Key words: Curriculum Materials, Literacy, K-12
Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Roselle:
Re: your comment about books being "too hard", I've been doing some research in reading skills and some of the research (especially Ewoldt's) suggests that simplifying books for language is actually a detrimental procedure for the students' reading skills development, and that materials with some cognitive challenge are in actuality better for the students, and even judged as "more interesting" than the "easier" materials. So don't give up! Challenge your students! They will never learn and improve their skills if they are continually spoon-fed with baby stuff when they should be chewing meat (nice metaphor there, huh?).
---Don Grushkin
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
First, let me say that this is a fascinating issue and I'm glad we are discussing it. I know way too little about reading, so please bear with me. It seems to me that when we talk about reading, we have two areas to consider first: complexity and interest level. I'm going to assume that we are all in agreement that no matter what, students should be reading material that is appropriate to their interest level. Making that assumption, then, we can look at the complexity of the written material.
My first impulse was to agree with Don, regarding the detriment that simplifying reading materials may cause. I'm holding back on that, however, partly because I'm not sure if he means interest level or complexity. The materials may be judged as "more interesting" because they probably are. What we don't know is whether the easier stuff is less interesting because of the complexity or because of the subject matter.
One of the strategies we use in facilitating language development (oral, I'm an slp) is called "expansion" where the individual that is interacting with the client "comments" on the client's utterance and expands it into a more adult like structure. For example, if the client says "water" to indicate they want a drink of water; the facilitator would say "drink water". While this is very effective in language development, the child is not being asked to comprehend the facilitator's statement. If we ask students to read material that utilizes language structures that the student hasn't acquired ( or at the very least, doesn't understand in oral language), I doubt that those students will find anything "more interesting" simply because they won't be able to understand it. (I've had a few textbooks like that in my time!)
I'm more inclined to believe that it is appropriate to provide written materials at the child's level of language development within their realm of interests and hopefully they will find it more interesting. My concern would be giving a student material they can't understand and instilling a negative attitude toward reading. If reading is a negative experience for them, you may be paddling upstream. If reading is a positive experience, then you have a better chance of getting them to read more and increase the complexity slowly. Certainly within their level of syntactic and morphologic development you can increase vocabulary...and then begin scaffolding to more complex syntactical and morphological structures in the reading material.
COMPLEX....but well worth exploring. Thanks for all the great insight.
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
Karen L. McComas
Communication Disorders, Marshall University
Huntington, WV 25755-2634
URL: http://www.marshall.edu/~mccomas/index.html
More info? finger mccomas@marshall.edu
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
This topic of reading is a great issue with which, it appears, we all have concerns regardless of our disciplines.
I'd just like to point out one important issue raised by Karen. She posted a discussion about language and how it may play a role in reading. Well, I think most of us would agree. Language is very important as a base for reading comprehension.
What is important and the point I wish to make is to point out how important it is that we develop language abilities and skills in our children (all children) especially those who are deaf and HoH. In my courses in which we discuss the psychology of deafness, I point out a variety of research which has been done to determine the following factors:
1. Why is the traditional IQ lower for children who are deaf vs. for children who have normal hearing ?
2. Why is educational achievement (highest grade/degree) traditionally lower for children who are deaf vs. children with normal hearing ?
3. Why is etc., etc., etc.
The research is reviewed by my students, and (with careful guidance by myself as mentor and professor) the students always arrive at the same conclusion: The differences are only due to the difference in overall language abilities of children who are deaf vs. children with normal hearing.
Thus, language is a critical factor in developing reading skills in children (all children) especially those who are deaf and HoH.
Cathy asked for strategies. Well, we need to identify the following:
STRATEGIES FOR WHAT ASPECT OF READING DEVELOPMENT/ABILITY ?
Reading comprehension is probably one factor very closely tied with language ability! Reading comprehension is also tied with interest, and interest could also be (partially) viewed as a language factor.
Reading decoding is a factor probably most closely tied with auditory decoding abilities, and may largely explain why so many children who are deaf and HoH are behind in reading abilities. Yet, there are other methods for decoding the written material than auditory phonics. Since my area of research is limited in the field of reading (most of my research into reading disabilities has been in the areas of auditory decoding skills and reading as well as language abilities and comprehension), I believe that there's got to be a visual decoding method for teaching reading skills at the decoding level. I'm sure it is because one of the strategies I have developed and we have used in research with children who have CAPD and ADD is a visual decoding approach to reading and spelling. I have not applied this approach with children who are deaf and HoH only because I am still working to refine the approach with kids who have normal hearing but CAPDs.
It may be worthwhile to try some of the strategies I have been working on with kids who are deaf and HoH. The approach I am working on involves using a multisensory approach to reading decoding skills. This may work well with our population of children who are deaf/HoH!
If interested, I'll pool together some of my ideas, and post them. Perhaps, we can do a joint research project on this list trying some of these multisensory strategies with the kids you'll have next school year and over the summer.
Dr. J! @ St. John's
<luckerj@sjumusic.stjohns.edu>
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Sue Manross's comments on Ewoldt's suggestions/strategies are really on the spot and I support what she says too...From what I've learned about Whole Language, this seems the way to go. In my experience (as a deaf person and as an avid reader) reading is not merely a decoding process but a process of construction of meaning. I don't think decoding is only a Phonic process, but can consist of visual strategies as well, such as knowing the English orthography, tying in fingerspelling and sign-word correspondences, and maybe some other visual, non-sound based strategies. Ken Goodman has written an interesting book "Phonics Phacts" which effectively destroys the concept of Phonics instruction (including "Hooked on Phonics") for hearing (as well as deaf) children (or adults). If you think about it, English is a language which really CANNOT be learned in a phonetic manner...just look at its spelling system!!!!!!!!
Kathy (the mother?) was also right in her comments about reading to children and providing them with a literate environment, and this can apply to teachers as well. My fiancee, who just graduated from a teacher training program for the deaf/HH, has told me about the sorry shape of many classrooms for deaf children...few books, or few interesting, intellectually stimulating books for the children to read.
One important factor in reading for deaf children would be teaching them how to translate (not transliterate) text into ASL (not Signed English). That is, if for example, you see the sentence, "The faucet is running", you don't want the kid to sign "T-H-E F-A-U-C-E-T I-S RUN-RUN [RUN being the sign for a person running], but RUN in the sense of water pouring from the faucet. One note: it is OK for the kids to use fingerspelling for words that have no signs, such as faucet. Believe it or not, made-up signs or Signed English signs are not necessary, and IMO are and have been detrimental to the spelling skills of deaf kids...in the past, deaf people were extremely good spellers (I think because they were very cognizant of the orthography of English spelling)...look at them today...they can barely spell some VERY simple words! My fiancee, who believes in this idea as well, has used it in her teaching, and she has found that her students not only understand fingerspelling (after some explanation, if they are used to a made-up sign version), but also begin to use it themselves for these words, after they are exposed to it. Fingerspelling is such a natural tie to English writing and reading...it seems such a shame not to use it more. Yes, it saves a little time and is a little easier on the hands to make up a sign, but most of the time, the made-up signs are not needed, and are hurting their education. With a little practice, fingerspelling becomes pretty easy and natural...like anything else, you just have to get used to it.
I have been reading the comments by Roselle and others... while I hear their frustration, and do sympathize with their feelings, I still feel that many teachers (at least of the "older") generation have more or less "given up" on trying to improve the skills of deaf children in reading. In Roselle's case, I can understand her frustration...she is inheriting the results of failed educational practices, and then she has to resort to "survival skills", which is a deplorable result, in my mind. The simple fact is this...deaf (and HH) education MUST begin to acknowledge that the goal of the educational process is not merely to provide deaf children with "language", but language(s)
That is, whereas "language" has been equated with English Only, in written and SPOKEN forms, for deaf children, who are inevitably bicultural and bilingual people, they must be provided access to and opportunity of use of the two languages that are their birthright: ASL and English. (Also Spanish or other languages, if they are from those cultures, but that's another can of worms altogether). These two languages MUST be given equal status, and the kids MUST be taught about, and in these two languages. Similarly, they must be provided with access to and information about BOTH their cultures: the Deaf and the Hearing.
I could give some strategies for bilingual education, but that's another posting, and right now, I don't have the time. Sorry for the length of this posting, but I felt I had to add my $.25 worth (inflation, you know).
--Don Grushkin
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
I think an important factor which we are forgetting is that reading, just as any other language skill, is not A skill, but a series of skills or (as I propose) processes. Decoding is ONE of the processes. In the field of auditory processing, I refer to Decoding as the process by which one takes the acoustic cues, identifies their appropriate segments, relates the pieces (called phonemes) to the whole appropriate segment, and then puts each segment together to form a unified whole. Note that there is no meaning to the process of auditory decoding.
I further propose that visual (i.e., reading) decoding is the same type of process in the visual sphere. Within this process (decoding/reading) there are a number of methods to accomplish the task.
1. A person (regardless of auditory capability) can see the whole message (i.e., a sentence), identify components or pieces of the whole which make up its parts (could be words or parts of words called morphemes), and identify that these parts are independant, but related. (Again, no meaning is related to these parts during the decoding process alone.)
2. A person can identify the important parts of a whole message and decide only to completely decode those essential or important features of the message.
3. A person can utilize previous information already gained, and only determine that step 2 (above) is needed to fill in missing pieces or can decide not to decode some parts of the visual message, basing what will be done next on what has already been decoded and comprehended.
After a message is DECODED, the person puts associates the decoded information with some meaning. I refer to this process as one step in INTEGRATION. Thus, whatever has been decoded is now associated with meaning and from meaning, understanding occurs.
I think that in teaching reading, one very critical problem which occurs is that we forget that reading is a series of processes and not ONE process. Also, decoding is one process which does NOT (according to my model, which I am presenting) involve meaning. Furthermore, decoding is just the method for abstracting the parts (orthographs) from the whole message, put these parts together to form segments (morphemes and words), and then relay this information to the "reading/language processing mechanisms" in the brain for integration and comprehension.
With children who have auditory processing difficulties (this is presently where my personal research has been involved re: reading and language and auditory processing abilities), I have found that some can not do the auditory/phonics tasks, but can do (what I shall call) "visual phonics" tasks. I tell the children to look for "little words in big words" even if the little words don't seem to make sense.
It's surprising how a child CAN decode the written message when they look for little words, and then associate these little words with their meaning (integration task). Often and typically, children with CAPD auditory processing problems who are poor decoders CAN use (what we often refer to as Top Down or language related processing).
I wonder whether anyone in the field of Deaf Ed. has done research or has developed programs to teach or improve reading skills in this population looking at the different "processes" of reading, and working on associating the visual message with a written decoded message (like word families), and the visually decoded message into its associated meaning.
Well, that was a long one ..... sorry. :-)
Hope it's information was helpful!
Dr. J! @ St. John's
<luckerj@sjumusic.stjohn's.edu>
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
I too have noticed children who are deaf fingerspelling while they are reading to themselves. One of my students used to report his observations of children in his 2nd-3rd grade class of children who are deaf. He always found it interesting until we discussed that we must remember that children who are oral often move their lips when reading as a method to assist in decoding or even in integration (that is, understanding). SO, why shouldn't kids who are deaf fingerspell or even sign while reading ! ! !
A second observation, many of the people whom my wife and I know closely as friends who are deaf are very avid readers. I considered those who primarily communicate through sign vs. those who primarily communicate through speaking. For those who speak, we could assume that their reading (decoding) is similar to children who have normal hearing. But, for those who sign, one could question whether they "sound out" the words, especially those with which they are unfamiliar.
I have never thought to ask any of our friends who communicate primarily through sign what they do. But, one of our friends has shared that he has always been an avid reader. He uses TC, but is primarily a person who uses sign. He has been a guest lecturer in many of my classes, and has often been a resource for me. Although his education was in the mainstream and he was brought up by his folks to be oral/aural, he always remember being more visual throughout his whole life. He says he spent most of his time in classes in elementary school writing for two reasons: 1. he couldn't understand what the teacher was saying, so why bother paying attention; 2. he used writing as his way to explore language. If he learned a new word, new idea, new concept, he'd write about it in order to truly gain a full understanding of it.
Thus, he was using a manual/visual mode for reinforcing reading and language skills.
I believe that this person demonstrates that excellent reading and language abilities can be developed in people who are deaf, and whose primary mode for understanding is visual. One major factor accounting for this person's success was parents who always spoke to him and with him at all times even if they felt he couldn't understand. As he says, his parents and older brother always communicated with him (speaking) even if he didn't understand just in the hopes that something would make sense and he would then understand.
Yes, it was his language stimulation and constant exposure to communication which, I believe, accounts for his success. Today he has a Master's degree, is a Lawyer, and is begining his work on his Doctorate in Law (starting in the fall).
Dr. J! @ St. John's
<luckerj@sjumusic.stjohns.edu>
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
I have to respond to Dr. J's comments:
First, I will say I both agree and disagree with him. While I agree that reading is a SERIES of mental processes, involving a wide range of skills, it seems to me that Dr. J (to which Ganbari concurred) are emphasizing the auditory portion of reading. While audition and auditory processing can be useful for those who possess this skill, and it should be encouraged in those individuals, it is not the only skill through which reading can occur. And here Dr. J. makes mention of VISUAL processes: attending to orthography, finding the "little word" in the "big word", decoding, etc. There is a study (I don't remember who) where this was found to be a good skill to have in reading and spelling, especially. How many times have you out there seen Deaf people sign (at least in joke) something like "BREAK FAST" in reference to having the morning meal?
Now, back to the auditory vs. visual processing thing... as an orally raised deaf person, I developed good speech skills, and have always been an avid reader. I have found that for myself, reading is more of a text-meaning event...I don't go around sounding out words. While reading, I sometimes "hear" the text or dialogue in my head, especially when I am just beginning the text, or when the text is cognitively challenging (such as professional research literature). However, when I am more involved in the text, such as a novel, I tend to become involved in the text to the extent that "audition" is no longer occurring; instead I begin to "see" the events described in the book unfold. Further, for many words, I don't usually see the word and "hear" it to understand. That is, if I see the word c-a-t, I don't tend to then "hear" the word cat; instead I am more likely to flash on a mental image of my construction of the concept "cat". Similarly, now that I have been signing for over 16 years (I think), I find I use signs in correlation with text. Thus, for a more abstract concept such as "Superlative" I find myself signing the lexical equivalent to the word, mentally or even physically.
So, in sum, audition is NOT a necessary process for reading. While it may be helpful, it is more important to look at reading as a decoding process, where reading for MEANING is paramount. Reading is of necessity a set of skills, all of which work together to provide the individual with understanding.
Just my $1.00 worth (I think this is GOOD stuff! ;-)
--Don Grushkin
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
This discussion reminds me of a great saying: "Prepare the reader to meet the text rather than preparing the text to meet the reader!"
This is relevant to all of the important discussions about developing background knowledge prior to reading and about helping students to draw upon their own prior experiences to help them in interpreting text! Half of the battle in reading comprehension is to prepare the reader with the relevant background knowledge, and with the confidence in themselves as readers to be willing to risk making contextually appropriate guesses to fill in the gaps when confronting unknown words.
The above "preparation of the reader" is in contrast to "preparing the text" by watering it down.....simplifying it. This is what Donald Grushkin was objecting to in an earlier post.
Ellen
--------------------
Ellen Schneiderman
Teacher Training Program
California State University, Northridge (CSUN)
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
I think this is an EXTREMELY valuable strategy that we may need to TEACH to children. Often they get so wrapped up in the WORDS that they don't "get into" the STORY or the meaning of the text.
One of the things I think we need to have kids do before reading is to establish the setting. We must discuss what kinds of things can and cannot happen in this kind of an environment or situation. It is often useful to introduce characters of the story or the subjects of the text. Children may choose to place themselves in the role of one of those characters. This will also lead to increased comprehension.
Thus visualization of the story events is a critical strategy. Now someone may want to take off with this and list various activities teachers can do to lead children and give them experience in VISUALIZING.
One might be role playing.
>Just my $1.00 worth (I think this is GOOD stuff! ;-)
This is EXTREMELY beneficial stuff to me. It really makes me think about HOW to beef up my reading instruction for next year.
Cathy
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
I've been exploring cognition and reading comprehension in deaf children in a number of studies and you're right, Sue, the research I conducted on mental imagery and reading comprehension was published this past spring, but it was in the journal Reading Research and Instruction. Thanks for remembering. There are a number of successful strategies out there for encouraging deaf children to think at deeper levels about what they are reading rather than concentrating predominantly on the surface structure (e.g., word identification, syntax of individual sentences). I've been following the thread of the discussion on reading strategies and it seems as if this is exactly what experienced teachers on this list serv are also saying. As long as I've jumped in, I hope no one minds if I put in a plug for my book, Language and Literacy Development in Children Who are Deaf, published in 1994 by Allyn & Bacon.
Barbara Schirmer
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Hello!
I ve been lurking for a couple of months now, have finally decided to participate with this discussion of reading. I have spent about 16 of my 20 years in deaf ed in the language arts/ reading classroom. Most of this time has been with high school students and most of those have had ASL as their primary language. I've worked through a good many strategies and have developed a few of my own that work for me.
Re: the discussion on fingerspelling and very young children. I use the analogy in my Sign classes of learning the game of catch with a ping-pong ball. Young language learners (and older ASL students, too) seem to not have the fine skills necessary to produce or to understand true *fingerspelling* as representative of an English word. They are, however obviously understanding something. They also appear to be using a fingerspelled word in a dialogue.
I believe that those new language learners are using something more akin to a lexical borrowing. ( Was it Carol Padden who coined the term?) A lexical borrowing is an ASL sign which perhaps started out as a fingerspelled English word. After some use, it became a sign. Consider the fingerspelled sign for *no* or *back* or *job*. They are not spelled per se, but the combination of location, movement and palm orientation combined with handshape configuration make the sign. In other words, while the child may appear to be fingerspelling, he may in fact be approximating what he perceives as a sign for the word. Thus, the child who signs B-O-W-E-S for brownies, is attaching meaning to that whole series of hand configurations -- incidently the most visible configurations in that word, since B and W and final letters are easily visible. That child may be not in fact be fingerspelling. He is learning to play catch with a beach ball. Does this make sense?
I also believe that students use fingerspelling as a cop-out. When a student reads to me (and I ask many of my older students to do this often!) I can tell his comprehension by the amount of fingerspelling in his reading. The student who fingerspells more has less comprehension of printed text than the one who can picture what he reads and retell it in sign.
Excuse the long post. I truly enjoy this list as you all have so many really interesting ideas. I have a few of my own for reluctant readers and for strategies for teaching some novels like Old Yeller, The Great Gatsby, Animal Farm (both levels of this allegory) and others. Interested in another post? (grin and questioning expression) :-}
--Dorothy
hessond@mail.firn.edu
Dorothy Hesson
Florida School for the Deaf
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Dorothy:
You are actually half right in your posting, when you say that young deaf children may be fingerspelling or seeing fingerspelling and seeing something, but not comprehending it (or something to that effect). There is some research (I forget who) where it showed that young deaf children do seem to perceive fingerspelling as a whole, not as a series of discrete letters, much as signs are perceived as a whole. However, they certainly DO understand the relationship between the fingerspelled word and the concept. I saw this myself, with a friend and their two or three year-old child, where my friend showed the kid a doll and asked her "WHERE IS ITS T-O-E"? and the kid pointed to the right place "WHERE IS ITS K-N-E-E"? and again the kid responded correctly. So even if at a young age, they are not perceiving fingerspelling as a discrete system, they certainly do know what it is for, and how to use it. I think the same research study showed also, that at a later age, the kids then learn to perceive the individual components of a fingerspelled (or signed) message.
I think this is analogous to hearing children. Young children don't really see the individual components of a written message... how many times have you seen a young child "write", using only a series of squiggles? Yet the fact that they are "writing", and can usually say that what they have written has some sort of specific meaning, indicates that they certainly do understand the purpose of writing. You will notice that at a later time, the kids begin to use individual letters of the alphabet, which may or may not correspond with the actual printed word or the sound representations of the word. Yet they will say again that what they have written has some specific meaning. This is what is called "invented spelling", and it serves a specific function for these kids (See the Whole Language literature on this, and also Schleper's article in PERSPECTIVES (I think) on this titled "Does your F want to Y?"). Thus, back to deaf kids fingerspelling B-O-W-E-S. Yes, this is what is most readily visible in fingerspelling B-R-O-W-N-I-E-S, and might be analogous to invented spellings. The fact that the kid has most of the letters right indicates that they are attending to the characteristics of individual letters within a fingerspelled word. It then later becomes the task to help the kid to realize that the fingerspelled word BROWNIES is actually a word with more letters in it, which then can be transferred to print.
(By the way, it was Battison, not Padden who came up with the idea of Loan Signs or Lexicalized Fingerspelling)
I am reminded of myself when I was a kid...my parents had a friend of the family. I have been told that when I was very young, I called her "ambulance". Later on, when I was maybe 7, I can remember calling her something that sounded like "amber knees" (pronounced as one word). Several years later, after we had moved to another state, we got a letter from her, which I read, and imagine my shock when I found out that her name was Bernice, and "amber knees" was really Aunt Bernice!!!! This story (and I am sure many of you have similar ones) shows that young kids, deaf or hearing, tend to perceive messages as wholistic units, and to separate lexical/phonological/semantic units into discrete parts is really a more advanced cognitive skill.
Re: "copping out" when fingerspelling words, Ewoldt suggests that this is a "placeholding" strategy... when the kids don't know the word, they will fingerspell it (and remember, not every word has an equivalent sign)... but Ewoldt's research shows that often, given sufficient context and their own background knowledge, deaf children will frequently come to realize the meaning of the word they didn't know and fingerspelled and start to sign the word (or a semantic equivalent) after sufficient examples and context. So it is not "copping out". It may seem like copping out, if you as a teacher interrupt the student to provide them with the sign, instead of waiting to see if they can figure out the meaning for themselves. A possible strategy could be to wait to the end of the story and see if they figured out the word. If they haven't, then give them some probing questions to try to get them to recognize the context, background info, aimed towards getting them to figure out for themselves the meaning of the word they didn't know (especially if the word is central to the understanding of the story).
--Don Grushkin
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Cathy,
You asked for suggestions to encourage reluctant readers to get them to read chapter books. Although it is not an area I have any specific experiences in, the following thought came to me o-:-) !
Could it be that many of the children reluctant to read chapter books don't understand the concept of what is a chapter, and how it relates to the whole book ?
If this is true, then we need to help them develop an understanding of what is a chapter (a part) and how it relates to the whole.
This could be done through pictures or stories the children make up and put together. For example, with pictures, you can have them make up or see a series of pictures relating to one topic such as making cookies. In the first picture, they show preparing the ingredients (sp) (why doesn't email come with a spell check ?:-) mixing them together, and placing the patties on the baking tray putting them in the oven. (Note that the picture has a few "frames" or sections showing different activities related to the whole.) Then, you can relate that each panel or section of the whole picture is a story, with all of the pictures together making up one great big story. Etc. Etc.
I really wonder if the reluctance is not understanding the relationship of the chapters to the whole. Hope this is helpful !
Dr. J! @ St. John's
<luckerj@sjumusic.stjohns.edu>
Curriculum Materials Home Page Deaf Education Home Page Document: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Cathy,
To subscribe to Book Links, write to P.O. Box 1347, Elmhurst, IL 60126. You can also call (708)279-0936. I was a subscriber several years ago, and the cost was $18 per year or $3.50 for a single copy--don't know if the price has increased or not. Another fun catalog is the Chinaberry Book Service (1-800-776-2242). It separates books into levels of difficulty/interest and the descriptions of the books are great--kind of conversational. A teacher/friend gave me a copy and I loved it. It's interesting reading even if you don't want to order.
Cindy
Uploaded by Melissa Close/Kent State University/ Deaf Education Major