Cochlear Implants and the Right to Language: Ethical Considerations, the Ideal Situation, and Practical Measures Toward Reaching the Ideal

Humphries, Tom; Kushalnagar, Poorna; Mathur, Gaurav; Napoli, Donna Jo; Padden, Carol; Rathmann, Christian; Smith, Scott

doi:10.5772/35558

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They see themselves as a linguistic minority, a descendant community of language users who have transmitted their language over many generations despite the denial of their legitimacy by general society and the sciences. Deaf people's concerns about social justice are often about their right to language autonomy similar to the concerns of many other language minority cultures in American society (Humphries et al, 2012). A second characteristic of this modern narrative shifts the traditional focus from hearing loss to a focus on language and culture.…”

Section: A Narrative Shift In the Deaf Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Schooling in American Sign Language: A paradigm shift from a deficit model to a bilingual model in deaf education

Humphries¹

2013

ucbgse_bre

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deaf people have long held the belief that American Sign Language (ASL) plays a significant role in the academic development of deaf children. Despite this, the education of deaf children has historically been exclusive of ASL and constructed as an English-only, deficit-based pedagogy. Newer research, however, finds a strong correlation between ASL fluency and English literacy, supporting Deaf people's belief. This article describes efforts at the University of California, San Diego to develop and field-test a teacher preparation program that combines best practices in bilingual education and deaf education. The training curriculum designed for this program incorporates cultural practices from the Deaf community into the training of teachers of deaf children, a paradigmatic shift from traditional deaf education pedagogy based on a deficit model to a socio-cultural view of deaf children and their schooling. This shift represents a significant new direction in addressing the chronic poor performance of schools in educating deaf and hardof-hearing children who as a group are severely undereducated. This article also provides background and rationale for the recent approval of ASL authorization on the Multiple Subjects teaching credential in California.

show abstract

Section: A Narrative Shift In the Deaf Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Schooling in American Sign Language: A paradigm shift from a deficit model to a bilingual model in deaf education

Humphries¹

2013

ucbgse_bre

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Parents have high expectations for successful outcomes of the cochlear implant (a neuro-prosthesis that bypasses the ear and provides sound stimulation to the brain); many are convinced that it is the only option for their deaf child to acquire language (Humphries et al, 2012; Humphries, Kushalnagar, Mathur, Napoli, Padden, Rathmann, et al, 2014; Hyde, Punch, & Komesaroff, 2010). Receiving a cochlear implant, however, between one and two years of age does not guarantee normal spoken language skills five years after implantation: non-signing implanted children can display significant language deficits relative to their hearing peers, including lower vocabulary knowledge and inconsistent speech production/perception (L.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Hall

2017

Matern Child Health J

202

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-standing belief is that sign language interferes with spoken language development in deaf children. Brain changes associated with language deprivation may be misrepresented as sign language interfering with spoken language outcomes of cochlear implants, which leads to professionals and organizations advocating for preventing sign language exposure before implantation and spreading misinformation. The existence of one – time-sensitive – language acquisition window means a strong possibility of permanent brain changes when spoken language is not fully accessible to the deaf child and sign language exposure is delayed, as is often standard practice. There is no empirical evidence for the harm of sign language exposure but there is some evidence for its benefits, and there is growing evidence that lack of language access has negative implications. This includes cognitive delays, mental health difficulties, lower quality of life, higher trauma, and limited health literacy. Claims of cochlear implant- and spoken language-only approaches being more effective than sign language-inclusive approaches are not empirically supported. Cochlear implants are an unreliable standalone first-language intervention for deaf children. Priorities of deaf child development should focus on healthy growth of all developmental domains through a fully-accessible first language foundation such as sign language, rather than auditory deprivation and speech skills.

show abstract

“…One research team of specialists in education, linguistics, pediatric medicine, and psychology has joined forces in the past few years in a concerted effort to make sure that parents of deaf children are informed about critical issues that affect language and learning, including current understandings of how the brain's plasticity changes with age and what we know about the connection between language and cognition. The group has published in journals of medicine [112][113][114][115][116], linguistics [59], social services [117], speech language pathology [118], law [59], and ethics [119] and they work together on lobbying and legislative efforts, at all times arguing for the following set of recommendations:…”

Section: Ought Every Deaf Child Learn To Sign?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaf Children as ‘English Learners’: The Psycholinguistic Turn in Deaf Education

Howerton-Fox

Falk²

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this literature review is to present the arguments in support of conceptualizing deaf children as ‘English Learners’, to explore the educational implications of such conceptualizations, and to suggest directions for future inquiry. Three ways of interpreting the label ‘English Learner’ in relationship to deaf children are explored: (1) as applied to deaf children whose native language is American Sign Language; (2) as applied to deaf children whose parents speak a language other than English; and (3) as applied to deaf children who have limited access to the spoken English used by their parents. Recent research from the fields of linguistics and neuroscience on the effects of language deprivation is presented and conceptualized within a framework that we refer to as the psycholinguistic turn in deaf education. The implications for developing the literacy skills of signing deaf children are explored, particularly around the theoretical construct of a ‘bridge’ between sign language proficiency and print-based literacy. Finally, promising directions for future inquiry are presented.

show abstract

Cochlear Implants and the Right to Language: Ethical Considerations, the Ideal Situation, and Practical Measures Toward Reaching the Ideal

Cited by 15 publications

References 58 publications

Schooling in American Sign Language: A paradigm shift from a deficit model to a bilingual model in deaf education

Schooling in American Sign Language: A paradigm shift from a deficit model to a bilingual model in deaf education

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Deaf Children as ‘English Learners’: The Psycholinguistic Turn in Deaf Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About