MEMORY SKILLS 15
with the help of the visual information acquired through speechreading (Campbell, 1987;
Dodd, 1976; Dodd & Hermelin, 1977) and the articulatory feel of words that comes
through intensive speech training (Marschark & Harris, 1996), deaf children can develop
phonological representations of words. “
The use of a speech-based phonological code has been positively correlated with reading
comprehension in hearing children (Cain, 2006, de Jonge & de Jonge , 1996; Engle, Carullo, &
Collins, 1991; Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Goswami & Bryant, 1990). Thus, phonological
encoding is currently a “hot” topic in deaf education, particularly in the area of reading (Allen, et
al., 2009; Paul, Wang, Trezek, & Luckner 2009; Mayberry, del Giudice, & Lieberman, 2011;
Wang, Trezek, Luckner & Paul, 2008).
It appears, though, that when reading, some deaf individuals employ phonological
encoding while others do not. Research indicates that deaf children are less likely than hearing
children to employ phonological coding in WM, reading, and spelling across a range of tasks
(Beech & Harris, 1997; Harris & Beech, 1998; Leybaert & Alegria, 1995; Merrills, Underwood,
& Wood, 1994; Nielsen & Luetke-Stahlman, 2002; Transler & Reitsma, 2005). When employed,
phonological or articulatory-based coding has been shown to facilitate sequential recall by deaf
adults (Kyle, 1981; Lichtenstein, 1998) and children (MacSweeney, 1998) and also been
positively correlated with reading comprehension ability of deaf individuals (Campbell &
Wright, 1988; Dyer, MacSweeney, Szczerbinski, Green, & Campbell 2003; Harris and
Beech,1998; Kyle & Harris, 2006, 2010; Lichtenstein, 1985, 1998; Perfetti & Sandak,2000;
Wang, Trezek, Luckner, & Paul, 2008). No positive relation has been found between phonemic
awareness (the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate phonemes) and reading ability of deaf
students (Harris & Beech, 1998; Kyle & Harris, 2006; Narr, 2008).