Controversies in the education of deaf children

Lynas, Wendy

doi:10.1016/j.cupe.2005.02.002

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2008/09, 153). For a deaf child, bilingualism means having SSL as one's first language, and the dominant oral language in its written form as a second language (Lynas 2005). The communicative needs of HH children, on the contrary, have not been viewed in the same way as those of deaf children.…”

Section: Bilingualismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hard-of-hearing children's sense of identity and belonging

Brunnberg

2010

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the process of identity construction for hard-of-hearing (HH) children in Sweden. Twenty-nine children aged 9Á16 years who attended special classes for HH students were interviewed. During this longitudinal study, all classes were moved from an oral to a signing school environment. The findings support the position that a bilingual HH identity exists. HH children often construct their identity by widening their reference group to include not just HH but also those who are 'almost the same'. They can have a sense of belonging either to deaf or hearing children, or both. In the development of identity HH children make distinctions between subgroups within their reference group. There were also children in crisis or with an unclear identity. This needs to be further explored to determine if the crisis is a productive part of identity construction or a problem requiring support. Gender construction also needs to be further explored.

show abstract

Section: Bilingualismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hard-of-hearing children's sense of identity and belonging

Brunnberg

2010

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite large variability in outcomes, research has clearly documented positive and promising outcomes of cochlear implant (CI) use among children with congenital deafness regarding spoken language skills (e.g., Niparko et al 2010). As a consequence of the positive outcomes of CI use, professionals and parents started to argue for educating deaf children with CI by use of spoken language in favor of sign language (Lynas 2005). Though not scientifically supported (Humphries 2012), some did also recommend that sign language was not used following CI surgery.…”

Section: Technological Development: Genocide Versus Curementioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Educational Planning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children in Scandinavia over the Last Three Decades

Dammeyer

Ohna

2021

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approaches to deaf education in Scandinavia have been shaped and buffeted by controversies and debates about language, educational policy, and new technology. By way of thematic analysis of the content of national policy papers, this study provides a history and comparison of educational planning in Scandinavia over the last 30 years. The overall finding was that educational planning in Scandinavia has been similar over the years. In parallel, these countries adopted a bilingual-bicultural approach to deaf education 30 years ago and then, more recently, shifted towards an auditory-oral approach that makes less use of sign language. However, the study also found differences. While Denmark has increasingly focused efforts on auditory-oral education, Sweden has maintained an approach that seeks to protect minority languages and cultures, and Norway has developed an approach that mixes mainstreaming in local community schools and the protection of rights to a specialist curriculum in Norwegian Sign Language.

show abstract

“…The choice of appropriate communication and educational modalities for children with PCHL is still a subject of debate between the deaf and the hearing communities 44 45. However, the vast majority of children with PCHL have hearing parents who look forward to establishing auditory–verbal communication with their children.…”

Section: Supporting Infants Detected As Having Pchlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neonatal hearing screening and intervention in resource-limited settings: an overview

Olusanya

2012

Arch Dis Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a developmental perspective, optimal speech and language outcome is indisputably the primary motivation for neonatal hearing screening of infants with congenital or early-onset hearing loss (PCHL). This paper additionally outlines more broadly the potential value of early hearing detection and intervention in resource-poor countries against the backdrop of limitations of primary prevention of PCHL based on a review of literature from low-income and middle-income countries with per capita incomes of approximately US$6000 or less. It establishes the scientific and developmental foundation for priority consideration for neonatal hearing screening and intervention in any global initiatives for effective early childhood development programmes in resource-limited countries. It also highlights approaches to addressing the various challenges to implementing effective early hearing detection and intervention programmes, and concludes with a discussion on the pivotal role of paediatricians in facilitating timely referral for requisite tests and (re)habilitative services especially for infants with established risk factors.

show abstract

Controversies in the education of deaf children

Cited by 13 publications

References 6 publications

Hard-of-hearing children's sense of identity and belonging

Hard-of-hearing children's sense of identity and belonging

Changes in Educational Planning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children in Scandinavia over the Last Three Decades

Neonatal hearing screening and intervention in resource-limited settings: an overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About