Since natural signed languages do not have widely accepted written forms, development at phases 3 and 4 is not possible. View Large Mayer and Wells outline four overlapping phases in the process of becoming literate, with progress through the phases depending on having a linguistic bridge or means to mediate development in and between phases and on having access to a language-learning situation that meets a particular set of conditions. These conditions are a adequate exposure in quality and quantity, b to accessible linguistic input, c in meaningful interactions, d with others who are already capable users of the language. Although there is certainly variability with respect to the relative quality of these linguistic interactions for all learners Wells,it can be generally assumed that for most hearing children the minimal conditions for language acquisition are being met.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract Children acquire language without instruction as long as they are regularly and meaningfully engaged with an accessible human language. However, because of brain plasticity changes during early childhood, children who have not acquired a first language in the early years might never be completely fluent in any language.
If they miss this critical period for exposure to a natural language, their subsequent development of the cognitive activities that rely on a solid first language might be underdeveloped, such as literacy, memory organization, and number manipulation.
An alternative to speech-exclusive approaches to language acquisition exists in the use of sign languages such as American Sign Language ASLwhere acquiring a sign language is subject to the same time constraints of spoken language development. Unfortunately, so far, these alternatives are caught up in an "either - or" dilemma, leading to a highly polarized conflict about which system families should choose for their children, with little tolerance for alternatives by either side of the debate and widespread misinformation about the evidence and implications for or against either approach.
The success rate with cochlear implants is highly variable.
Literacy Among Deaf Students. Deafness can be defined as extreme hearing impairment to the degree that a person cannot understand speech even in the presence of amplification (Rodda and Grove, ). Digital Essay Competition Special Needs Launch – Kenya Institute of Special Education iTOYA Prize Giving eKitabu wins Phase One of Sign On for Literacy, a global competition for technology-based innovations to increase literacy among deaf children. Language and Literacy - Literacy is the ability to read and write. These are both fundamental skills that every child should master. It leads to success in K school, post-secondary school, the ability to compete in the job market, and participation in democratic process (Wei, Blackorby, & Schiller, ).
This issue is still debated, and as far as we know, there are no reliable predictors for success with implants. Yet families are often advised not to expose their child to sign language. Here absolute positions based on ideology create pressures for parents that might jeopardize the real developmental needs of deaf children.
What we do know is that cochlear implants do not offer accessible language to many deaf children. By the time it is clear that the deaf child is not acquiring spoken language with cochlear devices, it might already be past the critical period, and the child runs the risk of becoming linguistically deprived.
Linguistic deprivation constitutes multiple personal harms as well as harms to society in terms of costs to our medical systems and in loss of potential productive societal participation.
Cochlear implants, Sign language, Deaf children, First language acquisition, Linguistic deprivation Introduction Medical harm can be due to errors or complications of treatment, but it can also be due to failure to properly inform patients of the information they need to protect their overall health now and in the future.
Inappropriate care of the latter type lies usually in unawareness on the part of medical personnel and on lack of coordination among the various medical professionals.
Here we discuss medical harm related to the use of cochlear implants with deaf children. Because of lack of training and lack of coordination among professionals, there is a great deal of misinformation about the use of speech and sign language with deaf children who undergo cochlear implantation.
Specifically, many medical professionals do not fully understand the ramifications of promoting speech-exclusive approaches and denying sign language exposure to a deaf child before and after implantation.
We describe several harms from the surgery itself, and argue that, ethically speaking, a standard for success should be cochlear implants measured against hearing aids which are less invasive and do not cause permanent damage to the cochlea.
In particular, we need studies that show success provided by cochlear implants justifies excluding hearing aids as treatment. We also need more studies that identify predictors of successful implant use as well as which children will benefit from a cochlear implant.
Background Whether or not to give a child a cochlear implant has been a point of controversy since cochlear implants were first introduced. The debate is often presented as revolving around the question of whether or not cochlear implants would remove a child from Deaf communities and eventually threaten Deaf communities with extinction [ 1 ].
In writing deaf, it is common convention to use a capital "D" when talking about communities that use a sign language as their major language, and "d" when talking about auditory status.
We don't enter into this debate here. Nor do we enter into a discussion of the ethical questions surrounding cochlear implants, which are complex [ 2 ]. Instead, we look at the harms of the implant procedure, risks of hopes for outcomes not realized and leading to depression, economic consequences to society, harmful conflicts of ideology, and other questions associated with performing cochlear implantation surgery.Literacy Among Deaf Students.
Deafness can be defined as extreme hearing impairment to the degree that a person cannot understand speech even in the presence of amplification (Rodda and Grove, ).
Apr 02, · Because of lack of training and lack of coordination among professionals, there is a great deal of misinformation about the use of speech and sign language with deaf children who undergo cochlear implantation.
Hispanic students, especially those who are LEP, co nsistently are among those with the lowest levels of literacy (42% of Hispanic students are in the bottom quartile, two -thirds are below 50%) (NAEP, ). the articles talk about deaf culture’s recent shifts in attitude towards literacy.
They point out the dominance of hearing culture in the educational system of deaf schools and explain how the deaf community is addressing this issue. Literacy Learner - Differentiation is the key for these students. All students may be working on the same objective, but for this group, the assignment will be given in a .
Feb 10, · The frequently reported low literacy levels among deaf students are, in part, due to the discrepancy between their incomplete spoken language system and the demands of reading a speech-based system (Perfetti & Sandak, ).