I've studied and worked in the deaf community for most of my adult life. I've had the privilege of sitting down and having some great in depth conversations with some highly respected names in the field of deaf education. The one thing that always seems to resonate from these conversations is the sense that you can never become too comfortable with your ability to communicate with the deaf...if you are hearing. I've never professed to be a terrific signer, and probably never will even in my final days on this earth. I think if one is proactively pursuing a more effective set of sign skills, and is honest with one's self, you would have to admit that there is at least one "Ahhhhh" moment a week during your pursuit. You know the feeling...when you realize the way you have been signing something for so many years is completely off base, or that you just see a way of signing something that really opens up your eyes more to how a deaf person perceives things. I may be the only one out here in the land of the internet feeling this way, but I don't think I am. As a matter of fact, I believe not enough people are honest with themselves and others about just how effective their communication with the deaf is.
The scope of my position here at RMTC calls for me to visit classrooms and discuss different strategies and technologies that may make the curriculum more accessible for the deaf. Often, I am able to find some sort of strategy, software, or computer program that will enable a deaf child to better understand the concepts being conveyed. I have to admit, that often, one of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of a deaf child succeeding in school is the exchange of signs between the child and the teacher or interpreter in the classroom. There are times that I find myself in a classroom where there is a classroom aid who has taken a few sign classes at the nearby church. This person is the primary communicator with the deaf child. While it obviously isn't an ideal situation, it is the best that some districts are able to come up with at times. Language is being displayed, and the child is attempting to communicate more than when there is no one there sign back. While many of the signs are "home" signs, and aren't going to be found in any sign dictionary, they are still allowing the child to communicate a need. The question is how long can you allow this to go on? How long is that window of time for language development when the child's needs outgrow the aids ability? I would say it's different with every child, but it is a situation that unfortunately is pushed aside every year because there is a misconception about the ability of the aid. Not enough is known by the upper brass in many schools about how the deaf learn.
On the other side of the coin, no matter how long people have been in the field, if they are not actively pursuing sign development, they are likely to end up in the same position that many who are just starting out in the field are in- struggling to communicate effectively. Wouldn't it be nice if the section of our brain that remembers how to ride a bike after only a few pushes of the pedal, could make room for all of the things we know about sign language? Man, that would be amazing. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Sign language is something that requires the same approach you had as you were sitting in your first ASL class in college as it does when you are 1 year away from retirement. Daily, I find myself fingerspelling things as I drive around town. I still try to think about how I would sign things more conceptually accurate. My point is this- We cannot sit back and point people to a degree in deaf education that hangs on a wall in your classroom, or to the certificate of 20 years experience when we are convincing people that we are qualified to teach the deaf. The only way to truly convince someone is to tell them...through your signs. This is in no way an attack on any one individual in the field. Rather, this is just a reminder that our brains, not unlike our kid's brains, need stimulation. They need to be challenged with new sign vocabulary, both expressively and receptively. I have a hard time believing that anyone knows how the deaf brain thinks if they are not actively engaging themselves in conversations with the deaf that require more than one sign per sentence. I will be the first to admit that I am not a fan of criticism, so I do not in any way want to make people feel that I am judging them. I am saying that developing thick skin regarding my signing has been one of the more difficult things I've had to do in my career. I do believe it is the most important area of my career to be thick skinned about though. Every now and then I'll walk around with a overinflated ego regarding my ability to sign. Usually I will have an experience that brings me back down to Earth. I'll stumble on some concept that I am unable to convey expressively, be completely lost when trying to take in a conversation receptively, or someone will call me out for a sign that I have used. It shatters whatever idea I had that I had in some way "mastered" the language. Each and every time I have an experience like this, it strengthens my belief that you never truly master a language that is not your native language. Don't get me wrong, you have to carry some confidence or sense of belief in yourself that allows you to have the courage to engage in conversation with a deaf person. It's difficult to really decipher whether or not you have a false sense of confidence or not. It's not as pressing an issue when your sign skills are necessary for social engagements. It's a different ball game when sign skills are contingent upon academic success. So the real question to as yourself is "Are you so confident in your ability that you are willing to bet your students future on it?" I, for one, am going to keep on pedaling.
Have a great summer everyone,
Brian
No comments:
Post a Comment