Section Links
Support
You can help by your DirectoryFind out where to go for services, products, classes... |
The Role and Effects of Signing in Early Language and Cognitive DevelopmentMerv Hyde and Des Power, Griffith University, QueenslandA common claim made by many providers of oral-only early intervention programs concerns the effect on listening, speech and language development of bilingual programs involving the use of spoken English and Auslan or signed English with young deaf children. There is often a claim that any signing in early intervention programs leads to poorer English language and speech development. There is ample evidence that this claim is not true. Most research studies point to benefits, and not disadvantages, in the use of bilingual programs for young deaf children under appropriate conditions. The suggestion that exposure to Australian Sign Language (Auslan) or signed English will cause a loss of capacity to acquire and use English is not supported by any credible research and creates an “either/or” consideration in the minds of parents and the media: That is, either the child speaks and listens OR learns a sign language. Nothing could be further from the truth as common experience shows with other languages acquired simultaneously by many Australians in multicultural settings. The “either/or” case that is presented by some claimants is faulty on scientific and linguistic grounds. Why should deaf children be excluded from access to a natural signed language whose characteristics foster effective acquisition by visual learners, and is not a threat to spoken language acquisition? The advocacy of not using signing with deaf children in early intervention programs is often justified by a supposed need for deaf children to function as “auditorily” as possible in order to develop normal speech and listening. In some cases it is advocated that even allowing speechreading by the child to accompany speech from others not be permitted. This is known as a “unisensory” (1) approach and is used by several of the programs that have submitted to the Senate Inquiry. In an earlier paper we have argued that this view is mistaken and may well impede rather than enhance the language and speech development of deaf children. We provide evidence from normal sensory, linguistic and perceptual development and information processing and early intervention pedagogy theory to demonstrate that multisensory approaches involving speech, hearing and vision (“traditional oral-aural” methods), provide much better development opportunities for young deaf children, even without the possible benefits of signing. Our studies and those of others consistently show that parents make many decisions about their child in terms of the prostheses they choose, the language/s they decide to use, the schools and programs they choose and the future lives that they envision for their children. To achieve these outcomes parents need comprehensive and ongoing information and support at a time when they are most vulnerable and emotional following the early diagnosis of their child’s hearing loss. An “either/or” presentation with the faulty assumptions outlined above limits parental choice. If nothing else, the principle of “informed choice” for parents dictates a more supportive and comprehensive response from governments, their authorities and early intervention program advisors. Hyde and his colleagues’ recent studies show that parents are ill-prepared at the stage of diagnosis to consider the nature of their child’s “future life”. They are often neither informed about nor exposed to the potential of their child’s future life as a person who could be equally at home amongst users of English, spoken and written, and users of Auslan. There is no conflict in this situation. However, most parents are largely unaware of this potential outcome, and they are not encouraged to consider it. They should be, particularly in the contexts of informed consent and parental responsibility. Another feature in the findings of Hyde and colleagues’ study relates to the unexpectedly high levels of stress experienced by parents following the implantation of their child. Parents were unprepared for the diversity and complexity of possible outcomes and their associated responsibilities and choices over time. This finding relates strongly to the need for a more comprehensive and ongoing level of support for parents, rather than the simplistic presentation of an implant as a “miraculous cure”, and an “either/or” choice of language or communication mode. These points provide a particularly strong case against the suggestion by one early intervention provider that provision of an implant for a child newly diagnosed as deaf be an “opt-out” rather than an “opt-in” choice for parents; i.e., that provision of an implant be automatic unless parents specifically choose not to have one for their child. Not that implantation should be too delayed (generally speaking, the earlier a child is implanted the better the results are), but parents need to be given adequate information and the time to explore all possible options for the communication regime they desire for their child. As one American study found, “higher child language achievement [was] associated with parents’ reports of lengthy, in-depth processes to decide about cochlear implantation”. The promotion of an “opt out”, rather than an “opt in” situation for implantation of children identified as being deaf in newborn hearing screening programs is a serious misunderstanding of the processes of parental decision making and a misjudgment of the ethics of professional advice. We wish to make it clear that we are not opposed to the implantation of children at as early an age as possible after diagnosis of a hearing loss. We believe that many children obtain great benefit from their implant. We do, however, believe that some of the submissions to the Inquiry downplay less than successful outcomes, do not acknowledge the complexity of the personal, social, linguistic and educational factors that determine outcomes, and, in particular, misrepresent the effects of the addition of vision to communication input and the demonstrated role that a sign language can play in the development of speaking, listening and cognition in deaf children, including those with implants.(2) FootNotes:1. Also known as an “Auditory-Verbal” approach: http://www.avuk.org/approach.html#crit |