Although total communication is a major communication approach used in the education of deaf students, the field has not undertaken to critically examine the role or the impact of using signs. Furthermore, teachers have received little preparation in the use of various types of signing and, for the most part, are able to dictate how they sign in their classrooms. As a result, there is much inconsistency in the signing behavior of teachers. In this paper, it is suggested that new policies that stress the explicit roles of sign communication and language are needed for total communication programs. Initially, a brief overview of selected research is given.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akamatsu, C.T., & Stewart, D. (1987). A survey of sign language instruction in teacher training programs in education of the hearing impaire. (Program Evaluation Series No. 22). East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Education, Research and Evaluation in Teacher Education.
2.
Babb, R. (1979). A study of the academic achievement and language acquisition levels of deaf children of hearing parents in an educational environment using Signing Exact English as the primary mode of manual communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
3.
Bernstein, M., Maxwell, M., & Matthews, K. (1985). Bimodal or bilingual communication. Sign Language Studies, 47, 127‐140.
4.
Bornstein, H. (1973). A description of some current sign systems designed to represent English. American Annals of the Deaf, 118, 454‐463.
5.
Bornstein, H., & Saulnier, K. (1981). Signed English: A brief follow-up to the first evaluation. American Annals of the Deaf, 126, 69‐72.
6.
Bragg, B. (1990). Communication and the Deaf community: Where do we go from here. In M. Garretson (Ed.), Eyes, hands, voices: Communication issues among deaf people (pp. 9–14). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
7.
Brasel, K., & Quigley, S. (1977). The influence of certain language and communication environments in early childhood on the development of language in deaf individuals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 95‐107.
8.
Clarke, B.R. (1972). Total communication. Canadian Teacher of the Deaf, 2, 22‐30.
9.
Commission on Education of the Deaf. (1988). Toward equality: Education of the deaf. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
10.
Denton, D. (1972). A rationale for total communication. In T.J. O'Rourke (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and total communication: The state of the art (pp. 53–61). Washington, DC: American Annals of the Deaf.
11.
Eagney, P. (1987). ASL? English? Which? Comparing comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 272‐275.
12.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (1985). Gallaudet Research Institute Newsletter. J. Harkins (Ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
13.
Gilman, L., Davis, J., & Raffin, M. (1980). Use of common morphemes by hearing impaired children exposed to a system of manual English. Journal of Auditory Research, 20, 57‐69.
14.
Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D., & Zawolkow, E. (1980). Signing Exact English. Rossmoor, CA: Modern Signs.
15.
Hatfield, N., Caccamise, F., & Siple, P. (1978). Deaf students language competency: A bilingual perspective. American Annals of the Deaf, 128, 847‐851.
16.
Higgins, E. (1973). An analysis of the comprehensibility of three communication methods used with hearing impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 118, 46‐49.
17.
Kluwin, T. (1981). The grammaticality of manual representations of English in classroom settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 126, 417‐421.
18.
Kuntze, M. (1990). ASL: Unity and power. In M.D. Garretson (Ed.), Eyes, hands, voices: Communication issues among deaf people (pp. 75–78). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
19.
Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1986). Building a language base in hearing-impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 131, 220‐228.
20.
Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1988a). Documenting syntactically and semantically incomplete bimodal input to hearing-impaired subjects. American Annals of the Deaf, 133, 230‐234.
21.
Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1988b). Educational ramifications of various instructional inputs for hearing impaired students. ACEHI Journal/La Revue ACEDA, 14, 105‐121.
22.
Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1988c). SEE-2 in the classroom: How well is English grammar represented? In G. Gustason (Ed.), Signing English: Exact or not? (pp. 128–131). Los Alamitos, CA: Modern Signs.
23.
Marmor, G., & Pettito, L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in the classroom: How well is English grammar represented. Sign Language Studies, 23, 99‐136.
24.
Maxwell, M. (1985). Sign language instruction and teacher preparation. Sign Language Studies, 24, 273‐279.
25.
Mayer, P., & Lowenbraun, S. (1990). Total communication use among elementary teachers of hearing-impaired children. American Annals of the Deaf, 135, 257‐263.
26.
Michigan School for the Deaf. (1986). Total communication policy and procedures for the Michigan School for the Deaf. Flint: Michigan School for the Deaf.
27.
Moores, D. (1987). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28.
Murphy, H., & Fleischer, L. (1977). The effects of Ameslan versus Siglish on test scores. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 11, 15‐18.
29.
Newell, W., Stinson, M., Castle, D., Mallery-Ruganis, D., & Holcomb, B.R. (1990). Simultaneous communication: A description by deaf professionals working in an educational setting. Sign Language Studies, 69, 391‐413.
30.
Ouellette, S., & Sendelbaugh, J. (1982). The effect of three communication modes on reading scores of deaf subjects. American Annals of the Deaf, 127, 361‐364.
31.
Pahz, J., & Pahz, C. (1978). Total communication. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
32.
Raffin, M., Davis, J., & Gilman, L. (1978). Comprehension of inflectional morphemes by deaf children exposed to a visual English sign system. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 387‐400.
33.
Reich, P., & Bick, M. (1977). How visible is English. Sign Language Studies, 14, 59‐72.
34.
Stewart, D. (1982). American Sign Language: A forgotten aspect of total communication. Association of Canadian Educators of the Hearing Impaired Journal, 8, 137‐148.
35.
Stewart, D. (1987). The effects of mode and language in total communication. Association of Canadian Educators of the Hearing Impaired Journal, 13, 24‐39.
36.
Stewart, D. (1990a). A model communication and language policy for total communication program. (Occasional Paper No. 125). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
37.
Stewart, D. (1990b). Rationale and strategies for American Sign language intervention. American Annals of the Deaf, 135, 205‐210.
38.
Stewart, D., Akamatsu, C.T., & Bonkowski, N. (1988). Factors influencing simultaneous communication behaviors in teachers. Association of Canadian Educators of Hearing Impaired Journal, 14, 43‐58.
39.
Stewart, D., & Hollifield, A. (1988, January/February). A team teaching approach to bilingual education for deaf students. Perspectives for Teachers of the Hearing Impaired, 6, 15‐18.
40.
Strong, M. (1988). A bilingual approach to the education of young deaf children ASL and English. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language learning and deafness (pp. 113–129). New York: Cambridge University.
41.
Strong, M., & Charlson, E. (1987). Simultaneous communication: Are teachers attempting an impossible task. American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 376‐382.
42.
Vernon, M. (1972). Mind over mouth: A rationale for `Total Communication.. Volta Review, 74, 530.
43.
Woodward, J., & Allen, T. (1987). Classroom use of ASL by teachers. Sign Language Studies, 54, 1‐10.
44.
Woodward, J., & Allen, T. (1988). Classroom use of artificial sign systems by teachers. Sign Language Studies, 61, 405‐418.
