Sign Bilingual and Co-enrollment Education for Children with Cochlear Implants in Madrid, Spain

Martin, Mar Pérez; Balanzategui, Marian Valmaseda; Morgan, Gary

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199371815.003.0015

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a consequence of the inconclusive findings related to benefits of SSS compared to spoken language-only, and the factors, sometimes unpredictable, affecting the language development of deaf children, targeted interventions adapting the more fruitful communicative approach at different stages of language development are recommendable (Lederberg et al, 2013; Martin Pérez et al, 2014). Ideally, all children, with or without CIs, should have an early exposure to sign communication that they will be able to use as an additional resource in communication, varying and adapting the use of signs to individual communicative needs (Knoors and Marschark, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Eye Tracking Study on the Perception and Comprehension of Unimodal and Bimodal Linguistic Inputs by Deaf Adolescents

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An eye tracking experiment explored the gaze behavior of deaf individuals when perceiving language in spoken and sign language only, and in sign-supported speech (SSS). Participants were deaf (n = 25) and hearing (n = 25) Spanish adolescents. Deaf students were prelingually profoundly deaf individuals with cochlear implants (CIs) used by age 5 or earlier, or prelingually profoundly deaf native signers with deaf parents. The effectiveness of SSS has rarely been tested within the same group of children for discourse-level comprehension. Here, video-recorded texts, including spatial descriptions, were alternately transmitted in spoken language, sign language and SSS. The capacity of these communicative systems to equalize comprehension in deaf participants with that of spoken language in hearing participants was tested. Within-group analyses of deaf participants tested if the bimodal linguistic input of SSS favored discourse comprehension compared to unimodal languages. Deaf participants with CIs achieved equal comprehension to hearing controls in all communicative systems while deaf native signers with no CIs achieved equal comprehension to hearing participants if tested in their native sign language. Comprehension of SSS was not increased compared to spoken language, even when spatial information was communicated. Eye movements of deaf and hearing participants were tracked and data of dwell times spent looking at the face or body area of the sign model were analyzed. Within-group analyses focused on differences between native and non-native signers. Dwell times of hearing participants were equally distributed across upper and lower areas of the face while deaf participants mainly looked at the mouth area; this could enable information to be obtained from mouthings in sign language and from lip-reading in SSS and spoken language. Few fixations were directed toward the signs, although these were more frequent when spatial language was transmitted. Both native and non-native signers looked mainly at the face when perceiving sign language, although non-native signers looked significantly more at the body than native signers. This distribution of gaze fixations suggested that deaf individuals – particularly native signers – mainly perceived signs through peripheral vision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Eye Tracking Study on the Perception and Comprehension of Unimodal and Bimodal Linguistic Inputs by Deaf Adolescents

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their dissatisfaction with the available educational options and informed decision to demand the implementation of the alternative sign bilingual option provided the impetus for the set up of the first experimental classes in Sweden and Denmark (Mahshie 1995: xxxiii). The engagement of the parents (often in the form of parents' associations) is also acknowledged as a driving force for the implementation and the continuity of bilingual programmes in other countries, such as Germany (Günther 1999b), France (Leroy 2005), Italy (Volterra 2003), Australia (Komesaroff 2001), and Spain (Gras 2006;Pérez Martín et al 2014). …”

Section: Ciò Ebbe Un Effetto Dirompente Ed Innovativo Sul Modo In Cuimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A different approach is adopted in coenrolment settings catering for deaf children without a sign language background, in which linguistic diversity of the students is taken into account. This is the case of co-enrolment in the four schools providing bilingual education in Madrid (Pérez Martín et al 2014), the bilingual programmes established in Hong Kong (Tang 2014: 318), the Netherlands (Hermans et al 2014) and Italy (Ardito et al 2008).…”

Section: Variation In Sign Bilingual Education: a Critical Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where bottom-up processes are not followed by top-down measures taken at the institutional level, bilingual education runs the risk of winding up in a kind of "invisible policy of deaf education" (Pérez Martín et al 2014: 371, Morales-López 2008. At the level of practice, much effort is required on the side of the professionals involved to secure the continuity of the programme, and to organise the human and financial resources necessary for this purpose.…”

Section: <--Monolingualism ----------------------Simultaneous Communication ------------------------------------Bilingualism -->mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Professionals working in these settings also face the task of developing their own teaching conceptions, teaching materials and assessment tools (Komesaroff 2001, Morales-López 2008, Pérez Martín et al 2014, Plaza-Pust 2004. There is a generalised lack of a bilingual methodology specifically devised for sign language -oral language bilingualism.…”

Section: Teaching Conceptions Materials and Assessment Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sign Bilingualism in education: challenges and perspectives along the research, policy, practice axis

Plaza-Pust¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ishara Research Series is dedicated to current research in sign language linguistics and Deaf Studies. The series is designed for publications that are of current relevance to the field, but are not easily accommodated within the scope of conventional outlets. In addition, this innovative format is ideal for young researchers and first-time authors publishing work of high academic quality. The series is intended to be a tool for stimulating research in emerging areas, with particular emphasis on promoting Deaf authors and authors in countries where sign language studies and Deaf Studies are not established disciplines yet. Editorial board Anastasia Bradford AcknowledgementsWhen I set out to work on bilingualism and deafness, I was not only intrigued by a type of bilingualism that involves two different modalities of expression. I was also impressed by the complexity of internal and external factors that shaped its development and maintenance. It became clear very soon that a comprehensive understanding of sign bilingualism required a cross-disciplinary approach that would allow for the consideration of the socio-linguistic, psycholinguistic and educational factors that determine deaf learners' bilingual development of a sign language and an oral language. In practice, this meant not only going beyond a developmental linguistics approach and adopting an integrated perspective on bilingualism and deafness, but also engaging in a dialogue with diverse experts, exchanging with professionals on the spot, sitting in on classes and exchanging with the bilingual deaf students themselves.The results of the research undertaken are presented and discussed in two volumes that appear in parallel. The present work complements the volume on bilingualism and deafness in which I explore language contact in the bilingual language acquisition of sign language and written language. In that volume, education is taken into consideration in the discussion of the internal and external factors that determine the development and maintenance of sign bilingualism. In the present work, we narrow the focus on sign bilingualism in deaf education and the challenges and perspectives of a bilingual promotion of deaf learners in the educational domain.

show abstract

Sign Bilingualism in Deaf Education

Tang¹

2017

Bilingual and Multilingual Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sign Bilingual and Co-enrollment Education for Children with Cochlear Implants in Madrid, Spain

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

An Eye Tracking Study on the Perception and Comprehension of Unimodal and Bimodal Linguistic Inputs by Deaf Adolescents

An Eye Tracking Study on the Perception and Comprehension of Unimodal and Bimodal Linguistic Inputs by Deaf Adolescents

Sign Bilingualism in education: challenges and perspectives along the research, policy, practice axis

Sign Bilingualism in Deaf Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About