|
|
|
|
Assessment of the ProgrammeAs the first phase finished in July 1991, the parents were interviewed by a hearing researcher to determine the benefits of the project. The family was also filmed in interaction with a deaf consultant and this was analysed. The deaf consultants had lengthy debriefing sessions where we made detailed notes. Informal feedback was obtained from the teachers involved. Feedback from the Family1. Feedback from teachers. Most were positive, though it was felt that some of the signing materials was not appropriate. This is a common problem in taking ideas developed for adult sign teaching and attempting to apply it to families. Much of the adult curriculum for learning sign is not useful for work in families. The principal reason for this is that children use language at the cognitive level appropriate to their age and within their articulation capacities; adult language teaching draws on the cognitive levels already achieved by the adult students. Work with families requires and exposure to children's sign language and interaction appropriate for the age of the child in the family. We have only begun to develop this type of approach. 2. Feedback from parents. Again this was very positive. It gave them a chance to meet deaf adults and to start to feel more comfortable with them; they were also able to observe communication working well with deaf consultant and their child. Reports of the early stages of the programme indicated some apprehension: "I think it is great because I remember that one of the first feelings of panic I had was that I didn't know anyone who was deaf ... but having regular contact every week has certainly been very good. It is nice to know that you can communicate with a deaf person." This sense of achieving communication with members of the community is very important and comes up on many occasions in the reports of the parents. A further benefit is in the learning of the other children in the family. The mother in one family with three girls, of whom the eldest is deaf said: "I think the biggest benefit is that the two youngest children are using it a lot more with her. We can play and talk together, before she used to get frustrated because she could not get over what she wanted. We can say "Well, just calm down" or one of the other girls will say "oh, she means so and so". If we don't know the sign then maybe one of the other girls do." The other common point was that the deaf consultant became part of the routine to which the child looked forward. More extended comments on the effects on families is presented below in the formal interviews. 3. Feedback from the deaf consultants. At first they were unsure about what they was expected of them. But as time went on, they found it a useful and challenging experience. They were able to draw upon their own experiences when they had been children and could find a direct relationship with the family's problems in communicating. This was somewhat reassuring to the hearing families to recognise that others had experienced the difficulties. The fact that the deaf consultants are also parents, helped to make the link to children in the discussion with the families. This is in turn, produced a sense of value among the consultants. Previously, working with hearing colleagues, their roles and skills had been less valued. In this home visit framework, it was their own skills and knowledge which was being drawn upon and this helped to raise self-esteem. Home visits seemed very long at first as the rules of communication were worked out but latterly, the visits went too quickly. There was a difficulty in involving fathers in the whole process even though visits were timed to make this possible. There still remains a rather old-fashioned view that mothers deal with the children, even when there are more serious problems like deafness. One solution which is to be explored is to train more male consultants. More training on various blocks is clearly required. Difficulties which arose(and there were surprisingly few) might have been avoided with more counselling and skills training. This would have boosted confidence even though most of them felt they had worked well with the family. 4. Evidence from video. Many difficulties could be seen with the fine-grained analysis which video recording allows. A primary problem which arose when the deaf consultant worked with a whole family group, was that the deaf consultant and child were left out when the hearing members talked to themselves or responded immediately in speech to younger members of the family. This might argue for a more tightly structured approach which allows more control to the consultant. However, it is probably preferable to see the video recording as the teaching tool which could be shared with parents afterwards. If the deaf consultant becomes marginalised on occasions within the home, then it is very likely that the child experiences this to a much greater extent throughout the day. However, the aim in reviewing video with the parents would be to ensure that it resulted in a developing positive image of their abilities rather than as a means of highlighting their weaknesses.
Throughout the project, the deaf consultants continued to have bi-monthly meetings to discuss their progress and problems. We were able to share our experiences although all knew that any information about families was to be kept in confidence. There was also the possibility of re-training on certain blocks as some deaf consultants were not confident about teaching that topic eg basic BSL grammar rules. We believe that this training and back-up support is very important, as the deaf consultants must be able to feel confident in themselves before they can help the families.
|
Back to MLEDC
homepage |
