MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897112532 · doi:10.1353/aad.2018.0029

Quality Education and Sustainable Learning Trajectories for Deaf Learners

2018· article· en· W2897112532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald F. Moores

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican annals of the deaf · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocializationArticulation (sociology)Sign languageDeaf educationSign (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Manual communicationPedagogyDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality Education and Sustainable Learning Trajectories for Deaf Learners Donald F. Moores (bio) Two hundred and fifty years ago, L'Epée and Heinicke were engaged in a disagreement over the role of signs in the education of deaf students, with L'Epée supporting both natural and methodical signs and Heinicke advocating for an oral method without a manual component (Garnett, 1968; Moores, 2001). This was the beginning of the oral/manual controversy. L'Epée was not opposed to speech or the teaching of articulation, but because he was responsible for teaching larger numbers of children, he did not believe he could devote significant time to the slow process of teaching speech, which would be detrimental to the development of intellectual capabilities. Heinicke, on the other hand, wrote that the Parisian (sign) method of tuition was an absolute detriment to advancement (Garnett, 1968). This controversy set a precedent for the ensuing centuries, throughout which supporters of manual communication, with few exceptions, acknowledged the importance of speech. Those supporting what might be considered a pure oral method typically argued that children, their parents, and their teachers should never resort to manual communication because of the perceived dangers to speech and socialization in the hearing world. Because of discrimination against deaf teachers and other deaf professionals, especially after the midnineteenth century, most decision makers have been hearing and the dominant philosophy has been oral. Most hearing parents, who comprise approximately 95% of the parents of deaf individuals, have little or no exposure to deaf individuals before the birth of their deaf child. Parents want their child to be a more perfect copy of themselves; in this case, they want their child to be hearing. For parents, the concentration may be more on speech, an outward manifestation, than on hearing itself, and there may be resistance to the use of signs, which might label the child as different. It is at this point that many well-meaning professionals provide the disservice of assuring the parents that the child will be all right; that is, he or she will speak if he or she does not sign. It is my belief that if there is any question about the effectiveness of oral/aural communication, signs should be introduced immediately. 1880 Conference of Milan After generations of conflict over teaching methods, the 1880 Milan Conference passed two resolutions (Moores & Moore, 2011): • The use of signs should not be allowed in the education of deaf individuals. [End Page 463] • The use of signs with speech should not be allowed in the education of deaf individuals. Deaf professionals played no role in the Congress, and none were allowed to vote. The resolutions of the Milan Conference, now identified as the Second International Congress on the Education of the Deaf, were viewed as the final victory of oralism (speech) over manualism (signs) (Moores, 2001). Shortly after these resolutions were made, only oral instruction was being used in schools throughout the world, and deaf teachers disappeared from schools in most countries. In France, for example, after 1884 deaf teachers were excluded from teaching in all schools (Quartararo, 2008). In a few countries, signs were allowed in some schools after age 12, and deaf teachers were employed in manual departments in those schools. There were no deaf administrators. Fast-Forward 130 Years In 2010, 130 years after the Milan Conference, in Vancouver, Canada, the 21st International Congress on the Education of the Deaf rejected the resolutions of the 1880 Conference and affirmed the benefits of sign. One may applaud the change. On the other hand, it is fair to ask why it took so many years and why there has been such strong opposition to the use of signs by so many hearing educators. Memoir Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race Shortly after the 1880 Congress, Alexander Graham Bell (1883) published his influential Memoir Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race. Bell was a genius with many interests and accomplishments, most notably the invention of the telephone. He also considered himself a teacher of the deaf and...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican annals of the deafSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207