Deaf and hard-of-hearing students are often delayed in developing their independent living skills because of parental restrictions on activities outside the home due to worries about their child's inability to communicate, their whereabouts, and their general safety. Recent accounts of the use of two-way text messagers suggests that, like electronic mail, distance communication problems that have long plagued deaf people may be ameliorated--by the use of such technology (M. R. Power & D. Power, 2004; S. S. Rhone & Cox News Service, 2002). This project was designed as an initial foray into investigating the use of two-way text messaging technology as a way of increasing the independence of deaf adolescents and reducing their parents' anxiety about their safety and responsibility. All the deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the deaf and hard-of-hearing programs at two urban high schools (ages 13-19), the staff of the deaf departments at these two schools, and the parents/guardians of the students participated in this study. Preuse surveys, postuse surveys, and monthly statistics on the number of times each pager was used enabled us to chart how often the participants used the technology. The data were used to identify concerns that parents have about student independence and safety, the extent to which deaf students engage in independent activities, and expectations surrounding how two-way text messaging use might increase independence and literacy skills. The data collected on this project to date confirm that two-way text messaging technology is indeed useful for deaf adolescents and helps alleviate some of the concerns that have kept them from developing independence as quickly or readily as their hearing peers. The potential policy implications for this research are discussed.

As Carolyn Ewoldt (1996) points out '[M]uch has been written of late about the viability of a bilingual focus in deaf education.' While these writings are necessary to the ongoing pedagogical dialogue in the field, much of the rhetoric suffers because, rather than truly adopting a 'holistic perspective', arguments and positions focus only on selected aspects of the relevant theoretical and research information. If proponents of bilingual education for deaf children truly rely on 'research on the benefits of native sign language and from theoretical and research support coming from other disciplines' (Ewoldt, 1996, p. 5) to support their claims, then these research and theoretical supports must be examined as comprehensively, and holistically, as possible. Weaving together only a few threads of theory and research does not create the fabric for a pedagogical position that can withstand close scrutiny and analysis.In this article, we will touch on some of the major claims made in explications of bilingual models of literacy education for deaf students (Baker, 1997; Livingston, 1997; Mashie, 1995; Mason & Ewoldt, 1996). Our goal is to broaden the scope of the discussion on some of the major arguments and to encourage an expanded dialogue in this ongoing debate. It is not our aim to argue against the concept of bilingual education for deaf students nor to advocate the exclusion of native sign languages from the classroom. Rather, we support the concept of a bilingual education for deaf students with native sign languages playing a key role; however, we contend that the model as it is currently conceived requires further scrutiny and analysis.

One deaf child’s developing literacy from the age of two to the age of five is described as it shapes and is shaped by adult scaffolding. Literacy activities taped once a month over the three years were analyzed for (1) type of activity, (2) adult strategies to engage and support the child in gaining literacy, (3) strategies used by the child to engage and seek adult support, and (4) cohesive devices used in the adult-child dialogue.

The objectives of this descriptive study were to investigate the ways in which American Sign Language (ASL) and English-based sign allow for comprehension of text content, and to determine how these two avenues of communication might mediate the process of reconstructing "signed meaning" in a written text. The authors argue that comprehensible input in a visual mode is possible in either ASL or English-based sign. They further claim that English-based signing may be an effective means of bridging the gap between inner speech and written text.

iscussion of effective teaching practice in the education of students who are deaf and hard of hearing is dominated by considerations of language, literacy, and communication modality. This is most apparent in the discourse that attends the examination of the classroom use of various signed forms of communication which is focused on concerns of how to improve student "performance" by prescribing the nature of the face-toface communication to be employed. But despite this concentrated focus, there is little agreement among educators as to which is the best form of signing to use with students who are deaf.This overemphasis on prescribing a particular form of signed communication (e.g., American Sign Language [ASL], English-based signing) does little to address the real concerns of teachers in the classroom. While educators may be sympathetic to the cultural, political, linguistic, and social issues which surround this debate, they also face the daily challenge of interacting with children from widely differing backgrounds and abilities, of being held accountable for teaching a common curriculum, and for achieving a set of standard outcomes. In the face of these realities, it is timely to revisit our notions of what constitutes appropriate pedagogy in classrooms of learners who are deaf. The central question, then, is: How 485 ABSTRACT: The data presented in this study come from the first year of a 4-year research project which has been undertaken to develop a model to describe exemplary communicative practice in the education of students who are deaf. Based on extensive videotaping of teacher-student interactions across a range of ages and subject areas, with participants using a variety of signed communication forms, the nature of this signed classroom discourse is considered with respect to: (a) how it mediates the activity of teaching and learning, and (b) how it encompasses more than the linguistic quality of the signed communication. Dialogic inquiry is proposed as a framework for conceptualizing a model of effective pedagogical practice in the education of learners who are deaf.