{"id":3748,"date":"2021-04-19T08:27:16","date_gmt":"2021-04-19T12:27:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.miamioh.edu\/undergraduate-research-forum\/?p=3748"},"modified":"2021-04-19T08:28:51","modified_gmt":"2021-04-19T12:28:51","slug":"c11-t-the-attitudes-values-and-beliefs-of-faculty-and-parents-of-deaf-students-in-listening-and-spoken-language-programs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.miamioh.edu\/undergraduate-research-forum\/c11-t-the-attitudes-values-and-beliefs-of-faculty-and-parents-of-deaf-students-in-listening-and-spoken-language-programs\/","title":{"rendered":"C11-T: The Attitudes Values and Beliefs of Faculty and Parents of Deaf Students in Listening and Spoken Language Programs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Research area\/Question Language deprivation is common among the approximately three-quarters of deaf children who aren\u2019t given access to sign language.This can result from an over reliance on hearing devices to provide access to spoken language as well as a bias against Deafness and sign language also known as oralism. When language acquisition is hindered, one\u2019s entire life is affected. Listening and spoken language (LSL) programs only use spoken language and keep Deaf culture separate from their program. Because of the risk of language deprivation that results from an oral-only approach, we wanted to understand the attitudes, values, and beliefs of faculty and parents of deaf students enrolled in LSL programs. Methods For this study, participants from one LSL program were interviewed and the transcripts were analyzed for common themes. The participants included one school SLP, one teacher, and one parent of a student. Results The common themes identified include effort (by the students in the program and by faculty), belief in excellence, early intervention, parent choice, risk, separation of Deaf culture, and referencing culturally Deaf parents in the program. This program risks language acquisition as a whole by heavily prioritizing speech. They acknowledge that there are some children who are not successful in the program and thus have to reassess how they will acquire language, meanwhile missing out on precious time while it is still possible to learn language. They are extremely proud of the success of students who excel, but it is not clear what happens to students who don\u2019t show progress and have to find other avenues to do so. Future Directions It would be interesting to see how these results compare to similar interviews with faculty and parents of students at a school that uses sign language. Relevance to Speech Pathology The only way to guarantee language acquisition for deaf children is to give them access to sign language, a foolproof form of communication. A bilingual approach that includes exposure to both sign and speech would ensure against the risk of language deprivation. This information is extremely important for SLPs who will be working with the deaf population. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author<\/strong>: Kaleigh Hollyday<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faculty Advisor<\/strong>: Aaron Shield, Speech Pathology and Audiology<\/p>\n\n\n\n