Jump to content

User:Eaheller13/Language deprivation in deaf and hard of hearing children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language deprivation in deaf and hard of hearing children occurs when children do not receive accessible language exposure during the critical period of language development. The children may experience severely delay language development from the lack of language exposure during this period. These cases were observed in several well-known clinical case studies such as Genie,[1] Kaspar Hauser, Anna,[2] and Isabelle,[3] as well as cases analyzing feral children such as Victor. All of these children had the typical hearing yet did not develop language typically due to language deprivation.

Similarly, language deprivation in deaf and hard of hearing children often occurs they often have limited or no accessible to that language included signed language or spoken English. However, deaf and hard of hearing children exposed to adequate language can develop ordinary language. Language define the many kind of communication, including both signed language and spoken language pretty early on. Language can be provided in various ways and helps children learn about and understand the world around them: early-intervention, parental involvement, and legislation work to prevent language deprivation. Deaf children who experience limited access to language—spoken or signed—may not develop the necessary skills to assimilate into the academic learning milieu successfully.[4] There are varied educational approaches for teaching deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

Typical Language Development for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

[edit]

Although language deprivation is likely to occur when hearing loss restricts access to spoke language, deaf and hard of hearing children are capable of acquiring typical language. This is because language deprivation is caused by restricted language access, not by deafness itself. For deaf and hard of hearing children with no vision impairments, visual language is fully accessible to them and can protect them from experiencing language deprivation. An example of this is when Deaf parents have a deaf baby. A 2017 study worked to identify the role of language deprivation versus deafness itself with regards to child behavior. When comparing two groups of deaf children, the researchers found that the group who had been exposed to language from birth did not display the behavioral issues that characterized the language deprivation group. Since the children in both groups were deaf, the researchers concluded that it was not deafness, but language exposure that protected the native signers from developing the behavioral issues characteristic of the group who had experienced language deprivation.[5]  Studies such as this reveal that the timing and quality of language exposure are more important than hearing status for developing age-appropriate skills.

Technology and Interventions

[edit]

With currently available technology and interventions, children are likely to successfully achieve age-expected spoken language skills. Technology such as cochlear implants, hearing aids, and BAHAs can potentially help provide access to spoken language to children. This access can vary greatly from person to person due to factors such as cause and severity of deafness, the age of when hearing technology is introduced, and time of language exposure. Speech therapy, audiology, and other services have the potential to help maximize the access provided through hearing technology. Even for children using hearing technology, the age they were exposed to language (whether visual or spoken) will have a role in how much they can benefit from the technology. Speaking, though, is not the only option for communication for deaf and hard of hearing children. Language exposure, either signed or spoken, from birth builds and strengthens brain tissue that can be used in a variety of language contexts in the future. For example, if in the future the child wants to get a cochlear implant and is old enough to do so, their language exposure from birth will determine if that cochlear implant will be successful in their communication.[6]

All too often, though, deaf and hard of hearing children do not follow the typical language development timeline. When a child is deprived of language from the beginning, they can be dramatically behind their peers in terms of hitting milestones. This can impact learning for the rest of their lives.[1]

Age of Language Exposure

[edit]

The first five years of a child's life is a critical time for cognitive development and the establishment of their native language.[2] This critical period deems the first few years of life as the period during which the brain is most primed for language development. The critical period is also referred to as the sensitive period for language development, or the language acquisition window. Studies on infancy stroke and typical language development unveiled a critical period for language acquisition.[3] After this critical period of language acquisition, it remains exceedingly laborious and strenuous to master a native language.[4] Language development is not impossible after the five year mark, but will likely bear the cognitive and linguistic characteristics of language deprivation.

Quality of Language Exposure

[edit]

Timing and quality of language exposure, not language used or how many languages used, are the factors that matter most when determining language and literacy outcomes.[7][8][9] When deaf and hard of hearing children are fully exposed to natural language along a timeline equivalent to their hearing peers, they will acquire language along equivalent milestones. This timeline includes babbling around 10 months and first sign around one year.[10][11] The full timeline of children who use sign was published by Gallaudet University Press and is a resource that parents of deaf children can use to track their child's language development which includes milestones like following eye gaze, pointing, and imitating handshapes.[11] This resource is unique because it is normed for deaf and hard of hearing children, and can be used to establish parent expectations for their child's language progress.[12]

Critical Period

[edit]

The critical stage in language development is important in deaf individuals.[13] Deaf individuals who lack exposure to sign language at a young age fail to achieve full language proficiency as they develop.[13] Inconsistencies in exposure to a natural language during this critical period of language acquisition could result in persistent symptoms, known as language deprivation syndrome.[14] Symptoms of language deprivation syndrome include language dysfluency (e.g., lack of fluency in native language), knowledge gaps about the world around them, abnormal thinking, mood and/or behavior disorders, academic, and literacy delays.[15] It was found that deaf individuals who acquired sign language after five years of age were not nearly as proficient as deaf individuals who were exposed to sign language from birth.[16]

Misconceptions of Critical Period

[edit]

One misconception is that deaf children will be at a disadvantage since they lack access to auditory input and, therefore, deafness results in delayed development.[17][18] Because of this, a focus on auditory language exposure for deaf children is usually recommended. However, deafness, or the lack of auditory input, is not a cause of delayed development, language deprivation is. Profoundly deaf children who had early exposure to a visual signed language possess high levels of language organization.[17] If development of spoken language is desired, listening technology (hearing aids or cochlear implants) can help, but the overall process is enhanced when paired with sign language. A note is that these devices vary greatly in benefit to different hard of hearing and deaf individuals and do not guarantee better auditory understanding or speaking ability.[17]

Other studies address the neurological differences between individuals who have experienced language deprivation and those who did not. The first five years of life are foundational for many skills as the brain develops the neural connections and processes that will be built upon for years to come. Without full access and exposure to natural language during the critical period, the brain does not have the tools it needs to build the typical framework for processing and producing language.[19][20][21][2] In turn, language deprivation can cause abnormalities in other areas of cognitive functioning, particularly the establishment of concepts, processing things in a set order, and executive function.[22] Similar results were seen in deaf individuals. Language deprivation influenced altered neural activation patterns in deaf individuals that were exposed exposed to sign language later, as compared to deaf individuals who received typical language development.[21]

Incidental Learning and Access to Knowledge

[edit]

When hearing individuals share information with each other in a way that is not accessible to deaf individuals, the deaf individuals are not privy to incidental learning experiences. Incidental learning refers to any unprompted, unplanned, or unintended learning.[23] Hearing children typically learn incidentally when they overhear conversations between other family members in the home. This type of learning occurs in everyday communication including emotional expression, navigating arguments, and managing triggers. Language deprivation syndrome coupled with the lack of these every day incidental learning experiences may impact mental health, physical health, and academic advancements.[14][24] A lack of incidental learning can also limit an individual's general wealth of knowledge and comprehension skills used to learn about and understand the world around them.[19] Without the wealth of knowledge and language skills hearing children typically demonstrate, deaf and hard of hearing children can arrive at school already behind their peers. This trend can continue as they spend school years working to learn the things their hearing peers picked up effortlessly in the home before starting school. Incidental learning is possible for deaf and hard of hearing children when the family uses language that is fully accessible to all family members and includes the child with atypical hearing in family communications directly and indirectly.

Early Accessible Communication

[edit]

The importance of early accessible communication with family and peers can be seen in ‘dinner table syndrome'—the experience of observing spoken conversations between other family members and not understanding these conversations.[25] As statistics show, 90-95% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, thus, they may often experience this phenomena if their family does not incorporate sign language into their communication.[26][27] These parents may be unfamiliar with Deaf culture and are often unaware of the best communication methods to assist their children with developing into contributing members of society.[28][29] A famous Deaf artist, Susan Dupor, painted an art piece called "Family Dog” to represent this experience. Her artwork represents the feeling of isolation being deaf in an all hearing family.[30] This painting was designed to emphasize deaf family members’ perspectives with the blurred faces of the family metaphorically representing the difficulties of lip reading. Only 30-45% of the english language can be understood solely through lip reading.[31] In these situations, deaf children are unable to participate in the conversations without using a commonly accessible language.[32] Similarly, these experiences occur during social engagements where deaf individuals cannot communicate with other individuals through a spoken language.

Language Modality

[edit]

When it comes to language deprivation prevention, modality, which in this case means using either spoken or signed language, does not matter to the brain as long as it is fully accessible. Studies from Dr. Laura-Ann Petitto reveal that brain tissue used for language accepts both auditory and visual input to develop language pathways. This is because the brain focuses on patterns in language, whether it is a pattern of sounds or a pattern of hand movements.[33] Access to the full range of patterns embedded in a language is key for developing strong language pathways in the brain.[34] The brain connections developed in response to linguistic input can then be utilized if/when the child is exposed to a second language. Even in cases where the brain receives absolutely no auditory input, the brain is still able to develop typical language skills when exposed to high-quality visual language. Hearing technologies can also be used to grant spoken language access, though the quality of this access varies from person to person.

Conflict and Controversies

[edit]

There has been much conflict and controversy regarding language modality for deaf and hard of hearing children. This is due in part to the identification system. When it is discovered that a child is deaf or hard of hearing, this assessment is usually made via a "failed" hearing test in a medical setting.[35] The first people the parents interact with after their child's hearing status is identified can be very influential. These professionals need to provide parents with unbiased, well-rounded information to help guide decisions they will need to make. In the past, many children have suffered due to pressure their parents experienced to choose one language modality for them as soon as possible. Furthermore, systemic bias towards deafness (called Audism) and business motivation commonly impacts what information and guidance parents receive. By the time parents realize the communication modality they chose wasn't successful for their child, their child is already behind in language development.

Language Options

[edit]

Language options include spoken language, signed language, and communication systems such as cued speech, SSE, SEE, and total communication. Children whose parents selected the spoken language route use hearing technology to receive spoken language input and are encouraged to go to speech therapy to work on expressive language skills, leading them to speak and listen to language. Medical professionals could perform cochlear implant surgery on these individuals if elected, or audiologists could test residual hearing and order hearing aids. This method is often used by families who utilize spoken language at home and cannot or will not learn sign language. Modern research reveals that there is a wide range of results from this method as there are many background factors that impact the success of this method, such as family socioeconomic status, location, parental employment, quality of the language model at home, and the child's residual hearing.[36][37][38]

Deaf Mentor

[edit]

Children whose parents select the signed language route benefit from signed language models, such as a Deaf mentor.[39] The family would take signing classes and ideally engage in Deaf community events. Everyone, including the child, would learn to sign together and use their skills to communicate with one another. This method ensures the child has full language access, but poses challenges to the family as they work to learn a new language. Communication systems such as cued speech, SSE, SEE, and total communication also historically have been presented as options to parents. These systems are closely linked to English and therefore are usually easier for acquisition by people whose native language is English. However, these methods are not fully ASL, and they are not defined by the same language characteristics that all language systems include such as morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics.[40][41]

Code Switching

[edit]

By prioritizing the child's visual and auditory language equally from birth, children are given every opportunity and tool to develop language. As children grow and become adults, they may naturally prefer one modality over the other, but will have developed useful skills in both. Code switching allows bilingual individuals to experience all the benefits of each language they know. For deaf and hard of hearing children especially, a strong language foundation in a signed language paired with a spoken language (or written) sets the stage for literacy later on.

Early Intervention

[edit]

Early intervention is one of the main methods of preventing language deprivation. A main focus of early intervention programs and services for deaf and hard of hearing children is language development. Early interventionists are able to work with the family during the early, critical years for language acquisition.[42] Early intervention can take many forms and usually depends on where the family lives. In the United States, the School for the Deaf in the state the family lives in likely provides programs and resources. Other services can come from the state itself, national programs, and educational centers. These services may be paid for through state and federal funds. Independent organizations like the National Association of the Deaf and the American Society of Deaf Children in the United States and the National Deaf Children's Society in London can provide additional resources and support.[43]

Success of Early Intervention

[edit]

A team must be cooperative for the success of early intervention. Members of the early intervention team can include education and medical professionals, therapists (speech, occupational, physical, psychological), specialists (vision, hearing/deafness, family dynamics, and kinesthetic), the audiologist, a social worker, the interventionist, and the family.[44] A Deaf mentor can also be included as a key member of the team. Deaf mentors provide a role model for the child that they may not see anywhere else, as well as providing a language model for the whole family. Deaf mentors are instrumental in helping parents understand what their deaf child is capable of and establishing high expectations for the child to fulfill their potential. Early interventionists can also work with the family in the home through game play, language and communication instruction and activities, providing strategies, helping establish routines and discipline methods, and more.[45] Home visits are one way early intervention can take place, but it is not limited to the home given the broad range of services provided. Geographic location of the family influences available services and resources due to distance, but virtual intervention measures have helped address this challenge.

Early intervention has also helped prevent language deprivation in the United States through the newborn hearing screening. Before universal hearing screening was established in hospitals shortly after birth, many deaf children's hearing status was not identified until years after birth, when language milestones were not being met. At the time of identification, the child was already behind. Newborn hearing screening supports early identification and allows professionals to help keep the child's language development on track.[46]

Legislation

[edit]

There is another way language deprivation can prevent is through legislation for deaf education. One current example of legislation in the United States is LEAD-K, which stands for Language Equality & Acquisition for Deaf Kids. LEAD-K varies from state to state because each state is responsible for drafting its version of the bill. Then, they can pass the bill through their state’s house of representatives and senate.

LEAD-K's five actions

[edit]

The main focus of LEAD-K is full language development in English, ASL, or both, for school readiness and the prevention of language deprivation.[40] Seven states totaled passed their LEAD-K on May 11, 2018. The model bill for LEAD-K calls for five actions:

  1. Create a resource for informal parental use to chart their deaf or hard of hearing children’s language growth—this resource-based on milestones for specific language and English literacy development.
  2. Provide a similar resource for educators that, instead of being created through LEAD-K, is chosen from current methods.
  3. Distribute the parent and educator resources to relevant individuals and organizations and equip these recipients for its use.
  4. Hold IEP and IFSP teams accountable for the child's language development progress.
  5. Establish an advisory committee outline the model bills and the requirements for the composition to ensure the creation of a balanced, knowledgeable, and diverse team.[41]

LEAD-K's Controversies

[edit]

LEAD-K has faced opposition by spoken language-focused groups such as ASHA (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) and ACIA (American Cochlear Implant Alliance). Both groups released statements regarding their concerns about the parental choice of modality for their child.[42][43] It is unclear which version of LEAD-K these statements respond to as LEAD-K has been adjusted since its first version in 2015 and varies between states.

One notable revision came via a collaboration between LEAD-K and the A.G. Bell Foundation, a historically spoken language-only group. These two traditionally opposed groups could reach an agreement by focusing on the shared desire to provide equal language acquisition opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing children. They are received by their hearing peers and promoted the spread of accurate and balanced information.[45]

LEAD-K is just one example among many legislation in the United States concerning the language rights of deaf and hard of hearing children. Globally, countless laws and policies also relate to the topic of language deprivation. Also, other related laws include national legislation such as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[46]

General Education

[edit]

One education option for students who are deaf or hard of hearing is general (or mainstream) education. This method integrates students requiring special education services into a general education classroom based on their skills. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates the specificities of this integration.[47] IDEA protects students who are typically a part of the special education classroom by granting the right to access the same education setting as their peers.[48] The student also has a right to the school-provided accommodations and services necessary for him or her to be able to participate in the general education classroom. The student's needs, services, and goals are detailed in his or her IEP (Individualized Education Plan).

Accommodations in Classroom

[edit]

In terms of deaf students, deafness is considered a low-incidence disability. This translates to the possibility of one deaf child belonging to a classroom of all “hearing” children[49] and can result in unique barriers. For example, teachers and students within the general education setting may not know sign language, causing significant communication and cultural barriers to social interaction, friendship, and learning. Accommodations such as a sign language interpreters, communication access real-time translation (CART), or a FM system can help with some of these issues, but they will always be present. These accommodations work to increase access, but for students using sign language in general education settings, communication will be indirect since it is through the interpreter. There is always a risk of interpreting miscommunication and even with these accommodations, the learning and social interactions will be an obstacle.[50]

Students who use hearing technology and spoken language can be supported by reducing classroom background noise, seating close to the instructor, and speakers who face the class while talking one at a time.[51] Learning can be difficult when these conditions are not provided. More tips for supporting deaf and hard of hearing students in a general education setting can be found here. All deaf and hard of students have a right to access general education instruction at their local school with their peers, but it depends on the individual if this option will be the best fit.

Bilingual-Bicultural

[edit]

Deaf children without early access to signed language remain at risk for starting school unprepared for the rigors of academic learning.[50] These different challenges of the deaf children for educational progress are not limited to those with their language exposure.[52] That is where an educational philosophy known as the Bilingual-bicultural (Bi-Bi) method can benefit deaf students.

Bi-Bi Method

[edit]

This method aims to provide deaf and hard of hearing students with instruction in both signed and written languages and both Deaf and other cultural contexts. Bi-Bi emphasizes that deaf children learn visually, and education is provided through a visual language. Bi-Bi supporters argue that sign language access is crucial for preventing deaf and hard-of-hearing children from experiencing inequalities in education. Because of the variability in cochlear implant and hearing aid outcomes. However, since it is a bilingual focus method, the written form of the majority spoken language is given equal value. Deaf and hard of hearing students have a right to the same academic content as their peers and literacy.

This approach began to emerge in schools during the late 1980s in the United States, Denmark, and Sweden.[52] In the United States, the ASL/English Bi- Bi is designed to facilitate academic success and provide education to deaf students by teaching sign language as a first language. Followed by a written or spoken language (such as English) as their second language.[52] Furthermore, state schools specifically for the deaf offer through Deaf culture—a unique facet not provided by general education. Through the Bi-Bi approach, deaf students may develop multiple cultural identities: one based on their hearing status and others based on their family or local majority culture.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Hall, Wyatte C. (May 2017). "What you don't know can hurt you: The risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in deaf children". Maternal and child health journal. 21 (5): 961–965. doi:10.1007/s10995-017-2287-y. ISSN 1092-7875. PMC 5392137. PMID 28185206.
  2. ^ a b c Skotara, Nils; Salden, Uta; Kügow, Monique; Hänel-Faulhaber, Barbara; Röder, Brigitte (2012-05-03). "The influence of language deprivation in early childhood on L2 processing: An ERP comparison of deaf native signers and deaf signers with a delayed language acquisition". BMC Neuroscience. 13 (1): 44. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-13-44. ISSN 1471-2202. PMC 3404011. PMID 22554360.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  3. ^ a b Tikofsky, Ronald S. (1968). "Eric H. Lenneberg, Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967". Behavioral Science. 13 (6): 493–495. doi:10.1002/bs.3830130610. ISSN 1099-1743.
  4. ^ a b Siegler, Robert S (2006). How children develop, exploring child develop student media tool kit + scientific american ... Place of publication not identified: Worth Pub. ISBN 978-0-7167-6113-6. OCLC 946919425.
  5. ^ Hall, Matthew L.; Eigsti, Inge-Marie; Bortfeld, Heather; Lillo-Martin, Diane (January 2017). "Auditory Deprivation Does Not Impair Executive Function, But Language Deprivation Might: Evidence From a Parent-Report Measure in Deaf Native Signing Children". The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 22 (1): 9–21. doi:10.1093/deafed/enw054. ISSN 1081-4159. PMC 5189172. PMID 27624307.
  6. ^ BL2: What the Eyes Reveal About the Brain, retrieved 2021-04-20
  7. ^ Petitto, Laura-Ann (2009). "New Discoveries From the Bilingual Brain and Mind Across the Life Span: Implications for Education". Mind, Brain, and Education. 3 (4): 185–197. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01069.x. ISSN 1751-228X. PMC 3338206. PMID 22545067.
  8. ^ Kovelman, Ioulia; Baker, Stephanie A.; Petitto, Laura-Ann (July 2008). "Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development*". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 11 (2): 203–223. doi:10.1017/S1366728908003386. ISSN 1469-1841.
  9. ^ Genesee, Fred (April 2009). "Early childhood bilingualism: Perils and possibilities" (PDF). Journal of Applied Research on Learning.
  10. ^ Pichler, Deborah (2012). Sign Language - An international handbook. pp. 647–686.
  11. ^ a b "Setting Language in Motion: Family Supports and Early Intervention for Babies Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing" (PDF). Gallaudet University. 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ Simms, Laurene; Baker, Sharon; Clark, M. Diane (2013). "The Standardized Visual Communication and Sign Language Checklist for Signing Children". Sign Language Studies. 14 (1): 101–124. doi:10.1353/sls.2013.0029. ISSN 1533-6263.
  13. ^ a b Newport, Elissa L. (1990-01-XX). "Maturational Constraints on Language Learning". Cognitive Science. 14 (1): 11–28. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ a b Hall, Wyatte C.; Levin, Leonard L.; Anderson, Melissa L. (June 2017). "Language Deprivation Syndrome: A Possible Neurodevelopmental Disorder with Sociocultural Origins". Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 52 (6): 761–776. doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1351-7. ISSN 0933-7954. PMC 5469702. PMID 28204923.
  15. ^ Gulati, Sanjay. Language Deprivation and Deaf Mental Health. pp. 24–53. ISBN 978-1-315-16672-8.
  16. ^ Newport, Elissa L. (1990). "Maturational Constraints on Language Learning". Cognitive Science. 14 (1): 11–28. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2. ISSN 1551-6709.
  17. ^ a b c "National Association of the Deaf - NAD". www.nad.org. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  18. ^ "Support for parents of deaf children: Common questions and informed, evidence-based answers". International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 118: 134–142. 2019-03-01. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.12.036. ISSN 0165-5876.
  19. ^ a b Cheng, Qi; Roth, Austin; Halgren, Eric; Mayberry, Rachel I. (2019). "Effects of Early Language Deprivation on Brain Connectivity: Language Pathways in Deaf Native and Late First-Language Learners of American Sign Language". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 13. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00320. ISSN 1662-5161.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  20. ^ Leybaert, Jacqueline; D'hondt, Murielle (2003-01-01). "Neurolinguistic development in deaf children: the effect of early language experience". International Journal of Audiology. 42 (sup1): 34–40. doi:10.3109/14992020309074622. ISSN 1499-2027.
  21. ^ a b "Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain". Brain and Language. 119 (1): 16–29. 2011-10-01. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.05.007. ISSN 0093-934X.
  22. ^ "Redirecting". linkinghub.elsevier.com. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  23. ^ Kelly, Steve W. (2012), Seel, Norbert M. (ed.), "Incidental Learning", Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 1517–1518, doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_366, ISBN 978-1-4419-1428-6, retrieved 2021-04-19
  24. ^ Traxler, Carol Bloomquist (2000-09-01). "The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National Norming and Performance Standards for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students". The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 5 (4): 337–348. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.4.337. ISSN 1081-4159.
  25. ^ Fellinger, Johannes; Holzinger, Daniel; Pollard, Robert (2012-03-17). "Mental health of deaf people". The Lancet. 379 (9820): 1037–1044. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61143-4. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 22423884.
  26. ^ Mitchell, Ross E; Karchmer, Michael A (2004). "Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States". Sign Language Studies. 4 (2): 138–163. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0005. ISSN 1533-6263.
  27. ^ Mitchell, Ross E; Karchmer, Michael A (2005). "Parental Hearing Status and Signing among Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students". Sign Language Studies. 5 (2): 231–244. doi:10.1353/sls.2005.0004. ISSN 1533-6263.
  28. ^ Moores, D (2001). Educating the Deaf: Psychology, Principles, and Practices (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  29. ^ Stacey, Lim (2017-05-04). "Children with hearing loss: developing listening and talking, birth to six, 3rd edition". International Journal of Audiology. 56 (5): 358–359. doi:10.1080/14992027.2016.1270470. ISSN 1499-2027. PMID 28599605.
  30. ^ Culture, Deaf (2015-07-14). "Deaf Culture: Family Dog". Deaf Culture. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  31. ^ Callis, Lydia; interpreter, ContributorNationally certified sign language; advocate; family, ally to the d/Deaf community Proud CODA from 3 generations of deaf (2016-03-23). "Lip Reading Is No Simple Task". HuffPost. Retrieved 2021-03-21. {{cite web}}: |first2= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Hauser, Peter C.; O’Hearn, Amanda; McKee, Michael; Steider, Anne; Thew, Denise (2010). "Deaf Epistemology: Deafhood and Deafness". American Annals of the Deaf. 154 (5): 486–492. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0120. ISSN 1543-0375.
  33. ^ "Language is more than speaking: How the brain processes sign language | Max Planck Neuroscience". Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  34. ^ Vries, Ellen de (2017-07-17). "Patterns in language and language in patterns". Medium. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  35. ^ "How do hearing tests determine what kind of hearing loss is present?". HearingSol. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  36. ^ Glennon, Erin; Svirsky, Mario A.; Froemke, Robert C. (February 2020). "Auditory cortical plasticity in cochlear implant users". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 60: 108–114. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2019.11.003. ISSN 1873-6882. PMC 7002179. PMID 31864104.
  37. ^ "6 Pre-Implant Factors That Can Influence Success With Your Device". The MED-EL Blog. 2017-11-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  38. ^ Geers, Ann E. (2006). "Factors Influencing Spoken Language Outcomes in Children following Early Cochlear Implantation". Cochlear and Brainstem Implants. 64: 50–65. doi:10.1159/000094644. PMID 16891836.
  39. ^ "Deaf Mentor Program – Outreach Services for the Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deafblind". Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  40. ^ a b "Language In Brief". American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  41. ^ a b CMPASL (April 21, 2016). "ASL as a Foreign Language". Critical Studies in Education.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  42. ^ a b CDC (2018-04-11). "What is "Early Intervention" and is my child eligible?". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  43. ^ a b "National Association of the Deaf - NAD". www.nad.org. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  44. ^ "National Association of the Deaf - NAD". www.nad.org. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
  45. ^ a b "Deaf Mentor Program – Outreach Services for the Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deafblind". Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  46. ^ a b "Universal Newborn Hearing Screening". www.nationwidechildrens.org. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  47. ^ "[USC02] 20 USC Ch. 33: EDUCATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  48. ^ "About IDEA". Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  49. ^ Stinson, Michael (February 1999). "Considerations in educating deaf and hard of hearing students in inclusive settings". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.
  50. ^ a b Paatsch, Louise; Toe, Dianne (2020-11-01). "The Impact of Pragmatic Delays for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Mainstream Classrooms". Pediatrics. 146 (Supplement 3): S292–S297. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0242I. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 33139443.
  51. ^ "Tips for Working with Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing". diversity.utexas.edu. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
  52. ^ a b c Dammeyer, Jesper; Marschark, Marc (October 2016). "Level of Educational Attainment Among Deaf Adults Who Attended Bilingual–Bicultural Programs". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 21 (4): 394–402. doi:10.1093/deafed/enw036. ISSN 1081-4159.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eaheller13/Language_deprivation_in_deaf_and_hard_of_hearing_children&oldid=1021801967"