Conclusion: Bilingualism in the Education of Deaf Learners.

Abstract

Conclusion: Bilingualism in the Education of Deaf Learners Connie Mayer (bio) and Beverly J. Trezek (bio) The authors of the four articles included in this Annals special section—Kuntze, Paul and Yan, Simpson and Mayer, and Tang et al.—have addressed a range of topics related to bilingualism in the education of deaf students. Despite the diversity in topics, a common thread in the conclusions of all four articles is the call for further research, albeit with variations in focus. Investigations with respect to the potential for spoken language bilingualism are limited, and as Simpson and Mayer contend, there is clearly a need to pay more research attention to this population of learners, from reporting demographics and language and literacy outcomes to identifying efficacious interventions and educational supports. Still in its early days, this research is critically needed at a time when more deaf children are acquiring two spoken languages— simultaneously or sequentially—in the home as L1 or in school as L2, and perhaps developing literacy skills in both languages as well. While relatively more research has been carried out in the context of signed/spoken bilingualism, discussions have focused on what needs to be addressed in future studies in order to present a more fulsome and robust case in support of this approach. In line with previous investigations, Kuntze found a positive correlation between American Sign Language (ASL) and reading comprehension. However, because reading achievement data were not reported in a manner that allowed a specific level of skill attainment to be determined (e.g., standard or grade equivalent scores), it is not possible to gauge the extent to which this cohort is achieving at age-appropriate levels—a concern raised by Mayer and Trezek (2020, 2021) and echoed by Paul and Yan. Tang et al. investigated achievement in a sign bilingual coenrollment approach, broadening the scope of the research to a different context and allowing for a consideration of the relative roles played by Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) and spoken Cantonese in developing literacy. The results of this study revealed that the d/Deaf and hard of hearing participants showed evidence of delayed acquisition of grammatical structures when compared to their hearing peers at the end of primary grade 1. However, a qualitative error analysis found that the trajectory of development and type of constructions attained beyond primary 2 was fairly similar across the two groups. A noteworthy finding was that knowledge of oral Cantonese initially influenced participants’ development of written Chinese to some degree; however, the impact of HKSL was less apparent. [End Page 761] Findings of both the Kuntze and Tang et al. studies highlight the importance of including empirical evidence to strengthen the case being made for the efficacy of sign bilingual education across a range of contexts, and with an eye to the relative contributions of both languages to the development of literacy. In their concluding remarks, Paul and Yan reiterate this point and underscore the need to use and/or develop relevant, appropriate standardized measures of both English (i.e., language and literacy) and ASL to provide this empirical data. In addition, they call for more intervention and longitudinal studies to examine the merits of constructs such as fingerspelling and aspects of ASL such as visual phonology, ASL syntax, and the use of analogies in ASL. They also emphasize the need to ensure that future research accounts for program quality indicators and sociodemographics of the participants, and to the extent possible, that the sample be representative. These suggestions would serve the field well in establishing a more robust evidence base in support of bilingual education for deaf students—whether that is in a signed and spoken language, two spoken languages, or even multiple languages. As researchers, we have an obligation to learn from the past and move forward in conducting investigations that provide the empirical evidence necessary to support the promise of our theoretical claims, and perhaps more importantly, to inform practice so that bilingualism becomes possible for more deaf students—a goal we all share. Connie Mayer Mayer is a professor in the Faculty of Education and the academic coordinator of the Teacher Preparation Program in the Education of...