#5

Zpět na obsah / Back to content

Different Opinions on Education of the Deaf – the Objectives of Different Communication Approaches

Lin Li

Abstract: In order to understand the objectives of different communication approaches in education of deaf, 81 articles were searched and screened from Chinese Journal of Special Education, Journal of Special Education, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Child Language Teaching & Therapy with an evidence-based research path. After analyzing the 81 articles about 6 commonly used communication approaches in deaf education, the limitation of relevant articles was found. Result shows that a systematic and comprehensive introduction of different communication approaches in deaf education hasn’t been payed enough attention. Single communication approach has its restriction, and many communication approaches are interrelated and interactive, so it is necessary to effectively use multiple communication approaches in education of deaf. It is important to find a balance between different communication approaches in education of deaf in further research.

Keywords: Comunication, .

1. Introduction

Communication refers to the process that the transfer and feedback of thoughts and feelings between individuals, between individual and groups, in order to reach agreement in thoughts and unobstructed feelings (Qin, Shi, Fan, 2013). It is completed by two basic modes of verbal and non-verbal communication (Qu, 2014). Conventional communication approaches include oral, written, sign language, pictures, etc. However, with the development of digital information technology, the network has expanded and changed the way of communication. The social communication between individuals is the foundation of all kinds of psychological development, and the cognitive development of children cannot be separated from the communication between people (Hu, &Niu, 2003). Due to hearing loss, communication is particularly important for the individuals with hearing impairment (Mi, 2016).The history of education for the deaf essentially is the history of the development of the instructional language in schools for the deaf. The debate on communication approaches also runs through the entire history of education for the deaf (Fu, Liu, 2006). The communication approaches of the individuals with hearing impairment mainly include sign language communication, oral communication, total communication, communication with interpreter and text communication, ect (Mi, 2016). Understanding the objectives of different communication approaches for the individuals with hearing impairment can help clarify the disputes about the application of instructional languages in education for the deaf, and promote the individuals with hearing impairment to discover and apply appropriate communication approaches in their study and life.

2. Materials and Methods

The purpose of this research is using evidence-based research path to identify relevant published network information on the objectives of different communication approaches in education of deaf. Specific aims include the identification are as follow:

• The trend of related research;
• The methods of related research;
• The results of related research.

To meet the aims, an evidence-based question was formulated by using the problem–intervention–comparison–outcome (P–I–(C–not applicable)–O) components with additional synonymous and related terms (Table): What are the objectives of different communication approaches in education of deaf?

As showed in Table 1, the primary search terms, as an input to the development of the search strategy, were P-hearing impairment; I-communication approaches; C-not applicable; and O-education. In order to increase the search sensitivity, synonyms and related terms were added to the primary search terms using the Boolean operator “OR”. Collins dictionary was used for formulating synonyms. In the process of literature search, the P is used as main search key word to match with I and O randomly, components were connected using the Boolean operator “AND”. All of the search was in abstract with no time limitation, and carried out in March 2021. Languages is limited to Chinese and English.

The database source of literature search is Chinese Journal of Special Education, Journal of Special Education, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Child Language Teaching & Therapy which represent the highest level of academic achievements in special education and education of deaf.

After finishing the search of literature, the results of search were going to match with the inclusive criteria and exclusive criteria to screen the irrelevant and get final results for analyzing. The specific information of searching and screening results is showed in Table 2. The inclusive criteria and exclusive criteria are as follow:

Inclusive criteria: 1. The researches are relevant to search questions; 2. The participants or object of the researches are individuals with hearing impairment; 3.The purposes of researches are relevant to improve the communication in education of deaf.

Exclusive criteria: 1. The communication approaches are not used or discussed in education of deaf; 2. The researches are focus on developing the skills of communication approaches for individuals; 3. The participants or object of the researches have other physical impairments or neurological diseases besides hearing impairment.

As shown in Table 2, using the searching strategy, a total of 262 articles were obtained. After matching the corresponding inclusion and exclusion criteria, 81 articles were obtained. Most of articles come from Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Chinese Journal of Special Education.

3. Results

3.1 The Changing Trend of Literature

It can be seen from Figure 3.1, the time of related articles is between 1992 and 2020 in the four journals. From 1992 to 2006, the number of literature is continued to increase. In 2002 to 2006, the output of literature was the highest, there are 29 related articles in the 5 years. Since 2006, the output of literature has shown a downward trend.

As shown in Table 3, only a part of articles payed attention to a single communication approach and most of them are sign language. Most of articles payed attention to two different communication approaches, namely sign language, oral/written language. It is just a few articles concerned three communication approaches in a article, no one article analyzed more than three communication approaches with a systematical way.

4 The Information about Research Method

After reading and analyzing the articles, the specific information of research method is showed in Table 4. Two types of research were involved in the 81 articles . The number of non-empirical research is nearly equal to empirical research. As for types of research desi gn, most articles are speculative research, followed by quasi-experimental research and non-experimental research.

The information about the trend of different research type is showed in figure 3.2. It is easy to find that there are three period with the changing of different research type. The first period is 1992-2001, the development of non-empirical research and empirical research is similar. The second period is 2002 to around 2011, the number of non-empirical research is obviously more than empirical research. The third period is around 2012 t0 2020, the number of empirical research is more than non-empirical research in this period.

The Research Results of the Objectives of Different Communication Approaches in Education of Deaf

Communication is a process in which one encodes and sends information, and the other receives and decodes. The premise of understanding is that both sides have the same set of codebooks, and non-verbal communication methods are also based on common experience (Gong, 2009). Due to different level of hearing loss, different object of communication, different cultural background and different views of education, different communication approaches are used in education of deaf. In the four journals, six communication approaches were analyzed. The author will find out the objectives of different communication approaches in education of deaf from the six communication approaches.

3.3.1 Sign Language

Sign language is a systematic and visual gesture symbol that is often used by people with hearing impairment. It is a non-verbal way of communication (Fang, &Lei, 2007). Since William C. Stokoe established the linguistic status of American Sign Language, it proved that the group with hearing impairment is a special group with sign language as a link, and is a "minority" in the linguistic sense. The determination of the status of sign language linguistics has greatly improved the social status and living conditions of the people with hearing impairment, and has profoundly affected the life of the deaf community and the development of the deaf culture (Guo, 2006). Sign language reflects the protection and respect of the basic rights and interests to the deaf community.

Sign language is a tool for people with hearing impairment to communicate and think, and its acquisition and development have an important influence on their cognition and personality (Yu, &Zhang, 2004). Especially for children with congenital or severe hearing impairment whose hearing loss is above 91 decibels, sign language is the only natural language that develops along with the critical period of language of children with hearing impairment (Fang, &Lei, 2007). Sign language is the first language of community of deaf. A good mastery of first language can conductive to the learning of second language, so sign language is a bridge for community of deaf to develop their language (Hu, &Niu, 2003). Currently, there are three types of sign languages in the deaf education system. That is, the visual language based on gestures-natural sign language, which is the natural language of the deaf; Sign supported language, which is a gesture symbol system established on the basis of oral language, that is, the corresponding sign is used to type oral language content; Pidgin signed language, which is formed by using some gesture meanings in natural sign language and the structure of oral language. The current bilingual education concept is more advocating the use of natural sign language and pidgin signed language in teaching for the children with hearing impairment.

Sign language is a kind of vivid language, which is a good supplement to the vividness of abstract oral and written language, but it has some disadvantages such as few abstract factors, irregular sentences, and insufficient vocabulary (Chen, &Lan, 2002). In addition, due to the influence of factors such as mainstream culture, politics, religion, and changes in the times, sign language often has diversity, and the diversity of sign language will affect the effect of communication (Shen, 2008). Finally, sign language is more used for communication in community of deaf , and it is difficult to meet the communication needs of people with hearing impairment to integrate into the mainstream society.

3.3.2 Written Language

Written language is a static symbolic form of language (Liu, 2005). It is a platform for showing the language abilities of students with hearing impairment (Wang, 2004).The most important input for people with hearing impairment to acquire mainstream language is written language which has the character of precise and effective (Gong, 2009). The language learning of children with hearing impairment is essentially a process from natural sign language to written language (Zheng, &Yuan, 2012).

Reading is an important part of written language learning. The reading level of students with hearing impairment is lower than their peers with normal hearing. The essential reason is that students with hearing impairment have many problems in every link of text comprehension process (Fang, &Lei, 2007).There is a causal link between an individual's processing strategy for writing and the first language (Miller, 2002; Scott, Hoffmeister, 2018). Research showed that sign language is an important factor for successful reading of students with hearing impairment (Roald, 2002; Hermans, Knoors, Ormel, Verhoeven, 2008). Sign Language can enhance the reading process in some regard. It is helpful for facilitating processing written words from a perceptual to a conceptual level (Miller, 2002). Shared reading is an effective way to promote language and literacy, vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, and metalinguistic awareness for students with hearing impairment (Miller, 2002).

Even thought written language is important and effective for people with hearing to acquire mainstreaming language, it can’t over come its disadvantage of slow information transmission. Education of written language also based on the educator's proficiency in sign language.

3.3.3 Oral Language

Oral language is a dynamic symbolic form of language, which has the advantage, and accompanies by the characteristics of poor distinguishability and non-repeatability. The oral language communication approach emphasizes using residual hearing and hearing aids to strengthen the hearing ability of the people with hearing impairment, so as them to return to the mainstreaming world through the auditory system (Hu, &Niu, 2003). The auditory cortex of human has plasticity. Early language experience has a great influence on the establishment of speech processing nerve pathways (Fang, &Lei, 2007). However, it is difficult for most people with hearing impairment to achieve complete and fluency in the development of oral language (Hu, &Niu, 2003). Vision is still the main way for most of students with hearing impairment to communicate. Even after two or three years of rehabilitation training, 95% of children with hearing impairment who implant cochlear still rely on visual cues as their main source of information, that is, they need to use lipreading to help for communication (Lei, &Deng, 2007). At the same time, auditory aids help improve lip-reading speech skills (Fang, &Lei, 2007).

The acquisition of a second language requires cultural adaptation, the educational process of educators is actually a process of helping students to improve their cultural adaptation (Yang, 2009). Learning a second language is accompanied by transplanting the cultural form and meaning of the first language into the second language. The learning process of a second language is actually a process of redefining individual identity (Huang, 2013). Oral language teaching for students with impairment emphasizes the cultivation of phonological awareness, while bilingual teaching emphasizes the importance of sign language in the acquisition of language (Wang, 2012). Research proves that bilingual courses for children with hearing impairment can promote children’s vocabulary comprehension better than sign language teaching alone (Tomasuolo et al., 2013).

3.3.4 Total communication

Total communication refers to the proper combination the oral language, sign language and lipreading and so on, to ensure that children with hearing impairment can fully integrate into school life, family life and social life (Lei, &Deng, 2007). The total communication pays attention to the right of human's development, fully meets individual needs, recognizes the differences between the individuals with hearing impairment. Its educational philosophy is that the people with hearing impairment have the right to obtain information and communicate through various channels. The educator should choose the communication approaches according to the development level, educational needs and individual differences of the students with hearing impairment. Educators can't restrict students to a certain form of communication approach to receive, send information, and communicate with each other, but should make full use of voice, expression, body posture, shape of mouth and sign language to transmit information to them to achieve the purpose of communication (Yuan, 2002).

The total communication approach tries to show that oral language communication and sign language communication are not opposites. They have their own strengths and weaknesses, and can learn from each other's strengths and jointly promote the development of language and communication skills for children with hearing impairment, effectively avoiding the disadvantages of using a single communication approach (Yuan, 2002). However, in the actual application of total communication approach, payed more attention to oral language, and the main purpose is to develop the mainstream language of students with hearing impairment. Most of teachers and parents with normal hearing rarely understand and use sign language proficiently (Wang, 2012). The requirement for teachers' number and expertise is unmatched.

3.3.5 Communication with Interpreter

In order to enhance the communication between educators and students with hearing impairment, and guarantee the right of students with hearing impairment to receive appropriate education in different educational environments, communication with interpreter was introduced in education of deaf. The role of interpreter in the classroom includes interpreting teachers’ oral language to sign language, interpreting the students’ sign language to oral language, mediating the communication between students with hearing impairment and their peers with normal hearing, and monitoring the overall classroom behavior (Cawthon, 2001).

However, in inclusive education, providing sign language for children with hearing impairment by interpreter, or asking the teachers to be proficient in sign language, to meet the sign language needs of children with hearing impairment and the oral needs of normal hearing children has been questioned. This isolates the relationship between sign language and oral language, and distinguishes the objects of sign language teaching and oral language teaching. It also poses challenge to parents of students with normal hearing, teachers and administrators of mainstreaming school. (Lei, &Deng, 2007). Research showed that all the mentor and trainee teachers with normal hearing were suspicious of the use of deaf assistants, whom they saw as synonymous with sign language, because they believe the existence of deaf assistants would interfere the learners’ development of oral language, and would not enable learners to be included in a non-deaf world (Musengi, Ndofirepi, Shumba, 2013). At the same time, researches pointed out that less than half of the interpreters can meet the lowest level of interpreting for students with hearing impairment, interpreting did not provide full access in educational settings for the students with hearing impairment (Krause, Kegl, Schick , 2008;Schick, Williams, Bolster, 1999; Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, Seewagen, 2005). On this base, students with hearing impairment hope that interpreters can use different interpretation approach in different educational environments while improving their interpretation skills, and have professional background knowledge of specific subjects (Kathryn et al., 2000).

3.3.6 Internet Communication

With the development of information technology and the widespread use of computers, network communication has also been applied to education of deaf. The commonly used approach is to use computers and projectors to project the teaching text and content on the large screen according to the teaching implementation process, which is a form of computer-assisted teaching. It has the dynamics of static language, the precision of visual dynamic language, and the characteristics of multiple language symbols. It solves the speed problem of written language and realizes the synchronization of written and oral language (Liu, 2005). In addition, the internet communication which using computers to recognize and render sign language, using translation systems of oral language and sign language, using intelligent computer-aided instruction to build a tutorial system for children with hearing impairment, and analyze their writing and make tailored lessons and recommendations has great potential in education of deaf (Parton, 2006).

4. Discussion

After searching and analyzing the literature about communication approaches in education of deaf, it is easy to find that the articles of communication approaches in education for the deaf are mainly distributed in Chinese Journal of Special Education, and The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, but the number and content have certain limitations. There are only 81 related articles published in the four journals between 1992-2020. The research method has changed significantly in stages, in the past 10 years, empirical research has been the main focus. Most articles only focus on single communication approach in deaf education or discuss and compare 2-3 communication approaches, but do not give a systematic and comprehensive introduction to communication approaches in deaf education. After analyzing the 6 commonly used communication approaches in deaf education, it is found that the objective of all communication approaches is to help students with hearing impairment to obtain teaching information and knowledge better based on their physiological and cognitive characteristics, and to ensure their right of education and development, but single communication method has its restriction. For example, sign language has the character of few abstract factors, irregular sentences, and insufficient vocabulary, difficult to integrate into the mainstream society; Oral language has poor distinguishability and non-repeatability for students with hearing impairment; Information transmission speed of written language is slow; Total communication is difficult for teachers and parents to meet its requirements; Communication with interpreter often isolates educational objects who are suitable for sign language or oral language in practice. Many communication approaches are interrelated and interactive, so it is necessary to effectively use multiple communication approaches in education of deaf. In the further research, it is important to find a balance between different communication approaches in education of deaf, and promote the professional abilities of educator to meet the requirement of different communication approaches.

Reference

[1] Parton, Becky Sue. Sign Language Recognition and Translation: A Multidisciplined Approach From the Field of Artificial Intelligence. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2006. 94–101 p. 

[2] Cawthon, Stephanie W. Teaching Strategies in Inclusive Classrooms With Deaf Students. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2001. 212–225 p. 

[3] Chen, Shaoyi. - Lan, Jijun. The Reform of Chinese Sign Language with the Development of Rehabilitation and Teaching for the Deaf Students. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2003. P. 32-36. 

[4] Fang, Junming - Lei, Jianghua Construction of the Comprehensive Education Model Based on the Language Cognition for the Deaf. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2007. P. 28-32. 

[5] Fu, Chuancai. - Liu, Enyu. Evolution of Teaching Methods in Deaf Education — Milan Congress. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2006. P. 53-58. 

[6] Gong, Qunhu. Linguistic Analysis of Sign Language and Chinese in Deaf Education. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2009, 37. P. 63-67. 

[7] Guohua. An Introduction and Evaluation of William C.Stokoe and His Linguistics Study of Sign Language. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2006. P. 35-40. 

[8] Hermans, Daan. - Knoors, Harry. - Ormel, Ellen. - Verhoeven, Ludo. The Relationship Between the Reading and Signing Skills of Deaf Children in Bilingual Education Programs. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2008. 518–530 p. 

[9] Hu, Yamei. - Niu, Yubai. The Impact of Sign Language on Deaf Children' s Cognitive Development. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2003. P. 49-53. 

[10] Huang, Lijiao. A Probe into the Sociocultural Paradigm on Language Teaching at Schools for the Deaf—Based on the Theory of Second Language Acquisition. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2013. P. 31-35. 

[11] Kathryn, H. Kreimeyer. - Pamela, Crooke - Cynthia, Drye - Vivian, Egbert - Barbara, Klein Academic and Social Benefits of a Co-enrollment Model of Inclusive Education for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2000. 174–185 p. 

[12] Krause, Jean C. - Kegl, Judy A. - Schick, Brenda. Toward Extending the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment to Cued Speech. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2008. 432–450 p. 

[13] Lei, Jianghua. - Deng, Meng. A Research on Language Teaching Models of Inclusive Education for the Hearing Handicapped Children. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2007. P. 13-18. 

[14] Liu, Aiqin. A New Classroom Teaching Language in Schools for the Deaf ———Large Screen Language. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2005. P. 31-35. 

[15] Marschark, Marc. - Sapere, Patricia. - Convertino, Carol - Seewagen, Rosemarie Access to Postsecondary Education through Sign Language Interpreting. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2005. 38–50 p. 

[16] Mi, Kuo. A Review of the Communication Modes of the Hearing-Impaired. Modern Special Education. 2016. P. 72-76. 

[17] Miller, Paul. Communication Mode and the Processing of Printed Words: Evidence From Readers With Prelingually Acquired Deafness. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2002. 312–329 p. 

[18] Musengi, Martin. - Ndofirepi, Amasa. - Shumba, Almon. Rethinking Education of Deaf Children in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities for Teacher Education. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2013. 62–74 p. 

[19] Qin, Bing. - Shi, Ruihong. - Fan, Zhigang. Teachers and the Art of Communication. Journal of Henan Medical College. 2013. P. 373-374. 

[20] Qu, Yuan. Thoughts on Communicate Methods to Help to Construct the Harmonious Nurse Patient Relationship. Chinese Clinical Nursing. 2014. P. 357-358. 

[21] Roald, Ingvild. Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections on Their Science Education: Implications for Instruction. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2002. 57–73 p. 

[22] Scott, J.A. - Hoffmeister, R.J. Superordinate Precision: An Examination of Academic Writing Among Bilingual Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2018. 173–182 p. 

[23] Shen, Yulin. A Study on Diversification, Standardization and Development of Sign Language. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2008. P. 34-40. 

[24] Schick, B. - Williams, K. - Bolster, L. Skill levels of educational interpreters working in public schools. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 1999. 144–155 p. 

[25] Tomasuolo, Elena. - Giovanni, Valeri. - Alessio, Di Renzo. - Patrizio, Pasqualetti. - Virginia, Volterra. Deaf Children Attending Different School Environments: Sign Language Abilities and Theory of Mind. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2013. 12–29 p. 

[26] Wang, Jiaoyan. Language Ability and Educational Countermeasures from the Perspective of Written Language in Deaf Students. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2004. P. 18-21. 

[27] Wang, Zhiqiang. A Review of Oral Teaching and Bilingual Teaching in Schools for the Deaf. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2012. P. 55-60. 

[28] Yang, Junhui. The Development of Deaf Bilingual Education in International Contexts. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2009. P. 44-50. 

[29] Yu, Songmei. - Zhang, Ningsheng. Study on the Linguistic Aspects of Sign Language. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2004. P. 61-64. 

[30] Yuan, Yin. A Review of the Communication Modes for Children with Hearing Impairment. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2002. P. 37-40. 

[31] Zheng, Xuan. - Yuan, Xiaoqin. Research into and Practice of the Course of Cross-Translation Between the Chinese Language and Sign Language in Schools for the Deaf. Chinese Journal of Special Education. 2012. P. 31-36. ISSN . 

Informace o autorovi

Lin Li

Pedagogická fakulta Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci

Žižkovo nám. 5

771 46  Olomouc

Česká republika

lin.li01@upol.cz