Literacy Attainment Among Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Margaret Harris ◽  
Emmanouela Terlektsi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Learning To Read ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Literacy Outcomes ◽  
Looking Back

The chapter begins by looking back at the review of literacy outcomes among children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), published in 1996 by Marschark and Harris. In the light of developments in hearing aid technology and the age at which hearing loss is now identified, the chapter considers whether the picture described in the review has changed significantly in the two decades that have elapsed since its publication. It assesses evidence about levels of literacy attainment across the two decades and shows that, while spoken language has improved for many children, levels of literacy have not seen a commensurate improvement. The chapter also considers how views of the skills that predict success and failure in learning to read have evolved. It ends by considering how children who are DHH can be taught most effectively to read, and it speculates about future developments both in technology and in teaching.

Prevention & Conservation: Historicizing the Stigma of Hearing Loss, 1910-1940

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaipreet Virdi
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Medical Discourse ◽  
Health Campaigns ◽  
Hearing Tests ◽  
Welfare Programs ◽  
Public Health Campaigns ◽  
New Research

During the early twentieth century, otologists began collaborating with organizers of the New York League for the Hard of Hearing to build a bridge to “adjust the economic ratio” of deafness and create new research avenues for alleviating or curing hearing loss. This collegiality not only defined the medical discourse surrounding hearing impairment, anchoring it in hearing tests and hearing aid prescription, but, in so doing, solidified the notion that deafness was a “problem” in dire need of a “solution.” Public health campaigns thus became pivotal for spreading this message on local and national levels. This paper focuses on how, from the 1920s to 1950s, as otologists became more involved with social projects for the deaf and hard of hearing — advocating lip-reading, community work, and welfare programs — at the same time, they also mandated for greater therapeutic regulation, control of hearing aid distribution, and standardization of hearing tests. The seemingly paradoxical nature of their roles continued to reinforce the stigmatization of deafness: with widespread availability of effective help, the hearing impaired were expected to seek out therapeutic or technological measures rather than live with their affliction.

scholarly journals Assistive Hearing Technology for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Spoken Language Learners

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frush Holt
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Language And Literacy ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Literacy Outcomes

Radical advancements in hearing technology in the last 30 years have offered some deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children the adequate auditory access necessary to acquire spoken language with high-quality early intervention. However, meaningful achievement gaps in reading and spoken language persist despite the engineering marvel of modern hearing aids and cochlear implants. Moreover, there is enormous unexplained variability in spoken language and literacy outcomes. Aspects of signal processing in both hearing aids and cochlear implants are discussed as they relate to spoken language outcomes in preschool and school-age children. In suggesting areas for future research, a case is made for not only expanding the search for mechanisms of influence on outcomes outside of traditional device- and child-related factors, but also for framing the search within Biopsychosocial systems theories. This theoretical approach incorporates systems of risk factors across many levels, as well as the bidirectional and complex ways in which factors influence each other. The combination of sophisticated hearing technology and a fuller understanding of the complex environmental and biological factors that shape development will help maximize spoken language outcomes in DHH children and contribute to laying the groundwork for successful literacy and academic development.

Hearing-Aid Performance and Hearing-Aid Selection

1966 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Jerger ◽  
Charles Speaks ◽  
Carolyn Malmquist
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Physical Characteristics ◽  
Rank Ordering ◽  
Intelligibility Test ◽  
Sentence Intelligibility

A sentence intelligibility test was used to evaluate listener performance with three hearing aids differing substantially in physical characteristics. Thirty six hard-of-hearing listeners, representing various types and degrees of hearing loss, were tested. Results showed that, although the sentence intelligibility test reflected meaningful average differences among the aids, the rank ordering of aids was essentially equivalent for all listeners.

Auditory Verbal Therapy: A Family-Centered Listening and Spoken Language Intervention for Children With Hearing Loss and Their Families

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. 54-65
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Rosenzweig
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Intervention ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Language Outcome ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Auditory Verbal Therapy ◽  
Family Centered

There are many ways for children with hearing loss to learn to communicate. Advances in universal newborn hearing screening and hearing technology have enabled many families to elect a listening and spoken language outcome for their children, regardless of degree of hearing loss. Auditory Verbal Therapy is a family-centered approach to developing listening and spoken language for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Professionals certified in Auditory Verbal Therapy (AVT) provide services under a guiding set of 10 principles, enumerated in this article with their attendant research bases and practical/clinical implications.

Bilingual Cognitive Advantages in Multilingual and Multimodal Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children and Adults

2020 ◽  
pp. 149-166
Author(s):  
Kathryn Crowe ◽  
Linda Cupples
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Oral Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Cognitive Differences ◽  
Attention Task ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Hearing Children

A sizable proportion of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) people are multilingual, either through use of language that involves more than one modality (i.e., signing and speaking/listening) or the use of two or more languages within the same modality. There is a constantly evolving body of research that describes cognitive differences between monolinguals and multilinguals, the majority of which examines people without hearing loss who use more than one spoken language. Much less attention has been paid to cognitive differences associated with multilingualism in people who are DHH and people who use signed languages. This chapter briefly summarizes research describing differences in cognition between monolingual and multilingual oral language users without hearing loss, and then focuses on research comparing bimodal bilinguals (both DHH and hearing) with monolinguals and/or spoken-language multilinguals. Areas of cognition that are discussed include language processing, inhibition and selective attention, task switching, and working memory. In general, findings were inconclusive or inconsistent regarding a bilingual advantage or disadvantage in cognitive processes for bimodal bilinguals. However, the evidence base was limited and further research is essential if stronger conclusions are to be drawn.

Family-Centered Intervention for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Multilingual Learners

2022 ◽  
pp. 225-245
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Rosenzweig ◽  
Jenna M. Voss ◽  
Maria Emilia de Melo ◽  
María Fernanda Hinojosa Valencia
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Intervention Research ◽  
Community Settings ◽  
Multiple Languages ◽  
Family Centered

This chapter explores principles of family-centered listening and spoken language (LSL) intervention, research, and best practices for children who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) using multiple spoken languages and their families. Children with any degree/type of hearing loss who are in environments where multiple languages are spoken are referred to as deaf multilingual learners (DMLs). The language landscape for these children is varied. Some DMLs acquire a first language (L1) at home and are exposed to subsequent spoken languages in school or community settings; others are born into families where multiple languages are spoken from the beginning. While the chapter focuses on a framework of family-centered intervention applied to language development for DMLs whose families have selected LSL outcomes, the principles discussed broadly apply to DMLs using varied language(s) or modality(ies). Through analysis of best practices for interventionists and case studies, readers will understand bi/multilingual spoken language development for children who are DHH.

Missing the Mark in Early Intervention for Babies Who Are Hard of Hearing or Deaf Learning Spoken Language

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy McConkey Robbins ◽  
Teresa Caraway
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
The Core ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Therapy Strategies

In this article, the authors examine factors contributing to a growing early intervention (EI) crisis for babies who are hard of hearing or deaf (HH/D) whose families have chosen spoken language through listening as their desired outcome. At the core of this crisis is the difficulty of, and sometimes resistance to, incorporating nationally accepted best practices for the treatment of childhood hearing loss (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 2007) into the EI policies and systems that were created years before newborn hearing screening, advanced hearing technologies, and specialized therapy strategies existed. Today's infants born HH/D and their families represent a new and changing population requiring transformation in how we conceptualize, develop, and implement EI services. There is evidence that, in many cases, we are missing the mark in the ways in which this population is being served. It is our conviction that an EI model most appropriate for HH/D babies whose families have chosen spoken language through listening has features distinct from EI models proposed for children with other disabilities.

scholarly journals AT HØRE, AT HØRE EFTER, AT HØRE TIL: Strategier i forbindelse med høretab og høreapparater

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Bisgaard
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Bodily Appearance ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Individual

As long as the sense of hearing remains intact, the individual can participate in the negotiation and production of social and cultural values in the contexts to which she or he ascribes a meaning. But what happens when the sounds are muffled? The handling of hearing loss is subject to substantial individual differences – some wish to participate in all social contexts, others wish only to uphold contact to specific segments of the lifeworld. The hard of hearing may be excluded from a number of contexts, but the hearing aid may be a help to retain a position. Some use them in all their waking hours, others only in specific contexts. The difference is due to physiological and technological circumstances, because no two hearing losses are perceived in the same way. Moreover, the technology of the hearing aid may help the user to hear better, but it does not restore natural hearing. Typically, the hard of hearing go through a process, in which the physical hearing loss is related to the lifeworld. In this process the individual moves from being a normal hearing person to being hard of hearing. Being hard of hearing differed for the informants from a wish to participate in social life to an utter loss of one’s functioning and a concern with bodily appearance.  

The Spoken Syntax of Normal, Hard-of-Hearing, and Deaf Children

1966 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 604-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
John B. Brannon ◽  
Thomas Murry
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Total Output ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Moderate Correlation ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Language Sample

A spoken language sample of 50 sentences was obtained from 30 normal and 30 hearing-impaired children and quantified according to total output and syntactical accuracy. A total score of structural accuracy (syntax) was obtained by combining the errors of addition, omission, substitution, and word order. The hard-of-hearing subgroup resembled the control group in its total output of words, but the deaf subgroup was significantly lower in this measure. The differences between syntax scores were significant among all three groups. A moderate correlation was found between average hearing loss and total words uttered; a higher correlation resulted when hearing loss and measures of syntax were paired.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document