Confronting Dissensus in Deaf Education Research: Conflicts in Theory and Practice

Dr. Matthew Dye – SPaCE Center & deaf x Lab National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY (Via Zoom) Monday, May 11th , 2020., 2020

Dissensus is described and used as a heuristic to understand longstanding, structural conflicts in deaf education, its research methodologies and methods of teaching. Conflicts and opportunities are analyzed and a deaf-centric, future-focused model for deaf visual pedagogy is described. Invited Talk at the behest of Dr. Matthew Dye – SPaCE Center & deaf x Lab National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY (Via Zoom) Monday, May 11th , 2020.

Understanding how deaf educators conceptualize, design, and apply visual modalities in teaching, and why they use them, is a practical concern for all stakeholders in deaf education. The central problem this research focuses on is a lack of empirical evidence and theory about how and why deaf educators use visual modes in teaching. There is a high demand for and low supply of theoretical tools to guide visual pedagogies in deaf educational contexts. This problem constrains researchers and educators who seek to reform the field and exacerbates complex problems related to deaf students’ learning. Through this research, I intend to gather, interpret, and link empirical evidence on visual teaching with strengths-based research on deaf students’ visual abilities. Thus, I propose two research questions: How do deaf educators understand, construct, and evaluate deaf visual pedagogy? And, How do deaf educators engage with praxis using deaf visual pedagogy? Historically, robust value conflicts surrounding deafness and vision—such as disagreements about senses, cognition, language, and power—obscure research which connects them. My research will draw upon such conflicts productively to address the problem space. One benefit to these conflicts is that, even after decades of research, opportunities exist to investigate how and why educators use and theorize visual tools and discourses with deaf learners. We know that vision is used in complex ways but lack sophisticated knowledge of its dynamic interactions in learning and teaching of subject matter. This proposal establishes a qualitative research design using case study and grounded theory methods to examine conflicting issues about how and why vision is used in deaf pedagogy. Throughout, I argue that the visual constitutes the center of deafness. Educating deaf ocularcentric people demands visual pedagogy—an imperative based on the principle of biosocial adaptation. Deaf visual pedagogy is a situated method of teaching in which deaf educators use visual discourses and visual tools in teaching praxis. Deaf visual pedagogy explicitly rejects deficit ideology about deafness in teaching theory and practices. Vision is a regenerative biosocial adaptation rooted in deaf ocularcentric ontology and deaf visual epistemology. This proposal illustrates four paradigms of deaf research but focuses on the emergent biosocial paradigm, which challenges previous paradigms due to its ecological structure and concern for the practical effects of visual theory on teaching and research axiology (ethics, bioethics, and aesthetics). Biosocial deaf education illustrates ecological relationships between biological and social processes of vision in both deaf pedagogy and research about it. This analysis contributes to the literature by clarifying issues of dissensus in deaf education research on teaching by generating novel concepts useful toward understanding vision as a dynamic valence for conceptual, theoretical, and methodological frameworks.

This exam proposes a biocultural deaf education theoretical framework to examine conflicting issues about vision used in deaf pedagogical contexts. Vision is the unifying tenet of this inquiry. Vision is a regenerative biocultural adaptation rooted in deaf visual ontology and ocularcentric epistemology. Deaf visual pedagogy is the term that describes how educators use visual discourses (including visual communication modes, languages, and literacies) in teaching and how researchers understand visual intersections in praxis. Biocultural deaf education is the term that illustrates ecological relationships between biological and cultural processes of vision. The biocultural paradigm challenges previous paradigms due to its ecological structure and concern for the practical effects of visual theory on educational value systems and research axiology (including ideology, ethics, bioethics, and aesthetics). Section 3.0 orients the reader to contemporary issues, establishes a conceptual framework, delineates theoretical elements of the problem space, and links them to methodology. Section 4.0 illustrates dissensus (conflicts), and identifies aporias (stuck places) of deaf education theory as related to the practical context of teacher training. Section 5.0 establishes regenerative pathways out of conflict (convergences of theory) and revitalizing assumptions regarding visual pedagogy for deaf learners, concluding with a dichotomy: the gaze of deaf education contrasted with a new vision for deaf education.

Dissensus in Deaf Research: Scaffolding the Conflicts of Theory and Practice, 2019

Value conflicts surrounding deafness—disagreements about senses, cognition, language, and power—obscure research which connect them. The lack of empirical theory about how and why deaf educators teach constrains researchers and educators who seek to reform the field and exacerbates problems related to deaf learning. Researchers and pedagogues invested in deaf education are divided by conflicts of value. Axiological differences result in "a nearly insurmountable gap between researchers and practitioners" (Easterbrooks, 2017, p. 25 in Cawthon & Garberoglio, 2017). This presentation offers a critical synthesis of the literature on deaf education pedagogy research and focuses on synthesizing issues related to visual discourses and phenomena in teaching practice. Themes emerging from the study evince crucial ruptures in the values, ethics, and aesthetics of deaf research which preclude progress. Conflicts arise from diverse professional orientations, disciplinary foci, and paradigmatic variations but are united by the common problems of teaching deaf students and the promising potentiality of deaf­-centric research on visual pedagogy. In the early 1900s, Vygotsky described deaf pedagogy as unsystematic and implored change. One hundred years later, Swanwick and Marschark (2010) call our work unsuccessful. Dissensus is manifest in theory’s obstruction; however, dissensus gives clarity relative to the agonistic problems of axiology—the ethics and aesthetics of power in deaf education. Deaf educational theorists need to develop ways to decipher the how and why of deaf visual pedagogy (Cawthon & Garberglio, 2017; p. ix). Deaf social theory enhances how researchers understand vision in learning; however, in spite of advancement, deaf pedagogy theory is underdeveloped (Lang, et al. 1993; Thoutenhoofd, 2010). By synthesizing the following concepts (deaf axiology, the biosocial paradigm, deaf visual pedagogy) I address the following problems: There is no contemporary theory to describe the unified deaf biosocial ecology, no extant theory to productively analyze conflict on vision, or foreground axiology in decision­making, or centralize vision as a strategy to transform power (Bauman & Murray, 2014; Beal­Alvarez, 2017; Fernandes & Myers, 2010; Friedner 2010). There is no systematic theory, no standard toolkit of analytic techniques, or generalized empirical approach. Cawthon and Garberoglio (2017) summarize: “without an adequate research base, there cannot be effective practice. Without an understanding of the needs in deaf education, there cannot be research that supports effective practice." (p. xii). This proposal directly works toward the year's theme: "Connecting the Dots." The project focuses on clarifying the issues that disconnect researchers from teachers and from deaf individuals and society more broadly. Introducing the concept of "Deaf Axiology" "Deaf visual pedagogy" and "the biosocial paradigm of deaf research" to the established corpus of deaf­centric philosophy on teaching (e.g. deaf epistemology and deaf ontology, deaf gains in research on teaching) allows for the development of new critical lexicon to productively address and resolve longstanding conflicts of our field. The ultimate goals of the project include opening trans­-disciplinary conversations among stakeholders and enhancing the practices of deaf education teacher-­educators. This study is primarily based on a critical literature review which preceded a two-­year multi-­method (grounded theory and case study) qualitative study (which is in progress at present).

Educational and Cultural Diversity MSSE 702 – Syllabus, 2019

"Deafness [is] a cultural category with medical considerations rather than a medical condition with cultural ramifications."-K.M. Christensen (2010, p. 82) "What good are deaf people to society? [This difficult question] must now be explored if the Deaf world is to continue in the face of biopower institutions intent on the eradication of the Deaf community."-H-D. L. Bauman (2008 p. 15). "Providing quality, effective services for d/Dhh students is complex and often difficult because of the heterogeneity of the deaf population. [Variance factors include] genetics, family support, socioeconomic status of the family, and community resources [likewise] age of identification and initiation of services, quality and quantity of early intervention services provided, degrees of hearing levels, primary mode of communication being used, and amplification use and benefits. Also, many individuals who are d/Dhh have multiple learning challenges (i.e. learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism) with medical origins as a result of the etiologies of their hearing loss (e.g. preterm birth, meningitis, cytomegalovirus, measles, encephalitis, ototoxicity, Usher syndrome, Waardenberg syndrome). In addition to the challenges of addressing the vast individual differences among d/Dhh students, educators and families are faced with a shortage of evidence-based practices (EBPs) … demonstrated as effective with d/Dhh students…The lack of EBPs results from … the low-incidence of the d/Dhh population and the wide geographical dispersion of students. However, the problem is exacerbated by a historical overreliance on sources such as experience, tradition, expert opinion, and personal beliefs rather than demonstrated efficacy to determine how and what to teach."-J. Luckner (2018, p. vii) DESCRIPTION/OVERVIEW: This course introduces concepts and issues about educational and cultural diversity. It focuses on deaf students’ experiences, deaf education research, and teaching practices shaped by them. There are two primary goals: 1) to understand the combined roles of cultural diversity and individual differences for the education of deaf persons, and 2) to examine the theoretical and practical effects of cultural and educational diversity upon curriculum and classroom practices within (deaf) education as a sociocultural institution. Content Warning: Owning to the oft-conflictive nature of diversity, readings may contain subject matter that may be controversial or difficult to confront (e.g. Nazi eugenics, HIV/AIDS, prostitution). Please read with care and respect. Exercise your own judgement about how and what you read. Students will explore, interpret, analyze, and apply research (theoretical and empirical) about educational and cultural diversity by comparing and contrasting case studies and examining complex ethical dilemmas common in deaf education. Students will develop teaching repertories by evaluating, synthesizing, and reflecting on the complex, interdependent relationships between aspects of diversity, such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic backgrounds, cultures, languages, and their social histories. Via the course, students will understand how plural forms of diversity shape learning and teaching, with a focus on understanding the role of diversity in the curriculum. COURSE GOALS & OUTCOMES: Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to (SWBAT): (1) Read, summarize, and interpret contemporary deaf research. (2) Define and describe multiple forms of individual and group diversity. (3) Understand how fundamental concepts constitute diversity in education, (e.g.: culture, values, language, class, gender, etc.). (4) Explore ethical dilemmas and conflicts that are present in deaf education research and practice. Finally, working alone and in groups, (5) Use academic communication to share findings and articulate critical stances regarding course themes and topics (including online discussion boards, student-created Vlogs, and curriculum planning units). PROGRAM OUTCOMES: The experiences, philosophies, and methods included in this course are designed to: (1) Acculturate MSSE students to the thought processes, values, and practices of highly qualified deaf educators. (2) Assist teacher-candidates in becoming self-reflective deaf educators who are lifelong learners. (3) Synthesize evidence-based practices from social and deaf education research in preparation for student teaching and early-career teaching. (4) Develop a knowledge base that supports the social, academic, and communication needs of diverse deaf students in a variety of educational environments. SKYER’S STATEMENT OF ARTICULATION: Diversity is elusive and omnipresent; at once easy and impossible to define. This class’ design exposes you to a research corpus that explores interdependent relationships between multiple components of diversity in education. The course will assist you in understanding how to make ethical decisions about teaching and curriculum within increasingly diverse, increasingly complex, and changing environments. The class has two main goals: (1) to understand the complexity of deaf students’ diversity; and (2) to devise ways to respond to diversity via research-supported teaching practices. Together, we will come to understand how diversity shapes ethical, evidence-based curriculum planning, pedagogical interventions, and assessment practices. The course design provides abundant opportunities for actively discussing contemporary issues in deaf education. Considerable effort has been made to select current research that views deafness, disability, and diversity positively. However, diversity is often a source of disagreement. As such, the theme of conflict overarches the course, extant in various forms across all sites of educational and cultural diversity. The broad theme for this course is: applying theory on diversity in teaching.

American Annals of the Deaf, 164(5), 577–591, 2020

L. S. Vygotsky’s contributions to social research shifted paradigms by constructing now-foundational theories of teaching, learning, language, and their educational interactions. This article contextualizes a nearly forgotten, century-old research corpus, The Fundamentals of Defectology. Drawing on Defectology, two dialectic arguments are developed, which synthesize Vygotsky’s corpus, then juxtaposed it against contemporary theories and evidence. The first describes three principles of Vygotsky’s framework for deaf pedagogy: positive differentiation, creative adaptation, and dynamic development. The second posits five propositions about deaf development: the biosocial proposition, the sensory delimitation-and-consciousness proposition, the adapted tools proposition, the multimodal proposition, and the conflict proposition. By leveraging Vygotsky’s optimism in response to the absorbing and difficult challenges of experimental, methodological, and theoretical research about deafness, including the psychology of disability and special methods of pedagogy, both arguments constitute a future-oriented call to action for researchers and pedagogues working in deaf education today.

This goal of this study was to ascertain the level of burnout in interpreters in the state of Ohio who were employed or have been employed as educational and/ or community interpreters. The intent was to investigate if a relationship existed between burnout, previously identified variables, and newly identified variables for those groups of interpreters. Previous studies have identified some variables, but only concentrated on their main effects. This study used those previously identified variables and combined them with newly identified variables for this population in order to ascertain unique variance. These newly identified variables included the interpreter’s locale (rural, suburban, urban), the setting in which they primarily work (educational vs. community), requirements each setting may entail (continuing education to maintain licensure and/or certification), and misconceptions of the deaf or hearing consumer. This study also further investigated previously researched variables to gauge reliability. Those variables included cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs), stress associated with discrepant pay, and role overload. The hypotheses regarding an interaction between role overload and K-12 interpreters, an interaction between interpreters’ locale and setting, Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTD), maintaining an interpreting license through professional development, certified vs. non-certified, K-12 vs. postsecondary, and licensed vs. certified were all non-significant. The following constructs were predictive in the subscale(s) of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and/or reduced personal accomplishment. There was statistical significance found in stress associated with interpreters’ level of pay, locale of interpreters, locale independent of interpreters’ setting, maintaining national certification through professional development independent of interpreters’ locale, interpreters’ perception of misconceptions held by the hearing consumer, interpreters’ perception of misconceptions held by the hearing consumer independent of educational level, interpreters’ perception of job demands, interpreters’ perception of job control, interpreters’ perception of job control independent of job demands. Only one set of research hypotheses was predictive in all three burnout subscales: interpreters’ perception of misconceptions held by the deaf consumers.

National Technical Institute for the Deaf: Master of Science for Secondary Education for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 2019

Research on human language development has historically marginalized deafness, deaf people’s ways of being, knowing, and valuing. However, newly revitalized domains of deaf research are exploring positive instances of deaf language development. While the world is increasingly interconnected by language, research on language is dynamically evolving. This course explicitly tackles old and new conflicts and difficult questions: How do deaf students simultaneously develop (two or more) languages with radically divergent modes of expression? This course helps you understand and compare old and new theories, general language development research, and research specific to deaf language development. This class overtly values deaf bilingualism, multimodality, and hybrid-dynamic language development. This class highlights Deaf Gain research—a new foundation for understanding deaf language development in the contemporary context. This class is grounded in ontological and epistemological experiences of deaf people, including social, cultural, linguistic, political, and technological dimensions. This class is designed for early-career teachers of the deaf; therefore, course readings relate to healthy depictions of deaf education and deaf language development. This class is multidisciplinary and draws from a wide, deep research corpus (including historical, contemporary, empirical, and theoretical research). Considerable effort has been made to select readings and design classroom activities that assist new deaf educators understand teaching praxis (theory, action, and reflection). Finally, this class is designed to support “learning by doing.” Many assignments and assessments are student-centric or student-led. The broad theme for this course is: integrating theory and practice.

The Deaf community is an oppressed sociolinguistic, collectivist minority that primarily uses sign language. Sign language interpreters are frequently used to bridge the communicative and cultural gap between the members of the Deaf community and hearing people. In the past, many of these interpreters were raised in Deaf households with Deaf parents and/or siblings. Others had Deaf friends or worked in a school for the Deaf. However, the establishment of Interpreter Preparation Programs in the 1970s reoriented sign language interpreter education from community-based development to the academic classroom. This removed the immersion in Deaf cultural values and norms from interpreter development. Consequently, Deaf community members are increasingly disillusioned with what they perceive as culturally inappropriate and oppressive behaviors by some IPP-trained interpreters. Popular Education is proposed as a way to remediate the negative effects of the individualist-based hearing academic reorientation, which can create Language Technicians. Allies, interpreters who strive for social justice and Deaf empowerment, can be created through Popular Education-centered interpreter programs. These programs would be guided by Deaf cultural norms and practices provided by Deaf experts.

This paper derives from a study of organizational socialization and induction in universities. It uses some of the data from that study to critique social practice theory and to further develop a model to illuminate the characteristics of professional knowledgeability and practices underpinning daily life in universities. This is done through the analysis of a case study of one unusual sub-departmental workgroup in an unchartered English university: one that comprises both Deaf and hearing academics. Using such a case study highlights factors that are less evident in hearing-only situations, displaying important features in exaggerated form which exist less palpably in most micro-social situations in universities. As a result it offers a suitable locus for the modelling of the processes underlying much which is taken for granted in universities’ daily life. The structure of the paper is as follows: it outlines the broader study from which this is derived and makes some general comments about using ‘unusual’ case studies. It then goes on to describe the characteristics of workgroups in university contexts through the case study example and to explore their theoretical corollaries. Finally the paper considers the implications for aspects of the model developed, particularly in terms of local leadership.