Reflections on Deaf Education: Perspectives of Deaf Senior Citizens

Parents with deaf children face many challenges in making educational choices, developing language and a sense of belonging. Other key aspects of life including concept development and social competency are also critical decision points faced by parents. Developing language, whether it is through spoken or signed modalities, is of utmost importance during the formative years and for many families with deaf children, there are no prior experiences with deafness, American Sign Language, Deaf culture, or the deaf community. This study aims to understand the educational and familial experiences of older deaf citizens by examining the meaning of being deaf and members of biological and cultural families, and the concern for education of young deaf children as constructed by deaf senior citizens from both deaf and hearing families. For the purpose of obtaining both childhood and educational experiences of older deaf citizens and examining what advice they would offer to families of today with deaf children, a qualitative design was implemented in which 13 participants participated in focus group and individual interviews. Themes that emerged from the data include, but are not limited to, community-based learning, the value of communication, involvement with other deaf individuals, importance of family communication and signing, sibling involvement and including deaf children as true members of a family. One recommendation made by the deaf senior adults was that families with deaf children engage with deaf seniors more frequently as a valuable resource.     

Hmong immigrants' views on the education of their deaf and hard of hearing children

The study investigated the attitudes, perceptions, and feelings of parents of 7 Hmong families that included a deaf or hard of hearing child attending a U.S. public school. The findings indicate that many Hmong parents value education and want to be involved in their deaf or hard of hearing child's learning. However, the parents in the study did not know how to become involved, and needed the support of the school. Although they accepted their deaf or hard of hearing children unconditionally, they had lower academic expectations of that child than of their hearing children. Most of the parents reported limited knowledge of the policies, procedures, practices, and organizational structures of special education, and all cited communication barriers as impediments to involvement in their child's education. Most of the parents expressed strong satisfaction with their child's educational program. The findings suggest several areas for further research.     

Do you see what I see? School perspectives of deaf children,hearing children and their parents☆

Perspectives on academic and social aspects of children’s school experiences were obtained from deaf and hearing children and their (deaf or hearing) parents. Possible differences between (1) the views of children and their parents and (2) those of hearing children and their parents compared to deaf children and their parents were of particular interest. Overall, parents gave their children higher school friendship ratings than the children gave themselves, and hearing children and their parents were more positive about children’s friendships than were deaf children and their parents. Both children and parents also saw deaf children as less successful in reading than hearing children. However, deaf children having deaf parents, attending a school for the deaf and using sign language at home all were associated with more positive perceptions of social success. Use of cochlear implants was not associated with perceptions of greater academic or social success. These and related findings are discussed in the context of parent and child perspectives on social and academic functioning and particular challenges confronted by deaf children in regular school settings.     

Self-concept among hearing Chinese children of deaf parents

This paper discusses a study of Chinese children in Hong Kong that compared the self-concepts of hearing children of deaf parents with the self-concepts of hearing children of hearing parents. The study was based on the responses to a questionnaire given to 42 deaf couples and their 70 hearing children, and 41 hearing couples and their 82 hearing children. It found no differences in the self-concepts of hearing children of deaf parents and hearing children of hearing parents. However, it did find that deaf parents had lower self-concepts than hearing parents.     

Influence and adaptability in families with deaf parents and hearing children

This study assessed the influence of individual family members in functional families, primarily to determine whether hearing children of deaf parents have more influence than do hearing children of hearing parents. Eight families with deaf parents and a hearing child and eight all hearing families were videotaped while planning a family meal together. It was found that deaf-parented families share many traits with hearing families. However, there were some differences. The hearing children of deaf parents had a greater number and percentage of their ideas accepted than did the hearing children of hearing parents. Differences were also noted between the deaf fathers and the hearing fathers. The deaf-parented families were more adaptable, as measured by the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. The observed difference in child influence, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. Deafness of one family member, in an auditory dependent environment, may require a more flexible family power structure. Professionals assessing deaf-parented families should be sensitive to the special adaptive needs required for healthy functioning of the family.     

The impact of maternal deafness on cradling laterality with deaf and hearing infants

A recent article in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (Leigh, Brice, & Meadow-Orlans, 2004) explored attachment between deaf mothers and their 18-month-old children and reported relationship patterns similar to those for hearing dyads. The study reported here explores a marker of early mother-child relationships: cradling laterality. Results indicated that, overall, the cradling bias of deaf mothers is similar to that of hearing mothers, but that there are significant differences among deaf mothers related to the hearing status of their own parents and, in a complex way, to the hearing status of their children. Deaf mothers of deaf parents showed a strong leftward cradling bias with both hearing and deaf children, whereas deaf mothers of hearing parents showed a leftward cradling bias with hearing children and a rightward cradling bias with deaf children. Possible explanations for these patterns of behavior are discussed.     

The impact of visual communication on the intersubjective development of early parent-child interaction with 18- to 24-month-old deaf toddlers

This article presents a study that examined the impact of visual communication on the quality of the early interaction between deaf and hearing mothers and fathers and their deaf children aged between 18 and 24 months. Three communication mode groups of parent-deaf child dyads that differed by the use of signing and visual-tactile communication strategies were involved: (a) hearing parents communicating with their deaf child in an auditory/oral way, (b) hearing parents using total communication, and (c) deaf parents using sign language. Based on Loots and colleagues' intersubjective developmental theory, parent-deaf child interaction was analyzed according to the occurrence of intersubjectivity during free play with a standard set of toys. The data analyses indicated that the use of sign language in a sequential visual way of communication enabled the deaf parents to involve their 18- to 24-month-old deaf infants in symbolic intersubjectivity, whereas hearing parents who hold on to oral-only communication were excluded from involvement in symbolic intersubjectivity with their deaf infants. Hearing parents using total communication were more similar to deaf parents, but they still differed from deaf parents in exchanging and sharing symbolic and linguistic meaning with their deaf child.     

Language and theory of mind: a study of deaf children

Theory-of-mind (ToM) abilities were studied in 176 deaf children aged 3 years 11 months to 8 years 3 months who use either American Sign Language (ASL) or oral English, with hearing parents or deaf parents. A battery of tasks tapping understanding of false belief and knowledge state and language skills, ASL or English, was given to each child. There was a significant delay on ToM tasks in deaf children of hearing parents, who typically demonstrate language delays, regardless of whether they used spoken English or ASL. In contrast, deaf children from deaf families performed identically to same-aged hearing controls (N=42). Both vocabulary and understanding syntactic complements were significant independent predictors of success on verbal and low-verbal ToM tasks.     

Social participation of children and adolescents with cochlear implants: a qualitative analysis of parent, teacher, and child interviews

Psychosocial factors, including socioemotional well-being, peer relationships, and social inclusion with hearing and deaf peers, are increasingly becoming a focus of research investigating children with cochlear implants. The study reported here extends the largely quantitative findings of previous research through a qualitative analysis of interviews with parents, teachers, and pediatric cochlear implant users themselves in three eastern states of Australia. We interviewed 24 parents, 15 teachers, and 11 children and adolescents. The findings displayed commonalities across the three groups of participants, indicating positive experiences around the children's psychosocial development with their cochlear implants, but also ongoing difficulties communicating in groups of people and problems related to social skills. Some children had little contact with other deaf children (with or without cochlear implants) despite parents and teachers perceiving such contact beneficial. Children attending schools where there were other deaf children valued friendships with both deaf and hearing peers. Adolescence was a particularly difficult time for some as they struggled with feelings of self-consciousness about their deafness and external cochlear implant equipment and worries around friendships, dating, and their future place in the world. Recommendations for practice and further research are made.     

The Use of Visual-Tactile Communication Strategies by Deaf and Hearing Fathers and Mothers of Deaf Infants

This article presents the results of a study comparing deaf and hearing parents in the use of visual-tactile communication strategies during interaction with their hearing-impaired children between 18 and 24 months of age. The study includes 17 deaf and hard-of-hearing children and 33 parents, covering hearing mothers (n = 12), hearing fathers (n = 11), deaf mothers (n = 5), and deaf fathers (n = 5). The four groups of parents are compared in the use of visual-tactile communication strategies during free play with their children. Overall results show that deaf mothers and deaf fathers differ significantly from hearing parents in the use of a visual communication style adapted to the developmental communication needs and abilities related to the 18- to 24-month age period. The study pays special attention to differences in visual-tactile communication strategies according to hearing status, gender, use of languages, and communication modes.     

Language planning for the 21st century: revisiting bilingual language policy for deaf children

For over 25 years in some countries and more recently in others, bilingual education involving sign language and the written/spoken vernacular has been considered an essential educational intervention for deaf children. With the recent growth in universal newborn hearing screening and technological advances such as digital hearing aids and cochlear implants, however, more deaf children than ever before have the potential for acquiring spoken language. As a result, the question arises as to the role of sign language and bilingual education for deaf children, particularly those who are very young. On the basis of recent research and fully recognizing the historical sensitivity of this issue, we suggest that language planning and language policy should be revisited in an effort to ensure that they are appropriate for the increasingly diverse population of deaf children.     

Hearing mothers and oral deaf children: an atypical relational context for theory of mind

The study assessed Theory of Mind (ToM) abilities in a group of oral deaf children and in their hearing mothers using a battery of ToM tasks. It also investigated the connection between mother and child in ToM performance. Participants were: 17 oral deaf children (aged 5 to 14 years) were paired by gender, age, and mental age with 17 hearing children; 17 hearing mothers of deaf children and 17 hearing mothers of hearing children. Compared to the hearing children, the deaf children faced difficulties in all ToM tests, and the hearing mothers of the deaf children were less capable than the mothers of the hearing children in all the ToM tests. Further, a specific ToM interaction model was found between the hearing mothers and the deaf children. The results confirmed ToM poor performance faced by the oral deaf children, showed the ToM level of hearing mothers of deaf children, and the ToM style of hearing mothers–deaf children dyads. Also, findings underline some educational implications related to the socio-relational origin of the ToM deficit in oral deaf children.     

Language facility and theory of mind development in deaf children

Deaf children with signing parents, nonnative signing deaf children, children from a hearing impaired unit (HIU), and oral deaf children were tested on three first-order theory of mind (ToM) tasks--a subset was also given a second-order task (Perner & Wimmer, 1985). A British Sign Language (BSL) receptive language task (Herman, Holmes, & Woll, 1999) and four nonverbal executive function tasks were also administered. The new BSL task allowed, for the first time, the receptive language abilities of deaf children to be measured alongside ToM abilities. Hearing children acted as controls. These children were given the same tasks, except the British Picture Vocabulary Scale was substituted for the BSL task. Language ability correlated positively and significantly with ToM ability, and age was correlated with language ability for both the deaf and hearing children. Age, however, underpinned the relationship between ToM and language for deaf children with signing parents and hearing children but not for nonnative signing, HIU, or oral deaf children. Executive function performance in deaf children was not related to ToM ability. A subset of hearing children, matched on age and language standard scores with signing deaf children, passed significantly more ToM tasks than the deaf children did. The findings are discussed with respect to the hypotheses proposed by Peterson and Siegal (1995, 2000) and Courtin (2000).     

Family counseling in the Netherlands for Turkish-origin parents of deaf children with a cochlear implant

Cultural elements such as language, beliefs about health, and family context play important roles in the uptake of rehabilitation and treatment of deafness. Because of cultural issues, minority groups often do not receive optimal care. Focusing on the Netherlands, the researchers explored how the rehabilitation and counseling of deaf children of Turkish-origin parents can be improved. The most important findings were that (a) most parents initially did not believe their child was deaf and regretted later that they did not start hearing rehabilitation earlier; (b) parents had little confidence in the Dutch health care system and sought a second opinion from a medical doctor of their own national origin; (c) parents did not know how to be actively involved in the care of their deaf child. Implications for practice aimed at improving rehabilitation and counseling for these children are described.     

Assessment of Prelinguistic Behaviors in Deaf Children: Parents as Collaborators

This article begins with the rationale for a detailed assessment of prelinguistic behaviors in young deaf children. I used a Hebrew adaptation of the parent questionnaire developed by Camaioni, Caselli, Volterra, and Luchenti (1992) in Italy to collect data on a relatively large heterogeneous Israeli sample of deaf participants: 43 deaf children of hearing parents (19 girls and 24 boys) ranging in age from 8 to 49 months. Results indicated that prelinguistic behaviors in deaf infants resemble only to some extent the theoretical model of prelinguistic communication in hearing infants. Unique interrelationships emerged among pointing and early noncommunicative behaviors, yet no correlation emerged between the use of referential gestures and early words or signs. We analyzed findings with respect to the comparison of prelinguistic behavioral characteristics in hearing and deaf children and the collaboration with parents in assessing the prelinguistic behaviors of their own deaf children.     

The impact of sign language on the cognitive development of deaf children: the case of theories of mind

The ability to attribute false beliefs (i.e., demonstrate theory of mind) by 155 deaf children between 5 and 8 years of age was compared to that of 39 hearing children ages 4 to 6. The hypotheses under investigation were (1) that linguistic features of sign language could promote the development of theories of mind and (2) that early exposure to language would allow an easier access to these theories. Deaf children were grouped according to their communication mode and the hearing status of their parents. The results obtained in three false belief tasks supported the hypotheses: effective representational abilities were demonstrated by deaf children of deaf parents, whereas those born to hearing parents appeared delayed in that regard, with differences according to their communication mode.     

Conversations between deaf children and their hearing mothers: pragmatic and dialogic characteristics

We examined communication between hearing mothers and their deaf or hearing children longitudinally at child-ages 22 months and 3 years. Specifically, we analyzed both the effects of child deafness and developmental change on pragmatic and dialogic characteristics of communication. From 22 months to 3 years, deaf and hearing children's communicative skills improved similarly along some dimensions: as they grew older, both deaf and hearing children increased the amount they communicated, became increasingly responsive to their mothers' attentional focus, and were responsible for initiating a higher proportion of the dyads' conversations. On the other hand, deaf children were less skilled at maintaining topics, and the pragmatic function of their communication was more likely to be unclear compared to hearing children. Deaf children were also more likely to direct their mothers and less likely to ask questions than hearing children. Communication by hearing mothers was primarily examined to determine the degree to which they controlled the interactions. Overall, mothers of deaf children were only more controlling along one dimension. Mothers of deaf children used more response controls than mothers of hearing children. However, the majority of measures suggested they did not exert more topic or turn-taking controls than did mothers of hearing children. In addition, mothers of deaf and hearing children seemed equally sensitive to their children's communication abilities. Communication by mothers of both deaf and hearing children changed in similar ways as their children developed. Most of the differences in communication by mothers of deaf and hearing children seemed attributable to the deaf children's linguistic delays. The results suggest that intervention efforts should be focused on fostering linguistic development and not general communication skills or changing maternal conversational control.     

ASL and the family system.

This paper examines some of the sociological implications of poor interaction on families in which one of the members is deaf. When a family systems perspective is used, once a child is diagnosed as deaf the family is no longer considered "hearing"; the parents may be hearing, the other children may be, but the family system becomes "hearing and deaf." By viewing this as a hearing/deaf problem, it becomes clear that no adequate solution can be found without the participation of deaf adults and the benefit of their perspectives and insights. We suggest that attention be directed toward neutralizing the effects of the stigma associated with deafness so that American Sign Language can become a pivotal tool for facilitating functional symbolic interaction in hearing/deaf families.     

Does deafness lead to enhancement of visual spatial cognition in children? Negative evidence from deaf nonsigners

This study investigated whether deafness contributes to enhancement of visual spatial cognition independent of knowledge of a sign language. Congenitally deaf school children in India who were born to hearing parents and were not exposed to any sign language, and matched hearing controls, were given a test of digit span and five tests that measured visual spatial skills. The deaf group showed shorter digit span than the hearing group, consistent with previous studies. Deaf and hearing children did not differ in their performance on the visual spatial skills test, suggesting that deafness per se may not be a sufficient factor for enhancement of visual spatial cognition. Early exposure to a sign language and fluent sign skills may be the critical factors that lead to differential development of visual spatial skills in deaf people.