|05-25-2012, 10:08 AM||#1 (permalink)|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Interesting research on Norwegian children with CI
Interesting, I found it from the other site : N.D. and copied it there and pasted it here. all in this from a member who found it, not me.
.......It seems that despite most implantation occuring within the first year following newborn screening and diagnosis (quite early!) students with CI are still in need of bilingual/biculural environments in order to acheive the same level of access and participation as their hearing peers.
"Expectations can therefore vary consitlerably regarding cochlear implantation of deaf
children. In some countries, the desired outcome may well be a form of equitable participation in daily life, development, and learning processes in academic and social settings. In other
countries, the demand for excellence may also be a driving influence. "Excellence"
may be defined in these contexts as leading toward "oral perfection," while "equitable participation" may be less esteemed (p 263).
"This qualitative study included interviews with children with a cochlear implant, their parents, and their teachers; videotapes of interaction patterns in classrooms and kindergartens; and
related field notes. Analyses of the recordings of children's access to classroom communication showed major variations among the kindergartens, schools, programs, and professionals
participating in the study (Hjulstad et al., 2002). Assessment of interaction and participation patterns demonstrated correspondence with the modes of communication that were applied, in the sense that educational settings that offered a range of cultural tools, including both sign
language and spoken language and an array of flexible and adapted approaches to communication, represented beneficial environments for attaining higher levels of student inclusion
and participation in classroom activities (Hjulstad et al., 2002). In educational settings where spoken Norwegian was used, access to communication and interaction was restricted
in many cases, including collective learning processes in groups and participation in classroom instruction and associated peer interaction. Parents' responses demonstrated expectations
more in line with their children achieving an appropriate level of "participation," primarily in school
and family life, rather than expectations of "excellence," particularly with the u.se of spoken language (Strand, 2002). As for the chikiren themselves, the nine primary school children who
were interviewed were able to convey an impressive metacomprehension oftheir communicative situation and the strategies that they used to participate (Christoffersen, 2001).\
The second study of educational settings for children with a cochlear implant, "Inclusive Education of Children With Cochlear Implants: A Foilow-up Study," was undertaken from 2004 to 2007. This was a study of the same 24 children with a cochlear -implant in kindergarten included
in the earlier national study ("Children With Cochlear Implants," 1999-2001). These former preschool children were tracked in their lower primary-school settings (Simonsen, Kristoffersen, & Hjulstad, 2008). A majority of the 24 children had been placed in their local schools, while
some had been placed in special units or special schools for the deaf. School placement, however, was not representative of educational programming in Norway, as bilingual
programs can be identified in all of these settings. However, programs using spoken Norwegian as the single communicative tool are only to be found in local schools. The main purpose of the follow-up study was to generate knowledge from the educational practices that were observed
and reported" (p 267).
"An interesting and important finding is that different instructional activities appear to
create different challenges with respect to participation by the child with a cochiear implant, but the availability of diflerent communication modalities offers potential for enhanced participation (p 270).
The main disagreement that was
reported was over the language mode
to be applied in the school. When
both visual and auditory languages
were allowed, the tension levels were
reported as being low and allowing for
diversity in instruction and adapted education.
In the cases in which spoken
Norwegian was the only language permitted,
tension levels were reported
to be higher. Some of the teachers in
this latter situation described feeling
squeezed between expectations and
reality, and sait! they had difficulty
meeting the demands of their classrooms:
"We try not to use sign language in class—but it is hard"; or, "I realize when he does not understand what is being said. Then we have to use our hands." The increasing complexity of the subjects taught in primary and secondary schools, combined with the demand for higher levels of literacy, with the resultant increase in problems providing access to communication in classrooms, was creating anxiety for several of these teachers" and students (p 271).
"In particular, a diversity of communication practices and outcomes is revealed that may be
seen as participatory and inclusive in the relevant educational settings and learning contexts. In terms of communication, these practices and outcomes involve the use of spoken Norwegian and NSL as well as the discriminating use of various language forms and modality mixing in classroom
learning activities" (p 271).
"While the early detection of hearing loss and the implantation of younger deaf children are of major significance and benefit for all concerned, the need to consider the diverse outcomes that
these developments may have for individual children in classrooms across the country and in their postschool life remains paramount" (p 271-72).
"What the current situation in Norway—as exemplified by the two national national studies discussed in the present article—seems to imply is the possibility of a unified rather than a dualistic
or divided perspective on the national future of deaf education, provided that both visual and auditory modes of communication and the languages they may form ap 272re perceived
not as oppositional but as complementary. In this sense, "excellence," as we note in the opening section of the present article, would be a marker of the quality of the learning environment
and an indicator of the degree of access to communication for all students—not a referent to any single language form or communication mode" (p 272).
Simonsen, E., Kristofferson, A., Hyde, M.B., & Hjuldstad, O. (2009). Great expectations: perspectives on cochlear implantation of deaf children in Norway. American Annals of the Deaf 154(3), pp 263-72.
NOTE: SIMONSEN IS DIRECTOR OF THE DEFARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SKAOALEN RESOURCE CENTER, OSLO, NORWAY, AND PROFESSOR II, DEFWFTTMENT OF SPECIAL
NEEDS EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF OSLO. KRISTOFFERSEN IS A RESEARCH FELLOW,
DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SKADALEN RESOURCE CENTER. HYDE IS
PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE FOR APPLIED STUDIES OF DEAFNESS,
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY, AND A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST;
BOTH UNIVERSITIES ARE IN THE STATE OF QUEENSUND, AUSTRALIA. H E IS ALSO A
RESEARCH CONSULTANT AT SKADALEN RESOURCE CENTER, HJULSTAD IS A RESEARCHER AT
SKADALEN RESOURCE CENTER AND A PHD CANDIDATE, DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL NEEDS
EDUCATION, UNIVERSFTY OF OSLO.
|05-25-2012, 03:37 PM||#3 (permalink)|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New England, USA
The full article is really very interesting, arguing against separate schools for the deaf and instead towards an inclusion approach. But the Norwegian school system is so very different from that of the US that I'm not sure the same benefits would be achieved if that recommendation were slapped onto our system without full reform of our ed. system.
I have a question about this quote in the OP:
.............. So, it would seem that the research coming from Norway is in agreement with the top research coming from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia: despite the prevalence of early implantation, children with CI struggle in oral only educational environments and benefit greatly from bi-bi educational environments. Additionally, this research agrees that parental expectations for these children are often lowered and focused on adequate speech production rather than excellence in education."
Where did this quote above come from? I don't see it anywhere in the original article, and it actually seems to come to the opposite conclusion as that found in the article itself, which showed that parents expectations were NOT based on speech production, quite the opposite:
In addition, I'm wondering if the complexity of the article's findings is coming through when you pull a few isolated quotes from the discussion of this research about Norway's pioneering kids with CIs. The data itself is just amazing, though -- did you take a look at how well these kids are doing? Impressive. Seems that the predominant, customized approach to teaching, utilizing a bilingual model in place in typical schools is very conducive to excellent results. I like this model, wish we had something like it in the US.