epse 525 literature review harty

of 19
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Running head: COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND CONSIDERATION OF A BILINGUAL BICULTURAL EDUCATIONAL APPROACH . EPSE 525: Literature Review The Contention of Cochlear Implants: Consideration of a Bilingual Bicultural Educational Approach Tanis M. Harty University of British Columbia December 01, 2017  Running head: COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND CONSIDERATION OF A BILINGUAL BICULTURAL EDUCATIONAL APPROACH 2 The diagnosis of deafness, is complex with a multitude of ranges and variabilities that can seem overwhelming to new parents. One of the challenges faced by families with a deaf child, is that the primary language of the caregivers, or parents in most cases, cannot be accessed  by a child that has been diagnosed with a severe or profound hearing loss. A serious apprehension for most parents that are hearing with a deaf child is that learning sign language to communicate with their child can be extremely challenging for them, as they may have no knowledge of people who are d/Deaf, and may not even be aware of the d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) community. With the advent of Cochlear Implant (CI) technology the choices for families becomes even more complex as the age for implantation is getting younger, some as young as 6 months old (Hyde, Punch, & Komesaroff, 2010, p.162). One concern in relation to this, is that parents may be pressured to make a decision that is not fully informed. Marschark, Lang and Albertini (2002) have written extensively on the education of d/Deaf students, and in his chapter “Characteristics of Deaf Learners” they provide succinct information in relation to Cochlear Implant (CI) technology and considers some of the benefits, risks and implications the technology can have for deaf children. Unlike hearing aids that amplify sound, a CI is a surgically implanted device that provides a “direct connection between sound in the environment and the nerves that normally carry that information to the brain” ( Marschark et al., 2002, p.51). The main purpose of CI technology is to give children access to the perception of sound, and allow children to have access to speech communication. One of the key issues Marschark (2002) discusses is the view that many within the Deaf community that CI technology will destroy Deaf culture and Deaf ways of being, as spoken language would become privileged over sign language as not only a mode of communication, but that these children would not be given the  Running head: COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND CONSIDERATION OF A BILINGUAL BICULTURAL EDUCATIONAL APPROACH 3 opportunity to be introduced to the d/Deaf or hard of hearing communities which can be essential for their social emotional health later in life. This literature review will consider some of the  benefits and risks associated with Cochlear Implants, as well as explore language acquisition options for children with CI’s and consider how a Bilingual -Bicultural (Bi-Bi) approach may be  beneficial for children with Cochlear Implants in terms of language acquisition, social emotional health, identity, and future success in relation to professional practice for teachers of the d/Deaf and hard of hearing. In his article “The Evolving Ethics of Cochlear Implants in Children” Lantos (2013) reviews the controversies surrounding the education of d/Deaf and hard of hearing children  providing a historical overview of communication ideologies of the past, and considers the ethical implications of CI technology in the current debate of deaf education. Lantos (2013) describes two of the major philosophies surrounding the education of deaf children known as “oralism” or “manualism” (p. 323). These two schools of thought are considered to be polar opposites, where oralism is an educational approach that focuses on speech only which discourages the use of sign language. Manualism on the other hand uses sign language, as the  primary form of communication as a way to teach d/Deaf and hard of hearing students. Lantos notes that during the mid 1960’s a review of oralism considered it a “dismal failure” due to the fact that only “ 30% to 35% of English sounds can be speech read” (p. 324) which meant that for most deaf children only a small portion of what was being communicated could be understood, whereas American Sign Language (ASL) offered the ability for students that are deaf to have full access to communication. However, with the advent of CI technology giving access to sound and speech for severe to profoundly deaf children encouraged the idea of an  Running head: COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND CONSIDERATION OF A BILINGUAL BICULTURAL EDUCATIONAL APPROACH 4 oralist approach, where it was believed that using a signed language would impede a CI child’s oral and speech acquisition skills. On the other side of the argument there was concern that if an oral only approach was used and the child did not have full access to an oral language like English, it would delay language acquisition of American Sign Language (ASL) where the child would have neither language fully developed which would negatively impact their “intellectual, social, and psychological development” (Lantos, 2013, p. 325). Additionally, some within the Deaf community believe the technology will wipe out Deaf culture, as it is mostly young children who are implanted and may be steered away from using sign language as a way to communicate in the world, especially if the medical model encourages Cochlear Implants give access to spoken language, which may be an attractive option to hearing parents with deaf children. In the article “Coming to a Decision About Cochlear Implantation: Parents Making Choices for their Deaf Children” authors Hyde, Punch and Komesaroff (2010) used a combined study of quantitative and qualitative evidence through a survey and interview format of 247  participants in three eastern states of Australia. The goal of the study was to explore how parents consider making decisions regarding cochlear implantation for their children, and the implications of information provided to parents from various sources. What the study found was that for the majority of participants information was mainly provided by medical professionals, audiologists and cochlear implant centres with little or no input from the d/Deaf or hard of hearing community. Additionally, while most of the information was provided by those within the medical field, some parents felt that they had been given a medical perspective that seemed “one sided or limited in some way” ( Hyde et al., 2010, p.169). One parent in particular explained

Constitutional Law

Jul 13, 2019
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks