Early Intervention Protocols: Proposing a Default Bimodal Bilingual Approach for Deaf Children
- PDF / 621,591 Bytes
- 6 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 48 Downloads / 156 Views
COMMENTARY
Early Intervention Protocols: Proposing a Default Bimodal Bilingual Approach for Deaf Children M. Diane Clark1 · Katrina R. Cue1 · Natalie J. Delgado1 · Ashley N. Greene‑Woods1 · Ju‑Lee A. Wolsey2 Accepted: 29 August 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Despite advances in hearing technology, a growing body of research, as well as early intervention protocols, deaf children largely fail to meet age-based language milestones. This gap in language acquisition points to the inconsistencies that exist between research and practice. Current research suggests that bimodal bilingual early interventions at deaf identification provide children language foundations that can lead to more effective outcomes. Recommendations that support implementing bimodal bilingualism at deaf identification include early intervention protocols, language foundations, and the development of appropriate bimodal bilingual environments. All recommendations serve as multifaceted tools in a deaf child’s repertoire as language and modality preferences develop and solidify. This versatile approach allows for children to determine their own language and communication preferences. Keywords Language acquisition · Deaf children · Early intervention · Bimodal bilingual · American Sign Language/ASL
Significance Statement
Purpose
Professionals working in the field of Deaf1education2 remain stymied by persistent delays in language acquisition persisting across decades despite advances in assistive hearing technology, newborn screenings, early intervention services, research, and knowledge. It would seem that current systematic practices are not adequately addressing persistent language delay issues in the Deaf education field. Therefore, bimodal bilingual interventions are recommended.
Current practices in the field are typically heavily influenced by the medical model of disability, which focuses on “fixing” the disability in order to allow deaf children to assimilate into the hearing world to the fullest extent possible (Harmon 2013; Valente et al. 2002). As such, a deaf child’s early years are often spent honing their listening and speaking skills at the cost of full access to language (Greene-Woods 2020; Hall et al. 2019). Such actions assume that parents must limit their exploration of communication approaches and commit to only one path forward toward language acquisition. Without early exposure to a fully accessible language, which for deaf children tends to be a visual language (e.g., American Sign Language [ASL]), many children are at risk for language deprivation (Hall et al. 2019) and consequently experience symptoms of language deprivation syndrome as an adult (Hall et al. 2017). Therefore, new research-based policy considerations, deaf adult expertise, and recommendations for changes in existing systems are necessary to support the default practice of bimodal bilingualism from day
* Katrina R. Cue [email protected] M. Diane Clark [email protected] Natalie J. Delgado natalie
Data Loading...
