Deaf Bilingual Education: Importance of natural language

Maxine Lynch
December 6, 2013

Introduction

Around the world, Deaf education has been a topic of interest for decades.
Research has shown that deaf children are achieving well-below average in
academic skills, especially literacy skills. Many believe that the educational
barriers faced by d/Deaf children are a failure of the education system.
d/Deaf children face a variety of education barriers, which grow from::
assumptions about Deaf communities; attitudes towards Deaf culture and
sign language; and exclusionary government policies, among others (MunozBaell et al., 2011). All educational barriers limit the rights of a d/Deaf child to
education. One of the biggest barriers that d/Deaf children have in
educational settings is access to full communication, and language. There is
a growing consensus that the lack of accessible language is a cause of the
limited reading skills that d/Deaf children acheive. In recent decades,
education for d/Deaf children has had intensive reform around the world
(Munoz-Baell et al., 2007). Much of this reform has focused on the
importance of sign language for deaf children. Sign language is a natural
language for d/Deaf children, and d/Deaf children should have access to
education that promotes sign language. It is also acknowledged that d/Deaf
children need to be able to master oral language, for literacy skills. The
failure of traditional education systems to meet the needs of d/Deaf children

has led to the development of education programs specifically focused on

the bilingual language aspect of d/Deaf children. These are known as Deaf
bilingual education programs.
In some parts of the world, Deaf bilingual education programs are
mandated by law (Sweden or Iceland), or are recognized by education acts
(eg. Greece, Ireland, Portugal) (Munoz-Baell et al., 2011). In many other
regions, Deaf bilingual programs are run on a volunteer basis (Munoz-Baell et
al., 2011). Deaf bilingual programs are found in mainstream schools, and
schools for the Deaf (Munoz-Baell et al., 2011). Deaf bilingual programs serve
a variety of children: Deaf, hard of hearing, children with cochlear implants,
and hearing children (Munoz-Baell et al., 2011).
This paper will look at the research surrounding Deaf bilingual Education
programs. This paper seeks to discuss several topics: sign language as a
natural language; the importance of exposure to sign language; the values of
Deaf bilingual education programs; why traditional educations have failed
d/Deaf children; the instruction and models used in Deaf bilingual education;
the benefits research has shown from Deaf bilingual models; and
weaknesses in the Deaf bilingual model.
Sign Language as a Natural Language
Sign language is the language of Deaf people and Deaf culture.
Although the vast majority of hearing people communicate in oral language,
this type of language is not a natural form of language for everyone. Oral

language is not accessible deaf people, so it cannot be claimed to be the

human way to communicate. People who belong to Deaf communities, and to
Deaf Culture have an innate inclination to sign language. For Deaf people, it
is natural to use sign language, which is visual and allows for complete
communication. Despite the fact that deaf children cannot easily access oral
language, sometimes it is the only communication option available. Many
deaf children are denied their right to use a natural language, and instead
communicate through an adopted oral language that may not be fully
understood, which is a barrier full communication. The use of oral language
by deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children is supported by technological
aids used to fix the problem of deafness. Some DHH infants and children
receive cochlear implants, and are not been exposed to Deaf Culture or sign
language. Many traditional education programs inadvertently support these
changes, because they typically instruct in oral languages, and do not
support sign language. Children who are not able to fully access a language
miss out on the development of important cognitive skills, and are
sometimes unable to fully communicate with those around them. Children
who are deaf may struggle to communicate with their families, and miss out
on the language development that their hearing peers experience if these
deaf children are able to use sign language, they will have access to barrierfree communication.
Early Exposure to Sign Language

All children benefit from early exposure to language. For deaf children of
hearing parents, it can be a struggle to expose children to language. Many
deaf children do not have exposure to sign language from an early age. 90%
of deaf children are born to hearing parents, who may know little or nothing
of Deaf Culture and sign language. At early ages, deaf children often
experience a delay with the acquisition of sign language (Hermans et al.,
2008). These deaf children usually are not able to communicate fully, until
their parents have learned sign language. Hearing parents often have to
learn sign language, in order to communicate with their deaf child. Much of
the parent-child bonding takes place with language, and deaf children need
to be able to communicate with their parents with a natural language
(Grosjean, 2013). Some argue that sign language should be the focus for
parents of deaf children, and sign language should be the first language
acquired by children with a severe hearing loss (Grosjean, 2013). All
children (including deaf children) need to be able to communicate with
family and parents as soon as possible (Grosjean, 2013). Education programs
can offer a chance to expose deaf children to sign language, and the
communication options that are available.
Although sign language is the natural language for Deaf children, it is
not the only language that needs to be mastered. Deaf children must also
master written oral language. In the hearing world all around the d/Deaf
child, oral language is the key to communication with family, and friends.
Without knowledge of oral language (in written modality) d/Deaf children will

be cut off from the hearing world. Many in a childs day to day life will have
no knowledge of sign language, but communication will still need to take
place (Grosjean, 2013). d/Deaf children may benefit from using both sign
language and oral language, which is not supported in most traditional
education programs. Children who use sign language, and oral language (in
written form) are bilingual, and able to access the language of the Deaf and
hearing communities. Many d/Deaf children do not have access to an
environment that supports Deaf bilingualism, and these children are
routinely denied their right to grow up bilingually and use their local sign
language (Munoz-Baell et al., 2011). Many educational programs do not
support integrating d/Deaf children with sign language and oral language,
leaving a deaf child unable to have full language.

Deaf Bilingual Model: Overview

The knowledge that Deaf people are inherently bilingual is the basis for
the development of Deaf bilingual education programs. As Grosjean stated,
Every Deaf child, whatever the level of his/her hearing loss, should have the
right to grow up bilingual(2001).The struggle that Deaf people have had for
equal opportunities is a driving force behind Deaf bilingual education
(Munoz-Baell et al.,2007). In many countries around the world, and within
Deaf communities, sign languages are known to be official languages used
by a distinct cultural group of people. The reality is that to function in

society, Deaf people need to be able to read and write oral language. Deaf
bilingual education programs are created with this knowledge in mind, while
also focusing what we know about the importance of full communication.
Deaf bilingual education programs support the use of natural sign language
for d/Deaf children, and also support the use of oral language (primarily in
written modality).
The Deaf bilingual education al model is focused on understanding the
value of Deaf Culture, and the importance of sign language. Munoz-Baell et
al., state the Deaf bilingual education model is based on the socio-cultural
model of deafness and disability (2011). Two elements are key to the Deaf
bilingual model: the belief that sign language and oral language are integral
aspects of instruction and curriculum; and the recognition of Deaf culture
(Munoz-Baell et al., 2011). Communication is central aspect to the Deaf
bilingual model of education. It is through the using of language, with
parents, other children and adults, that children learn about the world.
Communication allows for information to be exchanged and processed, and
deaf children should be educated with a model that supports all means of
communication (Grosjean, 2013).
Traditional Programs
Traditionally, the education system has not met the educational needs
of d/Deaf children. Traditional educational settings are monolingual, and
focus on the oral language used by the hearing majority. Within the

education system, d/Deaf children typically have limited options, including:

attending a specialized school for the Deaf (if one is available); attending a
mainstream school with the use of an interpreter; attending a mainstream
school with a separate Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) program; or attending
a mainstream school using oral communication with technological aids.
Some argue that for Deaf children, these types of programs are largely
inappropriate to their needs, and human, linguistic and educational rights
(Munoz-Baell et al., 2011). d/Deaf children who attend traditional education
programs are at risk of facing many education barriers. Some of the
educational barriers that d/Deaf children experience are: low expectations
and overprotection from teacher and peers; an inaccessible auditory learning
environment; lack of teaching materials in sign language; untrained
teachers; and a lack of Deaf teachers and/or other Deaf children (MunozBaell et al., 2011). d/Deaf children usually enter educational programs with a
disadvantages that their hearing peers do not have. The majority of deaf
children consistently arrive at school without the oral language skills or
background knowledge that their hearing peers have (Lange et al., 2013).
Many deaf children have difficulty producing and perceiving oral language,
despite technological aids and effort (Grosjean, 2013). This can lead to lowachievement levels in literacy, and also an inability to fully communicate
with the world around them. Without specialized instruction, these deaf
children may struggle to understand and acquire the written form of oral
language, which essential in our society. In many traditional education

settings, d/Deaf children are instructed in a language that is not inherently

relatable, they miss out on exposure to sign languages, and risk access to
full communication.
Bilingual Education Programs in Practice
Deaf bilingual education programs are based on socio-cultural models
of deafness, and culture, as opposed to alternative programs for deaf
children that are based on medical models. The medical models of deafness
look at a deaf child as having an impairment that needs to be fixed. When
educational and linguistic decisions are based on the medical model of
deafness, Deaf Culture and sign language are diminished in importance. The
medical model does not recognize the importance of sign language or the
bilingual nature of Deaf children. The Deaf bilingual education model
recognizes the importance of Deaf Culture, and sign language as a natural
language for d/Deaf children.
Deaf bilingual programs involve both: sign language used by the Deaf
community, and the oral language used by the hearing majority (Grosjean,
2013). Children within these programs are taught sign language for their full
natural communication, but the oral language is also used. The oral language
used is mainly in written form, but can also be in spoken form, depending on
the needs of students (Grosjean, 2013). Deaf Bilingual programs should not
seek to decide how a d/Deaf child will communicate, but should enhance the
ability for a child to fully communicate. There is not one standard mode for

bilingualism for d/Deaf children. Various types of bilingualism are possible,

depending on the child. Some deaf children may be dominant in oral
language, while others will be dominant in sign language, and others may
have a balance and use both languages (Grosjean, 2013). Deaf children will
be bilingual to different degrees, much like others in the world who live with
two or more languages (Grosjean, 2013). Grosjean states that Through
language, the deaf child must progressively become a member of both the
hearing and of the Deaf world (2013). Children need to identify in part with
the hearing world that their parents, and siblings are (usually) a part of
(Grosjean, 2013). The child must feel comfortable in these two worlds and
must be able to identify with each as much as possible (Grosjean, 2013).
Deaf children have the right to be bilingual, and use sign language as well as
oral language to communicate with the worlds around them.
Instructional Practices
Within Deaf Bilingual programs several strategies are used to incorporate
sign language and oral languages. Many bilingual programs in North America
are very young, the oldest being from the late 80s and early 90s (Lange et
al., 2013), so strategies in bilingual classrooms are constantly being
evaluated and updated. Oral languages are especially focused on for reading
and writing. In programs that use ASL and English, chaining is a strategy that
is used (Lange et al., 2013). Chaining is when ASL is used before and after
reading English texts, and has been shown to improve reading

comprehension for deaf students (Lange et al., 2013). When Deaf children
are learning to read, they are often also learning new written words in the
oral language (Hermans et al., 2008), so comprehending the oral language is
very important and using a Deaf childs natural language is one way to
bridge the gap.
Benefits of Bilingual Education Programs
Research has shown academic and cognitive benefits for d/Deaf
children in Deaf bilingual education programs . Research has consistently
shown positive correlation between ASL and English skills (Lange et al.,
2013), which indicates that the stronger an individual is in sign language
skills, the stronger they will be in oral language skills. One of the most
convincing pieces of research about Deaf Bilingual programs has shown that
Deaf students who have mastered American Sign Language (ASL), or other
forms of sign language, are much better at reading and writing oral
languages (like English). The Linguistic Interdependence theory supports the
idea that deaf children acquire language skills through learning sign
language, and these skills will facilitate the acquisition of reading skills
(Hermans et al., 2008). This theory states there is a positive relationship
between reading skills and signing skills (Hermans et al., 2008).
Cognitive benefits have also been found in Deaf individuals who are
bilingual (Lange et al., 2013). Through language, children develop cognitive
abilities that are critical in the development of reasoning, abstracting,

memorizing, etc. (Grosjean, 2013). There is also evidence that Deaf bilingual
education models help buffer the reality that most d/Deaf children do not
have full access to communication in infancy and the early years (Lange et
al, 2013). There is a large vocalization of support for bilingual programs.
Grosjean, states that A sign language-oral language bilingualism is the only
way that the deaf child will meet his/her needs (2013). Sign language
facilitates the acquisition of written and spoken oral language (Grosjean,
2013), which ensures that d/Deaf children will be able to access
communication and information in the world. Oral language, in its written
form, will be key for knowledge acquisition for the child throughout their life
(Grosjean, 2013). Grosjean asserts that By knowing and using both a sign
language and an oral language (in its written modality), the child will attain
his/her full cognitive, linguistic and social capabilities (2013). Through
bilingualism, deaf children will be able to communicate fully with the
surrounding world, communicate with parents early, develop cognitive
abilities and acculturate into both the hearing world and Deaf world
(Grosjean, 2013).
Lange et al., report in their study of academic growth in the ASL/English
Bilingual Education models, that initially the study group of deaf and hard of
hearing (DHH) students had slower academic growth than the comparison
group, but eventually they outperformed the comparison group (made up
primarily of hearing students) (2013). This research indicates that d/Deaf
students in the bilingual program did not follow the pattern of low academic

achievement. Lange et al., also found evidence that when DHH students
used the bilingual education model, students made continual progress, and
did not suffer from the plateau of academic growth that DHH students often
have (2013).

Weaknesses
Not all researches believe that Deaf bilingual programs have bridged the
academic and linguistic gap for Deaf children. Hermans et al., state that
bilingual programs have not done enough for deaf children ..despite
promises of bilingual education programs, the average reading skills of
children do not seem to have improved substantially in the last decade
(Hermans et al., 2008). Many also cite that more longitudinal research is
needed, because of the young age of deaf bilingual education programs.
Deaf bilingual education is also important when looking at deaf infants.
Some children may not be offered the opportunity to be bilingual as
parents of deaf children are most often typically-hearing, and seek advice
from the medical field about their children. Munoz-Baell et al., state that
most primary care doctors.may believe that children who do no hear need
their hearing mechanism to be repaired by means of technological
instruments cochlear implants being most recent- forgetting the linguistic
human rights of Deaf children and the opinions of the Deaf community

(2007). If deaf children do not have the choice to be bilingual, they will not
benefit from the Deaf bilingual education model.
Conclusion
Deaf children have been failed by traditional education programs. Deaf
children do not benefit from a learning environment that is focused only on
oral language, and does not acknowledge sign language. All Deaf people live
in a world where they need to be bilingual, and use oral language in various
forms for communication. It is the responsibility of educational programs to
prepare children for the world, and allow them access to full communication.
Munoz-Baell et al., propose that Deaf bilingual education systems can only
be in place after Deaf people are accepted and recognized as a linguistic and
cultural minority no more impaired than any other language and cultural
minority (2007). Grosjean states that every deaf child, whatever the level of
his/her hearing loss, should have the right to grow up bilingual (2013). Deaf
people are inherently part of two different worlds: the Deaf world, and the
hearing world. Being bilingual is a vital way that Deaf people can
communicate in both of their worlds. The linguistic isolation in traditional
education programs has meant that d/Deaf children struggle, because they
are not able to fully communicate; understand; or use the oral language in
the school around them. If d/Deaf children are not exposed to sign language
they may be denied access to total, full communication.

Citations
Grosjean, F. (2001). The right of the deaf child to grow up bilingual. Sign Language
Studies, Winter 2001(1),
Lange, C., Lane-Outlaw, S., Lange, W., & Sherwood, D. (2013). American sign
language/english bilingual model: A longitudinal study of acedemic growth. Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(4), 532-544.
Mason, D. (1996). Whole language and deaf bilingual education - naturally.
American Annuls of the Deaf, 141(4), 293-298.
McQuarrie, L., & Abbott, M. (2013). Bilingual deaf students' phonological awareness
in asl and reading skills in english. Sign Language Studies, 14(1), 80-100.

Munoz-Baell, I., Alvarez-Dardet, C., Ruiz-Cantero, M., Ferriero-Lago, E., & ArocaFernandez, E. (2011). Understanding deaf bilingual education from the inside: a
SWOT analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(9), 865-889.
Munoz-Baell, I., Alvarez-Dardet, C., Ruiz, M., Ortiz, R., Esteban, M., & Ferreiro, E.
(2008). Preventing disability through understanding international megatrends in
deaf bilingual education. J Edipemiol Community Health, 62, 131-137.
Skliar, C., & Quadros, R. (2010). Bilingual deaf education in the south of brazil.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(5), 368-380.
Stuckless, R. (1990). Reflections on bilingual, bicultural eduaction for deaf students.
American Annuls of the Deaf, 136(3), 20-274.
Svartholm, K. (2010). Bilingual education for deaf children in sweden. Inernational
Journal of Bilingual Education and BIlingualism, 13(2), 159 - 161