ARTICLE INFO
ARTICLE HISTORY
Submitted: 21 July, 2025
Accepted: 18 February, 2026
Published Online: 25 June, 2026
CITATION
Basha T.(2026). Correlation between Sign
Language Fluency and Amharic Literacy
Skills in Deaf Ethiopian Students: A
Comparative Study. EthioInquiry Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences. Volume
5(1), 2026, 79-103.
https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
OPEN ACCESS
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC BY 4.0).
ETHIOINQUIRY Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences has been accredited by
FDRE Ministry of Education and indexed on
AJOL.
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 79
https://journals.hu.edu.et/hu-journals/index.php/erjssh, ISSN: Print 2790-539X, Online 2790-5403
FULL LENGTH ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Correlation between Sign Language Fluency and Amharic
Literacy Skills in Deaf Ethiopian Students: A Comparative Study
Tesfaye Basha1∗�
1Department of Special Needs and Inclusive Education, Hawassa University, Ethiopia
∗Corresponding Author’s email: tesfayeask@yahoo.com
Abstract
This study examines the correlation between Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL) uency and
Amharic literacy skills among deaf students in Ethiopia, addressing critical gaps in the under-
standing of linguistic interdependence in a multilingual context. Despite the constitutional
recognition of EthSL in 2008, deaf students face persistent literacy disparities, with only 23%
meeting national standards. Employing a mixed-methods comparative design, the study assessed
76 deaf students (80.3% with profound hearing loss) from four schools. EthSL prociency
was evaluated by native signers (inter-rater reliability: r = .94–.95), and Amharic literacy was
measured using standardized reading comprehension tests. Results revealed a strong positive
correlation between EthSL prociency and Amharic reading comprehension (r = .87, p < .001),
with high-prociency students scoring 90.42% compared to 34.50% among low-prociency
peers (d = 5.92). High-prociency students signicantly outperformed their low-prociency
peers across PSLCE subjects (d = 0.56–0.69), with EthSL prociency uniquely explaining 37%
of the variance in academic achievement. Special schools demonstrated higher proportions of
high-prociency students (61.1%) than inclusive settings (36.0%) and signicant vocabulary
advantages (d = 0.51), but no comprehension dierences were found. Age of EthSL acquisition
signicantly predicted all literacy outcomes after controlling for current age and school type
(β = -.25 to -.31, p < .05), with earlier exposure conferring lasting advantages. Qualitative
data revealed systemic barriers, including limited teacher training and delayed language access.
These ndings support the linguistic interdependence and critical period hypotheses, demon-
strating that EthSL prociency is a foundational prerequisite for Amharic literacy acquisition.
The results mandate policy reforms prioritizing early hearing screening, family centered EthSL
intervention, mandatory teacher prociency standards, and equitable resource allocation to
ensure deaf learners access language-rich environments during critical developmental windows.
Keywords: Ethiopian Sign Language; Amharic literacy; deaf education; linguistic in-
terdependence; bilingualism; early intervention; inclusive education.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 80
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Research underscores the critical role of sign language uency in facilitating written language liter-
acy among deaf learners (W. Hall,2022). The linguistic interdependence hypothesis (Cummins,2021)
posits that prociency in the rst language (L1, e.g., Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL)) strengthens lit-
eracy in the second language (L2, e.g., Amharic). However, in Ethiopia, where over 1.2 million deaf
individuals reside (World Health Organization,2023) and Amharic literacy is a key determinant of ed-
ucational access, this relationship remains unclear. Although Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL) gained
ocial recognition and media of instruction and owned Sign Language Dictionary in 2008 (Ethiopian
National Association of the Deaf (ENAD),2008), its integration into literacy instruction has lagged be-
hind, particularly in inclusive classrooms that favor spoken Amharic (Tirussew et al., 2022).
Communication deprivation has several long-term eects. Deaf children without sign language show
cognitive delays comparable to institutionalized hearing children (W. Hall,2022), whereas early EthSL
exposure correlates with higher tertiary enrollment rates (Ministry of Education, Ethiopia,2024). This
aligns with Cummins (2023) revised linguistic interdependence theory, which emphasizes that literacy
transfers between languages only when L1 (e.g., EthSL) is fully developed in the learner. However,
Ethiopia’s education policy still treats EthSL as a ”crutch” rather than a right (Haualand &Allen,2023),
violating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD’s) man-
date for inclusive language access (United Nations,2022).
The acquisition of reading skills is a critical component of academic success; however, Deaf/Hard of
Hearing (D/HH) students often face signicant challenges in developing literacy, particularly in mul-
tilingual contexts, such as Ethiopia. While Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL) serves as the primary
mode of communication for many deaf individuals, its role in facilitating Amharic literacy, Ethiopia’s
dominant written language, remains unstudied. Research in other Global South contexts suggests that
strong sign-language prociency correlates with improved reading outcomes (Knoors &Marschark,
2012;Tang et al., 2023), but the extent to which this applies to EthSL and Amharic remains unclear.
Additionally, the type of schooling (special schools for the deaf vs. mainstream inclusive classrooms)
may signicantly inuence language and literacy development (Y. Alemu et al., 2022;Hermans et al.,
2014).
Recent work in sub-Saharan Africa highlights disparities in deaf education, where policy implemen-
tation lags behind linguistic research (Jeftha &Smouse,2024). In Ethiopia, despite the constitutional
recognition of sign language, educational practices vary widely, with inconsistent teacher training and
resource allocation (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,2019;Yibeltal &Habte,2023).
Ethiopia’s current system produces deaf graduates with median 3rd-grade literacy levels (Ministry of
Education, Ethiopia,2023). As the International Disability Alliance (IDA) warns, “Every year of delayed
reform permanently disadvantages a generation of deaf learners” (International Disability Alliance,
2023, p. 12).
This pedagogical crisis creates what Henner and Robinson (2021) term “linguistic malnutrition” where
delayed language input permanently alters cognitive development (Henner &Robinson,2021). Lin-
guistic malnutrition refers to a detrimental state caused by an insucient or poor-quality linguistic
environment. This lack of linguistic input aects the academic achievement of deaf students.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Despite the recognition of Ethiopian Sign Language media of instruction and owned its own Sign Lan-
guage dictionary (EthSL) in 2008 (Ethiopian National Association of the Deaf (ENAD),2008), deaf stu-
dents in Ethiopia continue to face severe disparities in Amharic literacy acquisition, which limits their
educational and socioeconomic opportunities. Recent studies reveal that only 23% of deaf learners meet
the minimum Amharic literacy standards in national assessments, compared to 65% of their hearing
peers (Ministry of Education, Ethiopia,2023), highlighting a critical inequity in educational outcomes.
This gap persists due to multiple systemic barriers: over two-thirds of deaf children lack access to EthSL
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 81
before age six (Ethiopian National Association for the Deaf (ENAD),2023), depriving them of the foun-
dational language skills necessary for developing literacy. Compounding this issue, inclusive schools,
which enroll approximately 40% of deaf students, often prioritize oral Amharic instruction without ad-
equate sign language support, leaving students without meaningful access to the curriculum (A. Alemu
&Mulat,2024). Meanwhile, EthSL-based special schools struggle with insucient resources and un-
trained teachers, with only 12% of educators in inclusive settings being procient in EthSL (Tilahun
et al., 2023). While global research demonstrates the vital role of sign language uency in written-
language acquisition (M. Hall et al., 2020;Henner et al., 2022), Ethiopia lacks empirical evidence on
how EthSL prociency correlates with Amharic literacy, a knowledge gap that hinders the develop-
ment of eective bilingual programs. Without urgent investigation into this relationship, policymakers
cannot design targeted interventions to address the alarmingly low literacy rates that perpetuate cy-
cles of exclusion for deaf Ethiopians. This study directly addresses this gap by examining the interplay
between EthSL uency, instructional models, and Amharic literacy outcomes.
Therefore, this study sought to investigate the correlation between sign language uency and Amharic
literacy skills among deaf Ethiopian students. This study aims to provide empirical evidence to support
the integration of sign language as a foundational component of deaf education, thereby improving
literacy outcomes and academic inclusion in deaf education. This study seeks to address these gaps by
investigating the following questions:
1. What is the correlation between Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL) uency and Amharic reading
comprehension skills in deaf students?
2. Do students with high EthSL prociency perform better on the Primary School Leaving Certicate
Examination (PSLCE) than their peers with low prociency?
3. How do Amharic literacy skills dier between deaf students in EthSL-based special schools and
inclusive mainstream settings?
4. Does early EthSL acquisition (before age ve) predict stronger Amharic literacy outcomes than
later EthSL exposure?
2 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study integrates three key perspectives to explain the relationship be-
tween sign language uency and written literacy development in deaf learners. At its core, Cummins
(1979,2000) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis posits that strong rst-language (L1) prociency
enables the cross-linguistic transfer of literacy skills, a principle empirically validated in deaf education
research. For Ethiopian deaf students, this suggests that uency in Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL)
supports Amharic literacy by fostering metalinguistic awareness and cognitive strategies, directly in-
forming the study’s investigation of the correlations between EthSL prociency and reading outcomes
(Research Questions 1 and 2). This hypothesis is further supported by evidence from similar Global
South contexts, where sign language competence predicts better academic achievement.
Vygotsky (1978) Sociocultural Theory complements this by emphasizing the role of accessible language
input and educational environments in cognitive and literacy development. Recent studies in low-
resource settings have demonstrated that deaf students in sign language-based programs outperform
those in oral/inclusive settings, aligning with Vygotsky (1978) concept of the ”zone of proximal de-
velopment.” This theoretical lens underpins Research Question 3’s comparison of EthSL-based special
schools versus inclusive classrooms, highlighting how rich, comprehensible input in EthSL scaolds
written Amharic acquisition by children. This theory underscores the importance of sociocultural and
instructional factors in mediating literacy outcomes.
Finally, Mayberry (2010) Critical Period Hypothesis for Sign Language Acquisition adds a developmen-
tal dimension, showing that early exposure to sign language leads to stronger academic outcomes in
adulthood. This is particularly relevant to Research Question 4, as delayed access to EthSL may correlate
with persistent literacy challenges, as seen in similar African contexts. Together, these theories provide
a multifaceted framework that acknowledges the interplay of individual competence (Cummins,1979),
educational context (Vygotsky,1978), and developmental timing (Mayberry,2010) in shaping literacy
among deaf learners. By testing these propositions in Ethiopia’s unique linguistic landscape, this study
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 82
aims to rene theoretical models and inform practical improvements in deaf education policy and ped-
agogy in Ethiopia.
Figure 1: Theoretical Pathways Linking EtSL Prociency to Amharic Literacy Skill
Central Pathway: EthSL uency (developed through early exposure) directly enhances Amharic liter-
acy via linguistic interdependence (Cummins,1979).
1. Sign Language Fluency (EthSL): The central, primary independent variable. This is the students’
prociency in their rst language (L1).
2. Early EthSL Exposure: A foundational predictor variable. This refers to the age at which a child
is rst exposed to a uent sign language environment. The timing of the rst EthSL acquisition
impacts both sign language prociency and later literacy outcomes (Mayberry,2010).
3. Linguistic Interdependence: The core mediating mechanism or theory. This is the process or
bridge through which EthSL skills transfer to and support the development of Amharic literacy.
It is not directly measured but is a hypothesized psychological/linguistic process.
4. Amharic Literacy: The ultimate dependent variable or outcome.
5. Instructional Context: A moderating variable. This represents the educational setting (e.g., special
school for the deaf vs. inclusive mainstream school), which can change the strength or nature of
the relationships in the model. This relationship is determined by how much EthSL is used in
teaching (Vygotsky,1978).
3 Methods and Materials
3.1 Research Design
This study employed a rigorous stratied comparative sampling of 76 deaf students across special
and inclusive schools in Ethiopia, ensuring robust conditions for detecting true eects. EthSL pro-
ciency was measured using culturally adapted performance-based assessments modeled on validated
research (Kiyaga &Moores,2023), which enhanced construct validity. The combination of ocial Pri-
mary School Leaving Certicate (PSLCE) scores with controlled Amharic literacy tests addresses the
limitations of relying solely on national exam data, while the inclusion of early language exposure as
a key variable builds on critical period research (Swanepoel &Storbeck,2024). Multivariate regression
analyses further strengthened the study by isolating EthSL’s unique contribution to literacy outcomes
while controlling for socio-economic factors.
The ndings provide policy-ready evidence, with ANCOVA results directly comparing school types to
inform Ethiopia’s inclusive education strategy. Classroom observations and teacher interviews revealed
implementation barriers, reinforcing the need for targeted teacher training reforms, as highlighted in
previous studies (Tilahun et al., 2023). Additionally, eect size calculations quantify the literacy disad-
vantages caused by delayed EthSL access, oering compelling advocacy tools to address social justice
gaps in education, a concern well-documented by Ethiopian National Association for the Deaf data
(Ethiopian National Association for the Deaf (ENAD),2023).
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 83
The study’s mixed-methods approach ensures that the ndings are both statistically signicant and nar-
ratively persuasive, making a strong case for policy changes. By demonstrating clear correlations be-
tween EthSL mastery and literacy gains, this study provides Ethiopian policymakers with concrete ev-
idence to prioritize sign language-inclusive education. The analysis of early exposure further strength-
ens the argument for investing in early childhood EthSL programs, with the potential to transform
literacy outcomes for future generations of deaf students in Ethiopia and similar settings.
3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure
This study employed a carefully designed sampling strategy to ensure robust comparisons between key
groups while maintaining practical feasibility within the Ethiopian educational context. The research
involved 76 deaf students in Grade 8, who were strategically sampled to address the study’s comparative
objectives. The sample included 44 students from special schools (utilizing EthSL-based instruction)
and 32 from inclusive schools (with Amharic-dominant instruction), reecting the current distribution
of deaf learners across these settings in Ethiopia (Ministry of Education, Ethiopia,2023). Additionally,
the sample was stratied by EthSL prociency, with 30 students classied as high-uency (top 25%
on EthSL assessments) and 30 as low-uency (bottom 25%), enabling precise comparisons of Amharic
literacy outcomes based on sign language mastery.
The sampling procedure followed a multistage approach to ensure representativeness and method-
ological precision. For special schools, the researcher randomly selected two government-approved
institutions in major regions, such as Addis Ababa, Hossana, Arbaminch, and Minlik II, where EthSL
instruction was standardized. Inclusive schools were selected based on their enrollment of deaf stu-
dents and varied instructional approaches to Amharic. All participants met strict inclusion criteria,
including severe-to-profound hearing loss and no additional cognitive disabilities. After administer-
ing standardized EthSL prociency tests to all participants, the students were ranked and grouped
into high- and low-uency cohorts, with stratication across school types to maintain a balanced com-
parison of the two cohorts. This approach ensured adequate statistical power (β≥0.8) for detecting
meaningful dierences and enhanced the ecological validity of the ndings by reecting the real class-
room dynamics in Ethiopia. Ethical considerations were prioritized, with consent procedures adapted
for deaf participants using EthSL video explanations and a 10% over-recruitment buer to account for
potential attrition during the data collection.
3.3 Data Collection Procedure
This study employed a systematic multiphase approach to collect comprehensive data on Ethiopian
Sign Language (EthSL) uency and Amharic literacy skills among deaf students, ensuring both scien-
tic rigor and cultural appropriateness. Prior to data collection, the researcher conducted preparatory
school visits to establish rapport, obtain permission, and schedule assessments with minimal disruption
to the school’s routine. All materials, including standardized testing booklets and visual stimuli, were
carefully selected based on cultural relevance and accessibility. The researchers underwent intensive
training to standardize the procedure administration. The methodology prioritized deaf participants’
communication needs by incorporating EthSL-uent assessors, including deaf native signers, and uti-
lizing video recordings for subsequent analysis and reliability checks.
Data collection proceeded through three coordinated phases: individual EthSL uency assessments,
Amharic literacy evaluations, and contextual data gathering. EthSL assessments were conducted in
optimal visual communication environments featuring both expressive and receptive components to
thoroughly measure prociency. Amharic literacy testing combined standardized school records with
researcher-designed measures delivered in small groups with EthSL interpretation and visual support
to ensure comprehension. The nal phase involved teacher questionnaires and classroom observations
to capture the participants’ educational environments and language exposure histories. Throughout
the process, the researcher implemented robust quality control measures, including daily recording
reviews, inter-rater reliability checks, and secure data storage protocols.
To ensure data integrity, this study incorporated multiple verication procedures, such as systematic
error detection during data entry and detailed eld notes documenting deviations. Condentiality
was maintained through encrypted digital systems and password protection of the data. The phased
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 84
implementation schedule balanced thorough data collection with participant comfort, minimizing fa-
tigue while gathering comprehensive information. This rigorous yet adaptable methodology not only
addresses the research questions eectively but also respects the rights and needs of deaf participants,
setting a strong foundation for valid and reliable ndings that can inform educational policy and prac-
tice for deaf learners in Ethiopia.
3.4 Reading Comprehension Assessment for Deaf Students
This study highlights the critical importance of tailored reading comprehension assessments for deaf
students, who develop literacy through visual-language pathways rather than through auditory input.
Unlike hearing peers, deaf learners rely on sign language (EthSL) for foundational linguistic knowl-
edge, necessitating evaluations that measure higher-order meaning construction rather than merely
decoding skills. Research indicates that deaf students often compensate for phonological processing
challenges through enhanced visual and semantic strategies, requiring assessments that focus on vo-
cabulary knowledge, referential cohesion, and inferential comprehension—key areas where they may
need targeted support.
To compare the literacy skills of high- and low-prociency EthSL users, a standardized Amharic reading
test was developed, featuring grade-level passages and 30 multiple-choice questions. The questions
assessed vocabulary, referential cohesion, and main idea inference, aligning with evidence that deaf
readers excel in visual word recognition but may struggle with inferential comprehension. The test
was designed in collaboration with Grade 8 teachers to ensure curriculum alignment and cognitive
appropriateness for deaf adolescents. Administered without time constraints and scored jointly by
teachers and researchers, the assessment minimized expressive language biases while providing a fair
comparison of reading prociency across EthSL uency levels.
While the multiple-choice format ensured objectivity, future renements could include open-ended
questions to capture nuanced understanding and standardized reliability testing. However, the current
design oers a practical tool for examining how EthSL prociency supports Amharic literacy, emphasiz-
ing meaning-based comprehension over auditory-dependent skills. This approach not only addresses
the unique needs of deaf learners but also provides valuable insights for improving literacy instruction
in Ethiopian deaf education.
3.5 High- and Low-Prociency Groups’ Frequency Distribution Analysis
of Accuracy Scores
The study employed an expert-driven assessment protocol to classify deaf students into high- and low-
prociency EthSL groups, ensuring culturally and linguistically valid measurements. Two native EthSL
signers evaluated student-produced Signed Amharic narratives using a structured 5-point rubric that
assessed key parameters of sign phonology, including hand conguration, movement, and non-manual
markers. A binary scoring system (correct/incorrect) was applied to 100 target words from curricular
texts, transforming qualitative signs into quantiable data. This approach prioritizes native signers’
judgments over Western-centric standardized tests, enhancing ecological validity in Ethiopia’s unique
linguistic context.
For data-driven group stratication, frequency distribution analysis was used to demarcate high- and
low-prociency cohorts. Students scoring ≥76/100 words (≥61.1% accuracy) were classied as hav-
ing high prociency (31 students, 40.8%), while those scoring ≤41/100 words (≤39.5%) formed the
low-prociency group (30 students, 39.5%). Borderline cases (19.7–21.1%) were deliberately excluded
to ensure group purity, sacricing the sample size for clearer dierences between groups. This con-
servative approach created distinct tiers, enabling the detection of true prociency eects, such as the
signicant academic gaps (+0.61–0.69 SD) between groups.
The exclusion of borderline cases (15–16 students) was a strategic design choice, not a limitation, as it
minimized misclassication and strengthened group comparisons. By focusing on the extreme ends of
the distribution (top 40.8% and bottom 39.5%), this study isolated prototypical high- and low-prociency
signers, aligning with the best practices in prociency research. This methodological rigor ensured reli-
able ndings and set a precedent for linguistically grounded sign language assessment in Global South
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 85
contexts, particularly in examining how EthSL prociency predicts academic outcomes in the Global
South.
Table 1: Distribution of Signed Amharic High and Low Prociency Groups
Signed Amharic
Prociency Category N%
High Prociency 31 40.8%
Low Prociency 30 39.5%
Excluded Cases 15 19.7%
Total 76 100.0%
Figure 2: Visual Summary of the Process for borderline cases
The exclusion of 15 cases was a strategic methodological choice to enhance the clarity of the nd-
ings. This sequential approach claries that n=30 for the low-prociency group and n=31 for the high-
prociency group were the result of a deliberate data-driven stratication after assessment, not a pre-
selection target.
3.6 Data Analysis Plan
This study employed a comprehensive, multi-layered analytical approach to examine the relationship
between Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL) uency and Amharic literacy skills among deaf students, in
accordance with a correlational-comparative research design, as follows: the analysis strategy integrates
both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide robust answers to the research questions while
accounting for participants’ complex educational contexts.
For the quantitative analysis, the researcher rst conducted descriptive statistics to summarize the dis-
tribution of EthSL prociency scores and Amharic literacy measures for all the participants. This initial
analysis included measures of central tendency (mean and median) and dispersion (standard deviation
and range) for continuous variables, as well as frequency distributions for categorical variables, such as
school type and uency classication. Subsequently, Pearson correlation analysis (or Spearman’s rho
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 86
for non-normal distributions) was employed to address Research Question 1 regarding the relationship
between EthSL uency and Amharic reading comprehension. The strengths and directions of these
correlations were visualized using scatter plots with regression lines and condence intervals.
To answer Research Question 2, comparing the high and low EthSL prociency groups, the researcher
used independent samples t-tests for normally distributed data and Mann-Whitney U tests for non-
parametric comparisons. Eect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d to determine the practical sig-
nicance of any observed dierences in Amharic literacy scores between the groups. For Research
Question 3, examining dierences between special and inclusive school settings, we conducted a t-test
and Cohen’s *d* analysis. The comparison between school types was reported using t-tests and Cohen’s
*d*.
Research Question 4, which investigated the role of early EthSL exposure, was addressed using multi-
ple regression analysis. This model included age at rst EthSL exposure as the primary predictor, while
controlling for relevant covariates. The researcher examined both linear and nonlinear relationships to
account for potential threshold eects of language exposure timing. All quantitative analyses were con-
ducted using SPSS (Version 28), with α set at .05, and appropriate corrections for multiple comparisons
were employed when necessary.
3.7 Reliability and Validity
This study ensured reliability through multiple measures: internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for
EthSL assessments, inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s kappa) between independent scorers, and test-retest
stability. Validity was rigorously addressed through content validity veried by Deaf community con-
sultants and EthSL linguists, construct validity demonstrated via convergent and discriminant checks,
and criterion validity established by comparing EthSL prociency with academic performance metrics.
To mitigate these threats, this study employed stratied sampling to minimize selection bias, counter-
balancing to control testing eects, and blind scoring procedures to reduce scorer bias. These method-
ological safeguards, combined with diverse sampling across educational settings, enhanced external
validity and ensured that the ndings were generalizable to deaf students in Ethiopia.
3.8 Ethical Considerations
This study prioritized ethical rigor by providing comprehensive protection for deaf participants in
alignment with international standards and local cultural norms. Formal approvals were obtained
from the Institutional Review Boards and Ethiopian Education Authorities. Informed consent pro-
cedures were adapted for deaf participants using Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL) video explanations
and written Amharic documentation. Dual consent was obtained from minors (parents/guardians and
school administrators), and student assent was conrmed through age-appropriate EthSL communi-
cation. Robust condentiality measures included anonym zed data coding, secure password-protected
storage, and post-analysis destruction of video recordings.
Cultural sensitivity was maintained through continuous collaboration with Ethiopian Deaf community
representatives throughout all research phases. This study ensured accessibility by employing EthSL-
uent assessors and designing deaf-friendly assessment environments for the interviews. The ndings
were disseminated in accessible formats (EthSL videos and simplied Amharic) and discussed in com-
munity forums to inform education policy, ensuring that the research benets the community it serves.
4 Result and Discussion
4.1 Introduction to Findings
This study employed a mixed-methods approach to investigate the relationship between Ethiopian Sign
Language (EthSL) prociency and Amharic literacy skills among deaf students in Ethiopia. Following
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 87
recommendations for integrated reporting in educational research (Creswell,2015;Johnson &Chris-
tensen,2014), the results are presented thematically alongside a discussion of their implications, with
each subsection addressing one research question while integrating relevant literature and qualitative
ndings.
The ndings are organized into six thematic areas: (1) participant characteristics and their implications
for understanding the sample; (2) reliability of EthSL assessments; (3) distribution of prociency across
schools; (4) correlation between EthSL uency and Amharic reading comprehension; (5) comparative
performance across school types; and (6) the predictive role of early EthSL exposure. This structure
allows for the coherent integration of quantitative results, qualitative insights from teacher interviews
(N=12), classroom observations (24 hours across four schools), and engagement with contemporary
literature.
A brief methodological reminder: Of the 76 participating students, 15 (19.7%) with intermediate EthSL
prociency scores were excluded from group comparisons to create pure high- and low-prociency
cohorts (n=31 and n=30, respectively), following best practices in prociency research (Hulstn,2015).
This conservative approach strengthens the internal validity but limits the generalizability to students
with intermediate skills, a trade-o addressed in the limitations section of this study.
4.2 Participant Characteristics: Linguistic Need and Systemic Delays
4.2.1 The Core Linguistic Challenge
The sample was overwhelmingly composed of students with profound hearing loss (80.3%) and indi-
viduals for whom auditory input is not a functional channel for learning (Kral &O’Donoghue,2020).
This demographic characteristic fundamentally shapes the interpretation of all subsequent ndings:
for these students, literacy in a spoken/written language (Amharic) must be built on a foundation of a
fully accessible visual language (EthSL). As one teacher at a special school explained:
“These children cannot hear Amharic. If they do not have sign language, they have nothing.
It’s like trying to build a house without a foundation.” (Teacher Interview, School 1)
The age distribution reveals concerning patterns of delayed educational access for older students due
to the pandemic. Only 3.9% of the participants were below 15 years of age, while 26.3% were 21 years
or above, with School 1 showing 40% in this oldest category. This age prole strongly suggests systemic
failures in early identication and intervention, consistent with the patterns documented across sub-
Saharan Africa (Olusanya et al., 2022). Research from South Africa demonstrates that despite policy
guidelines for early hearing detection, diagnosis is typically delayed by 3-5 years, with cascading eects
on language development (Casoojee et al., 2024).
The near-absence of younger students likely reects that many participants experienced language de-
privation in early childhood, a phenomenon extensively documented by W. Hall (2017) and Humphries
et al. (2016) as having lifelong impacts on cognitive and linguistic development. As one inclusive school
teacher observed:
“Most of our students come to us at age 10, 12, or even 15 with no language at all. No EthSL,
Amharic, or anything else. We are trying to teach reading to children who have never had a
conversation.” (Teacher Interview, School 3)
This context is critical: the literacy outcomes reported below must be understood as achievements de-
spite profound early language deprivation and not as measures of deaf students’ inherent capabilities.
4.2.2 Equity Gaps: Gender and Access
While the overall sex distribution in this study was relatively balanced (55.3% men, 44.7% women), a
concerning disparity emerged in the severe hearing loss category: men outnumbered women by nearly
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 88
3-to-1 (14.5% vs. 5.3%). This pattern suggests a gendered placement bias, wherein girls with signi-
cant hearing loss may be systematically mainstreamed into regular schools without adequate support,
whereas boys with similar audiometric proles are placed in specialized deaf education programs.
School-level data reinforce this pattern. School 4 showed a dramatic male skew (83.3%), whereas School
2 had a female majority (63.2%). These imbalances indicate that educational placement is not based
solely on audiological need but is ltered through sociocultural gender norms, a phenomenon doc-
umented across multiple African contexts (Clerck,2020;Ndurumo,2019). This has concerning im-
plications: girls may be systematically denied access to the EthSL-rich environments that this study
nds essential for literacy development, creating an intersectional disadvantage where gender and dis-
ability combine to limit educational opportunities (Guardino &Cannon,2016). This aligns with re-
cent Ethiopian research documenting a “continuum of educational exclusion” for girls with disabilities
(Bekele &Yadav,2024).
Table 2: Participant Demographics, Hearing Loss, and Age Distribution (N=76)
Variable Category Overall
Sample
School 1
(n=25)
School 2
(n=19)
School 3
(n=20)
School 4
(n=12)
Gender Male 42 (55.3%) 15 (60.0%) 7 (36.8%) 10 (50.0%) 10 (83.3%)
Female 34 (44.7%) 10 (40.0%) 12 (63.2%) 10 (50.0%) 2 (16.7%)
Hearing Loss Severe (Total) 15 (19.7%) — — — —
Male 11 (14.5%) — — — —
Female 4 (5.3%) — — — —
Profound (Total) 61 (80.3%) — — — —
Male 31 (40.8%) — — — —
Female 30 (39.5%) — — — —
Age Below 15 3 (3.9%) 1 (4.0%) 2 (10.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
15–17 24 (31.6%) 8 (32.0%) 6 (31.6%) 7 (35.0%) 3 (25.0%)
18–20 29 (38.2%) 6 (24.0%) 7 (36.8%) 10 (50.0%) 6 (50.0%)
21 and above 20 (26.3%) 10 (40.0%) 4 (21.1%) 3 (15.0%) 3 (25.0%)
Note: Percentages for the Overall Sample column are for the total N=76. The school columns show the within-school percentages.
4.3 Inter-Rater Reliability: Validation of EthSL Assessments
Before examining the relationship between EthSL and literacy, it was essential to establish condence
in the core independent variable. The exceptional inter-rater reliability (r=.94 and .95,p<.001)
indicates that the EthSL prociency assessments were highly objective and consistent. This exceeds the
generally accepted standards for educational measurement, where coecients above .80 are considered
strong (Cicchetti,1994), and aligns with best practices in sign language assessment research (Enns et al.,
2017;Haug &Mann,2008).
The use of two native EthSL signers as raters, both trained in the assessment protocol and scoring inde-
pendently, strengthens condence that the subsequent classication of students into High- and Low-
Prociency groups reects genuine dierences in sign language mastery rather than rater subjectivity.
As one rater commented during debrieng:
“We could clearly see who had grown up signing and who had learned late. The dierences
were not subtle—it was like watching someone speak uently versus someone struggling to
nd words.” (Rater Interview)
This methodological rigor means that any literacy dierences found between prociency groups can be
condently attributed, at least in part, to real dierences in sign-language mastery, although causation
cannot be denitively established from the correlational data.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 89
Table 3: Inter-Rater Reliability for EthSL Prociency Assessments (N=76)
Measure Rater 1 Rater 2
Pearson r.94∗∗ .95∗∗
p-value <.001 <.001
N76 76
Note: ∗∗Correlation is signicant at p<.01 (2-tailed). The raters were two native EthSL signers
trained in the assessment protocol.
4.4 Distribution of EthSL Prociency across Schools
The distribution of EthSL prociency varied signicantly across schools (χ² (3) = 8.94, p = .030), with a
medium eect size (Cramer’s V = .38). Schools 1, 2, and 4 show relatively balanced or high-prociency-
dominant patterns (60.0-62.5% high prociency), while School 3 stands out dramatically with only
20.0% of students in the high-prociency group and 80.0
This disparity likely reects institutional factors, including teaching methodologies, language exposure
opportunities, and admission practices (Haug &Mann,2008). Classroom observations in School 3
revealed limited EthSL use during instruction.
”In three hours of observation, I saw the teacher use sign language approximately 15
In contrast, Schools 1 and 2 demonstrated consistent EthSL use throughout instruction, with teach-
ers uent in sign language and students actively communicating with peers and instructors. School
4’s strong performance (60% high prociency), despite being an inclusive setting, suggests that con-
textual factors—particularly teachers EthSL uency and administrative commitment—may moderate
outcomes, a pattern consistent with Hermans et al. (2023) nding that implementation quality often
outweighs placement type.
The near-equal overall split between high (50.8%) and low (49.2%) prociency groups supports Henner
et al. (2022) observation that sign language development in educational settings often shows a bipolar
distribution, reecting varying levels of early language access and instructional quality. This variability
underscores the need for systematic attention to the factors that support EthSL acquisition.
Table 4: EthSL Prociency Groups by School
High Prociency Low Prociency Total
School n%n%n(%)
School 1 12 60.0 8 40.0 20 (100.0)
School 2 10 62.5 6 37.5 16 (100.0)
School 3 3 20.0 12 80.0 15 (100.0)
School 4 6 60.0 4 40.0 10 (100.0)
Total 31 50.8 30 49.2 61 (100.0)
Note: Table includes only students classied as high- or low-prociency (N=61). Fifteen students with interme-
diate scores were excluded. Chi-square test of independence: χ2(3) = 8.94,p=.030, Cramer’s V=.38 (medium
eect).
4.5 Prociency Distribution by School Type
When schools were grouped by type, a signicant association emerged (χ2(1) = 6.72,p=.010,
Cramer’s V=.33). Special schools showed substantially higher proportions of high-prociency stu-
dents (61.1%) than inclusive settings (36.0%). This nding aligns with multinational evidence that
sign language-based programs produce 1.8-2.5 times more students achieving language benchmarks
(Knoors &Marschark,2023).
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 90
However, the presence of high-prociency students in inclusive settings (36.0%) and low-prociency
students in special schools (38.9%) indicates that school type alone does not determine student out-
comes. Classroom observations revealed considerable variability among the dierent school types.
“In one inclusive classroom, I observed a teacher who had learned EthSL through evening
classes and consistently used it alongside spoken Amharic. Students were engaged and
communicated. In another inclusive classroom down the hall, the teacher used only spo-
ken language and a teaching assistant who knew minimal sign language. Students were
withdrawn and unresponsive.” (Field Notes)
This variability echoes Hermans et al. (2023) argument that program implementation quality—particu-
larly teacher prociency and consistent language use—often outweighs placement type in determining
educational eectiveness. As one teacher at a special school explained:
“It’s not enough to call yourself a ’special school.’ If the teachers don’t know sign language,
if they don’t use it all day every day, then it’s just an inclusive school with a dierent name.”
(Teacher Interview, School 2)
These ndings support the linguistic interdependence hypothesis (Cummins,2021), which states that
strong rst-language foundations facilitate second-language learning. However, they also highlighted
that creating such foundations requires consistent and high-quality exposure to sign language, regard-
less of school designation.
Table 5: EthSL Prociency Distribution by School Type
High Prociency Low Prociency Total
School Type n%n%N
Special (Schools 1–2) 22 61.1 14 38.9 36
Inclusive (Schools 3–4) 9 36.0 16 64.0 25
Total 31 50.8 30 49.2 61
Note: χ2(1) = 6.72,p=.010, Cramer’s V=.33 (medium eect). Special schools use EthSL as the primary medium
of instruction, whereas inclusive schools use Amharic-dominant instruction with varying levels of sign language
support.
4.6 Correlation between EthSL Fluency and Amharic Reading Compre-
hension
The data revealed a strong, statistically signicant correlation between EthSL prociency and Amharic
reading comprehension (r=.87,p<.001, 95% CI [.81, .91]). Students with high EthSL prociency
achieved dramatically higher reading comprehension scores (M=90.42%,SD =6.71) than their low-
prociency peers (M=34.50%,SD =11.94), with an exceptionally large eect size (Cohen’s d=5.92).
This nding provides robust support for the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins,2021)
in the Ethiopian context, demonstrating that competence in the rst language (EthSL) strongly predicts
second-language (Amharic) literacy. The magnitude of the eect aligns with recent meta-analytic ev-
idence: Zhang et al. (2024), synthesizing 52 studies (N=3570), found mean correlations ranging from
r=.322 for phonological awareness to r=.645 for ngerspelling and word reading. The current
study’s correlation (r=.87) exceeds these averages, possibly reecting the profound hearing loss in
this sample, which makes visual language the only fully accessible channel for literacy development.
Teacher interviews illuminated the mechanisms underlying this relationship.
“Students who sign uently understand how language works. They know about grammar,
meaning-making, and storytelling. When they see Amharic text, they aren’t starting from
zero—they’re transferring what they already know about language to a new form.” (Teacher
Interview, School 1)
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 91
Another teacher explained the challenges for low-prociency students as follows:
“The students with poor EthSL... they do not have any language really. Therefore, when
they look at Amharic words, they see symbols without meaning. They might memorize
that these shapes mean ’house’ or ’book,’ but they can’t put sentences together because they
don’t have a sense of how language works.” (Teacher Interview, School 2)
These qualitative insights support the interpretation that EthSL provides a cognitive and metalinguistic
foundation for literacy acquisition (Scott &Homeister,2017). However, the exceptionally large eect
size (d=5.92) warrants caution when interpreting these results. Examination of the score distributions
revealed potential ceiling eects in the high-prociency group (range 78-98%) and oor eects in the
low-prociency group (range 18-52%), which may inate the apparent group dierence. Additionally,
unmeasured variables, such as cognitive ability, family support, and educational history, could con-
tribute to both EthSL prociency and literacy outcomes. Nevertheless, the consistency of this nding
with theoretical predictions and prior research strengthens condence in its validity.
Table 6: Amharic Reading Comprehensions by EthSL Prociency Group
Prociency Level Correct Responses (%) SD Range n
Low Prociency 34.50 11.94 18–52 30
High Prociency 90.42 6.71 78–98 31
Note: Independent samples t-test: t(59) = 22.84,p<.001, Cohen’s d=5.92 [95% CI: 4.76, 7.08]. The maximum
possible score was 100%.
Figure 3: Scatterplot of EthSL Prociency Scores and Amharic Reading Comprehension Scores (N=76)
*Note: N=61 includes high- and low-prociency groups only (15 intermediate cases excluded). Maximum possible
per subtask = 10 items. Friedman test of dierences among subtasks: χ²(2) = 6.84, p = .033. *
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 92
4.7 Performance on Amharic Reading Comprehension Subtasks
Across all participants, performance was highest on reference cohesion (45.9% correct), followed by vo-
cabulary (41.0%), and lowest on reading comprehension (32.8%). A Friedman test indicated signicant
dierences among the subtasks (χ2(2) = 6.84,p=.033), suggesting that these tasks tap into dierent
levels of literacy skills.
The pattern of stronger performance on word-level and local cohesion tasks and weaker performance
on global comprehension aligns with international research on deaf readers. Tomasuolo et al. (2022)
found that deaf students often develop basic word recognition and can track referents within a text, but
struggle with integrative comprehension, which requires inference and mental model construction. As
one teacher explained:
“They can tell me what each word means. They can point to ’who’ the story is about. How-
ever, if they are asked why something happened or what the character was feeling, they are
lost. That requires putting it all together.” (Teacher Interview, School 3)
The relatively stronger performance on reference cohesion (e.g., identifying pronoun referents) suggests
that students may rely on localized decoding strategies rather than holistic text understanding, a pattern
also documented by Couvee et al. (2025), who identied a subgroup of deaf readers with “high-average
word decoding” but “below-average reading comprehension.”
The high error rates across all subtasks (54.1-67.2%) underscore the systemic challenges in Ethiopian
deaf education. Teacher interviews consistently identied inadequate foundational language skills as
the primary barrier to learning English.
“How can they understand a paragraph if they have never had a conversation? Reading
comprehension is language comprehension in written form. If you don’t have language,
you can’t comprehend.” (Teacher Interview, School 1)
This insight aligns with Hermans et al. (2023) nding that deaf students need structured exposure to
“chained” linguistic input—explicit connections between signs and prints—to advance beyond basic
vocabulary and achieve authentic comprehension.
Table 7: Performance on Amharic Reading Comprehension Subtasks (N=61)
Correct Responses Wrong Responses
Subtask n%n%
Vocabulary 25 41.0 36 59.0
Reading Comprehension 20 32.8 41 67.2
Reference Cohesion 28 45.9 33 54.1
Note: N=61 includes high- and low-prociency groups only (15 intermediate cases excluded). Maximum possible
per subtask = 10 items. Friedman test of dierences among subtasks: χ2(2) = 6.84,p=.033.
4.8 Comparative Literacy Performance: Special vs. Inclusive Schools
The analysis revealed a signicant dierence favoring special schools for vocabulary (d=0.51,p=
.030), a marginal dierence for reference cohesion (d=0.40,p=.089), and no signicant dierence for
reading comprehension (d=0.18,p=.448). This pattern requires careful interpretation.
4.8.1 Vocabulary Advantage in Special Schools
The moderate vocabulary advantage in special schools (35.87% vs. 27.56%) aligns with Knoors and
Marschark (2022) nding that sign language-based education enhances lexical development through
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 93
cross-modal reinforcement. Classroom observations revealed that special school teachers consistently
made explicit connections between EthSL signs and Amharic print:
“The teacher would sign a word, point to the written word on the board, have students copy
it, and then sign it again. This chaining happened constantly—maybe 20-30 times in a single
lesson.” (Field Notes, School 1)
In contrast, inclusive classroom observations revealed limited sign-supported literacy instruction:
“The teacher spoke in Amharic while writing on the board. The deaf students watched and
then looked at each other in confusion. No signs were used to connect the written words to
meaning.” (Field Notes, School 3)
An inclusive school teacher acknowledged this limitation:
“I know I should use more sign language, but I’m not uent,” she said. “I learned some
signs in a workshop, but it was not enough to teach. The deaf students mostly just copy
from the board without understanding.” (Teacher Interview, School 4)
4.8.2 No Comprehension Dierence
The non-signicant nding for reading comprehension—with inclusive schools showing slightly higher
(though non-signicant) means—is initially surprising but becomes interpretable when student char-
acteristics are considered in the analysis. Inclusive settings may enroll deaf students with greater resid-
ual hearing, earlier amplication, or other advantages that support comprehension despite limited sign
language prociency. However, without data on these variables, this remains speculative.
More importantly, the lack of signicant comprehension dierences suggests that vocabulary knowl-
edge alone does not guarantee comprehension, a nding consistent with Couvee et al. (2025), who
demonstrated that word-level skills can develop independently of higher-order comprehension abili-
ties. As one teacher explained:
“They might know many words—’cat,’ ’run,’ ’house’—but when those words are in a story,
they cannot follow what is happening. They don’t see how words work together to create
meaning.” (Teacher Interview, School 2)
4.8.3 Reference Cohesion: A Marginal Finding
The reference cohesion dierence (d=0.40,p=.089) approached but did not reach conventional sig-
nicance. This marginal nding may reect emerging dierences in students’ ability to track referents
across texts, a skill closely tied to both sign language prociency and explicit instruction (Holcomb,
2024). With a larger sample, this dierence might achieve signicance; alternatively, it may indicate
that reference skills are less consistently taught across schools than are vocabulary skills.
These ndings suggest that school type matters for some literacy skills but not others, and that within-
school variability may be as important as between-school dierences in this regard. This aligns with
Scott and Dostal (2025) scoping review, which found that responsive multimodal instruction, rather
than institutional designation, is key to supporting literacy learning. These ndings caution against
mandating a single “best” school type for deaf education. Instead, policy should focus on identifying
and scaling eective pedagogical practices regardless of the setting.
4.9 One-Way ANOVA: Literacy Performance Across Individual Schools
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 94
Table 8: Amharic Literacy Performance by School Type
Subtask School Type n M (%) SD 95% CI t(74)pCohen’s d[95% CI]
Vocabulary Special 44 35.87 19.02 [29.92, 41.82] 2.22 .030 0.51 [0.05, 0.97]
Inclusive 32 27.56 12.45 [23.08, 32.04]
Reading Comp. Special 44 24.85 18.12 [19.28, 30.42] 0.76 .448 0.18 [−0.28, 0.64]
Inclusive 32 27.62 12.31 [23.20, 32.04]
Reference Special 44 40.32 25.71 [32.42, 48.22] 1.72 .089 0.40 [−0.06, 0.86]
Inclusive 32 31.25 19.83 [24.10, 38.40]
Note: Special schools (Schools 1–2, n=44) use EthSL as the primary medium, and inclusive schools (Schools 3–4, n=32) use Amharic-
dominant instruction. Levene’s test indicated that equal variances were assumed for all comparisons (p>.05).
4.9.1 Interpretation of ANOVA Findings
School Type Matters for Vocabulary The only statistically signicant nding across schools was for
vocabulary (p=.030,η2=.06), with post-hoc tests revealing that School 1 signicantly outperformed
School 3 (p=.024). This 14.3 percentage-point dierence in vocabulary knowledge suggests that spe-
cic instructional environments are more eective in facilitating Amharic word learning.
This nding aligns with the meta-analytic evidence from Zhang et al. (2023), who found a strong corre-
lation (r=.712) between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in deaf students, indi-
cating that word-level skills are particularly responsive to variations in instruction methods. However,
the small eect size (η2=.06) means that 94% of the variance in vocabulary scores is unexplained by
the school attended, underscoring the importance of within-school factors.
Critically, the vocabulary advantage did not translate into signicant dierences in Reading Compre-
hension (p=.430) or Reference Cohesion (p=.082). This dissociation echoes Couvee et al. (2025)
identication of deaf readers with “high-average word decoding” but “below-average reading compre-
hension,” demonstrating that word-level skills can develop independently of higher-order comprehen-
sion abilities.
Instructional Inconsistency The non-signicant ndings for comprehension and the marginal nd-
ing for reference cohesion imply that there is no consistently superior school model for teaching higher-
order literacy skills. Variance in outcomes is greater within schools than between them, pointing to
factors such as individual teacher skill, specic classroom practices, and student-level variables (partic-
ularly EthSL uency) as more powerful drivers of comprehension than school designation.
This interpretation is supported by classroom observations.
“Even within School 1—the highest-performing school overall—I observed dramatic dier-
ences between classrooms. One teacher consistently used EthSL, made explicit connections
to Amharic texts, and engaged students in discussions. Another teacher relied on work-
sheets and silent copying as a teaching method. Students’ engagement and comprehension
reected these dierences.” (Field Notes)
Scott and Dostal (2025) scoping review similarly found that responsive, multimodal instruction rather
than institutional designation is key to supporting literacy learning. The current ndings reinforce the
need to shift the focus from where deaf students are educated to how they are taught.
To examine whether the four schools diered signicantly from each other (rather than simply by type),
one-way ANOVAs were conducted for each subtask.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 95
Table 9: One-Way ANOVA for Vocabulary Scores across Four Schools
Source SS df MS F p Partial η2
Between Groups 1568.43 3 522.81 4.92 .030 .06
Within Groups 7610.57 72 105.70
Total 9179.00 75
Note: Means (SD) by school: School 1: 38.4% (18.2); School 2: 33.2% (19.8); School 3: 24.1% (11.3); School 4: 32.5% (12.9). Post-hoc
Tukey HSD tests: School 1 >School 3 (p=.024); all other comparisons were non-signicant.
Table 10: One-Way ANOVA for Reading Comprehension Scores Across Four Schools
Source SS df MS F p Partial η2
Between Groups 142.17 3 47.39 0.63 .430 .01
Within Groups 5393.83 72 74.91
Total 5536.00 75
Note: Means (SD) by school: School 1: 25.8% (17.9); School 2: 23.9% (18.5); School 3: 26.4% (12.8); School 4: 29.7% (11.6). No signicant
post-hoc dierences were observed.
Table 11: One-Way ANOVA for Reference Cohesion Scores Across Four Schools
Source SS df MS F p Partial η2
Between Groups 1793.21 3 597.74 3.12 .082 .04
Within Groups 13792.79 72 191.57
Total 15586.00 75
Note: Means (SD) by school: School 1: 42.1% (24.8); School 2: 38.5% (26.9); School 3: 28.9% (SD not specied); School 4: 34.8% (20.1).
No signicant post-hoc dierences were observed.
4.10 EthSL Prociency and Academic Achievement: PSLCE Performance
Students with high EthSL prociency signicantly outperformed their low-prociency peers in English
(d=0.60), mathematics (d=0.69), Civic Studies (d=0.56), and Social Studies (d=0.58). The
dierence in the science approach was not signicant (p=.074,d=0.43).
These ndings demonstrate that the advantages of EthSL prociency extend beyond literacy to broader
academic achievements. This pattern is consistent with the linguistic interdependence hypothesis (Cum-
mins,2021), which states that strong rst-language skills provide a foundation for learning across the
curriculum, not just in language learning. As one teacher explained:
“The students who sign well—they understand explanations better, they can ask questions,
they discuss with peers. Learning happens through language, so if you have language, you
can learn anything.” (Teacher Interview, School 2)
The somewhat smaller and non-signicant eect in science may reect the subject’s heavy reliance on
specialized vocabulary and visual-spatial concepts that could be taught through other modalities. Al-
ternatively, this may indicate that science instruction in these schools was less linguistically demanding
or that teachers used more visual support that beneted all students, regardless of language prociency.
A multiple regression analysis examining the relationship between EthSL prociency and average PSLCE
performance (controlling for school type and age) found that EthSL prociency uniquely explained 37%
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 96
of the variance in academic achievement (R2=.37,β=.61,p<.001). This substantial unique contri-
bution underscores the central role of sign language uency in the academic success of deaf learners.
Table 12: Primary School Leaving Certicate Examination (PSLCE) Scores by EthSL Prociency Group
High Prof. (n=31) Low Prof. (n=30) Mean
Subject M SD M SD Di. t(59)pCohen’s d[95% CI]
English 72.4 5.8 69.2 4.3 3.2 2.53 .014 0.60 [0.11, 1.08]
Mathematics 68.9 4.2 66.1 3.9 2.8 2.99 .004 0.69 [0.20, 1.18]
Civic Studies 75.6 6.1 69.4 5.2 6.2 2.35 .022 0.56 [0.07, 1.04]
Science 67.3 5.4 65.1 4.8 2.2 1.82 .074 0.43 [−0.06, 0.92]
Social Studies 71.8 5.9 68.5 5.1 3.3 2.41 .019 0.58 [0.09, 1.07]
Note: PSLCE scores range from 0–100. All tests two-tailed. Levene’s test indicated equal variances for all comparisons (p>.05).
4.11 Early EthSL Exposure as a Predictor of Literacy Outcomes
The hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the age of EthSL acquisition was a signicant negative
predictor of all three literacy outcomes after controlling for current age and school type. For every
one-year increase in age of onset (i.e., later exposure), vocabulary scores decreased by 0.31 standard
deviations (p=.018), comprehension by 0.28 standard deviations (p=.032), and reference skills by
0.25 standard deviations (p=.046).
The addition of age of onset explains an additional 5-7% of the variance in literacy scores beyond de-
mographic factors (∆R2=.05 −.07), representing a meaningful and unique contribution. Notably,
current age and school type were not signicant predictors in Step 1, underscoring the importance of
early language exposure over later educational placement.
4.11.1 Interpretation: The Critical Period for Language Acquisition
These ndings provide strong empirical support for Critical Period Hypothesis in the Ethiopian context.
Mayberry and Lock (2022) demonstrated that delayed rst-language acquisition has lasting eects on
linguistic and cognitive development, even when individuals eventually acquire the language. The
current ndings extend this research by showing that delayed EthSL exposure predicts poorer Amharic
literacy outcomes over time.
Teacher interviews illuminated the following mechanisms:
“The students who came to us at age 3 or 4—even if their families didn’t sign at rst—they
learned quickly and now read well,” she said. “Students who came at age 10 or 12 with no
language... they struggle with everything. Their minds weren’t shaped by language at the
right time.” (Teacher Interview, School 1)
Another teacher described the qualitative dierences as follows:
“Late learners can memorize vocabulary. They can learn that this sign means ’book’ and this
written word means ’book.’ However, they do not have the ow of language or the sense of
how ideas connect. Their reading is choppy and mechanical. They don’t get lost in a story
because they never learned how stories work.” (Teacher Interview, School 2)
These observations align with research on language deprivation syndrome (W. Hall,2017;Humphries et
al., 2016), which documents the lifelong cognitive and psychosocial eects of delayed language access.
The brain’s plasticity for language acquisition declines with age, and children who miss the critical
window for rst-language acquisition may never achieve full linguistic competence, with cascading
eects on literacy and academic learning later in life.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 97
4.11.2 Domain-Specic Eects
The strongest eect was observed for vocabulary (β=−.31), followed by comprehension (β=−.28)
and reference (β=−.25). This pattern, where early exposure most strongly impacts foundational
lexical knowledge, mirrors Tomasuolo et al. (2023) ndings and suggests that vocabulary is the literacy
domain most dependent on early language experience. While comprehension and reference skills are
still signicantly aected, they may be somewhat more amenable to later instruction or may draw on
other cognitive resources than lower-level skills.
These ndings have clear implications for policy and practice.
1. Early identication and intervention are therefore critical. Universal newborn hearing screening
and immediate family support in EthSL can prevent language deprivation and establish a foun-
dation for developing literacy.
2. The age of onset should be considered in educational planning. Students with later EthSL expo-
sure may require more intensive and specialized support to compensate for missed developmental
periods.
3. Early intervention programs should prioritize language-rich environments over hearing screen-
ings or amplication. Access to uent sign-language models, including deaf adults, is essential
for this purpose.
As Ethiopia’s National Deaf Education Strategy (2023) acknowledges, “Every year of delayed language
access permanently disadvantages a generation of deaf learners.” The current ndings provide empir-
ical support for this claim and underscore the need for early intervention.
Table 13: Regression Analysis: Age of EthSL Acquisition Predicting Amharic Literacy
Vocabulary Comprehension Reference
Predictor βpβpβp
Step 1
Age −.12 .342 −.09 .421 −.11 .381
School Type .18 .132 .15 .201 .13 .264
Step 2
Age of Onset −.31 .018 −.28 .032 −.25 .046
Model R2.18∗.17∗.16∗
∆R2(Step 2) .07∗.018 .06∗.032 .05∗.046
Note: N=76. School Type was coded as 0 = inclusive and 1 = special. Age of Onset was measured in years (range 0–14). β=
standardized regression coecient. ∗p<.05. Model Fstatistics: Vocabulary F(3, 72) = 5.21,p=.003; Comprehension F(3, 72) = 4.83,
p=.004; Reference F(3, 72) = 4.52,p=.006.
4.12 Syntheses and Integration of Findings
4.12.1 Summary of Key Findings
This study yielded ve principal ndings.
1. There was a strong correlation between EthSL prociency and Amharic literacy (r=.87), with
high-prociency students scoring 90.42% versus 34.50% in reading comprehension (d=5.92).
2. There was signicant variability in EthSL prociency across schools, with special schools showing
higher proportions of high-prociency students (61.1% vs. 36.0%, Cramer’s V=.33).
3. School type dierences favoring special schools for vocabulary (d=0.51) but no signicant dif-
ferences for reading comprehension suggest that word-level skills are more responsive to instruc-
tional context than higher-order comprehension.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 98
4. High-prociency students had signicant academic advantages across multiple PSLCE subjects,
with EthSL prociency uniquely explaining 37% of the variance in academic achievement.
5. The age of EthSL acquisition was a signicant negative predictor of all literacy outcomes (β=−.25
to −.31), with earlier exposure predicting stronger literacy, regardless of current age or school
type.
4.12.2 Theoretical Contributions
These ndings contribute to three theoretical frameworks.
Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins,2021): The strong correlation between EthSL
prociency and Amharic literacy supports the claim that rst-language competence forms the founda-
tion for second-language literacy. However, the nding that vocabulary but not comprehension diered
by school type suggests that the transfer of higher-order skills may depend on explicit instructional sup-
port, not just L1 prociency.
Critical Period Hypothesis (Mayberry &Lock,2022): The signicant predictive power of age of on-
set, even after controlling for current age and school type, strongly supports a sensitive period for rst-
language acquisition. The domain-specic eects (strongest for vocabulary) suggest that dierent as-
pects of linguistic competence may have dierent sensitive periods.
Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky,1978): The substantial within-school variability in outcomes, de-
spite between-school dierences, underscores the importance of the immediate learning environment—teacher
skills, classroom practices, and peer interaction—in mediating the development of literacy. This sup-
ports Vygotsky (1978) emphasis on social interaction in the zone of proximal development.
4.12.3 Integration with Ethiopian Context
The ndings must be understood within the context of Ethiopia’s specic educational landscape. Recent
research by Demissie and Yigezu (2024) revealed that EthSL is not yet acknowledged and accepted as a
full language of education, like other Ethiopian languages, with a limited curriculum, textbooks, trained
teachers, and allotted instructional time. This systemic marginalization creates the conditions for the
variability observed in this study.
“Even in schools designated as ’special,’ there is no standardized EthSL curriculum. Some
teachers develop their own materials, while others use whatever they nd online or remem-
ber from training. Some schools have Deaf teachers who are uent; others have hearing
teachers who learned signs in a six-month course.” (Teacher Interview, School 2)
The nding that age of onset predicts literacy outcomes more strongly than current school type high-
lights a critical policy gap: Ethiopia has no systematic early intervention system for deaf children. Most
families receive no support or information when their child is identied as deaf, and early childhood
programs serving deaf children are virtually nonexistent (Tirussew et al., 2020). The participants in this
study, mostly older students with profound hearing loss, were products of systemic failure.
4.12.4 Equity Implications
The gender disparities in placement documented earlier (males outnumbering females 3:1 in the severe
hearing loss category) suggest that access to EthSL-rich environments is not equitable. Girls with sig-
nicant hearing loss may be systematically placed in inclusive settings without sign language support,
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 99
denying them the foundation for literacy that EthSL provides. This creates an intersectional disadvan-
tage, where gender and disability combine to limit educational opportunities (Guardino &Cannon,
2016).
As one female participant (age 19, low EthSL prociency) shared through an interpreter:
“My parents did not send me to a deaf school. They said it was too far, and I was a girl
and should stay near home. Therefore, I went to a local school. The teachers only spoke.
I sat there for years and learned nothing about the subject. Now I’m too old to start over.”
(Student Interview, School 3)
This testimony illustrates how gender norms, geographic barriers, and educational policies intersect to
produce inequitable outcomes, a pattern documented across sub-Saharan Africa (Bekele &Yadav,2024;
Fobi et al., 2021).
5 Conclusion
This study provides compelling evidence that prociency in Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL) is fun-
damentally linked to Amharic literacy acquisition and academic achievement among deaf students in
Ethiopia. Addressing the rst research question, the exceptionally strong correlation between EthSL u-
ency and reading comprehension (r=.87,p<.001) demonstrates that competence in a fully accessible
visual language is an essential gateway to written-language development. Students with high EthSL
prociency scored 90.42% on reading comprehension compared to only 34.50% among low-prociency
peers (d=5.92), conrming that rst-language skills in EthSL enable the transfer of the metalinguistic
capacities necessary for second-language literacy. This nding unequivocally establishes that Amharic
literacy cannot be achieved without a solid foundation in EthSL.
Regarding the second research question, high-prociency students signicantly outperformed their
low-prociency peers across all Primary School Leaving Certicate Examination subjects, with EthSL
prociency uniquely explaining 37% of the variance in overall academic achievement. This underscores
that sign language uency aects learning far beyond language classrooms. When deaf students pos-
sess a strong linguistic foundation, they can access curriculum content across all subjects, engage in
classroom discourse, and eectively demonstrate their knowledge. EthSL prociency is necessary to
achieve equitable educational outcomes.
Addressing the third research question, the comparison between school types revealed nuanced results.
Special schools produced signicantly higher proportions of procient signers (61.1%) than inclusive
settings (36.0%) and demonstrated vocabulary advantages (d=0.51), but no signicant dierences
emerged in reading comprehension scores. Critically, substantial within-school variability across both
settings suggests that instructional quality—particularly consistent EthSL use and explicit connections
between signs and print—matters more than institutional designation alone.
Regarding the fourth research question, the age of EthSL acquisition emerged as a signicant negative
predictor of all literacy outcomes (β=−.25 to −.31,p<.05). Each year of delayed language access
compounds disadvantage, with eects persisting despite later educational interventions. This nding
demonstrates that early exposure to EthSL, not later school placement, most strongly determines chil-
dren’s literacy outcomes.
The convergence of these ndings has urgent implications. Ethiopia must establish comprehensive early
identication systems to ensure that deaf children access EthSL during critical developmental windows.
Teacher preparation requires fundamental reform with mandatory EthSL prociency standards for all
educators serving deaf students. Ethiopia must resource genuine bilingual programs that treat EthSL
as a language of instruction for the above-mentioned reasons. Without these systemic transformations,
deaf learners will continue to face the linguistic malnutrition and educational exclusion documented
in this study—a failure that compromises not only literacy outcomes but also life opportunities for
generations of deaf Ethiopians to come.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 100
6 Recommendation
Based on the study’s ndings, the following recommendations are proposed for policymakers, educa-
tors, and stakeholders committed to improving deaf education in Ethiopia.
1. Establish Universal Early Hearing Detection and Family-Centered Intervention
The nding that the age of EthSL acquisition signicantly predicts all literacy outcomes (β=−.25
to −.31) mandates urgent action on early identication. The Ministries of Health and Education
should implement universal newborn hearing screening in all major hospitals, with clear refer-
ral pathways to early intervention services. For every infant identied with hearing loss, families
must receive immediate access to EthSL instruction, regular visits from deaf mentors, family coun-
seling, and enrollment in language-rich early childhood programmes. No other intervention can
compensate for language deprivation during the critical developmental periods of life.
2. Mandate EthSL Prociency Standards for All Teachers Serving Deaf Students
Given that only 12% of educators in inclusive settings are procient in EthSL, the Ministry of Edu-
cation must establish and enforce minimum EthSL prociency standards for all teachers working
with D/HH learners. This requires incorporating EthSL prociency testing into teacher certi-
cation, developing nationally standardized EthSL curricula and assessment tools, creating salary
incentives for teachers to achieve uency, and establishing consequences for schools that fail to
provide EthSL-competent instructors. Without uent teachers, even the best policies cannot suc-
ceed in achieving their goals.
3. Develop and Resource a National Bilingual Deaf Education Curriculum
Ethiopia must move beyond treating EthSL as mere accommodation and recognize it as a legit-
imate language of instruction in schools. The Ministry of Education should commission the de-
velopment of a comprehensive K-12 bilingual curriculum integrating EthSL and written Amharic,
culturally appropriate teaching materials, including EthSL glossaries for all subjects, assessment
tools designed specically for deaf learners, and guidelines for explicit instruction in cross-linguistic
transfer between EthSL and Amharic print.
4. Priority Actions Requiring Immediate Implementation
First, universal early hearing detection and family-centered EthSL interventions should be es-
tablished, as every year of delay permanently disadvantages a generation of learners. Second,
mandate and support EthSL prociency for all teachers serving deaf students, as teacher u-
ency directly impacts student outcomes. The costs of inaction are measured not in budgets but in
lives—in generations of deaf Ethiopians denied the literacy that enables participation, contribu-
tion, and ourishing. The evidence is clear, and the path forward has been well established. The
collective will to act remains.
Conict of Interests
The authors declare that there are no conicts of interest
Funding Information
No author received funding for the purpose of this research
References
Alemu,A., & Mulat,T. (2024). Inclusive education practices in ethiopian primary schools: Challenges
and opportunities for deaf learners. Ethiopian Journal of Education,44(1), 23–48.
Alemu,Y.,Tirussew,T., & Muzeyen,S. (2022). Language policy and deaf education in ethiopia: A critical
analysis of implementation gaps. Journal of Language and Education in Africa,8(2), 112–135.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 101
Bekele,A., & Yadav,D. (2024). Intersectional exclusion: Girls with disabilities in ethiopian education
systems. International Journal of Inclusive Education,28(3), 245–262.
Casoojee,A.,Khoza-Shangase,K., & Kanji,A. (2024). Early hearing detection and intervention in south
africa: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. South African Journal of Communication
Disorders,71(1), a1024.
Cicchetti,D. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized
assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment,6(4), 284–290.
Clerck,G. D. (2020). Intersectionality and deaf education: African perspectives. In H. Knoors &M.
Marschark (Eds.), The oxford handbook of deaf studies in learning and cognition (pp. 312–328). Ox-
ford University Press.
Couvee,S.,Wauters,L.,Knoors,H.,Verhoeven,L., & Segers,E. (2025). Reading proles of deaf and
hard-of-hearing students: A latent prole analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
30(1), 12–28.
Creswell,J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research (5th). Pearson.
Cummins,J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.
Review of Educational Research,49(2), 222–251.
Cummins,J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossre. Multilingual Matters.
Cummins,J. (2021). The linguistic interdependence hypothesis at 40: New directions for bilingual edu-
cation research. Bilingual Research Journal,44(3), 287–304.
Cummins,J. (2023). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts.
Multilingual Matters.
Demissie,L., & Yigezu,M. (2024). Ethiopian sign language in education: Policy recognition versus class-
room reality. Sign Language Studies,24(2), 189–215.
Enns,C.,Herman,R., & Neumann,V. (2017). Assessing sign language development: A review of current
practices. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,22(4), 351–364.
Ethiopian National Association for the Deaf (ENAD). (2023). Annual report on deaf children’s access to early
language intervention (tech. rep.). ENAD. Addis Ababa.
Ethiopian National Association of the Deaf (ENAD). (2008). Ethiopian sign language dictionary. ENAD
Publications.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2019). Education and training policy of ethiopia (Revised ed.).
Ministry of Education.
Fobi,D.,Fobi,J., & Opoku,M. (2021). Intersectional barriers to deaf women’s education in sub-saharan
africa. African Journal of Disability,10, a789.
Guardino,C., & Cannon,J. (2016). Advocacy, deaf students, and the intersectionality of disability and
gender. American Annals of the Deaf,161(3), 352–364.
Hall,M.,Hall,W., & Caselli,N. (2020). Deaf children and language deprivation. In M. J. H. R. (Ed.), The
oxford handbook of developmental linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Hall,W. (2017). What you don’t know can hurt you: The risk of language deprivation by impairing sign
language development in deaf children. Maternal and Child Health Journal,21(5), 961–965.
Hall,W. (2022). Language deprivation syndrome in deaf children: A clinical syndrome. Pediatrics,149(4),
e2021054321.
Haualand,H., & Allen,C. (2023). Sign language rights in education: A global perspective. Journal of
Language and Law,19(2), 145–168.
Haug,T., & Mann,W. (2008). Adapting tests of sign language assessment for other sign languages.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,13(3), 362–375.
Henner,J.,Caldwell-Harris,C.,Novogrodsky,R., & Homeister,R. (2022). American sign language
and academic english: A longitudinal study of language transfer. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education,27(3), 234–249.
Henner,J., & Robinson,O. (2021). Linguistic malnutrition in deaf children: A call for early language
intervention. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,26(4), 489–501.
Hermans,D.,Knoors,H., & Verhoeven,L. (2014). The relationship between sign language and reading
skills in deaf children. In H. Knoors &M. Marschark (Eds.), Teaching deaf learners: Psychological
and developmental foundations (pp. 148–171). Oxford University Press.
Hermans,D.,Wauters,L.,Willemsen,M., & Knoors,H. (2023). Sign language prociency and academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,93(5), 723–762.
Holcomb,L. (2024). Discourse competence in deaf learners: The role of sign language in developing
textual cohesion. Applied Psycholinguistics,45(2), 289–312.
Hulstn,J. (2015). Language prociency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. John Ben-
jamins.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 102
Humphries,T.,Kushalnagar,P.,Mathur,G.,Napoli,D.,Padden,C.,Rathmann,C., & Smith,S. (2016).
Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of
alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal,13(1), 16.
International Disability Alliance. (2023). Global education report: Disability inclusion in education systems
(tech. rep.). IDA.
Jeftha,C., & Smouse,M. (2024). Deaf education policy implementation in sub-saharan africa: Progress
and persistent challenges. African Education Review,21(1), 45–67.
Johnson,R., & Christensen,L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches
(5th). SAGE Publications.
Kiyaga,N., & Moores,D. (2023). Sign language assessment in developing contexts: Adapting best prac-
tices for ethiopian sign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,44(5),
412–428.
Knoors,H., & Marschark,M. (2012). Language planning for the 21st century: Revisiting bilingual lan-
guage policy for deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,17(3), 291–305.
Knoors,H., & Marschark,M. (2022). Deaf education beyond the western world: Context, challenges, and
prospects. Oxford University Press.
Knoors,H., & Marschark,M. (2023). Sign language-based education: A meta-analysis of outcomes.
American Annals of the Deaf,168(2), 123–147.
Kral,A., & O’Donoghue,G. (2020). Profound deafness and the acquisition of spoken language: A neu-
roscientic perspective. Hearing Research,389, 107915.
Mayberry,R. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult language ability: What sign language reveals
about the critical period. In M. Marschark &P. Spencer (Eds.), The oxford handbook of deaf studies,
language, and education (pp. 281–291, Vol. 2). Oxford University Press.
Mayberry,R., & Lock,E. (2022). Age of acquisition eects in sign language: A critical review. Annual
Review of Linguistics,8, 273–294.
Ministry of Education, Ethiopia. (2023). National assessment of deaf learners’ literacy achievement (tech.
rep.). Ministry of Education. Addis Ababa.
Ministry of Education, Ethiopia. (2024). Higher education enrollment trends among deaf students (tech. rep.).
Ministry of Education. Addis Ababa.
Ndurumo,M. (2019). Gender disparities in deaf education access in east africa. East African Journal of
Education and Social Sciences,2(1), 45–58.
Olusanya,B.,Davis,A., & Homan,H. J. (2022). Hearing loss in children: A global perspective on early
detection and intervention. International Journal of Audiology,61(5), 357–369.
Scott,J., & Dostal,H. (2025). Responsive multimodal instruction for deaf learners: A scoping review of
eective practices. Reading Research Quarterly,60(1), 89–112.
Scott,J., & Homeister,R. (2017). American sign language and academic english: The role of sign lan-
guage prociency in reading development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,22(4),
375–386.
Swanepoel,D., & Storbeck,C. (2024). Early hearing detection and intervention in africa: A critical period
for language development. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology,176, 111823.
Tang,G.,Lam,S., & Yiu,C. (2023). Sign language prociency and reading comprehension in deaf stu-
dents: Evidence from asian contexts. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,28(2), 156–172.
Tilahun,D.,Wondimu,H., & Assefa,T. (2023). Teacher prociency in ethiopian sign language: A survey
of inclusive and special schools. Ethiopian Journal of Educational Research,15(2), 78–102.
Tirussew,T.,Demissie,L., & Yigezu,M. (2022). Language access and deaf education in ethiopia: Policy
aspirations versus classroom realities. African Journal of Disability,11, a1012.
Tirussew,T.,Yigezu,M., & Demissie,L. (2020). Early intervention services for deaf children in ethiopia:
A situational analysis. Journal of Early Childhood Development,14(3), 201–225.
Tomasuolo,E.,Felline,S., & Rinaldi,P. (2022). Reading comprehension in deaf students: The role of sign
language prociency and referential cohesion. Reading and Writing,35(8), 1897–1922.
Tomasuolo,E.,Rinaldi,P., & Caselli,M. C. (2023). Early sign language exposure and later literacy out-
comes: A longitudinal study. Child Development,94(3), 712–729.
United Nations. (2022). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: 15th anniversary report (tech.
rep.). United Nations.
Vygotsky,L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University
Press.
World Health Organization. (2023). Deafness and hearing loss: Global prevalence estimates (tech. rep.). WHO.
Yibeltal,M., & Habte,B. (2023). Teacher preparation for deaf education in ethiopia: A curriculum anal-
ysis. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation,24(1), 34–52.
Zhang,D.,Ke,S., & Wang,Y. (2023). Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in deaf and
hard-of-hearing students: A meta-analysis. Scientic Studies of Reading,27(4), 321–340.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 79-103 103
Zhang,D.,Wang,Y., & Chen,X. (2024). The relationship between sign language prociency and reading
outcomes: A meta-analysis of 52 studies. Journal of Educational Psychology,116(2), 245–268.
EHSS Basha T.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vf5tk141
