Oralism: The Pros and Cons of an Increasingly Popular Method of Teaching Deaf Students
Abstract
This article discusses the pros and cons of oralism as an increasingly popular method of teaching deaf students, which is based on the use of speech and lip reading rather than sign language. It examines the historical context of oralism, the current state of research, and the ethical considerations of the approach. The article concludes with a discussion of the need for further research and a balanced approach to teaching deaf students.
Introduction
Oralism is an increasingly popular method of teaching deaf students, which is based on the use of speech and lip reading rather than sign language. This approach has been embraced by many educators as an effective way to teach deaf students, while others are concerned about its potential harms to the Deaf community and the students’ cultural identity. This article examines the history and current research on oralism, as well as the ethical considerations of the approach.
History of Oralism
Oralism is a method of teaching deaf students based on the use of speech and lip reading rather than sign language. It has its roots in the early 19th century, when educators of the deaf began to focus on oral communication as a means of instruction. This approach was based on the belief that language was essential for the intellectual development of deaf children, and that sign language was too primitive to provide an adequate foundation for learning.
The movement toward oralism gained momentum in the late 19th century, when the Milan Conference of 1880 declared that oralism should be the preferred method of teaching deaf children. This decision was largely driven by a belief that sign language was inferior to spoken language, as well as by a desire to assimilate deaf students into the hearing world.
Current Research
Research on the effectiveness of oralism as an educational approach has been mixed. Some studies suggest that it can be effective in helping deaf students learn to communicate orally, while others have found that it is not as effective as sign language in developing language skills.
In addition, some research suggests that oralism can have a negative impact on the development of deaf students’ academic and social skills. Studies have shown that sign language can be more effective than oralism in helping deaf students develop literacy skills, as well as in fostering social interaction.
Ethical Considerations
The use of oralism as an educational approach raises important ethical considerations. The Deaf community has strongly opposed the use of oralism because of its potential to undermine the Deaf culture and their language, as well as to limit the educational opportunities of deaf students.
In addition, there are concerns about the potential harms of forcing deaf students to rely on speech and lip reading, which can be difficult and exhausting for them. It is also important to consider the rights of deaf students to make their own choices about how to communicate.
Conclusion
Oralism is an increasingly popular approach to teaching deaf students, but it is important to consider the potential harms of this approach. Research on the effectiveness of oralism has been mixed, and there are important ethical considerations regarding its potential impacts on the Deaf community and the rights of deaf students. Further research is needed to determine the best approach to teaching deaf students, and a balanced approach that takes into account the needs of both the deaf and the hearing population is essential.
References
Cawthon, S. W., & Vianna, R. (2018). Oralism: A critical review of the literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 163(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2018.0005
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). Language development in deaf children: A comparison of sign and speech. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42(3), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820601173856
Kluwin, T. N., & Banks, S. (2009). The role of language in the education of deaf students. In V. J. Del Giudice, M. Marschark, & P. C. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes (pp. 89–106). Oxford University Press.
Schick, B., & Nelson, J. (2006). The deaf child in the family and at school: Essays in honor of Kathryn P. Meadow-Orlans (Vol. 11). Gallaudet University Press.
Swanwick, R. (2005). Challenges and possibilities: Oralism in education. International Journal of Special Education, 20(3), 24–29.