Transcript controversy
Cochlear Implants and Katie Scheetz, MRC, CRC Rehabilitation Services Commission NADE Conference 2012 Columbus OH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6zVFGpGNJQ So… What’s the CONTROVERSY? A BIGGER PICTURE • Who are we talking about? • Medical-pathological model • Cultural model • Historical perspective • What does the research say? WHO? Deaf deaf hearing impaired hard of hearing deaf-blind late deafened 90% of children born with hearing loss are born to hearing parents PERSPECTIVES ON DEAFNESS MEDICAL MODEL C U LT U R A L M O D E L Focus on pathology Unique way of life Emphasis on cure Identity Restoration to normalcy Community Treatment Language (ASL) Speech Shared values Handicap / disability Acceptance DEAF IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT Culturally hearing – hold the dominant culture’s attitudes and beliefs about deafness Culturally marginal – experience shifting loyalties or profound confusion regarding their relationship to the Deaf and hearing worlds Immersion – radical or militant Deaf stance Bicultural – integrated Deaf pride in a balanced way to fulfill their humanity Neil Stephen Glickman, "Deaf identity development: Construction and validation of a theoretical model" (January 1, 1993). Electronic Doctoral Dissertations for UMass Amherst. Paper AAI9329612. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE • 18th and most of 19th Century – only wealthy deaf children educated (oral method) • 1817 – American School for the Deaf established (manual method) • 40% of teachers were Deaf themselves • 1864 – Gallaudet University established • Post Civil War – sign language is not a “natural language” • Survival of the fittest mentality • Deafness and manual language – abnormality • Deaf must learn to integrate with hearing society – become as normal as possible • 1880 – international congress on education of deaf people • Determined oral method to be superior to manual method • “Superiority of speech over signs” • Early 20th Century – oralism reigns • Deaf teachers forced to leave the profession • Late 20th Century – total communication introduced • 1960 – American Sign Language accepted as a formal and complex language • 1975 – Education for all Handicapped Children Act • “Least restrictive environment” • 1980’s – Stokoe begins a “linguistic revolution” • Deafness as a medical abnormality gets harder to validate • 1988 – Deaf President Now • Deaf community seen as a cultural minority rather than a group of disabled persons COCHLEAR IMPLANTS • Introduced in the 1970s (kind of) • Device embedded into the skull • Bypasses the damaged part of the ear and stimulates the auditory nerve • External processor • Does not restore “normal” hearing – allows for the perception and sensation of sound • 2000 – one type of CI approved for ages 12 months and older CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY? • Affront to Deaf culture • Highlights need to be “fixed” • Threatens future of culture and language (“cultural genocide”) • CI and therapy become the focus of the child’s identity • Success is based on speech and hearing, rather than language, art, abilities, culture • Leads to poor self image as being “disabled” and without identity • Isolated from other children like them • Ignores social development of child (“social deafness”) RESEARCH = INCONCLUSIVE Cochlear Implants • Can help people to hear sound • Can help many people to talk • Can help many people to read at a higher level than peers who only use sign language • Tend to be most successful with people who have experienced hearing or when implanted at a very early age and supported by therapy • Can lead to “social deafness” Visual Languages • Can help people communicate • Can help people to read at a higher level when introduced at an early age and supported by family • Tends to be most successful when introduced at an early age • Can sometimes make it difficult to communicate with the hearing world Social Deafness: Punch, R. & Hyde, M. Children With Cochlear Implants in Australia: Educational Settings, Supports, and Outcomes. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education vol. 15 issue 4 2010. p. 405-421. WHAT THE RESEARCH HAS NOT DONE Gone beyond phonetics, algorithms, sequencing “Qualitative analysis revealed that the content tended to fall into eight categories; however, the important issues of educational concerns, habilitation following surgery, and communication methods were either addressed minimally or neglected completely.” Zaidman-Zait, A. & Jamieson, J. Searching for Cochlear Implant Information on the Internet Maze: Implications for Parents and Professionals. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education vol. 9 issue 4 2004. p. 413-426. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Le Maner-Idrissi, Gaïd (2008) Some aspects of cognitive and social development in children with cochlear implant. Developmental medicine and child neurology. (0012-1622), 50 (10), p. 796. Marschark, M, Rhoten, C. & Fabich, M. Effects of Cochlear Implants on Children's Reading and Academic Achievement J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. (2007) 12(3): 269282 first published online May 25, 2007 doi:10.1093/deafed/enm013 . Snoddon, K. American Sign Language and Early Intervention. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, Volume 64, Number 4, June / juin 2008, pp. 581-604 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT3nyFR6t8Y&feature=related