Educational Programs and Philosophies

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
Deaf Children ◽  
Educational Setting ◽  
Access To Education ◽  
Social Growth ◽  
Educational Alternatives ◽  
Communication Instruction ◽  
Parental Counseling ◽  
Access Information ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
State Regional

In this chapter we explore the continuum of educational alternatives available for deaf children and emphasize the need to consider a variety of factors in determining the best placement for a particular child. Although we focus on schooling, it is important to keep in mind that learning has strong social roots in interactions with adults and peers. The ability to profit from both formal and informal instruction at school requires that children have skills in areas such as attention, problem solving, turn taking, and memorizing and have a positive attitude toward learning. Children must also have a firm foundation in language to access information in the classroom and learn from it. Although a variety of nonverbal, social interaction strategies are available and useful for young deaf (and hearing) children when they enter school, it is through language that the give and take of education really occurs. Parents often find the information available to them in making the school decision both confusing and contradictory. As we described in chapter 2, federal legislation has sought to make access to education easier for deaf children and their families, but the laws often are misinterpreted or overinterpreted by state, regional, and local authorities, making the results less than helpful for parents. Further, there is much disagreement about whether there is one educational setting or format that is best for deaf children, with the issue of residential (i.e., separate) schools versus mainstreaming being the most heated. The school debate is now decades old, and yet the matter is not yet resolved; there is no evidence to indicate that one educational setting is uniformly better than another. Meanwhile, on one issue there appears to be almost unanimous agreement: the importance of early intervention programs for deaf children. Such programs provide communication instruction, parental counseling, and enriching social and cognitive experiences for deaf children. Yet, even with regard to preschool programs, there are some complex decisions to be made because different programs may influence language, cognitive, and social growth in a variety of ways.

scholarly journals Pakistan Distance-Learning Topic Brief: Primary-level Deaf Children

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lynch ◽  
Tom Kaye ◽  
Emmanouela Terlektsi
Keyword(s):  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Learning Approaches ◽  
Access To Education ◽  
National Education ◽  
Teaching And Learning Strategies ◽  
Access Information ◽  
Global Uncertainty

The COVID-19 crisis has severely impacted the ability of national education actors to provide access to education services for all students.This brief provides guidance and recommendations on how to support the education of deaf children in Pakistan using alternative learning approaches. It presents the rationale for adopting certain teaching and learning strategies when supporting the learning and well-being of deaf children during global uncertainty. Children with deafness and hearing loss are particularly vulnerable now that schools are closed. They are isolated at home and unable to access information as easily as when they were attending school. This brief presents some of the practices that are reportedly working well for deaf children in different contexts.

Psychosocial Development of Hard-of-Hearing Preschool Children

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Jakhelln Laugen
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Psychosocial Development ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Child Research ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Hearing Children

In some respects, hard-of-hearing children experience the same difficulties as deaf children, whereas other challenges might be easier or more difficult to handle for the hard-of-hearing child than it would be for the deaf child. Research has revealed great variability in the language, academic, and psychosocial outcomes of hard-of-hearing children. Universal newborn hearing screening enables early identification and intervention for this group, which traditionally has been diagnosed rather late; however, best practices regarding the scope and content of early intervention have not yet been sufficiently described for hard-of-hearing children. This chapter summarizes the current knowledge concerning psychosocial development in hard-of-hearing children. Risk and protective factors, and their implications for early intervention, are discussed with a special emphasis on preschoolers.

scholarly journals Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results

2002 ◽  
Vol 111 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 113-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda Cleary ◽  
David B. Pisoni
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Sentence Condition ◽  
Language Outcome ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Proportion Correct ◽  
Linguistic Content

Forty-four school-age children who had used a multichannel cochlear implant (CI) for at least 4 years were tested to assess their ability to discriminate differences between recorded pairs of female voices uttering sentences. Children were asked to respond “same voice” or “different voice” on each trial. Two conditions were examined. In one condition, the linguistic content of the sentence was always held constant and only the talker's voice varied from trial to trial. In another condition, the linguistic content of the utterance also varied so that to correctly respond “same voice,” the child needed to recognize that Two different sentences were spoken by the same talker. Data from normal-hearing children were used to establish that these tasks were well within the capabilities of children without hearing impairment. For the children with CIs, in the “fixed sentence condition” the mean proportion correct was 68%, which, although significantly different from the 50% score expected by chance, suggests that the children with CIs found this discrimination task rather difficult. In the “varied sentence condition,” however, the mean proportion correct was only 57%, indicating that the children were essentially unable to recognize an unfamiliar talker's voice when the linguistic content of the paired sentences differed. Correlations with other speech and language outcome measures are also reported.

scholarly journals Well-being, Opportunity, and Selecting for Disability

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Alternative Analysis ◽  
Opportunity Sets ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper I look at the much-discussed case of disabled parents seeking to conceive (or “selecting for”) disabled children.  I argue that the permissibility of selecting for disability does not depend on the precise impact the disability will have on the child’s wellbeing.  I then turn to an alternative analysis, which argues that the permissibility of selecting for disability depends on the impact that disability will have on the child’s future opportunities.  Nearly all bioethicists who have approached the issue in this way have argued that disabilities like deafness unacceptably constrain a child’s opportunities.  I argue, however, that this conclusion is premature for several reasons.  Most importantly, we don’t have a good way of comparing opportunity sets.  Thus, we can’t conclude that deaf children will grow up to have a constrained set of opportunities relative to hearing children.  I conclude by suggesting that bioethicists and philosophers of disability need to spend more time thinking carefully about the relationship between disability and opportunity.  

The Development of Referential Communication in Deaf and Hearing Children: Competence and Style

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus Alegria
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Referential Communication ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Cognitive Problem ◽  
Communication Situation ◽  
Hearing Children

The paper examines the development of communicative competence in deaf children and its interactions with the use of gestures and/or words to comunicate. Deaf children, in addition to the cognitive problem involved in communication, must also choose a particular channel to produce the verbal and/or gestural message. In the first experiment the experimenter designated one out of four drawings to the "transmitter", who had to produce a message for the "receiver" to enable him to identify the drawing. The data show that (1) the use of gestures to communicate increases with age while the speech used remains constant, and (2) the amount of gestures used is correlated with communicative accuracy. A possible explanation of these data is that the increased use of gestures has a cognitive base: i.e., that it comes from a better understanding of the communication situation. Experiment 2 is aimed to test this hypothesis. The main results show that individual differences in communicative competence are correlated with the use of gestures but not with the use of speech, and that children increased the number of gestures, but not the number of words, when communication difficulty increased.

scholarly journals Speechreading Development in Deaf and Hearing Children: Introducing the Test of Child Speechreading

2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 416-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona E. Kyle ◽  
Ruth Campbell ◽  
Tara Mohammed ◽  
Mike Coleman ◽  
Mairéad MacSweeney
Keyword(s):  
Short Stories ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Linguistic Complexity ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Reliable Assessment ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Hearing Children

Purpose In this article, the authors describe the development of a new instrument, the Test of Child Speechreading (ToCS), which was specifically designed for use with deaf and hearing children. Speechreading is a skill that is required for deaf children to access the language of the hearing community. ToCS is a deaf-friendly, computer-based test that measures child speechreading (silent lipreading) at 3 psycholinguistic levels: (a) Words, (b) Sentences, and (c) Short Stories. The aims of the study were to standardize the ToCS with deaf and hearing children and to investigate the effects of hearing status, age, and linguistic complexity on speechreading ability. Method Eighty-six severely and profoundly deaf children and 91 hearing children participated. All children were between the ages of 5 and 14 years. The deaf children were from a range of language and communication backgrounds, and their preferred mode of communication varied. Results Speechreading skills significantly improved with age for both groups of children. There was no effect of hearing status on speechreading ability, and children from both groups showed similar performance across all subtests of the ToCS. Conclusion The ToCS is a valid and reliable assessment of speechreading ability in school-age children that can be used to measure individual differences in performance in speechreading ability.

Comparative Study of Tachistoscopic Perception of Binary Figures in Deaf Children and Normally Hearing Children

1971 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evans Mandes ◽  
Patricia Randle Allen ◽  
Charles W. Swisher
Keyword(s):  
Visual Perception ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Perceptual Development ◽  
Perception Task ◽  
Response Card ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hearing Children

An experiment was conducted to compare deaf children and normally hearing children on a visual perception task. The visual stimuli were 32 cards, each with a binary pattern of eight circles arranged horizontally or vertically. One circle on the right or top and one circle on the left or bottom of each card were blackened to form the binary patterns, one on each side of fixation. The stimuli were presented tachistoscopically at 1/10 sec. and 1/25 sec. S responded by pointing to the positions he saw blackened on a response card to depict 8 blank circles. It was found that deaf children did as well as normally hearing children and that both groups made fewer errors on the left and top positions of the stimulus dimensions. The data are interpreted as supporting a mediational approach in perceptual development among deaf children.

Narrative competences of Deaf children in German Sign Language

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Becker
Keyword(s):  
Conversation Analysis ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
Narrative Skills ◽  
Deaf Adults ◽  
Everyday Interaction ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
German Sign Language

Hearing children acquire discourse competences like storytelling through everyday interaction and are systematically supported in this process by adults. In contrast, deaf children in Germany often lack appropriate interlocutors with German Sign Language proficiency in family or school. The focus of our research is on narrative competences in deaf children and on the consequences of the lack of interlocutors on the acquisition of these competences. We carried out three studies to examine narrative skills of deaf children aged 8 to 17. We collected data from dyadic conversations with deaf adults and analyzed this data against the background of a cognitive approach to language acquisition and of conversation analysis. From a developmental perspective, our results indicate that the narrative competences of most of the tested non-native signing children have not developed as would be appropriate for their age. From an interactive perspective, deaf adults cooperate with the children in telling their stories by using different strategies.

Performances of Deaf and Normally-Hearing Children on the Bender-Gestalt and the Archimedes Spiral Tests

1967 ◽  
Vol 24 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1059-1066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne G. Gilbert ◽  
Raymond F. Levee
Keyword(s):  
Deaf Children ◽  
Archimedes Spiral ◽  
Negative Aftereffect ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Better Than

50 hearing and 50 deaf children of comparable intelligence were given the Archimedes spiral aftereffect and the Bender-Gestalt tests. Controls performed significantly better than the deaf group on both tests. Children who made fewer errors on the Bender tended to perceive the negative spiral aftereffect more often, this tendency being more marked in the deaf group. Older hearing children performed better on both tests and brighter hearing children perceived the negative aftereffect more often, but this tendency was not evident with deaf children. Results suggest that the two tests may be measuring different cerebral functioning but the use of both should prove a valuable aid in the detection of visual-perceptual problems in deaf children.

Deaf and hearing children's plural noun spelling

2012 ◽  
Vol 65 (11) ◽  
pp. 2169-2192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen L. Breadmore ◽  
Andrew C. Olson ◽  
Andrea Krott
Keyword(s):  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Spelling Error ◽  
Plural Noun ◽  
Error Analyses ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
Limited Experience ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Phonological Mediation

The present study examines deaf and hearing children's spelling of plural nouns. Severe literacy impairments are well documented in the deaf, which are believed to be a consequence of phonological awareness limitations. Fifty deaf (mean chronological age 13;10 years, mean reading age 7;5 years) and 50 reading-age-matched hearing children produced spellings of regular, semiregular, and irregular plural nouns in Experiment 1 and nonword plurals in Experiment 2. Deaf children performed reading-age appropriately on rule-based (regular and semiregular) plurals but were significantly less accurate at spelling irregular plurals. Spelling of plural nonwords and spelling error analyses revealed clear evidence for use of morphology. Deaf children used morphological generalization to a greater degree than their reading-age-matched hearing counterparts. Also, hearing children combined use of phonology and morphology to guide spelling, whereas deaf children appeared to use morphology without phonological mediation. Therefore, use of morphology in spelling can be independent of phonology and is available to the deaf despite limited experience with spoken language. Indeed, deaf children appear to be learning about morphology from the orthography. Education on more complex morphological generalization and exceptions may be highly beneficial not only for the deaf but also for other populations with phonological awareness limitations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document