- Auditory/oral
What Are the Benefits of an Auditory-Oral Approach?
The primary benefit is being able to communicate directly with a wide variety of individuals. This ability brings with it options in terms of education, vocation, and social life. Geers and Moog (1989) reported that 88% of the 100 16- and 17-year-olds they studied had proficiency with spoken language and had high levels of speech intelligibility. The average reading ability of these students was at 13- to 14-year-old levels, which is approximately double the national average for all children who are deaf.
What Are the Limitations of the Auditory-Oral Approach?
As with every approach to educating children who are deaf or hard of hearing, not all children will be successful. Unanswered questions remain about auditory functioning (even some hearing children cannot use their hearing well), language processing (some children may also have additional language disorders), and learning styles (some learning styles inhibit the attention and vigilance needed to develop orally). As research provides more information, the small number of children who cannot benefit from auditory-oral education will diminish. Fortunately, the availability of effective amplification removes severity of hearing loss as a limitation of auditory-oral education.
- Auditory/verbal
Who Can Use the Auditory-Verbal Option?
The auditory-verbal option is an early intervention strategy. It is not a set of principles for classroom teaching. The purpose is to teach auditory-verbal principles to the parents of very young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Therefore, any family with a young child, regardless of the severity of the hearing loss, can choose the auditory-verbal option. As with all early intervention programs, the younger the child is identified as being deaf or hard of hearing, the better. All children in auditory-verbal program will need comprehensive and aggressive audiologic management. In the United States, the auditory-verbal approach is usually conducted by private clinics, therapists, and programs, although some publicly funded projects embrace auditory-verbal principles.
What Are the Benefits of the Auditory-Verbal Option?
The majority of parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing have hearing within normal limits. Parents in auditory-verbal programs therefore do not need to learn sign language or cued speech. In auditory-verbal intervention programs, parents are returned their natural parenting role. Auditory-verbal therapy sessions typically address speech, language, and auditory goals with the therapist working in partnership with the parents so that the parents can model communication strategies with their child throughout the child's daily life. Results of a study of graduates of auditory-verbal programs in the United States and Canada (Goldberg & Flexer, 1993) showed that the majority of the respondents were integrated into "regular" learning and living environments. Graduates often had been mainstreamed in their local schools, attended post-secondary institutions that are not specifically designed for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, and were involved in typical community activities. In addition, reading skills of auditory-verbal children have been demonstrated to equal or exceed those of their hearing peers (Robertson & Flexer, 1993).
What Are the Limitations of the Auditory-Verbal Option?
The auditory-verbal approach depends highly on parental involvement. It is not a classroom approach but a style of interaction between parent and child. If the parents are unable to commit to the intensity of involvement required, then the child may not make as much progress as she or he could. Further, the auditory-verbal centers and practitioners usually are found in areas of denser population and may not be easily accessible to families in rural and remote areas. Finally, many auditory-verbal centers are not supported by public funds, so a fee for services may be requested, although scholarships may be available.
- Cued Speech
Brief description: It is a manual augment to auditory/oral/speechreading. As such, it is really closer to an oral than manual approach. It is a set of handshapes made at various locations around the face. It is used to help distinguish between different sounds that look similar on the lips and to make speechreading easier. It is popular in Australia and Canada, apparently, with some use in the US. In some programs it is used only by the teacher; in other programs, the children are encouraged to use it, also (expressive cuing). Some parents learn it, and some cued-speech kids are mainstreamed with help from Cued Speech transliterators (interpreters).
What Are the Benefits of Cued Speech?
For families of children with disabilities, Cued Speech removes communication barriers. Normal interaction is restored quickly because the system can be learned in about 18 hours (Cornett & Daisey, 1992). Once the system is mastered, any word in the language can be cued as well as environmental sounds, nonsense words found in children's literature, proper nouns, and the large number of English words for which there are no sign language equivalents. It provides an appropriate foundation for reading and writing English. Children who have grown up using the system read and write on the same grade level as their hearing peers (Wandel, 1989). While not developed for purposes of speech training, Cued Speech provides a system that reinforces the work of the speech therapist, showing pronunciation, accent, duration, and the rhythm of speech. Since Cued Speech is presented with natural, running speech, it has been shown to improve speechreading when the cues are not in use.
What Are the Limitations of Cued Speech?
While sounds that look alike are distinguishable because of the hand cues, lip movements still are an integral part of the system. Cuers must make lip movement and be within 20 feet of the cue- reader. The upper body and face should have adequate light. Cued Speech is not an ideal platform medium. The Cued Speech system is more than 30 years old. The numbers of cuers and support groups vary
SEE-1 - Seeing Essential English
This method was developed by David Anthony. It is based upon signing in morphemes or units of meaning. It is known also as MSS.
SEEING ESSENTIAL ENGLISH (SEE I) and SIGNED EXACT ENGLISH (SEE II)
- The idea behind these systems is that Deaf children will learn English better if they are exposed, visually through signs, to the grammatical features of English. the base signs are borrowed from ASL, but the various inflections are not used. A lot of inialitization is used. Additionally, a lot of "grammatical markers" for number, person, tense, etc. are added and strict English word order is used. Every article, conjunction, auxillary verb, etc. is signed. Also, English homophones are represented by identical signs (i.e. the same sign is used for the noun fish and the verb fish, which have different ASL signs). The difference between the two is minor - the principle one being that in SEE II ASL signs for compound words (like butterfly) are used, where the two signs representing the separate English words are used in SEE I. SEE-1 and SEE-2 are signing systems rather than languages on their own. Therefore some people claim that exposure to them does not provide children with the complete linguistic access, which is needed to internalize whole language.
SEE-2 - Signing Exact English
This method was developed by Gerilee Gustason. It uses lots of initialized/ASL signs + endings, and is very literal. See above for more information.
L.O.V.E. - Linguistics of Visual English
This method was developed by Dennis Wampler. It has similarities to SEE-2 and Bornstein's Signed English method. It is a signing system rather than language on its own. Therefore some people claim that exposure to L.O.V.E. does not provide children with the complete linguistic access, which is needed to internalize whole language.
V.E. - Visual English
A mention of this term was seen. It is not known whether this is the same as L.O.V.E. or not.
Signed English
This method was developed by Harry Bornstein, one of the people on the Gallaudet Signed English project (those little books for children you see in various public libraries). SIGNED ENGLISH is similar to SEE-1 and SEE-2, but a little simpler. It is primarily intended, by my understanding, for use with young children and the intellectually limited. It uses English word order, but fewer grammatical markers than the SEE systems - it has fourteen, based on Brown's 14 grammatical morphemes (e.g. plural /s/, poessive /s/, /ed/, /ly/, /er/, /ing/, /est/, I should know what the others are but I don't.) The problem with these systems is that they are SLOW. They are easier to learn for hearing people than ASL, but they are slower to use, because, on average, signs take twice as long as words to produce. So the average proposition takes twice as long to express. Also, you have to be grammatically very self-aware to use them. The research shows that most parents and many teachers who are trying to use these systems end up leaving out many of the gramamtical markers and that many children exposed to them end up modifying them to more ASL-like forms.
Pidgin Sign English
This is a contact language, which ranges from being more Englishy to being more like ASL.
PIDGIN SIGNED ENGLISH
This is what happens when adults try to learn ASL, basically. It is ASL and some of its grammar (how much varies from person to person) in English word order and with other "englishism" (like aux. verbs). Children exposed to PSE will often produce grammatically perfect ASL.
Sign English
This method uses more ASL and fewer markers than Bornstein's Signed English method.
Amelish
This term was coined by Bernard Bragg from Texas. This method uses lots of ASL & fs in English order. C.A.S.E - Conceptually Accurate Signed English This is like Englishy PSE or Bragg's Amelish. It is a signing system rather than language on its own. Therefore some people claim that exposure to L.O.V.E. does not provide children with the complete linguistic access, which is needed to internalize whole language.
ASL
This is a language on its own, which uses no voice. It has its own grammatical structure and its own linguistic structure. In the past, this language was called also AMESLAN.
M.C.E. - Manually Coded English
As one of the contributors to this article understand it, MANUALLY CODED ENGLISH is not a a particular method - it is a general description of all the system that attempt to reflect English grammar, etc on the hands.
ROCHESTER METHOD
This method is not very popular. every word is fingerspelled.
Total Communication
Total communication (TC), a term coined by Roy Holcomb in 1967, is the title of a philosophy of communication, not a method (Scouten, 1984). Total communication may involve one or several modes of communication (manual, oral, auditory, and written), depending on the particular needs of the child. The original expectation of TC was for teachers to use the communication method(s) most appropriate for a particular child at a particular stage of development. Therefore, there would be situations when spoken communication might be appropriate, other situations where signing might be appropriate, others that would call for written communication, and still others where simultaneous communication might work best (Solit, Taylor & Bednarczyk, 1992).
Total communication seemed to be the bridge that allowed a crossover from an oral-only philosophy to a philosophy that embraced sign language. During the 1970's and 1980's most schools and programs for children who are deaf, as well as most major organizations in the field supported the TC philosophy. Today, although the debate seems to be between TC programs and bilingual-bicultural programs, "simultaneous communication is the most common form of communication used in educational settings for deaf children" (Kaplan, 1996, p. 469).
Who Can Choose a Total Communication Option?
TC may be used by families and educators. Since more than 90% of parents of children who are deaf have hearing themselves (Moores, 1996; Rawlings & Jensema, 1977), many believe that TC is a philosophy that will allow flexibility without eliminating any of the options. By using a total approach of speaking and signing, all members of the family, those who are deaf as well as those who are hearing, have continuous access to the communication occurring in their environment (Baker, 1992). Teachers may choose to provide TC options in their classrooms. Those who choose this approach have the responsibility and obligation of acquiring the skills necessary to meet all of the child's communication needs.
What Are the Benefits of a Total Communication Approach?
Most learning occurs through interaction with other people. Such learning is possible only when individuals are able to communicate with understanding. Likewise, the quality of the relationship between a child and her or his parents is dependent on the quality of communication existing between them. Thus, the choice of communication modes/methods that will be the most effective and beneficial to a child at home and in the classroom is of utmost importance. The main benefit of TC is that it can open all avenues and modes of communication for the deaf child. Parents and teachers might be reluctant to choose one mode of communication over another. TC, however, allows a variety of combinations. Research studies have repeatedly demonstrated the beneficial effects of total communication in all areas of deaf children's development, whether psychosocial, linguistic, or academic (Vernon & Andrews, 1990). If the effectiveness of communication is more important than the form it takes (Kaplan, 1996), then TC is beneficial because it allows the child to use the form that is best for him in any given situation.
What Are the Limitations of a Total Communication Approach?
One limitation of TC is that, while the theory may be sound, it may not be put into practice accurately enough in some situations. Many students who are deaf are immersed in a form of simultaneous communication that does not match their level of linguistic (language) readiness or ability. In the classroom, TC often becomes a simultaneous practice of combining manual components (signs and fingerspelling) with spoken components used in English word order. Although TC educational programs will differ on the selection of a manual system, all seem to combine signing with speech. The very nature of the two modes (spoken and visual) may cause signers/speakers to alter their messages to accommodate one or the other mode, causing a compromise between the two methods (Wilcox, 1989). Although the idea of individualization is at the heart of TC, teachers are limited to how many different modes they can use at one time. It may be impossible for one teacher to meet all the communication needs that might be present in a single classroom of children who are deaf and hard of hearing. For example, do the students really see a good representation of either English or ASL when the teacher or parent uses them inconsistently, or are they seeing only poor examples of broken English or ASL? Researchers do not agree as to whether a manually coded English system leads to better reading and writing scores (Mayer & Lowenbraun, 1990).
Back to 10 Commandments of the Deaf Community - Auditory/verbal
Definitions of methods of deaf communication