This event necessitated that I reflect on the Deaf and their ways. I understood the Deaf way to comprise two key aspects, namely visual learning and Sign Language. Already in 1912 a Deaf man named George Veditz described Deaf people as ‘the first, last, and for all time, the people of the eye’ (Padden & Humphries, 2005, p.2). In doing so, he argued that Deaf people’s lives revolved around the central core of ‘seeing’. In other words, Deaf people are guided by the visual and show preference for practices associated with seeing.
The emphasis on the visual invites further considerations. Firstly, it suggests the possibility that Deaf learners experience a form of sensory compensation. Research on the aspect that Deaf learners may develop more acute visual sensations than a hearing person in order to accommodate the loss of one sense, remains under the examination of the scientific community (Emmorey, Kosslyn & Bellugi, 1993; Finney & Dobkins, 2001). A deeper discussion detailing the various pieces of research on the matter is documented in Marschark (2003). After considering findings from this field, Marschark (2003) concludes that deaf individuals show an advantage relative to hearing peers in several domains of visual processing. The difference, however, is considered a function of experience in sign language. Hence, similar benefits were found in hearing people who use sign language. Subsequently, it appears that apart from increased attention to the visual periphery, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that deaf learners possess a form of sensory compensation.
Secondly, Deaf learners are assigned the status of being predominantly ‘right brain learners’. The dichotomy of the left and right brain is a popular theory that posits that the left hemisphere of the brain is specialized for language, mathematics, detailed analysis, logical thought, temporal and sequential analysis and serial processing of sensory information. The right brain, however, is specialised for emotional expression, intuition, the recognition of faces, artistic achievement, musical
aptitudes, visual-spatial analysis and parallel processing of sensory information (Efron, 1990). These generalisations paved the way for the notion that there are left and right hemisphere cognitive styles or personality types. The interpretation of this theory places the Deaf in the latter category i.e. the non-verbal visual side and may subsequently possess a resulting superior non-verbal intelligence. Efron (1990) cautions one against this type of interpretation. He argues that the left-right brain dichotomy predisposes people to believe that a specific cognitive function is performed in a specific cerebral area, which is specialised for that function. This view however is refutable in lieu of evidence from brain imaging revealing that forms of cognition requires an anatomically extensive system involving both hemispheres (Efron, 1990). Efron (1990) substantiates his view by differentiating between support and specialisation. There are areas in the brain that support specific functions such as language. Support functions are localised. Specialisation in language however, comprises a complex network of support functions linking and spanning interspersed areas of the brain.
Taking the above into account, the critical pedagogical experience that followed was an attempt at integrating the Deaf way into my own pedagogy, with special focus on the visual experience. This birthed a re-learning experience. Wink (2005) describes relearning is a shift in methodology. She indicates that ‘relearning can be uncomfortable at first, but eventually, it becomes doable’ (Wink 2005, p. 67).
I set out to learn from the Deaf how they taught. I informally interviewed them on their methods; sat in on their classes to observe their pedagogical style; and, invited them to teach sections of mathematics that I have taught previously. This created openings for critical comparisons between my own manner and the “Deaf way”.
Based on these experiences a variety of changes in accordance with the “Deaf way” were implemented in my classroom over the subsequent months. I started teaching in colour. For example, x would be red and y would be blue. I imported workbooks and software that portrayed common mathematical concepts through interactive and animated imagery. I constantly reflected on what it truly meant to teach mathematics visually.
Although each of these tools has merit in enriching and supplementing teaching methodology, there was still no substantial change in mathematical proficiency. On the other hand, a large proportion of the learners had difficulty interacting with the concepts when portrayed through imagery, instead of through procedures limited to numbers. In aftermath, I deliberated that their response may be due to the abstract nature of the concept being conveyed by the image, rather than the imagery itself.
Yet of the product of this experience has been an acknowledgement of Marsharck & Hauser’s (2008) recognition that Deaf learners may possess different perceptual strategies compared to hearing children. New developments in this field stem from the notion that an abstract structure is an image structure (Wheatley, 1997). Subsequently, research is advocating the use of imagery through the “mind’s eye” rather than through the human eye. Visual reasoning through metaphors, metonymies, anologies and images has been investigated with hearing children (English, 1997). It was found that children who used imagery in their reasoning were more successful in solving non-routine problems than those who approached the task procedurally (Wheatley, 1997). Similarly, it has been analysed how being able to evoke a mental representation can assist mathematical learning and problem solving in Deaf learners (Lang & Pagliaro, 2007).
In discussions that followed, my Deaf colleagues continually re-emphasised the importance of fluency in signing and the hindrance of signed supported English in the cognitive development of learners. Subsequently I considered the role of Sign Language in Deaf education.