THE TRAINING OF TEACHERS OF THE DEAF.

The Lancet ◽  
1890 ◽  
Vol 135 (3472) ◽  
pp. 612
Keyword(s):  
Teachers Of The Deaf

The Classroom Communication of Experienced and Inexperienced Teachers of the Deaf

1987 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
R.D. Savage ◽  
J.F. Savage ◽  
J. Potter
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Classroom Teaching ◽  
Classroom Communication ◽  
Teaching Situation ◽  
Total Communication ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf ◽  
Communication Methods ◽  
Linguistic Content

ABSTRACTThe aim of the present study is to investigate classroom communication by teachers of the deaf. A comparison will be made of the linguistic content of the communication of experienced and inexperienced teachers using total communication methods in a classroom teaching situation. The implications of the teachers' classroom communication methods for children's language development will be discussed.

scholarly journals Analysis of Speech-Sign Semantic Equivalence in Simultaneous Communication in Kenya

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 195
Author(s):  
Adoyo Peter Oracha
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Classroom Communication ◽  
Semantic Equivalence ◽  
Profound Deafness ◽  
Total Communication ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Oral Approach

<p><em>Effective communication between teacher and pupil is a requisite factor for educational attainment. For the deaf, ineffective communication is a major problem especially when onset of profound deafness takes places at an early age before language is acquired. At school, the language of classroom communication not only affects the child’s development but also influences ability to learn other curriculum contents. Pointing out reasons for failure by deaf children to compete favorably with their hearing peers, Johnson et al (1989) has indicated that the central problem on deaf education is embedded in the lack of an appropriate language of classroom communication. </em></p><p><em>For a long time education for the deaf was conducted through the oral approach. It was later realized that this oral approach did not avail curriculum content to the deaf learners. In the 1980’s Total Communication arose as one of the solutions. According to Adoyo (2004), Total Communication was misunderstood for Simultaneous Communication, a communication system in which speech and sign are produced at the same time (Lane, Hoffmister &amp; Bahan, 1996).  Although SC has been used in Kenya for all these years, it has not produced the predicated large-scale improvement. </em></p><p><em>In this study, an attempt was made to establish the capacity of SC to enhance understanding and to facilitate information processing. The investigation was carried out through an examination of the extent to which the spoken and signed messages were equivalent in meaning. The research question was: To what extent do teachers of the deaf maintain one-one, sign to-voice ratio during Simultaneous Communication transmission and to what degree is the spoken and signed message equivalent semantically?</em></p>

A Model Program for Training Teachers of the Deaf

1987 ◽  
Vol 132 (5b) ◽  
pp. 366-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Tane Akamatsu ◽  
David A. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Model Program ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf

Phonological Awareness Assessment and Intervention Practices for Children Who Are D/deaf or Hard of Hearing

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
Jane E. Puhlman ◽  
Carla L. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Early Literacy ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Phonological Processing ◽  
Literacy Instruction ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Importance Rating ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
General Consensus ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf

There is not general consensus on best practice for assessment and intervention of phonological awareness (PA) for children who are D/deaf or hard of hearing (D/dhh). The current study surveyed the PA practices of teachers of the deaf and speech-language pathologists to explore perceptions of PA importance, familiarity, and helpfulness related to assessment and intervention approaches used when working with children who are D/dhh. Survey responses from speech-language pathologists ( n = 80) and teachers of the deaf ( n = 94) indicated that the majority of respondents perceive PA to be important to literacy instruction with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Notably there was a significantly higher average PA importance rating for literacy instruction with children with typical hearing than the PA importance rating for children who were D/dhh. There was wide variability in reported PA assessment and intervention practices. Participants reported using some assessments that included explicit items or subtests for PA including the following: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. There was not general consensus on a particular instructional method or approach to support literacy development.

A National Survey of Teachers of the Deaf on Disciplinary Writing

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Hannah M. Dostal ◽  
Kimberly Wolbers ◽  
Shana Ward ◽  
Rachel Saulsburry
Keyword(s):  
National Survey ◽  
Disciplinary Writing ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf

Professionals’ Guidance About Spoken Language Multilingualism and Spoken Language Choice for Children With Hearing Loss

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Crowe ◽  
Sharynne McLeod
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Language Choice ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Models ◽  
The Family ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf ◽  
Family Language ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

The purpose of this research was to investigate factors that influence professionals’ guidance of parents of children with hearing loss regarding spoken language multilingualism and spoken language choice. Sixteen professionals who provide services to children and young people with hearing loss completed an online survey, rating the importance of a range of potential influences on the guidance they provide to parents. These participants were invited to comment on the importance of these influences. Participants included teachers of the deaf, speech-language pathologists, special education teachers, psychologists, auditory-verbal therapists, Auslan interpreters, and curriculum coordinators. All participants had experience working with multilingual families and reported that they would sometimes or always recommend multilingualism for children with hearing loss, with fewer reporting that they would sometimes recommend monolingualism. Professionals placed greater importance on factors relating to family and community considerations (e.g., family language models, communication within the family, community engagement), and less importance on organisational policy and children's characteristics. This research provides an initial insight into the factors that professionals consider when guiding parents around spoken language and spoken language multilingualism decision-making for their children with hearing loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document