100.

EPISTEMOLOGIES, DEAFNESS, LEARNING,

AND TEACHING

HE STUDY of Deaf epistemologies is in a nascent stage relative to, eg.,

the study of feminist or African American epistemologies. It has only re-
cently begun attracting the widespread attention it deserves. The pres-
ent article addresses Deaf epistemologies as they relate to the
sometimes conflicting trends in American society and education. In a
relatively short period, the education of deaf students has gone from an
independent enterprise under the aegis of special education to heavy
influence by No Child Left Behind legislation that applies to virtually all
American students. American education at one and the same time em-
braces and celebrates diversity, imposes uniform, rigid learning stan-
dards for all children, and mandates that all children be tested in the
same way. An oxymoron exists of individualized educational planning
and one-size-fits-all curricula and assessment of academic achievement.
Implications for teaching and learning of deaf students are explored.
DONALD F . MOORES
In considering epistemologies it is learning styles of deaf learners. In
tempting, but inteilectually misleading, essence, the argument goes that gen-
MOORES IS A PROFESSOR, DEWRTMENT OF
to think in dichotomous terms. In the eral theories of instruction and re-
EXCEPTIONAL STJDENT AND DEAF EDUCATION,
introductory article in this special issue search do not apply to the education of
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN
of the American Annals of the Deaf, deaf students.
SERVICES, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA,
Peter Y Paul and I presented some char- In addition, Deaf epistemologies
JACKSONVILLE. HE IS ALSO EDITOR OF THE
acteristics of a Deaf epistemology, or posit that there is no specific psychol-
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF.
epistemologies, and contrasted them ogy of deafness, but there are differ-
with a standard epistemology, which ences in the ways that deaf and hearing
may not, in reality, be the standard any- individuals learn; deaf learners are vi-
more. Deaf epistemologies, as they re- sual learnei^s, and, consequently, the
late CO education and instruction, deaf brain may be organized differently
typically contain certain heliefs includ- from the hearing brain. Another con-
ing, but not limited to, the idea that sistent theme is that a sign language
deaf education has been controlled by should be the natural language of a deaf
hearing educators who harbor a deficit child from birth.
or deficiency model of deafness and A standard epistemology, or episte-
who are insensitive to the needs and mologies, has a more general or univer-

VOLUMK 154, No. 5, 2010 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THK DEAF

EPISTEMOLOGIES, DEAFNESS, LEARNING, AND TEACHING
sal perspective. It ojierates under the
assumption that there are external
knowable realities that can be discov-
ered or developed through the scien-
tific method. Theories can be tested,
with the result being closer approxima-
tions of truth (Lehrer, 2000).
An epistemology, stripped to its
barest essence, is a way of knowing, of
understanding and structuring, of in-
teracting with the world. It focuses
on the nature, uses, and limitations of
knowing. Among those who think
ab(3Ut such matters, the consensus is
that there has existed a standard epis-
temology that represents a White male
Weltanschauung, or view of the world.
Its literary canon consists of Wliite
males (Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes,
Dostoevsky, Twain, etc.), with analo-
gous representation in art (Da Vinci,
Raphael, Rembrandt, Dali, Picasso,
Michelangelo), philosophy (Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard),
music (Bach. Beethoven, Verdi, Rim-
ski-Korsakov), and numerous other
fields of endeavor. Such a worldview
excludes most of the human race. In
the United States tbis exclusion applies
to women, racial and ethnic minorities,
and deaf people, among others who,
to one extent or another, have been
marginalized.
If one believes that a standard epis-
temology is, by definition, inadequate
and misleading, that there is no ex-
ternal, knowable reality, and that
knowledge and truth are relative and
situational constructs, how do the
constructs of gender, race, and deaf-
ness situate knowledge and how does
the production of knowledge affect
women, racial minorities, and deaf in-
dividuals? To a large extent racial mi-
norities, women, and deaf individuals
have been excluded from inquiry,
portrayed as inferior, and denied ac-
cess to power; thus, the production
of knowledge has not been beneficial
to them.
154, No. 5, 2010
It was inevitahle that domination by
a minority of the population would be
challenged and fundamental changes
would be instituted. Significant change
has occurred, although more needs to
be done. Change can be effected in dif-
ferent ways. One approach is to be in-
tegrated into and be accepted by an
existing system. As discussed in the
present article, this was an effective
strategy for deaf leaders in the 1970s
and, to a lesser extent, remains so to-
day Access to power and decision
making hy individuals with diverse
perspectives can be quite beneficial.
Another approach is to declare tbe sys-
tem itself repressive and oppressive in
a sexist, racist, or audist way and strive
to change it in a revolutionary manner
or withdraw from it. An example of this
is provided by Paulo Freire's Pedagogy
of the Oppressed (1970). in which he
argued that the purpose of education
for poor people was to change educa-
tion in order to help them understand
the nature of their oppression and be-
come aware of, and change, the system.
The situation for women, racial and
ethnic minorities, disabled individuals,
and gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual
individuals in the United States has
improved over the past 50 years, and
the rate of improvement seems to
have accelerated. However, there are
two caveats: Conditions changed only
because of the leadership of people
from marginalized groups, and the sit-
uation is better but not good. Much
more needs to be accomplished.
The present article addresses ques-
tions of pedagogy for deaf students as
these questions relate to the current
realities in American education. It will
consider the growing absorption of
deaf education into the general edu-
cation framework and the resultant
erosion of independence, historical
precedents, academic achievement
and assessment, learning styles, and
teaching accommodations,
Deaf Epistemologies
Deaf epistemology, or epistemologies,
presents a complex picture, one rea-
son being that there are relatively few
Deaf studies departments, where
much of the research and epistemo-
logical debate would take place, and
another that such departments have
been established more recently than
tbe comparable women's studies or
African American studies departments.
The first Deaf studies department was
established at Boston University in
1981 (R. Hofïmeister, personal com-
munication, February 2009), so the
field has had a relatively short time
span in which to develop a compre-
hensive body of work. Additionally,
hearing educators controlled higher
education for deaf students, at least
until the Deaf President Now protest
at Gallaudet University in 1988 (Gan-
non, 1989). Therefore, there is not a
history of inquiry or body of knowl-
edge reflecting Deaf perspectives or
epistemologies that will or should be
forthcoming within the near future.
Adherence to any epistemology is
not necessarily contingent upon any
condition per se, hearing status in che
present case. A deaf person may or
may not agree with any or all of the
characteristics of a Deaf epistemology,
as presented here, and a hearing per-
son might be a strong supporter of a
Deaf epistemology. Further, everyone
has multiple references and points of
self-identification. In 1983, Hairston
and Smith published a book with a
provocative title. Black and Deaf in
America: Are We That Different? More
recently, Kelly (2008) raised the ques-
tion, "Where is Deaf herstoiy?" in her
eponymously titled book. If there is a
Deaf epistemology that is different
from the standard epistemology, is it
essentially a White deaf male episte-
mology? How does this affect deaf
women, African Americans, Hispanic
Americans, Native Americans, Asian-
AMERICAN ANNAI5 OF THE DKAF
Pacific Americans, gay and lesbian
Americans? Among national organiza-
tions there are the National Black Deaf
Advocates, National Council of His-
pano Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inter-
tribal Deaf Council, National Asian
Deaf Conference, and the Rainbow
Coalition. Each organization serves as
an advocate for an identified subgroup
ofdeaf Americans.
The danger is that people can iden-
tify themselves by increasingly narrow
characteristics, beginning with cate-
gories such as hearing status, gender,
race, ethnicity, religious affiliation (if
any), social class, or geography. Since
each human being is unique, reductio
ad absurdum, there could be six bil-
lion categories. The issue is too com-
plex to address in the allocated space
and is better resolved with attention
to more detail elsewhere,
Most readers of the present article
probably agree that a Deaf community
and a Deaf culture exist, although
there may be s(ime varying definitions
of these terms. Readers not familiar
with these terms and with the concept
of 'Deafhood' should refer to the
work of Ladd (2003, 2008) and other
sources.
In order to provide a perspective
for the pre.sent, it is important to con-
sider the status of deaf people from
the beginnings of education of the
deaf in the United States. Throughout
history, deaf leaders have played sig-
nificant roles and have infiuenced the
development of deaf children even
whenpure oralism was dominant. It is
important thai one understand this
and be aware of their accomplish-
ments. I,ater in the present article,
there will be a short treatment of the
first years of education of the deaf and
more attention paid to developments
since 1960, when the field underwent
fundamental, revolutionary changes
that continue to infiuence education
today Before that, a few comments
VOLUME 154, No, 5, 2010
about contemporary American educa-
tion are in order.
American Education:
Salient Characteristics
As stated earlier, the goal of the pres-
ent article is not to define Deaf culture
or Deaf epistemology in depth, but
rather to take common constructs that
have been developed and examine
their present and potential relation-
ships to the reality that is American ed-
ucation today
American education refiects the
goals and aspirations of American soci-
ety in general. As with any reality, there
are po.sitive and negative aspects to the
current situation, American education
has gone through periods in which ei-
ther equity of access or excellence has
been emphasized. Since passage of the
No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, both
goals have been embraced, at least in
theory. The goal is that all children will
achieve academic proficiency. In other
words, equity of access by itself is no
longer acceptable; access has been re-
placed by success as the measuring
stick for all children.
In American schools today, in gen-
eral, diversity is not only accepted, it is
embraced and celebrated. It is built
into the curriculum and, although the
situation is not ideal, is supported by
teachers and staff, at least to a greater
extent than in the past. From my ob-
servations, everyone seems much less
judgmental. In effect, there seems to
be an atmosphere of multiple episte-
mologies operating.
There are opposing forces, how-
ever, in society and education. As
most readers are aware. No Child Left
Behind has several ambitious man-
dates. Each state must develop stan-
dards of learning for each grade for
academic subjects, with the approval
of the federal government. The stan-
dards should provide guidance for
school districts in curriculum devel-
opment. Individual states must de-
velop rigorous standardized tests to as-
sess educational progress of schools,
school districts, and states themselves,
with the results disaggregated by cate-
gories such as gender, racial/ethnic sta-
tus, second- language learners, poverty
indicators, and disability With very few
exceptions, all schoolchildren will par-
ticipate in the testing, with the goal of
100% demonstrating academic profi-
ciency by 2014.
The sole criterion for success, then,
is passing a standardized, state-admin-
istered, grade-level test. Although
some states are more fiexible than oth-
ers in making accommcxtations, the
test must be in English, not in Ameri-
can Sign Language (ASL) or any spoken
language other than English. Despite
the growing acceptance of diversity; it
is not taken into account in the most
important assessments of student
progress. The idea that one test given
to all students at any particular grade
level, regardless of the range of
achievement at that level, plays such
an important role is a reflection of, or
perhaps a distortion of, a standard
epistemoiogy At present, when diver-
sity comes into conflict with uniformity,
as represented by the requirements of
No Child Left Behind, in American edu-
cation, uniformity wins.
Education of the Deaf
in the United States:
The Beginnings
Although there were previous efforts
in Virginia and New York City, the
founding in Hartford, CT, in 1817 of
what is now the American School for
the Deaf represents the establishment
of the first permanent school for deaf
children in America. Fortunately for
the school, its first principal, Thomas
Hopkins Gallaudet, recruited Laurent
Clerc, a deaf French instructor, as the
first teacher at the school. Clerc was
probably the dominant educator of
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
EPISTEMOLOGIES, DEAFNESS, LEARNING, AND TEACHING
the deaf in the United States for 40
years or more, contributing a deaf
presence and influence to the forma-
tive years of American deaf education.
He remained at the school long after
Gallaudet left, and his influence was
felt in several ways. First, he adapted
the French system of Methodical
Signs to English, relying heavily on the
manual alphabet to initialize signs.
Some of his invented signs exist in
ASL today. Examples would be the
handshapes for days of the week, ex-
cept Sunday, and for many colors. Sec-
ond, Clerc adapted French systems
for teaching grammar, ending up with
five basic parts to teach correct gram-
mar (Clerc, 1851), Third, he not only
trained the deaf and hearing teachers
at the American School in his sign sys-
tem and curriculum, he also trained
many of the teachers and founders of
schools across the country, a number
of whom were deaf Many schools for
the deaf in the 19th century were
founded by deaf leaders (Gannon,
1981), To a large degree, deaf and
hearing educators shared a common
vision about deaf individuals, the goals
of education, and the aaswers to the
three fundamental questions of how
to teach deaf students, where to teach
deaf students, and what to teach deaf
students. Education took place within
residential settings; instruction was
through manual communication (ei-
ther a natural sign language or an
invented sign system), and the cur-
riculum concentrated on reading,
writing, arithmetic, moral training,
and vocational preparation (Moores,
2001). There were no apparent sepa-
rate Deaf and hearing epistemologies.
The situation was not ideal. Many
hearing school administrators, includ-
ing Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, were
ordained ministers, and some viewed
their calling in a missionary sense
(Moores, 2001), All teachers were
^X'hite. Several schools limited the
VOLUME 154, No. 5, 2010
roles of deaf teachers, and for the first
half of the 19th century there were no
female teachers, hearing or deaf. Deaf
African American children were not al-
lowed in schools for the deaf in the
South and parts of the Midwest, and
there were no schools at all for deaf
African American children in these
areas until after the Civil War, which
ended in 1865. There were also con-
flicts between the advocates of Me-
thodical Signs and Natural Signs,
addressing some of the issues that
have arisen in recent times over the
relative benefits of Signed English
systems and ASL, Deaf leaders were
on both sides of the Methodical
Signs/Natural Signs debate (Stedt &
Moores, 1990). The debate lost much
of its relevance with the rise of oral
education, culminating in the Milan
Conference in 1880, which con-
demned both practices and advocated
the use ofthe pure oral method.
Education ofthe deaf in the United
States endured a dark age from 1880
to I960. Until near the end of that
period all schools were oral-only up
to age 12 years, and most of them
throughout all grades. For those
schools that allowed signs, deaf teach-
ers were limited to instruction in the
high school grades, and there only in
the vocational departments. Deaf
leaders were not passive during this
period (Boyd & Van Cleve, 2007; Reis,
2007), although the range of their in-
fluence was limited, Ladd (2008) ar-
gued that there are two approaches to
Deafiiood. One is to maintain it within
the boundaries of an oppressive
world. The second is to enlarge the
idea of what Deafhood means and to
open up new worlds of meaning.
Clearly, the goal from 1880 to I960
was to maintain the Deaf community
in the face of threat and attack. It is no
coincidence that the National Associa-
tion of the Deaf (NAD) was estab-
lished in 1880 and that since then it
has been the leading advocate for the
rights of deaf Americans (Moores,
2001), The year 1880 marked a clear
milestone in which a distinct Deaf epis-
temology may be identified. Deaf grad-
uates of Gallaudet College worked and
taught in those sch(X)ls that employed
deaf workers, spread Gallaudet ASL
throughout the country, provided role
models, and maintained the Deaf
community in schools and through
participation in deaf clubs and athletic
activities. Movies were made of deaf
signers to preserve the language for
future generations.
A turning point in American educa-
tion of the deaf began to take shape
around I960, 80 years after the Milan
Conference and the establishment of
the NAD, leading to the emergence of
new Deaf epistemologies. In I960
there were no deaf superintendents
of day or residential schools for the
deaf, and deaf students still were not
allowed in the Gallaudet graduate
school, which was the only way to re-
ceive teacher certification. However,
pressure for change was building, and
when it came, it came quickly. The
graduate-level Natitmat Leadership
Training Program (NLTP) for the deaf
was established with federal support
in 1962 at San Fernando Valley Col-
lege, now California State University,
Northridge, and by its third year, 1964,
it was enrolling deaf students. The
,same year, Gallaudet opened its grad-
uate school to deaf students for the
first time, thus ensuring the creation
of a targe core of qualified and cre-
ative professionals. Federal legislation
led to the establishment of the Na-
tional Technical Institute for the Deaf
(NTID) in the same decade as well as
establishment of vocational technical
training programs for the deaf within
existing facilities for hearing students.
The federally funded Model Second-
ary School for the Deaf was also estab-
lished at Gallaudet during that period.
AMERICAN ANNAI-S OF THE DEAF
 The prime mover for most of these
developments and others was a deaf
man, Boyce Williams, whose impact in
the last part of the 20th century was as
Important at that of Clerc in the first
part of the 19th centuiy Williams was
employed by the federal government
from 1945 to 1983 and worked his way
up through the federal system to the
position of chief of the Deafness and
Communication Disorders Branch of
the Rehabilitation Services Adminis-
tration of the L'.S. Office of Special Ed-
ucati(jn and Rehabilitative Services.
He funded research grants that led to
the establishment of NTID and the vo-
cational technical training centers as
well as serving as project officer for
the NLTP grant (ensuring that poten-
tial deaf leaders would be involved),
as well as grants for university Ph.D.
training on deafness. He was responsi-
ble for literally hundreds of work-
shops across the country' and for the
establishment and growth of voca-
tional rehabilitation services and men-
tal health programs for the deaf. He
was also responsible, among other
things, for the initial support for the
National Theater of the Deaf and the
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf,
and played a major role in the growth
of the American Deafness and Rehabil-
itation Association, The last national
census of the deaf was conducted un-
der his aegis. In sum, he was responsi-
ble, more so than any either individual,
for the significant growth of (opportu-
nities and services for deaf individu-
als and for the training of a large
cadre of deaf and hearing leaders.
Tilomas Holcomb (2009), in an article
in this special Annals issue, discusses
the contributions of deaf leaders in the
1960s and 1970s, many of whom were
NLTP gradúateos, in developing public
school programs for deaf students, in
originating and promulgating the con-
cept of Total Communication, and in
developing the two most commonly
V01.ÜMF, 154, No. 5, 2010
used English-based sign systems. Deaf
superintendents and other leaders in
education and the professions began
to take their rightful places. Although
the numbers are still less than ade-
quate, there has been a sea change
since the 1960s. During that time the
Deaf community in America moved
past the concept of maintaining Deaf-
hood in the face of oppression to en-
larging the concept of Deafhood. The
contributions of deaf leaders to the
growth of Total Communication and
the development of Signed English
systems suggests a commitment at
that time to working within the
broader system of deaf education.
Significant changes have occurred
since the 1960s and 1970s that have
major implications for Deaf episte-
mology and deaf education. A few of
the more pertinent ones will be con-
sidered here. The primary impact has
come from changes in educational
placement. Traditionally, deaf stu-
dents have been educated in residen-
tial schools or in separate day schools
for the deaf. Curricula were separate
from those of hearing students.
Changes began after the end of Worid
War II, with the population explosion
and the unwillingness of state legisla-
tures to build additional facilities. By
1970, more than half of all deaf chil-
dren were enrolled outside of resi-
dential scho(ils. The trend continued
after the passage of the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1974,
known in its present form as the Indi-
viduals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), with its emphasis on place-
ment in the least restrictive environ-
ment. The law effectively reduced the
independence of education of the
deaf and moved it within the frame-
work of a system serving significantly
larger numbers of children, especially
those with k)w-incidence conditions
such as learning disabilities and
speech problems, whose needs are far
different from those of deaf children.
At present, the number of deaf chil-
dren attending residential schtK)Is
continues to decline, and schools in
some states have closed or are close
to closing.
The situation has been com-
pounded by passage of the No Child
Left Behind Act, which mandates rig-
orous standards for learning and
statewide grade-level testing for all
students, including the deaf, with very
few exceptions, based on statewide
standards of learning. Such mandates
further limit the ability of programs to
address the individual needs of chil-
dren, which supposedly was guaran-
teed by IDEA. The most recent data
(Gallaudet Research Institute, 2006)
indicate that the largest single setting
for deaf students (39%) vs in a regular
classroom with hearing children and
being served on a part-time basis by
an itinerant teacher of the deaf This
typically involves Apidlout model, un-
der which the student receives ser-
vices perhaps once a week for 30 to 60
minutes.
Another factor is universal neonatal
screening, which itself is a positive
thing. However, in many states the fol-
low-up may be through a state depart-
ment of health, with no educational
involvement and no participation of
deaf professionals. Although states
are supposed to present all options to
parents concerning communication
modes and languages; this is not al-
ways the case. At this point, I will con-
sider some issues concerning the
characteristics of deaf learners and
the implications for instruction.
How Do Deaf
Learners Learn?
Several issues have been raised, in the
form of questions or statements of
fact, and are under consideration. Put
into statement form, some of them
might include the following:
AMERICAN' ANNAIÍ; OF THE DIL\F
EPISTEMOLOGIES, DEAFNESS, LEARNING, AND TEACHING
1. Deaf learners are visual learners
and process information differ-
ently from hearing learners, who
are auditoryAàsual.
2. The deaf brain or mind is differ-
ent from the hearing brain or
mind.
3. A natural language such as ASL
should be the main means of
communication and instruction.
Any one of these statements requires
book-length treatment, so only some
general issues will be raised here. On
first examination, the statement that
deaf students are visual learners
should be true on the face of it. How-
ever, the 2006-2007 Annual Survey of
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children
and Youth (Gallaudet Research Insti-
tute, 2006) found that for the more
than 30,000 children enumerated, a
range of hearing loss was reported.
Only 8,836, or 28^^, had profound
hearing losses (^91 dB, unaided). An
additionai 4,411, or 14%, had severe
losses (71-90 dB). Presumably, am-
plification would increase the speech
reception of at least some of these
children. Also, many children with
less than severe hearing losses are
placed in programs for deaf students
on the basis of educational decisions,
not audiometric results. It is safe to
say that many students in programs
for the deaf are visual learners and
others may be primarily visual, but
also make use of audition. Hearing/
seeing students, in contrast, are both
auditory and visual learners, and the
extent to which they may rely on ei-
ther modality can vary.
The question of deaf and hearing
brains or minds must be addressed on
a much more complex level, and in-
evitably leads to issues of cognition
and intelligence, again a subject wor-
thy of book-length or multiple-volume
treatment. Very briefly, deaf learners re-
ceive, process, store, and access infor-
VOLUME 154, No. 5, 2010
mation in a completely or primarily vi-
sual mode. As such, the brains of deaf
and hearing peopie may be structured
somewhat differently Preiingual deaf-
ness might set some brain processes
along different developmental tracks
from those of hearing people. How-
ever, in a review of sign language and
the brain, Campbell, MacSweeney, and
Waters (2008) reported that evidence
to date indicated that sign languages
are structured and processed in a man-
ner similar to that for spoken lan-
guages, that is, both sign and spoken
languages appear to depend on the
same cortical substrate, Therefore,
they may be considered functionally
equivalent in terms of their cognitive
and linguistic bases. Sign, which can
use space to encode language, may
employ more right-hemisphere pro-
cessing, but the fundamentals are the
same.
The essential issue is not the possi-
ble differences between deaf and hear-
ing brains or minds. The brains of
males and females may be structured
differently to some degree, but the evi-
dence suggests that they both function
effectively in receiving and expressing
information, that is, in a normal man-
ner, although different pedagogical ap-
proaches may or may not be called for.
The question may be asked whether
deaf learners have the same intellec-
tual capacity as hearing learners. If the
answer is positive, the next step deals
with the question of whether there are
different learning styles to the extent
that instruction in literacy, science, and
mathematics should be organized and
presented differently.
ln a review of 20th-century research
on intelligence and cognitive function-
ing of deaf individuals, I have identified
three stages (Moores, 2001). In Stage
1, roughly the first third of the centuiy
Pintner, Eisenson, and Stanton (1941)
summarized the available data and
concluded that deaf individuals were
inferior in intelligence to hearing indi-
viduals. In Stage 2, Myklebust and Brut-
ten (1953, p. 93) concluded that deaf
individuals were not necessarily infe-
rior intellectually, but that deafness 'Ye-
stricts tbe child functionally to a worid
of concrete objects and things." In
Stage 3, Vernon (1967) reviewed a total
of 31 research studies of the intelli-
gence of deaf Individuals. He reported
that in 13 studies, deaf participants had
mean scores superior to either test
norms or the scores of control hearing
participants, whichever were used. In 7
studies the scores did not differ signifi-
cantly, and in the remaining 11 studies
the scores of the deaf participants were
lower. Vernon concluded that deaf chil-
dren do as well as hearing children on
intellectual tasks and are normal intel-
lectually. Marschark. Convertino, and
LaRock (2006) proposed an additional
stage that summarizes the data to the
fii"st years of the 21st century. They
concluded that deaf individuals are
normal intellectually, but that they
show some differences from hearing
individuals in the ways they function,
although the differences are not de-
ficiencies—they are merely differ-
ences. This possibility must be
explored in more detail. If there are
differences, not deficiencies, in learn-
ing, then there should be differences
in teaching. This calls into question
the predominant mainstreaming and
inclusion model for deaf students in
education. Unless regular education
can be completely inclusive and re-
spond to individual differences, it may
not be appropriate for large numbers
of deaf students.
There appears to be consensus on
this position. Deafriess, per se, places
no limitations on the potential of deaf
learners to acquire language, either
spoken or signed, or on the potential
to perform at grade level in mathemat-
ics, science, or social studies, yet the
evidence is clear in the United States
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
and across the world that this does not
happen for the majority of deaf stu-
tlents. Many reasons have been ad-
vanced for this lag in spoken language
literacy and academic achievement.
Chief among these is the argument
that there is a critical period for lan-
guage acquisition (Lenneberg 1967),
that late identification of deafness re-
stricts the linguistic development of
deaf chiidren and, by extension, tbeir
success in school. However, universal
newborn screening for hearing loss is
now common in many countries, and
in some cases follow-up is immediate,
often with cochlear implants before 1
year of age (Hyde, 2009). Although
there are repoits of progress, early
identification, intervention, and im-
plantation have not proven to be
panaceas (Priesler, 2007),
Other educators have addressed
the language of instruction. Johnson,
Liddell, and Erting (1989) stated that
the low educational achievement of
deaf children, the failure of education
of the deaf, was due to a failure to use
ASL as the means of instruction and
that English-based sign systems should
be banned. They argued that reliance
on ASL would open the curriculum
and allow deaf children to achieve at
grade level. In my opinion, ASL should
be an integral part of instruction for
most deaf children. Whether it shouki
be used alone or in some sort of coor-
dination with an English-based sign
system, as advocated by Stewart
(2006), should be a matter of investiga-
tion. Although ASL-only programs have
been in existence since around 1990
(Walworth, Moores, & O"Rourke, 1992),
no experimental, quasi-experimental,
or causal-comparative studies have
been published in the ensuing years to
investigate the effectiveness of ASL-
only instruction relative to other ap-
proaches.
Similarly, there has been a recent
growing interest In the possible im-
VOLUME T54, No. 5, 2010
portance of phonology and phono-
logical awareness in the development
of literacy in deaf students. Luckner,
Sebald, Cooney, Young, and Goodwin
Muir (2005/2006) found no studies
between 1963 and 2003 that em-
ployed phonemic instruction or
phonemic awareness as an interven-
tion strategy.
Since 2003 there have been some
developments in research on the ef-
fectiveness of instruction in phonics
and phonemic awareness reported
by Trezek and colleagues (Trezek &
Malmgren, 2005; Trezek & Wang, 2006;
Trezek, Wang, Woods, Gampp, & Paul,
2007). Combining phonics instruction
with Visual Phonics and direct instruc-
tion, their findings suggest that phon-
ics awareness and phonics instruction
can be modified to meet the begin-
ning and remedial needs of young
deaf students. Wang, Trezek, Luckner,
and Paul (2008) have made a cogent
case in proposing procedures to em-
ploy phonics-based instruction to
students who are deaf. The results are
promising. The key is to ascertain if
such instruction will eventuate into
true literacy in later grades.
Unfortunately, the lack of research
on ASL and phonological awareness is
not an isolated case. The field suffers
from a lack of data and is ruled by opin-
ion. In a summary of reading compre-
hension research with deaf students,
Luckner and Handley (2008) con-
cluded that there was an urgent need
to increase the quantity and improve
the quality of research undertaken in
the field of deaf education. They stated
that their review, like previous reviews,
highlighted areas where research was
absent or limited.
Summary
The purpose of the present article
was to address questions of pedagogy
for deaf students as they relate to the
current realities in American educa-
tion, including the absorption of deaf
education into the regular education
framework and the attendant loss of
independence, academic achieve-
ment and assessment, learning styles,
and teaching. It is ironic that at a time
of increasing societal acceptance of
diversity, as evidenced by widespread
acceptance of ASL, the education of
deaf students has lost much of its in-
dependence and distinctive character.
The curriculum essentially is the regu-
lar education curriculum, assessment
predominantly follows standardized
state testing, and placement increas-
ingly is in inclusive settings where a
deaf child may be the only one in a
room or even a school. There are no
empirical data that support the effi-
cacy of a regular curriculum over that
of any other. There is no support for
the position that a one-size-fits-all as-
sessment model is beneficial. There is
no research that suggests that place-
ment of a child who is deaf in an envi-
ronment where all of his or her peers
are hearing is of benefit academically
or socially. Despite the fervent wishes
of some people, deaf students do
not process information through the
auditory channel, and most cannot
speechread advanced academic mate-
rial. However well-intentioned law-
makers and regular education leaders
may be, the result can only be detri-
mental to at least some—and in my
estimation most—deaf students. It
does refiect a standard epistemology
that stands in confiict with a Deaf epis-
temology, however defined.
Although variation exists in the
meaning of a Deaf epistemology or if
there are several such epistemologies,
there is agreement on the importance
of ASL, visual learning, and the pres-
ence of deaf professionals working
with children and families from time
of identification. The environment
should be deaf friendly Families with
hearing members should be aware
AMER1CA.N ANNALS O F THF. D R A F
EPISTEMOLOGIES, DEAFNESS, LEARNING, AND TEACHING
that deafness is normal and is a social
construct, not a pathology or sick-
ness. There should be exposure to
and interaction with other deaf stu-
dents of similar and different ages and
integration into the Deaf community.
Deaf children can be bicultural.
The field is faced then, with pro-
viding deaf children with a free ap-
propriate public education, to quote
IDEA. For generations, leaders in gen-
eral education have talked about the
benefits of a child-centered education
built on the needs and characteristics
of children.
Drawing from the premises of a
Deaf epistemology, a deaf child-cen-
tered educational system would have
several characteristics that would dif-
ferentiate it from public education. It
would be visually oriented and visually
stimulating. Groups would meet in cir-
cles rather than rows, even at older
ages. Manyormost of the teachers and
aides would be deaf. Much or all of the
instruction would be in ASL. The cur-
riculum would be geared toward char-
acteristics of deaf children, and there
would be a significant Deaf studies
component. Assessment would be for
understanding and mastery of subject
matter and would occur through both
English and ASL.
Public schools, at present, are not
set up to provide this type of educa-
tion. Most deaf children in these
schools are the only deaf student in a
whole class, or may have one class
with other deaf students, although
they will be surrounded by hundreds
of hearing students in their school.
The regular classroom teachers are
hearing, and the curriculum is de-
signed for hearing children and has
been developed to help children pass
statewide exams. Communication is
primarily in English and the important
tests are given in English, perhaps
with some accommodation but little
o r n o modification.
xiMK 154, No. 5. 2010
Some of the bilingual-bicultural (bi-
bi) programs in existence today meet
many of the criteria presented above.
However, after more than 20 years of
existence, they serve only about 11% of
the deaf population (Gallaudet Re-
search Institute, 2006) and are concen-
trated in residential schools, which are
facing declining enrollments. If deaf
children are to thrive, both residential
and public schools must embrace new
models and paradigms; both must be
flexible enough to experiment with
new models. If not, the Deaf commu-
nity will face serious challenges, the
understanding of a Deaf epistemology
may change, and the concept of Deaf-
h(K3d may revert back to maintaining
itself in the face of an oppressive
world. We should all bend our efforts
to prevent that.
References
Biiyd. R., ¿Í Van Cleve, J. (2007). Deaf autonomy
and deaf dependence; The early years of the
Pennsylvania Society for the Advancement
of the Deaf. In J. Van Cleve (Ed.), 7he deaf
history reader (pp. 153-173). Washington,
DC: Gallaudec University Press.
Campbell, R,, MacSweeney, M., & Waters, D.
(2008). Sign language and the brain; A re-
view. Journal of Deaf Studies attd Deaf Ed-
ucation, ; j ( l ) , 1-20.
Clerc, L (1851). Some hints to teaching the deaf.
In Proceedings of Second Convention of
American Instructors of the T)eafand Dumb
(pp. 64-75). Hartford, CT; Case Tiffany.
Freiré, R (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
New York; Continuum.
GaJlaudet Research Institute. (2006). Regional
and national summary report of data
from the 2006-2007 Annual Survey of Deaf
atiei Hard of Hearing Children and \buth.
Washington. DC; Gallaudet University.
Gannon, J. (1981). Deaf heritage: A narrative
history of cieaf America. Silver Spring, MD;
National Association of the Deaf.
Gannon, J. (1989). The meek the world heard
Gallaudet. Washington, DC; Gallaudet Uni-
versity Press.
Hairston, E., & Smith, L. (19S5). Black and deaf
in America: Are we that different? Silver
Spring, MD; T.J. Publishers.
Holcomb, T. (2010). Deaf epistemology; The
deaf way of knowing. American Annals of
the Deaf, 154(2), 471--Í78.
Hyde, M. (2009). Inclusion in an international
context. In D. Moores & M. Miller (Eds.),
Deaf people around the world- Educa-
tional, developmental, and social per-
spectives (pp. 352-367). Washington, DC;
Gallaudet University Press.
Johnson, R., Uddell, S.. & Erting. C. (1989), Un-
locking the curriculum: Principles for
achieving access in deaf education (Gal-
laudet Research Institute Working Paper No.
89-3). Washington, DC: Gallaudei Univer-
sity Press.
Kelly, A. (2008). Where is Deaf herstory? In
H. D. I... Bauman (Ed.), Open your eyes:
Deaf studies talking (pp. 35-41). Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
I-add, R (2003). Understanding Deaf culture:
In search of Deajhood. Clevedon, England;
Multilingual Matters.
Ladd, P (2008). Colonialism and resistance: A
brief history of Deafhtiod. In H. D. L Bau-
man (Ed.). Open your eyes: Deaf studies
talking (pp. AA-'yl). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Ixhrer, K. (2000). Theory of knowledge (2nd
ed.). Boulder, CO; Westview Press.
I-enneberg. E. (1967). Biological foundations
of language. New York; Wiley.
Luckner, J., & Handley, C. (2008). A summary of
the reading comprehension research un-
dertaken with students who are deaf or hard
of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf
/5J(1), 6-36.
Luckner, J., Sebald, A., Cooney, J., \i)ung III, J.,
& Goodwin Muir, S. (2005/2006). An exami-
nation of the evidence-based literacy re-
.search in úeaf c(.\acaxion. American Annals
of the Deaf 150(5), 443^56.
Marschark, M., Convertino, C . & La Rock, D.
(2006). Optimizing academic performance
of deaf students: Access, opportunities, and
outcomes. In D. Moores ¿4 M, Miller (Eds.),
Deaf ¡earners: Developments in curricu-
lum and iiLstruction (pp. 179-200). Wash-
ington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Moores, D. (2001). Educating the deaf Psy-
chology, principles, andpractices (5th ed.).
Boston; Houghton Mifflin,
Myklebust, H,.&Brutten.M. (1953). A study of
visual perception in deaf children, AcM Oto-
iaryngologica, /05(Suppl.). 1-126.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub, L.
107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
Raul, P, &. Moores, D. (2010). Perspectives on
Deaf epistemologies. American Annals of
the Deaf, 154(2), 417-420.
Pintner, R., Eisenson, J., & Stanton, M. (1941).
The psychology of the physically handi-
capped. New York; Crofts.
Preisler, G. (2007). The psychological develop-
ment of deaf children with cochiear im-
plants. In L. Komesaroff (Ed.), Surgical
consent: Bioethics and cochiear implants
(pp. 120-136). Washington, DC; Galiaudet
University Press.
Reis, M. (2007). A tale of two schools: The In-
diana Institution and the Evansville Dav
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
 School, 1879-1912. In J. Van Cleve (Ed.),
The deaf history reader (pp. 85-115).
Washington. DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Stedt.J., & Moores. 0. (1990). Manual codes on
Engiiih and American Sif-n language: His-
torical perspeciives and current realities.
In H. B()rnstein (Ed.), Manual communi-
cation: Implications for education (pp.
1-20). Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univer-
sity Press.
Stewart, D. (2006) Instructional ami practical
communication: ASL and English-based
signing in the classroom. In D. Moores & D.
Martin (Ed.s.), Deaf learners. Devetop-
mcnls ill currículum and insntiction (pp.
VOLUME 154, No. % 2010
207-220). Washington, DCi Gallaudet Uni-
versity Press.
Ti-ezek. B., & Malmgren, K. (2005). The efficacy
of utilizing a phonics treatment package
with middle school deaf and hard of hearing
chWÚKn. Jon mat of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, ¡(Hi). 256-271.
Trezek, B.. & Wang. Y (2006). InipÜcations of
utilizing a phonics-based reading curricu-
lum with children who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Joumat of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 11(2), 202-213.
Trezek, B., Wang, W, Woods, D., Gampp, T, &
Paul, P. (2007). Using Vi.sual Phonics lo sup-
plement beginning reading instruction for
students who are deaí-tiard of hearing./owr-
nat of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
Í2(3), 373-384.
Vernon, M. (1967). Relationship of language lo
the thinking process. Archives of Genetic
Psychiatry, /ó(3), 325-333.
Walworth, M., Moores, D., & O'Rourke. T.
(f'ds.j. (1992). A free hand: E}¡franchising
the education of deaf childreJi. Silver
Spring. MD: T. j . Publishers.
Wang, Y, 11-ezek, B.. Luckner, J., & Paul. P (2008).
The role of phonology and pbonologically
related skills in reading instruction for stu-
dents who are deaf or hard of hearing. Amer-
ican Annals of the Deaf 153(A), 396-407.
AMERICAN ANNAJÜ OF TIIK DEAF
Copyright of American Annals of the Deaf is the property of American Annals of the Deaf and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.