Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: considering the claims

Abstract

As Carolyn Ewoldt (1996) points out '[M]uch has been written of late about the viability of a bilingual focus in deaf education.' While these writings are necessary to the ongoing pedagogical dialogue in the field, much of the rhetoric suffers because, rather than truly adopting a 'holistic perspective', arguments and positions focus only on selected aspects of the relevant theoretical and research information. If proponents of bilingual education for deaf children truly rely on 'research on the benefits of native sign language and from theoretical and research support coming from other disciplines' (Ewoldt, 1996, p. 5) to support their claims, then these research and theoretical supports must be examined as comprehensively, and holistically, as possible. Weaving together only a few threads of theory and research does not create the fabric for a pedagogical position that can withstand close scrutiny and analysis.In this article, we will touch on some of the major claims made in explications of bilingual models of literacy education for deaf students (Baker, 1997; Livingston, 1997; Mashie, 1995; Mason & Ewoldt, 1996). Our goal is to broaden the scope of the discussion on some of the major arguments and to encourage an expanded dialogue in this ongoing debate. It is not our aim to argue against the concept of bilingual education for deaf students nor to advocate the exclusion of native sign languages from the classroom. Rather, we support the concept of a bilingual education for deaf students with native sign languages playing a key role; however, we contend that the model as it is currently conceived requires further scrutiny and analysis.

Deaf Individuals’ Bilingual Abilities: American Sign Language Proficiency, Reading Skills, and Family Characteristics

“…Mayer and Wells' (1996) rationale for this delay is that American Sign Language (ASL) cannot serve as the bridge to English literacy. They posit that deaf students cannot use ASL grammatical knowledge to transition between ASL and written English, because there is no written form of ASL (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999). Consequently, for deaf individuals who use ASL, written English cannot be directly mapped back to ASL.…”

Does Language Input Matter in Bilingual Writing? Translation Versus Direct Composition in Deaf School Students' Written Stories

“…A third finding concerns the relationship between oral skills in L1 and literacy skills in L2. Oral skills in L2 facilitate writing in L2, but oral skills in L1 may not (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992;Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999). This particular finding is extremely important for both bilingual education and deaf education, as it challenges the need for L1 involvement.…”

“…in L2 Á the more use is made of the other Á i.e. L1 Á (James, 1998;Lightbown & Spada, 1993;Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999). A third finding concerns the relationship between oral skills in L1 and literacy skills in L2.…”

“…Sign languages do not, as yet, have a written form, 1 and can be used in the context of education mainly for their communicative value (Kourbetis, 2000;Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999). Deaf people become literate through the language of the hearing community to which they belong.…”

“…in the Deaf children of Deaf parents). Studies have found that there is no strong relation between the communicative form of the L1 and the academic form of the L2 (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999). This means that there is no particular advantage in academic achievement when having a L1 without literacy.…”