Deaf Parents of Cochlear-Implanted Children: Beliefs on Bimodal Bilingualism

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

Empirical Article

Deaf Parents of Cochlear-Implanted Children: Beliefs on

Bimodal Bilingualism

Julie Cantrell Mitchiner*Gallaudet University

Received March 3, 2014; revisions received August 13, 2014; accepted August 14, 2014

This study investigated 17 Deaf1 families in North America with cochlear-implanted children about their attitudes, beliefs, and practices on bimodal bilingualism (defined as using both a visual/manual language and an aural/oral language) in American Sign Language (ASL) and English. A survey and follow-up interviews with 8 families were con-ducted. The majority of the Deaf families exhibited positive beliefs toward bimodal bilingualism, where they set high expectations for their children to become equally fluent in both languages. However, their perspectives about the pur-pose for each language differed; they viewed English as a “survival language” and ASL as a “cultural language” but yet supported the use of both languages at home as part of their children’s lives.

Given that over 90% of all deaf babies have hearing parents (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004), these parents are often overcome when learning that their new-born is deaf. In contrast, Deaf parents often wish for a deaf newborn who will share both their language and culture (Holcomb, 2013). Historically, the Deaf Community was against cochlear implants, fearing for the loss of their language and culture (Christiansen & Leigh, 2002). A change has recently developed within the Deaf Community, in that some culturally Deaf par-ents are now deciding to implant their young children and foster what is currently called bimodal (using both a visual/manual language and an aural/oral language) bilingualism (Harris & Paludneviciene, 2011). The goal of this project was to understand this shift within the Deaf Community from an insiders’ perspective.

Learning to listen and speak is typically a primary goal for cochlear implantation (Hyde & Punch, 2011). Although cochlear implants resulted in some benefits to linguistic development from increased auditory input (e.g., Geers & Nicholas, 2013; Geers, Nicholas, & Sedey, 2003; Svirsky, Robbins, Kirk, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 2000), spoken language outcomes for chil-dren who have cochlear implants are still unpredictable due to multiple factors (Cosetti & Waltzman, 2012; Fagan & Pisoni, 2010; Fagan, Pisoni, Horn, & Dillon, 2007; Hawker et al., 2008; Inscoe, Odell, Archbold, & Nikolopoulos, 2009; Marschark, Rhoten, & Fabich, 2007; Peterson, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 2010; Spencer, 2004). Not all children with cochlear implants attain spoken language skills on par with their hearing peers. As an increasing number of families elect to have their deaf children implanted, it is critical to investigate chil-dren’s language outcomes after cochlear implantation.

Professionals often recommended auditory-verbal approaches for children with cochlear implants to families and frequently suggest including signed lan-guage only as a last resort (Hintermair & Albertini, 2005; Knoors & Marschark, 2012; Lane, 2005; Percy-Smith, Cayé-Thomasen, Breinegaard, & Jensen, 2010). Many argue that there are ethical and harmful risks to withholding an accessible language such as signed language during deaf children’s early years of life (Humphries et al., 2012; Kermit, 2010; Ladd, 2007; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2003). Deaf children who do not have full access to a language at an early age frequently experience language deprivation that may compromise

*Correspondence should be sent to Julie Cantrell Mitchiner, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002 (e-mail: [email protected]).

doi:10.1093/deafed/enu028

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access published September 18, 2014 by guest on M

arch 29, 2015http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

mailto:[email protected]?subject=

mailto:[email protected]?subject=

http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/

their language development and academic achievement (Kuntze, 1998; Kushalnagar et al., 2010; Mayberry, 1993, 2007; Mayberry & Eichen, 1991; Mayberry, Lock, & Kazmi, 2002). Therefore, there are concerns about relying on cochlear implants and listening and spoken language alone to develop linguistic skills (Kermit, 2010).

Skutnabb-Kangas (2003) argued that sign language is deaf people’s native tongue and viewed using oralism in education as linguistic genocide against deaf children as it practices subtractive teaching. Subtractive educa-tion can cause harm because it inherently withholds an accessible language. Kermit (2010) argued spoken lan-guage alone is not ethical for deaf children as they may risk double loss, for one they may, “be unnecessarily delayed in their lingual development due to exposure only to the language with the modality least suitable for them” (p. 64). Additionally “facing the challenge of having their language development delayed, those children who start learning sign language after having the monolingual attempt terminated, must grow up knowing that they did not achieve what others consid-ered their primary concern” (p. 64). Humphries et al. (2012) also raised ethical concerns about the practices allegedly performed by medical professionals in giving families false impressions on cochlear implant’s per-formance, implying that cochlear implants will cure children’s deafness. These researchers made several recommendations to reduce the possible harm of lin-guistic deprivation and recommended (a) access to sign language for deaf children, (b) to be explicit about the realities of cochlear implant technology, (c) to improve services for deaf children, and (d) to do further studies on the outcomes from cochlear implants.

Recently, it has been suggested that Deaf chil-dren with cochlear implants may benefit from being educated through bimodal bilingual approaches, that support the development of two communica-tion modalities (visual and auditory), in two lan-guages (American Sign Language [ASL] and English) to safeguard their linguistic, cognitive, and social growth (Nussbaum & Scott, 2011; Nussbaum, Scott, & Simms, 2012). Nussbaum and her team noted that in recent years, several Deaf parents’ chose to pro-vide their deaf children with cochlear implants, even though they understood that deaf children can achieve

academically and socially in a hearing society without cochlear implants (Mitchiner & Sass-Lehrer, 2011). These parents expressed the desire for their children to have more choices and opportunities to have access to both languages in ASL and English. These fami-lies have a great advantage over many hearing families with deaf children, as they can provide full access to a language through sign language that will promote natural linguistic development. Bimodal bilingualism also reinforces the development of a second language (Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006; Mayberry, 2007).

Bimodal Bilingualism

Bimodal bilingualism is defined as using two languages in two modes, both visual and auditory, here a signed language and a spoken language. It may mean simul-taneous production of two languages, “code-blending” or alternating between both languages using “code-switching” (Emmorey, Borinstein, Thompson, & Gollan, 2008; Emmorey & McCullough, 2009). Earlier studies on bimodal bilingualism mostly focused on studying the bimodal bilingual development of hear-ing children of deaf adults (CODAs) who acquired signed and spoken language from birth (Berent, 2004; Emmorey et al., 2008; Emmorey & McCullough, 2009; Kovelman et al., 2009; Petitto et al., 2001; Petitto & Holowka, 2002; Petitto & Kovelman, 2003). Recent studies on cochlear-implanted children’s language out-comes began to include those who use sign language and spoken English at early ages (Davidson, Lillo-Martin, & Chen Pichler, 2013; Hassanzadeh, 2012; Rinaldi & Caselli, 2014). Although these studies have several limitations, especially small Ns, it warrants investigating further the benefits of early access to sign language for children with cochlear implants.

Davidson et al. (2013) compared five children who had cochlear implants with Deaf signing parents and seven young hearing children with deaf parents (Kids of Deaf Adults) on their bimodal bilingual development in both spoken English and ASL. The results indicated that there are no evidences of a “bilingualism disadvan-tage” for any of the children in the study (p. 10). Their findings also found that the children, ranging from 4 to 8 years old in this study, with cochlear implants who signed scored higher on several standardized English

of 22 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

by guest on March 29, 2015

http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from


language measures, such as the Preschool Language Scales Fourth Edition and Expressive Vocabulary Test, than nonsigning peers with cochlear implants from other studies (e.g., Geers, Moog, Biedenstein, Brenner, & Hayes, 2009; Nicholas & Geers, 2008).

Hassanzadeh (2012) compared the spoken language outcomes of seven deaf children with cochlear implants who have Deaf parents with a similar group of deaf children with cochlear implants who have hearing par-ents. The study results showed the children with Deaf parents outperformed children with hearing parents on their speech perception, speech production, and language development, leading Hassanzadeh to con-clude that early access to signed language appeared to enhance their abilities to develop spoken language after cochlear implantation.

Similar evidence was found in Rinaldi and Caselli’s (2014) recent longitudinal study on language devel-opment in a bimodal bilingual child with cochlear implants. The child was raised in a bilingual environ-ment with hearing parents and siblings using Italian Sign Language and spoken Italian and also attended a day care that used bimodal bilingual approaches. Multiple linguistic measures were used to assess the child’s lexical development in language comprehen-sion and production periodically during the 3 years of the study, from 2.6 to 5.1 years. The results indicated his language skills were at the same level as his mono-lingual hearing peers. The researchers suggested that signed language supported the acquisition of the sec-ond language. This study also suggested that a bimodal bilingual environment is achievable with hearing fami-lies by providing their children with cochlear implants access to both languages as well as both the hearing and Deaf communities.

Evidence shows that bimodal bilingualism promotes a multisensory approach that is additive rather than subtractive, in that it facilitates and enhances bilingual development in both languages (Mitchiner, Nussbaum, & Scott, 2012) without hindering spoken language development (Jiménez, Pino, & Herruzo, 2009; Preisler, Tvingstedt, & Ahlström, 2002; Yoshinaga-Itano, 2006). Recent biological findings through neuroimaging of the language processing in deaf individuals with cochlear implants demonstrated early exposure to a language, regardless of whether it was sign or spoken, supported

healthy and typical language development (Jasinska, Langdon, & Petitto, 2013).

The bimodal bilingual approach also offer advan-tages and benefits for children with cochlear implants in social-emotional growth (Christiansen & Leigh, 2004, 2011; Grosjean, 2008; Hyde & Punch, 2011; Preisler, Tvingstedt, & Ahlström, 2005; Wheeler, Archbold, Gregory, & Skipp, 2007) as well as the language bene-fits noted above. Access to both languages allows learn-ers to have communication options during their social interactions with both deaf and hearing people, thereby facilitating their social skills (Hyde & Punch, 2011). The ability to participate in both the Deaf and hear-ing worlds also promotes positive psychosocial skills (Bat-Chava, 2000; Hintermair, 2008). Participation in the Deaf community also indicates benefits to positive identity formation and social-emotional development (Christiansen & Leigh, 2004, 2011; Grosjean, 2008; Hyde & Punch, 2011; Preisler et al., 2005; Wheeler et al., 2007).

Families With Children Who Have Cochlear Implants

Existing studies on families’ decisions and experi-ences with their children’s cochlear implantation typi-cally address the views of hearing families (Archbold, Sach, O’Neill, Lutman, & Gregory, 2006, 2008; Christiansen & Leigh, 2002; Hyde & Punch, 2011; Li, Bain, & Steinberg, 2003; Sach & Whynes, 2005; Steinberg et al., 2000; Watson, Hardie, Archbold, & Wheeler, 2008). These studies concurred that fami-lies with children who have cochlear implants share a common goal: to support their children’s spoken lan-guage development. Few families with children who have cochlear implants included signed communica-tion postcochlear implantation. Exceptions included families who signed with their children as a temporary means of communication before receiving their coch-lear implants and those families who used signed lan-guage as their children transitioned to spoken language before their children became fluent in spoken English (Chute & Nevins, 2006; Hammes et al., 2002). Families often are not informed or overlooked the importance of providing their deaf children with a consistent acces-sible language when deciding about whether to include

Deaf Parents of Cochlear-Implanted Children of 22



ownloaded from


or not to include signed language in a deaf child’s life (Archbold & Wheeler, 2010; Bailes, Erting, Erting, & Thumann-Prezioso, 2009; Snoddon, 2008; Young, 2010). Therefore, it becomes important to understand Deaf parents’ beliefs and perspectives on their goal to promote bimodal bilingualism with their children.

Any investigation of Deaf families’ beliefs and per-spectives about bimodal bilingualism must be framed from a sociocultural perspective where Deaf people are perceived as a minority-language cultural group (Lane, 2005). Within the Deaf community, cochlear implants are frequently seen as “enhancement devices” rather than “compensatory devices” (Andrews, Leigh, & Weiner, 2004, p. 25), which increase their children’s repertoire of skills in communication. Although the Deaf community is becoming more accepting toward cochlear implantation than in the past, there are still “pockets of resistance” against pediatric cochlear implantation (Christiansen & Leigh, 2011, p. 53).

Some individuals who oppose cochlear implants consider implantation to be a cultural genocide practice permutated by medical and technological professions in an effort to remove the condition of being deaf from the human race (Ladd, 2007). Cochlear implantation is also perceived as a violation of a deaf child’s human rights to be fluent in sign language, and a deaf child should have a right to make his or her own decision whether or not to receive a cochlear implant (Ladd, 2007; Lane, 2005). Not only the parents’ perspectives toward deafness but their ideologies toward signed lan-guage and English can also be a factor on family’s lan-guage choices and decisions for their children who are deaf.

Rationale for the Study

Recent studies have begun exploring Deaf families’ experiences with children who have cochlear implants (Dettman, French, Constantinescu, Dowell, & Rousset, 2012; Hardonk et al., 2011; Hyde, Punch, & Komesaroff, 2010). These studies indicated several similarities and differences between hearing and Deaf parents’ expe-riences. Both groups of families share similar experi-ences in considering the benefits and risks of cochlear implants for their children in their decision-making process. One similarity among Deaf families was that

they frequently included sign language as part of their children’s lives. This study aimed to further investigate Deaf families’ beliefs, perspectives, and attitudes about bilingualism in ASL and English with their children who have cochlear implants. The research questions guiding this study are as follows:

1. What are Deaf families’ beliefs and perspec-tives about language development in ASL and spoken English for their children with cochlear implants?

2. How do families support their young children’s language development in ASL and spoken English at home?

This study draws on De Houwer’s (1999) and King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry’s (2008) framework on “family language policy” and Ruiz’s (1984) proposed language orientations. A visual representation of the guiding framework is shown in Figure 1.

Language ideologies. Language ideologies refer to individual’s or groups’ perspectives and beliefs toward language and linguistic issues. Individuals determine the choice and use of language in different contexts (Reagan, 2011). As Ruiz (1984) suggested, language can be perceived as a problem, as a right, or as a resource. Negative perspectives and devaluation of a language is an indication of the language-as-a problem orientation. Language-as-a-right is a reaction against the language-as-a-problem orientation, opposing the devaluation of the language and recognizing language as a human right. Language-as-a-resource is perceived as a cultural and social resource that contributes to our society.

Negative perspectives on being deaf, like Audism (Humphries, 1975), are also tied to negative perspec-tives on sign language. Sign language is typically viewed from the language-as-a-problem orientation because there are misconceptions that sign language inhibits spoken language development (Nover, 1995; Reagan, 2011). Also, sign language is considered a minority lan-guage in our country. Nieto (2002) argued that minor-ity languages with low status and limited power in the United States are often seen as deficient.

ASL is perceived from the language-as-a-right and language-as-a-resource orientations within the Deaf community. As mentioned earlier, advocates for deaf




ownloaded from


children’s rights to sign declared denying them access to sign language is a violation of human rights (Grosjean, 2001; Kermit, 2010; Ladd, 2007; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2003). The World Federation of the Deaf (2007), the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) (2008), and the United Nations (2008) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have reached a consensus that sign language is a linguistic right for deaf children.

These ideas led the author to draw upon De Houwer’s (1999) proposal that families’ beliefs and ide-ologies about languages guide their linguistic choices and interaction strategies, also called “family language policy,” which may impact their children’s language outcomes. Parents’ perspectives toward deafness as well

as ASL and English may be a guiding factor to making language choices and policies for their deaf children (Nover, 1995; Reagan, 2011).

Family language policy. The concept of family language policy stemmed from research on language policy and language acquisition designed to explore families’ language practices, language beliefs or ideologies, and language management in the home (Spolsky, 2004, 2012). Parental beliefs and ideologies toward languages may be drawn from their own experiences as well as from societal forces (King et al., 2008). Understanding Deaf families’ backgrounds and perspectives toward being deaf and on both ASL and English and exploring

Figure 1 Guiding framework for this study. Adapted from relationship between parental beliefs/attitudes and children’s language development by De Houwer (1999) as cited in King et al. (2008, p. 912). Adapted with permission.




ownloaded from


their family language policies were instrumental to the development of this research project, which focused on examining Deaf families’ beliefs and perspectives about bilingualism in ASL and English for their children with cochlear implants. Additional details and findings can be found in Mitchiner (2012).

Methods

A complementary mixed method design (Greene, 2007) was used to gather both quantitative and qualita-tive findings through surveys and follow-up interviews. The complementary mixed method approach promotes triangulation between qualitative and quantitative methods by collecting data from multiple sources. The quantitative data were collected from the survey on the demographics of a small sample of Deaf families with children who have cochlear implants. The survey meas-ured the intensity of their opinions on identified belief statements about bilingualism in ASL and English. Interviews provided critical qualitative data to elabo-rate the quantitative data to gain a deeper understand-ing of individual family’s values, goals, and practices for their children’s bimodal bilingual development.

Participants

This study was limited to families who have at least one Deaf parent with cochlear-implanted children in North America. Seventeen out of 20 (the target num-ber of families) families responded to an electronic survey. Information about each family was collected, which included 33 parents and 24 children. Thirty-one parents identified themselves as deaf and two identified as hearing. All of the parents in the study use both ASL and English on a regular basis. Almost half of the par-ents (16 parents) reported their first language was ASL and English was their second language. The other half of the parents (15) reported English was their first lan-guage and ASL was their second language. Two parents acquired first languages other than ASL and English but eventually learned ASL and English when they were older. Their educational and familial backgrounds varied. Most of the parents came from hearing fami-lies and several are from generationally deaf families. Families exhibited a range of experiences learning two or more languages. The majority of the parents (27)

graduated college with a BA/BS or above. See Table 1 for a description of the families in the survey.

The children of the families participating in the study included a total of 24 children with cochlear implants (14 males and 10 females) ranging in age from 15 months old to 17 years old. The mean age of the children was 7 years old, and cochlear activation ranged from 13 months old to 11 years old. Ten out of 24 chil-dren had bilateral cochlear implants. Three children in the study had disabilities: one was deafblind, one was suspected to have Usher Syndrome, and one was diag-nosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Eight families participated in follow-up interviews after the survey was completed. Five of the parents were cochlear implant users themselves. See Table 2 for a description of each family in the interview.

Procedure

After obtaining approvals for this study from the Human Subject Research Board at George Mason University and Institutional Research Board at Gallaudet University, a pilot study on the survey was conducted with three Deaf families who have children with cochlear implants recruited through convenience sampling (Glesne, 2006). After receiving their feedback and recommendations, an improved version of the electronic surveys was distributed to members of the Cochlear Implanted Children of Deaf Adults (CICDA) listserv. The CICDA listserv is a support group for Deaf families with deaf children who have cochlear implants across America. The survey was also listed on the “Research Opportunities” page on the national Hands and Voices website. A snowball method (Glesne, 2006) was used to recruit families. The electronic sur-vey ran for a 3-month period. Reminders were sent to members of the CICDA listerv on a weekly basis until the survey period ended. Meanwhile, 15 families com-pleting the survey expressed an interest in participating in a follow-up interview, and the first eight interested families were selected for the interviews.

Survey Questions

Quantitative data sources included survey responses from 17 Deaf families that resulted in (a) standard demographic data about each family member including




ownloaded from


Tab

le 1

D

escr

iptio

ns o

f fam

ilies

in th

e su

rvey

Fam

ilies

in

the

surv

eyH

eari

ng s

tatu

s pa

rent

#1

Hea

ring

sta

tus

pare

nt #

2L

angu

age

used

at

hom

e

Age

of f

irst

ch

ild a

t the

tim

e of

the

stud

y (y

ears

)

Fir

st c

hild

: ag

e of

firs

t co

chle

ar

impl

ant

activ

atio

n

Age

of s

econ

d ch

ild a

t the

tim

e of

the

stud

y (y

ears

)

Seco

nd c

hild

: ag

e of

firs

t co

chle

ar

impl

ant

activ

atio

nL

angu

age/

com

mun

icat

ion

appr

oach

es u

sed

at s

choo

l

1D

eaf

Dea

fSi

m-c

om5

16 m

onth

s3

13 m

onth

sE

nglis

h on

ly2

Dea

fD

eaf

Bili

ngua

l6

20 m

onth

sE

nglis

h on

ly3

Dea

fD

eaf

Bili

ngua

l15

11 y

ears

Bili

ngua

l4

Dea

fD

eaf

ASL

onl

y3

23 m

onth

sE

nglis

h on

ly5

Dea

fD

eaf

Bili

ngua

l5

2.6

year

s3

2.2

year

sE

nglis

h on

ly6

Dea

fD

eaf

Bili

ngua

l4

2.10

yea

rsE

nglis

h on

ly7

Dea

fD

eaf

Bili

ngua

l6

19 m

onth

s3

2.11

yea

rsE

nglis

h on

ly8

Dea

fH

eari

ngB

iling

ual

54

year

s2

1.11

yea

rsE

nglis

h on

lya

9D

eaf

Dea

fE

nglis

h on

ly4

13 m

onth

s11

2.9

year

sE

nglis

h on

ly10

Dea

fD

eaf

Bili

ngua

l8

19 m

onth

sB

iling

ual

11D

eaf

Dea

fA

SL o

nly

42.

1 ye

ars

Eng

lish

only

12D

eaf

Dea

fA

SL o

nly

94

y ear

s7

2.6

y ear

sB

iling

ual

13D

eaf

Dea

fSi

m-c

om17

4 ye

ars

1315

mon

ths

Eng

lish

only

14D

eaf

Dea

fSi

m-c

om17

5.6

year

sSi

m-c

om15

Dea

fH

eari

ngB

iling

ual

818

mo n

ths

Bili

ngua

l16

Dea

fna

Sim

-com

112.

3 y e

ars

Cue

d sp

eech

17D

eaf

Dea

fA

SL o

nly

114

mon

ths

Bili

ngua

lN

ote.

ASL

= A

mer

ican

Sig

n L

angu

age;

na

= n

ot a

pplic

able

.a Se

cond

chi

ld u

sed

sim

ulta

neou

s co

mm

unic

atio

n ap

proa

ch a

t sch

ool.




ownloaded from


Tab

le 2

D

escr

iptio

n of

the

fam

ilies

in th

e in

terv

iew

Fam

ilies

Pare

nts’

fam

ily b

ackg

roun

dA

ge o

f chi

ld/c

hild

ren

at

the

time

of th

e st

udy

Age

of c

hild

’s fi

rst

coch

lear

impl

ant

activ

atio

nL

angu

age

use

at h

ome

Typ

e of

sch

ool/

day

care

Fam

ily #

1B

oth

pare

nts

com

e fr

om h

eari

ng

fam

ilies

Chi

ld 1

: 3 y

ears

Chi

ld 1

: 19

mon

ths

ASL

, with

som

e sp

oken

E

nglis

h su

ppor

tA

udito

ry-o

ral p

rogr

am

Fam

ily #

2B

oth

pare

nts

com

e fr

om h

eari

ng

fam

ilies

Chi

ld 1

: 5 y

ears

; Chi

ld 2

: 3

year

sC

hild

1: 2

yea

rs 2

m

onth

s C

hild

2: 2

yea

rs

2 m

onth

s

ASL

and

spo

ken

Eng

lish

Aud

itory

-ora

l pro

gram

Fam

ily #

3B

oth

pare

nts

com

e fr

om h

eari

ng

fam

ilies

Chi

ld 1

: 15

year

sC

hild

1: 1

1 ye

ars

Sim

-com

ASL

/Eng

lish

bilin

gual

Fam

ily #

4B

oth

pare

nts

com

e fr

om h

eari

ng

fam

ilies

Chi

ld 1

: 11

year

s; C

hild

2:

4 ye

ars

Chi

ld 2

: 13

mon

ths

Chi

ld 1

: 2 y

ears

9

mon

ths

Sim

-com

Spok

en E

nglis

h (m

ains

trea

min

g)

Fam

ily #

5B

oth

pare

nts

com

e fr

om h

eari

ng

fam

ilies

Chi

ld 1

: 6 y

ears

Chi

ld 1

: 1 y

ear

9 m

onth

sA

SL o

nly

Spok

en E

nglis

h (m

ains

trea

min

g)Fa

mily

#6

Bot

h pa

rent

s co

me

from

hea

ring

fa

mili

esC

hild

1: 5

yea

rs; C

hild

2:

3 ye

ars

Chi

ld 1

: 15

mon

ths;

C

hild

2: 1

yea

rM

ixed

ASL

and

Eng

lish

with

m

othe

r, A

SL o

nly

with

fath

erSp

oken

Eng

lish

(mai

nstr

eam

ing)

Fam

ily #

7B

oth

pare

nts

com

e fr

om D

eaf

fam

ilies

Chi

ld 1

: 5 y

ears

; Chi

ld 2

: 2

year

sC

hild

1: 2

yea

rs

8 m

onth

s; C

hild

2:

11 m

onth

s

ASL

onl

y w

ith m

othe

r, A

SL a

nd s

poke

n E

nglis

h (b

iling

ual)

with

fath

er

Spok

en E

nglis

h (m

ains

trea

min

g)

Fam

ily #

8O

ne p

aren

t com

es fr

om h

eari

ng

fam

ily, t

he o

ther

par

ent c

omes

fr

om D

eaf f

amily

Chi

ld 1

: 9 y

ears

; Chi

ld 2

: 7

year

s; C

hild

3: 2

yea

rsC

hild

1: 4

yea

rs; C

hild

2:

2 y

ears

6 m

onth

s;

Chi

ld 3

: 13

mon

ths

ASL

onl

yC

hild

1 a

nd C

hild

2:

ASL

/Eng

lish

bilin

gual

; C

hild

3: s

poke

n E

nglis

h (m

ains

trea

min

g)N

ote.

ASL

= A

mer

ican

Sig

n L

angu

age.




ownloaded from


the child, (b) families’ goals for a range of child’s lin-guistic skills in ASL and spoken and written English, and (c) the intensity of their opinions on common belief statements related to bilingualism in ASL and English using a Likert scale. The Likert scales ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Four open-ended questions were included about families’ goals, ideal educational placement, and challenges and expec-tations in supporting their children’s bilingual devel-opment. These 17 families’ responses were collected and analyzed, providing guidance to elaborate on their responses in the follow-up interview.

Follow-Up Interview Questions

The semi-structured interviews with families were done through a face-to-face interview in their homes or through videophone. Each family, 17 mothers and 3 fathers were interviewed through ASL, and all of the interviews were video recorded. See Appendix A for the interview questions. The length of the interviews ranged from 50 min to 1 hr and 20 min. In the inter-views, families were first asked about their family back-ground and to share reasons why they choose cochlear implantation for their child. Families then shared their perspectives and experiences in-depth on support-ing their children’s development of ASL and English before and after cochlear implants were received. They were also asked about their challenges and strengths in maintaining bilingualism at home.

Analysis of Survey and Interview Data

SPSS was used to analyze the quantitative data from the survey. Descriptive statistics on the demographic data and the percentages of varying opinions on belief statements about bilingualism were calculated. The videotaped interviews were translated and transcribed from ASL to English by experienced transcribers who are Deaf and native ASL users. Copies of transcriptions were sent to respective families for member checking (Creswell, 2011).

Data from interviews were open coded line by line for major and subthemes using ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis software. Overlap and redundant codes were reduced and collapsed into categories of themes. The constant comparative method was conducted with

all data sources throughout the data collection process to identify new themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). The themes were then interpreted to answer the research questions of the study.

The themes in regard to the first research ques-tion were categorized into sharing family’s beliefs and perspectives about each language and on bilingualism. The categories answering the second research question included families’ language use at home and school, how families support their language development at home, and their challenges and solutions to maintain bilingualism. This article shares results from families’ beliefs and perspectives toward ASL and English as well as on bilingualism and their challenges and solu-tions to maintain bilingualism at home.

Results

The findings from the survey and follow-up interviews indicated many of the families highly valued their chil-dren’s abilities to develop competency in both ASL and English, holding high expectations for their children’s success. Multiple themes emerged from the interviews on families’ perspectives and understanding about English and ASL as well as on bilingualism and their experiences in maintaining bilingualism with their children at home.

Survey Results

Participants in the survey shared the value or strength of their opinions on ASL, English, and bilingual-ism through a Likert scale (see Figure 2 for number of responses on belief statements). The participants expressed strong desires for their children to develop language competence in English, including spoken language skills. One hundred percent of the respond-ents valued English literacy strongly. All of the fami-lies (94%) but one strongly valued the development of spoken English skills for their children. The family who strongly disagreed with this statement had a child who was deafblind and stated their reason for a cochlear implant was to provide their child access to environ-mental sounds. Also on the survey, families were asked to identify the level of their expectations for what kind of language abilities their child would achieve, from no expectations to increase abilities to speak, read,




ownloaded from


and write in English fluently. The results showed that 100% of the families expected their children to achieve fluency in all areas of English.

The majority of the families in the survey also strongly agreed with the statement that they wanted their children to develop ASL skills; but for some families, they valued learning English more than ASL. Eighty-two percent of the families (14) rated “strongly agreed” to a statement that asked them if they highly valued the development of ASL for their children. One family (6%) “agreed” and two families (12%) were “neutral” about this statement. Families were also asked to identify the level of their expectations for what kind of ASL abilities their child would achieve. Parents selected from among no expectations to increase abili-ties in expressing and understanding ASL socially and academically. The number of families who expected their child to fully achieve ASL competence on social and academic levels was 11 (65%). Although five fami-lies (29%) expected their child to express and under-stand ASL on a social level, only one family (6%) had no expectations for their child to develop ASL abilities.

The perspectives toward bilingualism were gener-ally positive among the families. Families were asked to rate their opinions on whether learning two or more languages had cognitive and academic advantages. Thirteen families (77%) “strongly agreed” with this statement, whereas three (18%) families “agreed” and one family (6%) was “neutral” on this statement. Eleven families (65%) “strongly disagreed” that learn-ing two or more languages causes language delays;

four families (24%) “disagreed,” one family (6%) was “neutral,” and one family (6%) “agreed.”

Qualitative Results

The survey responses led to a deeper investigation of families’ beliefs and perspectives toward both languages through interviews. The interviews gave insights on families’ attitudes and beliefs toward English, ASL, bilingualism, and the challenges they experienced in maintaining two languages at home.

Families’ Beliefs and Perspectives on English

Two essential themes emerged from the interviews and the qualitative section of the survey on families’ perspec-tives on their children learning English. The themes were as follows: (a) the main reason for cochlear implants was access to spoken English and (b) learning English is cru-cial because it is a majority language in our country. Many of the families believed that their children must be com-petent in English to succeed and thrive in the future. The most common reason for a cochlear implant was their desire for their children to hear and speak. One family shared the following reason for a cochlear implant:

[The cochlear implant] gives her an opportunity to participate independently 100% in the hearing com-munity, including our families without interpreters (able to socialize and have deep conversations with hearing people directly). It also enables her to speak and hear on the cell phone. (Survey Family #2)

Figure 2 Families’ opinions on belief statements.




ownloaded from


Another family on the survey posed a similar reason for cochlear implants. This parent reported:

We feel that having a strong ability to hear and speak would enable our daughter to have confi-dence in pursing her dreams in the world. We also have wanted her to have the best technology to grow up with and cochlear implant took place over hearing aids. (Survey Family #5)

Families frequently expressed the urgency for their children to develop strong English skills to be able to “survive” and “succeed” in the world. A mother in the interview responded to the question about how she felt about promoting English skills for her child:

We support her to develop English skills. It is a majority language in our society such as in the community, in jobs, and etc. Majority of people speak in English. It is number-one used language in America and internationally, too. It supports reading and writing skills, too. For kids and peo-ple to survive in the world, they have to know how to read, write and do math, those three things and including social skills, those four things to succeed in college, to get a job, and survive in their environ-ment. I think that’s important for learning English. (Interview Family #1)

Several families also expressed their frustrations as a deaf person in English-dominant communities and workplaces due to their hearing loss. They strongly felt with cochlear implants, their children would experi-ence less language barriers and challenges than what their parents have experienced. Families shared their views on this topic:

Well, I think because my husband and I are frus-trated with our career. We felt we have hit the glass ceiling. We’ve been unable to go pass the ceiling because of our deafness. It’s hard and it has been a struggle for us, especially with the economy today and all. People have oppressed and discriminated us. I don’t want my kids to have the same experi-ence. We want more for them. We are fine having them signing but the fact that we live in a ‘Hearing World,’ they need to learn to read and write in English. (Interview Family #4)

Almost all of the families in the study highly valued the idea of their children acquiring and learning English for several reasons. The most common reason for coch-lear implants was as a tool to facilitate their child’s ability to hear and speak in English. English is fre-quently seen as a majority language in our society, and the families demonstrated desires for their children to develop competency in English in order to succeed in the future.

Families’ Beliefs and Perspectives on ASL

Common themes toward ASL that emerged from the interviews included: (a) ASL is critical for their child’s literacy, linguistic, and cognitive growth; (b) ASL is a foundation for learning a second language, that is, English; (c) the importance of including ASL because it is part of their children’s culture and identity; and (d) ASL is the primary language of the home. Many of the families believed it was critical to provide their chil-dren access to ASL during their first years to develop a strong foundation in their first language. One family explained in the interview:

I think it was important for my sons to have a strong foundation in ASL as their first language. During their first year, they did not have any audi-tory access. So, what is the point of trying to teach them spoken language at that time? I use ASL to support them to develop a strong foundation in a language. (Interview Family #7)

Other families had similar beliefs about the importance of learning ASL as early as possible:

I believe ASL is the key for early learning especially with babies. Because you can’t receive cochlear implant until you are older, at least one year old or older. So, where is their first language before they get their cochlear implants? (Interview Family #1)

One family argued strongly that the first language should be ASL and explained their child was able to acquire spoken language easily and rapidly:

I think it is important because I’ve seen stud-ies that show [learning signs] reduces frustrations and they need language regardless. Who knows, cochlear implant may not work. They may need to




ownloaded from


have a backup. That’s my opinion. Even though, at oral school, many of those who work with me say, ‘No, they should not sign.’ I told them, ‘Too Bad!’ (Shakes head) ‘Too Bad!’ That’s my philoso-phy…my son has a language before he received his cochlear implant and his spoken language skyrock-eted faster than his peers. I believe it is because he already has a language already formed, and it was easy for him to ‘match’ from one language to other, and to take off after that. (Interview Family #4)

ASL is part of many of the families’ lives. A family stressed:

In the Deaf community, you need that [ASL] because it is an important part of who he is. It is a like a gift given to him because it belongs to him, too. It is a part of him, too, you know? (Interview Family #3)

Several families expressed the idea that ASL is critical for their children’s identity formation as a deaf indi-vidual. A parent emphasized this during the interview:

I think the other role of signed language is to help my boys to feel good about themselves and know that there is nothing wrong with being Deaf. Signed language is a beautiful language. It helps with his education, self-esteem, and identity. (Interview Family #4)

ASL was the primary language in most of the fami-lies’ homes and how they communicate with each other. A family shared it this way:

Ever since our children were born, we have always used ASL with them at home. I want to be able to feel comfortable communicating with my children. We want the children to become native ASL users. ASL is part of them. (Interview Family #8)

A majority of the families also expressed positive views and demonstrated high values toward ASL. Their perspectives toward ASL reflected the language-as-resource orientation, as families felt there are benefits to learning ASL early and beyond. Families expressed the notion that ASL is critical for their children to develop a positive identity as a deaf child, to gain a sense of belonging in the Deaf community, and to communicate effectively and fluidly with their family members.

Perspectives and Beliefs on Bilingualism

Families held common perspectives and attitudes regarding the benefits of bilingualism. Bilingualism can be defined in many ways and families were asked to define it in their own words. Most families defined bilingualism as using two or more languages and being part of the Deaf and hearing worlds. Examples of par-ents’ definitions of bilingualism in ASL and English include:

It means fluency in English and ASL and having the ability to function in the deaf community, have deaf friends, and being involved in the community and at the same time in a work-related or hearing job to have the ability to function in the hearing world in the workplace, stores, neighbors, and be able to talk with hearing people and read and write in English, too. It is important to me to be able to read and write in English. (Interview Family #6)To me, it means the ability to switch between two languages like ASL and English. It is important to say that both are equally important. It is because the world functions mostly in English, writing and reading. English is an important skill to have and signing in ASL, of course. That is bilingual. It is cool to be able to sign fluently in ASL and to be able to read and write in English. I believe it is impor-tant to be able to do that. (Interview Family #2)

However, several families had a common misconcep-tion about what it means to be a bilingual. For example, some of the families believed that one must be equally fluent in both languages. It has been argued that bilin-gualism does not necessarily mean being equally fluent in two or more languages (e.g., Baker, 2006; Grosjean, 2010). This belief seems to indicate that families in this study set high expectations for their children to be equally fluent in both languages. A parent explicitly addressed her expectations in attaining bilingualism:

My bilingualism is not equal. I have a high expecta-tion of myself; I want to be equally fluent in both languages (Interview Family #6).

Other families had similar views:

The goal is equal competency signing fluently like a deaf person and speaking fluency like a hearing




ownloaded from


person. That is equal competency and that is the goal. I am not… my signs are lower than a deaf per-son’s and my English is even lower. I know I don’t have perfect English skills. (Interview Family #6)

They frequently expressed the benefits of maintaining bilingualism with their children. They believe bilin-gualism is advantageous for their children:

The ability to code switch between both languages is amazing. [Bilinguals] are more advanced than ones who only use one language, spoken language. [Monolinguals] have fewer opportunities to use and borrow concepts from other language. I see having two languages as an advantage. (Interview Family #7)It is important to have everything, you know, to have all tools like sign, talking, equipment you can choose. Don’t have to limit yourself. I think. (Interview Family #3)

When asked in the survey and interviews about their families’ goals for their children, the common goal shared was for their child was to be skilled in ASL and English. Families shared their goals on the survey and interviews:

I want to see them have the ability to decide which language they want to use. Also, I want them to take the opportunity to use both languages. I know that even if they sign fluently, they will have many career opportunities. For example, they could become interpreters if they want to. If they reached mastery in both languages as well as having good auditory skills, they could become an interpreter. (Interview Family #7)My goal is for her to be equally skilled in both languages so she can interact equally well in the hearing world and in the deaf world. That is my goal and so far it seems she is ‘on target’ for both. (Interview Family #5)

Challenges and Solutions in Promoting Bimodal Bilingualism

Families shared different ways they facilitated their children’s bilingual development in English and ASL at home. They also faced several challenges. Common

challenges they experienced included (a) maintaining a balance in exposing their children to both languages at home, (b) providing support for spoken language development, (c) finding an appropriate educational program for their child, and (d) dealing with disagree-ments within the deaf and hearing communities about cochlear implantation and language use. Despite these challenges, they came up with several strategies to overcome their challenges.

Maintaining both languages at home. Many of the families facilitated ASL development from birth and continued to support their children’s ASL skills after they received cochlear implants, but some of them did not have the skills to promote their spoken language skills. According to the survey results, more than half of the children (63%) in the study are mainstreamed and used spoken English only in their schools. Families shared that they placed their children in primarily spoken English programs to facilitate their spoken English skills. Fifteen out of 24 children (63%) use spoken English at schools or day care, five children (21%) attend school that uses bilingual approaches in ASL and English, two children (8%) use sign and spoken English simultaneously, one child is enrolled in a program that uses ASL only, and only one child (6%) uses cued speech at the school or day care. As a result, most of the children in the study are exposed to ASL only at home and at family and community events. Some of the parents are the sole language models for ASL with their children, as most of the children in the study use spoken English at their schools or day care and the only opportunities to learn ASL were at home. Families shared their experiences:

Because they go to oral school and daycare, spoken language is being used so where is signed language being used? So at home, we are exposing and using ASL with them. When we go out to meet friends, we also use ASL. They are deaf too and we are good ASL models to them. (Interview Family #2)

Families also experienced challenges to provide suffi-cient spoken language exposure at home. Some of them found it difficult to monitor and support their chil-dren’s progress with spoken language development. Families shared their challenges:




ownloaded from


I think it is a challenge for deaf parents to have children who have cochlear implants. It is because I can’t provide some things. It’s like with hearing parents who can’t sign or have a hard time learn-ing how to sign. Sometimes it is a challenge to know what they are saying. I have to depend on other resources to know how they are doing with their spoken language development. I could make it simple by sharing the same language with my chil-dren, but I want them to have both. You know? It is a challenge and it is tough. (Interview Family #8)Spoken language development- being a Deaf family (4 of us) at home using primarily ASL, our daugh-ters don’t as quickly learn the spoken language that their peers with hearing parents do. Also, learning two languages (ASL and spoken English) can be challenging sometimes, where the child is not sure of which modality or how to improvise during com-munication. (Survey Family #5)

Several parents themselves can speak English fluently and provide support in facilitating their spoken English skills. Parents who did not have similar skills relied on other sources to support their children’s listening and spoken language skills. Examples of external support included hiring a hearing babysitter, having a hearing family member live with the family in the house, using available technology that promotes auditory experi-ences, providing their children with private speech therapy services, obtaining early intervention services, and placing them in auditory-verbal programs.

Families shared their challenges and ways they compensated for their challenges:

When my oldest was young, it was tough to pro-vide support for his spoken language development because there was not enough technology to do that. I was frustrated. Now, to be honest, iPad is amazing! There is a program that shows a picture book and if you click on the words, it will send sounds of the words. Also when you click on the picture of the book, it will become animated and make funny sounds. (Interview Family #8)

Maintaining a balance between both languages at home is also a common challenge for many of the families. Families shared their concerns in ensuring that their

children received sufficient input in both languages in order to achieve fluency in both languages. Families shared their concerns this way:

I often wonder if I’m exposing my child to enough ASL and English or too much of one and not enough of the other? I sometimes feel a little anx-ious but I have to try to think positively. Our prior-ity now is ASL at home and English at school. We’ll just keep it like that. It can be hard. At home, we try to apply some spoken English words that she learned from school. (Interview Family #1)

Some families managed to identify some strategies to support in maintaining both languages at home. They established plans to determine when and how both languages would be used at home and sought ways to support their children’s language skills outside of their homes. Families shared some of their strategies:

I worry sometimes that our daughter is not getting the full advantage of her cochlear implant at home because it’s much quieter than at school and in the community. Sometimes her ASL skills improved and her speaking skills plateaued. Sometimes her speak-ing skills improved, and ASL skills plateaued. It goes back and forth! Having a cochlear implant at a young age is important, so receptive and expressive spoken English can be a challenge at home because we pri-marily use ASL but we have summer school, hearing friends/family, additional speech/language services, to support development of listening and speaking with the cochlear implant. (Survey Family #4)

A mother expressed in the survey that she found it dif-ficult to monitor and support her children’s spoken language skills due to her deafness. Fortunately, she was able to get external supports through her local school district to provide funding for private speech therapy services and tuition to a private aural-verbal program. The mother also recognized her role and the father’s critical role in establishing and continuing their chil-dren’s ASL development.

Challenges with making educational choices. Finding an appropriate educational placement for their children also proved to be difficult for many families. Many families expressed the desire for their children to




ownloaded from


attain equal competency in both languages, ASL and English, but it was difficult for them to find educational programs that met their goals. Families frequently had to choose one or the other, that is, a program with a strong ASL curriculum or a program with a strong spoken language environment.

Choosing the best education for my daughter. There is no one true program that provides the best of both ASL and spoken English in an academic setting, so that has proved to be difficult in choos-ing between different options. (Survey Family #15)The biggest challenge was finding a school or a daycare. It was either fully ASL or fully spoken lan-guage. So which is it? There is no meeting halfway to meet my needs. None at all. So the challenge for now and in the future will be schooling. Which school is right for them? Is that school good for them? Is that (other) school good for them? Is that (another) school good for them? Is mainstreaming an option? (Shrugs shoulders.) (Interview Family #6)

Cultural conflicts. Families frequently experienced some disagreements within the Deaf and hearing communities when it comes to cochlear implantation and maintaining bilingualism in ASL and English. Families shared their frustrations:

When my son was young, at a family gathering, my son and I were talking to each other, I had my voice off and was signing to him. My mother said, “Don’t stop talking. You should talk too.” Also like some Deaf people asked me why did your son get an implant? You cannot make everybody happy! (Interview Family #3)Use more signs with their deaf child. I see hearing community… hearing parents with deaf child with cochlear implant use no signs. At one conference, one parent looked at our family where we were talk-ing and signing to our child. They realize they want to sign to their child more but they said their child prefers to use speech. But sometimes when they are not using their cochlear implant, it can get frustrat-ing (for them not to understand their parents). For examples at a swimming pool I can sign to her and she understands me but for them it can be hard to understand what they said.

Although many families expressed positive views and goals for their children to be both bimodal and bilin-gual in ASL and English, they experienced several challenges in promoting both languages. Results indi-cated that several families sought solutions to overcome their challenges and found ways to facilitate and sup-port their children’s bilingual development in ASL and English. Overall, parents invested enormous energy in supporting a bimodal bilingual environment for their children.

Discussion

The quantitative and qualitative analyses demonstrated commonalties among Deaf families with children who have cochlear implants on their beliefs and perspectives toward bimodal bilingualism in ASL and English. Most families in the study indicated positive beliefs and per-spectives toward both languages for their children with cochlear implants. However, their perspectives toward each language differed. Families perceived English as a “survival language” and ASL as a “cultural language.”

Families’ Beliefs Toward English and ASL

The families in the study had strong opinions about supporting their children’s ability in spoken English and listening skills, and it was one of the main rea-son for cochlear implantation. The findings showed that families in this study almost unanimously agreed that their primarily reason for a cochlear implant was to increase their children’s ability to develop spoken English and listening skills. The findings are consistent with studies with hearing families and their decisions for providing their deaf children with cochlear implants to support their spoken language skills (Archbold et al., 2006, 2008; Christiansen & Leigh, 2004; Huttunen and Välimaa, 2010; Hyde & Punch, 2011; Sach & Whynes, 2005; Watson, Archbold, & Nikolopoulos, 2006; Watson et al., 2008; Wheeler, Archbold, Hardie, & Watson, 2009).

Deaf parents in the study expressed that it is critical for their children to learn English because it is a major-ity language in North America and that it was important for their children to develop competency in English, both in spoken and written form. Several Deaf parents




ownloaded from


expressed their frustrations regarding perceived barri-ers and limitations for advancement in their careers in English-dominant workplaces because they are deaf. Their expressions of frustration suggest that audism (Humphries, 1975) remains a force in our society and many deaf people still experience discrimination and oppression due to their deafness. As King et al. (2008) suggested, societal forces may be one of the many fac-tors influencing families’ decisions and policies about language use and management, and it may be one of the reasons why an increasing number of Deaf parents choose to provide their children with cochlear implants.

Deaf families also valued strong skills in ASL, unlike hearing families with children who have coch-lear implants reported in other studies (Archbold et al., 2006, 2008; Christiansen & Leigh, 2002; Hyde & Punch, 2011; Li et al., 2003; Sach & Whynes, 2005; Steinberg et al., 2000; Watson et al., 2008). Families who highly valued ASL felt it was critical for their chil-dren’s literacy, linguistic, and cognitive development. These families’ experience mirror research findings that support the advantages of ASL (e.g., Hoffmeister, 2000; Padden & Ramsey, 2000; Prinz & Strong, 1998; Wilbur, 2000). Many families also believe that ASL gives their children a foundation for learning English as their second language. Several families mentioned that a strong foundation in ASL enabled their children to pick up on spoken English more rapidly and easily than those who did not have access to ASL early. They viewed ASL as part of their children’s identity as a deaf person and an essential factor for a sense of belong-ing to the Deaf community. These parents encouraged their children to develop a sense of pride in being Deaf rather than seeing themselves as disabled.

Families’ Beliefs Toward Bilingualism

The results indicated that bilingualism is a com-mon goal among families in the study. Deaf families had similar goals as other bilingual families who val-ued their children maintaining the home language to increase positive identity, to maintain better relation-ships with family members, and to increase greater employment opportunities (Lao, 2004; Park & Sarkar, 2007; Yan, 2003). Although deaf families have the advantages and tools needed to support deaf children

in acquiring both languages, families had some chal-lenges supporting spoken language development, a similar dilemma that many hearing families with deaf children experienced in facilitating and sup-porting sign language at an early age. Deaf mentor-ing services can be resourceful for hearing parents to gain knowledge and skills related to facilitating sign language, Deaf culture, and to shift their perspective from the deficit to the cultural-linguistic perspective (Hintermair, 2000; Watkins, Pittman, & Walden, 1998; Young, 1999).

Wong Fillmore (2000), who advocates for families to maintain their home language, suggests that internal and external forces in homes, schools, and communi-ties discourage children from maintaining their home language, in order to become proficient in English. Both groups typically experience pressure from society and schools to eradicate their child’s home language to meet the demands for their children to become fluent in English. Some families in the study experi-enced pressure from medical and educational profes-sionals to limit using signed language and to increase the use of spoken language at home. The families in the study wished them to be respectful and supportive toward families whose goal it is to maintain their home language.

King and Fogle (2006) suggest that professionals such as pediatricians, speech language pathologists, teachers, and professionals who work with bilin-gual children and their families need to understand the advantages of bilingualism as shown in published research (e.g., Bialystok, 2001; Nicoladis & Genesee, 1996; Yoshida, 2008) as well as understanding families’ challenges and experiences in bilingual childrearing. This understanding allows them to become the best advocate for bimodal bilingual families. Moreover, families will benefit from obtaining information about bilingual development as well as specific and evidence-based strategies on facilitating both spoken and signed language development. De Houwer (1999) suggests that families also need to understand that language development in two or more languages depends on external factors such as language usage, motivation, and communicative needs. De Houwer further asserts that adequate input from both languages is necessary to achieve bilingualism in two languages.




ownloaded from


Overall, the findings showed that families in the study have unique experiences as well as strengths and challenges in supporting their children’s bimodal bilin-gual development. Their experiences can be helpful for other families and professionals to gain an understanding of both the advantages and challenges of bilingualism.

Limitations of the Study

This study has some limitations related to the sample of participants as well as the electronic survey used. This mixed method study gathered data from a small number of Deaf families and therefore it is potentially unrepresentative, limiting the generalizability of the conclusions from the quantitative data. The popula-tion of deaf families with children who have cochlear implants is small, and they are scattered geographi-cally. Finding willing participants was challenging because cochlear implants are controversial within Deaf community and some families were unwilling to share their views. Another limitation was that the sur-vey only reached families who use the Internet and are comfortable using this medium.

The use of an electronic survey may have encour-aged the participation of a more educated sample than the general population of Deaf families. Most of the parents who participated in the study (94%) were white and well educated (82% of the parents completed with a BA/BS or above). This particular group of partici-pants may be more knowledgeable about the advan-tages of promoting bilingualism with their children than other families with different backgrounds and experiences. It is also important to note that several of the parents in the study have cochlear implants them-selves and their experiences with cochlear implants may also influence their beliefs and attitudes toward bimodal bilingualism. Families who participated in the study expressed positive views about their children’s cochlear implants and perceived the implant as a ben-eficial tool. Parents with less positive or unsuccess-ful experiences with cochlear implants may not have volunteered to participate in the study. Contributions from families with different experiences would be beneficial to understanding the perspectives of a more diverse population of Deaf families.

Conclusion

This study provided a glimpse into the beliefs and perspectives of a small sample of Deaf families with children who have cochlear implants about bimodal bilingualism in ASL and English. Families expressed some challenges about maintaining both languages at home to support their children’s bilingual develop-ment. However, families indicated high expectations and desires in supporting their children to become fluent in both languages. Most of the parents were proud of their language and Deaf culture and were knowledgeable about the value of bilingualism and maintaining home language with their children. The results are not surprising as many of the parents had the firsthand experience of being Deaf and bilin-gual, which appears to provide them with a degree of confidence in their children’s ability to increase flu-ency in ASL and English. More studies are needed to explore children with cochlear implants, increas-ing our understanding of their long-term develop-ment and achievement in all areas. A follow-up study to identify students’ outcomes on English and ASL would be ideal as well as to compare them with their peers who do not use signed language. More research and applications on promising practices in bimodal bilingualism are also needed.

There is a great need to investigate outcomes for deaf children with cochlear implants who are bimodal bilinguals. Research has shown that outcomes from cochlear implants are unpredictable and they may lead to the ethical risks of withholding an accessible language (i.e., a signed language) during the early years of life (Humphries et al., 2012). The literature on this topic mostly focuses on hearing families and their experiences with their children with cochlear implants (Archbold et al., 2006, 2008; Li et al., 2003; Sach & Whynes, 2005; Steinberg et al., 2000; Watson et al., 2008). Studies focusing on Deaf and hearing families who sign with their children with cochlear implants would be potentially valuable in broaden-ing possibilities for deaf children and recognizing the advantages of maintaining bimodal bilingualism to optimize and to safeguard their cognitive, social, and linguistic growth.




ownloaded from


Funding

I received some funding for the research from Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI), Small Research Grants.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest were reported.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the families who participated in this study. Without their help, the study would have been impossible. I would also like to thank my advisor Dr. Sylvia Sanchez and the members of the dissertation committee for their support and encouragement. In addition, I would like to thank several anonymous reviewers who made the paper stronger. Finally, thanks to members of department for feedback on earlier drafts, especially Marilyn Sass-Lehrer, Cynthia Neese Bailes, and Diane Clark. Parts of this study were pre-sented at the 2013 American Education Research Association (AERA) annual meeting.

Note

1 The capital letter, “D,” in the word Deaf is defined as a cultural identity of the deaf community. Lower “d” in the word deaf is defined as an audiological condition.

References

Andrews, J. F., Leigh, I., & Weiner, M. T. (2004). Deaf people: Evolving perspectives from psychology, education and sociology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Archbold, S., Sach, T., O’Neill, C., Lutman, M., & Gregory, S. (2006). Deciding to have a cochlear implant and subsequent after-care: Parental perspectives. Deafness & Education International, 8, 190–206. doi:10.1002/dei.201

Archbold, S., Sach, T., O’Neill, C., Lutman, M., & Gregory, S. (2008). Outcomes from cochlear implantation for child and family: Parental perspectives. Deafness & Education International, 10, 120–142. doi:10.1002/dei.243

Archbold, S., & Wheeler, A. (2010). Cochlear implants: Family and young people’s perspectives. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (2nd ed., pp. 226–240). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: Atlas/ti Scientific Software Development.

Bailes, C. N., Erting, C. J., Erting, L. C., & Thumann-Prezioso, C. (2009). Language and literacy acquisition through

parental mediation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 9, 417–456. doi:10.1353/sls.0.0022

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingual-ism (4th ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Bat-Chava, Y. (2000). Diversity of deaf identities. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 420–428. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.0176

Berent, G. P. (2004). Sign language-spoken language bilingual-ism: Code mixing and mode mixing by ASL-English bilin-guals. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 312–335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, lit-eracy, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic struc-ture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–635. doi:10.1080/01690960500139363

Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2002). Cochlear implants in children: Ethics & choices. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2004). Children with cochlear implants: Changing parent and deaf community perspec-tives. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 673–677. doi:10.1001/archotol.130.5.673

Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2011). Cochlear implants and deaf community perceptions. In R. Paludneviciene, & I. W. Leigh (Eds.), Cochlear implants: Evolving perspec-tives (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Chute, P., & Nevins, M. E. (2006). School professionals working with children with cochlear implants. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.

Cosetti, M. K., & Waltzman, S. B. (2012). Outcomes in coch-lear implantation: Variables affecting performance in adults and children. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 45, 155–171. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2011.08.023

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Davidson, K., Lillo-Martin, D., & Chen Pichler, D. (2013). Spoken English language development in native signing children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19, 238–250. doi:10.1092/deafed/ent045

De Houwer, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration (pp. 75–96). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dettman, S., French, S., Constantinescu, G., Dowell, R., & Rousset, A. (2012, May). Children using cochlear implants who have Deaf parents: Outcomes of Di-CODAs. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Other Implantable Auditory Technologies, Baltimore, MD.

Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., & Gollan, T. H. (2008). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 11, 43–61. doi:10.1017/S13667289 07003.203




ownloaded from


Emmorey, K., & McCullough, S. (2009). The bimodal bilingual brain: Effects of sign language experi-ence. Brian & Language, 109, 124–132. doi:10.1016/jbandl.2008.03.005

Fagan, M. K., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Hearing experience and receptive vocabulary development in deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15, 149–161. doi:10.1092/deafed/eng001

Fagan, M. K., Pisoni, D. B., Horn, D. L., & Dillon, C. M. (2007). Neuropsychological correlates of vocabulary, reading, and working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 12, 461–471. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm023

Geers, A. E., Moog, J. S., Biedenstein, J., Brenner, C., & Hayes, H. (2009). Spoken language scores of children using coch-lear implants compared to hearing age-mates at school entry. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 14, 371–385. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn046

Geers, A. E., & Nicholas, J. G. (2013). Enduring advantages of early cochlear implantation for spoken language develop-ment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 56, 643–655. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0347)

Geers, A. E., Nicholas, J. G., & Sedey, A. L. (2003). Language skills of children with early cochlear implan-tation. Ear and Hearing, 24, 46S–58S. doi:10.1097/01.AUD.0000051689.57380.1B

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (Ren. ed.). Chicago, IL: Adline Transaction.

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduc-tion (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Grosjean, F. (2001). The right of the deaf child to grow up bilingual. Sign Language Studies, 1, 110–114. doi:10.1353/sls.2001.0003

Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingualism, biculturalism and deafness. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 133–145. doi:10.1080/13670050903474051

Hammes, D. M., Novak, M. A., Rotz, L. A., Willis, M., Edmondson, D. M., & Thomas, J. F. (2002). Early identi-fication and cochlear implantation: Critical factors for spo-ken language development. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology, 189(Suppl.), 74–78.

Hardonk, S., Daniels, S., Desnerck, G., Loots, G., Van Hove, G., Van Kerschaver, E., … Louckx, F. (2011). Deaf parents and pediatric cochlear implantation: An exploration of the decision-making process. American Annals of the Deaf, 156, 290–304. doi:10.1353/aad.2011.0027

Harris, R. L., & Paludneviciene, R. (2011). Impact of cochlear implant on the Deaf community. In R. Paludneviciene & I. W. Leigh (Eds.), Cochlear implants: Evolving perspectives (pp. 3–15). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Hassanzadeh, S. (2012). Outcomes of cochlear implantation in deaf children of deaf parents: Comparative study. Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 126, 989–994. doi:10.1017/S0022215112001909

Hawker, K., Ramirez-Inscoe, J., Bishop, D. V., Twomey, T., O’Donoghue, G. M., & Moore, D. R. (2008). Disproportionate language impairment in children using cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 29, 467–471. doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e318167b857

Hintermair, M. (2000). Hearing impairment, social networks, and coping: The need for families with hearing-impaired children to relate to other parents and to hearing-impaired adults. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 41–53. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.0244

Hintermair, M. (2008). Self-esteem and satisfaction with life of deaf and hard-of-hearing people—A resource-oriented approach to identity work. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 13, 278–300. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm054

Hintermair, M., & Albertini, J. A. (2005) Ethics, deafness, and new medical technologies. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 184–192. doi:10.1093/deafed/eni018

Hoffmeister, R. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and read-ing comprehension in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 143–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Holcomb, T. K. (2013). Introduction to American Deaf culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Humphries, T. (1975). Audism: The making of a word. Unpublished essay.

Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., & Smith, S. R. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance for the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9(16). doi:10.1186/1477-7517-9-16

Huttunen, K., & Välimaa, T. (2010). Parents’ views on changes in their child’s communication and linguistic and socioemo-tional development after cochlear implantation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15, 383–404. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq029

Hyde, M., & Punch, R. (2011). The modes of communication used by children with cochlear implants and role of sign in their lives. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 535–549. doi:10.1353/aad.2011.0006

Hyde, M., Punch, R., & Komesaroff, L. (2010). Coming to a decision about cochlear implantation: Parents making choices for their deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15, 162–178. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq004

Inscoe, J. R., Odell, A., Archbold, S., & Nikolopoulos, T. (2009). Expressive spoken language development in deaf children with cochlear implants who are beginning formal education. Deafness & Education International, 11, 39–55. doi:10.1002/dei.252

Jasinska, K., Langdon, C., & Petitto, L. A. (2013). Does early exposure to a visual signed language “hurt” auditory lan-guage tissue development: Evidence from fNIRS neuroim-aging of language processing in deaf individuals cochlear implants. Poster presented at Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA.

Jiménez, M. A., Pino, M. J., & Herruzo, J. (2009). A compara-tive study of speech development between deaf children with cochlear implants who have been educated with spo-ken or spoken + sign language. International Journal of




ownloaded from


Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 73, 109–114. doi:10.106/j.ijporl.2008.10.007

Kermit, P. (2010). Choosing for the child with cochlear implants: A note of precaution. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 13, 157–167. doi:10.1007/s11019-010-9232-9

King, K. A., & Fogle, L. (2006). Raising bilingual children: Common parental concerns and current research. Center for Applied Linguistics Digest. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/raising-bilingual-children.html

King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family lan-guage policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 907–922. doi:10.111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x

Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2012). Language planning for the 21st century: Revisiting bilingual language policy for deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17, 291–305. doi:10.1093/deafed/ens018

Kovelman, I., Shalinsky, M. H., White, K. S., Schmitt, S. N., Berens, M. S., Paymer, N., & Petitto, L. A. (2009). Dual language use in sign-speech bimodal bilinguals: fNIRS brain-imaging evidence. Brain & Language, 109, 112–123. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.09.008

Kuntze, M. (1998). Literacy and deaf children: The lan-guage question. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 1–15. doi:10.1097/00011363-199808000-00003

Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Moreland, C. J., Napoli, D. J., Osterling, W., Padden, C., & Rathmann, C. (2010). Infants and children with hearing loss need early language access. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 22, 143–154.

Ladd, P. (2007). Cochlear implantation, colonialism, and Deaf rights. In L. Komesaroff (Ed.), Surgical consent: Bioethics and cochlear implantation (pp. 1–29). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics, and the Deaf-World. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 291–310. doi:10.1093/deafed/eni030

Lao, C. (2004). Parents’ attitudes toward Chinese-English bilingual education and Chinese-language use. Bilingual Research Journal, 28, 99–122. doi:10.1080/15235882.2004.10162614

Li, Y., Bain, L., & Steinberg, A. (2003). Parental decision making and the choice of communication modality for the child who is deaf. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157, 162–168. doi:10.1001/archpedi.157.2.162

Marschark, M., Rhoten, C., & Fabich, M. (2007). Effects of cochlear implants on children’s reading and academic achievement. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 12, 269–282. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm013

Mayberry, R. I. (1993). First-language acquisition after child-hood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 36, 1258–1270. doi:10.1044/jshr.3606.1258

Mayberry, R. I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learn-ing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537–549. doi:10.1017/S0142716407070294

Mayberry, R. I., & Eichen, E. B. (1991). The long-last-ing advantage of learning sign language in child-hood: Another look at the critical period for language

acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90018-F

Mayberry, R. I., Lock, E., & Kazmi, H. (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417, 38. doi:10.1038/417038a

Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hear-ing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4, 138–163. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0005

Mitchiner, J. (2012). Deaf families with children who have coch-lear implant: Perspectives and beliefs on bilingualism in American Sign Language and English (published doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Mitchiner, J., Nussbaum, D. B., & Scott, S. (2012). The implica-tions of bimodal bilingual approaches for children with cochlear implants (Research Brief No. 6). Washington, DC: Visual Language and Visual Learning Science of Learning Center.

Mitchiner, J. C., & Sass-Lehrer, M. (2011). My child can have more choices: Reflections of Deaf mothers on cochlear implants for their children. In R. Paludneviciene & I. W. Leigh (Eds.), Cochlear implants: Evolving perspectives (pp. 71–94). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

National Association of the Deaf (NAD). (2008). Position statement on American Sign Language. Retrieved from http://www.nad.org/issues/american-sign-language/position-statement-american-sign-language-2008

Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2008). Expected test scores for preschoolers with a cochlear implant who use spoken lan-guage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 121–138. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/013)

Nicoladis, E., & Genesee, F. (1996). Word awareness in sec-ond language learners and bilingual children. Language Awareness, 5, 80–90. doi:10.1080/09658416.1996.9959894

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, & teaching: Critical perspec-tives for a new century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nover, S. M. (1995). Politics & language: American Sign Language and English in deaf education. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp. 109–163). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Nussbaum, D. B., & Scott, S. (2011). The Cochlear Implant Education Center: Perspectives of effective educational practices. In R. Paludneviciene & I. W. Leigh (Eds.), Cochlear implants: Evolving perspectives (pp. 175–205). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Nussbaum, D., Scott, S., & Simms, L. E. (2012). The “why” and “how” of an ASL/English bimodal bilingual approach. Odyssey, 13, 14–19.

Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Park, S. M., & Sarkar, M. (2007). Parents’ attitudes toward herit-age language maintenance for their children and their efforts to help their children maintain the heritage language: A case study of Korean-Canadian immigrants. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 20, 223–235. doi:10.2167/lcc337.0




ownloaded from

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/raising-bilingual-children.html

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/raising-bilingual-children.html

http://www.nad.org/issues/american-sign-langauge/position

http://www.nad.org/issues/american-sign-langauge/position


Percy-Smith, L., Cayé-Thomasen, P., Breinegaard, N., & Jensen, J. H. (2010). Parental mode of communication is essential for speech and language outcomes in cochlear implanted children. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 130, 708–715. doi:10.3109/00016480903359939

Peterson, N. R., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2010). Cochlear implants and spoken language processing abili-ties: Review and assessment of the literature. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 28, 237–250. doi:10.3233/RNN-2010-0535

Petitto, L. A., & Holowka, S. (2002). Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young bilinguals: Special insights from infants acquiring a signed and spoken language. Sign Language Studies, 3, 4–33. doi:10.1353/sls.2002.0025

Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Tétreault, K., & Ferraro, V. (2001) Bilingual signed and spoken lan-guage acquisition from birth: Implications for the mecha-nisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28, 453–496. doi:10.1017/s0305000901004718

Petitto, L. A., & Kovelman, I. (2003). The bilingual paradox: How signing-speaking bilingual children help us resolve bilingual issues and teach us about the brain mechanisms underlying all language acquisition. Learning Languages, 8, 5–18.

Preisler, G., Tvingstedt, A. L., & Ahlström, M. (2002). A psy-chosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants. Child: Care, Health and Development, 28, 403–418. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2214.2002.00291.x

Preisler, G., Tvingstedt, A. L., & Ahlström, M. (2005). Interviews with deaf children about their experiences using cochlear implants. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 260–267. doi:10.1353/aad.2005.0034

Prinz, P. M., & Strong, M. (1998). ASL proficiency and English literacy within a bilingual deaf education model of instruction. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 47–60. doi:10.1097/00011363-199818040-00006

Reagan, T. (2011). Ideological barriers to American Sign Language: Unpacking linguistic resistance. Sign Language Studies, 11, 606–636. doi:10.1353/sls.2011.0006

Rinaldi, P., & Caselli, M. C. (2014). Language development in a bimodal bilingual child with cochlear implant: A longitu-dinal study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 798–809. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000849

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8, 15–34.

Sach, T. H., & Whynes, D. K. (2005). Paediatric cochlear implantation: The views of parents. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 400–407. doi:10.1080/14992020500146500

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2003, July). Linguistic genocide and the Deaf. Paper presented at World Congress of the World Federation of the Deaf, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.deafzone.ch/file/file_pool/action/download/file_id/1379/

Snoddon, K. (2008). American Sign Language and early inter-vention. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 581–604. doi:10.3138/cmlr.64.4.581

Spencer, P. E. (2004). Individual differences in language per-formance after cochlear implantation at one to three years of Age: Child, family, and linguistic factors. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 395–412. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh033

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy—The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 33, 3–11. doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.638072

Steinberg, A., Brainsky, A., Bain, L., Montoya, L., Indenbaum, M., & Potsic, W. (2000). Parental values in the deci-sion about cochlear implantation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 55, 99–107. doi:10.1016/S0165-5876(00)00373-6

Svirsky, M. A., Robbins, A. M., Kirk, K. I., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2000). Language development in pro-foundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychological Science, 11, 153–158. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00231

United Nations. (2008). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=281

Watkins, S., Pittman, P., & Walden, B. (1998). The deaf men-tor experimental project for young children who are deaf and their families. American Annals of the Deaf, 143, 29–34. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.0098

Watson, L. M., Archbold, S. M., & Nikolopoulos, T. P. (2006). Children’s communication mode five years after cochlear implantation: changes over time according to age at implant. Cochlear Implants International, 7, 77–91. doi:10.1002/cii.301

Watson, L. M., Hardie, T., Archbold, S. M., & Wheeler, A. (2008). Parents’ views on changing communication after cochlear implantation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 104–116. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm034

Wheeler, A., Archbold, S. M., Gregory, S., & Skipp, A. (2007). Cochlear implants: The young people’s perspectives. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 303–316. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm018

Wheeler, A., Archbold, S. M., Hardie, T., & Watson, L. M. (2009). Children with cochlear implants: The communi-cation journey. Cochlear Implants International, 10, 41–62. doi:10.1002/cii.370

Wilbur, R. B. (2000). The use of ASL to support the develop-ment of English and literacy. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 81. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.1.81

Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39, 203–210. doi:10.1207/s1543042tip3904_3

World Federation of the Deaf (WFD). (2007). WDF pol-icy: Education rights for deaf children. Retrieved from http://www.wfdeaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/EducationRightsforDeafChildren_July-2007.pdf

Yan, R. L. (2003). Parental perceptions on maintaining heritage languages of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Bilingual Review, 15, 99–113.

Yoshida, H. (2008). The cognitive consequences of early bilin-gualism. Zero to Three, 29, 26–30.




ownloaded from

http://www.deafzone.ch/file/file_pool/action/download/file_id/1379/

http://www.deafzone.ch/file/file_pool/action/download/file_id/1379/

http://www.un.org/disabilities/

http://www.un.org/disabilities/

http://www.wfdeaf.org/policies

http://www.wfdeaf.org/policies


Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2006). Early identification, communication modality, and the development of speech and spoken lan-guage skills: Patterns and considerations. In P. E. Spencer & M. Marschark (Eds.), Advances in the spoken language devel-opment of deaf and hard-of-hearing children (pp. 298–327). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Young, A. M. (1999). Hearing parents’ adjustment to a deaf-child—The impact of a cultural-linguistic model of deafness. Journal of Social Work Practice, 13, 157–172. doi:10.1080/026505399103386

Young, A. M. (2010). The impact of early identification of deaf-ness on hearing parents. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and edu-cation (2nd ed., pp. 292–315). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Appendix A

Interview Questions

Background Information

1. Tell me a bit about yourself and your family. When did your child receive cochlear implant/s follow-up: What was your family’s reason for having your child receive a CI? Why is it impor-tant for your child to have a CI?

Language Development before CI

1. After your child was born, how did you com-municate with your child?

2. Describe how you supported your child’s lan-guage development at home before the child received CI.

Bilingualism at Home

1. What are your beliefs about your child’s literacy and language development in general?

a. What are your thoughts about the role of sign language on spoken language?

b. What does being a bilingual means to you?

2. What are your thoughts about your child’s lan-guage ability? How does your child communi-cate with you?

3. Can you walk me through the day how your child uses both languages on daily basis?

4. Can you share an activity or two on how you support your child’s language development in both languages?

5. How much are ASL and/or English being used in home? Which is used more and why?

6. How do you provide support for ASL and English development, socially and academically at home?

7. What do you value about ASL and English?8. How do you support and facilitate your child’s

language use in ASL and English?9. What are some of the challenges you have expe-

rienced in supporting your child to maintain bilingual in both languages?

Perspectives on Education

1. What educational choices/decisions have you made for your child? Why did you make these choices?

2. How have school changed in providing sup-port for child’s language development in both languages?

3. What kind of support and services have you received from schools to maintain two languages?

Goals and Dreams

1. What are your goals for your child’s future?




ownloaded from


Deaf Parents of Cochlear-Implanted Children: Beliefs on Bimodal Bilingualism

Documents

Transcript of Deaf Parents of Cochlear-Implanted Children: Beliefs on Bimodal Bilingualism