La congestión: entre la forma y la función

The biggest decision that parents of deaf learners need to make is the decision regarding communication and the related educational method. This can cause immense frustration and stress to parents and learners alike and, owing to the impact on their lives, should be an informed decision. The two approaches (which are on opposing sides of the

34

communication continuum) are the oral approach and the sigh language approach to communication and education (Storbeck 2005:353).

2.4.1 The oral approach

The oral approach to communicating with and educating deaf learners advocates the auditory-oral approach to communication. The oral approach termed oralism virtually places a ban on manual communication and stresses instead the use of residual hearing, supplemented by lip reading and speech training. The primary goal of this approach is the “normalisation” of deaf learners to fit more comfortably into a hearing world by making them oral (Westwood 2011:49; Storbeck 2005:353).

Farrell (2006:35) underlines some common features within the oral approach:

 Residual hearing is used and enhanced (for example, by hearing aids).

 Learners who are unable to comprehend speech using hearing alone can gain information from lip reading.

 Cochlear implants may be used.

 There is an emphasis on communicating and the rules of language are assumed to be learnt over time though using language.

 Every effort is made to provide favourable listening conditions.  Active listening skills are encouraged.

 The learner is encouraged to use contextual clues and knowledge of the world actively to aid communication and understanding.

One benefit of the oral approach is that parents and educators do not need to learn a new language and can thus rely on the spoken language of the community. An additional benefit is that these learners are said to fit into the hearing community (by being able to speak and lip-read) without the community having to adapt to their unique needs; this however, is in contradiction to the inclusive approach to education (Storbeck 2005:354).

35

Marschark et al. (2002:111) emphasise that for learners with greater hearing loss, exposure only to spoken language often falls short of giving learners the linguistic tools they need for academic and social purposes. Through the oral approach the deaf learner’s social environment is often restricted and emotional frustration can result (Storbeck 2005:354).

Although access to English or other languages may be essential for literacy, it is most important that deaf learners, like hearing learners, be able to communicate with their parents from the beginning. From babbling and gestures, to first words and signs, to more complex language, it has been shown that normal language development depends on frequent and regular communication between deaf learners and those around them, regardless of whether it is through signed or spoken language (Marschark et al. 2002:111).

2.4.2 The sign language approach

The sign language approach (also known as the manual approach) argues that sign language – the natural, barrier-free language of deaf people – is the first language of a deaf child, and that the language of the hearing majority (spoken language) is the second language of deaf children. Consequently the manual method encourages the use of and exposure to sign language from as early an age as possible, thus recognising the importance of a critical period in language acquisition (Storbeck 2005:354). Considerable evidence indicates that deaf children reach the same language development milestones in sign language as hearing children do in spoken language and do so at about the same time. For example, they manually “babble” at about the same time as hearing infants verbally babble. In addition, deaf infants sign their first words and two-word phrases at about the same time that hearing infants verbalise their first words and two-word phrases (Hallahan & Kauffman 2006:332).

Sign language remains a controversial issue in the field of deaf education. Often the use of sign language is the only thing that attracts the attention of others to the fact that a

36

person is deaf. Many educators and hearing parents feel that to encourage manual forms of communication will cause the child to be accepted only in the deaf community rather than in the wider community of hearing persons (Westwood 2011:49). The manualist argument in contrast says that to prevent a deaf child from using sign language isolates him from the deaf community. Thus the social isolation that an orally educated deaf person can suffer comes from not feeling comfortable or fully capable in either deaf or the hearing community (Storbeck 2005:355). Supporters of the manual approach also emphasise that sign language is fully appropriate for all purposes of day-to-day life (Marschark et al. 2002:104).

Despite the fact that these approaches (oral and manual) are clearly at opposite ends of the communication continuum, they both have strengths and weaknesses. A strategic combination of these strengths and weaknesses has made way for a new approach to communicating with deaf learners and educating them (Storbeck 2005:356). This approach is known as the Bilingual Approach to Deaf Education.

2.4.3 Bilingual approach

The bilingual approach works from the premise that first language competency is necessary in order to develop normal cognitive processes and for second language development (Storbeck 2005:356).

Although there are several variations of the bilingual approach, most of them contain these three features:

1. Sign language is considered the primary language, and English, or any other language of the community, is considered the second language.

2. Deaf people play an important role in the development of the programme and its curriculum.

3. The curriculum includes instruction in Deaf Culture (Storbeck 2005:356; Hallahan & Kauffman 2006:344;).

37

Since the introduction of bilingual programmes in the education of deaf learners, one of the principal claims has been that, as a consequence of using a natural sign language as the primary language of instruction, learners will not only have greater and easier access to curricular content, but will also develop higher levels of literacy, even without exposure to the language in its primary form through speech or alternatively through signed forms of that language. Some proponents of this position go so far as to suggest that the goal would be to achieve levels of literacy commensurate with that of hearing peers. However, as yet there is not a body of research to convincingly make the case for any position. The research directly bearing on the efficacy of bilingual programmes is still in its infancy (Hallahan & Kauffman 2006:344; Marschark & Spencer 2003:136).

Schirmer (2001:203) emphasises that no success-guaranteed method exists for educating deaf learners, though periodically through the history of deaf education various methods have been proposed as the pedagogical solution. In the 1980s and 1990s, bilingual education was considered to be the answer. However, with the increase in cochlear implants, greater numbers of learners are being educated orally, and the oral approach has seen renewed interest. Ultimately, only a range of approaches can meet the needs of a range of deaf learners.

In order to effectively meet the needs of deaf learners within the educational context, educators need to be aware of how the assistive technology can be integrated into the context of instruction.