A Brief Commentary on the Greene-Woods/Nielsen, Luetke, and Stryker Exchange.

Abstract

A Brief Commentary on the Greene-Woods/Nielsen, Luetke, and Stryker Exchange Peter V. Paul, Editor It is important to provide a few comments on the article by Greene-Woods and the response by Nielsen, Luetke, and Stryker in the present issue of the Annals. Ashley Greene-Woods submitted her manuscript to me, and I conducted an evaluation. Subsequently, I informed her that I needed to secure a willingness to respond from the authors of the published Annals article (Nielsen et al., 2016) she had critiqued. My goal was to publish both manuscripts in the same issue. I was pleased that Diane Corcoran Nielsen, Barbara Luetke, and Deborah Sue Stryker agreed to compose a response, and I thank them and Ashley Greene-Woods for engaging in this exchange. I appreciate their attempts to be professional and to be focused on specific statements for their critiques. As I mentioned in the editorial in this issue, it is critical to focus on the ideas or points in manuscripts, not on the authors themselves. Whether the authors of these articles were sensitive and were also aware of challenges such as confirmation bias is something I will leave up to the readers to decide. In my view, they passed these tests, even if I disagree with a few of the interpretations or, rather, think there needs to be some elaboration and clarification. It is clear that the role played by the structure of the English language (e.g., phonology, morphology, syntax) in the development of English literacy for a number of d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh) students is still shrouded in controversy. Much of the dissension has evolved around the role of English phonology. In my view, this controversy stems from the question Vicki Hanson (1989) raised more than 30 years ago: "Is reading different for deaf individuals?" (p. 85). Here's another way to ask this question: Is the development of English literacy for d/Dhh children and adolescents similar to that of native literacy learners of English, regardless of whether English is the home or first language of d/Dhh individuals? Although Hanson (1989) proposed a dual response, yes and no, it is the no part that she offered that is contentious—namely, her finding that that the better d/Deaf readers have engaged in phonological processing based on English (see discussion of related research in Paul et al., 2013). Several articles on this topic have been published in the Annals (e.g., Allen et al., 2009; Paul et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2008) and elsewhere (e.g., Mayberry et al., 2011; Miller & Clark, 2011). In addition, there have been two special issues of the Annals devoted to a version of Hanson's question (Wang & Andrews, 2014, 2015). In short, the debate continues. Although phonology is necessary, it is not sufficient for the development of English literacy skills. [End Page 453] In her introduction, Greene-Woods seems to couch the approach of the investigation by Nielsen et al. within a standard epistemology in research on d/Dhh children that has emphasized constructs, purportedly not successful, such as verbal English, speechreading, and hearing-based behavior. In critiquing the quality indicators of the Nielsen et al. article, Greene-Woods also claims that studies on the effects of American Sign Language (ASL) on the development of English literacy were not included in the Nielsen et al. study. Nevertheless, Nielsen et al. actually focused on the need to develop English morphological awareness (i.e., morphology and syntax). There was no inclusion of research on the use of oral methods or even the use of ASL—mainly because these areas were not part of their research thrust. I am certain readers will find the discussion in both articles informative and, perhaps, provocative. I certainly found the exchange between Greene-Woods and Nielsen et al. on the role of phonology interesting. As mentioned previously, this issue has been addressed in much detail (e.g., Paul et al., 2013; Wang & Andrews, 2014, 2015). It might be, however, that the debate on phonology has morphed into a different thrust: the role of a sound phonology versus the role of a phonology based on a signed...