Week # 3:

Communication/Education
Approaches
 Agenda
Historical Perspectives on Education of the Deaf

Continuum of Communication Approaches:

Oral Approach

Cued Speech

TC Approach

Bilingual/Bimodal/Bicultural

Synopsis and Reflections

 Historical Background
Deaf education has been heavily influenced by
societal knowledge (or lack thereof), cultural beliefs
and attitudes at any particular time

Throughout history, deaf people have faced a gamut

of perceptions and attitudes, that in turn, influenced
the quality/type of educational opportunities
 Historical Background of Educational
Approaches of the Deaf

During the first century A.D., Greeks and Romans encouraged

infanticide to remove children who were mentally or
physically unable to contribute to a strong citizen state (dont
know how much this was actually carried out).

During this period, the focus on disability precluded

educational attempts.
 Historical Background- contd
FYI: Historical records indicate that deaf people have used
sign language for at least 7, 000 years

FYI: Socrates- in Platos Cratylus (360 BC)- posed a rhetorical

question related to the use of signs, implying that such a form
of communication was used by deaf people in this period of
history
 Historical Background- contd
Oral History Prior to 1700-1800s
Markides (1986) in Beattie Chapter nominated Archigenes
(@100 AD) in Rome as originator of Oral Method
Hoping to cure deafness, he suggested blowing a trumpet
in ones ear
In 1500s, Guido Cruidi recommended that loud noises be used
to re-arouse the sense of hearing
Mercurialis (1500s) concluded that a loud trumpet blast
warmed the acoustic passages and stimulated hearing
 Historical Background- contd
Historical example of a signing deaf community: members of deaf
population of Kent, England immigrated to Plymouth county in
Massachusetts in 1600s, and then settled in Marthas Vineyard
(with intermarriage, led to high rates of deafness and signing was
accepted form of communication)

FYI: Pedro Ponce de Leon (Benedictine monk) frequently cited as

Father of Deaf Education- 1st teacher of the deaf

He established a school for the deaf (almost all students were of

nobility); Marschark et al., indicated that young deaf men of
mobility had to acquire literacy skills if they were to inherit
wealth/power

His work was considered bold as prevailing attitude at the time

were that the deaf were incapable of being educated
 Historical Background- contd
As early as the 1600s, one began to see the conflict
between oral and signing approaches/beliefs

Amman (Dutch physician, 1692) saw voice as the

primary means of communicating human language and
as the expressive aspect of the soul, while Bulwer
(1648) published a study of manual language

One myth that arose in those times, perpetuated even

into modern times, was the belief that abstractions
could not be conveyed through sign language
 Historical Background- contd
During the 1700s, varied views on the abilities of deaf
learners were presented; for example in 1751, Comte de
Buffon examined the potential of deaf youth to learn and
expressed the notion that these children have no ability to
acquire knowledge of abstract ideas

Yet, even earlier, Dalgarno (1680) made a provocative

comment about the use of signs with deaf infants. Might be
successful if parents had as nimble a hand as they had with a
tongue
 Historical Background- contd
Michel Abbe de lEpee (France) saw sign language as a natural
way for deaf people to communicate

IEpee saw language as more than a verbal system of sounds

and orthography

Through signs and written characters he believed it was

possible to teach deaf students to think logically

By late 1760s, lEpee established the worlds first government-

sponsored school for deaf children
 Historical Background- contd
Note that lEpee combined the signs of deaf people
with his own invented system of grammatical
features to resemble spoken French (departing
significantly from the natural language)
 Historical Background- contd
lEpee (and his successor Abbe Roch Sicard)s methods were
criticized by Samuel Heinicke who established a school in
Germany, based on the practice of teaching deaf pupils to
speak

Heinicke was one of the first to try and link speech to higher
mental processes, arguing that articulation and vocal
language were necessary for abstract thought
 Historical Background- contd
Deaf Education in America:

After the turn of the 19th century, momentum in educating

deaf children increased dramatically

In 1812, Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet began teaching Alice

Cogswell- deaf daughter of neighbor Mason Fitch Cogswell
 Historical Background- contd
Cogswell eventually gained enough financial support to send
Gallaudet to Europe to study the methods of deaf educators, such
as lEpee
While in France, Gallaudet convinced Laurent Clerc- an assistant
teacher of Sicard- to accompany him to Hartford, Connecticut;
established Connecticut Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb (now
named the American School for the Deaf) in 1817
Deaf students came from all over the country.
Students brought their own signs from their
communities and combined with the French
signs that Clerc taught, ultimately led to the
standard use of signs now known as ASL
 Historical Background- contd

By 1850, there were 15 residential schools serving deaf

pupils

Two sons of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet became

interested in working with the deaf

Edward Miner Gallaudet became a teacher at the

Hartford school but had dreams of establishing a college
for the deaf
 Historical Background- contd
In 1857, Amos Kendall met with Edward Miner Gallaudet and
encouraged him to accept the position of superintendent of a school
for deaf and blind children Kendall had established in DC.

That year, congress authorized

the Columbia Institution for
the Deaf, Dumb and Blind to
be able to grant college
degrees.

Consequently added a college

division.

In 1864, this institution was

renamed Gallaudet College.
 Historical Background- contd
The German oralist movement spread throughout Europe as well. In
the United States, after touring Europe, Horace Mann and Samuel
Gridley Howe began to promote the educational benefits of oralism.
By 1880, there were a dozen oral schools for the deaf.

The second half of the 19th century saw a bitter debate among oralists,
manualists, and combinists- especially between Edward Miner
Gallaudet and Alexander Graham Bell.

E.M. Gallaudet A.G. Bell

 Historical Background- contd
Bell was prominent in the Eugenics movement- intended to keep
the human race healthy by reducing hereditary deficiencies- which
may have influenced his thinking somewhat on the use of sign
language.

Gallaudet fought to have the combined system of spoken and sign

language communication in schools and preserve sign language

Bell disagreed and formed a group (now known as the AG Bell

Association for the Deaf) to advocate teaching speech to deaf
children and against the use of sign language

Bell felt that signing was not a language but a vernacular that made
it difficult for the deaf to participate in the larger society
 Historical Background- contd
Prior to the 2nd International Congress of Milan, there were individuals
who promoted combined methods- sign language as well as spoken-
language teaching, but these efforts lost out to oral education subsequent
to the Congress of Milan (only one deaf educator of 164 participants at
conference)

The conference declared oral education superior to manual education

and passed a resolution banning the use of sign language in school

Since its passage in 1880, schools in European countries and the United
States switched over time to using speech therapy without sign language
as a method of education for the deaf

It took until the 1960s before sign language education would again occur
as a significant entity in deaf education (see upcoming slides)
 Historical Background- contd
First half of 20th century saw tendency to place hard of
hearing/deaf children in special (self-contained) classes in
schools serving hearing children

Decades following WWII saw the continued oral-manual

debate. New issues arose including: Cultural versus Clinical
perspectives on educating deaf children

Cultural perspective boosted by recognition of ASL as a true

language, while clinical perspective boosted notably by
technological advances (introduction of wearable hearing aids,
and subsequently by cochlear implants)
 Historical Background- contd
The 1960s and 1970s saw the introduction of various educational
approaches and curricular methods.

Among the important discoveries were:

Determination of the importance of effective communication
between parents and their deaf child
Importance of early intervention and subsequent acquisition
of language in the critical period of development
 Mainstreaming

Social movement toward inclusion of disabled students led to

legislative acts that have significantly affected the lives of deaf
students

In particular, Public Law 94-142, the Education of All

Handicapped Children Act (1975) guaranteed free,
appropriate public education for all children with disabilities
 Mainstreaming- contd
PL 94-142 law has affected philosophical underpinnings of
deaf education

One key tenet is the concept of least restrictive environment

(LRE) that is appropriate to individual student's needs

LRE means a student with a disability should have an

opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers, to the
greatest extent appropriate
Student should be provided with the supplementary aids
and services necessary to achieve educational goals if placed
in a setting with non-disabled peers
 Mainstreaming- contd
Note that with inclusive movement and CI, enrollment is
decreasing significantly in deaf schools,

Enrollment now at these two universities has generally

been decreasing (though a bump last year at Gallaudet;
Any idea why?)
 1 Minute Questions
What does the Oral Method Imply to You?

What does Total Communication imply to you?

Is Cued Speech an Oral method?

What is encompassed by the Bilingual/Bicultural

Approach?
 Oral Methods
Beattie (in Spencer & Marschark) identified more than 20
names for different oral approaches. Some use Oral (speech),
Aural (hearing), Auditory, etc. in their names

The same name can mean different things to different people

For example, auditory training can be a component of one

method or for someone else can describe a whole method

What needs to be noted is that there is no one single oral

method but groups of methods, which emphasize different
aspects
 Oral Approach
Oral approach basically means without support of a visual
manual language or artificially developed communication
system

Note some authors consider Cued Speech as an oral

approach, while others consider it as an artificially developed
communication system

Oral approach focuses on training/using residual hearing, the

development of oral speech/language being the main goal
 Oral Approach- contd
The 1960s and 1970s saw numerous publications on various
oral approaches- such as Helen Beebe (1953), Doreen Pollack
(1970) and Daniel Ling (1976)
 Oral Approach- contd
Since the 1980s, continued technological advances have been a
driving force behind the oral approach, including:
Continued advanced in hearing aid technology
(miniaturization, twin mics, feedback managers, enhanced
power and frequency ranges)
Superior earmold design
Binaural fittings
Wireless FM systems
Perhaps, most importantly, for profoundly deaf children-
cochlear implants
 Oral Approach:
Underlying Philosophy
Underlying all oral methods is the simple reality that hearing
loss disturbs the learning of speech, language, and
communication. In addition, following statements support
oral approach:

Fragmented nature of speechreading, by itself, does not

allow for full reception of the speech signal

Children with normal hearing have a sophisticated spoken

language base for learning to read, while deaf children
have an impoverished spoken language, and therefore are
deficient in this regard
 Underlying Philosophy- contd
Gatty (Beatties chapter in Spencer and Marschark) indicated the
following reasons as to why use an oral approach:

Natural language of our culture (more specifically that of the

great majority of parents)

If can use spoken language effectively, more likely that child

will be able to participate in classes with hearing children

Possibly more social, education, and work opportunities

available, leading to a more fulfilling and independent lifestyle
 Underlying Philosophy- contd
The other important aspect is the philosophy of normalization.

The AG Bell Associations philosophy supports the basic human

right that children of all degrees of hearing loss deserve the
opportunity to listen and use verbal communication in their own
family and community.
 Oral Methods- contd
If one uses a linear continuum:

Oral
Approaches

Auditory- Auditory- Maternal

Verbal Oral Reflection

Auditory-Verbal approach is highly auditory

Auditory-Oral is in the middle
Maternal Reflection Method has a significant
visual component
 Auditory-Verbal Therapy
A-V approach focuses exclusively upon listening during training
and restricts use of lipreading during therapy sessions,
particularly in the early stages of listening and language
development.
 Auditory-Verbal Therapy- contd
A-V proponents emphasize parents as the primary
determinant in the success of the AV approach

That is, parents create the listening environments and

promote listening in the childs natural environments. Thus,
clinicians model the strategies and parents conduct situations
at home

As stated earlier, speechreading is restricted during the

training mode to emphasize learning through audition, but
allows for it to naturally occur outside of training
 Auditory-Verbal Therapy
Other defining characteristics include:
Early input as soon as possible after diagnosis
Best binaural fitting amplification, if possible, that are
maintained well
Strong parental involvement and normalization of
communication involvement
Integration of child into the family and community

Interestingly, Beattie wrote that A-V is a center-based approach

(attending the clinic). Note Early Intervention is usually done in
naturalistic environments). If parents want A-V approach, done
outside of EI (pay out of pocket).
 Auditory-Oral Approach
A-O approach has many of same basic tenets as A-V approach
but differs in degree on emphasis
Thus, there still is emphasis on the primacy of auditory input,
early intervention, parental involvement, etc.

Differences include:
Degree in which audition/vision is emphasized in training
(In A-O, speechreading- while not emphasized but is allowed to
occur naturally)
Variety and location of training (allows for self-contained
classes, reverse mainstream, school for deaf, resource rooms)
Maternal Reflection (MR) Method
Primarily a European method (Holland, UK)

Similar to other Oral approaches in terms of emphasizing spoken

language and auditory prominence, however, there is a belief that
learning occurs through a conversational approach, rather than
through drills and repetitions

Distinct aspect of MR is the use of text/written form to support

development of spoken language (written text introduced at
@ age six)
 Maternal Reflection- contd
Maternal element based on the notion that parents naturally
use a different register (e.g., Motherese) when speaking to
their children

Reflection refers to encouraging the student to reflect on the

various language features such as the grammar and style that
might have been used; this reflection is done by parents
writing down all of the conversation and the student is
required to analyze the text
 Cued Speech (CS)
CS was developed by Orin Cornett in 1966 and has been
adapted to more than 40 languages

CS was developed by Cornett as he recognized that for

profoundly deaf children (at least at the time he developed
this system), lipreading was their primary receptive mode

Although lipreading provides some information about some

phonological contrasts (i.e., primarily consonant place and
somewhat for vowel height/place), provides little or no
information concerning nasality and voicing
 Cued Speech (CS)
Through lipreading, deaf children have access only to
phonetically underspecified representations with
respect to spoken language

Even children with CI receive a degraded speech

signal; CS advocates feel CS help this population as
well

What is Cued Speech?

 Cued Speech (CS)- contd
CS is neither a sign language nor a manually coded system
It is a mode of communication for visually conveying
traditionally spoken languages at the phonemic/syllabic level
In CS, the speaker complements lip gestures of speech with
manual cues
A cue is made of two parameters: (a) hand shape; and
(b) hand location at mouth

The American English form of CS uses:

eight hand shapes corresponding to groups of consonants
four locations to convey vowels and dipthongs
two movements (for conveying dipthongs)
 Cued Speech (CS)- contd
The hand shapes and hand locations used in CS, unlike
fingerspelling, are not interpretable by themselves as
language. That is, the visual information provided
through lipreading is also necessary.

The integration of the mouth components as well as

manual cues point to a single, unambiguous,
phonological percept.
 Cued Speech (CS)- contd
Different groups of consonant phonemes that are distinguishable by
lipreading are coded by the same hand shape (e.g., /p/, /d/, /zh/).

Conversely, phonemes that have similar lip shape (consonants) are coded
with different hand shapes (e.g., /p/, /b/, /m/) or hand location (/i/, /e/)-
vowels.

Thus, the information given by the cues and through lipreading is

complementary.

Note that the information is presented phonologically, thus, indicates the

speech sounds as produced. Example, wanted, and packed, same /ed/
orthographic endings but different phonemic (cued) representations
 Cued Speech (CS)- contd
It is worth noting that the decisions to code the vowels by mouth
location and consonants by hand shape is ecologically valid.

That is, vowels are longer in duration- corresponding to the longer

time needed to transition the hands to a different location, while
consonants are shorter and can be addressed quickly by changes in
hand shape (consonants occurring frequently, assigned handshapes
easier to form).

The possibility to transmit information about a consonant and vowel in

one single gesture allows for a rapid rate of information transmission

In LaSasso chapter, indicated that cueing does slow down speech

production @ 30%, 6 to 4 syllables
 Cued Speech (CS)- contd
Large improvement of deaf childrens speech reception skills has
been demonstrated when cues are added to lipreading.

Nicholls and Ling (1982) found that speech reception scores of

profoundly deaf children taught CS for at least 3 years increased
from about 30% for both syllables and words in LR alone to more
than 80% in combined LR + cued conditions.

Perier et al. (1988) showed that the advantage on sentence

comprehension provided by CS was greater in children whose
parents intensively used CS with them at home since an early
age, than those children who learned CS later on.
 Cued Speech (CS)- contd
Automatic Generation of Cued Speech
There have been attempts to develop systems that could
automatically generate CS

The Autocuer was developed in the late 1970s by Cornett.

The goal was to use computer processing to determine the

specific phonemes produced and then assign them to cues,
which were then coded as patterns of illuminated segments
onto the receivers eyeglasses.
Problems were accuracy; in addition, cues were always
delayed relative to the start times of the corresponding
phonemes (with technology now, could it work now?)
 Total Communication (TC)
The practice of using multiple modalities to communicate with the
deaf occurred as early as the 1600s, whereby fingerspelling was
developed as a manual alphabet and included as part of an
educational method.

In this method, Bonet did oral articulation training based on both

written/fingerspelled information.

In the 1800s, a combination of signing, fingerspelling, speech and

LR was used at Gallaudet.

Research in the 1960s and 1970s led to acknowledgement of

legitimacy of ASL/BSL as actual, naturally occurring languages
(Stokoe, 1960).
 Total Communication (TC)- contd
Studies in 1960s and 1970s showed that even though many
success stories relative to oral deaf students, even more
students had done poorly in terms of reading/academics

Overall reading levels from profoundly deaf students in oral

programs was 4th grade level, while speech intelligibility of
deaf children was below 20%.
 Total Communication (TC)- contd
Dissatisfaction with language/speech development and
academics led to a movement to incorporate sign language
again into the educational curriculum

To facilitate this, some individuals developed sign systems for

use with spoken language whereby signs would be in English
order and congruent with English morphology
Total Communication (TC) Philosophy
By the early 1970s, the TC philosophy had been established (Ray
Holcomb, Deaf Administrator).

The most important thing to note about TC is that it is a philosophy

and is not a communication method. There is much misunderstanding
of the term. Confusion occurs when people use the term as an
approach method.

That is, TC is often confused with Simultaneous Communication, which

refers to the simultaneous use of multiple modalities- such as speech
and signing at the same time.
 TC Philosophy- contd
TC philosophy consists of use of one or multiple modalities that is
fluid, individualized and context/situation dependent

Goal to meet a child/adults specific communication needs at a

specific point in time

Could be use of Signing Exact English in some situations (such as

literacy assignment) or ASL in other situations (e.g., physics class),
or just speech alone

Could be starting child with SimCom and as child ages, using signing
in less situations (more of a support) or increasing ASL usage if the
child is struggling with SimCom/Oral communication.

What is possible issue if commence with SimCom from infancy?

 Manual Communication Systems
Within TC
There are three main categories/systems:

ASL

Manually Coded English (Signing Exact English, Signing Essential

English)

Pidgin Signed English (PSE)

 Manual Communication Systems-
contd

MCE are contrived systems to represent English visually

Signs effectively represent English word order and

incorporate grammatical morphemes.

A goal of MCE was to increase literacy based on the idea

that if the deaf student can develop proficiency in
English, it will provide an advantage when they learn to
read
 MCE
Some arguments against MCE:
Some feel if ASL not taught early on, its language mastery
does not take place and child may not be assured of
participation in Deaf cultural group

MCE superimposes a temporal constraint that does not

exploit spatial/non-manual markers of ASL

Much research/observations show most MCE signers not

proficient enough to sign/speak anywhere close to 100% (can
drop down to 40-50%)
 Pidgin Signed English
Now referred to as contact signing; per its use when Hearing
meet/contact Deaf individuals

PSE not a formal system; rather allows for combination of English

order and ASL attribute

Grammatical morphological markers and articles tend to be

dropped

One can swing more to the ASL or to the English structure, as a

situation dictates

PSE not used with young children as hinders development of a

complete linguistic system (thus, better used once ASL or English
has been developed)
 TC: Final Statements
TC not always implemented as intended in school setting , For
example:
May not be enough sign/cue interpreters in school setting
Mainstream teachers may not have the necessary training to
work with deaf students
Teachers may not match the needs of the students in the
classroom

There could be mismatch between sign systems being used, year

after year, depending on the signing skills/philosophy of the teacher

Could be mismatches in linguistic level of children in classes that

have been grouped (due to the smaller # of total students)
 TC: Research Challenges
When examining children taught with TC with other methods
Signing systems are not standardized

Since TC is flexible, no way of knowing the type/quality of

communicative systems used in various settings

No consistency regarding amount of speech and auditory training

received in these settings

Compared to those taught via Oral and CS approaches, those in TC

settings are a very heterogeneous group.

Critical to be aware of specific attributes of TC students in studies

as saying subjects attend TC school not specify very much
 Bilingual (Bi-Modal)/Bi-Cultural
In the late 1980s, # of deaf education programs began to
examine/question the failure of deaf education, as exemplified
by:
o low levels of achievement in reading (@ grade four level)
and math
o low employment and earning rates

Issues of particular concern to Deaf community; that is, not

hearing loss itself rationalizes the low level of achievement, but
rather the acquisition of effective language use

Deaf community felt efforts to address academic success of deaf

children were primarily from hearing individuals outside the
Deaf community (e.g., educators, doctors, and legislators).
 Bilingual/Bi-Cultural Movement in
Deaf Education

Since 1990, been a growing shift toward ASL/English bilingual

approach to education of the deaf (e.g., Lexington School for
the Deaf- long a bastion for oralism- adopted this approach)

Although not specifically stated, this is what appears to

presently be the approach advocated/used at Gallaudet
University

Note that because language and cultural identity are so

closely intertwined, educational approaches also reflect
social/political concerns
 Bilingual/Bi-Cultural Education
Under bilingual/bicultural approach, teachers in schools serving
deaf and hard of hearing are expected to use ASL as language of
instruction
o Teach English through writing and reading, rather than
requiring students to learn to speak or use Signed English

Purpose of approach is to provide deaf students with a complete

access to a natural language so that normal acquisition of a first
language is possible
That is, it should occur within the first five years of life
(i.e., critical period); in addition, addresses cultural and identity
needs of deaf learners (other than cultural aspects, cued speech
accomplishes the same)
Bilingual/Bi-Cultural Education- contd

When student has successfully acquired natural

language, then cognitively ready to benefit from
written English instruction
 Bilingual/Bi-Cultural Education
Assumptions of this approach:

Having achieved ASL mastery, at around 5-6, instruction

would center around relating fingerspelling to the alphabet
and relating basic ASL signs to the printed word

Movement toward increased use of English would be based

on individual acquisition rates. Much conceptual material
would still be presented in ASL but English would be
reinforced by integrating writing and reading

The criterion of the success of this recommended approach

would be the level of achievement on standardized tests of
written (English) proficiency
 Bilingual-Bicultural Approach:
Questions
Questions raised by Drasgo (1993) included:

Should one teach ASL first (having adequate deaf role

models), then teach English via the written mode after ASL
mastery achieved (i.e., at age 5-6)

Teach ASL and Spoken English simultaneously from infancy on

(switching back and forth from)?

In school, does one teach ASL for certain content courses and
English in other courses ?
 ASL/English, Bimodal, Bicultural
Approach- contd
Nussbaum & Scott (2102) cited research that indicated brain has
capacity to acquire both a visual and a spoken language without
detriment to the development of either
There is no documented evidence that ASL inhibits the
development of spoken English, if latter also a focus from birth-
alternating between both
Been shown bilinguals actually have greater mental flexibility,
greater central executive functioning, etc. (per simultaneous, not
sequential bilinguals)
With enhanced access to learning through audition via hearing aid
technology and cochlear implants, increasing # of programs have
moved towards including the bimodal aspect
 Research Issues

As Nussbaum & Scott indicated in their article, research needs to

formally document student outcomes from any approaches to
derived from other approaches.

Note a major problem with any of the research comparing any of

the approaches is that there are many intrinsic/extrinsic factors
that may have nothing to do with ones success based on the
communication approach. These include:
 Research Issues Needing to be
Considered
Age of onset
Degree of hearing loss
Technology used (if and when start, and what type)
Age that intervention is commenced
age when ASL introduced, if visual language incorporated
signing skill levels of parents, teachers, etc.
Parental socio-economic status
Childs cognitive status
Any secondary issues present
Parental motivation
Parental/sibling primary language
Consistent with the approach developed at Boys
Town, I feel that we need to shift the focus from
methodology dependent to child-focused.
 Motherese Videos
Example of Motherese

Example of Parentese
 My Reflections/Questions
When one reads of deaf children being taught by various
methods during the 1700 and 1800s, how much hearing loss
did they in fact have?
Possible many of these children had a 70 dB loss and

would function as deaf but get close/loud enough, could

train them to attain certain speech levels

Regardless of method, early intervention and parental

involvement is critical and can make a huge difference

When thinking of approaches (and presentation/debate), is

one method easier than any other in terms of parental
involvement/commitment?
 Reflections- contd
The following slides is from a Power Point
Presentation by Mary Pat Moeller who is at Boys
Town National Research Hospital.

The following is a link to her power point

presentation:
http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-
policy/aap-health-
initiatives/PEHDIC/Documents/Communication_
Options.pdf
For Your Information
 FYI- Tidbits
As of 2000:
reading scores of deaf individuals were still at grade 4 level
for children with > 85 dB hearing loss, only 2.4% achieved
reading level commensurate to age

In some ways, teaching language effectively has been

complicated by the inclusion movement.

In most public schools, teachers lack adequate training in areas

such as reading, cognition, and knowledge of techniques that
may be most effective with deaf children.
 Oral Approach: History
Whereas in the past, the deaf were considered multiply disabled
(hearing/speech as well as cognitively), oralism focused on showing
the separation of deafness from mutism as distinct concepts.

Markides (1986) nominated Archigenes (physician/scientist) living

in Rome @ 100 AD as originator of the oral method. Archigines
who hoped to cure deafness, suggested blowing trumpet in the
patients ear.

By the early 1800s, the tenets of modern oralism were being laid
down. Itard stated that regular exposure to loud sounds could
improve speech perception in deaf children. He had success in
teaching his charges to perceive different vowel sounds after
training.
 Oral Approach- History contd

Toynbee in 1888 wrote that so-called deaf mutes can be enabled

to hear their own voices and even to modulate them.

Victor Urbantschitsch (Germany) in the late 19th century showed

that profoundly deaf children (i.e., totally deaf) could be
differentiated from those with some residual hearing, which led
scientists such as AG Bell to determine that only a small % were
stone deaf.
 Oral Approach- History contd
In the 1930s and especially after WWII, there were # of events
that led to a significant impetus to the Oral Educational
methods:
Electronic hearing aids as well as group hearing aids for use in
the classroom setting

Significant interest in theories of cognition (such as language

and thought)

Research methods examining issues related to development

issues in the deaf
 Total Communication (TC)
The 1960s saw an increase in research on the study of language
acquisition in hearing children. This resulted in an increased
awareness of the need to expose children to full and complete
languages in the formative years.

Lenneberg (1967) stated his concern that deaf children began to learn
language after the most important formative period for language
development is already on the decline. Recall that the average age of
detection of hearing loss then was @ 2 years of age.
 TC-contd
TC allows for the combination of choices, not needing a commitment
of one over another. Yet, the flexibility of TC is often criticized as one
of its limitations.

For example, some feel (especially oral advocates) that the need to
process two different modalities will exceed a childs attentional
capacity.

Knauf (1978) argued that if one channel is not optimal (in this case, the
auditory channel), then the more dominant channel will prohibit the
use of the weaker channel. Because signs are more salient than the
speech signal, the child will not learn to optimize use of the auditory
system, and focus instead on the more dominant- visual- channel.
 Bilingual/Bi-Cultural
Simms and Thumann (2007) wrote an article whereby they
likely reflected many of the views of the Deaf community

They expressed opinions that traditional view to deaf

education reflected pathological perspective of deaf
individuals- something that needed to be fixed

They felt history of deaf education reflected Audism (placing

a higher value on hearing and oral/aural education).

That is, Audism affected teacher preparation and teacher

practices, including:
 Bilingual/Bi-Cultural
Low academic expectations
Emphasizing English over ASL in instruction
Tolerating poor ASL skills
Sustaining a field dominated by hearing researchers,
administrators, and teachers

These authors felt that the above led to the common belief that
using ASL in the classroom prevents deaf students from learning
English as their primary language and from integrating into the
hearing community.
 ASL/English, Bimodal, Bicultural
Approach
During the past few years, Kendal Demonstration Elementary School
(KDES) reviewed factors that positively impacted language
development for deaf and H/H children.

Based on the research which details the advantages of early accessible

visual language, KDES examined how an ASL/English bilingual program
could be designed to benefit children with a wide range of
characteristics (from children who have minimal access to spoken
language through hearing aids/CI to those who benefit greatly from
these technologies.

KDES consequently adopted an ASL/English bimodal bilingual

approach, which includes establishment of language foundations and
access to learning through two modalities (auditory/visual, and two
languages)
 ASL/English, Bimodal, Bicultural
Approach- contd
Critical Components of KDES program
School wide planning (including teachers, staff & families)-
philosophy and guiding principles surrounding the development
and use of ASL & spoken/written English
Individualized planning- development and communication plan for
each child, based on the childs profile and his/her functioning in
both ASL and spoken English; the plan is tailored to reflect the
needs of the child in various settings and as to how it may vary over
time
Teacher implementation planning (with input from other
professionals and parents)- reflect language use for each activity
throughout the day- be it certain activities in ASL and others in
English, some activities switching from ASL to English and vice-versa