Bimodal bilingual language development of hearing children of deaf parents

Adopting a bimodal bilingual language acquisition model, this qualitative case study is the first in Germany to investigate the spoken and sign language development of hearing children of deaf adults (codas). The spoken language competence of six codas within the age range of 3;10 to 6;4 is assessed by a series of standardised tests (SETK 3-5, TROG-D, PDSS). Additionally, a language assessment tool designed specifically for hearing bilingual children named HAVAS 5 is employed to measure both the children’s spoken and sign language abilities. A heterogeneous picture emerges: all codas show abilities equal to those of monomodal monolingual children in their age range with regard to German sentence structure and verb inflection and an extensive receptive vocabulary, but deviations from the age norm are observed for the production of verbs and prepositions. Furthermore, three codas show below average T-values in some grammatical subtests. Overall, the findings suggest that at least some codas may acquire both of their languages (i.e. spoken and signed German) simultaneously. However, our study also indicates that the spoken language development of some codas as well as the acquisition context of this minority group strongly resembles a form of successive language acquisition that is known from children who acquire German as an early second language in a migration background.     

Self-concept among hearing Chinese children of deaf parents

This paper discusses a study of Chinese children in Hong Kong that compared the self-concepts of hearing children of deaf parents with the self-concepts of hearing children of hearing parents. The study was based on the responses to a questionnaire given to 42 deaf couples and their 70 hearing children, and 41 hearing couples and their 82 hearing children. It found no differences in the self-concepts of hearing children of deaf parents and hearing children of hearing parents. However, it did find that deaf parents had lower self-concepts than hearing parents.     

Influence and adaptability in families with deaf parents and hearing children

This study assessed the influence of individual family members in functional families, primarily to determine whether hearing children of deaf parents have more influence than do hearing children of hearing parents. Eight families with deaf parents and a hearing child and eight all hearing families were videotaped while planning a family meal together. It was found that deaf-parented families share many traits with hearing families. However, there were some differences. The hearing children of deaf parents had a greater number and percentage of their ideas accepted than did the hearing children of hearing parents. Differences were also noted between the deaf fathers and the hearing fathers. The deaf-parented families were more adaptable, as measured by the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. The observed difference in child influence, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. Deafness of one family member, in an auditory dependent environment, may require a more flexible family power structure. Professionals assessing deaf-parented families should be sensitive to the special adaptive needs required for healthy functioning of the family.     

Comparing creative thinking abilities and reasoning ability of deaf and hearing children

This study focuses on comparing the creative thinking and reasoning abilities of deaf and hearing children. Two groups of deaf (N = 210) and hearing children (N = 200) were chosen based on specific criteria. Two instruments were used in the study: theTorrance Tests of Creative Thinking‐Figural, Form A and Matrix Analogous Test. Canonical Correlation analysis and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were used to analyze the data. The canonical correlation analyses revealed one significant dimension in both deaf and hearing children. The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed that there are some similarities and differences between the deaf and hearing samples regarding creative thinking abilities.     

Family supports and resources for parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing

The study examined family supports after identification of children's hearing loss. On a questionnaire, 456 respondents rated the importance of different aspects of family support, the quality of supports they experienced, and their preferences about informational resources. They verified the importance of informational resources, social-emotional support, and educational advocacy. Families expressed a preference for discussion with other parents of children with hearing loss over discussion with parents of children without hearing loss. The quality of support was rated higher by parents of children with cochlear implants than by parents of children with hearing aids. Top-ranked sources of support included individual professionals and service providers, other parents of children with hearing loss, family support organizations, and grandparents and extended-family members. Open-ended written responses indicated that parents desired additional opportunities to connect with mentors, role models, and other parents.     

Comparing practical knowledge storage of deaf and hearing teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing

Especially in the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing, teachers' practical knowledge storage is almost never measured. The Survey of Practical Knowledge was used to compare the practical knowledge storage of deaf and hearing teachers of these students. Surveyed were 48 deaf and 115 hearing individuals at the preservice and in-service experience levels. Practical knowledge storage was defined as images, rules of practice, and practical principles. Results indicate that deaf teachers tend to view students as equals but are more likely to emphasize control over classroom behavior than hearing teachers. Hearing teachers tend to stress efforts to engage students in subject matter by providing variety and relating it to life experiences. Given the trend toward high-stakes testing of teachers, further research is encouraged on role differences between deaf and hearing teachers working with students who are deaf or hard of hearing.     

When parents are deaf versus hard of hearing: patterns of sign use and school placement of deaf and hard-of-hearing children

This paper investigates the importance of knowing whether or not deaf and hard-of-hearing students have one or more deaf or hard-of-hearing parents. As noted by Mitchell and Karchmer (2004), deaf and hard-of-hearing school-age children and youth in the United States with at least one parent identified as "hearing impaired" are nearly evenly split between having at least one deaf parent and having at least one hard-of-hearing parent. However, there is no literature on the importance, if any, of this distinction. Findings from the investigation reported herein suggest that the distinction between having a deaf versus a hard-of-hearing parent is quite substantial, particularly as it pertains to the use of signing in the home. Further, signing in the home, which is reliably predicted by parental hearing status, is a significant predictor of the school setting in which the student is currently placed and the instructional use of signing in the classroom. Limitations related to the available measure of parental hearing status are discussed.     

Perceptions of communication choice and usage among African American hearing parents: Afrocentric cultural implications for African American deaf and hard of hearing children

In a qualitative study employing an exploratory design, the researcher explored the perceptions of communication choice and usage among 14 African American hearing parents of deaf and hard of hearing children. Semistructured, in-depth thematic interviews were used with a modified grounded-theory approach in which themes were analyzed and coded. Four thematic challenges and opportunities related to communication choice and usage were found: (a) oral tradition-nommo, (b) sign and oral-diunital, (c) literacy, and (d) racial/ethnic cultural socialization. Afrocentric implications for deaf and hard of hearing children are explored based on research observations pertaining to the significance of the oral tradition in African American culture and the socialization of African American deaf and hard of hearing children in the context of African American hearing families.     

Parental resources, parental stress, and socioemotional development of deaf and hard of hearing children

In recent years, empowerment and resource orientation have become vital guidelines for many of the sciences. For the field of deaf education, it is also highly important to look carefully at these guidelines if we are to acquire a better understanding as regards both the situation of the parents involved and the development of the deaf and hard of hearing children themselves. A resource-oriented approach to deaf education has therefore proved especially helpful. If both the theoretical and practical aspects of educating deaf and hard of hearing children are to benefit, research on parental experience with deafness and research on the socioemotional development of the children must always be combined and studied in the context of resource availability. In a study of 213 mothers and 213 fathers of deaf and hard of hearing children, we used an array of different questionnaires (PSI, SDQ, SOC, F-SozU, etc.) to examine the correlation between parental resources, sociodemographic variables, parental stress experience, and child socioemotional problems by way of a path analysis model. The results show that high parental stress is associated with frequent socioemotional problems in the children, thus emphasizing the importance of a resource-oriented consulting and support strategy in early intervention, because parental access to personal and social resources is associated with significantly lower stress experience. Child development seems to profit enormously from a resource-oriented support concept. In addition, the results confirm two earlier findings: parents with additionally handicapped children are especially stressed and the child's communicative competence makes for a more sound prediction than its linguistic medium (spoken language or sign). The path models for mothers and fathers agree in all essential factors. The results are discussed with a view to their meaning for pedagogical practice, and recommendations for further research are given (longitudinal data, more representative samples, cochlear implant).