Search

Little is known about the educational experiences of deaf children in Mexico. Schools for the deaf exist, but no research has examined instructional practices for children in these contexts. In this study, we adopt a sociocultural framework for language acquisition to document and understand how teachers at a bilingual (Mexican Sign Language and Spanish) school for the deaf in central Mexico support the learning of their students. Our findings indicate that teachers at this school prioritized deafness and how to leverage the visual modality to support student growth. They used a number of instructional practices familiar to English-speaking audiences, such as scaffolding, explicit instruction, and individualization, perhaps as a result of the close ties between the school and US-based collaborators. Finally, both teachers and students felt that collaboration, between the administration and teachers, among teachers, and among students, was essential. Findings indicate a need to explore these complex issues and expand burgeoning collaborations between bilingual and deaf education researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses issues of language revitalization and linguistic prescriptivism related to the teaching of American Sign Language (ASL) in Canada. I describe the current and historical context for ASL teaching, including the increase in ASL course offerings at some postsecondary institutions, and discuss findings related to challenges in curriculum development and issues of prescriptivism as they recur in my study of developing an ASL curriculum for parents of deaf children that is aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report an analysis of lexical noun phrases (NPs) in narrative and expository texts written by Dutch deaf individuals from a bimodal bilingual perspective. Texts written by Dutch deaf children and adults who are either proficient in Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN) or low-proficient in SLN were compared on structures that either overlap in Dutch and SLN (presence of overt subject and object NPs, NP modifiers, and NP-internal agreement), or are absent in SLN (articles). We found that deaf participants experienced significant difficulty with lexical NPs. Further, deaf proficiently signing children (but not adults) more often omitted obligate articles than deaf low-proficiently signing children. Deaf proficiently signing children and adults did not differ from low-proficiently signing children and adults, however, in the use of NP modifiers, NP-agreement errors and omissions of obligatory NPs. We conclude that proficiency in sign language seems to affect particularly those aspects that differ substantially across sign language and oral language, in this case, articles. We argue that adopting a bimodal bilingual approach is important to understand the writing of deaf children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contains three parts. In the first part, what it means to be bilingual in sign language and the spoken (majority) language is explained, and similarities as well as differences with hearing bilinguals are discussed. The second part examines the biculturalism of deaf people. Like hearing biculturals, they take part, to varying degrees, in the life of two worlds (the deaf world and the hearing world), they adapt their attitudes, behaviors, and languages to both worlds, and they combine and blend aspects of the two. The decisional process they go through in choosing a cultural identity is discussed and the difficulties met by some groups are examined. The third part begins with a discussion of why early bilingualism is crucial for the development of deaf children. The reasons that bilingualism and biculturalism have not normally had the favor of those involved in nurturing and educating deaf children are then discussed. They are of two kinds: misunderstandings concerning bilingualism and sign language; and the lack of acceptance of certain realities by many professionals in deafness, most notably members of the medical world. The article ends with a discussion of the role of the two languages in the development of deaf children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A sign bilingual approach to the education of deaf children was first introduced in the UK in 1990. This paper reviews the growth of sign bilingual education in the UK and documents significant milestones in the development of sign bilingual policy and practice since the 1980s. This overview demonstrates how key issues in sign bilingual education have evolved and how priorities have changed over time and enables comparisons with contexts beyond the UK to be drawn. Current issues in sign bilingual education are analysed within our twenty-first century educational context in which both the advancing technology and medical understanding are providing new opportunities for deaf pupils and changing their learning and communication needs. Particular themes addressed include research into early literacy and also the role of sign language for deaf children with cochlear implants. From this analysis, new directions for sign bilingual education are suggested in terms of learning and teaching and a future research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1981, Swedish Sign Language gained recognition by the Swedish Parliament as the language of deaf people, a decision that made Sweden the first country in the world to give a sign language the status of a language. Swedish was designated as a second language for deaf people, and the need for bilingualism among them was officially asserted. This was reflected in the first bilingual curriculum, introduced in special schools for the deaf and hard of hearing in 1983, which stated that the language of instruction in these schools should be Swedish sign language as well as Swedish, the latter of which, for deaf children, was primarily intended to be in its written form. These provisions were designed to ensure that pupils would be able to develop their bilingualism. In 1994, this curriculum was replaced by a new one that raised the bar even higher. In accordance with this curriculum, schools became responsible for ensuring that all deaf and hard of hearing pupils would be bilingual by the time they completed school. In this paper, I will present details regarding the background of the Swedish Parliament's decision and also compare and discuss the steering documents for the schools in this regard. I will also describe some of the developmental work that was implemented early in schools for the deaf, where teachers collaborated closely with linguistic researchers. This work will be related to contemporary research on sign language linguistics and Swedish as a second language for deaf people. I will then present results from the bilingual approach, as reflected in the leaving certificates of deaf school leavers over the years. Finally, I will briefly discuss the current situation Swedish special schools face today, in which a quickly growing number of deaf children with cochlear implants are applying for admission. Although the need for bilingualism among these children is fully recognised, the attainment of this goal may require schools to adopt different means of instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]