Peter Paul | The Ohio State University (original) (raw)

Papers by Peter Paul

Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 2016

This study examined the interrelationships of two code-related factors (i.e., phoneme detection a... more This study examined the interrelationships of two code-related factors (i.e., phoneme detection and silent word reading fluency), one language-related factor (i.e., morphological awareness), and reading comprehension with 45 d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/Dhh) students in Grades 3-8, taking into account any effects of demographic information. A correlational research design was utilized entailing simple Pearson correlations, multiple regressions, and a t-test. Results indicated that morphological awareness was significantly related to English reading comprehension over and beyond the other predictors (i.e., phoneme detection and silent word reading fluency) even with selected demographic (i.e., home language, age, and grade) factors as covariates. Keywords D/deaf or hard of hearing. Morphological awareness. Phoneme detection. Phonological awareness. English reading comprehension. Silent word reading fluency

Human Research in Rehabilitation, 2019

This study examined the performance of deaf and hard of hearing middle school students on arithme... more This study examined the performance of deaf and hard of hearing middle school students on arithmetic compare word problems with relational statements. Thirteen prelingual, severe-to-profound deaf students were selected to participate. The results showed that the students were more likely to misunderstand a relational statement and make a reversal error when the required arithmetic operation was inconsistent with the statement's relational term (e.g., choosing the operation of addition when the relational term was less than). There were no statistical differences in the number of reversal errors and on lexical markedness (i.e., marked vs. unmarked items). Finally, fraction-of-a-number relational terms exerted more influence on students' abilities to solve word problems than did the lexical markedness. Findings are interpreted in light of the consistency effect hypothesis. Directions for future research and implications for instruction are also provided.

Journal Human Research in Rehabilitation, 2021

This article provides a summary of the historical background and basic tenets of the Qualitative ... more This article provides a summary of the historical background and basic tenets of the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis (QSH), which has been applied to explore the language and literacy acquisition of d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh) children and adolescents in the United States (and elsewhere, for example, South Korea and Saudi Arabia). The QSH is a developmental similarity model, influenced by the early investigations on language and literacy development of children with developmental/intellectual/cognitive or learning/language disabilities. It is argued that the acquisition of English (or any other phonemic language) by d/Deaf and hard of hearing children or other children in Special Education programs is developmentally or qualitatively similar to that of typical (non-disabled) language and literacy learners. This is also the case for second language learners of English, often labeled English language learners. The QSH can be used to provide indirect support for inclusive educ...

Journal Human Research in Rehabilitation, 2021

The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize empirical studies regarding the effects of ... more The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize empirical studies regarding the effects of metacognition on English reading-related outcomes for students who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh). This review covered the timeframe from the publication of the previous and only narrative review conducted by Strassman (1997) to 2020. Several of Strassman’s assertions were confirmed, including the oft-repeated one: d/Dhh students possess inadequate comprehension-monitoring skills. In fact, the students are not aware of effective metacognitive strategies and, in general, do not know “what they do not know.” Although intervention is strongly recommended, a few later studies asserted that such intervention not only should be based on the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, but also should be differentiated to meet the individual needs of d/Dhh students. It was argued that d/Dhh reading comprehension challenges are due to metacognitive or executive function issues; however...

Journal Human Research in Rehabilitation, 2020

This study focused on the perceptions of students with visual impairment. A narrative meta-analys... more This study focused on the perceptions of students with visual impairment. A narrative meta-analysis was utilized to synthesize the findings of investigations that employed quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodological designs. Based on the contents of the reviewed articles, three broad categories were established: barriers, feelings of acceptance, and successful components of inclusion. Barriers included the physical environments of schools, accessibility, and social interactions. With respect to feelings of acceptance, the constructs of homophily and fitting in were discussed. Several components of successful inclusion were delineated such as a positive school climate and a positive, supportive attitude associated with teachers, especially those who possess knowledge and skills and held high expectations for students. Students with visual impairment also needed skills to be autonomous and assertive, which are conducive to academic success and the initiation and building of fri...

Education Sciences, 2019

As indicated in this Special Issue, there has been much debate on the development of English lang... more As indicated in this Special Issue, there has been much debate on the development of English language and literacy in d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh) students. Questions remain on the nature of the first language and the relation of this language to the development of English literacy. There is also considerable controversy on the role of English phonology. Adding to the complexity is the increase of d/Dhh children for whom English is not the home language and the ongoing challenge of addressing the needs of those with disabilities or additional disabilities. After describing English literacy and the need for documenting desirable research characteristics, the authors of this conclusion article utilize a construct named the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis (QSH) as the guiding framework for addressing issues such as the role of phonology and the nature of the through-the-air form of the language of print. The QSH asserts that d/Dhh students need to master the same set of fundame...

American Annals of the Deaf, 2014

Paul, P V (2014). In praise of doubt and systematic inquiry. American Annals of the Deaf 159(4), ... more Paul, P V (2014). In praise of doubt and systematic inquiry. American Annals of the Deaf 159(4), 305-311.The articles in this volume represent the first segment of a two-part special issue on English reading development for individuals who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh). I want to express my deepest gratitude to all the authors, particularly the coeditors, Ye Wang and Jean Andrews, for their insightful contributions, which should provide the impetus for subsequent dialogues as well as additional productive theorizing and research in our field. This relentless quest for a better and deeper understanding of the English literacy process should also pave the way for the development and implementation of instructional practices to facilitate the acquisition of English reading skills by d/Dhh children and adolescents.It should not be surprising that constructs such as reading, reading comprehension, reading assessment, and reading instruction have engendered vitriolic debates-metaphorically described as "reading wars" (Pearson, 2004). Constructs that are conceptually complex are often "slippery" (Flavell, 1985)-that is, difficult to define or describe completely, equally as difficult to measure or assess, and downright challenging to translate into instructional strategies that might be considered effective for a particular student at any age or grade level. This conceptual slipperiness often leads to polarizing views, with proponents in diverse camps, enclaves, or information silos, which can be frustrating and confusing to parents/caregivers and teachers/educators, and-worse- have unintended, unproductive consequences for children learning to read and write English.From one perspective, this situation need not be unresolvable or even unbridgeable (see, e.g., Bloome, 2013). Nevertheless, crossing any number of divides or attempting to enrich the silos requires sincere, concerted efforts-often labeled cognitive contamination by sociologists-and these endeavors can produce positive or constructive outcomes. (For a popular account, see Berger & Zijderveld, 2009, which inspired the title of this editorial.) As a researcher, my goal is to oscillate between applying a healthy dose of doubt and a modicum of cautionary certainty, the better to avoid being placed in a category that could be labeled the folly of pedants-often associated with strong voices of certainty and, sadly, fanaticism.These introductory remarks portend the approach of this editorial. I recognize that familiarity with my work and that of my collaborators should place me in the camp that favors the construct known as the qualitative similarity hypothesis (QSH; Paul, Wang, & Williams, 2013). Thus, sans the introductory article (Wang & Andrews), it might be reasoned that I am in agreement with most, if not all, of the contents in two of the four main articles in this special issue (Mayer & Trezek; Wang & Williams). In essence, the major points in these articles do resonate with my own tentative convictions.As a result, most individuals would argue that there is no way I can be an unbiased observer, or even an unbiased synthesizer of diverse positions-especially those that question the assumptions of the QSH. Of course, it is possible that no researcher or scholar can be completely free of bias-if this is interpreted to mean the possession of a mental framework or, rather, a specific type of epistemology, that drives theorizing, research, and implications for practice-and that this position is rigid, inflexible, and impervious to contamination. Nevertheless, I can find areas of consensus in the other two main articles (Allen, Letteri, Choi, & Dang; McQuarrie & Parrila)-if I am permitted to contextualize their assertions with respect to sociodemographics of participants and a working model of English reading acquisition (obviously, any model is debatable)-as discussed later.In reading all the articles in this issue (and Part II, forthcoming in the Winter 2015 issue), my desire has been to become cognitively contaminated so that I can grow further in my understanding of the process of learning to read English. …

American Annals of the Deaf, 2015

This is the second segment of a two-part special issue of the Annals on English reading developme... more This is the second segment of a two-part special issue of the Annals on English reading development for individuals who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh). Again, I want to thank all the contributors, particularly the coeditors, Ye Wang and Jean Andrews, for their thought-provoking contributions. This two-part volume should provide a substantial amount of fodder for theory, research, and practice for years to come. If all of this attention and activity leads to marked improvement in English reading development, then all the better. However, first we need a better understanding of the acquisition of English reading and writing skills not only for d/Dhh students, but for all students.My burning question is this: What can I offer here that will extend or enhance my major points presented in the editorial for the first part of this special issue (Paul, 2014b)? The present issue ranges from an interpretation of dissertations on reading by d/Deaf investigators over a 40-year period (Andrews, Byrne, & Clark) to tentative remarks based on preliminary findings and the tenets of a conceptual literacy model from a federally funded project, the Center on Literacy and Deafness (Easterbrooks et al.). Then there is a piece that focuses on the pervasive role of socioeconomic status in language and reading (Twitchell, Morford, & Hauser), and another that provides a rendition of the long-standing nature-versus-nurture intertwinement (LaSasso & Crain). Finally, there is an insightful synthesis of all the articles in this two-part volume (Andrews & Wang)-which may put this editorial to shame. So again, what can I offer? Or, better yet, let's quote Kant (1787/1901): "What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?" (p. 583)My approach in this editorial is the same as it was in the first one (Paul, 2014b). I focus on a few assertions in this volume and relate them, as appropriate, to the contents of the first part of this special issue. Cognitive contamination notwithstanding, I hope to minimize overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and even repetitions (albeit repeated remarks can be a good thing). This is a formidable challenge, given the complexity of the topic and the wealth of information offered by the contributors. All contributors mention the variability of broad conditions and factors- language, cognitive, and sociocultural-that can affect the development of reading in d/Dhh children and adolescents. If progress is to be made, though, there is a need to explicate these variables and to ascertain the differentiated contributions, especially within a model of English literacy development. Nevertheless, this is an editorial, not a book- but perhaps the editors of this special issue have something else up their sleeves. (In fact, they do; see Andrews & Wang).What Can (or Do I Think) I Know? What Ought I (or Other Researchers) to Do?All contributors to the present issue have attempted to address-directly or indirectly-the messy, slippery constructs of qualitative similarity and qualitative difference. At first blush, it seems that the picture has become cloudier with the inclusion of additional complex constructs such as the nature of English reading, functional hearing, instructional strategies, fingerspelling, and insider/outsider views- to mention a few on which I plan to focus. There is some clarity, but this is contingent on agreement with the gist of my interpretations.Functional Hearing: The Major Sociodemographic Variable?Much as Allen, Letteri, Choi, and Dang (2014) and McQuarrie and Parrila (2014) have done, some contributors to the present issue seem to suggest that the merits of the qualitative similarity hypothesis (QSH; Paul, Wang, ??Williams, 2013)- at least the phonological merits-are related to the nature of functional hearing of d/Dhh children and adolescents (e.g., Andrews et al.; Easterbrooks et al; Twitchell et al.). Functional hearing has been described as the ability to perceive running speech effectively or adequately with or without amplification. …

This article provides a discussion of the importance and use of a method of systematic critical a... more This article provides a discussion of the importance and use of a method of systematic critical analysis, metatheorizing, as a tool for understanding the current research and debate in deafness and literacy. After reviewing background information on the notion: of metatheorizing, the article presents some general remarks relative to the debate on two broad issues in deafness and literacy: (1) the instruction of English literacy skills and (2) the development of English literacy skills as a realistic goal for most students with severe to profound hearing impairment. The article raises questions about the heavy emphasis in programs for deaf students on English text-based literacy skills and suggests such an emphasis may be detrimental to the development of literate thought in many deaf individuals. Contains 28 references. (Author/DB)

American Annals of the Deaf, Apr 1, 2011

The Volta Review, Dec 31, 1995

The Volta Review, Dec 31, 1996

ABSTRACT Synthesizes major research findings about improving reading skills in typical students a... more ABSTRACT Synthesizes major research findings about improving reading skills in typical students and students who have severe to profound hearing impairments. Addresses three major components of instruction: word identification, word meaning, and comprehension. Instructional implications for improving the reading comprehension of students with hearing impairments are presented. (Author/CR)