Download 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