The impact of deafness on families

Transcription

1 Objectives of early intervention for families with deaf : Parental and professional perspectives Harry Knoors FCEI Bad Ischl, May The impact of deafness on families Low incidence disability Hearing status family Pressure for action, availability and intake information Consequences: - vulnarability - processing information 2 1

2 Parents and professional perspectives In what ways converge or diverge parental and professional perspectives on educating deaf? What types of professional advice are supportive for parents? 3 Parents and professional objectives: early intervention NSDSK-Kentalis study (Van der Stege, Rikken, Berkelmans, Nieuwmans, Meijs & Tibosch, 2007) Participants Parents: n=20 Profesionals: n=1 Age deaf child: years. No multiple disabilities. 4 centers for early intervention. 4 2

3 Parents and professional objectives: early intervention Q-sort method Judgements on expressions about types of support : from 1 (very important) via 3 (important) to 5 (not important at all). 5 Parents and professional objectives: early intervention Parents differ from professionals in two respects: practical affairs (parents more important) and aid with grieve (parents less important). Agreement about importance audiology and assessment, parent support, educational courses, written information, information about cochlear implants and instruction in sign language. 5 3

4 Parents and professional perspectives: education Variation in parents, objectives and choices General motives In principle, Dutch parents of hearing tend to choose a school for their child on the basis of its educational quality (Herweijer & Vogels, 2004). In practice, however, the distance between home and school turns out to be a more decisive factor. 6 In depth study process of choice (Oderwald, Klatter-Folmer, Goosen, Van Wietmarschen, and Wever,2004; Knoors, 2008) One institute for the deaf 22 families (11 prospective, 11 retrospective) Decision between an auditory verbal or a bilingual educational program 7 4

5 In depth study process of choice (Oderwald, Klatter-Folmer, Goosen, Van Wietmarschen, and Wever,2004; Knoors, 2008) One institute for the deaf 22 families Decision between an auditory verbal or a bilingual educational program The main conclusion: All parents involved tended to view their deaf child primarily as a child with a disability. These parents were focused toward a normality view, expressed by their persistent wish for inclusion of their deaf child. 7 Crucial: modification normality view by alternative views on deafness I.e. a more social and cultural view, thus advocating communication in sign language as well as contacts with the Deaf community. At the same time, all parents supported cochlear implantation for their deaf 8 5

6 Parental view on deafness: predominantly heterogeneous very flexible Thus: objectives and educational choices of parents of deaf vary Study into parental preferences (Sontag, van Steensel, van Schilt-Mol & van der Neut, 2008) Topics: Communication, language, educational placement Participating parents: HoH : 211 (51%) Deaf : 6 (23%) CI : 104 (25%) From preschool (3.0) to secondary education (16.0) education Special: 27, mainstream 132 6

7 Motives Most important: Atmosphere Expertise Child s feelings about the school Image of school Least important: Religion Attended by peers neighborhood Attended by friends of child Clean and nice building April 1, 2012 Quantity of information about pedagogical support Most frequent: Audiological centers ENT specialist General practitioner Least frequent: Sign language Center National Parent organization School board 7

8 Quality of information about pedagogical support Best: Itinerant teachers Center for Early Intervention Audiological Center Worst: Health screening agency National parent organization Books and brochures Quantity of information about educational choice School guides 66% Teachers 48% Center for early intervention 40% Other parents 3% Web based information 34% Quality reports by educational authorities 25% Brochures parent organizations 20% April 1,

9 Importance of language proficiency (1: not important, 5 very important) 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Spoken Dutch SLN SSD Deaf CI HoH 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Spoken Dutch SLN SSD Mainstream Special

10 Parental views on the educational system 70% prefers a system with separate mainstream and special education. 30% would prefer a mix between these options. More than 50% prefers separate special education for deaf and HoH, 30% wants a merger. Depends on views about language of instruction. 45% is in favor of relatively large schools for special education and accepts longer distances. 30% objects, 30% has no preference. Parental choice and professional advice: Dilemma s 1. A best model Predominantly heterogeneous and flexible view Ongoing efforts deaf education: looking for a best model 2. Who decides? Exclusively parental responsibility with respect to educational choices? 10 10

11 Parental choice and professional advice: Dilemma s Enforcement of pedagogical or educational advice upon parents? By exception insistence may be appropriate If: negative consequences of parental educational choices are clear professional advice is evidence informed How realistic is this? 12 Parental choice and professional advice: Dilemma s The evidence base of deaf education could be stronger (Bagga-Gupta, 2004;Spencer & Marschark, 2011) Causes are manifold (Knoors, 2008). Paucity of Research Incorrect Application of Theory Ignoring Classroom Practices Incorrect Interpretation of Research Results Lack of Application of Research Results Complex and Contradictory Outcomes of Research 13 11

12 Parental choice and professional advice: Directions Perspectives rather than miracles Prudent phrasing Realistic, mention uncertainties Frequent consultation Illustrating possible educational options as being more or less appropriate No use of ideologically motivated labels Educational choices have no eternal value Avoid parental feelings of guilt Flexibility in programming 14 Educational differentiation Diagnostic teaching and adaptive education. Not only communication and language, pay attention to cognitive and social and emotional development too One size fits none! Not in educational placement Not in language policy 15 12

13 Educational differentiation: placement Establish a well connected continuum of placement alternatives From individual inclusion via coenrollment to schools for the deaf Kentalis: schools for special deaf education mainstreaming on an individual basis 2004-ongoing Twinschool projcet Vught from 2013 on: emphasis on coenrollment initiatives 15 Educational differentiation: language policy Harry Knoors & Marc Marschark (2012) Language Planning for the 21st Century: Revisiting Bilingual Language Policy for Deaf Children Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Advance Access, doi:10.103/deafed/ens

14 Why revisit? The changing context Effect universal newborn hearing screening Number deaf with implants Effects early cochlear implantation Parental choice Results bilingual deaf education 27 Bilingual education: competition and transfer Conditions for transfer: the interdependency hypothesis To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly. (Cummins, 181) Acquisition of two languages: competition and transfer (Scheele) Competition: less input of each language Transfer may undo effect of competition Transfer mainly limited to cognitive academic language proficiency Transfer most strong between languages that share a script 28 14

15 Bilingual deaf education: challenging several assumptions Do most deaf, including the early implanted ones inevitably become bilingual, using a sign and spoken language? Are most deaf in bilingual education nowadays really proficient in sign language? And are most deaf with cochlear implants not proficient in spoken language? Could it be that there are currently young deaf with implants who predominantly communicate in spoken language, even if they have been raised bilingually? Are hearing parents in general able to provide their deaf child with early, rich and consistent sign language input? 2 10 Bilingual deaf education there is a paucity of research into the consequences of limited parental sign language input on the sign language proficiency of deaf (with the noticeable exception of Singleton & Newport, 2004). It is therefore not at all clear to what extent bilingual education for deaf really results in the establishment of an effective linguistic environment (Knoors, 2008) 30 15

16 Bilingual deaf education Sign/bilingual programming, in which a natural sign language serves as the first language and medium of communication in the classroom, has a strong theoretic basis but to date lacks sufficient evidence to allow evaluation of its language development outcomes (Spencer & Marschark, 2010) 31 Bilingual deaf education the key point to be made is that there is no data to suggest that, as a group, students in bilingual programs are achieving at the age-appropriate language and literacy levels that were predicted when bilingual models were first implemented. Given this lack of compelling evidence, it would seem instructive to revisit the model and consider some of the concerns that were raised about its particular implementation with deaf learners, as a way to think about why outcomes have been less than anticipated. (Mayer & Leigh, 2010) 32 16

17 Universal newborn hearing screening and early implantation: an unexpected perspective Universal newborn hearing screening: early intervention results in a considerable increase in spoken language proficiency in deaf (Yoshinaga-Itano & Sedey, 2000) CI at the age of 1.0: Considerable increase in spoken language profiency (Hammer, 2010; Verbiest, 2010); Large and positive effects of (sometimes relatively late) implantation on reading proficiency (Vermeulen, 2007; Vermeulen, Van Bon, Schreuder, Knoors, & Snik, 2007; Van der Kant, Vermeulen, De Raeve & Schreuder, 2010) 33 Universal newborn hearing screening and early implantation: an unexpected perspective Positive effects not in all and not always to the same extent (Marshark, Rhoten & Faboch, 2007; De Hoog, Knoors, Langereis & Verhoeven, ongoing research), but certainly major effects in many. For the first time in the history of the field, spoken language has become accessible as the L1 for many - arguably the vast majority of - profoundly deaf. (Mayer & Leigh, 2010) 34 17

18 Bilingual deaf education We believe that the major consequence of revisiting bilingual language planning and policies is that differentiation in language input will occur for deaf, as well in family support. A carefully implemented, differentiated language policy will better meet the current wishes, strengths, and needs of deaf and their parents. We need a continuing adjustment of language planning and policies so that they serve us and not us them. (Knoors & Marschark, 2012) 35 In conclusion Objectives of early intervention for families with deaf vary between and within parents, as do objectives with respect to communication, language and education This variation calls for evidence informed, emphatic professional advice and for flexibility in practices

19 Thank you for your attention Further contact: 1