ArticleJournal of deaf studies and deaf education2025
Professional development and signed literacy instruction: evidence from a multiple-baseline design.
Article in Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Instructional Practices for Signed Literacy: Observations of 38 Deaf Education Classrooms.Language teaching research · 2026Article
- DESIGNING STRATEGIC AND INTERACTIVE SIGNING INSTRUCTION TO SUPPORT SIGNED LITERACY FOR DEAF LEARNERS.International journal of designs for learning · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined whether professional development can translate a signed literacy instruction framework into high-fidelity classroom practice. Four K-3 teachers in an ASL/English bilingual program received a 2-day training followed by bi-weekly virtual coaching; entry into training was staggered in a non-concurrent multiple-baseline single case design. Teachers' use of indicators of signed literacy instruction was scored for at least 7 baseline and 2 intervention instructional units per teacher. Visual analysis showed near-zero fidelity during baseline and an immediate jump to 45%-60% on the first post-training unit, with 3 teachers accelerating to 80%-90% and 1 maintaining at 60%. Log response-ratio effect sizes ranged from 2.04 to 3.72, confirming large, consistent gains. Social validity interviews indicated that teachers valued the instructional framework, found it feasible, and planned to expand its use the following year. These findings show a functional relationship between SISI professional development and teachers' implementation of signed literacy instruction. They emphasize the value of professional development and suggest that signed literacy instruction can be embedded in early elementary curricula to promote deaf children's signing skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.