coded in this study: (a) recall prompts—questions that prompt the child to label (e.g. who is it?) or to remember details from the story (i.e. Wh-questions, yes/no questions, completion prompts etc.); (b) distancing prompts—questions that required the child to relate episodes from the story to their personal experiences and to the world (e.g. what wish do you make?); (c) others—any other communicative prompt the deaf mothers employed to boost their child's engagement.</item> <p></p> <item> Modality-specific scaffolding devices: the category of modality-specific scaffolding devices coded communicative actions the deaf mothers employed during the reading interactions to make the text, illustration or narrative more explicit for their children, i.e. signing close to illustration, chaining, following Hebrew printed text through ISL, using a name-sign for characters, role shift for demonstrating a change in character, etc.</item> </ulist> <p>Quantitative analysis then examined the frequency of use of each type of category in the two deaf mother's input at each shared book reading session for the two timeframes of the study (see Table 1 in the Results section). In order to assess the coding reliability, approximately 10% of the observed sessions were reviewed independently by a hearing native ISL coder. This process involved checking all the identified utterances of the deaf mothers in the shared book reading episodes and evaluating whether they had been coded appropriately for category and meaning. Agreement between coders was 91% (k =.86) for coding text-narrative utterances, 99% (k =.98%) for prompt utterances, for responsiveness utterances—91% (k =.86%). Agreement between coders was 86% (k =.76) for identified special strategies the deaf mothers used to make the picture/text book content more explicit.</p> <p>Table 1 Row data of the narrative, prompt and responsiveness utterances that each deaf mother produced in each shared book reading episode</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Timeframe</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Book</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Narrative</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Prompts</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Responsiveness</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Total</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>12–22 months'</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>12 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>28</td><td /><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>50</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>14 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>41</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>53</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>16 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>10</td><td>19</td><td>3</td><td>25</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>18 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>10</td><td>17</td><td>7</td><td>16</td><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>19</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>20 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Text</td><td>15</td><td>26</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>26</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>22 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Picture</td><td>51</td><td>27</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>64</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Total</italic></td><td /><td /><td>155</td><td>103</td><td>37</td><td>70</td><td>36</td><td>32</td><td>228</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>68%</td><td>50%</td><td>16%</td><td>34%</td><td>16%</td><td>16%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>2–3 years</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>24 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Picture</td><td>41</td><td>51</td><td>17</td><td>31</td><td>6</td><td>16</td><td>64</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>26 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>25</td><td>27</td><td>8</td><td>13</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>42</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>28 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>32</td><td>10</td><td>27</td><td>16</td><td>24</td><td>10</td><td>83</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>30 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>41</td><td>17</td><td>2</td><td>22</td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td>49</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>32 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>30</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>16</td><td>38</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>34 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>11</td><td>32</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>33</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>36 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>4</td><td>22</td><td>16</td><td>8</td><td>14</td><td>22</td><td>34</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Total</italic></td><td /><td /><td>190</td><td>136</td><td>84</td><td>150</td><td>69</td><td>106</td><td>343</td><td>392</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>56%</td><td>35%</td><td>24%</td><td>38%</td><td>20%</td><td>27%</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 1 Row data of the narrative, prompt and responsiveness utterances that each deaf mother produced in each shared book reading episode</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Z)</italic>. </th><th><italic>Mother (Y)</italic>. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Timeframe</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Book</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Narrative</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Prompts</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Responsiveness</italic></td><td colspan="2"><italic>Total</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>12–22 months'</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>12 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>28</td><td /><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>50</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>14 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>41</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>53</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>16 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>10</td><td>19</td><td>3</td><td>25</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>18 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Picture</td><td>10</td><td>17</td><td>7</td><td>16</td><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>19</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>20 months</td><td>Picture</td><td>Text</td><td>15</td><td>26</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>26</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>22 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Picture</td><td>51</td><td>27</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>64</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Total</italic></td><td /><td /><td>155</td><td>103</td><td>37</td><td>70</td><td>36</td><td>32</td><td>228</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>68%</td><td>50%</td><td>16%</td><td>34%</td><td>16%</td><td>16%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>2–3 years</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>24 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Picture</td><td>41</td><td>51</td><td>17</td><td>31</td><td>6</td><td>16</td><td>64</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>26 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>25</td><td>27</td><td>8</td><td>13</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>42</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>28 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>32</td><td>10</td><td>27</td><td>16</td><td>24</td><td>10</td><td>83</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>30 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>41</td><td>17</td><td>2</td><td>22</td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td>49</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>32 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>30</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>16</td><td>38</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>34 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>11</td><td>32</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>33</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>36 months</td><td>Text</td><td>Text</td><td>4</td><td>22</td><td>16</td><td>8</td><td>14</td><td>22</td><td>34</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Total</italic></td><td /><td /><td>190</td><td>136</td><td>84</td><td>150</td><td>69</td><td>106</td><td>343</td><td>392</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>56%</td><td>35%</td><td>24%</td><td>38%</td><td>20%</td><td>27%</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note that for illustrations for the current study, I use words in capital letters to represent English labels (glosses) for ISL signs forms and italics to represent the translation of the signing expressions.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-8">Results</hd> <p>Table 1 presents the type of books that the two deaf mother–child dyads shared in each observed session. In addition for each timeframe, Table 1 presents the raw data of the narrative, prompt and responsiveness utterances that the deaf mothers produced in each shared book reading episode.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-9">Narrative Utterances</hd> <p>As can be seen in Table 1, the deaf mothers and their hearing infants mostly shared wordless picture books during the first timeframe of the study. Between the infants' ages of 12–16 months, the deaf mothers mainly used picture books about animals. Later, as their children got older, they also shared picture books representing objects from various categories (toys, furniture, cutlery etc.), picture books that describe daily actions (e.g. bathing, eating etc.) and picture books representing more abstract notions, such as colors or feelings.</p> <p>The deaf mothers used the wordless picture books in the early sessions to expose their infants to new signs, focusing on labelling objects' names. 74% (N = 96) and 83% (N = 78) of all Z's and Y's mothers' picture book utterances respectively, labelled the referents' names. In later sessions, in the first timeframe (around the age of 20 months), the deaf mothers expanded their references to objects presented in the illustrations. They added comments about their attributes and related them to the children's world and experiences (26% and 17% of all Z's and Y's mothers' picture book utterances). For example, in Figure 1.1, it can be seen that Y's mother signed the sign ICE-CREAM at the same time with Y. In Figure 1.2, her following comment referred to the ice-cream's attribute: COLD.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 Y's mother signs the ISL ICE-CREAM (1.1) and then comments: COLD (1.2).</p> <p>In the second timeframe, during the shared book reading episodes, both deaf mothers mostly used books with texts and illustrations. From Table 1, it can be seen that the proportion of the deaf mothers' narrative utterances out of their total utterances, during the shared book reading episodes, decreased in this timeframe. In contrast, the proportions of responsive utterances and prompts increased during that period (this will be discussed in details below).</p> <p>The deaf mothers' narrative utterances in relation to books with text were characterized by several communicative features. The most prominent feature was that the narrative utterances were not related to narration. That is, the deaf mothers did not use signed Hebrew to translate each Hebrew linguistic item in the text or produce ISL sentences that expressed the same proportions that the Hebrew text expressed. There was no strict translation of the Hebrew text. In two observed shared book reading episodes, each mother directly translated only one prominent repeated phrase from the text, when she narrated the story. Even when Z's mother introduced a new book to her child, which neither had read before, the mother did not translate the text word by word. In that episode, the deaf mother frequently related to the text, in order to correctly present the story details, but she constructed the story separately from the written text.</p> <p>Content analysis showed that the deaf mothers constructed the stories based on details taken both from the text and the illustrations. Namely, the narratives of the deaf mothers were based on information mentioned solely in the text and on information described only or additionally in the illustrations. "Text-utterances" comprised 49% (N = 190) and 42% (N = 85) of Z's and Y's mothers' total narrative utterances in the second timeframe respectively; "illustration-utterances" comprised 40% and 38% of Z's and Y's mothers' total narrative utterances respectively, during that period.</p> <p>The deaf mothers' "text- utterances" formulated the details in the text in a freer style, for example: conversations between characters and their direct quotations (more details below), characters' thoughts (e.g. Point-Fish WONDER, Point-DOG DOING WATER WHAT <emph>the fish is wondering what the dog is doing in the water</emph>) and finer, additional details, which were not shown in the illustrations, but appeared in the text, e.g. directions and locations of characters (Point- children running, RUNING HOME, <emph>the children are running home</emph>), relations between characters (Point-Cinderella's stepsisters, SISTERS, OF—possessive pointing directed to picture of Cinderella, <emph>these are Cinderella's sisters</emph>) and characters' attributes (Point—Cinderella's stepmother BAD, BAD, <emph>she is very bad</emph>) etc. The deaf mothers also added subjective comments about characters (e.g. BABY SWEET, <emph>sweet baby</emph>) and the events in the story, or connected aspects from the story to the child's world and experiences (e.g. BOY, SAME, Point-Z, <emph>he is a boy, like you</emph>). Comment utterances comprised 11% and 20% of Z's and Y's mothers' total narrative utterances in the second timeframe respectively.</p> <p>The deaf mothers' "illustration-utterances" also described what is in the pictures but not always mentioned explicitly in the text (e.g. octopus' shape and movement in the water. See Figure 2.1–2.2. Z's mother depicts the octopus' movement in the water).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 Z's mother depicts the octopus in the illustration and how it moves in water.</p> <p>Another characteristic of the deaf mothers' narratives was their organization according to a story grammar schema. Generally, a story plot requires proper sequencing of macrostructural episodic components—problem, action, consequence—to give it an organizational backbone. Additional components include character, setting, feeling, complication, and resolution or ending. These elements are arranged according to rules about their order and grouping called story grammar ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref70">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of the study show that the deaf mothers built their stories coherently. Their narratives provided background information typically given at the beginning of a story, i.e. introducing the main characters, their names and relationship between the main characters. For example, Point-boy OREN (sign name), Point-man FATHER HIS, <emph>this is Oren, and this is his father.</emph> The deaf mothers also described the initial event, "a problem", that leads to a chain of actions in the story (e.g. Point-fish LOST PARENTS, <emph>the fish lost its parents</emph>), sub-episodes in the plot such as temporal and cause-effect relations (e.g. Point-lion crying, WANT STRAWBERRY, <emph>the lion is crying because he wants a strawberry</emph>) and how the story was ending. Namely, they described the solution/how the goal was achieved in the story or how the problem was solved (e.g. FOUND MOTHER, <emph>the fish found its mother</emph>).</p> <p>Importantly, the deaf mothers retained the story framework even in the episodes in which their child took the role of the "reader"—by prompting them to start "from the beginning of the story". The deaf mothers also retained the story framework in episodes in which they conversed with their children about the story's events. That is, they consistently asked their children questions about each part of the story. For example, at the beginning of the story, they asked: <emph>What's his name? What did the boy wish for?</emph> In relation to the chaining events, they asked for instance: <emph>Why is he crying? Who helped the fish look for his parents?</emph> And in relation to the ending, example questions are: <emph>Why are they happy? What is the lion eating now? Where does Cinderella live now?</emph></p> <p>Content analysis further showed that the narrative-utterances of the deaf mothers were composed of rich and diverse sign-linguistic elements. Specifically, during the shared book reading episodes, the deaf mothers exposed their children to the diverse linguistic elements of ISL. This included exposure to the unique lexical jargon of ISL (e.g. to lexical expressions, such as LONG TIME), to the system of handshape classifiers that represent entities or body parts of entities (see Figure 3—Z's mother depicts the shark's mouth with the handshape classifier) and classifier constructions which are forms that simultaneously depict an entity and its movement in space, (as in Figure 3). They also used directional verbs in which the movement aspect of the form is modified, so that it is directed at physically present or absent referents (see, for instance, Figure 10) and diverse types of sentences, including negation which use unique ISL signs of negations (e.g. the zero negator). Below, see a reference to the deaf mothers' use of role shift and directional signing.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3 Z's mother depicts the shark's mouth with a handshape classifier.</p> <p>In contrast, the results of the study indicated that the narrative utterances of the deaf mothers did not aim to make the Hebrew text more explicit. Namely, in the observed reading episodes, the deaf mothers neither explicitly referred to the Hebrew text, nor used strategies, such as chaining, to link the Hebrew text to the same word expressed in ISL<emph>.</emph> However, from a literacy point of view, both deaf mothers referred to the cover of the book and to the direction of turning pages. They also stated the book's title and invented special sign-names for the main characters.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-10">Responsiveness</hd> <p>During the first timeframe, the deaf mothers used two main types of responsive utterances: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>) acknowledgment plus echo utterances—in reaction to the infants' attempts to sign, the deaf mothers frequently offered a prompt with a head nod or with the sign "RIGHT", while simultaneously also repeating the sign correctly. See Figure 4.1. Z signs the sign, BUTTERFLY, and in Figure 4.2, his mother echoes his utterance, using the correct form. Echo-utterances comprised 62% and 77% of Z's and Y's responsiveness in this period, respectively. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>) Replying utterances—these refer mostly to a situation in which the deaf mothers responded to their infant's pointing toward pictures. They typically provided labels in that context. Replying utterances comprised 38% and 23% of Z's and Y's mothers' responsive utterances, respectively, during that period.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4 Z signs the sign BUTTERFLY (4.1) and his mother echoes its utterance in an appropriate way (4.2).</p> <p>From Table 1, it can be seen that the proportion of responsive utterances out of the deaf mothers' total utterances increased in the second timeframe. This indicates that the children were more engaged in the shared book reading activity during that period. In the second timeframe, the deaf mothers not only correctly mirrored their toddler's input, but also provided more appropriate labels in the context. For instance, in response to Y's utterance, NO LIGHT, the deaf mother signed RIGHT, DARKNESS. The mothers also expanded the children's comments during this period and provided explanations. For example, in one episode, Z pointed to a small fish and signed: FAR (meaning: <emph>the fish is far</emph>). His mother first confirmed RIGHT, FAR and then added an explanation, SEE BIG WHALE (<emph>to see the whole big whale</emph>).</p> <p>The mothers also corrected their children's interpretations in certain episodes. For example, in response to Z's utterance: Point-fish ANGRY the deaf mother responded: NOT ANGRY, Point-fish SAD. Point- fish LOST MOTHER HIS <emph>it's not angry; it's sad. It lost its mother</emph>. Expanded responsiveness comprised 22% and 34% of Z's and Y's total responses during the second timeframe.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-11">Prompts</hd> <p>From Table 1, it can be seen that between the first and the second timeframes, both mothers proportionally increased their use of prompts. Furthermore, both mothers also expanded the type of prompts they gave their children over the study period. In the first timeframe, the deaf mothers frequently used recall—wh-question prompts—to encourage their infants to actively participate in the shared book reading interactions. The deaf mothers mainly used low cognitive demand wh-questions during the first timeframe. The two frequent questions were: <emph>Who is it? Where is the...?</emph> The last two questions comprised 63% and 49% out of the total prompts that Z's and Y's mothers used, respectively, during that period.</p> <p>Another "other" low-demand prompt the mothers used during that period is pointing: the mothers frequently pointed to a picture until their infant responded to it. The pointing prompt comprised 30% and 43% out of Z's and Y's mothers' total prompts during that period, respectively. The pointing prompt was interpreted in this context as the Wh-question—<emph>Who is it</emph>? Less frequently, the deaf mothers also used yes/no questions (e.g. Point-picture of Figure MOTHER HER? <emph>Is she her mother?</emph>). At times, they also asked their infant to imitate their utterance ("DO SAD"). The mothers rarely used more open-ended prompts or distance prompts during the first timeframe.</p> <p>In the second timeframe, both mothers used more cognitively high-demand recall- wh-question prompts. They also used distance prompts during this period; this comprised 25% and 31% of the total prompts of Z's and Y's mothers, respectively. Examples of more high-demand and distance prompts that Z's mothers used in that period are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Why is he crying?</item> <p></p> <item> What does he want?</item> <p></p> <item> Why is she fat (hippo is pregnant)?</item> <p></p> <item> Where do you think the turtle went?</item> </ulist> <p> <emph>What do you like to eat?</emph> </p> <p>Similarly, Y's mother asked questions, such as:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How many sisters does she have?</item> <p></p> <item> What message did the king send to everyone?</item> <p></p> <item> Why did her shoe fall off?</item> <p></p> <item> What is mother's wish?</item> <p></p> <item> What wish do you have?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176131221-12">Modality-Specific Devices for Boosting Narrative Engagement and Comprehension</hd> <p>During the shared book reading episodes, both mothers used several modality specific strategies to attract their children's attention, prompt a response, explain a sign's meaning, scaffold story understanding and boost the children's participation in the activity. Several of these strategies have already been widely discussed in the literature. Below is a list of the strategies also observed in the current study and a brief explanation of their function:</p> <p> <emph>Sitting</emph>—In most episodes, the deaf mothers and their young children sat side by side, but turned toward each other with a book placed in the middle between them (as in Figure 4, for instance) or in a position in which their whole bodies faced each other, with the book placed in the middle (Figure 6). Both sitting positions allowed the young children to comfortably see the signing.</p> <p> <emph>Attention-getting strategies</emph>—during the early shared book reading episodes in the first timeframe, the mothers used diverse strategies to attract and maintain their infants' attention such as tapping on the infant's leg/hand, repeating the production of signs, producing the sign in the infant's visual field, or close to the illustrations, etc.</p> <p> <emph>Utilizing a sign's iconicity to clarify the sign's form meaning</emph>—iconicity generally refers to a resemblance between form and meaning. Many signs in the ISL lexicon are considered iconic. During the first timeframe, the deaf mothers tended to use the sign's iconicity to clarify the form's meaning. They produced signs in an exaggerated iconic manner or, alternatively, added a pantomimic gesture, after producing a sign, for clarification. For instance, during one episode, Y's mother pointed first to a crying face illustrated in a picture book then signed CRYING with an exaggerated crying facial expression (Figure 5.1). She then also mimicked a sobbing face (Figure 5.2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5 Y's mother signing the sign, CRY, with a crying gestural facial expression (5.1). She then added a sobbing pantomimic gesture for clarification (5.2).</p> <p> <emph>Using hand-two for directing attention and pronoun reference</emph>—this strategy was employed by the deaf mothers from the time their children were 22 months and older. It refers to a situation in which the mothers utilized their one hand to point to a specific character or event, which appeared in the illustration, while simultaneously continuing to sign with their other hand. The pointing functioned to attract the child's attention to the illustration while signing or to replace a nominal (see Figure 6—Z's mother pointing with one hand to the illustration of a plum and with the other hand signing: DOESN'T WANT (<emph>the lion doesn't want to eat a plum)</emph>. The phenomenon of simultaneous productions of distinct related signed forms is called "simultaneous constructions" in the sign-linguistic literature ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6 Z's mother using her second hand for pointing at the predicate (a PLUM) while signing DOESN'T WANT.</p> <p> <emph>Creating systematic narrative "topographic" reference maps</emph>—A role shift is a device that enables signers to report actions and statements made by different characters ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref74">50</reflink>]). A shift typically involved the signer's gaze moving away from the addressee to a certain point in space, while also slightly shifting the body to one side. This device is frequently utilized by signers to quote characters' statements in sign narratives and to report actions related to them.</p> <p>The deaf mothers used the space around them consistently and logically, in order to refer to first/second/third (present) characters and characters that were absent. Specifically, they consistently pointed and directed signing toward the illustrations when they talked about (present) third parties. See Figure 7.1: Y's mother points toward a picture of a prince and Cinderella dancing and then signs DANCING—<emph>they are dan</emph>cing (Figure 7.2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 7 Y's mother directing pronoun - pointing to a third party that is present (THEY, 7.1) when she signed the utterance: they are dancing.</p> <p>The deaf mothers pointed toward their child or to a location in space in front of them, when they quoted a statement directed to an imaginary present interlocutor. For example, Z's mother pointed to her child when she quoted a question the character (fish) asked the interlocutor (shark): WHO Point-child (<emph>Who are you</emph>)? (See Figures 8.1–8.2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 8 Z's mother pointed to Z (8.2) when quoting the character's question: WHO ARE YOU?</p> <p>Y's mother pointed to the space in front of her when she quoted an order that Cinderella's stepmother gave her: Point-location in space in front of the mother (you) STAY CLEAN (<emph>you must stay to clean. S</emph>ee Figure 9).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 9 Y's mother pointing to a location in a space in front of her when she quoted Cinderella's stepmother, saying to Cinderella: 'You must stay and clean'.</p> <p>The deaf mothers tended to point to themselves when they quoted a statement that a character made about him/herself. For example, point-self (I) SHARK, "<emph>I am a shark</emph>" (Figures 10.1–10.2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 10 Z's mother pointing to herself when she quoted the shark's statement: I SHARK (I am a shark).</p> <p>The deaf mothers directed signing and pronouns to the side, when they described relations between the characters and absent characters. See Figure 11: Y's mother shifting her gaze and body to one side, while also directing the verb, GIVE, toward that location, when she signed: FLOWERS WANT GIVE DORA FRIEND OF-directed to DORA's picture. Meaning: <emph>Dora wants to give flowers to her friend</emph> (absent third party).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 11 Y's mother directing the verb, GIVE, to the side, connecting with an absent entity.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-13">Discussion</hd> <p>This longitudinal study followed two Israeli deaf signing mothers' communicative behaviors during shared book reading with their young hearing children, who were in the early stages of ISL acquisition. The research focused on the scaffolding strategies the deaf mothers used to boost their hearing children's engagement in the shared book reading interactions. Practices such as prompting the child with questions, expanding the child's responses, and asking open-ended questions have all been found to be effective tools to enhance speaking children's participation in shared book reading interaction ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref75">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, the results of this study show that the deaf ISL-signing mothers were sensitive to their hearing young children's cognitive and linguistic abilities and that they gradually increased the type of boosting devices they employed in the shared book reading activity, as well as the complexity of their narrative language. During the first timeframe (between the children's ages of 12–24 months), the mothers mainly shared picture books with their young children. They utilized the wordless picture books to expose their hearing children to new referents and labels and to encourage their children to sign labels they had already acquired.</p> <p>In this period, the deaf mothers also mostly used lower-demand prompts to increase their hearing infant's engagement. The two most frequent questions that the two deaf mothers used during the shared book reading episodes were the wh-questions: Who is it? and, where is the..? The two frequent responsive utterances that the mothers used with their infants during this period were acknowledgment—echoing utterances. The same pattern of frequent use of cognitively low-demand prompts was also observed in studies that examined hearing mothers' shared book reading with speaking infants acquiring Hebrew ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref76">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Both deaf ISL-signing mothers in this study routinely also used modality-specific communicative strategies that have been discussed widely in the literature to attract and maintain their hearing infants' attention. These strategies included tapping, repetition and displacing. The deaf ISL-signing mothers also tended to exploit the signs' iconicity, especially when their hearing infants were between the ages of 18–22 months, in order to highlight their form-meaning connections. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref77">40</reflink>] reported that hearing mothers also frequently use iconicity in communication with their hearing infants; specifically, they frequently use onomatopoeic words (<emph>meow</emph>) and dramatically alter the intonation of speech when talking to infants.</p> <p>The results of this study show that as the children got older, the deaf ISL-signing mothers took advantage of the wordless picture books, not only for labeling, but also for maintaining short conversations with their children about the referents presented in the book and their relations to the child's world and experiences. Interestingly, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>] recently reported that a wordless book promoted more interactions between hearing adult-child dyads than the book with text. The researchers reported that although lexical diversity and grammatical complexity of parental language were higher during narration with a book with text, hearing parents used higher rates of prompts and responsive feedback, when reading a picture book together with their children. In the future, it would be interesting to examine in more depth the effect of types of books on the shared book reading interactions between signing mothers and their children. This could be significant for pedagogical settings: it could provide a model for teachers and speaking mothers of deaf children regarding how to naturally use different types of books to boost deaf children's active engagement in shared book interactions.</p> <p>By the end of the hearing children's second year, and in alignment with their growing communicative and cognitive abilities, both deaf ISL-signing mothers replaced the wordless picture books with books with text. During this period, between the children's ages of 24–36 months, more modality and cultural-specific differences were observed in the communicative strategies that the Israeli deaf mothers employed in the shared book reading activity.</p> <p>In line with former studies which followed shared book reading in deaf signing families (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref79">49</reflink>]), in this study, as well, it was observed that the two deaf mothers did not translate the stories into ISL "word by word" or into signed Hebrew. Rather, they formulated the stories free style, based on their familiarity with the details described in the text, and they used the illustrations for further clarifications and demonstrations. This method seems to have enabled the deaf mothers to narrate their stories in a more confident, theatrical and engaging way, while using the rich linguistic tools of ISL to coherently build the plot.</p> <p>Although previous studies referred to the difference in the "reading styles" of signing and speaking parents, they did not analyze the content or the structure of the stories the deaf mothers used with their young children. Nevertheless, the way deaf mothers build their stories can directly affect the young children's understanding of the plot: there is a difference between merely pointing to illustrations and describing what they show and telling a story, while illustrating all the temporal and cause-effect relationships in the plot ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>]). Moreover, it is important to note, in this regard, that not all illustrations in books provide the explicit and essential details that are needed to understand the chain of events in the plot. Many illustrations in books simply describe one episode (a crying lion), but they do not describe cause-effect relations (why the lion is crying). Other illustrations show characters, often in the same picture (a fish and octopus), but they have limited abilities to describe the relations between the characters (friends, father and son, etc.) or the conversations between them (What did the fish ask the octopus when they met?). One needs to read the text, in order to fill in the gaps about these details.</p> <p>Hence, when narrating a story to very young children, the story should be told in a cohesive sequence so that the plot will be correctly understood. The results of this study show that the two deaf ISL-signing mothers were indeed sensitive to the limitations of the illustrations and made sure to fill in the gaps in the necessary places and to build their story coherently, according to story-grammar rules ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref81">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref82">51</reflink>]). These rules describe the story parts, i.e. beginning, chain of events, ending, arrangement of the parts, and the internal structure of the story.</p> <p>Thus, at the beginning of their narratives, both deaf ISL-signing mothers provided enough background information needed for orientation in the story. The internal structure of their narratives provided enough information about cause-effect relations and the characters' moods and feelings (e.g. SAD, point to picture of balloon that had burst and then toward a side picture of a cat: <emph>the boy is sad because the</emph> cat <emph>burst his balloon)</emph>. They also made sure to describe how the problem in the story was solved and how the story ended. In addition, both mothers were observed using a strategy similar to that used by a native ASL signer in the study undertaken by [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref83">46</reflink>], of combining details in the story that were described solely in the illustrations (e.g. colors, size, numbers or manners of actions of referents).</p> <p>Moreover, in order to coherently construct their stories, the Israeli deaf mothers created a clear topographic spatial map around them for pronoun references and quotations. There is little data in the literature on how in practice "quoted signing" ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref84">50</reflink>], p.88) is done during shared reading with young signing children. In this study, it was observed that the deaf ISL-signing mothers systematically pointed at themselves when they quoted characters' utterances referring to themselves. They pointed to their child or to the space in front of them when they quoted characters' utterances directed to interlocutors, and they directed their signing input to a side space when they said something about characters who were absent. The consistent manner in which the Israeli deaf mothers used quoted signing and constructed their narratives most likely helped their young hearing children understand the story, despite the fact that the mothers did not translate the text word by word. Further studies are needed in order to conclude if this pattern of quoted signing is a specific strategy in ISL or if it is similarly applied by signers using other sign-languages.</p> <p>The data from this study further show that both deaf mothers amended their narration style to fit the young age of their children and their communicative abilities. Thus for instance, in the literature, there have been reports that deaf signers use both hands in narrative and discourse, in order to represent cognitively high-demand aspects of events, such as actions carried out simultaneously by two different actors, each hand represents a different actor ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref85">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref86">35</reflink>]). The deaf mothers in this study indeed started using both hands simultaneously during signing, as their children got older. However, they only used the other hand for pointing; hand-2 functions mainly as a gesture for getting attention or for pronoun use. The ISL signing mothers in this study never used their two hands to represent actions carried out simultaneously by two different characters during the shared reading activity. They referred sequentially to simultaneous actions. They first described the action of one character and then the other character. Furthermore, they frequently signed close to the pictures, in order to relate the narrated actions to the characters.</p> <p>The results of this longitudinal study additionally show that between the children's ages of 2 to 3 years, the deaf ISL-signing mothers more frequently used responsiveness and prompt utterances. In other words, they expanded the reading conversation with their children about the events in the story and they responded extensively to the children's comments. During the second timeframe, the ISL-signing mothers also expanded the type of prompts they used with their hearing children: they employed more cognitively high demand open-ended questions and distancing prompts. Interestingly, it seems that prompts not only allowed the deaf mothers to boost their children's engagement in reading conversation, but also ensured that their hearing children correctly understood their story.</p> <p>Despite a great deal of similarity observed between the communicative behaviors of the ISL-signing mothers in the current study and those outlined in earlier literature (e.g. elaborating extensively on the text, adjusting sign placement and signing style to fit the story, the use of a similar types of visual attention maintenance strategies and so on), several differences were still noticed. For instance, contrary to what has been reported in the literature (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref88">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref89">45</reflink>]), the deaf ISL-signing mothers in this study did not try to make the Hebrew text more explicit for their toddlers. That is, they did not point, for instance, to the print, discuss the words with a larger font size, or provide definitions for specific Hebrew words in the text.</p> <p>This difference might be related to the young age of the children who participated in this study. In other words, it might reflect the fact that the deaf mothers simply amended their style of reading to suit the young age of the hearing children and when reading with older children, the deaf ISL-signing mothers attempted to make the Hebrew text more explicit. Both deaf mothers made sure to start telling the story from the beginning of the book, to mention the title of the book and to give a sign-name for the characters. These elements are also important for children's literacy development. Nevertheless, the Israeli deaf mothers never used the "chaining technique" during the shared reading interactions observed, for instance, among ASL signing mothers. In ISL, as noted above, the chaining technique is far less common in daily discourse. Hence, it can be assumed that the Israeli deaf mothers' lack of use of this technique has less to do with the age of the children and more with ISL regulations/conventions. In other words, the "chaining technique" appears to be more of an ASL sociolinguistic regulation/convention than an ISL one.</p> <p>Another feature of deaf mothers' shared book reading behavior reported in the literature but not observed in this study is what [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>], p.2) characterized as "Deaf readers re-read stories on a 'storytelling' to 'story reading' continuum.". Specifically, according to [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref91">44</reflink>], deaf readers elaborate on the text extensively the first time they read a story. However, with the repeated reading of the same book, the text is less and less elaborated. In this study, the two deaf ISL-signing mothers mostly used books they had already read several times in the past with their young hearing children. However, their stories were not tied to the text. Interestingly, the only time that one of the deaf mothers used a book that she and her child had not read before, the elaboration on the text was much less extended and far less creative.</p> <p>To summarize, in line with previous studies, the results of this study show that the deaf ISL-signing mothers used the book as a foundation for storytelling and reading conversations with their young hearing children. The deaf ISL-signing mothers encouraged their young children to engage in the reading activity (by asking the children questions), they provided feedback that modeled more sophisticated language (expansions) and they challenged their children's knowledge and communicative skills, by expanding the topics of the conversations (through high cognitive level and open-ended questions). The boosting prompts that the deaf mothers used during the shared book reading activity were attuned to the children's cognitive and linguistic abilities at different ages.</p> <hd id="AN0176131221-14">Conclusions</hd> <p>The deaf ISL-signing mothers in this study exhibited many similar shared book reading strategies adopted by deaf mothers using other sign languages and by speaking mothers, as well. The greater need for visuals and the specific unique linguistic features of sign language apparently affect the way deaf mothers in different cultures tell their children stories, when reading together with them. At the same time, the deaf ISL-signing mothers also used various techniques of dialogic reading to enhance their children's engagement in the shared book reading activity. Both aspects of shared book reading need to be further investigated with a larger group of deaf families.</p> <p>Future studies are needed to examine in greater depth the reading techniques that signing mothers employ in shared reading with children at different ages and stages of development. There is also a need to characterize the strategies of dialogic reading employed by different groups of deaf families (e.g. signing versus speaking deaf families), as the literature has shown that the use of prompts and reading conversations, despite being significant for language learning, are neither trivial nor universal. This is an area that calls for further in-depth research.</p> <ref id="AN0176131221-15"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref49" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akamatsu, C. T., & Andrews, J. F. (1993). It takes two to be literate: Literacy interactions between parent & child. Sign Language Studies, 1081 (1), 333 – 360. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1993.0006. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref50" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews, J. F., & Taylor, N. E. (1987). From sign to print: A case study of picture book "reading" between mother and child. Sign Language Studies, 1056, 261 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1987.0001. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aram, D., Fine, Y., & Ziv, M. (2013). Enhancing parent–child shared book reading interactions: Promoting references to the book's plot and socio-cognitive themes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 (1), 111 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.03.005. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref55" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bailes, C. N. (2001). Integrative ASL—English language arts: Bridging paths to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1 (2), 147 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2001.0002. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref31" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, L., Mackler, K., Sonnenschein, S., & Serpell, R. (2001). Parents' interactions with their first-grade children during storybook reading and relations with subsequent home reading activity and reading achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 39 (5), 415 – 438. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00082-6. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berke, M. (2013). Reading books with young deaf children: Strategies for mediating between American sign language and English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18 (3), 299 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent001. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Blewitt, P., & Langan, R. (2016). Learning words during shared book reading: The role of extratextual talk designed to increase child engagement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 404 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.009. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children's word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (2), 294 – 304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013844. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bojczyk, K. E., Davis, A. E., & Rana, V. (2016). Mother–child interaction quality in shared book reading: Relation to child vocabulary and readiness to read. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 404 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.006. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowles, R. P., Justice, L. M., Khan, K. S., Piasta, S. B., Skibbe, L. E., & Foster, T. D. (2020). Development of the narrative assessment Protocol-2: A tool for examining young children's narrative skill. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51 (2), 390 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019%5fLSHSS-19-00038. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., Tomasello, M., Butterworth, G., & Moore, C. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63, i – 174. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166214. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Temple, J. M. (1994). Book reading styles of low-income mothers with preschoolers and children's later literacy skills. Harvard University. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Temple, J., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (1st Ed., pp. 29 – 48). Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Temple, J., & Tabors, P. (1995). Styles of interaction during a book reading task: Implications for literacy intervention with low-income families. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice: Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 265–271). National Reading Conference Inc. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deshmukh, R. S., Zucker, T. A., Tambyraja, S. R., Pentimonti, J. M., Bowles, R. P., & Justice, L. M. (2019). Teachers' use of questions during shared book reading: Relations to child responses. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 49, 59 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.05.006. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DesJardin, J. L., & Ambrose, S. E. (2010). The importance of the home literacy environment for developing literacy skills in young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Young Exceptional Children, 13 (5), 28 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250610387270. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer, J., & Neuman, S. B. (2008). Selecting books for children birth through four: A developmental approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 489 – 494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0236-5. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ezell, H. K., & Justice, L. M. (2000). Increasing the print focus of adult-child shared book reading through observational learning. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9 (1), 36 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0901.36. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrant, B. M., & Zubrick, S. R. (2013). Parent–child book reading across early childhood and child vocabulary in the early school years: Findings from the longitudinal study of Australian children. First Language, 33 (3), 280 – 293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723713487617. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, K. L., & Reese, E. (2005). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 25 (1), 64 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.009. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flynn, K. S. (2011). Developing children's oral language skills through dialogic reading: Guidelines for implementation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44 (2), 8 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400201. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grolig, L. (2020). Shared storybook reading and oral language development: A bioecological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1818. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01818. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargrave, A. C., & Sénéchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (1), 75 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00038-1. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hindman, A. H., Wasik, B. A., & Bradley, D. E. (2019). How classroom conversations unfold: Exploring teacher–child exchanges during shared book reading. Early Education and Development, 30 (4), 478 – 495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1556009. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaderavek, J. N., Pentimonti, J. M., & Justice, L. M. (2014). Children with communication impairments: Caregivers' and teachers' shared book-reading quality and children's level of engagement. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30 (3), 289 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013513812. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karrass, J., & Braungart-Rieker, J. M. (2005). Effects of shared parent–infant book reading on early language acquisition. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26 (2), 133 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.003. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Kleeck, A., & Beckley-McCall, A. (2002). A comparison of mothers' individual and simultaneous book sharing with preschool siblings. The Mission of the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 175 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2002/017). Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Zucker, T., Crawford, A. D., & Solari, E. F. (2012). The effects of a responsive parenting intervention on parent–child interactions during shared book reading. Developmental Psychology, 48 (4), 969 – 986. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026400. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lartz, M. N., & Lestina, L. J. (1995). Strategies deaf mothers use when reading to their young deaf or hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 140 (4), 358 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0358. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lingwood, J., Lampropoulou, S., De Bezenac, C., Billington, J., & Rowland, C. (2022). Children's engagement and caregivers' use of language-boosting strategies during shared book reading: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Child Language, 50, 1436 – 1458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000922000290. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milburn, T. F., Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Enhancing preschool educators' ability to facilitate conversations during shared book reading. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14 (1), 105 – 140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798413478261. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, C. (1994). Simultaneous constructions in Quebec Sign Language. In M. Brennan & G. H. Turner (Eds.), Word Order Issues in Sign Language (pp. 89 – 112). International Sign Linguistics Association. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moerk, E. L. (1985). Picture-book reading by mothers and young children and its impact upon language development. Journal of Pragmatics, 9 (4), 547 – 566. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90021-9. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., De Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19 (1), 7 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701838603. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, G. (2002). The encoding of simultaneity in children's British sign language narratives. Sign Language and Linguistics, 5 (2), 131 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.5.2.04mor. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, K. A., Pentimonti, J. M., & Chow, J. C. (2023). Supporting children's language and literacy through collaborative shared book reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 58 (3), 155 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512221081218. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ninio, A. (1983). Joint book reading as a multiple vocabulary acquisition device. Developmental Psychology, 19 (3), 445 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.19.3.445. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noble, C. H., Cameron-Faulkner, T., & Lieven, E. (2018). Keeping it simple: The grammatical properties of shared book reading. Journal of Child Language, 45 (3), 753 – 766. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000447. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noble, C., Sala, G., Peter, M., Lingwood, J., Rowland, C., Gobet, F., & Pine, J. (2019). The impact of shared book reading on children's language skills: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100290. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perlman, M., Fusaroli, R., Fein, D., & Naigles, L. (2017). The use of iconic words in early child-parent interactions. In The 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017) (pp. 913 – 918). Cognitive Science Society. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrie, A., Robert, M., Fei, Z., & Montanari, S. (2023). Parent-child interaction during storybook reading: Wordless narrative books versus books with text. Journal of Child Language, 50 (1), 104 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000921000763. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rees, K., Nadig, A., & Rvachew, S. (2017). Story-related discourse by parent–child dyads: A comparison of typically developing children and children with language impairments. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 12, 16 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.01.001. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, E. (1995). Predicting children's literacy from mother-child conversations. Cognitive Development, 10 (3), 381 – 405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(95)90003-9. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schleper, D. R. (1995). Reading to deaf children: Learning from deaf adults. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 13 (4), 4 – 8. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schleper, D. R. (1996). Principles for reading to deaf children. Pre-College National Mission Programs. Gallaudet University. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snoddon, K. (2014). Ways of taking from books in ASL book sharing. Sign Language Studies, 14 (3), 338 – 359. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2014.0010. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. A. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10 (3), 551 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005365. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. Vol. 2, pp. 53 – 120). Erlbaum. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanwick, R., & Watson, L. (2007). Parents sharing books with young deaf children in spoken English and in BSL: The common and diverse features of different language settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12 (3), 385 – 405. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enm004. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press, 10.1017/CBO9780511509629. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9 (1), 77 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90005-6. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Towson, J. A., Fettig, A., Fleury, V. P., & Abarca, D. L. (2017). Dialogic reading in early childhood settings: A summary of the evidence base. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37 (3), 132 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121417724875. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28 (6), 1106 – 1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1106. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vernon-Feagans, L., Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. D. E. L. E., & Manlove, E. (2001). Early language and literacy skills in low-income African American and Hispanic children. In Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 1, pp. 192 – 210).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (2), 243 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.243. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weadman, T., Serry, T., & Snow, P. C. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of a shared book reading observational tool: The emergent literacy and language early childhood checklist for teachers (ELLECCT). First Language, 42 (4), 552 – 578. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237211056735. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 552 – 559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, C. (2004). Emergent literacy of deaf children. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9 (4), 352 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enh045. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006) (pp. 1556 – 1559).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9, 1 – 6. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Orit Fuks</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Orit Fuks</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref91"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1434370
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: ISL-Signing Mothers' Practices for Boosting Hearing-Signing Children's Engagement in Shared Reading
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Orit+Fuks%22">Orit Fuks</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Deaf+Studies+and+Deaf+Education%22"><i>Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 29(2):217-229.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– 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="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deafness%22">Deafness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sign+Language%22">Sign Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Total+Communication%22">Total Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Aloud+to+Others%22">Reading Aloud to Others</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Infants%22">Infants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Toddlers%22">Toddlers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1093/deafed/enad060
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1081-4159<br />1465-7325
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This longitudinal multiple-case study research focused on the scaffolding strategies that two Israeli deaf mothers use to boost their young hearing children's engagement in reading interactions. Despite being significant to language learning, few studies have examined the dialogic reading practices of deaf-signing mothers. The study shows that until the age of 22 months, the mothers shared picture books with their children. Between the ages of 12 to 24 months, the mothers used mostly low-demand cognitive prompts and responsive utterances. Between the ages of 24 to 36 months, they used more high-demand prompts (including open-ended questions) and expanded their responses. In line with previous studies, this research demonstrated that the Israeli deaf mothers used the books as a foundation for storytelling and reading conversations. The shared reading provided the mothers with opportunities to model the construction of ISL narratives and language functional behaviors, such as asking questions, describing things or expanding on the text.
– 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: EJ1434370
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1434370
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1093/deafed/enad060
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 217
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Deafness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sign Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Total Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Aloud to Others
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Infants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Toddlers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Israel
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: ISL-Signing Mothers' Practices for Boosting Hearing-Signing Children's Engagement in Shared Reading
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Orit Fuks
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1081-4159
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-7325
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1