ArticleSign language studies2024
Exploring Signed Literacy in Elementary Deaf Students Through Evidence-Based Instructional Methods.
Article in Sign language studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Instructional Practices for Signed Literacy: Observations of 38 Deaf Education Classrooms.Language teaching research · 2026Article
- Replication of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction in a Nationwide Randomized Controlled Trial.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Professional development and signed literacy instruction: evidence from a multiple-baseline design.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2025Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This investigation aimed to explore the feasibility of implementing the strategic and interactive signing instruction (SISI) framework and its potential to enhance the signed composition skills of four deaf students in a first/second-grade classroom. SISI was adapted from the existing strategic and interactive writing instruction (SIWI) framework that centered on utilizing evidence-based approaches to teaching. A mixed-methods approach involving both qualitative and quantitative data was employed. Qualitative analysis revealed six themes regarding the implementation of SISI: (1) composition topics and genres, (2) target skills, (3) explicit instruction, (4) video technology, (5) idea holding, and (6) accommodating younger ages. Broadly, SISI was successfully implemented, and areas for further adaptation were identified. Quantitative data were collected from four students, involving responses to prompts across three genres-narrative, informative, and persuasive. Pre- and posttest scores showed improvements in discourse-specific traits across these genres. While the findings suggest the feasibility and promise of SISI in facilitating the development of signed literacy, further larger-scale studies involving controls are required to fully investigate SISI's efficacy.
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.