Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Dr Claudine Storbeck
Deaf Education: Specialised Education
University of the Witwatersrand
Private Bag 3
Wits, 2050
South Africa
claudine.storbeck@gmail.com
Problem Identification
Deaf education in South Africa was formally initiated in the late 1800’s and yet after 200 years of development the majority of Deaf learners leave school functionally illiterate and thus unable to find employment (DEAFSA, 2003). The main focus of this research is to explore why, after 12 years of education in specialized schools for the deaf, deaf learners are leaving school so ill equipped. This research aims to begin to re-ask old questions as well as ask the unasked questions in order to discover and rediscover how we can enhance our pedagogy to begin to find solutions for deaf education in South Africa … in search of best practice.
Rationale and Motivation
Deaf Education in South Africa has a history of “imbalances, unfair discrimination and oppression” (DEAFSA, 1994). Various forms of discrimination have been challenged, apartheid was abolished and equal education for all has been espoused, yet the education of deaf learners has shown no significant improvement over the past decade. Sadly, “most Deaf learners leave school functionally illiterate because of language deprivation and inappropriate teaching methods” (DEAFSA, 2003: 8). Recent research in South Africa has pointed toward Deaf learners and their educators’ unhappiness at the status quo in Deaf Education. These results point to the importance of Sign Language and Deaf Culture, the use of Bilingual Education practices and the specialised training of teachers of the Deaf (Storbeck, 1994, 1998, 2003). In addition to this research, current lobbying by the Deaf community in South Africa calls for teachers to be trained in South African Sign Language (SASL) and for Sign Language to be accepted as the 12th official language. The value of teaching through Sign Language is well documented (Mashsie, 1996; Fischer, 1995; Kyle & Woll, 1995 and Johnson, Liddel and Erting, 1989) as well as the benefit of an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the Deaf community and their Culture (Bahan, Lane & Hoffmeister, 1995; Padden & Humphries, 1988). However, despite the fact that over the years educators of the Deaf in South Africa have become more aware of and skilled in Sign Language, Deaf Culture and Deaf rights, the question of why Deaf learners continue to leave school with inequitable matriculations raises concerns.
This question leads to an exploration of teacher efficacy, which in Deaf Education, should be seen as far more encompassing than merely language access (Mayer, C., Akamatsu, T. & Stewart, D. 2002; Akamatsu, T et al, 2002), as teachers of the Deaf have multiple roles to fulfil (Storbeck, 2003).
The role of the teacher of the Deaf
The multiplexity of teacherhood becomes a reality when one starts to teach and comes to the realisation that teaching encompasses far more than merely ‘instructing’. The teacher finds his/her role includes among others the role of advisor, facilitator, instructional manager, curriculum designer, disciplinarian, academic instructor and evaluator. In addition to these roles, the teacher of the Deaf takes on added responsibilities such as interpreter, life skills trainer, advisor, and very often surrogate parent. Subsequently it becomes apparent that the role of the teacher of the Deaf is multiple and one that teachers of the Deaf in South Africa are not adequately trained for.
The essence of teaching assumes an empowered teacher, who is actively involved in the curriculum decision making process, and an equally empowered learner who is encouraged to make sense of the learning experience by inquiring into and challenging the curriculum. This process of negotiation between teacher, learner and content means, “deliberately planning to invite students to contribute to, and to modify, the educational program” (Garth Boomer, 1992,p.14 in Boomer et al 1992). This dialectic education process presupposes equal access to the learning experience by both teacher and learner without any barriers at any phase of the learning experience.
Despite the need for such a dialogic education process, teachers of the Deaf in South Africa are presently not required to have specialised teacher training in order to teach the Deaf. Subsequently teachers enter schools for the Deaf unaware of issues such as Deaf Culture, Sign Language, Cognitive and Language Development of the Deaf learner, and go through a serendipitous process of learning-as-they-go-along. This means – astonishingly – that teachers of the Deaf in South Africa are not required to learn Sign Language which inevitably leads to communication difficulties between teacher, learner and the learning content.
This lack of knowledge of the Deaf child’s language, culture and thus learning experience appears to have led to the virtual absence of a dialogic education process. The present situation for Deaf learners in South Africa is a result: 60% of Deaf South Africans are functionally illiterate, 70% unemployed and the majority of school leavers have a reading level of a Grade 6 pupil and the general knowledge of an 8 year old child (DEAFSA, 1997).
From the above illustration on the current situation for Deaf learners in South Africa it is evident that the status quo can not and should not be condoned, as this is having a direct impact on the Deaf learner’s identity, self worth and cultural development. The researcher thus hypothesizes that Sign Language and knowledge of Deaf culture alone are indeed not sufficient for the training and preparation of teachers of the Deaf, and that teachers of the Deaf need a multitude of additional understandings and skills in order to effectively create an inviting and effective learning environment for their Deaf learners as well as an acute awareness of their models of mind and pedagogy (Bruner, 1996: 53).
To ensure that teachers of the Deaf effectively meet their learners’ linguistic and educational needs, we need to understand what is meant by Deaf pedagogy. This will require an indepth investigation looking afresh at teaching and learning theories and to assist in the development of appropriate conceptual foundations for the Deaf Education context. A key issue in this investigation will thus be to understand factors that optimise teaching and learning within the Deaf education learning environment and reduce illiteracy amongst the Deaf population. It is proposed that what is required is in fact a specialised Deaf pedagogy, and that teachers that are currently identified as using best practice may reflect these additional characteristics and attitudes. This paper thus aims to begin to ask the unasked questions in order to discover how we can enhance our pedagogy to begin to find solutions for Deaf Education…in search of best practice.
Research aims
The aim of this research project is to discover what is required of an effective teacher of the Deaf, and thus what is required for effective teaching and learning to take place within the Deaf education context. It is proposed that in order to understand excellence in Deaf Education one needs to understand Deaf pedagogy. This will then be investigated by observing teachers of excellence (as identified by school principals) and allowing them to reflect (through the interviews) on their knowledge, beliefs and teaching practices (Freire, 1998:30) and on the questions they have and the answers they still seek (p.89).
Key questions will be raised in and through the research process, which is anticipated to be a dialogue between the researcher and educators in order to “create and recreate multiple understandings … leading to that uncomfortable place of relearning and unlearning” in order to truly begin to move to new levels of knowledge (Wink, 2000:48). Some of these questions include:
By attempting to begin to answer these questions the researcher thus aims to understand and define “Deaf Pedagogy” by observing teachers of excellence in action. In order to do this the primary research site will be the Deaf education classroom within the South African context where current theory and practice are not meeting the needs of Deaf learners (as is apparent in statistics such as quoted by DEAFSA, 1994, 2003 – 70 % unemployment, reading levels of 4-6th grade and 66% functionally illiterate).
Research methods
A qualitative research design is used for this study as the research problem of this inquiry embraces an in-depth study of what is happening in the classroom. Qualitative research is defined by Kirk and Miller (1986, quoted in Krefting, 1991:214) as a “particular tradition in social science that fundamentally depends on watching people in their own territory and interacting with them in their own language, on their own term”, and has as its aim “to give an honest account with little or no interpretation of ... those spoken words or of the observations made by the researcher” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990:221). Miles and Huberman (1994:1) describe qualitative data as sources “of well grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts” that allow the researcher an authentic look at the emic views of the research participants.
The data in this study is collected by means of observations and in-depth, open-ended interviews. The pilot study takes place in the USA at a model school for the Deaf respected for its high levels of education. These initial observations assist the researcher in creating a template of teaching excellence to be used as an observation tool during the primary research observations in South Africa.
This study endeavours to ‘hear’ and reflect the ‘voice’ of participants authentically (Frank, 2002, Wink, 2000) as the researcher encourages the teachers to reflect on their pedagogy (the interaction between teaching and learning that occurs in their classrooms) and “what they teach, how they are to teach, and what the larger goals are for which they are striving” (Giroux, 1988: 126). The credibility and accuracy of this study will be ensured by verifying the findings on the validation model of Miles and Huberman (1994).
The classroom observations, which will be rich in both linguistic and pedagogical data, will be analysed following general qualitative analysis procedures: transcriptions will occur on a dual level looking at discourse and pedagogy, data condensation will occur through clustering, conceptualization and dendrogramming (Krippendorf, 1980 as cited in Miles and Huberman, 1994) thus allow categories of excellence to emerge from within the data.
Impact on development in Deaf Education
Despite the research advances being made internationally there are still gaps in what we know about Deaf education, which is evident in the continual low levels of education and literacy of Deaf school graduates internationally. Subsequently this area of research is of great importance in South Africa, Africa and internationally. This has been confirmed in a recent presentation by Marschark (2003) – a prominent researcher in the field of Deafness – in which he presented the results of a survey regarding the current research trends and gaps in Deafness. In this presentation the following key areas that he referred to as lacking research have a direct impact on this study. These are:
Preliminary findings will be presented in the symposium in order to open the debate to the contentious question of whether there is a Deaf pedagogy or not. It is therefore anticipated that this research will be groundbreaking both in terms of its method and aims. The central outcomes are anticipated to be: An understanding of Deaf pedagogy an improved teacher training programme for teachers of the Deaf, and thus improved Deaf Education in South Africa.
References and Bibliography:
Akamatsu, T., Mayer, C., Stewart, D. & Storbeck C. 2002 What do teachers need to know about communicating effectively with deaf and hard of hearing students? Presentation at The American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, New Orleans, USA - April.
Bahan, B., Lane, H. & Hoffmeister, R. (1995). Deaf Culture. In B. Bahan, H.Lane & R Hoffmeister (Eds). A journey into a Deaf world. San Diego: Dawn Sign Press.
Bodner-Johnson, B. & Sass-Lehrer, M. 2003. The young Deaf or hard of hearing child: A family-centered approach to early education. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.
Bogden, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. 1992: Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boomer, G., Lester.N., Onore,C. & Cook,J. (Eds). 1992. Negotiating the curriculum: educating for the 21st century. London: Falmer Press.
Bruner, J. 1996. The culture of education. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Bryman,A. & Burgess, R.G. (Eds). 1994. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.
Christensen, K.M. & Delgado, G.L. (Eds). 1993. Multicultural Issues in Deafness. New York: Longman.
DEAFSA, 1994. Education for the Deaf: proposed policy, October. Unpublished manuscript.
DEAFSA, 2003. Memorandum to the National and Provincial Departments of Education, February. Unpublished manuscript.
Fischer, S. D. (1995). “Critical Periods for Language Acquisition: Consequences for Deaf Education”. Paper presented at the 18th International Congress on Education of the Deaf, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Foster, S. 1989. “Reflections of a group of Deaf adults on their experiences in mainstream and residential school programs in the United States”. Disability, Handicap & Society, 4 (1): 37-56
Frank, W. 2002 "Why Study People's Stories: The Dialogical Ethics of Narrative Analysis." International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(1), Article 6.
Freire, P. 1998. Pedagogy of Freedom. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Giroux, H. A. 1988. Teachers and Intellectuals. Massachusets: Bergin &Garvey Publishers, Inc.
Johnson, R. E. , Liddel, S. K. & Erting, C. J. (Eds.), (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: principles for achieving access in deaf education. Working paper 89-3. Washington, DC: Department of Linguistics and Interpreting at the Gallaudet Research Institute.
Kyle, J. G. & Woll, B. (1995). Sign Language: The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Krefting, L. 1991. “Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness”. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45:214-222.
Marschark et al. 2003. Educating Deaf students: from research to practice, ed., Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M. 2003. What’s hot and what’s not in Deaf Education. September. Presentation at Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Mahshie, S. (1995). Educating deaf children bilingually. Washington, DC: Pre-College Programs.
Mayer, C. 1999. “Shaping at the point of utterance: An investigation of the composing processes of the deaf student writer.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf education, 4, 37-49
Mayer, C., Akamatsu, T. & Stewart, D. 2002. “A Model for effective practice: Dialogic inquiry in the education of deaf students”. Exceptional Children. 68: 485-502
Maxwell, M., & Doyle, J. 1996. “Language codes and sense-making among deaf school children.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 122-137
McAnnaly, P.L. Rose, S. & Quigley, S.P. 1994: Language learning practices with Deaf children; 2nd ed. Austin: pro-ed.
Merriam, S.B. 1988. Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. Oxford: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M.B & Huberman, A.M. 1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitiative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publishers.
Ministry of Education. 2000. Implementation plan for Tirisano January 2000 – December 2004. Pretoria: Ministry of Education
Orlich, D.C., Harder, R.J., Callahan, R.C., Kauchak, D.P. & Gibson, H.W. 1994. Teaching strategies: A guide to better instruction. Lexington: DC Heath and Company.
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Storbeck, C. 1994. A Case Study of Bilingual Education in a school for the Deaf. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University. 1994
Storbeck, C. 1998. A Professional Development Programme for Teachers of the Deaf in South Africa. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University.
Storbeck, C. 2003. “What do teachers of the Deaf need to know: an insider perspective”. African Annals of the Deaf. Volume 1:1.
Strauss, S.A & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage Publications.
Wertsch, J.V. 1991. Voices of the mind: a socio cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wink, J. 2000. Critical Pedagogy: Notes from the real world. 2 nd ed. New York: Longman
Wood, D. 1988. How children think and learn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |