What is the role of a speech therapist in communication development of a 7-year-old deaf child using sign language?
The role of a speech therapist or the speech-language pathologist (SLP) in the case of a 7 year-old deaf child using sign language is intrinsic and multi-faceted. The clinician must be aware of the implications of the type of sign-language being used. If the child is using American Sign Language (ASL) then there will be bilingual issues to be addressed when it comes to teaching reading, because the child must learn English to read. The SLP can facilitate learning English Grammar forms in preparation for reading and writing in English whether the sign system used is a contrived system such as Signed English, or ASL.
There are also many things that can be done with both spoken phonology (sounds of the language) that can contribute to the ability to decode printed words (phonological awareness and phonological processing). In fact, just because a child is using sign language, this does not rule out that using voice to communicate might be a goal. The child may want to target high use words and phrases for speaking. Children who are deaf also may need to target “pragmatics” or the practical use of language in social contexts. It is the proverbial “knowing what to say, how to say it, and when to say it – and how to “be” with other people.” Because deaf children do not always “overhear” social niceties, they may need to be taught these things directly (e.g., we don’t typically ask grown-ups their age, or even if you do not care for a particuar gift you get it would be impolite to say “I don’t like this!” ).
Other areas the SLP may target is helping the child to increase vocabulary, (especially multiple meaning words), learning idiomatic language “put the lights out.” In summary one of the key elements to your question is the word “language. ” The role of the SLP is to facilitate speech and language learning in all contexts and modalities appropriate for the individual.
I became totally deaf at the age of 34, and am now 47. I am a full-time student working towards my Bachelors in Social Work. Having been on both sides (hearing and deaf), and through my education, I know the importance of communication regardless of what mode a parent uses to teach a child.
My question is this, in my internship I am working with a client whose parents want me to teach their child phonics. Their child has never heard a sound what-so-ever. I honestly don’t see the point in it, as how do you describe a “hard C” vs. a “soft C” to someone who has never heard. I do understand wanting to teach them the correct endings to words, such as when to add “ed” (as in worked). In ASL one would sign “finish” + “work” or vice versa. I can see how that would benefit a deaf child in knowing how ASL and English connect for reading, writing, and comprehension.
What are your thoughts on the parts of the phonic’s lessons that rely on having some auditory hearing to use as a base for teaching it? What does one say to hearing parents who want their deaf child to know how each letter is pronounced with phonics, when the child is completely deaf? For me, I still have use of my voice, I just don’t hear anything at all, but knowing phonics has helped my interpreters and friends in teaching me how to voice a new vocabulary word or someone’s name correctly. I just can’t imagine the benefits of this information to someone who has never heard. Am I wrong in my thinking? Or should I focus on helping this child make the connection between ASL and English?
This child’s ASL understanding is wonderful, and they can communicate and articulate very well, but lacks in English comprehension skills. I have noticed this when I ask if they understood the paragraph they just read, and they reply yes. Then when I pick out a word and ask them to tell me the meaning, they say they don’t know. When I then show them the ASL sign for the word, their face lights up and they fully understand then.
My first thought was to refer this question to a speech therapist… or language person of some kind. However, that’s not what this is about. First of all, you really do not have much choice in this matter; it’s the parent’s decision. Yes, you can and should educate the parents to the greatest extent possible (and appropriate), but their desires are not surprising, and you have to respect their wishes if you were going to continue working with the child. But, you raise an excellent second point. There is no evidence that fluency in a signed language is sufficient to provide a deaf child with the underpinnings necessary for English literacy. Research and theory both point to the need for some kind of a bridge. For some deaf individuals the bridge is speechreading, for others it is cochlear implants or an English-based signing system. Supporting this child’s ASL skills will help to provide a fluent first language on which to build literacy. Phonics will help to bridge the child’s language skills to English literacy. You are an outstanding model for both the child and the child’s parents. Hopefully, you can help to educate all of them at the same time.
I am the mother of a 7 year old deaf child. My daughter passed her newborn hearing screen and a follow up ABR at 6 months old (she was high risk due to being in the NICU). But she began losing her hearing by 15 months old and was dx’ed with a moderately severe loss by 18 months and fitted with hearing aids.
We began to speak and sign but she never “caught on” to spoken language. At 3, she was placed at a Deaf school. We continued to do therapy, but she didn’t gain any spoken language. She quickly became pretty fluent in ASL.
In kindergarten her hearing loss progressed and she received a CI. She suddenly was able to process spoken language. She has made tremendous gains in her spoken language in the two years since she was implanted. She understands and discriminates running spoken language and has gained nearly 5 years worth of language. She is now in a well respected oral school.
So, my question is this….can she actually catch up? She hears very well, but can she reach age appropriate with her spoken language? Or do we eventually de-emphasis it and go back to ASL?
It sounds as if your daughter had a very solid language base (ASL) in those first years of her life, which tells us that her language-learning skills seem to be intact, thus she is a “language learner.” You also say that she has made 5 years of gain in her language skills (I am assuming English skills) over the past few years, which again provides evidence that she had a strong language system in place to “map” the spoken English language onto. From what we know about second language learning and from deaf children learning spoken language with CIs, I would say she has an excellent prognosis. A study published by Nichols and Geers (2007, see below), also provides us with evidence that would suggest your daughter is on the road to success. That study found that the smaller language delay a child has when they receive a CI, the better the chances are that the child will, indeed catch up. Given that your daughter seems to have been performing at a very high level with regard to language (ASL) at the time she received a CI in the first place, we can be very optimistic about her future language abilities. It will be very important in the next few years to target her ability to learn to read and write. Once she is reading, she will continue to acquire the higher levels of language she will need to become a competent language learner.
Nichols, J. & Geers, A. (2007). Will they catch up ? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1048–1062.
My daughter recently had a baby who was born deaf. We are all trying to come to grips with this, but we are getting conflicting information. I have been reading everything that I can find about deaf children and a lot of it recommends using sign language. The audiologist we spoke to said that if we use sign language with her it will retard her ability to speak. Can you help?
This is one of the most common dilemmas facing parents (and grandparents) of deaf children – and perhaps the one for which they are most frequently given advice driven by philosophy rather than evidence. Simply put, there is no evidence that learning to sign interferes with learning to speak. In fact, the research points to early sign language either supporting spoken language or having no effect, while it generally leads to better social-emotional functioning and early academic achievement. That said, all of this is much more complex than such a simple answer implies. Let me suggest an excellent video on the topic available in English and Spanish (captioned in both). “Through Your Child’s Eyes” is objective and informative…and should answer many of your questions.
Importantly, though, there is no need for an “either/or” decision. Providing your granddaughter with access to and support for both sign language and spoken language offers more opportunities for learning. And, no, the two will not interfere with each other any more than two languages do for bilingual children around the world. In fact, hearing children raised in bilingual environments show cognitive advantages as early as seven months of age (even before they are using those languages), although parallel research has not been done with deaf children.
My sister is hard of hearing and has been so since childhood. My parents (in India) tried their best at educating her with the limited resources at their disposal but they gave up when they saw that she was not making significant progress. As a result my sis who is 20 now, can read / write/ understand words in her limited vocab but has difficultly learning new words. She has difficulty in reading or understanding new words. She is good at computer graphics and animation but cannot move ahead to learn things as she cannot read the english language textbooks. She easily picks up things which can be demonstrated practically but stumbles when she has to learn theory. Is it too late for her to learn English (which is needed to work with computers)? Is there a viable path that she can follow to get her education and make a career out of it? Would the English language course at ELI, Gallaudet help her? Any there courses to learning english for people like her at NTID or elsewhere? I somehow he feels that she is falling through the cracks in the system where he is not totally deaf but her hard-of-hearing creates learning disabilities which we cannot overcome.
Can she learn English? Yes, however, she will always be very delayed in her English abilities and it is very unlikely that she will develop sufficient English to be successful in a work environment based on her age and description of early language exposure.
From a neurolinguistic development perspective, there is a short critical window of time for deaf children to learn English language and be efficient and age appropriate. This window is approximately from 0 to 6-years-old. Current research indicates that deaf children who learn English after the age of six demonstrate a life long delay in the language. The later English is taught the greater the delay. Her sister’s brain simply does not have the neural networks in the language centers of her brain developed related to English language. At her age, her sister would need to utilize her most native language (if that be sign language) and use any accommodations necessary to support her limited English skills.
In terms of references I would check these out and anything by Dr. Laura Ann Petitto
Kuhl, P. (2004) Early Language Acquisition: Cracking The Speech Code, Nature Reviews/Neuroscience, Vol 5.
Mayberry, R. (2002) Cognitive Development in Deaf Children: The Interface of Language and Perception in Neuropsychology, Handbook of Neuropsychology, 2nd Edition, Vol 8, Part II
McSweeney, M. (2007) Language in The Deaf Brain, Science Interviews, www.thenakedscientists.com
Spencer, P. & Harris, M. (2006) Patterns and Effects of Language Input to Deaf Infants and Toddlers From Deaf and Hearing Mothers, In M. Marshark & P. Spencer (Eds.) Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children (pp. 71-101).
[Although NTID and Gallaudet do not have any programs that would be helpful, you might want to contact a local speech-language apologist for advice.]
I am doing research on the effects of teaching a deaf child to speak and how it plays into their personal lives and on to the deaf community. As an interpreter I have noticed that my oral clients tend add new signs that are not ASL. I feel like all people should have the choice to be involved in the Deaf and/or hearing community. How do you think speech effects their identity and the identity of the deaf community?
With regard to the creation of new signs and, I suspect, your concern about the use of initialized signs, you might want to take a look at linguistics resources. Contrary to claims, there does not appear to be any negative evidence concerning the use of initialized signs. “Signs that are not ASL” are used by deaf people all the time; that is part of the ongoing evolution of language.
Concerning the relation of speech and identity, a variety of books have been written on the subject, usually by deaf people more invested in being part of the hearing community than the Deaf community. With regard to the evidence base, let me offer two suggestions: Most generally, you might look at Irene Leigh’s new book A Lens on Deaf Identities, Oxford, (2009). Specifically with regard to children, try Most, T. (2007). Speech Intelligibility, Loneliness, and Sense of Coherence Among Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children in Individual Inclusion and Group Inclusion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 495-503.
How does a child who is born with a hearing impairment acquire a spoken language during the critical stage of language acquisition?
There is considerable evidence that auditory input and spoken language stimulation for deaf children who are to learn spoken language are important to initiate as early as possible (hence, we often talk about “critical periods” for language development). However, such programs Tust be individualized to the particular child, taking into account their audiological, developmental and family needs. Dr. Patricia Spencer suggests looking into either the John Tracy Clinic (http://www.jtc.org/services/distance-education/index.html) or Boystown National Research Hospital (http://Cathy.firstname.lastname@example.org) for distance programs for parents of deaf children. Dr. Ann Geers also suggests that the AG Bell association (see our Partners page) is an excellent resource for finding helpful professionals in their area, and they have a variety of materials specifically geared to parents. If you are interested in research supporting early spoken language intervention, she suggests looking at chapters in Spencer, P. E. & Marschark, M., Editors (2006). Advances in the spoken language development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dr. Geers also pointed out that “there is ample evidence that the brain is most ‘plastic’ or accepting of new information when the child is young (3 or under) and children who receive auditory stimulation (through a CI or HA) during this time period usually demonstrate normal central auditory maturation within about 6 months of stimulation. Spoken language progress will be affected by additional diagnoses or disorders that can affect learning or communication development independent of hearing loss. Such children can be expected to progress at a slower rate even if stimulation occurs early. Certain nonverbal communication skills (e.g. eye contact, turn taking) are also predictive of spoken language development. Oral motor skills are also considered in the prognosis. Difficulty with oral motor skills like moving the lips, teeth or tongue appropriately will influence a child’s speech production. Taking all of this into account, research has shown that children who are in environments where speech is used and that focus on listening have better speech perception and spoken language outcomes overall.
Dr. Jean-Pierre Gagné emphasized that language does not develop normally nor naturally in most children with hearing loss, so direct/specific intervention programs must be sought. He suggested that (re)habilitation will focus on four or five aspects:
Can you tell me what the story is on sign-supported English?
I know, I know, everyone says that sign-supported English (SSE) and simultaneous communication (SimCom) – both involving speech and sign at the same time – are bad. On the theoretical/political side, people point out that neither is truly a language unto itself, and argue that they therefore are “inappropriate.” Empirically, people point to two studies, both done over 20 years ago, which found that several teachers and parents of young deaf children said more than appeared on their hands (by anywhere from 20 to 50%). The sign abilities of those parents and teachers were never examined, however, and some people are extremely good at SSE (or whatever language) and SimCom. Research over the past 30 years has shown that when teachers are highly skilled at SSE or SimCom, students learn just as much or more than with ASL from a teacher, interpreting, or spoken language alone. In our own work, we’ve recently have found the same thing, as deaf college students learned exactly the same amount when they had teachers using SimCom, voice-off ASL, or utilizing interpreters. Importantly, these were skilled teachers of the deaf, who had been using SimCom for many years with classes that included oral students, ASL students, and everything in between. Although it frequently is not discussed (at least in public) many deaf students request teachers to use SimCom and ask interpreters to include “English on the lips.” It seems likely that SimCom would be particularly beneficial for children with cochlear implants, who generally do not receive auditory input as clear as that received by hearing children.
Unfortunately, the unearned stigma associated with SSE/SimCom seems to have prevented anyone from doing the appropriate study. Meanwhile, both are used effectively in many classrooms, even if students use a natural sign language or spoken language in other settings. What is essential is that deaf and hard-of-hearing children have early access to fluent language. That usually is difficult with spoken language alone and most parents are not fluent in sign. So, SimCom/SSE might be helpful in ensuring communication for new-signing parents, but this DOES NOT mean that SimCOM/SSE can replace full access to a natural language (actually, there isn’t research one way or another). The issue clearly is more complex than we can deal with here. For full discussion of what we know and what we don’t know, see Spencer, P.E. & Marschark, M. (in press). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. New York: Oxford University Press.
Does not strictly staying with the CASTLLS auditory guide reduce childs progress in closing the language gap?
In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I had to look up CASTLLS – an acronym for Cottage Acquisition Scales for Listening, Language & Speech (CASLLS). This guide apparentlywas developed by professionals at a private school for deaf children in Texas – Sunshine Cottage. It is a tool for auditory rehabilitation/speech-language professionals, and it follows a developmental approach and it integrates skills from four areas including listening, speech production, language and cognition. As with many commercially available programs, this one is a guide for professionals and as such, we need to keep in mind that each child has unique learning styles, capacities (gifts), and rates of progress. You ask whether diverting from this “guide” can reduce a child’s progress in closing the language gap. There is no definitive answer. One could easily ask the inverse, does strictly staying with the guide increase a child’s progress in closing the language gap? If the answer to that question was YES, I would imagine that this “guide” had magical properties. We know some things about what helps to close “gaps” in learning. First, the sooner we target intervention, the less time there is for a “gap” to become a chasm, thus we can hopefully minimize the size of the gap and begin to close it. We also know that language can and does develop in the absence of audition if there is an alternate way to expose the child to language (sign language). Having said that, if a child is using audition to learn language, there are several requisites that must be in place. The first is that audition skills must be optimized, the technology used must be working properly and consistently. Key elements also include that the child must be able to progress along the basic lines of becoming aware of sound, discriminating one sound from another, identification of sounds, and finally comprehending sounds (words, sentences). IF there is a lack of PROGRESS in this area, I would say learning language given ONLY auditory input will be slower. On this premise, if I were asked the question “if a child does not progress in the auditory skills part of an oral language learning program, will it reduce progress in closing a language gap?” , my answer would be “yes, certain listening skills are requisite in order for oral language skills to develop.
Is there any evidence that providing or exposure to sign language to cochlear implanted children could hinder speech development?
Actually, the research is very clear that sign language does not hinder speech development in children with cochlear implants…in fact it may facilitate it. Research from the Nottingham Cochlear Implant Centre has shown that three years after cochlear implantation, deaf children’s spoken language skills are independent of whether they started out signing or utilizing spoken language only. With regard to language after receiving an implant, research has shown that parents and children move toward spoken language after implantation, at least to the extent that it works for the child. When it doesn’t, parents and children (appropriately) move toward sign language. There are a couple of older studies which indicated that deaf children with cochlear implants who were in “oral” settings had better spoken language than others in total communication settings. However, those studies were done back when the children who were received implants were the ones who already were showing particular facility for spoken language, and there is no recent evidence to support that view. In general, sign language can be acquired earlier than spoken language, and may provide a “framework” for early spoken language development. Future research will have to answer that question but, in the meantime, there is no evidence that sign language in any way has negative effects for children or young adults with cochlear implants. With regard to academic achievement, see Marschark, M., Rhoten, C., Fabich, M. (2007). Effects of cochlear implants on children’s reading and academic achievement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 269-282, available at www.jdsde.oxfordjournals.org