Bicultural Program for Deaf People - Essay Example

Bilingual/Bicultural Program A teaching technique that understands the value and significance of hearing and deaf cultures is the bilingual or bicultural approach (BiBi). One of the positives of this approach is that it incorporates both these aspects into education. These types of programs are very similar to ESL programs. Those children who are deaf and skillful in American Sign Language (ASL) are usually better readers of English than deaf children who do not know ASL. This seems quite strange because ASL is quite different structurally from the English language (Goldin-Meadow & Mayberry, 2001). ASL can be used as a method of critical thinking and problem solving. It also allows deaf children to form relationships with “normal”r people and open themselves up to knowledge (Cummins, 2010). ASL is used by BiBis ASL not just as a tool for English and the pursuit of knowledge, but also as a vital method for responding to ideas and issues that matter. The principle for enhancing ASL language skills is no different than developing English language skills for children whose mother tongueirst language is English (Cummins, 2010). McAnally, Rose, and Quigley (2007) believe that if ASL can be taught thoroughly, then English language abilities can be reached without experience to English through speech, or alternatively, through a manually code English sign system. Goldin-Meadow and Mayberry (2001) touch on how important it is to pick up a mother tongue language in the first few years of life. As such, knowledge of ASL does not hinder learning to read written English. On the contrary, ASL could actually assist deaf children in learning how to read English. Goldin-Meadow and Mayberry (2001) highlight just how important it is to learn a language in the early years if deaf children are to going to be able to read English. The first step to help deaf children become readers of English is to make sure than they develop appropriate language skills (it can be any language at all). Deaf children who are learning ASL or any type of sign language from their deaf parents do not need any extra help at this stage because they will pick up language in the same way that normal hearing children learn spoken language. However, deaf children with hearing parents do need interventions in several areas. The early detection of loss of hearing, early entry to education, and continuous contact with fluent speakers of English can help to ensure that profoundly deaf children can learn a language because they have access to it. Mayberry et al. (2002) carried out research that highlights the costs of not developing a strong mother language early in life. For example, Mayberry and Lock (2003) reported that the age of a first language experience can determine the future ability to understand grammatical information. Deaf individuals who were not exposed to their first language until they were six or older displayed low accuracy in English grammatical judgment and understanding compared to deaf and hearing individuals who had learned English as a second language in school after appropriate exposure to a (signed or oral) first language in the home during the first few years of life. Cochlear Implant One of the major debates within the field of deaf education currently concentrates on the effects of cochlear implants on spoken language and academic learning practically in literacy skills. The cochlear implant device was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the 1980s (FDA, 2009) and not only was controversial, but added new thoughts to the continuing debate between spoken and sign language methods (Gale, 2010). Although the numbers of deaf children with these surgically implanted devices grew worldwide (Hyde and Power, 2006), key issues about the device still remain, particularly within the deaf community (Gale, 2010). The device itself and the appropriate modes of communication is in question, especially with members who have a strong preference for American Sign Language (ASL). It is a fact that cochlear implants are not a threat to deaf culture. The major issue revolves around recognizing deafness as a cultural identity. The important subjects that educators in the field of DHH are concerned about are the benefits of cochlear implants as well as how it affects spoken language and academic learning. It is no secret that many students who are DHH also have poor reading skills (Emerson, 2010). According to Luckner and Handley (2008), the average student who suffers from hearing loss graduates from high school with fourth-grade reading skills. Even worse, some of these students finish school with a second grade reading level or lower. Unfortunately, many students with DHH have poor literacy skills. This infringes upon their ability to function effectively in school. Therefore, poor literacy skills play a negative role in acquiring academic skills. Spencer and Tomblin (2009) mentioned that over 30 percent of deaf children graduate from American high schools as if they were illiterate. On the reading skills of deaf children, Wauters, van Bon, and Tellings (2006) responded that the typical reading comprehension scores of deaf children and adolescents were terribly bad. There are many factors that have been identified as playing a role in a deaf child’s difficulties with literacy. One problem is that most deaf children have poor knowledge of spoken language that is represented in written text (Archbold et al., 2008). The rising availability of cochlear implants has given hope for higher levels of literacy for profoundly deaf children (Archbold, Harris, O’Donoghue, Nikolopoulos, White, and Richmond, 2008). Knowing spoken language skills has a say in improved literacy skills for DHH students in the classroom. Students with cochlear implants showed increased literacy ability. Vermeulen, Bon, Schreuder, Knoors, and Snik carried out a 2007 study on reading comprehension; the study contained two groups of 16 children in each group. These two groups were made up of prelingually deaf children with CIs and another group with normal hearing. These findings indicated that children with CIs obtained higher reading comprehension levels than deaf children without CIs, when compared to those with normal hearing. Emerson (2010) touched out a study performed by Moog (2002) that examined 17 children, aged between five and 11, with cochlear implants. All of these students used spoken language as their number one mode of communication; they had also attended a private school that focused on teaching listening and spoken language skills. Moog assessed reading levels. This reading assessment compared the results of deaf students to those who were of hearing ability. Of the 17 students who were assessed between 1997 and 2000, over 70 percent had reading scores within the normal range for their age. Also, Archbold, Harris, O’Donoghue, Nikolopoulos, White, and Richmond (2008) assessed 105 deaf students of ages 11 to 14 years; all of these students were implanted before the age of seven. The reading abilities of these students were assessed in the areas of vocabulary, sequencing, and sentence comprehension. This research showed that children implanted before three and a half years old had a reading age normal for their age. CIs played an important role in improving the academic performance of DHH students. The major debate is still between the pathological and deaf community views. The pathological view sees deafness as an auditory deficiency, a handicap, and a medical problem to be remedied so that a deaf person becomes as normal as possible. The deaf community recognizes deafness as a cultural identity. This community includes non-hearing parents of deaf children and deaf educators and organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf (NAD.) From their point of view, deafness is not a disability that can be fixed but rather is a cultural identity that should be accepted and supported in our society. They fear that cochlear implants are an isolating means. This will eradicate the use of ASL, hold back communication development, and ultimately threaten the rich and supportive deaf cultural traditions (Wolpe, 2005). There is a cultural gap between the pathological and deaf community views. The failure of these two camps to compromise on the issue of CIs is a result of a distinct socio-cultural divide. Hearing and non-hearing parents possess two entirely incompatible views of deafness. This prevents them from understanding each other (Wolpe, 2005). In summary, cochlear implants are seen as an affront to deaf cultural identification and are not welcome. Despite this, CIs are not a threat to deaf culture. The actual debate lies in recognizing deafness as a cultural identity. Read More