Educating Deaf Students

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
Special Needs ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Education Today ◽  
The Common ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Historical Consideration

Over the past decade there has been a significant increase in interest from educators and the general public about deafness, special education, and the development of children with special needs. The education of deaf children in the United States has been seen as a remarkable success story around the world, even while it continues to engender domestic debate. In Educating Deaf Students: From Research to Practice, Marc Marschark, Harry G. Lang, and John A. Albertini set aside the politics, rhetoric, and confusion that often accompany discussions of deaf education. Instead they offer an accessible evaluation of the research literature on the needs and strengths of deaf children and on the methods that have been used-successfully and unsuccessfully-to teach both deaf and hearing children. The authors lay out the common assumptions that have driven deaf education for many years, revealing some of them to be based on questionable methods, conclusions, or interpretations, while others have been lost in the cacophony of alternative educational philosophies. They accompany their historical consideration of how this came to pass with an evaluation of the legal and social conditions surrounding deaf education today. By evaluating what we know, what we do not know, and what we thought we knew about learning among deaf children, the authors provide parents, teachers, and administrators valuable new insights into educating deaf students and others with special needs.

Co-Enrollment in Toowong, Australia

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-68
Author(s):  
Michelle Baker ◽  
Cameron Miller ◽  
Elizabeth Fletcher ◽  
Caroline Gamin ◽  
Breda Carty
Keyword(s):  
Inner City ◽  
National Curriculum ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
School Staff ◽  
State School ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
The World ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Impact

In 2001, the first co-enrollment program for deaf children in Australia commenced at Toowong State School in Brisbane, Queensland. The impetus for the program came from the Deaf community and parents advocating for sign language to be used with their deaf children in an environment that provided access to the mainstream. Models of educating deaf children around the world were examined and co-enrollment was chosen as the model of operation to deliver a sign bilingual program that would best meet the needs of deaf students. The journey has been one of incredible learning for deaf and hearing children, their families, school staff, and the Queensland education system. With the changing landscape of deaf education, the impact of early detection and technology (including cochlear implants), and the introduction of a new national curriculum and all it entails, this evolving inner-city school continues to meet the unique needs of its students.

The Impact of Identity and Culturally Responsive School Leadership: Leaders of Schools and Programs for the Deaf

2019 ◽  
pp. 120-144
Author(s):  
Catherine A. O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Identity Development ◽  
School Leadership ◽  
Culturally Responsive ◽  
School Leaders ◽  
The United States ◽  
Deaf Culture ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Schools For The Deaf ◽  
Almost All

This chapter explores the relationship between culturally responsive school leadership and school culture in schools for the deaf. The author demonstrates how Deaf culture, identity, and culturally responsive school leadership intertwine and influence each other. This chapter reports on observations of and interviews with leaders in six schools for the deaf in the United States. Many current school leaders serving Deaf children lack knowledge and understanding of Deaf culture and Deaf identity. Culturally responsive leaders in the schools for the deaf that were studied were almost all part of Deaf culture. If school leaders are to better meet the needs deaf students’ education and identity development, they must recognize the students’ cultures and identities. The author makes a plea for better equipping potential principals and other leaders of schools for the deaf.

Affixes and function words in the written language of deaf children

1988 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Traute Taeschner ◽  
Antonella Devescovi ◽  
Virginia Volterra
Keyword(s):  
Written Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Function Words ◽  
Developmental Patterns ◽  
Grammatical Aspect ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
And Function ◽  
Age Range

ABSTRACTThe goal of this article is to investigate whether the acquisition of some morpho-syntactic aspects in Italian deaf adolescents is simply delayed with respect to hearing children, or whether it follows significantly different developmental patterns. Twenty-five deaf students (age range: 11–15 years) and a group of 125 hearing controls (age range: 6–16 years) performed four tests, administered in written form, relative to different grammatical aspects: plurals, articles, and clitic pronouns. Results showed three different patterns of development depending on the grammatical aspect considered. Deaf children compared to hearing controls showed normal development in the pluralization task, delayed development in the pronoun task, and a qualitatively different pattern in the article task.

scholarly journals Deaf Education in Brazil: Contexts, Challenges, and Perspectives

2019 ◽  
pp. 343-360
Author(s):  
Cátia de Azevedo Fronza ◽  
Lodenir Becker Karnopp ◽  
Marjon Tammenga-Helmantel
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Bilingual Education ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Ministry Of Education ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Brazilian Government ◽  
Enrollment Rates ◽  
Brazilian Sign Language ◽  
Education In Brazil

Changes in the past two decades have improved the position of the deaf in Brazil: Brazilian Sign Language (Libras) is an officially recognized language, deaf children can go to school, and bilingual education is available to deaf students. However, many deaf children do not attend school, and enrollment rates in high school and higher education are low. Moreover, the language policy views of the Brazilian deaf movement and the Brazilian Ministry of Education do not align. The deaf movement pleads for bilingual deaf schools, whereas the Brazilian government follows an inclusion policy. This chapter presents an overview of the position of the deaf in Brazil and their participation in education, considering national deaf policy and its implications for and impact on deaf education. Teaching practices in bilingual education are discussed, and recommendations and challenges for Brazilian deaf education are considered.

Bicultural, Bilingual, and Bimodal Deaf Education

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Jones
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Visual Learning ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Community ◽  
Research Issues

Deaf education, particularly in the United States, is an ongoing and controversial conundrum. The term “deaf” applies not only to a medical diagnosis that defines hearing loss and speech ability but also to a cultural and linguistic recognition of a way of life that is deeply rooted in deaf community practices often unknown to “hearing” communities. The tension between these different philosophical and epistemological worldviews starts the moment a baby is identified as “deaf.” This identification affects language and modality choice, school placement, literacy instruction, curriculum, academic achievement, marriage partners, social groups and organization, and even meaningful and equitable employment. The inherent struggle in deaf education is the desire on the part of monolingual, hearing-centric educators, professionals, and parents to rely on technological solutions or therapeutic interventions to produce “hearing” speaking citizens. These participants are expecting the same outcomes from deaf children as they are from hearing children, emphasizing auditory/oral learning without understanding the sociocultural, linguistic, and biological challenges experienced by deaf children. While inclusive education may seem to “accommodate” the idea of equality, perversely those who experience the process can vouch for the inequalities, inequity, and injustice in monolinguistic deaf education. Most of society has yet to recognize that education of deaf children is necessarily embodied in a far more complex cultural and linguistic ecosystem. For American deaf persons, this ecosystem involves American Sign Language, visual learning strategies within culturally and linguistically driven content instruction, and cultural traditions and experiences that are indigenous to deaf communities. How are best practices addressed when the medium of instruction differs in modality and structure (i.e., spoken language vs. signed language); when reading instruction involves a different mapping process; when school assessments are only available in a spoken language; and when lack of teacher qualifications may hinder learning. Historically, conflict over language ideologies has dominated academic discourse about classroom pedagogy, literacy, teacher training, and educational research. Issues of power and language dominance emerge around curriculum instruction and assessment, as deaf individuals struggle to take their rightful place in a largely hearing deaf education environment. However, both hearing and deaf scholars in the field of neuroscience, child development, and Deaf studies have contributed to critical understanding about a bilingual-bimodal ecosystem in deaf education. This research has set the stage for reevaluating systematic, linguistic, and pedagogical traditions and has raised ethical questions regarding education and sign language research with deaf participants. By including members of the deaf community in the discourse, the emergence of a new practice of bilingual-bimodal education for deaf children secures a sociocultural and sociolinguistic foundation for all deaf children. Research findings support the veracity of a bilingual-bimodal deaf education classroom.

Language Development and Deaf Children

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
University Center ◽  
Language Modality ◽  
Hearing Children

To understand the complex relations between language and learning, we have to look at both how children learn language and what it is that they learn that allows them to communicate with others. To accomplish this, we need to distinguish between apparent differences in language that are related to the modality of communication and actual differences in language fluencies observed among deaf children. It also will help to examine some relevant differences between deaf children and hearing children. We have already pointed out that the distinction between spoken language and sign language, while a theoretically important one for researchers, is an oversimplification for most practical purposes. It is rare that deaf children are exposed only to spoken language or sign language, even if that is the intention of their parents or teachers. According to 1999 data, approximately 55 percent of deaf children in the United States are formally educated in programs that report either using sign language exclusively (just over 5 percent) or signed and spoken language together (just over 49 percent) (Gallaudet University, Center for Applied Demographic Statistics). Because almost half of all deaf children in the United States are missed in such surveys, however, these numbers only should be taken as approximate. Comparisons of the language abilities of deaf children who primarily use sign language with those who primarily use spoken language represent one of the most popular and potentially informative areas in research relating to language development and academic success. Unfortunately, this area is also one of the most complex. Educational programs emphasizing spoken or sign language often have different educational philosophies and curricula as well as different communication philosophies. Programs may only admit children with particular histories of early intervention, and parents will be drawn to different programs for a variety of reasons. Differences observed between children from any two programs thus might be the result of a number of variables rather than, or in addition to, language modality per se. Even when deaf children are educated in spoken language environments, they often develop systems of gestural communication with their parents (Greenberg et al., 1984).

scholarly journals Reading skills of D/deaf students – native signers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justyna Kotowicz
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Skilled Readers ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Native Signers ◽  
Hearing Children

Reading skills of D/deaf students fall behind their hearing peers. The difference in reading skills between D/deaf and hearing children has not decreased for over past three decades. Low level of reading skills in D/deaf students has been associated with their language delay, which is mainly observed in D/deaf children using spoken language that is not fully accessible to “D/deaf individuals” instead of “ppl with hearing impairment”. D/deaf children immersed in sign language since their birth usually do not encounter language problems and they have a potential to become highly-skilled readers. In the present studies we have investigated reading skills of D/deaf students who are native signers of Polish Sign Language. The results have indicated that D/deaf students showed lower level of reading skills than their hearing peers. The present studies call in question Polish education system dedicated to D/deaf students who are native signers. The obtained results suggest that reading classes are probably not adapted to the needs and abilities of highly competent signers.

scholarly journals Annetta T. Mills and the Origin of Deaf Education in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-99
Author(s):  
Shu Wan
Keyword(s):  
Deaf Education ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Industrial Training ◽  
Transnational Community ◽  
History Of ◽  
Native Teachers ◽  
School For The Deaf ◽  
Education In China

As the first education institution enrolling deaf children in China, the Chefoo School for the Deaf (which will be called “Chefoo School” in the rest of this article) was originally established by the American missionary couple Charles R. Mills and Annetta T. Mills. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the Chefoo School succeeded in attracting students across the country. For investigating Mills’s contributions to the proliferation of Chinese deaf education in a transnational context, this article will consist of the following three sections. The first section primarily discusses the early history of deaf education in China before the establishment of the Chefoo School in 1898. As early as the 1840s, Chinese elites had already gained firsthand knowledge of deaf education in the United States. Around the 1870s, American and French missionaries respectively proposed to establish a specific deaf school, which took care of deaf children in Shanghai but failed to provide special education to them. And then the second section of this article will examine Mills’s efforts to seek financial support from the transnational community of deaf education. The final section of this article will switch to Mills’s agenda of localizing deaf education in China, including training native teachers fostering the proliferation of deaf education in China and providing industrial training to Chinese deaf children.

scholarly journals A APRENDIZAGEM MATEMÁTICA DE SURDOS: enunciados que circulam nos Cadernos Cedes

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Daiane Kipper ◽  
Janete Inês Müller ◽  
Cláudio José de Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Mathematics Learning ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
School Settings ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Teaching Learning ◽  
Empirical Material

Neste trabalho, estamos interessados em examinar um conjunto de artigos publicados no número noventae um (91) dos Cadernos Cedes, que abordam a aprendizagem de matemática por crianças e adolescentessurdos. Para o exercício analítico, na perspectiva foucaultiana, apoiamo-nos na ferramenta teórico-metodológica doenunciado. Para tal, discutimos o material empírico desta investigação, considerando a metodologia, o referencialteórico e os resultados produzidos pelos autores em seus artigos. O material analisado apresentou aproximaçõesem relação à metodologia das investigações, visto que o desenvolvimento das pesquisas dá-se em ambientes escolares,por meio de atividades com alunos, tendo como foco crianças e adolescentes. Das análises, emergiramenunciados relacionados à aprendizagem matemática por crianças e adolescentes surdos, tais como: as criançassurdas estão atrasadas em relação às ouvintes; a exposição à língua de sinais melhora o desempenho da criançasurda; existem experiências educacionais prévias em contextos informais; a visualidade é fundamental no ensino/aprendizagem da matemática; há uma emergência de criação de sinais nessa área. Nesse sentido, mesmo que aspesquisas sejam desenvolvidas com base em diferentes perspectivas teóricas, são recorrentes os enunciados queposicionam as crianças e jovens surdos como ‘atrasados’ em relação aos ouvintes de mesma faixa etária, e issopor não atenderem a um padrão cultural pré-determinado, sobretudo pela Matemática Escolar da ModernidadePalavras-chave: Educação de surdos. Cadernos Cedes. Matemática. DEAF STUDENTS AND MATHEMATICS LEARNING: statements found in Cadernos CedesAbstract: In this paper, we are interested in examining a group of papers published in Cadernos Cedes numberninety-one (91), which addresses mathematics learning by deaf children and adolescents. For such analytical exercise,grounded on the Foucauldian perspective, we have been supported by the theoretical-methodological tool ofenunciation. We have discussed the empirical material of this investigation by considering the methodology, theoreticalreferences and results produced by the authors in their papers. The analyzed material showed approximations interms of methodology, since the researches were carried out in school settings by means of activities with students,with a focus on children and adolescents. From the analyses, some enunciations related to mathematics learning bydeaf children and adolescents have emerged, such as the following: deaf children lag behind their hearing peers; exposureto sign language improves deaf children’s performance; there are previous educational experiences in informalcontexts; visualization is fundamental in mathematics teaching/learning; there has been an increase in signs inthis area. In this sense, even though the researches were based on different theoretical perspectives, enunciationspositioning deaf children and adolescents as ‘delayed’ in comparison with same-age hearing peers are recurrent,as deaf students do not fit the cultural standard that has been predetermined by School Mathematics in ModernityKeywords: Deaf education. Cadernos Cedes. Mathematics. EL APRENDIZAJE MATEMÁTICO DE SORDOS: enunciados que aparecen en los Cadernos CedesResumen: En este trabajo, estamos interesados en examinar un conjunto de artículos publicados en el númeronoventa y uno (91) de los Cadernos Cedes, que tratan del aprendizaje de matemáticas por niños y adolescentes sordos.Para el ejercicio analítico, en la perspectiva foucaultiana, nos apoyamos en la herramienta teórico metodológicadel enunciado. Para eso, discutimos el material empírico de esta investigación, considerando la metodología,el referencial teórico y los resultados producidos por los autores en sus artículos. El material analizado presentóaproximaciones en relación a la metodología de las investigaciones, ya que el desarrollo de las pesquisas ocurreen ambientes escolares, a través de actividades con alumnos, teniendo como enfoque niños y adolescentes. De losanálisis surgieron enunciados relacionados al aprendizaje matemático por niños y adolescentes sordos, tales como:los niños sordos están retrasados en relación a los oyentes; la exposición a la lengua de señas aumenta el desempeñodel niño sordo; hay un retraso de los estudiantes sordos en matemáticas; existen experiencias educacionalesprevias en contexto informales; la visualidad es fundamental en la enseñanza/aprendizaje de la matemática; hayuna emergencia de creación de señas en esa área. En ese sentido, aunque las pesquisas sean desarrolladas conbase en distintas perspectivas teóricas, son recurrentes los enunciados que posicionan los niños y jóvenes sordoscomo ‘retrasados’ en relación a los oyentes de misma franja etaria; y eso por no hacer parte de un patrón culturalpredeterminado principalmente por la Matemática Escolar de la Modernidad.Palabras clave: Educación de sordos. Cadernos Cedes. Matemáticas.

Designing an Inclusive Culturally Competent Classroom for Immigrant Deaf Students in the United States

2021 ◽  
pp. 180-197
Author(s):  
Millicent Malinda Musyoka ◽  
Sulaiman O. Adeoye
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigrant Students ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Teacher Preparation Programs ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Culturally Competent ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Preparation Programs

The population of the United States (U.S.) is changing rapidly across such categories as race, language, culture, and socioeconomics. This growing diversity extends to people who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (D/HH). The change indicates an increase in the number of immigrant students who are both hearing and D/HH. Today teachers are expected to serve a diverse population of D/HH students, thereby necessitating culturally competent classrooms. However, and in most cases, when educators consider a culturally competent classroom, one cultural group omitted among students, in general, is that of D/HH students and worst D/HH immigrant students. One reason for the neglect of immigrant D/HH students in U.S. classrooms is that most teachers have limited knowledge, skills and resources in designing inclusive culturally competent classrooms that support immigrant D/HH students. This apparent neglect necessitates this chapter. This chapter provides teachers with information and guidelines they will need to create culturally competent and inclusive classrooms with a particular focus on D/HH immigrant students. The chapter begins with brief background information about D/HH immigrant students and a conceptual framework that provides a lens to issues discussed in the chapter. Next, the chapter discusses the process of designing culturally competent classrooms for D/HH immigrant students. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research and implications for practice not only for deaf education teachers but also for mainstream education teachers, deaf education teacher preparation programs, and researchers—among other professionals who interact and work with D/HH immigrant students.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document