A Review of Discourses on Deafness and Education and Their Contemporary Influence

1
A Review of Discourses on Deafness and Education
and Their Contemporary Influence

• Marc Marschark
• Center for Education Research Partnerships
  National Technical Institute for the Deaf
• Rochester Institute of Technology
• and
• Department of Psychology
• University of Aberdeen
• Aberdeen, Scotland

2
Marcs View of Discourses on Deafness and
Education and Their Contemporary Influence

• Marc Marschark
• Center for Education Research Partnerships
  National Technical Institute for the Deaf
• Rochester Institute of Technology
• and
• Department of Psychology
• University of Aberdeen
• Aberdeen, Scotland

3
Tusen Takk

• Ulla Binderup
• Joakim Blomkuist
• Mads Zwick Bulken
• Kati Marjanen
• Kathrine Goborg Rehder
• Virpi Thuren
• Sigrid Tolgø
• Lena Wänderskär

4
Preliminaries

• CERP mission and goals
• Bridging research and practice
• What we know vs. what we think
• Science and sensitivity
• Asking the right questions
• Understanding (and living with) the answers

5
Important Educational Discourses
to Be Avoided

• Spoken language vs. sign language
• Politics and preferences vs. reality (see Power
  Hyde, 1997)

6
Spoken Language vs. Sign Language

• Spoken language and sign language are equally
  effective in development and education
  (Marschark, 1997)
• But, they are not the sameand may lead to
  differences that affect learning. (Marschark,
  2007)
• Early language is essential to cognitive,
  language, and social development and hence
  academic achievement
• Sign language is easier to learn, but may limit
  incidental learning and high-quality interactions
  with hearing adults and peers

7
Important Educational Discoursesto Be Avoided

• Spoken language vs. sign language
• Deaf vs. hearing parents

8
Deaf children of deaf parents are better readers
than deaf children of hearing parents.

• Padden, C. Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability
  in signing deaf children.
• Singleton, J.L., Supalla, S., Litchfield, S.
  Schley, S. (1998). From sign to word Considering
  modality constraints in ASL/English bilingual
  education.
• Padden, C. Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign
  Language and reading ability in deaf children.

• Brasel, K. Quigley, S.P. (1977). Influence of
  certain language and communicative environments
  in early childhood on the development of language
  in deaf individuals.
• Strong, M. Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the
  relationship between American Sign Language and
  English literacy.
• Akamatsu, C.T., Musselman, C., Zweibel, A.
  (2000). Nature versus nurture in the development
  of cognition.

9
Why does it appear that Deaf children of deaf
parents are better readers than deaf children of
hearing parents ?

• Fluent language skills support literacy (and vice
  versa)
• Fluent language skills support cognitive
  development which supports literacy (and vice
  versa)
• Diverse social experience supports literacy and
  cognitive development (and vice versa)

10
Deaf children of deaf parents are better readers
than deaf children of hearing parents.

• Brasel, K. Quigley, S.P. (1977). Influence of
  certain language and communicative environments
  in early childhood on the development of language
  in deaf individuals.
• Strong, M. Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the
  relationship between American Sign Language and
  English literacy.
• Akamatsu, C.T., Musselman, C., Zweibel, A.
  (2000). Nature versus nurture in the development
  of cognition.

11
Important Educational Discoursesto Be Avoided

• Spoken language vs. sign language
• Deaf vs. hearing parents
• Early identification and intervention

12
Early Identification and Intervention

• Children identified as having severe to profound
  losses and who received intervention services
  prior to 6 months entered school with language
  levels comparable to hearing peers, regardless of
  whether they used signed or spoken language.

13
Early Identification and Intervention

• Children identified as having severe to profound
  losses and who received intervention services
  prior to 6 months entered school with language
  levels comparable to hearing peers, regardless of
  whether they used signed or spoken language.
• entered school with language levels
  significantly better than those identified after
  6 months.
• 25th percentile (low normal for hearing
  children)

14
Early Identification and Intervention

• Of the children with profound hearing loss who
  have received early intervention services between
  birth and 36 months of age, only 25 of these
  children are approaching intelligible speech
  between 5 and 6 years of age. (Yoshinaga-Itano,
  2006)

15
Important Educational Discoursesto Be Avoided

• Spoken language vs. sign language
• Early identification and intervention
• Cochlear implants

16
Marschark, M. (1997). Raising and educating a
deaf child. Oxford University Press.

• It is still too soon to know the long-term
  consequences of cochlear implants for language
  and intellectual development in deaf children
  with congenital hearing losses

17
Shameless promotion!
18
Marschark, M. (2007). Raising and educating a
deaf child, second edition. Oxford University
Press.

• implants have been shown to be of
  significant benefit to the hearing and language
  of most deaf children
• studies of their long-term influence on
  academic achievement, intellectual growth, and
  long-term social functioning are just beginning.
  

19
Cochlear Implants and Education

• On average, children with implants often show
  better literacy and academic achievement scores
  than those without implants (Marschark, Rhoten,
  Fabich, in press)
• The relationship is not causal
• Early grade-level scores (8-9 years) may decline
  by ages 14-15 (Connor Zwolan, 2004 Geers,
  2005 Johnson Goswami, 2005)
• They still lag behind hearing peers (Archbold et
  al., 2006)
• Average equivalence with hearing peers mainly
  for those who use both sign and speech (L.
  Spencer, Gantz, Knutson, 2004)
• Childrens speech skills 5 years after
  implantation independent of earlier use of sign
  or speech (Archbold et al., 2005)

20
Important Educational Discoursesto Be Avoided

• Spoken language vs. sign language
• Early identification and intervention
• Cochlear implants
• Educational placement
• Cannot compare children in different programs
• Selective applications
• Selective admission requirements
• School transfers
• Placement (mainstream/separate) accounts for only
  1 of variance in academic achievement (Stinson
  Kluwin, 2003)

21
Educational Discourses Research Perspectives

• What we know vs. what we think
• Asking the right questions

22
Educational Discourses Research
Perspectives(with thanks to Moores, 2001)

• Research on cognition and deaf individuals
• The deaf as deficient (early 1900s Pintner)
• The deaf as concrete (1960s Myklebust)
• The deaf as normal (1970s Vernon, Stokoe)

23
Educational Discourses Research
Perspectives(with thanks to Moores, 2001)
Educational discourse

• Research on cognition and deaf individuals
• The deaf as deficient (early 1900s Pintner)
• The deaf as concrete (1960s Myklebust)
• The deaf as normal (1970s Vernon, Stokoe)

24
Educational Discourses Research Perspectives

• Discourse on cognition, education, and deaf
  individuals
• The deaf as deficient (early 1900s Pintner)

25
Digit span (Pintner Patterson, 1917)
26
Digit span (Pintner Patterson, 1917)
27
(Baddeley, 1986)
28
Educational Discourses Research Perspectives

• Discourse on cognition, education, and deaf
  individuals
• The deaf as deficient (early 1900s Pintner)
• The deaf as concrete (1960s Myklebust)

29
For the deaf student either something is literal
or it is absurd - (Blackwell et al., 1978)
X
30
Too often, we focus so much on teaching
particular facts or skills, that we deprive deaf
children of the opportunity to learn.
31
Educational Discourses Research Perspectives

• Stages of research on cognition and deaf
  individuals
• The deaf as deficient (early 1900s Pintner)
• The deaf as concrete (1960s Myklebust)
• The deaf as normal (1970s Vernon, Stokoe)

32
Educational Discourses Research Perspectives

• The deaf as normal (1970s Stokoe, Vernon)
• Thinking with and without language
• Stokoe (1960) Furth (1966) Klima Bellugi
  (1979)
• Intelligence tests
• Vernon (1968) Braden (1994) Maller (2003)
• Academic achievement
• Jensema Trybus (1978) Allen (1986) Traxler
  (2000)
• Deaf vs. hearing parents (deaf vs. hearing
  children)
• Cochlear implants
• Bilingual (or oral or signed) education

33
Educational Discourses Research Perspectives

• Discourse on cognition, education, and deaf
  individuals
• The deaf as deficient (early 1900s Pintner)
• The deaf as concrete (1960s Myklebust)
• The deaf as normal (1970s Vernon, Stokoe)
• Different does not mean deficient (Marschark,
  2003)

34
Educational Discourses Research Perspectives

• Different does not mean deficient
• Sequential/temporal processing (verbal and
  nonverbal)
• Relational processing (verbal and nonverbal)
• Ottem (1980) Anderson Reilly (2002)
• Learning via signed, spoken, and printed language
• Sign language interpreting and direct
  instruction
• Educating deaf children in integrated classrooms?

35
Educational Discourses Research
PerspectivesWhere Are We?
36
Deaf students are not hearing students who cant
hear.
37
lack of understanding of the cognitive skills
underlying educational interventions is the
fundamental problem in the development of special
education. Detterman Thompson
(1997) What Is So Special About Special
Education?
38
There has never been a better time to be a deaf
studentor an educator or parent of a deaf child
39
Marc.Marschark_at_rit.edu http//www.rit.edu/ntid/CER
P